U.S. Bishops' Task Force to Discuss Pro-Abortion Politicians In Wake of Card. Arinze's Comments

zenit.org ^ | 4/26/04 | zenit.org

[Polycarp IV]

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

---

Code: ZE04042623

Date: 2004-04-26

U.S. Bishops' Task Force to Discuss Pro-Abortion Politicians

In Wake of Cardinal Arinze's Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A task force set up the U.S. bishops' conference will discuss the reception of sacraments by Catholics whose political advocacy directly contradicts Church teaching.

Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the episcopal conference, announced the task force in the wake of a Vatican press conference last week in which Cardinal Francis Arinze said that politicians who support abortion must not go to Communion. He also said that priests must deny such politicians the sacrament.

Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, was presenting a new Vatican instruction, "Redemptionis Sacramentum" (The Sacrament of Redemption), aimed at ensuring the proper celebration and reception of the Eucharist.

Bishop Gregory noted that the prefect's comments extended to U.S. politicians and said: "Cardinal Arinze stated it is the responsibility of the bishops of the United States to deal pastorally with such situations as they exist here."

"Each diocesan bishop has the right and duty to address such issues of serious pastoral concern as he judges best in his local church, in accord with pastoral and canonical norms," Bishop Gregory said.

"To assist us in our common discernment, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has established a task force to discuss issues with regard to the participation of Catholics in political life, including reception of the sacraments, in the cases of those whose political advocacy is in direct contradiction to Church teaching," he said.

"The establishment of this task force is a clear sign of the seriousness with which we take these issues and continue to consider how best to interpret and apply the norms of the Church in their regard," said the bishop of Belleville, Illinois.

He added: "It has always been our hope and expectation as bishops that men and women in political life, whatever their religious convictions, would be guided by and live out the truth of the faith given them by God with integrity."

[narses]

"He's 70. That's likely too old."

That works in his favor Deacon. The Curia has endured cades of their "Polish Pope", now they want an older man who won't be as "difficult".

[sinkspur]

Care to share examples of Bishops with backbones that have had their efforts 'backfire'?

A bishop in California took on a local woman running for the state legislature in the 1990s, and denied her the Eucharist.

She won her seat, even though she was behind at the time the bishop took his action.

I think the bishop's name was Wiegand.

[Tench_Coxe]

"I think the bishops should continue to put the onus on Kerry; to insist that he should examine his support of abortion in light of the teaching of the Church.

I don't want the Church to influence the election in Kerry's favor, and I fear a photo-op of Kerry being refused could do just that.

That may sound pragmatic, but much more than the Church's policy is at stake in this election."

So, what you have in the eyes of the faithful :
1. A politician, who supports and promotes a practice that is in direct contradiction with the teachings of the Church ( note, I do not use 'policy', because this is not a political issue, 'pragmatic' arguments to the contrary )
2. By inaction or equivocation, the Catholic bishops in concert allow the obvious actions of Kerry to create scandal
3. Kerry continues to figuratively rub the noses of Catholic faithful into the pile of crap
4. Voices claim that nothing should be done because of the 'greater good'

So, this leaves with two choices:
1. The Catholic church, as evidenced by its shepherds, the Bishops, condones by inaction or equivocation, the very public actions of Kerry, thereby claiming that the Vatican and the teachings of the Church ( which span 2,000 years, BTW ) are bunk.
2. The Catholic church, via the Bishops, affirms the Vatican and the teachings of the Church, and decides to take actions against very vocal and public politicians who are creating scandal in the Church. (Mind you, the Church took action against its 'Defender of the Faith' for his decided search for a mother for his heir. )

Explain again, what is serving 'the greater good'?

[sinkspur]

That works in his favor Deacon. The Curia has endured cades of their "Polish Pope", now they want an older man who won't be as "difficult".

JPII's not dead yet.

If he lives another three-five years, Arinze will not be a papabile.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

It is NOT an act of charity to contyinue to allow Kerry to receive. It is a statement by the USCCB that they don't give a damn if Kerry dies and goes to hell, just so long as their candidate and ideology wins and they aren't forced to make uncomfortable decisions and apply Church law as Rome instructs. 20 posted on 04/26/2004 6:42:14 PM PDT by Polycarp IV

It shows that they are willing for Holy Communion to be abused publicly in a grave scandal of public sacrilege as part of an anti-Catholic, ideological, political. movement to divide the church on issues of life and morals. Burke and Bruskewitz should get tough and just announce that types like Kerry have automatically excommunicated themselves and need to do public penance and seek pardon.

Kerry has even employed the garbage jargon of keeping the "government out of people's bedrooms." As if an abortion is performed in someone's bedroom! Now, if he believes that that means no federal or state funds for population control or sex programs of any kind.

[narses]

What was the reason?

[B Knotts]

Isn't the bishops' mandate a bit beyond mere political concerns?

Even if we grant your scenario to be likely, isn't the salvation of souls a bit more important in the grand scheme of things than who is elected president in one country? This issue is not limited to the United States.

[sinkspur]

If the bishops are just now acting against pro-choice politicians, when they've had 31 years to do so, they look political.

And, it will backfire, among those undecideds who see the Church as opportunistic anyway. (If anything, the sexual abuse scandal proved that the bishops only acted when forced to act.)

[narses]

Abortion doesn't even need to enter into this, JFKerry's PUBLIC taking of a heretical and blasphemous psuedo-communion at the AME Church the Sunday before Easter should have been enough for them. It is an act that ought to incur automatic excommunication. It is APOSTACY.

[sinkspur]

Isn't the bishops' mandate a bit beyond mere political concerns?

They've had 31 years to take this stance.

Why now?

If you don't think this will look political, you're dreaming.

[B Knotts]

I think the bishop's name was Wiegand.

No, his name was Bishop Leo T. Maher.

Bishop Wiegand is the man who warned Gov. Gray Davis that he should not attempt to receive Holy Communion.

That didn't save Gray Davis.

[narses]

If the bishops are just now acting against pro-choice politicians, when they've had 31 years to do so, they look political.

You are so lacking in logic. First you claim it has already been done and backfired, and then you claim that it would be the first time in 31 years (BTW, when was the last time a major party nominated a pro-murder Catholic for President?). BTW, what backlash happened when Grey Davis was told to STAY AWAY by the Bishop in Sacramento? That 'backlash' propelled Arnold into office, no? And what did the Bishop who told Daschle to stop calling himself Catholic get? What 'backlash' was there then? And what of the other coreageous hierarchs (all three of them, I think) who have told Kerry to STAY AWAY?

[sinkspur]

Thanks for the correction.

Did his refusal not backfire?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Contrary to Kerry's bizarre liberal, secular humanist mythology, the church should not "stay out of" politics on issues of fundamental human rights and such things as the grave taking of innocent life for frivolous reasons. Would he have wanted the Church to stay out of the civil rights movement or from protesting the Vietnam war? Why has Kerry himself appeared in churches???

The Catholic Church has the divine right and the duty to speak out, clearly stating that John Kerry's positions on abortion and life issues are gravely wrong and that NO Catholic may ever promote such grotesque atrocities and remain a Catholic in good standing.

[narses]

See 52! :)

[don-o]

bishop in California took on a local woman running for the state legislature in the 1990s, and denied her the Eucharist.

Folks, we are not talking about political patronage here. The Eucharist, the Body of Christ, is not a light matter.

I am not Roman Catholic, but we Orthodox Christians have a similar understanding of the reality of what we partake in the Liturgy and Mass.

My Catholic wife has a better heart that do I; she weeps over the mess. I scream and curse.

Both of us see this as more than a political issue.

[Tench_Coxe]

So, essentially you are saying, 'do nothing'.
That definitely serves the greater good.

[sinkspur]

BTW, what backlash happened when Grey Davis was told to STAY AWAY by the Bishop in Sacramento? That 'backlash' propelled Arnold into office, no?

No. Arnold propelled Arnold into office.

On November 15, 1989 the late Bishop Leo T. Maher faxed a communiqué to Democratic Assemblyman Lucy Killea, informing her that she would be denied Holy Communion because of the openly "pro-choice" stance she had taken in her race against Republican Assemblywoman Carol Bentley for the 39th Senate District Seat. Pro-abortion forces rallied behind Killea, portraying her as a martyr for the cause of choice and the media predicted a landslide victory. Three weeks later, Killea won by 2,364 votes (51%).

Source.

[narses]

A look back at Bishop Maher's Denial of Communion to a Pro-Abortion Politician

---

BY ROBERT KUMPEL

On September 8, 2003, Bishop Wilton Gregory, head of the United States Catholic Bishops Council, met with conservative American bishops. Discussed at the meeting was the question of excommunicating and denying communion to pro-abortion politicians. San Diego Bishop Leo T. Maher's 1989 decree denying Assemblywoman Lucy Killea communion -- and the subsequent media victimization of Killea -- was revisited.

On November 15, 1989 the late Bishop Leo T. Maher faxed a communiqué to Democratic Assemblyman Lucy Killea, informing her that she would be denied Holy Communion because of the openly "pro-choice" stance she had taken in her race against Republican Assemblywoman Carol Bentley for the 39th Senate District Seat. Pro-abortion forces rallied behind Killea, portraying her as a martyr for the cause of choice and the media predicted a landslide victory. Three weeks later, Killea won by 2,364 votes (51%).

Fourteen years later, Maher is still the only United States bishop on record to have denied Holy Communion to a Catholic who supports abortion, and Killea's election victory is still invoked by liberal Republicans, priests, bishops, and diocesan bureaucrats as an example of why ecclesiastical discipline won't work. Many Catholics in leadership positions have bought the rationale thus far, though they may not have all the facts. Forgotten are the facts that Killea's win was no landslide, she outspent her opponent nearly three-to-one, and the college of bishops showed little collegiality toward Bishop Maher at the time.

Joan Patton, a former head of San Diego Right to Life and a volunteer for Bentley's campaign, remembers Maher's actions as the crowning achievement of his tenure in San Diego. She frequently met with Maher and was disappointed that his brother bishops didn't support him. "He wasn't really surprised by it," Patton recalls. "I remember he was getting ready to go to a bishops' meeting for the California Catholic Conference and one of the agenda items was supposed to be a discussion of denying communion -- it seems that they were going to take a stand against doing that sort of thing. As I remember, a priest was trying to get it onto the agenda. Bishop Maher was quite angry because no one but bishops were allowed to set the agenda for the meetings. I think he managed to erase it from the agenda. I asked him if any California bishops supported him and he said, "Very few, Joan. Possibly one or two."

In 1989, Killea was a well-known, veteran assemblywoman, having held the office since 1982. She was popular with her colleagues and was considered a stalwart of bipartisanship. Before her stint in the state assembly, Killea was a popular city council member who was often supported by then mayor Pete Wilson, who later claimed to "vigorously support" Bentley in her run against Killea. Bentley was in her first assembly term. At the time, the 39th Senate District ran along the Interstate 8 corridor from Ocean Beach to the Imperial County line, covering most of inland San Diego County. Its voter registrations was 49 percent Republican and 38 percent Democrat. Killea represented the 78th Assembly District which was centered in downtown San Diego, while Bentley's 77th District was centered in heavily Republican El Cajon. The special election was called when Senator Larry Stirling resigned in November to accept an appointment as a municipal court judge from Governor George Deukmejian. That previous July, the United States Supreme Court had handed down its Webster decision, giving states more powers to regulate abortion. While the conventional wisdom held that Bentley should have easily won in a district that always went Republican, she was lesser known in comparison to Killea and spent $128,000 on her campaign while Killea spent $317,000.

Although abortion rights was never one of Killea's legislative priorities, she played up the issue by releasing a television ad that claimed Bentley would restrict access to abortion. Abortion then became an issue in the campaign when Bishop Maher made his letter to Killea public in a local TV interview the same day he faxed her. Abortion-rights groups such as the California Abortion Rights Action League seized the opportunity to make abortion the major campaign issue, predicting a huge victory for Killea, behind whom they threw their support. Bentley found that pro-choice Republicans were reluctant to support her. Though she had the support of state pro-life groups, they were neither as well-organized nor as well-funded as they are today.

After the election, Bentley told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Maher's letter to Killea made the difference. "In one letter," the defeated candidate said, "he created an instant international celebrity and a martyr."

Looking back, Bentley (now Carol Bentley Ellis) says she never disagreed with Bishop Maher's actions, but just how he went about it. "I think it was kind of inappropriate to have a press conference to do it," she reflects, "rather than just [doing it] privately. I'm not a Catholic, I just happen to be pro-life. If you're a practicing Catholic and you're pro-choice, the Church probably isn't going to do anything about it. But if you go on television and promote that you are pro-choice or pro-abortion, I guess they would have to do something. I believe her TV campaign pushed Bishop Maher. If you're a member of the Mormon Church and you drink, they're probably not going to throw you out. But if you are a Mormon and you appear in a liquor ad, they're going to have to do something. I just don't think they need to have a press conference to take an action against somebody. It's their religion and it's between them to work it out. I just think the press conference was a little over the line."

Father Raymond Ryland, who at the time was a faculty member at USD and a confidant of Bishop Maher disagrees. "If he hadn't made a public statement, it would not have been known that the Church had taken a stand. I refuse to believe and I don't think there's evidence that can demonstrate that the bishop refusing [Killea] Communion put her over the top. Even if it did, the action was justified. When it's a moral issue, you don't take possible political consequences into account. She was very outspoken in her support of abortion. Bishop Maher had already done the same thing with the [National Organization of Women] people some time before that. He forbade them to receive Communion. He was left to dangle slowly in the wind -- especially by Bishop Quinn of Sacramento, who knifed him in the back, I'm sorry to say. Quinn just told her, 'It's okay, Lucy. You can receive here.' Lucy did say that she would obey the bishop in our diocese, but all she had to do was go back to Sacramento."

Now retired, Killea is gracious when recalling the incident with Maher. "I don't think it's appropriate to speak about him now that he's gone," she says. "All of this, [question whether Maher's refusal was a failure] is speculation. I respect him as my former bishop and what he did or didn't do doesn't seem that pertinent to the world today. I don't see any point in going into it again. I had great respect for him as my bishop."

Patton believes Maher has been seriously misjudged by other bishops and pro-lifers. "When we first got into this issue," she recalls, "we were critical of Bishop Maher because we couldn't understand why he wasn't doing anything on his own. We didn't appreciate at the time what we had. There were no bishops coming forth and taking a stand. He was very good about meeting with us, hearing what we had to say and taking our suggestions. When it came to Catholics for a Free Choice we asked him, 'Who are these people? Can you be a Catholic and support that?' and he said, 'Absolutely not!' and he made a public statement. We didn't appreciate at the time that he would meet with us, unlike the current bishop, and hear our side very openly. At the time, we thought, 'Why doesn't he do more?' but we didn't realize how lucky we were. We thought they should all be doing something and he was the only one who did. We didn't know how things worked and we didn't appreciate that he was very receptive and strongly behind pro-life activities."

[B Knotts]

I think a lot of Catholics are just fed up with this situation. I heard Cardinal George on Catholic Answers today, and while the callers were respectful to him, they were obviously frustrated with the bishops' apparent refusal to just deal with this issue, instead of forming more committees to issue more reports, while sitting on their hands, as babies are murdered.