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]

A Clear Example

An American bishop causes a stir when he announces that a pro-abortion politician should not receive the Eucharist.

Brian O'Neel

Apr. 05, 2003 (CWR) - It was expected to be a commemoration of Roe v. Wade like every other, indistinguishable except that this one would mark the 30th anniversary of the tragic Supreme Court decision. The pro-life marchers would march on the state capitol building, they would hear speeches, and they would attend Mass at the nearby cathedral. There the bishop would utter pious generalities about the sanctity of life, but would say nothing different or daring.

And all would have proceeded as planned, except for one thing: the bishop didn't follow the script.

True, Bishop William Weigand of the Diocese of Sacramento did say something about the sanctity of life, but he also did something no one these days expects bishops to do: He took to task pro-abortion politicians who call themselves 'Catholic. And he named names--or at least one very prominent name.

The effect was immediate. The bishop received several standing ovations. His homily was disseminated around the world, and nearly every Catholic and pro-life news service carried a brief on the matter. His remarks even made the front page of the liberal Sacramento Bee, which has published anti-Catholic political cartoons and commentaries in the past.

THE DECEMBER INCIDENT

To understand the bishop's actions fully, one first has to know what happened just a few weeks earlier, in December 2002. It is tradition at the Christmas season for California's governors to visit the wards of St. Patrick's Home for Children, founded and run by a local legend, Msgr. Eugene Kavanagh. This Christmas, Msgr. Kavanagh told the governor's staff in no uncertain terms that Gov. Grey Davis, who is Catholic, was unwelcome. 'We cannot allow a person who doesn't promote the sanctity of human life to appear that he was all for helping children when he's killing the unborn--the most defenseless of all,'' Msgr. Kavanagh said.

Gov. Davis' only response was to say, "I'm unapologetically pro-choice and I'm not changing my position." One might say Gov. Davis' claim that he is "unapologetically pro-choice" is the understatement of the century. He has signed more pro-abortion laws than any other governor in California's history. Just last year, Davis signed three pro-abortion laws. Nevertheless, Msgr. Kavanagh's decision to declare the governor persona non grata caused quite a stir. Some Californians, anxious to preserve a pleasant annual tradition, saw the priest as the Grinch who stole Christmas. "I don't give a damn," the doughty cleric responded. "I'm standing up for life."

FAST FORWARD TO JANUARY 22

According to a Sacramento diocesan spokesman, Father Sylvester McDermott, Bishop Weigand had by this point become quite concerned about Governor Davis' stance, which suggested that one could be a Catholic in good standing and remain "pro-choice" on abortion. The bishop was also troubled by assertions that the governor's position was as valid as Msgr. Kavanagh's.

So on January 22, with 2,000 people packed into the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Bishop Weigand addressed the controversy in his homily. After some preliminary comments about the evils of abortion and how the Roe decision cannot stand, Weigand reached the heart of his message:

People need to understand that you cannot call yourself a Catholic in good standing and at the same time publicly hold views that are contradictory to the Catholic faith. Thank you, Msgr. Kavanagh, for standing up for the unborn...

In stating publicly that many Catholics believe as he does, and insisting that women should retain the right to decide to kill their own children by aborting them, under the guise of making their own decisions about their bodies, Governor Davis needs to recall that we do not own our bodies. We are not proprietors. We are stewards--stewards of a sacred trust. We all must decide how to care for our bodies. But abortion entails another body, that of the infant. The prohibition of God and of the law of nature is abundantly clear: "Thou shalt not kill."

As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone--politician or otherwise--who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church. Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart.

HEATED REACTIONS

The reaction was immediate, far-reaching, and vociferous. Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote Bishop Weigand congratulating him for his faithful stance. Bob Dunning, host of "The Bishop's Radio Hour" on the local Catholic station reported, "I've had volumes of calls, of emails, and the sentiment is 100 percent behind the bishop. Thank God someone is standing up and taking on the governor."

On the other hand the governor's spokesman, Russ Lopez, who is also a Catholic, said that Gov. Davis "will not back down." Lopez also delivered an odd complaint against the bishop, criticizing Weigand for "telling the faithful how to practice their faith."

Governor Davis' own pastor said he was not bothered by his parishioner's pro-abortion stance. Father Colm O'Ryan of Good Shepherd Church in Beverly Hills told the lay Catholic publication San Francisco Faith, "He's a very faithful Catholic. He and his wife come to Mass very faithfully when they are in town." Father O'Ryan said his own stance on the matter was "judge not and you shall not be judged." (Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles has not, to date, made any comment on the matter.)

FURTHER STEPS?

The controversy took on a new life when the National Catholic Register claimed that Bishop Weigand had said in an interview that if Gov. Davis approached him for Communion during the annual "Red Mass" that is traditionally celebrated for lawyers at the opening of the judicial term, the bishop would simply give him a blessing and offer to discuss the matter with him later.

However, immediately after the Register article appeared, the Sacramento diocese took issue with the paper's characterization of Bishop Weigand's comments. According to Father Sylvester McDermott, "When the bishop was interviewed by the Register, he was asked a number of hypotheticals, and the bishop answered hypothetically."

Father McDermott took pains to point out that Bishop Weigand's remarks during the Register interview did not point to any decision to deny the Eucharist to Gov. Davis, much less to excommunicate him. Rather, he said, the bishop had made:

& a pastoral clarification to every Catholic that if you hold these positions, then you need to examine yourself in relation to teaching of the Church and draw the necessary conclusions and take the necessary action. It goes back to 1 Cor. 11:27-29. What the bishop is saying is what St. Paul is saying: If you are in disharmony with the Church in whatever way, then you should recognize that you may be eating and drinking judgment upon yourself, and take the necessary steps.

As for refusing the governor Communion at the Red Mass, Father McDermott observed that it was a moot point, since Gov. Davis was not expected to attend the ceremony. "No governor has ever come," he said. "Certainly Gov. Davis has never come."

The governor seems unfazed by the whole imbroglio. "The governor is a faithful, practicing Catholic who attends Mass in West Hollywood," maintained his spokesman Lopez. "We don't like abortion, but we do like choice on the issue." As if to underline his stance, Gov. Davis soon appointed an abortionist to a statewide panel that makes health-care financing decisions.

[AUTHOR ID] Brian O'Neel writes from Sacramento. California.

Editor's Note: Bishop Weigand's support for Msgr. Kavanaugh, and his clear statement of Church teaching, are laudable. However, his stance now raises two questions:

1) Since the teachings of the universal Church do not differ from one diocese to another, why do other bishops not make similar public statements regarding prominent Catholic politicians who are equally aggressive in their support for legal abortion, such as Senators Biden, Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, and Mikulski? Why is Cardinal Mahony silent on the case of Gov. Davis? 2) The bishop has warned Gov. Davis that he endangers his soul by receiving the Eucharist while he persists in assaults on the dignity of human life. Does it not follow logically that if Davis ignores the bishop's invitation to abstain voluntarily from the Eucharist, he should be denied the Sacrament--for the good of his soul and the welfare of the Church?

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

There can be no "peace" and no "justice" in a godless society whose leaders slaughter the innocent unborn.

The "peace and justice" socialism of the USCCB is a pipedream fantasy. A true Catholic vision of "peace and justice" can never be installed by godless secular humanists of the American "liberal" type. You could only have an appoximation of partial peace and justice in a society where the majority of the leaders were genuine, believing and faithful Catholics. That will never happen in a secular humanist, liberal America.

[narses]

Well said, thank you.

[sinkspur]

But more important, did the Sacramento Bishop create a backlash favoring Grey Davis? Your claim is that denial will create a backlash, the Bishop took a very public and principled stand (thank God for faithful Bishops) and the public accepted that. It was over ABORTION Deacon, in California, a battleground state. Your 'analysis', staked on a decades old legislative race, pales when compared to a statewide, recent race.

One, Weigand did not refuse the Eucharist to Davis. He advised him to not approach, the same thing O'Malley has done with Kerry.

Second, the election in California was over the day Arnold announced.

Third, California is not reflective of the country as a whole.

[narses]

"You're a bit of a conspiracist, aren't you, what with your major suspicions of Masons and other like groups?"

Yes, he is. His "suspicions" are just like those of that VAST right wing conspiracy, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. You've heard of them, yes?

[sinkspur]

The Catholic Church does not obsess over the Masons, and certainly doesn't think a college club like Skull and Bones is deserving of ecclesiastical scrutiny.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

"The establishment of this task force is a clear sign of the seriousness with which we take these issue."

Hahahahahahah!! Good one!

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

NO ,sink. You just don't no the facts. You think all these occult anti-Catolic secret societies are just fun clubs with cute orange gocarts. Fortunately, the teachings of many Popes and the facts do not fit such a deranged delusion.

Skull and Bones, long with its fraternal associates, promotes a form of oligarchy and population control. As well as the manipulation of the U.S. Constitution and our education system. It figures a slimy creep like Kerry would be a member.

So when did you petition to join the lodge anyway, Sink? Or did the Grand-Poohbah order you NOT to tell? What degree are you? Did you get to drink wine out of a skull yet? Screwed any prostitutes at the Shriner conventions yet?

[narses]

The action of the Church is summed up in the papal pronouncements against Freemasonry since 1738, the most important of which are:


Clement XII, Const. "In Eminenti", 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, "Providas", 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, "Ecclesiam", 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, "Quo graviora", 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encycl. "Traditi", 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, "Mirari", 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Qui pluribus", 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Quibus quantisque malis", 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Quanta cura", 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Multiplices inter", 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Const. "Apostolicæ Sedis", 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Etsi multa", 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Humanum genus", 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, "Præclara", 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, "Annum ingressi", 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Etsí nos", 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, "Ab Apostolici", 15 October, 1890.


These pontifical utterances from first to last are in complete accord, the latter reiterating the earlier with such developments as were called for by the growth of Freemasonry and other secret societies.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

It's not just a "college club." You're out of touch with reality.

[narses]

"The Catholic Church does not obsess over the Masons,"

LOL, very funny.

The action of the Church is summed up in the papal pronouncements against Freemasonry since 1738, the most important of which are:


Clement XII, Const. "In Eminenti", 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, "Providas", 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, "Ecclesiam", 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, "Quo graviora", 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encycl. "Traditi", 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, "Mirari", 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Qui pluribus", 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Quibus quantisque malis", 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Quanta cura", 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Alloc. "Multiplices inter", 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Const. "Apostolicæ Sedis", 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encycl. "Etsi multa", 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Humanum genus", 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, "Præclara", 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, "Annum ingressi", 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encycl. "Etsí nos", 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, "Ab Apostolici", 15 October, 1890.


These pontifical utterances from first to last are in complete accord, the latter reiterating the earlier with such developments as were called for by the growth of Freemasonry and other secret societies.

[sinkspur]

Skull and Bones, long with its fraternal associates, promotes a form of oligarchy and population control. As well as the manipulation of the U.S. Constitution and our education system. It figures a slimy creep like Kerry would be a member.

George W. Bush was a member of Skull and Bones, too. Is he a slimy creep? He laughs about his membership now, and I don't see where it has some kind of subliminal grip on his life.

Sheesh!!!

[narses]

GW Bush ins't Catholic Deacon.

[sinkspur]

As I said, the Church does not obsess over the Masons.

There's not one reference on your list less than 110 years old.

[sinkspur]

GW Bush ins't Catholic Deacon.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

[narses]

"There's not one reference on your list less than 110 years old."

LOL, because I took that list from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company!

[sinkspur]

It's not just a "college club." You're out of touch with reality.

It is a college club, Howling.

[sinkspur]

Couldn't find anything more recent? Sorry about that.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

I don't particularly like the hick W. Bush. But the church has no jurisdiction over him. And he is not presenting himself as a Catholic for Communion.

There IS in fact a sinister inner occultism which is anti-Catholic in these masonic secret "clubs." The Scottish Rite, in its own documents, from its Grand Pooh-bah in Washington, denies that the Church has a right to teach children and form them in faith. The Scottish Rite and its creepy de Molay promotes godless secular humanist totalitarianism in education. That is wrong. That's a little beyond just a fun college club in any book.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

No you're dead wrong. It's not just a college frat club.
<P.
Now, answer the question. Are you or is someone else in your family a mason and that explains why you upport weird liberal positions on Catholic issues???