Ratzinger against public sanctions on abortionists

Tradition in Action ^ | June 8, 2004 | A.S. Guimaraes

[B Knotts]

Ratzinger gave his opinion on the matter to Bishop Donald Pellote of Gallup, NM, who reported it to the press

I would be cautious about taking this particular interpretation as undisputed fact.

[sinkspur]

Bishop says denying Eucharist not part of church's pastoral tradition

By John Franko
Catholic News Service
May 27, 2004

PITTSBURGH (CNS) -- While one has a "clear and grave obligation" to vote against legislation that bolsters abortion, the view of refusing Communion to politicians who support keeping abortion legal is not part of the pastoral tradition of the church, Pittsburgh Bishop Donald W. Wuerl said in a May 25 address.

"Given the long-standing practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for holy Communion, it does not seem that it is sufficiently clear that in the matter of voting for legislation that supports abortion such a judgment necessarily follows," he said.

"The pastoral tradition of the church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for holy Communion," he added.

Bishop Wuerl addressed the issue of "Faith, Personal Conviction and Political Life" during his annual Loebig Lecture before the St. Thomas More Society May 25 at the City-County Building in downtown Pittsburgh.

Saying that people in a democratic society must bring their moral values into the voting process, he pointed to the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2002 "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," which reminded the faithful that it is wrong to perform an abortion or support legislation that enables it.

The bishop noted, however, that while the doctrinal note highlights the evil action of abortion, it does not propose disciplinary actions on politicians.

"In fact, there seems to be a practice both in Rome and throughout the diocesan churches in Europe of refraining from disciplinary actions in such circumstances," he said.

Bishop Wuerl said the responsibility of a bishop includes making judgments on how best to achieve the spiritual conversion of intellect, will and heart.

The initial step, he said, is to provide clear and adequate teaching on the issue of abortion and the issue of voting to support abortion legislation. Private discussion with legislators on the issue could follow. Further steps could include a public declaration that a legislator's actions contradict church teaching.

The bishop said actions against politicians must be clearly explained so the faithful do not get the impression the church is attempting to force its will on legislation.

"Before taking disciplinary action, if such a route were chosen, there would have to be a clear explanation about what action is being taken, why it is being taken and how it is justified," he said.

Bishop Wuerl noted, however, that politicians who support abortion legislation should not be surprised if they are not welcome in certain Catholic circles, or do not have the doors of Catholic facilities open to them in the same manner as those who support the Catholic tradition of faith and morals.

He said efforts must be made to more clearly expose the evil of abortion, and to debunk the theory that abortion is acceptable simply because some Catholic politicians support it.

"All of us have an obligation to be informed on how critical the life-death issue of abortion is, and how profoundly and intrinsically evil is the destruction of unborn human life," Bishop Wuerl said. "Our political actions, out of which come the laws of this country, must be based on the natural moral law and the most basic of all human rights -- the right to life."

*****************

Ratzinger has the perspective of the entire Church in mind when urging caution.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "The irony is that the message came from the “conservative” RATzinger…"

I believe the Catholic Church will rediscover itself by rediscovering the teachings of Christ. Where will the good Cardinal find himself that day? This tolerance with abortion is part of a larger move toward greater sexual liberation, overriding the laws of nature, cause and effect, ie sex = babies, free love = broken homes, multiple sex partners = sexually transmitted diseases. Without the Catholic Church providing the rock by which all churches tether their barge many many more will flounder and capsize.

The next eight years will make the sexual revolution of the 60's look like a garden tea party.

[AskStPhilomena]

"Ratzinger gave his opinion on the matter to Bishop Donald Pellote of Gallup, NM, who reported it to the press".
I would be cautious about taking this particular interpretation as undisputed fact.

The outcome of the U.S. bishops forthcoming meeting - and any official Vatican response - will be very interesting - if they even address this issue.
I live in hope that Burke, Sheridan and co. get staunch support for their initiative from the likes of Ratzinger - but I'm not holding my breath.
In better times, courageous defenders of the Faith of the caliber of Bishops Burke and Sheridan may have found a place in the College of Cardinals, but in this "ecumenical" era, they'll probably have to wait until judgement day to reap any reward.

[B Knotts]

Would the same caution be used in the denial of Holy Communion to unabashed racists, or unrepentant genocidal mass-murderers?

We're talking about the unrepentant advocacy of murder! What more does it take to be considered a public sinner?

There seems to be a disconnect between what the Church actually teaches and what even much of the episcopacy is willing to accept.

Either abortion is the taking of a human life, or it isn't. Which is it?

[siunevada]

In ecclesiastical language this verbiage means: “Stop denying Communion to politicians because they are pro-abortionists. If you have any doubts, come to me in private and I will explain our policy.”

Well, that is certainly an interesting sentence. It infers a lot more than I did from the preceeding statements.

It's almost as if the author is putting words in Ratzinger's mouth.

[saradippity]

I would be cautious about taking this particular interpretation as an indisputed fact.

And,I would be cautious about taking anything this bishop,whose installation mass was concelebrated by the disgraced and resigned ex-bishop of Santa Fe (Sanchez) as well as the disgraced but not yet resigned bishop of Cleveland (Pilla), as an undisputed fact. I would say that this particular interpretation by this particular bishop is not likely to reflect much but his own desires and wishes.

[B Knotts]

Well, I had a suspicion, but as I am unfamiliar with him, didn't want to speculate.

[Romulus]

Lame.

[Snuffington]

In ecclesiastical language this verbiage means: “Stop denying Communion to politicians because they are pro-abortionists. If you have any doubts, come to me in private and I will explain our policy.”

That may be what he means, but he doesn't have that authority. We've seen the whacko-lefty bishops ignoring Ratzinger for years, on the basis of their own authority. Infuriating as that was at times, they were backed by canon law.

I suspect the few bishops who have taken a stand here are not going to be so easily scared off.

[Snuffington]

Ratzinger has the perspective of the entire Church in mind when urging caution.

And no one should get upset at Ratzinger urging caution, provided he doesn't overstep this general guideline.

Also, from the perspective of the millions of aborted babies, there is some reason to argue for a little urgency after 30 plus years of this pastoral "caution" failing to make a difference.

[ardara]

On Monday Archbishop Chaput is quoted in the Rocky Mountain News as saying"that the Pope and the Vatican officials are positive and very supportive of how his ARCHDIOCESE is approaching the controversey over faith,Communion and politics.

[broadsword]

Also, from the perspective of the millions of aborted babies, there is some reason to argue for a little urgency after 30 plus years of this pastoral "caution" failing to make a difference.

Especially so when the Amchurch clergy and lost souls are staunch and steady supporters of the Babykiller Party.

(a worthless husband and father): "Now dear, I know you want to rush forward and take action right away, but I urge caution, lethargy and respect of our children's decision to play tag along the edge of that cliff. After all, only four of them have fallen to their deaths in the last seven minutes."

A good shepherd doesn't sit placidly and watch while his sheep are being devoured.

[broadsword]

It may be a grave matter, but a matter that calls one of sanity to repentence.

It is a far graver matter to receive the Blessed Sacrament in a state of mortal sin.

I am so tired of men in positions of authority who suffer from empty sack syndrome. They do none a good service.

[broadsword]

Well... that a person living in obstinate mortal and receiving the Blessed Sacrament may st go on as he is, and die in that unrepentant sin and go to hell. But if he is denied the Sacrament, that denial may upset his complacent little applecart enough to cause a reexamination of his life and state of grace according to the infallible teachings of the Church. he might then be prompted by the effects of that denial to repent of his sin and get his life in order before it is too late.

The bottom line is that being denied the sacrament is not the more grave of the two matters; unrepentant mortal sin is.

The sin may cast him into hell, whereas the denial of the Eucharist may just come to save him from that sin.

I hope that makes what I was trying to say more clear.