Posted on 06/09/2004 9:23:23 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Given the intensity of the present day polemic in the United States on whether or not a clearly pro-abortion Catholic politician should be allowed to receive Communion, a word from a Vatican official on the subject has special interest. Particularly when that word comes from the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who recently sent a message to the American Bishops, according to a news report of the Associated Press (June 4, 2004).
Taking advantage of the visit of a group of American Bishop with the Pope, Ratzinger gave his opinion on the matter to Bishop Donald Pellote of Gallup, NM, who reported it to the press. The Cardinal said top American Bishops should proceed cautiously on this issue, and that he wanted to meet with an American committee that is studying how the Bishops should interact with Catholics in public life (The New York Times, June 6, 2004).
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.”
No doubt this message was intended to have an effect on the discussions planned for the national meeting the American Bishops will have in Denver, starting June 14. It is the Vatican’s way to intervene and try to halt the very good reaction of a handful of American Prelates, who have supported traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. They indirectly condemned the abortionist candidate John Kerry and other pro-abortion elected officials by announcing they would deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.
This laudable position of the Bishops, generated by the indignation of conservative Catholic public opinion, placed the progressivist Prelates who are complacent with abortionists in a bad situation. It also threatened many progressivist Catholic politicians, who feared not only a loss of public prestige, but a possible backlash from Catholics in the voting booths.
For this reason, 48 Catholic Democratic members of Congress wrote to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington requesting that such condemnations stop. One can guess that more influential circles pressured the Vatican as well, asking for a directive that would stop this good reaction of Bishops. And so the Vatican entered the scene with an attempt to silence the Bishops faithful to Church teaching.
The irony is that the message came from the “conservative” Ratzinger… It is sad to say, but there is nothing new in the picture. For the last 40 years, the same invariable treason against the traditional Catholic teachings has been witnessed by whoever has the eyes to see.
(Excerpt) Read more at traditioninaction.org ...
Sinkspur, have you ever thought of becoming a Catholic?
Why? Because I posted an article from a conservative Catholic bishop? A Catholic bishop who, it seems, reflects the sentiments of Cardinal Ratzinger?
Perhaps you'd like to explain your obtuseness.
Actually, I don't think this is what Ratzinger was saying at all - Guimares has exaggerated. Proceeding cautiously is never a bad thing, and I am sure Chaput, Sheridan, et al. are doing so. But the European situation is a lot different from ours, and I suspect Ratzinger is aware of this and doesn't quite know how to proceed himself.
Churches and religious education in Europe frequently receive contributions from the State. Now that there are no longer confessional (i.e., established church states where the established church was the only one that got the goodies), this has been broadened to include virtually any religious organization that manages to attain a certain level of membership. However, this still makes it different from our situation in the US.
BTW, I saw Ratzinger mentioned as papabile. I was a little surprised - but of course, being mentioned means nothing whatsoever.
You are either overtly liberal, or you pick out any ambiguous statement in anything - although I note that now you are searching for " conservative" bishops. Frankly, given the fact that you are supposedly employed as a deacon, but seem to manage to post 24 hours a day, I have always thought you were a group effort of some or another liberal group. So maybe I should ask if any of you have considered becoming Catholics?
Get off your high horse, and point out the ambiguous statement.
Wuerl seemed perfectly clear to me.
I'm not "employed" as a deacon. I'm "employed" as a software salesman. Something I can, and do, do from home about half the time.
If by "liberal" you mean that I do not agree with your assessment of John Paul II as a "failed Pope," then, yes, I'm liberal.
OK, glad, to know it. I now realize that you are underemployed. Maybe you should work a little harder and post a little less.
When you own the forum, I'll do whatever you'd like.
I don't own it, but the first thing you should stop doing is turning every thread to a discussion of sinkspur. It may be an effective technique for your objectives, or those of whoever you represent, but I'm sick of seeing you kill threads dead by injecting your personality into them.
Make comments and discuss - but if you're going to attack others, expect to be attacked yourself. Now get back to work - that's what I'm going to do (I am also self-employed).
You post your way, and I'll post mine.
You are free to skip over my posts, as I'm sure you've done, and will do so now, now that you've gotten your digs in.
Nobody "kills threads" around here. They die natural deaths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.