Posted on 07/03/2004 6:45:41 AM PDT by RockDoc
In a letter to US bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger threw his full support behind the few bishops who have said they will deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion, according to an Italian press report. The US bishops voted overwhelmingly to take a less rigorous stance.
The Italian weekly L'Espresso has reported that Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the American bishops should speak privately with prominent Catholics who defy Church teachings on key issues involving the sanctity of life, alert them to the gravity of their offenses, and warn them that they should not receive Communion. The Vatican's chief doctrinal official wrote: "When ìthese precautionary measures have not had their effect...and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ìhe minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
L'Espresso has published the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, which had not previously been available to the public. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who heads a committee of US bishops studying possible responses to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, told reporters that the Ratzinger letter left the issue in the hands of the American hierarchy.
At their Denver meeting, the US bishops adopted a policy statement re-affirming the Church's condemnation of legal abortion, but stopping short of any call for withholding the Eucharist from prominent abortion supporters. The bishops reportedly turned down a milder form of the resolution, backed by Cardinal McCarrick, which would have said that it was imprudent to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians. In conversations with the press, Cardinal McCarrick had hinted that the Ratzinger letter gave support to that position.
Sandro Magister, the veteran Vatican reporter who is the author of the Espresso report, writes that Cardinal Ratzinger was clear in his letter, which was sent to Cardinal Ratzinger and to Bishop Wilton Gregory, the president of the US bishops' conference. But as Magister put it, in the headline of his article, the text of the Ratzinger letter shows: "What he wanted, but didn't get."
That's what needs to be publicized.
So, McCarrick is objectively ensnared in an outright lie. Why? I still say he is completely compromised by skeletons in his closet. There is no other explanation for his evil acts.
Because they know that the recourse from Rome won't carry much heat and they are more interested in American opinion. They've become humanists.
Great minds think alike? See my post # 22.
As I have said before:
The Kennedys seem to have played a pivotal role in diminishing Catholicism in exchange for mere temporal power and vacuous stylishness (acceptance by liberal elites). Silly.
Imagine trading Heaven for looking cool at a Massachusetts beach vacation and being accepted by other annoying, liberal Harvard people. You get the idea. It's that dumb. Sad. Pathetic. Evil is banal.
We need to pray MORE for out priests and bishops!
It is unfortunate that we cannot count on American bishops to be truthful.
At least some of them are, anyhow. More so, in my opinion, than most of SSPX, in fact.
Somebody said above that the bishops of the US are in open schism. Really? You're kidding? I knew this over 20 years ago. I did not need a light bulb to go off over my head to see this. We have suffered through some 40 years of blashphemous liturgical abuses, destruction of the patrimony of the church, heresy unabashedly proclaimed from pulpits, books, "catholic" tv shows radio & videos, and the general suppression of all forms of traditional private & public devotion. This has been "in yo face" like the white elephant in the middle of the living room for these 40 years. But most Catholics mentally live in "la-la"land, joyfully accepting "liturgy in the worship space", the Teletubbies dancing in the sanctuary, and other random outright blasphemy as if they were whacked up on Thorazine!!! Its as if nobody ever noticed before that the likes of Theodore McCarrick, Edward Egan, et. al. were not of the same faith! We seem to have forgotten the imfamous ecclesial strongmen of the past like Ireland, Spellman, Cody,& Gibbons. Like a massive case of short-term memory loss, we forget the past. Have they become Humanists? But its worse then that. Some of the heirachy have curried favor with, and even joined the Lodge - and so have members of the middle management of their chanmceries. Some of them have literal skeltons in their closets (personal, literal, or figurative). They saw how the good John Cardinal O' Connor of NYC (of holy memory) suffered tremendously for his faith, and was terrorized by threats from the Lodge, the local political structure, the gay community (which includes many of his priests) with a tidal wave of filth washing over his hands. Because he was so cowed and threatened, he backed off - to a point, but never lost the faith, nor did he cease to proclaim its truths (while wearing a bulet-proof vest). He was spared the brunt of the crisis we now have in the sex scandals. He was far from perfect, but was quite brave when compared to the timid mice we hve now for prelates. So have our gallant bishops taken heart from O'Connor's example? NOPE!!! They are merrily following the lead of the likes of Bernadin and Mahoney, knowing that their nests will continue to be feathered by the public at large. I have a radical suggestion to promote their conversion: Starve the rats out of their chancery offices! Cut off their lights, AC, & food! Give them no more funding until and unless they perform public penance and return to Christ! Staying home is too easy - attend mass, but smile and put nothing but letters of protest in the plate. Give them not a penny more, until they repent. But of course to do this requires a massive dose of reality....kicking the "thorazine" habit.....and reclaiming the faith of our fathers! But this is the only earthly way to call them nack to the faith - for their own good, as well as ours!
The Church first needs the universal credibility of such an action against those under their own control. I am sure there are pro-choicers teaching in their parish schools, high schools, colleges, among recipients of honorary degrees and holding administrative positions.
"No EEM should take it upon himself or herself to refuse the Eucharist to anybody. If a pastor directs them to, they should follow his direction."
So in the brave new world of Deacon Sinkspur, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are not allowed to have a conscience?
If their pastors instruct them to facilitate immoral communions, they must blindly obey?
Sure they can have a conscience. But they are not to take upon themselves who to distribute the Eucharist to. That is not part of their liturgical duties.
If their pastors instruct them to facilitate immoral communions, they must blindly obey?
If they can't fulfill their roles, then they should step down.
You want to allow laymen to make their own decisions about who receives? What if little Johnny had a fight with the woman's kid who now presents himself, and momma didn't seem to care. Should some catty emotion be indulged?
We've already told our Eucharist Ministers to not even think about refusing the Eucharist to someone. If they have a question, they are to ask the pastor.
I doubt our pastor would refuse the Eucharist to anybody, including John Kerry.
But our EEMs have been told in no uncertain terms that they are to distribute the Eucharist to all who present themselves, unless they're obviously too young.
I've given a blessing, instead of the Eucharist, on Christmas and Easter to those who don't seem to know what to do when they come up, as they are obviously not Catholic. In fact, I'll usually ask them, and 99 times out of 100, they say "no." But that's not a decision our EEMs are allowed to make.
99.9% of the use of EMHCs is illicit, anyhow. So, in most cases, the issue should never even come up.
183 of 189 bishops defiantly disobeyed Rome on a matter concerning a central tenet of Faith and Morals. That is schism, and it represents 97% of Amercan bishops.
It IS possible that USCCB president Wilton Gregory and Cardinal McCarrick withheld Ratzinger's letter from the USCCB prior to the June USCCB meeting.
That is very doubtful, but if it is the case, the USCCB should have an emergency meeting to reevatuate their schismatic position and impeach Wilton Gregory.
And Rome should send McCarrick to Siberia.
The one thing you have to remember is that a lot of us don't remember pre-VatII because we weren't born yet. That would be me and a number of others here who missed out on even the Baltimore Catechism. We're just now becoming aware of what we've been missing.
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.