Posted on 01/15/2007 3:27:02 PM PST by NYer
The California Catholic Daily reports on a conversation with Archbishop Wuerl:
Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who has come under fire for failing to speak out against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s attendance Jan. 3 at a Mass at her alma mater, Trinity University, came to San Diego’s Kona Kai Resort the weekend of January 13-14 to speak at an international Communion and Liberation conference.
While in San Diego, Wuerl told California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith that he has no plans to discipline the newly elected Democratic Speaker, who is now the most powerful Catholic in Congress -- and an ardent supporter of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and pro-homosexual legislation.
Smith: “Did you make any statement last week about Nancy Pelosi going to Mass at Trinity University?”
Wuerl: “That was a matter between the university and Nancy. They were offering their location, and the Mass was celebrated by a priest with faculties, and there was no reason to make any comment.”
Smith: “Do you intend to discipline her at all for being persistent and obstinate about her support for abortion and same-sex marriage?”
Wuerl: “I will not be using the faculty in the manner you have described.”
Smith: “Will you make a statement to your priests and deacons to warn her not to allow her to receive if she presents herself for Communion?”
Wuerl: “You’re talking about a whole different style of pastoral ministry. No.”
I hope the comments on this post are charitable and helpful in tone....
BTW. California Catholic Daily is a new online publication from Jim Holman, owner and publisher of the alt-press San Diego Reader, and apparently replaces the other (four? I think) similar Catholic publications he used to operate.
I think what Archbishop Wuerl and others fail to understand is the impact of things like this on the lay Catholic who is struggling to be a faithful disciple in the world. The message that is sent by silence is strong, in terms of the lay apostolate in the world, in terms of the unity of faith and life.
Nancy Pelosi is not "struggling" with the Church's teaching on abortion, trying to work for the protection of unborn human beings within the constraints of the current U.S. law. As we noted before, she is unapologetically, strongly supportive of abortion-rights and unborn children don't even enter into her radar (publicly, at least) as human beings. The same week she was sworn in as Speaker, NARAL issued this statement:
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement in commemoration of the historic swearing in of Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the first woman to serve as the Speaker of the House.
"Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker's gavel to make this historic move forward for our country. For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women's health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman's right to choose. In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi's call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives. Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses."
On January 4, NOW greeted Pelosi with an oversized congratulations card, on the way to a swearing-in brunch. On the way in, Pelosi greeted them:
When Speaker Pelosi passed by, she waved and exclaimed, "Thank you! NOW has always been there for me."
Nancy Pelosi is in a very powerful position, a Catholic, and is working in opposition to a fundamental, moral teaching of her faith: the preciousness of each human life from conception. She lives in a country in which unborn human beings are unprotected by the law, in which the culture, at every level, dehumanizes them, and she, who is in a position to do something about this, in word and deed, does nothing to help the cause of bringing greater awareness of the humanity of the unborn, and works against legal protection and is the hero of organizations that are the activist core arrayed against the humanity of the unborn. There is not a speck of ambiguity here.
Perhaps Archbishop Wuerl is catechizing and attempting to work with "Nancy" in private, and perhaps he didn't mention it because he and/or Archbishop Niederauer are engaged in this private outreach and the questions asked by this reporter did not directly ask him about that. That could well be the case. And certainly "refusing Communion" has become a flashpoint in this kind of situation which has a few alternative approaches. A real pastor takes every approach he can before getting to the point at which "discipline" is all that is left. Perhaps this is going on or is in the works.
But resting on Archbishop Wuerl's statements alone, which do not indicate that there's anything problematic about Nancy Pelosi's way of living a Catholic life, and which, I admit, simply might be an expression of a reticent style that only answers the questions posed, I'll just say this again.
If this woman, engaged in a public role, very publicly works against the teachings of the Church to which she professes a very public tie isn't publicly challenged by even one of the primary teachers of the Church - the bishops - the rest of us - lay Catholics, living and working in the world, every day facing decisions on how to be faithful disciples of Jesus in the midst of the complexities of our professions, some of us who really suffer because of the things they refuse to do because of their fidelity to Christ - we get a message.
And the message we get is that - it doesn't matter. Do whatever you want. Catholicism isn't about discipleship, about (among other things) living in the truth that every person God chooses to create - from conception to natural death - is our treasured brother or sister - I'm not sure what it's about, but it evidently isn't about that.
Note: for those of you with the desire to bring capital punishment and the war into this discussion, another thread will be provided for that. This thread is limited to discussions of this particular situation and the implications for laity living out their faith in the world.
Some words of wisdom: (Emphasis mine)
Every responsible person and each follower of Jesus Christ have an obligation to defend and protect innocent human life. This witness can take place in many ways: teaching, non-violent public demonstrations, the legislative process, preaching, outreach to those in crisis pregnancy, care for the disabled and the dying, as well as financial support, prayer and ministry to those who have had an abortion.
If we are to put an effective end to those things that threaten human life, we must work as good citizens in the area of public policy to change laws. But it is also necessary to change hearts and minds as well as laws. Pope John Paul II reminds us that a pro-life educational endeavor must have "as its goal that shift of perception and change of heart which accompany true conversion."
It is said that evil exists when good people do nothing. We must find a way to make our convictions known and effective. For Catholics, the parish community is an ideal context in which to do this and the role of the priest, as leader, places him in a perfect position to reiterate this most basic principle of respect for life. In particular, the homily at appropriate times can be an effective means for communicating this truth. Other opportunities include the regular intentions of the general intercessions, the use of the parish bulletin, parish newsletters and increasingly web sites. The United States bishops offer guidance and a starting point: "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem."
The proclamation of the gospel of life is not reserved to the parish priest. All of those involved in parish activity and especially the parish staff must be both committed to the message and able to express it in a convincing manner. Given the importance of the gospel of life regular updating sessions to deal with current issues and to review the teaching of the Church would be a valuable resource for all involved in the life of the parish.
We must also incorporate the Church's teachings on social concerns and respect life issues into the mainstream of Catholic education. All those who teach in Catholic schools and religious education programs must become intelligent and clear voices in defense of life. The U.S. bishops remind us that this educational effort must be made at every level. "The commitment to human life and dignity, to human rights and solidarity, is a calling all Catholic educators must share with their students. It is not a vocation for a few religion teachers, but a challenge for every Catholic educator and catechist." Efforts should be made to integrate this teaching into the curriculum of our education programs at every level.
The U.S. bishops also urge parents, as the primary educators of their children, to give priority to the important areas of human sexuality and respect for all human life. The faithful not only have a responsibility to promote life issues in their homes but also in the workplace, the courts and the legislature. The lay faithful are called to give daily witness to respect for life, in family life, public education, government, institutions of health care, and the instruments of mass communication.
Only in this way can these fundamental human values which are rooted in our very nature as the fruit of God's loving creation make an impact on our growing secular world that seems all too comfortable disregarding human dignity and ignoring the basic truth about the true origins, nature and destiny of every human person.
As children of God we must pray and fast for an end to anti-life practices; be active in the political process and elect responsible leaders; assist women facing unintended pregnancies; support with compassion those who suffer from having had an abortion; affirm the lives of the elderly and the disabled; forgive those who have committed grave offenses, and tirelessly promote the truth about the importance of each human person.
Bishop Donald Wuerl, Pastoral Letter to the people of the Church of Pittsburgh, 1999.
Dear Vicomte13,
I don't know.
However, his statements indicate that that is foreign to his own beliefs on how to go about being a bishop.
sitetest
I'm sorry to hear it. That's the last thing we need in Washington, which is a key post.
CL members are very devoted to their founder, Msgr Giussani, who IMHO is like any European intellectual of his generation - stuffed to the brim with words, and very given to lengthy musings that are either not very meaningful, or so laden with terms that the writer uses in a special way that they have almost no meaning to anyone outside the group. In addition, they have come up with their own particular translations into English of these words, and since the translation is usually the Italian word with an anglicized spelling, as you can imagine, it makes no sense whatsoever. The few times I've read it, I've found it pretentious and cumbersome.
I have known a number of CL members, and many of them are very nice people, but they are very left-wing politically and their theology is so convoluted that it is really hard to say what they follow (other than whatever it is they believe Msgr Giussani has said!). They're like Neo-Catechumenate in Spain. Young university students like them, they give these people a feeling of community and support, and they do not reject the Church or any of its teachings. However, they have their own liturgies and practices (especially Neo Catechumenate), their own theological vocabulary, and they form a very tight group. I don't know whether this is good or bad in the long run.
JPII encouraged both of these groups, although I believe BXVI has demanded a bit more liturgical orthodoxy from NeoCatechumenate, which had a problem in its non-existent formula of consecration. Regardless, I think they are still pretty influential under BXVI.
Pretentious is definitely the word!
You say that the ones you know are left-wing politically, and with the word "Liberation" in their name, I'm not surprised. If their theology is convoluted, it could mean anything; conversely, if it were orthodox it would be simple and clear. Just because they haven't rejected the Church or its teachings does not mean they have not twisted them, either. I thought our Holy Father strongly discourages "Liberation Theology." Why is Abp. Wuerl involved with this group?
This is not exactly "Liberation Theology." It's more like standard European university liberal thought, which is vaguely Socialist, very statist and, of course, anti-American. They dress it up with the incomprehensible and wordy musings of their founder, or rapturous articles about Pasolini, etc.
Abp Wuerl may not be heavily involved - he gave a talk to them, so maybe it simply means that they paid his airfare and he talked. But given his attitude towards politics, according to everyone here who has known him in his previous job, I wouldn't be surprised if he's at least sympathetic to some of their positions. Again, they're not a group like "We Are Church." They're not actively opposed to any Church teaching and seem to support the Papacy, etc., but I think their European academic liberal mindset makes it very hard for them to sort out, shall we say, priorities. Some people do pass through it, however, and go into the religious life or find some other form of life that is more traditional.
I view the decision of a Bishop to withhold the Eucharist from pro-abort politicians as their very own matter of conscience. It's not something that I would care to be put in the position of doing. I don't like the idea of potentially setting up a confrontation of sorts, which may not play out well, at the Altar.
That being said, I also would not take issue with a Bishop who decided to make a stand against these defiant creatures, and provided some measure and direction for how this might be implemented to his priests and extraordinary ministers.
I've heard good things about Burke and several other Church leaders in the Midwest. I'd almost be curious to see how such a chastisement would play out here in the east. I've actually never heard of a pro-abort politico being denied the Sacrament, under any circumstance. I think it would have little effect on Speaker Pelosi, Kerry or Durbin, but it might strike a chord in some of the "in the pew" Catholics. It would send a message.
I'm unsure how Wuerl could be otherwise Theologically conservative, while also being silent on the subject of abortion - one seems to run counter to the other.
I've grown weary of the whole trade union/social justice liberal ideologues. While I am surprised to hear that Wuerl is older than I had presumed (the Bishop looks to be in his early fifties) Wuerl's 65 years do not gain him access into a bloc of the Democratic party which has been effectively dead for 25 or more years. If he were in his 80's I might give the Bishop a little space for embracing the political vision that my mother adhered to until her death. No dice for Bishop Wuerl. I suspect that he came of age, politically, after the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, the Party of Death, had been laid. If he were a Democrat early he should have distanced himself from them, like so many other Catholics have done over the last three decades. Our Church needs leadership in this area, not blind loyalty to a political movement that no longer exists.
I'd like to be open minded - to wait and see about Wuerl - but I'm afraid that he is going to need to speak in a very clear voice next week to satisfy me. Seems that he has already given "Nancy" and the gang a free pass, in as much as he has stated that he will not do anything to discipline his wayward flock. Sort of makes one wonder what it would take?
In the end, I think it is more or less up to us, the rank and file laity, the faithfully flawed, the youth leaders and catechists to keep Nancy's emboldened Nuevo Garde of pro-abortion Catholics in check. Whether, with gentle persuasion or righteous anger. I feel certain any in this thread could identify the gifts the Lord has bestowed upon us.
As I will be in attendance next week when Wuerl speaks I will let you know what I think. If I am not satisfied I will find his subordinates and tweak them. I will do this with courtesy and respect, but I will aslo make them defend that which is indefensible.
It seems a little crazy to suggest, but if you happen to be at the March for Life in DC. Let me know how I might identify you in the off chance that we might meet. I will be chaperoning a group of 30 to 40 middle school students from St. Thomas More in Buckeystown (this is where I used to teach). We will be wearing gold scarves and I will be wearing a green (yes, green) Baltimore Orioles cap unless it is bitter cold, in which case I will doff a blue Diocese of Baltimore Pro-life knit cap.
I hope I see some FReepers there. It's going to be a great day!
Dear incredulous joe,
"I'm unsure how Wuerl could be otherwise Theologically conservative, while also being silent on the subject of abortion - one seems to run counter to the other."
He isn't silent on the issue of abortion.
He just feels no need to discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians.
Unlike you, I won't hesitate to say that the bishops should generally ban pro-abort Catholic politicians from the Blessed Sacrament. Folks, regular Catholics in the pew, are being led astray by the overwhelming number of bishops who do nothing.
I'll be at the March on Monday. Not sure what I'll be wearing at this point. I'll think of something by which you can identify me.
sitetest
I'll post an "FR" or FReep" someplace on my person, possibly in reflective tape.
Actually, being able to meet someone in the masses will be something else altogether.
Interesting analysis of Wuerl. I didn't realize he was that old, either, but it's true, he's not old enough to be the last of the New Deal Dem generation or anything that might let him off the hook.
I am involved in my (small but valiant) parish pro-life march here, so I won't be going to DC this year. Good luck to you and your 30-40 kids! I hope it's not super cold, but even if it is, that won't bother the kids. This is really a great thing for them to do.
Don't forget to report back to us!
In the early days of the annual march for life there were no bishops at all, and few priests. The organizers were lay people.
As I'm sure you know, a black woman was the earliest leader, and there were at least some non-Catholics involved, though relatively few. The priests and bishops started to get on board when it became evident that this thing was not going to go away. First a few pro-life priests, then a few pro-life bishops, then maybe a few embarrassed bishops who couldn't afford to get left out. That last is conjecture.
But he can't vote for the next pope after 70, right? Or is it 80?
Dear ichabod1,
Cardinals may vote in a papal conclave until they turn 80.
sitetest
The Church was involved, just not the clergy. There were a few courageous and committed ones, but many of the rest were either not particularly pro-life to begin with, or under a lot of pressure from non-pro-life peers. I think a few high-profile bishops did a lot to help, though; Cardinal O'Connor, for example, really energized people, even though the clergy in his own diocese were anything but cooperative. A few elderly priests who kept getting arrested for praying the Rosary outside abortion facilities - and other than that, silence and even flat out resistance to the message. Very strange.
Thank you for posting this and pinging me to it! Congratulations to you and your kids. It is an incredible experience. We had a little march here in St. Augustine (our first one; before we just had a rather quiet vigil) and we got about 300 people. That's pretty impressive for a small place like this. Most of the passersby, including our many tourists, were either positive or, if opposed, weren't too gross about it. No spitting, punching or shrieking, as happened on pro-life marches when I lived in NYC!
I bet the kids were thrilled and I am sure they will be coming back next year too. I think I will try to find a bus from Florida to come up with, as well. Or maybe Roe v Wade will be overturned by then? Miracles do happen - although I'm not sure there's a case on the horizon at the moment. But I sure hope Bush gets at least one more appointment, and that might make it possible.
The Church was definitely involved--at the lay level. Lay Catholics were there and active from the start. I know, as I was part of it.
Cardinal O'Connell was very supportive in the early days, and spoke at that rally I mentioned.
In the course of his speech he made this pledge: That the Archdiocese of New York would be willing to care for ANY unwanted child, would give shelter to the others, care for their babies, and see to their adoption.
Those were also the years when Cardinal O'Connell used to visit AIDS victims in New York Hospitals, and personally wash some of them, while the press accused Catholics of homophobia.
The press never reported his offer to care for unwanted mothers and their babies, but continued to accuse right-to-lifers of doing nothing to help unwanted children. Unlike Hillary "It's fer the chilluns" Clinton.
Dear Cicero--I believe you mean Cardinal O'Connor
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.