Posted on 09/24/2009 2:24:26 PM PDT by NYer
Edited on 09/24/2009 7:57:03 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
[snip getty image]
The tug-of-war over Ted Kennedy's soul seems to be eternal.
In a speech last Friday night to a gathering of Catholic conservatives at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, an outspoken American archbishop now heading the Vatican version of the church's Supreme Court said that politicians who support gay marriage or abortion rights cannot receive sacraments without publicly repenting their ways:
"It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner," said Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, whom the pope transferred to Rome in 2008 after Burke's often-stormy tenure as archbishop of St. Louis.
"Neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to such politicians," Burke said. "To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects."
The remarks come from an account of the 50-minute speech by Deal Hudson, director of InsideCatholic.com, a conservative Web site that hosted the Sept. 18 annual gala for some 200 supporters. (Among them: American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks, the National Review's Kate O'Bierne, and Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.) Hudson was an adviser to the Bush White House on Catholic issues.
Burke's blast is not exactly a surprise, given his track record of sharp criticism of pro-choice Catholic politicians -- he has said they should be barred from taking Communion and has encouraged ministers who distribute the Eucharist to withhold it on their own initiative. Burke has not been shy about exhorting fellow bishops he sees as too lenient, either, as he did in this March interview with Operation Rescue's Randall Terry. (Burke later regretted that Terry had aired the videotape.) And he is a favorite speaker of Beltway conservatives, having given the keynote at last May's National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.
But for Burke, now a prominent official in the Vatican's judicial system, to -- in effect -- openly oppose the judgment of Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley (and most other bishops) regarding sacraments for Kennedy and other Catholic pols, and to, in effect, give aid and comfort to a Catholic right that has stepped up criticism of the hierarchy to fierce levels, is remarkable. Burke did not just say that politicians like Kennedy should not be provided a private funeral; he advocates denying them a funeral Mass at all.
Cardinal O'Malley earlier this month rejected that course of action "in the strongest terms," as he wrote in a blog post that was an unusually blunt response to critics of his decision to allow Kennedy a funeral Mass and to preside at it:
In his well-received speech last Friday -- the standing ovation lasted seven minutes -- Burke rejected such an approach."We will stop the practice of abortion by changing the law, and we will be successful in changing the law if we change people's hearts. We will not change hearts by turning away from people in their time of need and when they are experiencing grief and loss," O'Malley wrote.
"At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another. These attitudes and practices do irreparable damage to the communion of the Church."
Canon XV: ON account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.
To my knowledge, you are correct to say that the Latin Church has not rejected these canons. In most cases, in practice, this is how it works as well: bishops stay in their sees, priests and deacons stay in their dioceses, and when one might happen to travel, they bring or send ahead documentation for approval by the local bishop.
Even so, how does this work in an era of mass media? When Bishop Sheen spoke, he spoke to the entire nation in the name of the Church. When Fr. Richard McBrien is brought on the national news shows by the liberal media to spout his heretical opinions about whatever the liberal cause du jour happens to be, he is perceived (at least by poorly catechized Catholics and the ignorant among non-Catholics) to speak for the Church. When a bishop in one part of the country attempts to discipline a politician in his own diocese, or alternately publicly refuses to do so, he teaches (even if only accidentally) and is perceived to speak for the Church. Archbishop Wuerl had a television show when he was Bishop of Pittsburgh; it reached no less than four other dioceses, possibly more. And then there are networks like EWTN. If Burke cannot teach, can none of these either?
How does such a Canon stand in light of bishops who by necessity have a public face? How is a bishop to try to teach when his flock can see that other bishops are teaching something different?
Why, if he had repented? And we can’t know that can we?
Even if Kennedy repented (and I do believe that he did), the Cardinals did nothing to bring that to the forefront. They had a captive audience... the media, the President, the entire nation. What a witness to tell, of someone who publicly spurned the Church's teachings much of his adult life, and came to God in the end. Yet there was nothing of the sort. Alternately, they could have chosen to distance themselves from the entire thing, and let the local priest preside.
And again, the problem with the President speaking was not because people might think him a theologian. It was because of his positions on abortion and other issues (the idea that somehow supporting abortion is alright if your goal is to reduce the number of abortions), and because eulogies aren't supposed to take place AT the funeral. 0bama could have given his eulogy any number of other times or places other than at Holy Mass.
...Men like Burke and the heresiarch Martino are.There’s your scandal, seminarian.
Morbid curiosity spurs me to ask this even though I know that I ought not: Why such strong words for Martino? I agree that his approach might not have been the best... but what is his heresy?
“Even so, how does this work in an era of mass media?”
What do you think? Did the Holy Spirit inspire the God bearing Fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council one way and now, in America, the Holy Spirit is “doing a new thing”, as the heretics of The Episcopal “Church” have assured us?
“How is a bishop to try to teach when his flock can see that other bishops are teaching something different?”
If the Latin Church had a functioning national or even regional (or Patriarchial) synod, the problem would be dealt with within the synod as the canons prescribe.
“...the Cardinals did nothing to bring that to the forefront.”
And violate the seal of the confessional? Is that what they are teaching in the Latin Church’s seminaries these days?
“And again, the problem with the President speaking was not because people might think him a theologian.”
I suppose rank has its privileges, even in the Latin Church. His positions on abortion are of no account in the context of Kennedy’s funeral. The rule against eulogies (I didn’t know you had such a rule; I’ve seen a number at Latin funerals over the years. I gave two, but we have the same rule)is what is important here, but again, rank has its privileges. His eulogy was not about eugenics or abortion if I recall correctly.
“0bama could have given his eulogy any number of other times or places other than at Holy Mass.”
You are of course correct.
“what is his heresy?”
The heresiarch Martino taught that the highest, most important dogma of The Church was anti-abortionism, a clear heresy. His idiotic remarks gave rise to the term “Martinoism” to describe his heresy, a term used at various seminaries, Latin and otherwise, concerned about the infection of The Church by worldly politics and the actions of bishops more concerned with secular politics than the canons or theosis.
I'm stretching, because I'm frustrated... the point that I'm trying to make is that the situation could have been handled in a better manner than it was, and in a way that would not have scandalized a great number of pro-life Catholics nor would have brought criticism from outside of the Church.
Anything that would violate the seal of the confessional is obviously not acceptable - to say anything of the sort was a mistake on my part. No need to attribute it to the seminaries.
"Martinoism"
Thank you. This term has made the entire previous discussion make sense. I don't know which two (as you mentioned on another thread) seminaries are the ones where this term has come up, but it seems to have completely escaped the scope of the web, save for you on FR.
We're not going to come to any accord here - I can see that after having read the "Catholic Democrat is an oxymoron" thread. You've been thinking at this for some time, and were taken to task both by Catholics and fellow Orthodox on it in a manner and with arguments far more thorough and informed than anything I can come up with.
Perhaps I would try to discuss further on the matter, but I'll be gone for the next week.
I apologize for anything that might have been perceived as a waste of your time.
“I’m stretching, because I’m frustrated...”
But seminarian, you don’t get that luxury, even less so when you become a priest and if God wills, a hierarch. Stretching is what got the Latin Church so deep into worldly politics both left and right.
“I don’t know which two (as you mentioned on another thread) seminaries are the ones where this term has come up, but it seems to have completely escaped the scope of the web, save for you on FR.”
It didn’t need to make it across the web, did it? Martino was sacked. He’s finished.
“I apologize for anything that might have been perceived as a waste of your time.”
If I thought you were wasting my time, I’d have told you.
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.