Posted on 11/22/2015 8:56:53 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
The crazies on the Catholic right have set their sights on Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington. Why? Because he is close to Pope Francis, and they hate the pope. The attacks are coming from The Church Militant, a loose gang of angry right-wingers who specialize in character assassination, and American Spectator hater George Neumayr.
Three recent hit pieces by Church Militant author Christine Niles set the agenda. She says “today’s archbishop of Washington owns a penthouse in a complex valued at $43 million.†That is a lie. He owns not a centimeter of his third-floor “penthouse,†an apartment that sits atop Our Lady Queen of the Americas parish. Like bishops all over the world, he resides in a spot that was specifically designed for the local Ordinary. There is nothing scandalous about this Church patrimony. Church Militant head Michael Voris says his unidentified sources claim that when Wuerl was the Bishop of Pittsburgh his gay-friendly approach earned him the nickname “Donna the Girl.†I taught at a Pittsburgh Catholic college during Wuerl’s years and never once did I hear anyone tag him as such. Voris also says that Wuerl stole a “Catechism work composed by Fr. John Hardon by simply putting his name to it.†That’s another lie. I guess Wuerl was channeling Hardon when he gave his TV series of lectures on the subject.
Neumayr is so far gone that he accuses Wuerl of being a Communist because someone spotted a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book in his office in the 1970s. That would make me Chairman of the Politburo: I have a copy of Das Kapital in my office right now.
These crazies are mad at Wuerl because he doesn’t believe in using the Eucharist as a weapon to smack liberal Catholic politicians. Wuerl has said that the refusal of Holy Communion “should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences.†Exactly. Wuerl is a great gift to the Catholic Church. These critics are as ignorant as they are malicious.
Dear Mr. Donohue:
You have publicly stumbled (I hope it was an unwitting stumble) into endorsing, quite explicitly, a mortal sin.
The mortal sin in question is: giving Communion to a person who is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin. It is a grave sin of scandal because whenever a minister of Communion gives such a person Communion, he: 1) publicly collaborates, with knowledge, in the commission of a sacrilege; 2) gives public approval to the communicant's notorious grave sin.
You are, of course, aware that these are the precise reasons the Church has always required Denial of Communion to persons living publicly in a state of adultery.
The principle involved applies equally without any regard to the SPECIES of the sin that the would-be communicant is involved in.
Your blunder is in thinking that the moral principle demanding Denial of Communion has some specific connection with the Sacrament of Matrimony. I.e., the divorced-and-remarried.
This is a bit of nonsense that the majority of American bishops have promoted, by approving the document "Catholics in Political Life," in which it is said that a bishop may "legitimately" give Communion to pro-abortion politicians. I.e., the bishops said (and say) that the moral principles that MANDATE Denial of Communion to the divorced-and-remarried do not mandate Denial of Communion to public promoters of abortion.
Cardinal Wuerl's many statements on this subject have been nothing but a concatenation of lies. (In the case of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, one cannot attribute them to ignorance.)
A partial list:
He has persistently outlined the demands of Canon 916, and pretended he is talking about Canon 915. I.e., he has persistently pretended that ONLY the would-be Communicant has anything to say about whether he will receive Communion. (Of course, the Cardinal is secure in the knowledge that Joe Lunchpail and Sally Housecoat are not familiar with the texts of Canons 915 and 916.)
++++++++++++
He has persistently claimed that Denial of Communion is unjust unless the minister of Communion knows the "state of the soul" of the would-be communicant.
Since this is metaphysically impossible...well, you can finish this sentence.
++++++++++++
Cardinal Wuerl has declared that he will never deny Communion to anyone other than an excommunicate. (And even then...only after lots and lots of "dialogue.")
Cardinal Wuerl has never offered a scintilla of explanation as to why Canon 915 MAY be obeyed in the case of excommunicates, but MUST NOT be obeyed in the case of persons who are "obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin."
++++++++++++
Cardinal Wuerl claimed several years ago that, before he would consider obeying Canon 915, it was necessary to find out whether the canon was written for the precise purpose of "bringing politicians to heel."
The Cardinal had to know that NO canon was written for that precise purpose, ergo...you can finish this sentence, also.
++++++++++++
He persistently calls Denial of Communion a "penalty."
It is not a penalty. Canon 915 is not a penal canon. It does not offer Denial of Communion as a penalty that a bishop MAY apply. It MANDATES Denial of Communion for the simplest of all possible reasons: Giving Communion to excommunicates and those obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is always a mortal sin.
The reason for falsely calling Denial of Communion a "penalty" is to support the false claim that it is something that a bishop MAY "impose," but Cardinal Wuerl chooses not to "impose," for assorted "pastoral" reasons, such as "leading" pro-abortion politicians into closer union with Christ and the Church. When asked not long ago in an interview to name a pro-abortion politician who had become pro-life as a result of receiving Communion sacrilegiously in tandem with "dialogue" with Cardinal Wuerl, he could not name one. (It has been more than 43 years since the platform of "the natural home of Catholics" endorsed abortion, and nearly 43 years since Roe v. Wade.)
++++++++++++
You have parroted Cardinal Wuerl's caricature of Denial of Communion as "using the Eucharist as a weapon" with which to "smack" pro-abortion politicians.
Well, then, you therefore accuse Pope St. John Paul II of "using the Eucharist as a weapon," with which to "smack" the divorced-and-remarried--in a Magisterial document! (Familiaris Consortio.)
I hope I need hardly elaborate on the grave scandal that is given, and the strict, grave obligation to correct it, when the President of the Catholic League has publicly, in writing, endorsed the commission of mortal sin.
Sincerely,
(let me be the first)
Ah yes...the red whirly-bird.
[[The attacks are coming from The Church Militant, a loose gang of angry right-wingers who specialize in character assassination,]]
Hmmm- This one sentence kinda looks like a sentence full of character assassination to me- “Loose gang” “Right-Wingers” (obviously used in a pejorative manner) “Specialize in”
didn’t bother reading past the obvious attack on those durn ‘right wingers’
Backatcha Rock.
And the point would be….?
Always seemed nice enough but he a Vatican politician type and an effective administrator. I thought he was a conservative though.
Wuerl was a total failure in Seattle. He was rewarded by being appointed to Pittsburgh. While there, he allowed “Dignity Masses,” and when Cardinal Ratzinger mandated that Masses celebrated specifically for homosexuals were to cease, Wuerl dragged his feet for NINE YEARS. And when he finally obeyed, it was with tearful apologies to the homosexuals of Pittsburgh.
Billy Donahue sold his soul eons ago. I never listen to him anymore. He endorses and promotes evil. He is one of the “reasons” we have “gay” LOL “marriage”.
I will listen to the “right wing”——ha ha——”Catholic Militant” and Niles ANYDAY, because they alway state the truth and it is well-researched, based on the Catholic Canon, which Donahue tends to wrinkly up and throw away.
For some reason Wuerl’s nickname when he was archbishop in Pittsburgh was Donna. I think we all know what that connotates. He also closed so many Catholic parishes and schools in the Diocese of Pittsburgh that he’s now despised by thousands of Catholics he used to shepard. Bill Donohue knows Wuerl and Dolan will give communion to anyone and their brother. He also knows the way they cozy up to the LGBT community. But he drinks with them and likes them, so he denigrates anyone that badmouths them. I’ve also heard Donohue describe himself as a “conservative” Catholic. Is that any different than a “right-wing” Catholic?
Donohue described Pope Francis as “the ultimate maverick” on The Alan Colmes Show, saying “the left is going to like the fact that he has more of a socialist model in terms of his vision of the structure of the economy. He’s anti-market in the encyclical.”
On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live on a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue contended that the decades-old problem consisted mostly of offenses involving postpubescent boys aged 12 or more, which offenses therefore, according to Donohue, should be considered the acts of homosexual priests, rather than the actions of pedophiles.
Q: Because of your regular national TV appearances, even critics have called you media-saavy, and a 2000 editorial in America once lauded your bi-partisan willingness to break ranks with Republicans and others who agree with you on most issues. What’s the secret to your success in the secular media?
A. The media like me because I am quick, pithy, and unafraid of criticism. They like my passion, and ability to deliver with clarity. That is what I have been told by friend and foe alike in the media.
Politically, I started as a Democrat, got fed up with them, joined the Republicans, got fed up with them, and have been happily independent for more than two decades. I have a problem with Catholic Democrats who have lost their moorings on the life issues. I have a problem with Catholic Republicans who are more Republican than Catholic, and Washington is loaded with these people. Many of them no longer trust me because I have attacked Republican politicians and have a reputation of not being a player. The reputation is accurate. Thank God we are headquartered in New York, and not in Washington where the operatives want to own you.
I don't know who the good guys are anymore...
The Republican party holds NO positions that are contrary to the teaching of THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. They hold many positions contrary to the LEFT-WING positions of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The USCCB takes approximately 100 positions on public policy issues. out of those 100, FOUR are positions that all Catholics are obliged to agree with: opposition to the legality of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia, and same-sex “marriage.”
The bishops IGNORE many elements of Catholic teaching: the principle of subsidiarity, the right of people not to be murdered by illegal aliens, the right not to be killed or paralyzed by exotic diseases carried by illegal aliens, etc.
The bishops OPPOSE many elements of Catholic teaching: the right of self-defense (ergo, the right to keep and bear arms), the right not to be taxed exorbitantly, the right not to have one’s tax money spent on Marxist subversion, etc.
If “Catholics” like Pelosi, et al. are allowed to receive Communion, so should non-Catholics who attend Mass.
If Nancy Pelosi is allowed to receive Communion, there is NO ONE ON EARTH who should be denied Communion, including my cat.
It is no coincidence that Wuerl is a leading spokesman for Communion for lesbians, gays, and adulterers.
Wuerl expelled Fr. Marcel Guarnizo from the Archdiocese of Washington for refusing Communion to an “out” and loud lesbian. Guarnizo was invited to the chancery for a “discussion,” and was handed a SEALED ENVELOPE containing a decree of suspension and expulsion.
Google and Bing for “a twirl with Wuerl.”
I just love it when catholics accuse someone else of being a sinner. The ultimate irony.
Amen.......the Republican Party is the ONLY party of LIFE and the Democrat Party is the Party of DEATH....DEATH of INNOCENT CHILDREN!
wuerl was NOT doing what he should have been doing.
What the HELL is that supposed to mean?? What religion are you? Bet you don’t answer.
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.