Resurrection of the wafer watch?
Archbishop Wuerl honors Communion stances of local bishops
Catholic News Service
Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl is following the lead of local prelates regarding the reception of Communion by Catholic elected representatives and government officials whose views may conflict with Church teaching.
The archbishop’s stance, first explained in a May 1, 2008, column in the Catholic Standard, garnered some attention as the U.S. Senate March 31 opened confirmation hearings on the nomination of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, as Department of Health and Human Services secretary.
http://www.cathstan.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=27&ArticleID=2412
Slightly related: John Thavis of Catholic News Service has this on the Vatican non-response to the brouhahaha at UND.
http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/the-vatican-and-notre-dame/ (ht: Tom Reese)
Here is Tom Reese’s take on the CNS article cited above: “What is not said but implied is that if Sebelius changes her residence, she will be able to go to Communion in Washington. Wuerl, along with McCarrick, was a leader in opposing the use of Communion as a weapon against Catholic politicians.”
There can be no doubt that the Church teaches obtaining an abortion, or participating in the performance of an abortion, is strictly forbidden for Catholics. Anyone who denied that would be in serious dissent. But does the Church position of what the law in a democracy ought to be regarding abortion carry anywhere near the same weight? Is a Catholic in serious dissent who would never have an abortion, never assist in the performance of abortion, and who professes to believe abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent life, but also believes criminalization is not the solution? How did support for legal abortion become such a serious sin that politicians who support it are considered subject to denial of communion under Canon 915? Is it an infallible teaching that supporting legal abortion is a sin when a Catholic believes that criminalization would make the problem worse, not better?
What if a Catholic politician supported criminalization of abortion but without enforcement until all other Catholic requirements (see my favorite paragraph from the Declaration on Procured Abortion below) are also in place? Could they be faulted?
If nothing else, it is a politically astute policy on the archbishop’s part, something that Washingtonians should readily appreciate.
Once again, I feel sorry for the poor Eucharistic Ministers. It’s hard enough to keep track of who is supposed to be refused communion within one’s own diocese. But this is way more complicated. Is there truth to the rumor that each EM in DC, upon approaching the altar, will be given a ciborium with the Blessed Sacrament, along with a clipboard holding a chart listing each communicant’s name, home diocese, ordinary’s name, and reception status?
Though JP seems to applaud the policy, he points to a genuine perplexity in “enforcement.”
The phrase “wafer watch” came to mind when thinking about this because it is not the Eucharistic Ministers who will be on full alert, but the media, Republic party operatives, and the jihadist Catholics busy pinning bishops, clergy, and many others to the ground.
“Though JP seems to applaud the policy”
Although I hadn’t intended by previous comment as an “attaboy”, I guess, after reflecting for a couple of seconds, that I do approve of it. I do think that, ultimately, it is the communicant’s responsibility to be aware of their “standing”, and to respect the sacrament accordingly. I don’t deny that bishops can take the step of publicly “banning” someone from communion, but I really hope that it would be extraordinary and rare.
Is anyone actually banned currently? I know that Sebelius has been requested, but not ordered, to refrain. Whether Biden has been banned by his bishop, I can’t keep track.
Almost all parishes have self appointed ‘orthodoxy police’.. so encouraging them with these new promulgations of canon law as A/B Burke does, is a pastoral nightmare in the making.. Will Eucharistic Ministers also start restricting , contracepting couples, divorced and re-marrieds, maybe AIG Catholics too. In San Francisco we had ‘ortho police’ filming the Archbishop giving communion to ‘sisters of perpetual indulgence’. Is our future to be cell phone pics galore..
Can the bishops be silent for just a bit… meditate before ‘teaching’?
Actually, open and undisguised public conflict at Communion time would be a bracing and astringent spectacle, one that would help to compel Catholics to come to terms with the sneering contempt with which liberal Catholic politicians regard Catholic teaching about abortion.
It would resemble the lancing of a boil, and lead to a lot of fishing and bait-cutting. Bring it.
Indulging the hubris of quoting myself, I did some reporting on this issue, especially as it has been portrayed as Wuerl agreeing to enforce the edicts of other ordinarieis (and yes, everyone would need a clipboard!) and it seems that won’t quite be the case. Nor should it, or could it:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/03/no-capitol-punishment-on-commu.html
David, you might want to check the Washington diocesan link posted above. It’s dated April 2. It’s a CNS story, but posted on the diocesan web page. Maybe you can come up with a different exegesis. Let us know.
It is true that all Baptized Catholics who are not in communion with the Catholic Church should not present themselves for Holy Communion. I would suggest that the Bishops should continue their instruction on this issue, while the Eucharistic Minister assumes that all who present themselves for Holy Communion are aware of this Truth and have seen the Light.
Actually, open and undisguised public conflict at Communion time would be a bracing and astringent spectacle . . . .
Bob,
I bet if Eucharistic ministers not merely denied these sinners communion but wrestled them to the ground and waterboarded them right in front of the congregation, within a few Sundays, all Catholics would be back in line.
Not having attended a school in the Jesuit tradition, I do not know to what “the wafer watch” is referring. Has this something to do with Holy Communion?
Or is it something on the level of baptism-schmaptism?
Actually, GA, it refers to the penchant of the media to follow politicians around to see whether or not they go to Communion, and if they do, whether or not the Eucharistic Minister offers Communion. Unfortunate about your education.
Bob Schwartz and the cardinal Newman Society have given us their game plan..a loser if there ever was one… fear not though
as quoted by Joan Walsh in Salon today
‘According to Tim Rutten, 73 percent of Notre Dame students — and 97 percent of its seniors — support the Obama invitation.’
Well .. 7% does does not a revolution make…
David Nickols raises good points. I am neither a canonist nor an ecclesiologist, but being a veteran editorial writer, I would say he raises rhetorical questions to underline the “painted-into-the-corners” position that his underlying argument implies. But he could fill us in.
My own observations are that some Catholics (probably not many) favor criminal penalties for medical personnel who participate in abortions (but they can speak for themselves), a smaller groups may favor criminal penalties for women who have abortions. My impression is that many pro-life Catholics and perhaps some politicians (Dems and Republs) favor some restrictions (on partial birth abortions, abortions after twenty-four weeks, more restrictions on reasons for abortion, and implementation of the original language of Roe: a decision to be made by a woman AND her doctor).
As the debate a few years back in one of the Dakotas suggested, people are very reluctant to criminalize and it is not entirely clear that those pro-life voters and legislators thought all abortion should be outlawed.
In the current atmosphere, it is very difficult for any politicians to hold a nuanced position on this–as with so many other policy issues.
Margaret: I think if someone was in favor of “…implementation of the original language of Roe: a decision to be made by a woman AND her doctor…”, I do not think they would self-identify as a “pro-life Catholic” at all, let alone “many”.
After awhile one may be at a loss for words. When the bishops opposed the Iraqi war (however weakly) Republican/Conservative Catholics ridiculed them no end. Noteworth because these were their political allies. It was amazing. Now it is getting to the point where Catholic bishops will become a real laughingstock. Not because they are relentless for the preferential option for the poor and downtrodden. But because they have lost their way and hang on to a political issue. Let me explain.
We cannot forget that this issue came out of political opportunity and necessity. It is like the issue of Communism which some Catholic advisors suggested to Joe McCarthy as a way to get elected. Sure enough McCarthy terrorized a lot of good people. The abortion strategy is conceived along the same lines. There was even a Catholic alliance with Falwell and Robertson, those bastions of Christian wealth.
Alas, reason has no force in this debate. But the overwhelming response of the ND students is significant. How many more Catholics have they lost with this one? Regardless of how one feels one way or the other, it is clear that the bishops are devolving more and more into irrelevence. But I guess I said that already.
“A woman AND her doctor”:
Of course, I don’t know how “many,” “few,” “some.” The shorthand here was to point to the impulse, I have (and I suspect a few, some, many, others) that that language locates the issue in a social context where something like a fuller consideration might be given to the decisions, than the slogan a “woman’s choice.”
That would also mean it is a “medical” decision, and not simply a “personal” decision. Of course, that is totally unacceptable to many pro-life people–but it is generally the policy in Western Europe where not only doctors, but social workers and psychologists may have some role in the decision-making. I think it is part of the reason that the Catholic Church in Europe has not been riven by this question as we have here.
The issue here in the U.S. is how do we reel back from Roe and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that made abortion-on-demand the national policy.
Bob S., I have often wondered whether your comments were meant in earnest, but now I think you’ve overplayed your hand. Still, you had me going for a while.
By all means, teach, teach, teach. I think we could all use a good reminder of the relationship between Reconciliation and the Eucharist. And clear, compassionate teaching about sin is as valuable as it is rare. But the burden has to be on the communicant. If it weren’t, why bother teaching at all?
As for ministers of the Eucharist, here’s what I think: Unless you know the person to whom you’re about to give Communion is literally going to desecrate it — put it in their pocket; spit it out on the floor; take it home, throw it in the trash, and post photos on a blog; whatever — you are under no obligation, and have no right, to refuse anyone the host or the cup. If you know the person isn’t Catholic or hasn’t yet made their First Communion, and you can delicately and discreetly offer them a blessing instead, fine. But if all you know is that, as far as you can tell, the state of their soul isn’t up to snuff? That’s not your call to make.
Bob S’s post makes me think of John Kavangh’s article in the new America stating that we Catholics are in danger of being known for how we hate instead of how we love.
On the reconciliation front (and worth a different threaead) in that same issue, is an article by Timothy Radcliffe on the shape of the Church in thef uture.
Radcliffe argues for moving away from the legalistic control morality to a virtue ethic . Worth a read also.
An awful lot of good people are being stigmatized by the communion police.
I would like to join their ranks. Can my offical request contained hereone be honored by the spies that undoubtedly lurk here and report back to whomover? Otherwise, do I have to write to my local (very) ordinary and request the honor of being blacklisted?
Sorry,a but I will NOT genuflect, genuflect, genuflect to our hierarchy any longer.
If you know the person isn’t Catholic or hasn’t yet made their First Communion, and you can delicately and discreetly offer them a blessing instead, fine. But if all you know is that, as far as you can tell, the state of their soul isn’t up to snuff? That’s not your call to make.
Good point. When someone presents themselves at the altar rail, how can any of those things be known with certainty? Thus, I’d go even further and suggest that the state of the communicant’s soul is simply not knowable at any instant of time to anyone but God.
David N. said: Is a Catholic in serious dissent who would never have an abortion, never assist in the performance of abortion, and who professes to believe abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent life, but also believes criminalization is not the solution? How did support for legal abortion become such a serious sin that politicians who support it are considered subject to denial of communion under Canon 915? Is it an infallible teaching that supporting legal abortion is a sin when a Catholic believes that criminalization would make the problem worse, not better?
Jean replies: I’ve been asking myself these questions for a long time. I was further interested in MyCatholicStandard’s characterization of Sebelius as a “supporter of legal abortion.” Couldn’t she more accurately be called an “opponent of criminalization for abortion,” given that she has signed informed consent laws and the like?
Re offering blessings instead of communion to non-Catholics, are EMs authorized to do this? I thought only deacons and priests could give such blessings.
Many good questions and comments as ususal. I prsent “A Modest Proposal” that will call for a simple dated stamp that is indelible for a week only on the forehead that must be renewed weekly at your local chancery office — after appropriate paperwork is filed , of course — that certifies you through the folowing Sunday to receive Communion. This will particularly assist Euchartistic ministers and others who may not have had time to study the weekly bulletins that will be issued with photos and other data of those who are specifically barred from Communion. In larger dioceses, even scanners can be installed before one enters the Communion line and sargeant-at-arms (Knights of the Whitened Sepulchres) can strong-arm those unworthy attempting to receive. All we need is negative creativity, boundless resources, and an Orwellian spirit.
A Modest Proposal indeed.
Peggy:
I agree with Gabriel Austin that “wafer watch” is on the same level as “baptism schmaptism.” To judge from the opening comment and from most of the contributions to this thread, it’s not about journalists but about some bishops, some Catholic politicians, and the reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Wafer watch” doesn’t quite catch that.
I think that David Nichol asked many relevant questions. That abortion is an evil is one proposition. That it should be prohibited by civil law is another. That it should be prohibited in all cases and under all situations is another. That it should be prohibited under the present circumstances of U.S. society and culture is still another. How a Catholic should judge and act with regard to these last questions, whether as a private citizen or as a public office-holder, are prudential judgments, and I do not myself think that judgments involved in this degree of contingency should be considered grounds for excluding people from Holy Communion. Most U.S. bishops would seem to agree.
I think the phrase was used in a headline during the 2004 presidential campaign in particular about John Kerry at Mass in Boston. But I am open to a better characterization of this phenomenon.
Gabriel,
Thanks for pointing out the inappropriateness of the post title.
One would hope for better from a blog with such high aspirations.
“Wafer wars”? Doesn’t seem much better. Communion wars seems to be the preferred option.
I suspect none will pass muster.
BTW, the “baptism schmaptism” quip–if it is that–came from the Vatican, God bless ‘em. Take it up with Rome, if anyone dare dissent!
PS: Self-righteousness from those who pretend to orthodoxy and at the same time foment these altar rail battles seems like a greater gap between aspirations and actions than anything I’ve seen on this blog.
“Thus, I’d go even further and suggest that the state of the communicant’s soul is simply not knowable at any instant of time to anyone but God.”
… and the communicant himself. If he is mature enough and not impaired in some way, he should know himself well enough to be able to make the right decision.
ON thread titles: “picky,picky.
In the meantime, I’d like to hear more about Canon Sarkoszy.
PPS: Speaking of Sarkoszy, and Mme. Sarkoszy, and Les Obamas, I think Notre Dame should invite Michelle instead. Say that’s what they intended all along. If she and the Royals of England could get along so well (even Prince Philip seemed charmed), I’m sure she’d do fine with the U.S. hierarchy.
Baptism-schmaptism came from the Vatican? Source? Or is this picky, picky?
The point is not to trivialize the issue by the way one poses it. I know editors do that often just to try to get people to read a piece in a newspaper or a magazine, but….
We’re talking about bishops eager to use the Eucharist as a political cudgel. As a phrase describing that phenomenon, I think “wafer watch” strikes exactly the right tone.
Gabriel Austin, I’m calling a moratorium on this “baptism-shmaptism” nonsense. You’ve registered your (year-old) complaint. Now knock it off.
Jean,
I thought anyone can bless someone, even officially, at Mass or service liturgies. I don’t have a citation for that, so I’ll leave it to others more versed in such things to set me straight.
I remember people in the Old Testament blessing God. And the offertory prayer starts off “Blessed be God….”
Who knows the answer?
Mollie,
Have any bishops framed their objections in political terms? If not, wouldn’t it be the better part of civility to assume that their objections are moral, rather than partisan?
“Have any bishops framed their objections in political terms?”
Name one Republican pro choice politician whom they condemned or refused communion? Start from there.
Political terms: “If you vote for X, who supports abortion, you jeopardize your Y, you can’t receive C, you are not a good RC.” I thought a bishop said that.
Blessings: There is a book published by Liturgical Training Publications LTP of Blessings, they are largely domestic. So too, Catholic Household Blessings & Prayers (USCCB, 1988). In the latter, we have “Blessing to Be Used in Various Circumstances.” Would that do?
I often see Eucharistic Ministers touch the head of a young child approaching Communion with a parent. Are words said? I don’t know. Anyone?
Mollie: You’re now in a position to tell others to “knock it off”?
I don’t think the issue is purely political, or purely moral, but is also theological, ecclesial.
Margaret,
I’m an EM. If the child is used to having a blessing, you can’t dismiss them. I smile, touch them on the head, and say, “God bless you.” But I don’t really think it’s part of the job of EM and I was trained to do this minimally, not make a sign of the cross or a big deal out of it.
It is, as I understand it, a privilege of parents and catechists to bless children routinely.
***
Also Margaret,
Perhaps I misunderstood Mollie. I thought she meant that the bishops’ motives were partisan.
Anyone can do or give a blessing. In temrs of valid/licit liturgical action, guess it depends upon the canon lawyor or liturgists.
From LTP – Guide for Extraordinary Ministers of Communion: “The practice of blessing non-communicants, childrren, babies has a complicated history in the 21st century. J. Thavis wrote a story on this in CNS; 8.26.05 – For those unable to receive communion, an increasingly common practice is to approach the EM with arms folded for a blessing. While that may reflect current ecumenical sensitivities, it has not been proposed by the Vatican liturgical officials; nor endorsed. One thought is that the communion line is not a place to give a blessing. Everyone is blessed at the end of the eucharistic celebration. A blessing in place of communion is “confusing” and seems to promote the idea that everyone in the assembly should come forward to receive something.
But, note that even Pope John Paul II sometimes gave blessings in place of communion to prominent non-Catholic leaders participating in a eucharist e.g. Lutheran bishops in Sweden in 1989, So, unauthorized, the practice continues to grow.
Also, many EMs in parishes are also designated to bring the eucharistic to homebound, sick, hospital patients. Usually, they are taught to do a blessing for all present that ends with a simple sign of the cross by all.
If you follow liturgical principles, it appears that the sensus fidelium is teaching and developing on its own (as it should be). Lex orandi; lex creendi.
Fr. Komonchak, for what it’s worth, I would be interested in thinking more about the ecclesial and theological aspects of this question.
In Spanish speaking countries, it was and perhaps still is very common for people to bless each other. This was especially a regular occurrence between mothers and their children. When I was growing up, my Mexican grandmother often blessed me. It wasn’t a simple sign of the cross. It was one those very long and involved signs of the cross Latinos prefer.
Parents can give the blessing to children from time immemorial. What a blessing to recieve our parents blessing!!
A good thread would be the priests as dispensors of the sacraments. They have gotten away witht this for so long. Thank God for Andrew Greeley who has exposed the clergy as thugs and the sacralization of
Christianity. You need to walk the walk not just perform. Thank you.
Is this a fair theological/ecclesial question: Having squandering their authority on politics, should SOME bishops look to theological or pastoral forms of addressing their flocks on these matters (for example parsing the questions that David Nickol and Joe Komanchak have raised)? And with no snidedness intended, I wonder how often they actually consult theologians on the theological or ecclesiological frameworks for their plans of action? For example, Joe K. have you ever been asked your advice on this matter by a bishop. You don’t need to name names. Of course, I recognize that once again, the majority of bishops do not follow the counsel of Bishop Naumann.
David Gibson: Do you conclude that Archbishop Wuerl has changed his policy? Is the April 2 post on the archdiocesan web-site correct?
Joe K.: Yes, Mollie is in a position to tell others to knock it off.
Grant has correctly pointed out to me that I have to modify that not all clergy are thugs. Greeley used the word “many’” rather than all. Here are his words.
“. I’ll never stop being Catholic, despite the fact that many of the current leaders of the institutional church are corrupt thugs, from the parish right up to the Vatican.”
At the same time we must reiterate that is is not enough that the cleryy stand on the fact that they are the “dispensors or the sacraments.” They have to prove themselves in thier lives.
Further, the people of God have a lot more say as far as the efficacy of the sacraments. That is a discussion that we need to have.
This medievalism seems to be a specialty of American bishops. I cannot recall hearing of French bishops refusing the Eucharist to politicians who support legalized abortion. Indeed, I suspect that French bishops would not favor the criminalization of abortion, as they are more in touch with their flocks, especially the female flock, than American bishops appear to be.
Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s admirably dynamic leader, is welcomed in the Lateran Basilica, omnis urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater, by the Supreme Pontiff in person, made an honorary Canon thereof, and given the venerable privilege of entering the Basilica on horseback, yet he is very much in favor of legalized abortion.
“I’ll never stop being Catholic, despite the fact that many of the current leaders of the institutional church are corrupt thugs, from the parish right up to the Vatican.”
This is more and more coming to seem true. I do not see how the Catholic Church can be reformed — and it is semper reformanda — unless these thugs are removed.
I recall that venerable old Roman expression: PROSCRIPTION.
“I wonder how often do they actually consult theologians”…..
Nicholas Lash recalls that the bishops of England and Wales consulted their theological committee three times in a long stretch of years. One issue was the age of confirmation.
I suspect that US bishops have even less need — or less perceived need — of theology.
Under John Paul II and Benedict XVI about 1000 Catholic theologians lost their job as Catholic theologians, for such monstrous heresies as favoring the ordination of women or “not knowing whether to laugh or to cry” when hearing bishops rant against condoms. This massacre of the Catholic intellect (and it is only the tip of an iceberg, for it discouraged countless others from even bothering with Catholic theology) is a key component in the deep tragedy of Catholicism today.
And it is not only theologians who encounter the paralyzing suspicion of the neo-inquisitors; their baleful gaze falls on ANYONE who works for the Church or shows the least creativity in thought, speech or action. Check this story: http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/wisconsin-parish-worker-fired-feminist-views
The saboteurs and thugs who have sunk the Catholic Church often wear red hats…
Peggy:
I haven’t been formally asked my position on the matter, but I’ve offered it in conversations with bishops a few times and met with agreement. This is one of the reasons why I am not inclined to generalize from a few bishops to “the bishops.”
That there are “thugs,” (even perhaps many of them) among the bishops, as among the presbyterate, as within religious orders, as also (gasp! say it ain’t so, Joe!) among the laity, who could doubt? There are some of them among those on the right and some among those on the left. But having made this not too difficult a judgment, where are we? And how have we advanced the question?
Joe K:
David Nickol, raised the following questions at the top: For starters, would answering them advance the question?
“There can be no doubt that the Church teaches obtaining an abortion, or participating in the performance of an abortion, is strictly forbidden for Catholics. Anyone who denied that would be in serious dissent.
(1) “But does the Church position of what the law in a democracy ought to be regarding abortion carry anywhere near the same weight?
(2) “Is a Catholic in serious dissent who would never have an abortion, never assist in the performance of abortion, and who professes to believe abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent life, but also believes criminalization is not the solution?
(3) “How did support for legal abortion become such a serious sin that politicians who support it are considered subject to denial of communion under Canon 915?
(4) “Is it an infallible teaching that supporting legal abortion is a sin when a Catholic believes that criminalization would make the problem worse, not better?”
Yes, Peggy, it would advance the matter considerably if those questions were addressed, and that’s why I wrote an earlier post that echoed David’s questions. I’ve gone into your post and added numbers for convenience of reference. And my answer to them all is: (1) No. (2) No. (3) I don’t know. (4) No.
Thank you. I guess no 3 is really a history/sociology question. Too bad SOME bishops haven’t asked you and your theological colleagues. We might be having a very different conversation.
I think question 2 is the most direct and helpful question above, but it seems heavily weighted by the word “criminalization.” It seems likely that a politician with a 100% NARAL rating must be doing more than not-criminalizing.
I also think that there are additional questions that must be asked of a more properly theological/ ecclesiological nature, having to do with the Second Vatican Council and the episcopal munera.
1) I think the issue here is not trivial, but how folks talk about it and other topics in common parlance often use simple phrases.
2)So what abou tpoor Sibelius? or Biden? I don’t think the question is suspetible to some litmus test of a NARAL rating or whatever, bu tshould the Bishops deny communion as a poltical wedge?
Is this a “teaching” monment or another divisive step as Joe O’leary 9I think correctly) points out?
(I dare say when the history of this is sritten down the road the overall persopective will show the American hierachy, egged on and joined by man yRight to Lifers, jumped into the GOP’s arms for what they saw as mutual aims.)
But politics makes strange bedfellows. We see the continued embrace of the likes of Deal Hudson.
And, on a broader vista, Sibelius is out Communion but Sarkoszy can ride on horseback (isn’t that neat?) into the basillica.
Long before Vatican 2, and probably long after, there will be intertwinings of Church leadership in political affairs.
(I note apiece on line yesterday from Bushwick on the interelationship of the Bishop of Brooklyn with “Brooklyn Democratic boss” Lopez and suggesting the Lopez bill,as opposed to Markey, might be tied to isues beyond SOL and possibly related to affordable housing development there.)
(I further see that the Bishop of Mdison met with Ms. Kolpack’s former parish to listen last night; but,NCR reports, he says he had to get rid of her because of being pushed by outside forces.)
So the there are thugs (I agree) on both left and right, but the thuggery on this question is coming from the right, covering itself with a kind of claim of pristine pureness in their desire to protect the unborn, but, as in Obama at Notre Dame overblowup continues , deeply involved and interwined in politics.
And, I might add, fueling the extremists who caused Fr.Kavanagh to write abou toutr Church being in danger of being known for how we hate.
Throughout history, hierarchy hae displyed the same feet of clay that you and I have, The interplay with politics is particularly fraught in this area.
So , as often happens, I’m in disagreement with Jim P. that the Washington Bishop’s actions were “astute., but rather a capitulation to the power of one side on the ecclesial leadership in this country.
Fr. Raymond Brown pointed out that throughout the Bible, God’s way of dealing with His people is remarkably consistent.
Here’s the pattern.
God bestows blessings on them and calls upon them to live as He directs.
They don’t do as He says.
He gets angry and exasperated and lets them get themselves into big trouble.
Then God, without waiting for them to shape up, repent, etc., blesses them again and asks agan for them to live as He directs.
This happens over and over again and continues to happen. The task of us, the members of His Church, is to help the world hear His message, n’est-pas?
It does seem that God is going to save these people in spite of themselves. Isn’t that what we ought to pray for? That god save us in spite of ourselves?
Is this what you hear people like Archbishop Burke saying? If so, I have hearing problems.
I think that God intends to work through the bishops of the Church in a special way that includes a prophetic charism. Prophets throughout the OT said, “You have broken your covenant with God! Since you have broken your covenant with God and will not repent…”
Bishops also have a governing charism and can discipline. Granted that it would usually be helpful to consult advisers, it doesn’t seem to me to be obligatory that they obey their advisers. In the end, the bishops are supposed to make the call regarding the disciplines they have the right to impose.
Joseph O’Leary: That was an illuminating article. Many people (I don’t know what percentage) are not even open to the possibility of changing liberal abortion policy because they are convinced that the desire to restrict abortion is just one part of an agenda that would devalue and hinder the role of women in society. Articles like this serve as handy reference tools and exclamation points for that view.
Barbara,
Certainly you are making quite a leap in your thinking here.
However, you are also underscoring a point which is well to acknowledge: the civil rights that are being considered by MANY pro-choice advocates are the civil rights of the woman, and particularly the right to equal oppotunity, which they feel is compromised by unwanted pregnancy.
Catching up to this thread a little late but I think Margaret’s title is just find …caught my attention which is what titles are supposed to do and I new immediately to what the Wafer Watch referred.
I will also add my voice to those who like Mollie believe that who ever is giving communion has no right to refuse to administer it, as we simply have no right to judge the soul of another. Mass is itself a act of contrition (read that years ago in a little magazine called Commonweal)
But the real reason I am posting is to bring your attention to the Notre-Dame-Obama editorial at the April issue of The Tablet… goes well with Travis:
Questions of principle
EDITORIAL
As President Barack Obama received the adulation of press and public in London, a very different treatment was being directed at him within the Catholic Church in the United States. He has been invited to America’s senior Catholic university, Notre Dame in Indiana, both to receive an honorary doctorate of law and to give the graduation-day address.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12895
What is it about America that issues like the reception of communion by politicians, and the invitation to speak at an American university can elicit so much passionate debate?
The abortion issue is at the point in America where it is doing more harm than good to the Catholic Church and the 17 bishops who have spoken against ND-Obama demonstrate they simply do not get it.
Fascinating exchange between Fr. K and Ms. Steinfels. Given this, only more questions come to mind:
a) it appears that A/B Weurl will follow the consensus of the USCCB vote that individual bishops determine the “communion status” of their own parishioners. So, in the case of Sibelius/Biden, it is left to the bishops of their home dioceses – it is not his role to play policeman; nor is it the role of an EM (seems to go way outside catholic moral theology, the right to free conscience, etc.)
b) if Fr. K’s answers to (1), (2), & (4) are NO, what about the role of other bishops and the USCCB when a small minority of bishops (including American bishops in Rome i.e. Stafford’s comments about voting for Democrats; Burke’s statements). Using American Political History terms, order is best preserved; rights and law are best defined in a system of checks and balances. I am biased toward the Vatican II interpretations of the Alberigo school, but numerous documents lay out a “checks and balances” system in defining the church (ecclesiology) – there are proper roles for bishops, pastors, theologians, universities, conferences of bishops, and the sensus fidelium.
c) on previous posts, many have spoken of a trend since 1978 toward a more “imperial papacy” and a more personalized papacy that seems to distort the ecclesiology laid out in Vatican II. And yet, we live with a system today that diminishes bishop conferences, limits the collegial vision of Vatican II and its stance on subsidiarity, diocesan priest councils, theologians (per recent CTA talks, many theologians are lay and support families. Stepping too far out or questionning bishops/Rome can lead to the end of your job/salary.
d) realice that you do not know the answer to (3) but when a minority of bishops publicly make statements, what is the role of the rest of the bishops? what is the role of the USCCB? Given Burke’s statements, Naumann’s statements, etc. are the majority of bishops in proximate or remote cooperation with these minority statements if they sit silently. Quote from earlier blog – Per Fr. Imbelli: “According to J. H. Newman, the Church exists solely to further the realization of Christ. Any lesser aim would be theologically deficient. “Realization” is the very life of true developments; it is peculiar to the church, and the justification of her definitions. Just as Christ is endowed by God with a threefold office of prophet, priest, and king, so, Newman holds, the church shares in this threefold reality. It is engaged, at one and the same time, in teaching, worship, and governance. It is inseparably a philosophy, a religion, and a polity. All three elements are essential to the being of the church; their creative interaction is necessary for her well-being; their inevitable tension can be life-enhancing; their individual imperialistic claims constitute her perennial temptation and agony.” Robert P. Imbelli, The Newman Legacy: Realizing Christ (article), Church, Spring 1991.
Are we seeing the inevitable tension and “individual imperialistic claims” which constitute today perennial temptation and agony – waver wars?
From a much earlier blog: Have been re-reading Richard McBrien’s book, Caesar’s Coin – Religion & Politics in America. It focuses on the 1984 presidential election cycle – the talks by Cuomo, meeting with O’Connor, the rejection of Ferrarro (not unlike Pelosi this fall). Some points that are connected to Sebelius:
a) USCCB had a voters guide that stated that the church would not support or sponsor any party or candidate. It did see its role as speaking to common good and public morality. It linked their recent documents on the economy and peace to abortion, etc. to establish a consistent ethic of life – it rejected the single issue approach. It called upon each catholic voter to follow their conscience and look at the totality of a candidate’s positions and experience;
b) Unfortunately, two high profile cardinals, O’Connor and Law, took it upon themselves to publically castigate various democratic candidates and to focus on a single issue, threaten loss of communion, etc. establishing a pattern that continues today; (at one point they were all but publically confronted by Bernandin for this behavior);
c) to your point (3), 2 cardinals + 23 bishops rejected a balanced approach; rejected the fact that one can hold a moral principle that all life is sacred and yet realize that public policy exists in the world of negotiation and a public consensus before making law.
d) simply – point 2, there is no catholic dogma that tells us how to politically implement a public moral principle. There is a distinction between a moral principle and political/legal strategies. It rejects single issue approaches.
e) Commonweal headline from October, 1984 – Diversity of Opinions regarding abortion exists among committed catholics. An example of this were statements from Fr. T. Hesburgh about a “remarkably well-kept secret” – a catholic minority is currently imposing its belief on a demonstratable majority. He called on catholics to join other citizens who may not favor an absolute prohibition on abortion – asked catholics to hold their higher principles but work for a consensus which limited abortion to cases or rape, incest, abuse, life threatening issues. He used Gallup poll %.
f) finally, Cuomo, Hesburgh and others stated that catholics and their leaders are the ones who failed in this issue; not caeser. Catholics continue to have abortions and it is as if we are asking for a criminal law so we can follow our moral principles.
It seems to me that we are currently asking folks such as Sebelius to reject her public policy role and enact laws outlawing all abortion – it is an all or nothing approach; black and white. If she does not in our estimation, then we will punish her by withholding communion?
Rather than the course of action outlined by Cuomo – moral principle is to defend life but work within the current political environment to reduce, limit, and set an example that proves to others that our moral principle is justified – you can’t use catholic dogma to do this.
It appears to me that things have only gotten more complex and more heated since 1984.
So, are the majority of bishops who remain silent in the face of the minority – are their stances proximate or distant cooperation in these statements? When a bishop of a diocese makes a decision that is inflammatory or diminishes pastoral good, what is the role of the priests? are they in proximate or distant cooperation by remaining silent?
There was an interesting Pew Forum event in 2004 in which Tom Reese SJ participated about denying communion to politicians who voted pro-choice – The Body Politic and the Body of Christ: Candidates, Communion and the Catholic Church. Here’s just a bit of what he said back then ….
“First, is this pastorally a good idea to deny communion to Catholic politicians who are pro-choice? The conflict between Catholic bishops and pro-choice Catholic politicians is not new. All we have to do is remember Cardinal O’Connor – his dispute with Governor Cuomo and Geraldine Ferraro. What is new is the decision of a handful of bishops – at least, so far, only a handful of bishops – to deny communion to Catholic pro-choice politicians. Most bishops do not support this position. In the June 21st issue of America, we published an article by Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, who was the first bishop to deny communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians, and as we mentioned, copies of that issue are available for you here. It’s also available on our Web page at http://www.americamagazine.org/. Also in that issue is an article by Father John Beal, a canon lawyer at the Catholic University of America, who argued the opposite position.
Both sides present complex and nuanced arguments, but I think Father Beal had the better case ….
(snip)
Second question – is this politically a good idea? Traditionally, Catholic bishops have talked about political issues but have not endorsed political parties or candidates. The political problem with the communion issue is that it looks like it’s an attack on Democrats, although people forget that there are pro-choice Catholic Republicans such as Governor Pataki and former Mayor Giuliani in New York and Governor Schwarzenegger in California. The real problem with this approach, though, is that it helps to brand abortion as a Catholic issue – as a matter of faith and doctrine and church practice and sacraments rather than as a human rights issue. In the long run, these few bishops are doing exactly what the pro-choice lobby wants – defining abortion as a religious issue. As long as abortion is branded as a religious issue, the pro-life movement will fail. Abortion is not a religious issue or a matter of sexual morality. It is a human rights issue – the right to life of the unborn child.
And what would be the impact of all of this on voting? My guess is that the impact is going to be zero …..”
Both above posts are clear and hopeful;
A failed 35 year effort is not a future plan to reduce abortions.
Kathy:
I wonder if you might add to your post above regarding the charism and prophetic office of the episcopate.
As I understand it ( and I could be in error) the church’s history and development of a theology of holy order does not have a pure and straight line of development as to the powers and responsibilities of office. For at least some of the church’s history, there were infact two acting magisteria: that of the episcopate and that of the theologian, each acting in concert with the other for the flourishing of the church. This reliance of one on the other could be seen as being re-established in the years preceding and at the Second Vatican Council only to be laid to waste in the aftermath of Humanae Vitae.
It is one thing for the bishops to give prophetic witness to the life issues but does it also lie within their charism to give political direction?
I don’t find many Catholics who would consider themselves “faithful” who think abortion is morally acceptable as practiced in the US today. But I do find many who are “squeamish” and have reservations about proposed remedies in the law contemplated by some of those same “prophetic” bishops.
I have no problem seeing the bishops as teachers of the faith but not necessarily the best of political advisors.
TK,
Some bishops …not the best of political advisors….I like that!
T K,
I’m not a strong historian either, so I can’t answer a question about the development of a theology of holy orders! Just some thoughts.
In the early Christian centuries, bishops and theologians were often found in one and the same person, such as Sts. Basil and the Gregories. However, St. Athanasius was, you might say, a peritus. People seemed to seek out for their bishops men who were able to theologize. I suppose local Churches were much smaller then–smaller than a suburban parish–and didn’t have a huge administrative structure. Bishops have to wear several full-time hats today, and under constant scrutiny. God bless them.
My question is whether the politicians in question are searching their consciences, or if they are searching for a way to keep the Catholic vote and Emily’s List and NARAL money at the same time.
“I’m not a strong historian either, so I can’t answer a question about the development of a theology of holy orders! Just some thoughts.”
The bishops you cite are clearly overrated. Athanasius had people tortured and killed who opposed him as a bishop. There were many who opposed him. The Basil’s were aristocrats who came up with some fancy theology as a solution to the christology questions. These bishops and theologians you refer to, routinely excommunicated each other. And most of them knew that salvation was in the emperor’s approval. But give Athanasius credit he successfully escaped by leaving town evertime the emperor came after him.
Your sympathy for the bishops is curious indeed. Almost like they die from lack of basic food and medicine. Which gives them the hubris to condemn and oust people who are the heart and soul of the parish. As Joseph referenced above:http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/wisconsin-parish-worker-fired-feminist-views
Certainly, the fathers of the church whom you referenced were not great respectors of women.
Kathy, it’s like apologetics is stuck in the 1950s. Catholics are primed with answers to questions like, “Are Catholics really Christians,” but dismiss or sneer at questions about the male centeredness of Catholic life and doctrine. The Christian institutions and nations that have the harshest official doctrines on abortion are those in which women have the fewest institutional prerogatives and the lowest status. Your failure to take seriously the relationship between church doctrine and the status of women is not going to persuade anybody to see things your way.
Barbara,
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the primary motivation of “some” bishops is the oppression of women. Is this correct?
Re the last comment: it’s not useful to set up a straw man to knock down.We’v ealready batted around on several occasions questions of sex, sexuality, gender and clericalism here.
Today’s Santa Fe paper brought an op-ed by Archbishop Sheehan, noting the passage of death pena;ty repeal and the failure to pass domestic partnership and funding for embryonic stem cell in our just cocluded legislative session. A strong note that the Church does not endorese parties or politicians -it preaches the traditional values it has held. No threats of denying communion , no name calling of politicians or harrumphing at indiviuduals in the press!
Ept strategy?
(On the other hand, the Archbishop had sent every regiistered parsihoner in the diocese a letter on FOCA and an exhortation to write every conceivable politician.)
Makes me think denying communion or grandstanding out loud is counterproductive.The FOCA effort shows the power of the one issue Right to Life poeple over Bishops who might otherwise work (effectively) behind the scenes with patient teaching.
It honestly has never crossed my mind that anyone would positively correlate the Church’s teaching on abortion with the perceived oppression of women. To me this is a brand new assertion.
Kathy,
I suppose the charitable thing to counter with is that you are having an aha moment. May I suggest. For openers.
1. Brush up on your church history.
2. Scrutinize the way the Fathers of the Church write about women.
3. Notice the history of the hierarchy’s obsession with sex.
4. Look as to how much of this may be from stoic society.
5. Consider how Jesus revolutionized the attitude toward women while his fourth century followers forgot.
6. Notice how much Paul utilized women in his ministry and how little the popes and bishops do.
7. Study the profound words that Barbara has written here on the subject.
8. Then tell me if you sympathize with Bishop Morlino.
Thanks for the syllabus, Bill.
No, I sincerely am glad to see that the issues are being honestly discussed.
It’s one thing for a pro-choice Catholic to say that they want to reduce abortions–the same end as the bishops–but differ about the means.
It’s quite a different thing for a pro-choice Catholic to say that they want abortion to be available to ensure equal opportunity for women, and that the bishops are working towards the end of oppressing women.
It’s nice to hear someone acknowledge that she identifies with this second perspective. I don’t believe,dialogue is possible without this kind of honesty.
I am catching up to this a bit late in the game, but I’d like to say, FWIW, that the faming of the topic by David Nickol in the first post and Joe Komonchack on April 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm are about as plain as the sense of the matter can get.
Also, FWIW, the generalizing of “the bishops” as all one way or another is problematic, because we are really talking about a signficiant minority of the 287 active bishops. That also makes problematic the notion of bishops as excerisicng a “prophetic” voice. If the office of bishop is a prophetic one, then whose prophecy wins? The minority who advocate one position loudly, or those who advocate another position in their silence, or softer tones?
The real problem, I think, is that this minority is significant because Rome is an echo chamber for these conservative views; they are operating in the power alleyes, they have the open channels. The good thing is that Rome (in my experience) tends to “domesticate” these harsher voices to some extent, though often not until they have done significant damage. Again, I think Pope Benedict’s example, and the Vatican’s views, as shown by John Thavis’ analysis, are the rule not the exception.
As far as Peggy;s query: “David Gibson: Do you conclude that Archbishop Wuerl has changed his policy? Is the April 2 post on the archdiocesan web-site correct?”
The post is correct, and is a publication of an earlier statement that my reporting was responding to. In short, the archbishop is saying, sure, we’ll respect any ordinary’s policies. But what does that mean? In the most celebrated case, that of Kathleen Sebelius, Archbp Naumann has no barred her from communion. He has asked that she refrain from recieivng. (And she has, it seems.) So Archbp Wuerl doesn’t have anything to enforce. Moreover, if she is living in Washington–or Arlington, or wherever–she is no longer subject to Naumann’s edicts anyway. It’s all a bit of a gamble, as DC officials admit, but a good bet. The vast majority of bishops are not going to put Wuerl in a vise, and he is in effect announcing his good will that they will not do so. And if they do, there are ways around it. He simply can’t be the communion cop for the rest of the hierarchy. It would be a political and canonical and ecclesiological mess. Perhaps some bozo will try to push him into that corner, and then the Rubicon will have been crossed. But it hasn’t happened yet, even though some on the right are trying to portray that as the case and to whip up others to put more pressure on Wuerl.
In any case, that’s what I hear. It makes sense to me.
PS: I see Tom Reese made much the same point in your addendum.
I am also coming in late. A couple of comments on the comments:
1. Do bishops consult theologians? Yes, they do. That doesn’t mean that all bishops do so frequently, and it doesn’t mean that all theologians are consulted. My impression, based on anecdotal stuff, is that most of the theologians who do get consulted wear Roman collars and/or pectoral crosses. I wouldn’t object if bishops cast a wider consultative net.
2. Re: the strident minority of bishops who support sacramental discipline of “pro-choice” politicians. These bishops are vocal and in the public eye, and so are the natural focus of criticism. Nevertheless, I have the distinct impression that the idea did not originate among bishops, who tend to be a rather cautious and conservative lot, but rather welled up from the laity. I would guess that most of us cannot sit down for Thanksgiving diner without being joined at the table by at least one person who has hit her limit with Catholic politicians who have worked against the church, literally with impunity, for many years.
Indeed the argument could be made that sacramental discipline is in response to the sensus fidelium. In its origin and its energy, it seems to me that it is primarily a lay movement. If that is so, does that fact change our consideration of it, even our respect for it?
Good points, Jim, to which I respond: Some bishops can seem pretty oblivious to the sensum fidelium (what’s the Latin ending here?), so that they respond to this one suggests they agree with the strategy and are willing to deploy it.
JP: “I would guess that most of us cannot sit down for Thanksgiving dinner without being joined at the table by at least one person who has hit her limit with Catholic politicians who have worked against the church, literally with impunity, for many years.”
Let’s trade dinner guests. There is always more than one at our table, who find the bishops’ statements appaling even when those guests are pro-life. Using the Eucharist as a weapon seems to them an abuse of episcopal power.
Today’s NCR has a fine piece on the lack of USCCB gewtting involved with the nuclear disarmament isue: only poor Gumbleton and Reilly, who worked on the pastoral so long ago it sems have said the bishops should be more engaged.
Strikes me again that the prophetic voice of much of the US hierachy is politically conditioned.
Mark Silk takes a bite out of New Orleans’ Archbishop Alfred Hughes–formerly of the bad old days of the Law era in Boston–for excoriating Notre Dame but (apparently) not saying anything about Gov. Bobby “The Great Catholic Hope” Jindal’s decision to reject federal stimulus funds to help poor and struggling people:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2009/04/moral_priorities.html
Kathy, your cartoonish “paraphrasing” of what I said is silly. But if the relationship between church doctrine and female socio-economic status has truly never occurred to you, well then, go to this link and search for comments mentioning “Catholic” to understand the perception.
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/your-comments-on-my-family-planning-column/
Here’s an example:
“Your report is of utmost interest. Yes it is quite complicated, I saw that 30 years ago when I volunteered in Mexico -City as an assistant midwife. Even for a Western woman, whose state of health does not allow the classical means of contraception . After I went through a guilty abortion, here was my way to get out of this endless nightmarish circle :
- I got rid of my Catholic faith
- I got rid of the husband who demanded unprotected sex
- I endeavoured to tell every young girl who enquired about my opinion on male-female relationship, that they too had the honor and dignity of “warriors” and were fully entitled to shout “p…..off!” (mind you).
- I viewed sterilization processes (vasectomy, ligature) as an intelligent mean of protecting the ALREADY-born children. And I advised it widely.”
Women in Catholic Thought
From the article Woman in the online 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia. How much, if anything, has changed? How could this view of women not influence religious thoughts and feelings on the topic of abortion? If women must be subordinate to men, must study in school only that which is appropriate to their gender, must have influence primarily by “the hand that rocks the cradle,” and must be a helpmeet whose role is in the home, how how dare she even attempt to control her fertility, let alone abort a baby?
Barbara,
I am not trying to mock you, however clumsy my paraphrases are.
I would like to talk about ecclesial misogyny, which I think is a serious matter, and also about the interesting connection you are making. However, in the comments you mentioned there are hysterical tendencies on all sides, including calls for forced castrations and vasectomies, and including the quotation you included in your comment. I don’t think this is a positive model of discourse, do you?
For my part, this is what is more urgent about your comment, as it relates to the theological and ecclesiological question of public discipline:
a. If a politician wants to reduce abortions, and works to reduce abortions, then there can be some probably erroneous but still sincere claim to the principle of double effect. Something like, “I realize that I have a 100% NARAL rating but this voting record is necessary in order to ensure my seat in the House, which is a necessary position for me to exercise authority to ensure the common good.”
b. If a politician believes that the option of having an abortion is a positive good in the lives of women, and votes 100% pro-choice for that reason, the principle of double effect is no longer applicable, because the action (the vote) is too directly cooperative with the evil act (the abortion).
How sad that the woman, after she “went through a guilty abortion,” chose to get “rid of [her] Catholic faith” as one means to assuage the guilt. Perhaps she would have reacted differently if she had considered Dorothy Day’s words about the guilt she felt after obtaining an abortion, before becoming a Catholic, at the insistence of the man who impregnated her, and who then abandoned her anyway:
“I always had a great regret for my abortion. In fact, I tried to cover it up and to destroy as many copies of The Eleventh Virgin as I could find. But my priest chided me and said, ‘You can’t have much faith in God if you’re taking the life given to you and using it that way. God is the one who forgives us if we ask, and it sounds like you don’t even want forgiveness — just to get rid of the books.’ I never forgot what the priest pointed out — the vanity or pride at work in my heart. Since that time I wasn’t as worried as I had been. If you believe in the mission of Jesus Christ, then you’re bound to try to let go of your past, in the sense that you are entitled to His forgiveness. To keep regretting what was, is to deny God’s grace.”
Thanks to all. The post is closed.