www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall any thoughts?

No plans to discipline Pelosi, says Washington Archbishop

WASHINGTON DC, January 16 (CNA) - Archbishop Donald Wuerl says he has no plans to prevent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from receiving Communion despite her overt support for abortion, embryonic same-sex research, and same-sex marriage.

The Archbishop of Washington, D.C., was criticized recently for failing to speak out against Pelosi�s attendance at a Mass on Jan. 3 at her alma mater, Trinity University.

While in San Diego on Jan. 13-14, the archbishop told the California Catholic Daily that Pelosi�s attendance at the Mass at Trinity �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,� he told the online newspaper.

When asked if he would advise ordained ministers to deny Pelosi Communion, the archbishop responded: �You�re talking about a whole different style of pastoral ministry. No.�

Pelosi has been criticized in some Catholic circles for publicizing her attendance at the Trinity University Mass and at St. Leo the Great Church in Baltimore.

Prior to the Mass at Trinity, American Life League president Judie Brown reportedly implored Archbishop Wuerl to intervene in the matter.

�Rep. Pelosi has a tremendous opportunity to make a difference for all human beings as the most powerful Catholic in Congress,� said Brown. �Unfortunately, she continually supports the very act that destroys life rather than protects it. It is for this very reason that a Catholic institution should not condone or support her position as a legislator.�

When Pelosi was sworn in as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, praised Pelosi for championing �pro-choice values� for her nearly 20 years in public office

Does anyone know if Ms. Pelosi promotes funding for abortion? While I am 100% pro-life and think the pro-choice position on abortion is wrong, I do understand how some persons can hold that position. To be pro-choice is not necessarily to be pro-abortion in intent, (even if consequently, it is to be pro-abortion), so I can see how a Bishop might refrain from making blanket, public judgments regarding politicians and communion. Now, Catholics should know better, but I would guess that a Bishop might want to consult personally with a person before making a judgment (in order to find out why the person is pro-choice and to try to persuade the person to change his or her position).

Of course, a more cynical way of looking at it would be to see the Bishops as not wanting to lose their tax exempt status for the Church and not wanting to lose their dinner invitations to fancy, Washington parties. I am not saying that I look at it this way. Since I don't know Bishop Wuerl, or many Bishops for that matter, I have no idea what he is thinking and is not my place judge (especially to judge a Bishop). God bless.

Joe

Archbishop Wuerl's stance can be understood better if it is taken together with Rome's latest statement on the matter of Catholic participation in the plitical life of a nation and the corresponding statement of the USCCB:

(1) Doctrinal Note issued by The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (November 2002):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia//...con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

(2) USCCB Statement (September 2003):

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html#8

On the left of the USCCB Statement, different subjects/areas can be accessed, each showing how the USCCB is implementing the matter pastorally in the United States.

One wonders what it takes to be disciplined (or excommunicated) as a Catholic in power...

I would welcome Gregory VII to take charge on this matter.

As far as offences against life are concerned, any Catholic in power, elected or appointed, is automatically excommunicated if he/she actually procures abortion. (Cf. Canons 1311, et seq., Canons 1397 and 1398, 1983 Latin Code of Canons.)

(On the other hand, the penalty for the commission of murder or the infliction of serious physical injury to another depends on the attendant circumstances or on the gravity of the offence.)

As part of one's legislative agenda, being pro choice, as a Catholic legislator like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could be a sin but that political stance does not incur latae sententiae or automatic excommunication.

Thus, the pastoral sensitivity being exercised by Catholic bishops over Catholic politicians.

What is the penalty for one who assists in an abortion or performs an abortion?

I know that priests may absolve an excommunication for procuring an abortion in the US. Does this also extend to those assisting or performing them?

It might not be a complete analogy but both "assistance" and "performance" are graver than procurement.

Translating the 3 acts punishable under canon laws into acts penalized under criminal laws of secular states, "procurement" would be considered an accessory act, "assistance" the act of an accomplice, and "performance" would be an act of a principal.

Thus, those assisting in, or performing, the abortion should incur graver penalties, the minimum of which is automatic excommunication.

As an addional reference, one should read the "stunning" conversion of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the foremost and famous N.Y. abortion provider and founder of NARAL.

He is now Catholic (since 1996), having been raised Jewish, and a famous, and very credible, spokesman for the pro-life movement.

His noted works:

"Aborting America," 1979;
"The Silent Scream," 1984 (Documentary);
"Eclipse of Reason," 1987 (Documentary); and
"The Hand of God," 1996.

Is he excommunicated for his past actions?

http://www.euthanasia.com/moldova.html

Chisinau, Moldova -- The Moldovan Orthodox Church announced on Tuesday it would excommunicate any parliamentary deputy who voted in favor of a law legalizing abortion.

The parliament voted earlier this month in favor of a first draft of a law on abortion and birth control, and a second favorable vote would advance the proposal toward legalization.

As a republic of the Soviet Union until the early 1990s, Moldova promoted taxpayer-funded abortion as a primary means of birth control, but the resurgent Christian faith embodied in the Orthodox Church, to which most Moldovan Christians belong, strongly opposes abortion legalization.

"We will demand from the clergy not to give communion to those supporting abortions until they have changed their attitude to this crime," Moldovan Metropolitan Vladimir said in an open letter to parliament. "Would you or your children like to be victim of an abortion?" he said. "Would we have parliamentarians then?"

Alexandr

http://www.victorclaveau.com/htm_html/Anti-Catholicism/democrats_to_bishops.htm


Democrats to bishops: Shut up already!


5/23/2004 7:35:00 PM by Benjamin Shapiro - WorldNetDaily.com



Democrats aren't satisfied with building a stone wall between church and state. They now want a moat between church and politicians. That's the message being pushed by 48 Catholic congressmen who have warned Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., in a letter that anti-Catholic bigotry will revitalize if bishops refuse Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.



"For many years, Catholics were denied public office by voters who feared that they would take direction from the pope. While that type of paranoid anti-Catholicism seems to be a thing of the past, attempts by church leaders today to influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament will revive latent anti-Catholic prejudice, which so many of us have worked so hard to overcome," the letter reads. So now, politicians want immunization from the consequences of their anti-religious actions. They want protection from religious retaliation. What a bunch of wimps.



This situation is very simple: Politicians must make a choice. If they seek respect from their religion, they must follow that religion. If the voters dislike the politician because of his/her religious adherence, the politician will get the boot. If the politician wants to avoid electoral defeat, he/she has the choice to dismiss religious convictions. But there is no question that the Catholic Church should play a role in defining the actions of its members.



I'm an Orthodox Jew, so I have no ax to grind when it comes to Catholic theology. But religion in general has a major role to play in today's political society. The purpose of religion is to set a standard for values and actions undertaken by that religion's adherents. If a religion ceases to punish breaches of its moral system, that religion loses all credibility.



Take Judaism, for example. Let's say Sen. Joe Lieberman decides to endorse abortion on demand. Now, Joe decides that he doesn't want his rabbi condemning him for contravening Jewish law. "Hey, rabbi," he says. "Let's just forget about my little abortion problem. I don't want to get excommunicated. And if you excommunicate me, and I revise my abortion ideas, all those Jew haters will say: 'Look at those Jews in Congress. They don't care about America, just about their rabbi.'"



Here's what a good rabbi would say: "Sorry, Joe. You favor easy-access abortion? Don't expect to get an invitation for Sabbath."



And here's what a bad rabbi (or a fake rabbi) would say: "Joe, you're right. God just wants you to do what your heart tells you. I don't have any responsibility in this matter. Plus, those Jew haters might not hate us so much if we stop acting Jewish."



When the bad rabbi gives Lieberman permission to endorse abortion, he's doing a disservice to Lieberman and to Judaism. Spiritually, Lieberman has to make the difficult choice between re-election and religion, if that is indeed the choice.



These Catholic Democrats can't expect to get off the hook, either. Their real complaint isn't that Catholic haters will hate them. It's that they want their Communion, no matter what they do. It's that they can't win their Catholic votes without Communion. They want to avoid making a decision.



Imagine a world in which organized religion didn't force a decision between the godly and the popular. That's the dream world of the liberals. In truth, it's religion and religion only that keeps the American public in favor of traditional values for the long haul.



The Pew Research Center for People and Press highlighted this in a November 2003 poll: While 51 percent of Americans disapproved of gay marriage, 80 percent of those with a high religious commitment opposed gay marriage. ABC News conducted a poll on abortion that found of those who oppose abortion, 50 percent cite religious beliefs as justification; those in favor of abortion cite religion less than 10 percent of the time.



Without a set of beliefs that guide behavior, religion means nothing. These Catholic politicians are essentially asking that the Church debase itself so that they can get re-elected on a platform contradictory to Catholicism. They are asking the Church to discard its right of free speech and to subvert its own values for sake of personal political gain. This makes me wonder: Do these Democrats care about religion at all, or is that just another political weapon in their arsenal? If so, it's about time the Church disarmed them.

Alexandr

I am still trying to comprehend the purpose of the above post.

However, if only to point out that the 48 Catholic congressmen(Lower House) who signed the letter to the then Archbishop of Washington, D.C., Cardinal McCarrick, in 2004, represented less than a majority of the 128 Catholic representatives serving the 108th Congress (2003-2004; there were an additional 26 Catholic Senators) of the United States. There were 80 Catholic congressmen and the 26 Catholic Senators who did not sign that letter.

Was he even Catholic at the time? If not, I would think it would have been addressed before he entered the church. If he continued to assist in the procurement of abortions after his initiation into the church, he would have had to go through the proper venues to ask for the excommunication to be lifted. I am not clear how high that request would have to go (priest, bishop, holy see), but there is a process in place for the lifting of excommunications. It is actually the whole point of imposing them: hoping the person will realize his error, repent, and return to the faith.

The articles point seems to be that the Democratic Catholics were the ones who backed the letter. What percentage of Congress' Democratic Catholics signed on? If it is an equally low percentage, then I'd say you are right that labeling the Democrats isn't fair.

Alexandr:
Rather than calling them a "bunch of wimps"-which will only have the result that what you have to say will be dismissed-why don't you "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15), and pray for their repentance and a fuller conversion of their hearts and minds to the truth of the Gospel, which demands our loyalty over our loyalties to both country and family? I'm not suggesting that you remain silent in the face of such grave sin, but I do think you should be more temperate in your choice of words. I would also add that there are a significant number of Republicans in office who support abortion rights, and of those who do not, many of them hold positions that are opposed to the Gospel. I would be very reluctant to suggest that either party is particularly friendly to the values of the Gospel of Christ our Lord.
Ryan