The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Cardinal Wuerl’s Dereliction of Duty

By on 3.19.12 @ 6:09AM

Since he won’t control the sacraments, the Church’s enemies will.

The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops. That’s a slight paraphrase of a line from St. John Chrysostom.

The saints of old warned bishops to choose holiness and orthodoxy over the blandishments of the “world.” Many bishops today in America choose the good opinion of worldly elites over orthodoxy. These cufflinked cardinals worry not about punishment in the next world but slights in this one. They desperately crave the approval of America’s movers and shakers and live in dread fear of losing it.

What will the Pretty People think if I withhold Communion from powerful pro-abortion Catholic pols? Will the Washington Post editorialize against me? Will I lose my place of honor at posh parties? Will my dissenting priests think ill of me? Will I be scorned at the next USCCB meeting?

These are some of the thoughts that race through the minds of modern prelates. Out of these anxieties comes fiascoes like Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s recent one. Wuerl and his surrogates have rebuked a visiting priest from the archdiocese of Moscow for denying Communion to a self-described practicing lesbian at a funeral mass. That’s not our “policy,” gasped Wuerl’s horrified surrogates.

But it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church. If a person is not in communion with the teachings of the Church, said person should not receive Communion. Period. Canon law makes this explicitly clear. If you don’t believe me, ask the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, Cardinal Raymond Burke. Though most of his colleagues seem to ignore his stance, he has said for years that canon law places a grave burden on priests to protect the sacraments from defiant sinners. According to Burke, canon law is not a whimsical option for hardline eccentric priests but a moral duty which “obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament” to those in “manifest grave sin. “

Wuerl rejects this authoritative interpretation of canon law. A while back he was asked if he would withhold Communion from the pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi. He said no. That style of “confrontation” makes him uncomfortable, he told a persistent reporter.

I’ve heard Church insiders call the cardinal “Wuerl the girl,” a reference to his precious personality. He has many fine qualities. He seems a little less common to me than some of his hackish colleagues. But cufflinks, starched shirts, learning, and reasonably civilized manners do not a good bishop make. Jesus Christ never required that his disciples place roses in his room or mints on his pillow. He walked straight at the decadent elites of his time, denounced them as a “brood of vipers,” and then called it a day. It didn’t take long for these vipers to kill him.

Wuerl can only earn the red of his rich robes through a willingness to endure the blood of Jesus Christ’s martyrdom. And the truth is that protecting the sacraments would cost him far less than death. Maybe Joe Biden wouldn’t clap him on the back so heartily after that. Maybe he would get an angry letter or two from moneyed donors in the tank for the Dems. But who cares?

This latest episode isn’t even a close call. If Cardinal Wuerl doesn’t have the guts to deny Communion to an agitprop lesbian Buddhist, he should just close up shop and hand the keys to his chancery over to Obama.

This ludicrous controversy reminds me of another fiasco, one from 2008. Remember when San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, while distributing Communion at a parish in the gay Castro district, handed out the sacred species to two garishly painted and costumed members of the homosexual activist group “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.”

News of this sparked furor across the Catholic world, and even the liberal archbishop had to admit he blew it, saying dimly: 

Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors, Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group’s abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group’s use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it…

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so…

Of course, the bishop’s passive understanding of his duties and his fear of the liberal elite — like Wuerl, Niederauer won’t deny Communion to Nancy Pelosi either — invited this outrage. After all, if a bishop announces that he is not a “gatekeeper,” who can’t come up to receive it? Such passivity was an invitation to abuse and the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” took it. Similarly, the lesbian Buddhist to which Wuerl cravenly apologized seized her chance to stick it to the Church. 

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (226) |

John Daniel| 3.19.12 @ 6:37AM

Ignoring the dictates of the See of Rome...appears the Cardinal has become an Episcoplian....

spike59| 3.19.12 @ 6:44AM

or worse, a member of the U/U gaggle

Jack in Wi.| 3.19.12 @ 10:22AM

I agree with George's comments above. The Bishops should withhold communion from persistant and outspoken adherents of Abortion, Homosexuality and unjust and endless war. Under those rubrics George here and all his Catholic neocon buddies, with their constant warmongering, would and should be denied Holy Communion.

Christ-Killer Killer| 3.19.12 @ 12:38PM

Most of them are Kikes anyway.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.19.12 @ 2:56PM

HUH?!

WTF?!

Charie| 3.19.12 @ 3:09PM

I'm really sorry you're so nutz!

Purple-Lipped Mongrel| 3.19.12 @ 4:55PM

LOL!

Purple-Lipped Mongrel| 3.19.12 @ 4:55PM

LOL!

Chrysostom Said Kill the Jews| 3.20.12 @ 11:00AM

This hateful comment is consistent with ancient Christian hatred of the Jews, from Jesus' own commands through Chrysostom to Luther and the Nazis.

Saint John Chrysostom, paraphrased above, used Jesus’ words from Luke 19:27 in the 3d century to call for the murder of Jews in his Eight Homilies Against the Jews: “The Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer.” … Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them.” (Luke 19:27)”

Steven Katz cites Chrysostom’s homilies as “the decisive turn in the history of Christian anti-Judaism, a turn whose ultimate disfiguring consequence was enacted in the political antisemitism of Adolf Hitler”.

Nick| 3.21.12 @ 6:38PM

Everything that you wrote is a lie.
Go away, anti-Christian bigot!

gray man| 3.19.12 @ 4:20PM

what a ignorant comment

Quartermaster| 3.19.12 @ 8:15PM

Actually the level of your ignorance extends to the level of you not knowing just how ignorant you are, renders your comment ignorant above all. By and large, Jack is dead on.

Jack in Wi.| 3.19.12 @ 4:28PM

Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, etc should be denied Holy communion for their constant support of abortion. So called Catholic politicians like Gingrich and Santorum with their incessant warmongering deserve the same.

Jack in Wi.| 3.19.12 @ 4:43PM

The Catholic Church, founded by, and still headed by Jesus Christ has given the world. The idea of Universal Brotherhood. Catholic means universal. Other things the Church has brought to the world include the Holy Bible, Sacred Tradition, mass charity to the poor and destitute, the University, The Hospital, great architecture, the Just War Doctrine, great art, great theology, great music and great philosophy.

The Catholic Church has spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ around the whole world first. Numerous ancient herisies, Rabbincal Talmudic Judaism, Islam, 35000 Protestant religions, the French Revolution, Communism, Socialism, National Socialism, and the new Neo paganism were all founded to destroy and replace the Church. They have not as yet succeeded.

Vern Crisler| 3.19.12 @ 5:20PM

You forgot the Inquisition, Mariolatry, papal infallibility, celibacy, monkery, superstitution, ignorance, and idolatry.

Tony| 3.19.12 @ 7:43PM

Sheer bigotry. Catholics do not worship Mary, and you know it. The doctrine of papal infallibility derives from Christ's promise never to abandon the Church, and looks pretty darned good against the wholesale cave-in to the modern that we find elsewhere. Celibacy was practiced by Christ Himself and recommended by Saint Paul. The monks almost single-handedly saved western civilization from the inundations by the Germanic and Slavic barbarians. Catholic "ignorance" rings really strange when we actually take a look at the Church's great writers; in just the last century, writers like the Maritains, the von Hildebrands, Guardini, Mauriac, Marcel, Pieper, Gilson, Dawson, Knox, Sheen, Chesterton, Belloc, Tolkien, Undset, Boell, Sienkiewicz, Edith Stein ... And then there's the Inquisition. Most people know nothing about it -- or "them," because the Spanish Inquisition, a Renaissance phenomenon, was run by the State -- and say the wildest things about how many people fell under its condemnations. That's not to justify inquisitorial crimes -- but if that's the worst sin of the Church in the last 2000 years, we haven't done all that bad. The United States of America could wish for as clean a record for any 50 years of its existence, let alone 2000.

Quartermaster| 3.19.12 @ 8:17PM

"Catholics do not worship Mary"?

My copy of your Catechism, sitting on my shelf above my workstation disagrees with that assessment. In fact, for her to have the characteristics the Catechism says she has, as well as the way Catholics refer to her in various works, she is God in your system.

Sorry, but you do worship Mary. You just don't have the mental ability to admit the facts as they are.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 8:45PM

I see we have another bigot filling in for Margie in her absence. Catholics do not "worship" Mary as a God. They do honor and show her the respect due to someone whom God chose to bring his Son into the world. "All generations shall call [her] blessed," the Bible tells, but not Quartermaster.

W| 3.19.12 @ 9:56PM

There is no shortage of ex-Catholics, non-Catholics, and others who are experts on the Catholic religion, and ready to spout their bigoted nonsense, and instruct Catholics on how we should act. They need first to clean up their own churches, and personal lives. Then come and talk.

Kevin| 3.20.12 @ 8:56AM

I too have an old Baltimore sitting right here. It doesn't say that. If it did you would have said where it says it in the book, since as you said its sitting right in front of you. Next time don't make up such a stupid lie. In this particular thread all the posters likely have Catechisms. May stick to helpless victims?

florin| 3.20.12 @ 7:38PM

Really Quartermaster, do you love and honor your mother? That is all Catholics are called to do: love and honor the mother of God. Do some exaggerate? Yes...but that is not what the Church teaches.

Catherine Wood| 3.24.12 @ 2:09PM

@Quartermaster. Once again a protestant has misinterpreted the Catholic catechism. What a surprise.

Garvan | 3.31.12 @ 12:49AM

Viertelmeister: I'm looking at Nrs .963 ff in the Catechism and cannot find anything to support your accusation. Perhaps you will be good enough to point out the sections that caused you to draw your conclusion.

Vern Crisler | 3.19.12 @ 9:00PM

Tony, if you're not a Mariolater, then you won't have any problem in admitting that Mary was born with original sin, that she is a sinner like anyone else, and that she is not a mediatrix of eternal salvation, and that it is not proper to pray to her. If you do any one of these things, or a conjunction of some of them, or all of them together, you have set up an idol in place of the Lord Jesus. For the rest of your comments, it would take too long to answer.

(However, I do like Maritain, Gilson, and Chesterton, but not for their Catholicism.)

Anthony M| 3.19.12 @ 9:05PM

For crying out loud, Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, I think we can all show her a little respect. She was actually chosen by God to be the vessel that carried his son. Showing honor to someone of Her stature is not idolatry, it is the Christian thing to do.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 11:05PM

That's right, Vern, Mary is nothing special. Just the one human being in all of history chose whom God chose to bring His Son into the world. Doesn't seem right to give any particular respect or honor to her, does it ... Even though God did. But you know better, Vern

Vern Crisler | 3.20.12 @ 1:28AM

RCV, God also chose Israel to be the nation that brought forth his son in to the world. Should we therefore pray to Israel?

RCV| 3.20.12 @ 11:33AM

That's lame even for you, Vern.

Vern Crisler| 3.20.12 @ 5:18PM

RCV, so is praying to Mary. That way lies damnation.

RCV| 3.20.12 @ 11:45PM

Somehow, Vern, I don't think so.

florin| 3.20.12 @ 7:40PM

Oh give it up Vern! Israel did not give it's blood and body substance to form the Son of God!!! get serious - unless you have a problem with women, with your mother....

Angelina Steiner| 3.21.12 @ 1:21PM

Vern, you don't understand theology. For according to the Theology of Divine Perfection. Mary is conceive without Original Sin. She is the new Eve. The first man and woman mess up (Adam and Eve) so there must be a new Adam and Eve in their place. That is why Jesus is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve.
Mary is called the Seat of Wisdom. Why? Well why don't you use your brain and open up the Bible. Jesus is Wisdom. For according to 1 Corinthians 1:24 - "Christ is the power of God, and the WISDOM of God." Mary who is the seat of Wisdom (for Jesus sits on her when He was child) must be stainless. For according to Wisdom 1:14 - "For WISDOM will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins." Therefore if Christ's dwell in Mary's body she can not be subject to sin. Thus, Mary is conceive without Original Sin!

Herb| 3.19.12 @ 10:47PM

WTF is "monkery"?

JmsA| 3.19.12 @ 6:23PM

Which Kennedy are you referring to, Jack? Teddy, and his two older siblings are both dead and gone.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 6:29PM

Well, there's yet another reason to deny them communion!

cwxj415| 3.20.12 @ 2:24PM

BRAVO Jack! You are exactly correct!!! The author of this snarky essay is nothing but a hypocrite! He understands and supports the idea of people who have views that differ from his being denied communion, but cannot apply that to his own life! Any neocon (and make no mistake - Neumayr is a neocon) who complans about gays getting communion should understand that THEY must be denied communion as well under the same argument.

Yeah? You'll go old and grey waiting for a rightie to apply the same rules to himself that he does to others. Is there ANY characteristic more applicable to righties nowadays than hypocrisy? I think not.

florin| 3.20.12 @ 7:41PM

why does it enrage so many gays when they are corrected about their unnatural life style? A man or woman who is committing adultery cannot receive the Eucharist unless and until they go to confession and promise to try to sin no more. Stop feeling sorry for yourself...

Nick| 3.21.12 @ 7:24PM

That would make you, Jack-boot, as a well-known anti-Semite, also ineligible to receive Holy Communion.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.19.12 @ 7:21AM

This is nothing new, least of all for the Catholic Church. In the 60's they were out there with the Bill Ayers, and the H.Rap Browns. Demonstrating in the streets. Some of them, even throwing the Molotov Cocktails. In the 70's and 80's, they "Ministered" to the Souls of the Marxist/Communists in Central and South America. "Viva El Comunista!" The Jesuits were on the Front Lines, for these GODLESS IDEOLOGIES.

The Corruption of Power, is nothing less than Satan whispering in a man's ear. You don't believe me?

How many times have we seen Decorated Military Officers, hang their own Troops out to dry, in the service of a Liberal Democrat Military Hating President? We have a President, Hell Bent on dismantling our Military, and yet, none of these men has Resigned. The Joint Chiefs have remained silent, as one $500 Billion Cut, after another, is put through by the Muslim. Less Equipment. Less Personnel. Less Nuclear Deterrent. They not only don't Resign, they stand beside He who would Decimate their Legions, and smile for the Cameras, and nod their heads, up and down.

We have seen the Church's inability to HONOUR its own Canons for a very long time. Granting Annulments to the Scumbag Kennedys, and Absolution for the Soldiers of Infanticide, on the Left. None other than Mario the Pious, the former Governor of New York, made his pronouncement that: "I personally believe that Abortion is wrong (MURDER) and my Catholic roots tell me so, but I will not "IMPOSE" my beliefs on others".

We have one of the two Political Parties, who is as GODLESS as the Red Chinese. They PROMOTE the murder of 150,000 unborn Babies a year. They Rally in the streets of Washington D.C. every year, with their banners, and their placards, and they scream and shake their fists, for their RIGHT to murder their Children.

How many PRO LIFE DEMOCRATS have been turned over to the Dark Side? Bill Clinton was Pro Life. Al Gore was Pro Life. Where's Ben Nelson these days? Is Bart Stupak still getting threats?

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his Immortal Soul?"

Once again the Church is under attack, and like anyone else who's been attacked, it has Traitors in its midst. Those Traitors should be mustered out. Those Politicians who SPIT ON CHRIST'S TEACHINGS, should be SHAMED and SHUNNED, with Excommunication. If they won't Stand in HIS light? Let them crawl on their bellies in the Dark, with the other Serpents who make their deals with Him who whispers in their ear, in exchange for the whole world.

Gary B| 3.19.12 @ 9:17AM

Timothy,

Excellent! Absolute dittos!

Mimi| 3.19.12 @ 9:22AM

My God Timothy....No one can call out the "DEVILS" the way you do....Are you sure you're not the GOOD, NEW cardinal?
We all have to get out that somewhat "MORAL OUTRAGE" that is certainly deep inside us ALL...Call out the SCUM wherever they are in the ladder of society!

Jack in Wi.| 3.19.12 @ 5:01PM

Timothy Pennel is a nasty anti Catholic bigot. He actually thinks that the Republicans, are God's Party. The Republican party gave us mass abortion and keeps it on the books. 5 justices who voted for Roe vs. Wade were put on the court by the Republicans. Barry Goldwater was the first candidate to ever be for legalized abortion. He was a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood. Ronald Reagan in 1967 was the first governor to sign a liberal abortion law. Nelson Rockefeller in New York followed with another even more liberal law. Ford and his wife jumped for joy when roe was decided. Nixon was for it as well. The Bush's were long time supporters of Planned Parenthood. Prescott Bush was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood. Romney and his father also supported abotion publicly. Even though they were high officials in the Mormon Church which condemns abortion.

The Democrats may be the party of rabid abortion now but in the beginning they were more pro-life then the Republicans. The Republicans on occasion talk a good game of pro-life but it always seems to come in far behind the economy or endless war. Both parties stink in regards to what a Christian should support. What is a good Christian to do in such circumstances? I say look at the record and only support those people who have shown consistant Christian ethics. The trouble with that is that there won't be many to vote for. But I have concluded after wasting my vote too many times, it is the only moral thing to do.

Vern Crisler| 3.19.12 @ 5:22PM

Reagan did not sign a liberal abortion law. It made allowances for incest, rape, and mental health of the mother. He had no idea the latter point would be used as a loophole by the child killers.

W| 3.19.12 @ 10:02PM

"Mental health of the mother" can mean anything, and if Reagan did not know what it meant, I am sure his advisors, lawyers, etc. surely knew what it meant.

I like Reagan and supported him, and believe he was a great president. You demean him by saying he did not understand. He understood what it meant, and became more pro life and against abortion with time. He wrote a great short book titled "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." He like many others changed.

Unfortunately many like Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and others changed from pro life to pro abortion or "choice."

Soljerblue| 3.20.12 @ 12:06AM

"Unfortunately many like Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and others changed from pro life to pro abortion or "choice." "

They and their feminazi cohorts can call it choice all they want. I'm sure Cain thought he had a "choice" when he killed his brother. I'm pretty sure God disagreed on that score.

cwxj415| 3.20.12 @ 2:27PM

"Feminazi"? I hate that word.

FYI: It IS possible to be in favor of a woman's right to choose (at least, in the first trimester prior to "quickening", the ancient Catholic point of no return), and not be a Feminazi, or get pleasure from "baby-killing". If you care (and I'm not sure you do), it is the rhetoric of people like you that is making the fight harder than it needs to be.

Nick| 3.22.12 @ 1:36AM

cwxj415,

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong!

The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is wrong and intrinsically evil. There was never a quickening exception. Despite what San Fran Gran Nan Pelosi ignorantly claims.

If you are for the killing of unborn babies (fetuses in Latin) in the womb during the pregnancy, beginning at conception, you are the definition of a feminazi.

Tony| 3.19.12 @ 7:47PM

Ronald Reagan was converted to the pro-life position by Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first African American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, and the founder of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. She passed away last year. I had the rare privilege of meeting her twice -- actually being invited by her group to give a public pro-life lecture. She told me personally that Ronald Reagan's biggest regret about his presidency was his nomination of Justice O'Connor, who he believed had not been honest with him about the issue of abortion.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.19.12 @ 7:47PM

Hey Jack.

You only make me stronger.

Idiot.

Quartermaster| 3.19.12 @ 8:20PM

For a Roman Catholic Truth = Bigotry.

W| 3.19.12 @ 10:03PM

So you are now the arbiter of what is truth?

C Smith| 3.20.12 @ 2:00AM

Yes, there is an Arbiter of Truth:

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
Rev 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Rev 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Rev 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
Rev 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Soljerblue| 3.20.12 @ 12:08AM

Put the question another way, QM. Does your anti-Catholic bias make you a bigot?

Bob K.| 3.19.12 @ 9:49AM

Right!

It has been stated that there are 2 elective Monarchies in the world. One is located in the Vatican. The other in Washington D.C.

The Monarchs in Washington are always balancing the issues presented to them by their constituency, the people.

Where is the Pope here? Weighing the issues from his constituency in the church? And isn't his constituency composed of Cardinals?

jay hoenemeyer| 3.19.12 @ 11:22AM

Bishops are like generals : the warriors get passed over at colonel , the getalong goalong mutts get the star and the boot gets the shaft .

Terrible Ted | 3.19.12 @ 1:09PM

Excellent Tim.

Please listen to Fr. John's comments from yesterday for an antidote to the Church leadership's limp-wristed approach to the present culture.

http://frjohnriccardo.libsyn.com/

Charie| 3.19.12 @ 3:11PM

The Catholics weren't the only ones giving aid and comfort to Communist groups in South America. The mainstream Protestants were down there doing the same thing.

Quartermaster| 3.19.12 @ 8:23PM

lamestream Potestants.

There fixed it for you.

The libtards that were running the United Methodist Church also gave aid to the Communist Terrorists in Rhodesia too. Did it after Nkomo's gang shot down a DC-3. And they did support CTs in Latin America as well.

Fortunately, the numbers of evangelicals in the UMC increased to a point the Libtards aren't much getting their way anymore. It's fun to watch them nash their teeth and wail.

Nick| 3.21.12 @ 7:46PM

Quartermaster,

This is what happens when Christians do "what [is] right in their own eyes." (Judges 21:25)

Christianity is a Monarchy. Christ is our King of Kings. And Pope Benedict XVI is His prime-minister.

Otherwise, you have democratic Christianity, which hasn't worked out so well during the past five centuries.

After one gets sick of democratic Christianity, they become libertarian or anarchist Christians, with no tether to Christ's Authority, whatsoever. They claim the Bible, but, without Christ's Church to interpret the Word of God, the Bible can come to mean whatever the individual thinks that it means.

Just as the UMC has chosen to do over the past century and half, correct?

Synchorimenos| 3.23.12 @ 11:23PM

"They claim the Bible, but, without Christ's Church to interpret the Word of God, the Bible can come to mean whatever the individual thinks that it means."

Since "the church" has nothing to do what so ever with Catholicism OR its phony leaders, but instead and according to the Bible, which is the true Authority, instead the definition of Christ's church are those individuals who believe in Him and obey His Words.. and are born of His Holy Spirit according to the Bible... and therefore have the spiritual eyes to understand the Scriptures without this hierarchy of Religion... your post is completely untrue and irrelevant.

Eph. 1:17-23:

"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, And what [is] the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when He raised him from the dead, and set [him] at His own right hand in the Heavenly [places], Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all [things] under His feet, and gave Him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

His Word is the Authority over us, and not man. And therin lies the utter and complete difference between Catholicism, and true Christianity.

Nick| 3.26.12 @ 2:33AM

Synchorimenos,

"... and therefore have the spiritual eyes to understand the Scriptures without this hierarchy of Religion..."

Why, then, are there so many different Christian denominations? Why isn't there, as Saint Paul teaches, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" that would provide the "pastors and teachers" who would "build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God" (cf. Ephesians 4:5, 11-13)?

“Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.” - 1 Cor. 12: 27-31

"I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." - 1 Timothy 3:14-15

"Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you." - Hebrews 13:17

"Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture says: You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn: and, The labourer is worthy of his reward." - 1 Tim. 5:17-18

“For this cause I left you in Crete: that you should set in order the things that are wanting and should ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed you […].” - Titus 1:5

"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15

"[...] of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known [...]." - Col. 1:25

"But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." - 2 Cor. 1: 21-22

"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control." - 2 Timothy 1: 6-7

"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." - 2 Timothy 4: 1-4

"Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches." - Galatians 6:6

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." - 1 Cor. 11:2

"As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith [...]." - 1 Timothy 1:3-4

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

"For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. " - Titus 1:7-9

"Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father." - 1 John 2:24

"We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." - 1 John 4:6

Were you "appointed" by God to "teach" or "interpret" His Holy Word? Were you "commissioned" by one of God's apostles? Did you have a bishop "lay hands" on you?

As Saint Paul teaches, it is the Church that is the "pillar and bulwark of truth," not the Bible alone. And the church to which Paul is referring, is the Catholic Church.
God Bless!

James| 3.26.12 @ 8:05PM

Since the Catholic church's teachings are not according to the Bible, they have absolutely no bearing on Christianity, or Christians.

Christianity or being a Christian means one who adheres to the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the teachings of Catholicism.

Let us know when this cult and its leaders turn from its Apostate teachings, such as prayer to the dead, forbidden by God, and many other sins against God, and then turn to follow and teach the Gospel of Christ~ and then you will have an honest Christian church.

Oh, and you added to the Bible words that aren't there, such as
priest", above. For this you bring the Judgment of God upon you.

Lastly, Jesus calls each individual by His Spirit, not by the will of Man. Read John 1:12 and stop listening to false teachers.

Nick| 3.26.12 @ 9:11PM

In case you missed it, James, I listed nothing but Biblical teachings. Are you the same person as Synchorimenos, by the way?

The Gospel of Jesus is Christ is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. She has no apostate teachings.

I added no words. Perhaps you are unaware that the Greek word presbyteros became the Latin presbyter, which then became the English priest? Look it up on Dictionary.com.
So, I have not brought God's Judgement upon myself.

"Lastly, Jesus calls each individual by His Spirit, not by the will of Man."

Yes, I completely agree. And the Holy Spirit protects Christ's Church, founded 2,000 years ago, and still going strong today. The Holy Spirit enters a Christian at baptism, when we are regenerated from above. Later, we are confirmed by the Holy Spirit when a bishop lays hands on us. As Saint Luke tells us in Acts 4:14-17:

"14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama'ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;
16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

Have you been confirmed in the Holy Spirit, as the Bible teaches, James?
God Bless!

One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 3:14PM

Timothy, great response. Only thing I saw is that in the U.S each year we murder more than ONE MILLION BABIES!!!! I'm not yelling at you. Just locking the caps for added font size to illustrate that MURDER number.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.19.12 @ 4:33PM

Understood.

Thanks for the backup.

One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 6:36PM

No Sir, Thank YOU! Keep the facts coming.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 7:26AM

Perhaps the Bishop should set up a Confessional half-way on the Communion line?
As a practicing Catholic, I do not like the fact that people would mock our religion and desecrate Holy Sacraments. But they will face G-d, if our faith is correct; and they will be judged accordingly.
What you profess, George; is very similar to the English-style "tests" acts. Are you promoting reverse "Popery Laws?"

Dan| 3.19.12 @ 7:52AM

Your posture strips the Church, and the episcopate that was divinely ordained, of any authority.

Just think for half a moment of the logical consequences of such a passive episcopate.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 8:16AM

I do not oppose the Church excommunicating Pelosi or Biden. I object to the writer placing the onus on a Priest to decide on the spot who and who should not receive Communion. For all you know Dan, the person may have received the Sacrament of Confession the night before. Perhaps they are not mentally competent?

If the Church excommunicates an individual such as Pelosi or Biden, then the Priest does not have to get a status update on their sinfulness. They would not be a member of the Congregation.

Purple Lips| 3.19.12 @ 8:38AM

From what the lesbian told the press she in fact told the priest before the funeral mass that she was a an active lesbian. In that case the priest had no choice.

To me, the entire episode sounded like a set-up. The woman in question it turns out is a Bhuddist and no longer practices her Catholicism.

Stuart Koehl| 3.19.12 @ 9:28AM

Eastern Orthodox priests do so all the time. Because Orthodoxy still see the Eucharist as a privilege to be received with humility and recognition of one's own unworthiness, rather than a right to be exercised at one's own discretion.

Perhaps the Latin Church would do well to restore the Eucharistic discipline it had prior to Vatican II--fasting from midnight the day before and going to confession before receiving. The present Eucharistic fast can best be described as "Spit out your gum upon entering the church", and as for confession, please, how quaint.

In comparison, the Orthodox Church (and many Eastern Catholic Churches) require one not only to fast from midnight, but to have been to confession in the previous week (especially if one has not received communion in more than a week) and to have attended Vespers or the All-Night Vigil on Saturday.

Most Orthodox priests will ask strangers in the communion line if they are Orthodox (and to prove so by naming their bishop), and whether they have prepared themselves to receive according to the disciplines of the Orthodox Church--and they think nothing of turning away people who cannot answer to their satisfaction.

Restoration of frequent communion is undoubtedly a good thing (the Fathers were railing about its importance in the fifth century), but it seems to me far too much has been surrendered in order to accomplish this goal, cheapening the importance of the sacrament within the Latin Church.

Ryan| 3.19.12 @ 9:44AM

From a Protestant angle, I would concur. I believe our elders decline to serve communion (as we pass the plate) to someone in a similar manner, and there is also the general call to reflection and repentance before taking the bread and wine.

PJ| 3.19.12 @ 11:07AM

Stuart,
I think you do not understand the Latin Church. While Sunday & Holy days of Obligation masses are required, the Church does encourage the laity to attend daily mass. It is not feasible to fast from midnight to the mass during the weekdays especially for those who work, study or take care of children. Fasting an hour before is reasonable & ensures some penitential suffering. My husband attends weekday mass at 5:30 pm near his workplace & he would not be a happy camper in the office if he had to fast as per your definition.

To go to Confession once/week for an ordinary person invites the sin of scrupulosity which is a very serious sin. If you understand the Mass then you will realize there are many opportunities to confess venial sins before God: Penitential Act, the Our Father, & Ecce Agnus Dei. The Catholic Church always encourages its members to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation regularly (except with mortal sin & that is immediately).

While I do concur there are some priests who look the other way in regards to those who should not be receiving Holy Communion, I do also realize the tide is changing. There's a new crop of very reverent priests coming into the scene. For example at St Patrick's Cathedral in NY my husband nicknames 1 particular priest, The Enforcer. He is a tall, sometimes stern-looking Irishman who is able to decipher & kindly lead him/her out of the Communion line. Also, my parish priests are intuitively capable of picking out the ones with questionable motives.

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of being accommodating to local cultural traditions & customs as long as it does not sacrifice its beliefs, which includes reverence to the Holy Eucharist.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.19.12 @ 1:47PM

Good for the Orthodox! My Calvinist church also "fences the table". The main way is by an explanation before every Communion that nobody should take it who is not a member of some Bible-believing church, which as the Bible explains is a dangerous thing to do. If the elders know that someone should not take it, they will stop that person from doing so.
That said, most evangelical churches are as bad as liberal and Catholic churches in doing nothing to stop unbelievers from taking Communion, and the reason is timidity and lack of caring about either God or the potential offender.

Anthony M| 3.19.12 @ 9:12PM

If I remember my New Testament, Jesus ate with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collecters. I believe he said he came to save the lost sheep, all you stern Pharasees are probably safe, I don't think He ever said anything about you guys.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 10:30PM

And he offered communion to, among others, Judas.

Herb| 3.19.12 @ 10:50PM

And Judas was damned for it.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 11:09PM

No, he was damned for betraying Jesus, which Jesus knew when he broke bread and gave it to him.

Joellen| 3.20.12 @ 8:29AM

No, he was dammed because he did NOT ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST'S forgiveness.

All should call the good and faithful Father Guarnizo and thank him for being a true warrior for CHRIST. Then all should call the bishop and suggest he sit at the feet of Father Guarnizo and relearn his Catholic Doctrine.

C Smith| 3.20.12 @ 2:07AM

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mat 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Mat 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
Mat 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
Mat 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
Mat 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
Mat 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
Mat 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
Mat 23:22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 8:42AM

There are scriptural standards clearly laid out for communion. What you are speaking about isn't communion, it's evangelism.

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 8:43AM

Above to Anthony M

Charie| 3.19.12 @ 3:19PM

I saw a YouTube video of this very incident. If he couldn't tell these were men with heavy make-up on he needs new glasses. They had veils on. Whether they had wimples, I don't remember, it was a couple of years ago.

florin| 3.19.12 @ 9:22AM

not only Card. Burke but also P.John Paul and P.Benedict have declared that those who PUBLICLY advance the abortion agenda (to name only one issue) should not be permitted to receive the Eucharist. Sebelius met with her Bishop several times and he told her, finally, not to present herself for Holy Communion. Pelosi rabidly advances the abortion agenda and publicly and defiantly mocks the Bishops; she is now pushing for same sex marriage. She almost dares the Bishops to tell her not to receive the Eucharist. By allowing Pelosi and others like her to continue to receive the Eucharist, to consider themselves Catholics in good standing, they are affirming her in her sin and denying her the conversion that would lead to repentance. Biden not only pushes for abortion here in the States but went to Africa and told the government there if they would put abortion rights in their constitution the money would flow..they did not want to but they desperately needed our help so they gave in. And, would you believe, Biden recently visited the great Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patroness of the unborn...and still he promotes abortion as do many Catholic politicians...we have to pray that our Bishops understand that, no matter what the consequences may be, they must stand by the Church and her teachings. Card. Dolan said he would not refuse Communion to anyone because to do so would make it political...what does that even mean? So if a public figure was molesting children he would still be given the Eucharist...no because that is not a politically correct action...but abortion is a hot potato and some bishops are afraid of offending...offend God or men...choose!!

Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 10:05AM

Making the Eucharist political refers to the "Popery Laws" and the "Tests acts." Before the time of Cromwell and during the "Glorious Revolution," Public Officials and Military Leaders had to receive Communion in the Anglican Church at least three times a year, I believe. Otherwise, they were stripped of their office.

While I do not disagree with the author and other comments in principle, I only warn that this is a slippery slope. It is easy to play arm chair quarterback. But it is a potential segue into another Obama anti-religious political stunt. Why do you think that there was film of the two freaks receiving Communion on the internet? I am sure I seen it online or on TV. If refused, MoveOn, Daily Kos and the MSM would coordinate an attack on Catholics as intolerant.
These people will get their due in time.

W| 3.19.12 @ 11:17AM

Prominent "Catholics" such as Pelosi, Biden, Sebellius, the Kennedys, and doctors who perform abortions, who are actively promoting the abortion agenda should be denied Communion because they are openly acting to contradict the Church on a basic teaching.

I would not extend this to women who have had an abortion because we do not know their present beliefs, and you cannot interrogate someone at the Communon rail.

I do not agree with denying Communion because of a sexual orientation unless it was a set-up like the present case. Again, you cannot interrogate at Mass someone on the beliefs or conduct , or both, to determine if it is only a belief, or belief plus conduct. It is just not practical.

We have to accept we cannot achieve perfect justice in this world

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 11:38AM

What's happened to our old friend Margie? I would have expected her to be on this topic in a second. Does anyone know what's become of her?

Trinacria| 3.19.12 @ 1:08PM

Can't type (straight jacket...)

Con Chef (NB) | 3.19.12 @ 2:58PM

RCV:

You realize that because you mentioned her name, now she'll show up & crap all over this thread with her insipid bile? And she'll call you a "vile little man."

Thanks for the jinx.

:-)

Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 2:08PM

Riddle me this: If a transvestite or gay couple holding hands should not be denied the Eucharist, does the Priest need to make a call whether they are transvestites or gays in otherwise good standing, or mocking G_d and His Church?

This is the problem in real life faced with these issues. Shall we give those in bad standing a "Scarlet Letter?" Do I need a Knights of Columbus pin to receive?

Charie| 3.19.12 @ 3:27PM

You're typing idiocy. If the priest who gave those men dressed as nuns and with heavy make-up on couldn't recognize them for what they were he needs a class in who is mocking the Church and the Sacrament. There is nothing against giving the Sacrament to people who are other than heterosexual. It's the lying that bars them from being given the Sacrament. And you know who the Father of Lies is.

W| 3.19.12 @ 6:23PM

How do you reconcile that with hating the sin but loving the sinner?

Quartermaster| 3.19.12 @ 8:35PM

Loving the sinner does not mean they are in good standing with the Church. In fact the sinner, homosexuals in this case, are living a life that is inherently disordered and held to be sinful. To give such a person communion is allowing them to drink to their own damnation. Under the circumstances, withholding it is an act of mercy and love.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 8:49PM

Well, if Jesus could offer communion to Judas, whom he knew was to betray him, I don't think He cares which people you'd deny it to, you hateful bigot.

Herb| 3.19.12 @ 10:52PM

Judas took Communion and was damned for it.

"You're a hateful bigot." Well, so's your old man.

;^)

SUBVET| 3.19.12 @ 7:46PM

VON.....This is easy to answer what does the Bible say about this. I think it is pretty clear.

Von Mises Jr.| 3.20.12 @ 8:12AM

It does not say that the Priest should conduct a Spanish Inquisition on the spot. If Pelosi or Biden are excommunicated, I will applaud.

I would say that the Bible tells us that G_d is a tolerant Being. If you wish to smite Him, you are free to do so at your own peril. People are given free will. He does not stop allot of bad things from happening, otherwise Hitler and Mao would have never succeeded. But rest assured, they are not in glory with Him.

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 8:44AM

God is anything but tolerant, in the end, toward sin. His intolerance is what brought Christ to the Cross.

One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 3:16PM

you forgot the O! It is still okay to spell out fully and even, crazy enough, say, GOD

Charles Jackson | 3.19.12 @ 7:38AM

Who cares? What wasted space. It's an institution of voodoo worshiping suckers. led my unmarried, celibate (?) males all dressed up in drag, who opine on things like marriage, the family, etc. they know nothing about.

Moe Blotz| 3.19.12 @ 7:47AM

Repent, ye of little faith, for God will forgive you. Everyone else thinks you are an arse hole.

Dan| 3.19.12 @ 7:50AM

Yea, instead of taking up the "opiate of the masses," we should all take up the opiate of the intellectuals, {Marxism}, the opiate of the politically correct, {the green agenda}, the opiate of the Democrat rank and file, {obama}, -------- yea, that's the ticket.

florin| 3.19.12 @ 9:23AM

Poor Charles Jackson...and what do you know about Charles?

Mimi| 3.19.12 @ 9:28AM

Charlie....Check out C.S. lewis..." Mere Christianity"......Reject it.....What if it's TRUE?

SeymourGlass| 3.19.12 @ 9:29AM

Are you an ordained priest, Charles? Are you even Catholic?

If not... well then, you're opining on things you know nothing about.

One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 6:38PM

Dad Jesse told him what to write.

Soljerblue| 3.20.12 @ 12:20AM

Charles is a wanna-be Rimbaud, methinks.

Dan| 3.19.12 @ 7:48AM

Think of it this way, how did this guy rise within the organization, who were his patrons, who thought him a candidate for high office, in the thousands of ways a guy could get weeded out, and find his career at a dead end, ------- how was it this specific guy, {and hundreds like him!} rose within the Church?

Purple Lips| 3.19.12 @ 7:53AM

But the good Bishops are not just deficient in disciplining wayward Catholic politicans. Probably 75% of married Catholic couples use artificial birth control, and persist in presenting themselves at the communion altar. When was the last time you heard a priest, much less a bishop teach about the evils of artificial contraception (as well as the punishments for using it)?

This is a strange world we live in. Catholic bishops complain bitterly about the freedoms the federal government is taking away; but, they refuse to use those freedoms to save souls from eternal damnation. Rush Limbaugh is closer to being a good sheppard, and he isn't even Catholic.

Tim the Enchanter| 3.19.12 @ 2:56PM

Remember St. Paul: Those who receive unworthily are guilty of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Wouldn't want that on my conscience at the Last Judgment.

oldfart| 3.19.12 @ 8:07AM

I am glad to see this issue has been picked up in a national venue. By what slight of hand or black magic this person ever obtained the red hat is a mystery. I do know that a vast number of Catholics in the Washington DC area are livid that the Priest would be suspended from duties.
Wuerl is supposed to have a reputation as a theological conservative but his current action indicates he is either a hypocrite, a wolf in sheep's clothing to corrupt the Church or has become apostate because the climate of political correctness in Washington, DC.
For those who are not Catholic, in the front of every hymnal in the pews is a statement that only those in communion with the Catholic or Orthodox communions may receive the Host. There is a significant difference between Catholic and Orthodox communions and other Christian communions on the nature of the bread after the Priest has made the blessings.
The person denied the Host is a professed lesbian and Buddhist and is not entitled to receive the host.
I am sure all the people who feel the Priest were wrong would have a different attitude when made aware of the fact that non-Muslims are NOT permitted to enter Mecca. This is were Muslims draw the line – receiving the Host is where Catholics draw the line.
This is about respect for the customs of different religions. I respect the Muslim position without being offended – why can't progressive liberals respect my religion without being offended?

cuban pete| 3.19.12 @ 8:57AM

Well said, oldfart.
The consequences for violating Islamic beliefs tend to be a bit more severe-at least in some parts of the world.
"Progressive liberals will yuk it up at the "Book of Mormen" but I suspect they would be less amused at a similar send up of the Religion of Peace.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.19.12 @ 1:51PM

Also, only Mormons can enter the main parts of a Mormon temple. Nobody complains about that, so churches shouldn't be as scared as they are.

Derek Leaberry| 3.19.12 @ 8:51AM

The late Father Malachi Martin pegged Archbishop Wuehl nearly twenty years ago as a church liberal who has contempt for conservative forces within the church, disdains the Latin Rite and is more than willing to persecute traditionalist priests. That he has chosen to stand with a lesbian Buddhist rather than an honest priest shows what stripes Wuehl wears.

cicero| 3.19.12 @ 9:16AM

Unless and until the Catholic Church becomes more than just a place to be on Sunday morning, and a gathering for ceremonials, it will continue its slide into irrelevance. Its doctrine is the most definite of the Christian sects, and its calls to duty are clear. It is the current leadership that is lacking. Since the end of World War II, the Church has spent time and political power in pushing its responsibilities onto the backs of government, and the taxpayers. As a result, it has few hospitals that can be called "charitable"; schools that can be called "catholic"; and its care for the poor and the infirm is negligible. It now finds itself in a position where no young people are willing to dedicate their lives to what the Church stands for. When this realization first dawned on them, instead of reversing course, they openned the doors of the seminaries and convents to the gay community. That worked out really well. They found that they were the refuge of the morally disoriented and the sexually deviant who had now found a place with the facade of respect wherein to hide. They are now in a bind. They will have to begin repacing the leadership that got them into this fix, but may not have a next generation from which to pick.. Hopefully, that is not the case. They will have to work very hard to regain their position of shepherds of the flock.

SeymourGlass| 3.19.12 @ 9:32AM

'Unless and until the Catholic Church becomes more than just a place to be on Sunday morning, and a gathering for ceremonials..."

At least you didn't wait until later in your post to demonstrate your ignorance of what takes place in a Catholic parish.

But, don't hesitate to forward your suggestions to the Vatican.

Mimi| 3.19.12 @ 9:45AM

Throughout the Centuries and the attacks and corruption from within and without...The Holy Church has survived. The world changes this way and that but the firm moral positions STAY forever always true . The Abortion problem will end ...for they kill their own.....more centuries....more problems The same God is always with us. Most of humanity will seek out and follow what is GOOD... it is inate and a part of the DNA....Do we fail ? Do we sometimes cross our own line of CONDUCT ?....yes and know full well there is forgivness..R/T "THE CROSS "

AppleAnnie| 3.19.12 @ 10:17AM

My wish. Excommunication. No communion for bad catholic politicians and certain people such as the one mentioned in this article. Play by the rules or get the heck out of the church. This woman is a lez Ms. Fluke. An activist who wants to test the will and legalities in the Catholic church. I believe Cardinal Wurl was the Archbishop of Chicago. My notice of him then was that he was a whishy-washy priest. A liberal like Mahoney. There a a few million Catholics in the USA and we need to feel that our church stands for what is good, proper and true teaching of Jesus Christ. Excommunicate. Publicly. The sooner the better.

AppleAnnie| 3.19.12 @ 10:24AM

My wish. Excommunication. No communion for bad catholic politicians and certain people such as the one mentioned in this article. Play by the rules or get the heck out of the church. This woman is a lez Ms. Fluke. An activist who wants to test the will and legalities in the Catholic church. I believe Cardinal Wurl was the Archbishop of Chicago. My notice of him then was that he was a whishy-washy priest. A liberal like Mahoney. There a a few million Catholics in the USA and we need to feel that our church stands for what is good, proper and true teaching of Jesus Christ. Excommunicate. Publicly. The sooner the better.

Vern Crisler| 3.19.12 @ 10:31AM

The problem seems to be that the Catholic hierarchy was slow to police their own (homosexual priests, or worse). If they were so indifferent to corruption in their midst, it's easy to see why they would be slow to filter out corrupt laity.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.20.12 @ 9:56AM

Very good point. Maybe the San Francisco bishop thought the two Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence might be members of his clergy...

cicero| 3.19.12 @ 11:18AM

Okay Seymour, what else do they do? Where are the parrish schools; the charitable hospitals (the head of the Catholic Hosp. Assoc. backs Obama on the latest dust up); the centers for the care of the poor? I would love to stand corrected, but I am not seeing it demonstrated that the Church is doing much to further the kingdom of God on earth.

SeymourGlass| 3.19.12 @ 1:22PM

"I am not seeing it demonstrated that the Church is doing much to further the kingdom of God on earth."

For me, and many millions of others, the Church IS the Kingdom of God.

For you, perhaps not.

The Mass is not "ceremony". Even if the Mass were the ONLY thing which took place in a church, that would be enough for that church to be the presence of the Kingdom of God.

You might disagee, and that's your right.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.20.12 @ 9:58AM

Good point. Liberal churches have made non-Christians accustomed to the idea that Christianity is about Man, not God.

Petronius| 3.19.12 @ 11:28AM

The only weapon stronger and more effective than a nuke; social acceptance. So long as the 60's trash control the culture and gutless conservatives don't fight back, they will keep getting their way. But they also control the legal establishment and their actions in offense to the Church carry no earthly risk.
Of late, the stance of most Bishops when confronted by apostates at the altar has been a passive one. The Eucharist is not with held as the ex-communicant compounds the Sin by taking it. And so they permit it. Yet it matters not to the prelates who fear both the two faced high profile office holders who wear their horns as proudly as the perverse exhibitionists who spit the hosts upon the floor of St. Patricks in vane hope of provoking violence in the Sanctuary with the media and their lawyers looking on. The object of this exercise is to show the authentic, faithful, docile Catholics who "god "really is. The real Persecution will begin with Obama's Next term.

jay hoenemeyer| 3.19.12 @ 11:30AM

In all these discussions on moral equivication , I am reminded of the bit in A Man For All Seasons , when all the laws now being flat the Devil turns on you and there is nothing to protect you ( or words to that effect) kinda like abortions in catholic hospitals in Obamacare

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 11:35AM

There's a reason Wuerl is a Cardinal of the Church and George Neumayr is not. I'm quite confident that JC is more comfortable with His Emminence being in charge of His flock than Neumayr. Maybe when the Pope names George to the post Catholics will care what he has to say about church matters.

W| 3.19.12 @ 12:46PM

Cardianl Wuerl was Bishop of Pgh. He was fair and well liked by everyone. I met him at a fundraiser for a home for exceptional children and was impressed by his efforts for the home. He had Henry Mancini, a native of the Pgh area, do a benefit concert for the home.

Con Chef (NB) | 3.19.12 @ 3:00PM

I too recall his ENORMOUS popularity when he was here.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 6:40PM

As Bishop in Pittsburgh, he also became known as one of the most vigilent in the nation in rooting out pedophile priests. He's a genuine credit to the Church.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.20.12 @ 9:59AM

"Maybe when the Pope names George to the post Catholics will care what he has to say about church matters."

Nice double meaning there. The more accurate of the two meanings is

"Maybe when the Pope names George to the post Catholics will care what the Pope has to say about church matters."

Tom| 3.19.12 @ 12:00PM

Unless I am mistaken and recognizing my limited personal knowledge of Mr. Neumayr, I wonder if he has any kind of background in doctrinal theology, systematic theology, moral theology, sacramental theology or canon law? Perhaps he is quoting from the CCC, but in his earnest desire to purify the world of sinners, it would seem his shallow political ideology and not his pastoral concern for those who come to mass seeking consolation determines his statement. But since he is not the competent authority his words are - how does one say - have all the value of smoke.

Dan| 3.19.12 @ 12:59PM

Does one need any deep understanding of theology before grasping this issue?

This is pretty straight forward. It doesn't get much more clear.

And this dereliction is hardly unique; it's widespread throughout the leadership of the Church.

Hardly any of the Catholic universities teach doctrine, the development of doctrine. The high schools and grade schools are also bad.

The situation became so bad that the late Pope decided to do an end run by publishing a Catechism that made clear the tenets and the requirements of the faith, because they knew the faithful were being deliberately left in with a rather vague, nebulous spirituality.

SUBVET| 3.19.12 @ 7:56PM

If the church taught the bible instead of preaching from the pulpit maybe they wouldn't have to teach doctrine. The Bible teaches everything you should know to live your life. Jesus did this while he was here on earth.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 10:28PM

When Jesus referred to Scripture, which he taught, He wasn't referring to any of Paul's epistles, the Gospels or any other books of the NT, because the wouldn't be written for another fifty to two hundred years. So the Bible you refer to wasn't the one He was referring to and don't pretend otherwise.

Drek| 3.19.12 @ 11:32PM

RCV,

how can so many Protestants say they're "teaching the Bible" when so many of these very same Protestants arrive at different conclusions?

If the Bible were so obvious as some have suggested, why then have so many had different interpretations, of the very same scripture.

An all-knowing God, knowing that scripture can be woven into supporting many different positions, established an authority vested with the authority to definitively and finally speak to issues of the moment, to provide guidance, to ward off error, to provide comfort for the Faithful, instead of leaving them vulnerable to the latest-Johnny-come-lately pastor.

Doesn't matter though, they're determined to hate the Church because without an ongoing "protest" against that Church, what then becomes of their position outside the fold of that Church.

RCV| 3.20.12 @ 12:05AM

And, ironically, they rely on that same Church whose councils decreed which of those books written long after Christ's departure were to be included in the "Bible", which they worship in the same way Muslims worship the Qu'ran. They're Bible idolators, not followers of Christ.

James| 3.20.12 @ 12:45AM

"They're Bible idolators, not followers of Christ."

Interesting psychology. And yet, Jesus is the Word become flesh.. yet you see fit to mock those who worship Him!

RCV| 3.20.12 @ 11:37AM

You have a very poor understanding of Logos

James| 3.20.12 @ 3:28PM

"You have a very poor understanding of Logos".

And you speak as one who doesn't know Christ.

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 8:51AM

Nah, I reserve that terminology for the KJV-onlyists.

I think your statement goes a little too far. The Catholic Church has had its own issues with doctrine as well, and its own battles over the meaning of scripture even AFTER supposedly settling certain matters (else there would have been no Protestant Reformation, where Luther brought up genuine concerns which - oddly enough - did wind up bringing about changes in the RCC eventually).

All we are doing is pointing out that some things that Tradition held don't necessarily hold up to what was written down...and that what was written down wasn't always as clear or as well-interpreted as thought. And by the time some things were questioned, they were so ingrained in Catholic doctrine that there was no real way to change them.

David| 3.19.12 @ 12:14PM

Well said. Can we even trust Cardinal Wurl's word and leadership on the fight against Obamacare?
It is now time to hold the servants of God, cardinals, bishops, priests on their actions, not just their empty words.

David| 3.19.12 @ 12:19PM

Those changing the topic to Mr. Neumayr are being disingenuous. Let's argue on the merits. Did the Catholic Canon law says such a thing? Did Christ do what He did?

phooqu| 3.19.12 @ 12:47PM

The Cardinal is jousting to be Pope. He is throwing his hat with the gay enclave in the conclave, led by big gay softee Cardinal ted McCarrick. This is no dereliction of duty - Weurl is declaring he is the candidate of the Obama/gay cabal crowd. Weurl is campaigning to be Pope, and this is his calling card.

AgentRose| 3.19.12 @ 12:52PM

I am not so sure this is all correct. If you listen to the entire EWTN interview last Thursday, Fr. Sirico of the Acton Institute claims there are TWO PARTS to the canon law and under the entire canon law, the priest was wrong since the person in question had "no public history" of such behavior. Please listen to the entire broadcast.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.19.12 @ 1:54PM

Link, please? (to the canon law, in particular)

Nick| 3.21.12 @ 11:55PM

Mr. Rasmusen,

The primary canon that has jurisdiction is Canon 915, although other canons also apply.

Canon lawyer Edward Peters has written much about this subject, on his blog, which you can find here:

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733/

I usually agree with Mr. Neumayr, but, according to Mr. Peters, the operative word in Canon 915 is manifest. The sin the individual is committing must be well known to the community (eklessia, i.e., the parish.)

It must be manifest to the members of the parish, or else the members will not know why the person is being denied Holy Communion.

CVO| 3.19.12 @ 12:57PM

Fantastic! I have been praying for someone to say this for years. Nancy Pelosi has also created problems for the Church that desperately need to be addressed. Her bald -faced lies and heresy used to promote abortion and other evils on national television should earn her on earth what she will earn in heaven (without complete repentance and abandonment of sin). If the Cardinals and Bishops don't publicly denounce and excommunicate her, there is no way the Church in America can survive.

And defrock the hippie priests who refuse to adhere to canon law!

Mike McLaren| 3.19.12 @ 1:13PM

Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Oldefarte| 3.19.12 @ 1:57PM

'.....Republicans Should Avoid Social Issues
Monday, March 19, 2012 12:36 PM
By: Wayne Allyn Root Rick Santorum could be the worst thing to happen to the GOP — ever. Worse even than George W. Bush. And that’s saying a lot. Bush did so much damage to the GOP brand, he almost destroyed the party forever. It was George Bush who brought us Barack Obama. Few Americans voted for Obama, they just voted for ABB (Anyone But Bush). Now the GOP has a golden opportunity. Obama has wrecked the U.S. economy from sea to shining sea. He has turned off voters by the millions. By historical standards, based on the current disastrous economic and unemployment numbers, Obama is virtually unelectable. Obama is a magician. He has made voters forget Bush in only three years. That's a pretty darn amazing trick.The proof is in the recent polls. This has been perhaps the worst month for the GOP in modern political history. The message is no longer jobs, rising gas prices, chronic long-term unemployment, or crumbling real estate.
The message is about women’s health, the right to use contraception, Planned Parenthood funding, Rush Limbaugh’s use of a crude term to describe a young female law student, and whether Republicans like sex, or hate women. It just doesn’t get any worse than this. And in recent polls, Mitt Romney is leading President Obama.
The GOP has been handed a miracle. His name is Barack Obama. It’s almost impossible to lose to Obama. Think of his actions in the past month.
He’s bribed women with free contraception. He’s bribed Hispanics by hinting he’ll give amnesty to illegal aliens in his second term. He’s bribed homeowners with a $25 billion bank settlement aimed at those who don’t pay their mortgages. He’s bribed environmentalists by cancelling the Keystone Pipeline. He hands out gifts like he's Santa Claus. And yet he’s still losing to Mitt Romney. After all that bribery. After all the stupid things said by Republican presidential candidates and conservative talk-show hosts. That’s called a gift from God.Mitt Romney has it won. All he has to do is avoid talking about his wife’s two Cadillacs, his $250 million fortune, his money in the Cayman Islands, and his dog on the roof of the family car. It’s over. Shut up and you take back the White House. You’d think conservatives would be rejoicing. Licking their lips. They’ve found a new Gipper, as handsome as a movie star, with the perfect family, and a 20 percent Reagan-like across-the-board tax cut. It’s time to party like it’s 1980 again.Enter Rick Santorum. It appears that conservatives and Christians have decided to self-destruct. They can’t take success. They must desperately want four more years of Obama and the Democrat Party. You know, that organization that stands for massive taxes, spending, entitlement and debt, income redistribution, sky-high taxes, sky-high electric bills, and a country based on social justice and affirmative action. Oh, and don’t forget amnesty for illegal immigrants and a union in every workplace. Lovely agenda.Looking at that agenda and the 60,000+ new rules and regulations put forth by Obama in only three years; and the $5 trillion of new debt in only three years. you’d think winning might just be important to someone other than Charlie Sheen. But the conservative and Christian base just can’t get away from Rick Santorum. They want to party like it’s 1875. They want to turn the clock back to Victorian America, Prohibition, banning of sin, and chastity belts. Here is what common sense should tell conservatives. The tea party chose to purposely stay away from social issues. They literally banned talk of anything besides economics. They chose to promote smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, fewer entitlements and lower debt — instead of the right to contraception. Amazing how that works!
It’s like magic. Embrace issues that a majority of Americans believe in, and presto — you win elections. Sure enough by avoiding divisive and unpopular social issues, the tea party led the GOP to the biggest landslide victory in modern political history in 2010.Understanding that, why would you choose to change the topic to contraception? To calling women who have sex “sluts”? To banning pornography in a nation that obviously watches it in record numbers? That was Rick Santorum’s new gem only days ago. As president he says he will ban porn on the Internet, in the privacy of your bedroom, on your computer, and even in the privacy of your hotel room. Now that should really turn on voters. That is certainly a job creator. The country has no jobs and Santorum wants to change the topic to banning your personal behavior in your bedroom. “Ban the porn, because I stand for smaller government.” Now that’s a rallying cry for conservatives. Marching in lock step to mass suicide.Think of it this way folks. America is like a bankrupt company, heavily in debt, bleeding jobs, desperately in need of a turnaround. What America needs is a businessman, not a community organizer. And not a Pope either.
What America needs is someone who understands how to turn around a failed company. How to create jobs. And yes, even how to fire people doing a bad job (think millions of government employees employed in useless jobs, think poorly performing teachers). We need someone who knows how to slash a budget in order to save the company (or in this case, the country).My advice as an objective outsider to Republicans — go back to the medicine cabinet, take those 100 pills out of your hand, put them back in the bottle, and put the bottle back. Charlie Sheen was right. It’s time for the GOP to choose WINNING......'

Canario| 3.22.12 @ 9:48PM

The Republican party has a gift in Congressman Ron Paul, M.D. and economist. He goes to work in the House of Representatives blue-collar style. He will bring our troops home, and not promote useless criminal wars, nor will he squander the national budget. He will obey and uphold our American Constitution, unlike many other politicians & civic leaders who renege on their solemn oath to defend it, even taking oaths to secret societies, foreign governments, or eugenicist institutes such as the UN. Yes, we have domestice enemies poisoning our air, water & food supply in the name of security & environmental protection. It's time to call out and depose the traitorous death peddlers. God did not give us a spirit of fear or timidity, but of a sound mind. Be well in body, mind and spirit.
Ron Paul in 2012.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.19.12 @ 1:57PM

I Corinthians 11:24:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

Oldefarte| 3.19.12 @ 2:08PM

This is precisely why I'm a what is asininely termned today a CINO [Catholic In Name Only] after being born/raised/educated [through college] within the Catholic religion. The very idea that these gutless, gonadless etc so-called Church prelates don't have the courage or hutspa to stand up for their known teachings within their religion is appalling and disgusting. Catholic [if they be that] should be p(*ing in the isles of each/every Catholic Church in this country/worldwide over these type bastardly happenings. What is again the story of Jesus Christ being denied by his apostle St Peter and the cock crowing three times?????????????????????????

SUBVET| 3.19.12 @ 7:59PM

Can you say "Hypocrite"

Kingofthenet| 3.19.12 @ 2:42PM

Well the Bishops can do what they want, but so can the state, if you involve yourself in politics, you lose your tax exempt status.

Frank Natoli| 3.19.12 @ 2:52PM

"What will the Pretty People think if I withhold Communion from powerful pro-abortion Catholic pols?"

George: you are imagining how Bishop George must be thinking to behave like all the real bishops behave.

The reality is that they would sooner deny you communion before Pelosi or Durban or DeLauro or Sibelius.

Sometime during the Bush 43 administration, Pastor Daley, St. Joseph's Church in Newton, NJ, told the congregation, yours truly in attendance, that the Bush administration's attempts to change welfare regulations to a slightly less generous of the taxpayers condition, might result in those responsible finding themselves on the left hand of God, that being the gospel du jour.

Don't you get it? They're all Marxists, from the parish priest up to but in this case excluding the Holy Father. They think Jesus was a Marxist before Karl.

Your mind reading of Wuerl and his ilk has nothing to do with reality.

PattyMor| 3.19.12 @ 3:06PM

No, its not what the pretty people will think. Its that we will lose the very large donations of the pretty people. Like the Kennedys, Kerrys, Pelosis, Durbins, Sebeliuses, etal.

I know the Pope is now 75 years old, but where is his Doctrinal inforcer? These "liberals" should be yanked for not adhereing to doctrine. Without inforcement, rules mean nothing.

josephine| 3.19.12 @ 3:22PM

The Gospel reading for today, Monday of the Fourth Week in Lent is John 2. 13-25. It is read in all Catholic Churches that were founded by Jesus Christ.

Kingofthenet| 3.19.12 @ 3:38PM

This is a GREAT plan for the church, get rid of anyone in power, who can you know ACTUALLY do 'stuff' for the church, brilliant idea! Who want's Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, etc, to be your friend when you can have Rick Santorum.

Mark30339| 3.19.12 @ 3:52PM

We know that our Lord interacted and shared meals with all kinds of outcasts. And it is clear that for Him, table fellowship was central to reaching out to the outsiders. The Pharisee Catholics among us see our precious sacrament as a club to label and demean our current age outcasts. Find other times and other places to confront on orthodoxy. Yes, there may be communicants seeking the Lord without adhering to the man-made rules on access to the sacrament -- let the Lord deal with them. Please do not sully the moment of sharing Holy Eucharist by making it a policing function.

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 8:55AM

They're not man-made. Several places in Scripture show that there are specific standards for taking Communion. See I Cor 11.

Communion is a specific ceremonial meal for a specific purpose. Christ eating with unrepentant sinners wasn't Communion - it was evangelism. He wasn't serving the elements to them.

Clemmie| 3.19.12 @ 5:02PM

Wuerl and Niederauer are two of a kind. Here in San Francisco Neiderauer lets everyone just push the Church around. He never scolds Pelosi. It's really disgraceful. I think the Vatican has written off certain dioceses and SF and DC are two that they don't seem to care about any more.

Father Richard E.| 3.19.12 @ 5:14PM

My question regards the meaning of the word "manifest" in describing grave sin. It is my understanding that if a person's sin is public knowledge in the place in which they approach the sacrament, and thus an occasion of scandal, that the minister of Holy Communion should deny them, quietly ask that they speak with him privately after Mass. On the other hand, if the person's sin is a private matter, not publicly known, then the priest publicly "outs" them by denying them communion. Apart from the danger of scandal in giving Communion to one living in public sin, the individual approaching the Sacrament is responsible for doing so worthily. Announcing from the Altar that only Catholics "in the state of grace" may receive Communion causes those Catholics who may not receive Communion at that Mass for whatever reason to publicly reveal themselves to be in the state of mortal sin. I would think that a person privately disclosing their lifestyle/sexual orientation/state of sin/grace, to the priest in the sacristy, when that information is not publicly known, most likely does not meet the standard of "manifest". The individual themselves would then bear responsibility for "eating and drinking in judgement against themselves." While it would pain me as a priest to know that someone is committing sacrilege by receiving Communion unworthily, I would be reluctant to deny them if the matter is not publicly known.

SeymourGlass| 3.19.12 @ 6:22PM

Father: thanks for your words. My 'take' is that those who attend Mass but don't receive Communion (a handful at my parish, each week) have already, by default, "publicly revealed themselves" to the world that they're not worthy in the same way that those who might stay in the pew after the announcement you describe was made.

Father Richard E.| 3.19.12 @ 7:07PM

We are not permitted to form a judgement about why those not receiving Communion are refraining from doing so. When the Eucharistic Fast was from midnight or even when it was 3 hours, as well as when we were permitted to receive Communion only once a day, it could easily be assumed that anyone not communicating had either broken the fast and/or already received Communion that day. Currently, with the fast being only one hour before Communion (as opposed to before Mass), and with many disregarding the fast anyway, those explanations are not available. Additionally we could wonder if perhaps the person is not Catholic and so not eligible to receive Communion. In most places this is resolved by the practice (although not approved) of coming forward to receive a blessing at Communion time, thus giving the appearance of participating to all but the most enquiring of onlookers.

SeymourGlass| 3.19.12 @ 7:34PM

Understood, and agreed. That said, what would the harm be with making a "reminder announcement" regarding the circumstances under which Communion should be received? I.e. what would the difference be between the way we view folks who don't receive Communion presently and those who don't receive after this announcement is made?

Perhaps I misunderstood your original post - I understood that you were discouraging such an announcement because the announcement, followed by an individual's failure to receive Communion, would cause those folks to "publicly reveal themselves to be in the state of mortal sin"; my point is, how is that different from the present circumstance?

Father Richard E.| 3.20.12 @ 12:21PM

An announcement to the effect that one of the unfortunate effects of the sad divisions within Christianity is that we are not yet able to share the Eucharist together, and that Catholics who are properly disposed are invited to approach the Altar for Communion may be appropriate. In the absence of an announcement regarding the "state of grace", people are left to their own explanations (see comment above about not forming judgements) rather than being given reason to speculate that those not communicating must be in the state of mortal sin. Similarly, a priest should never announce that only those in the state of mortal sin should go to confession - the assumption then is that all those lined up for the Sacrament must be in the state of mortal sin.

Don| 3.20.12 @ 7:51PM

there are any reasons why one might not receive. I marvel that 99 percent of those attending receive communion. Since few go regularly to confession these days, my parish masses must attract a only saintly people. (any should be many in line 1).

Who is worthy is in God's hands.

Frank Natoli| 3.19.12 @ 7:29PM

Father: I recall a time, I believe in the early 1960s, when a group of Southern Catholics, loudly campaigning against civil rights, insisting on the preservation of de jure segregation, were first warned and then excommunicated by their bishop.

That is what is needed today. Catholics have tended toward the Democrat Party, and Catholics in public office are disproportionately Democrats, and those Catholics in national public office are overwhelmingly publicly documented to be pro-abortion and other issues manifestly contradicted by Catholic doctrine. There is no secret about their positions, nothing hidden from the public.

And yet the bishops turn a blind eye to them. Why is that? Permit me to play mind reader by suggesting that the bishops have far more in common with these people than differences, and the bishops cannot bring themselves to cause harm to the champions of those other issues.

Father Richard E.| 3.20.12 @ 12:25PM

Frank, I'm not in a position to explain the decisions - of either individual bishops, or the conference of bishops collectively - regarding these matters. Neither am I as well versed as others on the particulars of the specific case in question. My hope was to shed some light on the issues in general, encouraging all of us to pause before rushing to judgement about the motives of the players in this case.

Frank Natoli| 3.20.12 @ 5:04PM

Father: explain, no, judge, yes. Because if you can't judge their actions [or inactions], then they can also claim that they can't judge Pelosi and Durbin and DeLauro and Sibelius and let's not forget Biden. Which brings us to the present state of affairs: publicly prominent Catholics claim abortion is a matter of conscience, with Madame Pelosi quoting St. Augustine on the soul not being acquired until some time after birth.

I suggest the first role of a moral authority is to speak authoritatively about morality, which really does transcend easily malleable "conscience".

DB| 3.20.12 @ 1:22AM

Greetings, Father E:

For a different take that comes from my critique of a recent post by Dr. Ed Peters, I believe some of the considerations below address the concerns you raise, and provide other possible interpretations that may be applicable to this case.

I hope it at least gives you and others some good food for thought, along with a few chuckles, perhaps, regarding this most serious matter.

God Bless!

DB
_________________

Ed Peters Gets It Wrong Once Again, But Continues to Pontificate

Below is a detailed critique of Dr. Peters’ recent offering concerning his view of Canon 915, and how he believes it must be interpreted and applied in the Fr. Guarnizo/B. Johnson case.

The actual critiques are set forth as parenthentical comments throughout Dr. Peters’ assessment, and proceeded by C:
__________________________________________________
From Ed Peters’ Blog (3/17/12)
A brief thought on the phrase ‘manifest sin’ in Canon 915
“As I look through the continuing blogosphere commentary on the lesbian/Communion case, I see many people confusing the concept of “manifest sin” in Canon 915 with the notion of, I dunno, something like “manifestly sinful”. Those two phrases mean different things*, I suggest, and Canon 915 speaks only in terms of the former, not the latter.”

(C: Here we go again. Dr. Peters claiming his interpretation of the canon is the only one possible, so others must be using terms incorrectly, and/or they are confused. But are they?)

“In 2008 I published a CLSA advisory opinion on Canon 915 and two years later posted it on my Canon 915 resource page. I paraphrase part of that opinion for use today:
Manifest. The additional requirement that gravely sinful behavior be manifest prior to withholding the Eucharist helps distinguish Canon 915, which operates in realm of public order, from Canon 916, which informs one’s personal responsibility to receive the Eucharist worthily. Reception of Communion at Mass is a public action in service to rendering liturgical worship to God; it is not the place for the proclamation of another’s private behavior.”

(C: It is B. Johnson who publicly proclaimed her manifest grave sin.)

“However sinful it might be, conduct that is not already widely known in the community”

(C: What constitutes “widely known,” and where is that set forth in Canon 915? Dr. Peters is adding terms that are not found in the canon. I thought this was taboo, but perhaps not for Dr. Peters. Even so, “widely known” also needs to be defined if and only if it must be included in the interpretation of Canon 915, but this is not established even if Dr. Peters and pals think of it this way. Also, nowhere does Canon 915 mention “widely known in the community.”)

“is not manifest as canon law understands that term in this context.”

(C: ...“not manifest as canon law understands that term in this context”...or as canon lawyer Peters understands that term in this context,...whatever “this context” may be? This is very telling, because it suggests that Dr. Peters and canon law are one and the same. Wow!)

“In something of a parallel to Canon 1340 § 2 (which prohibits imposing public penances for occult transgressions)”

(C: What constitutes “occult transgressions”? Does not a public announcement, even to one party make the transgression no longer occult? Do we need 5 people present, 25 people, etc? Dr. Peters never suggests any specifics, but always claims/suggests that some greater number of people is needed to satisfy the “public” requirement. Or perhaps he means “canonically public”? :-))

“and Canon 1330 (which prohibits any penalties in cases where no one has perceived the offense)”

(C: Oops. “[W]here no one has perceived the offense.” We know in the Johnson case that at least one person perceived the offense, and one more or a few others as well. This is a faulty reference in support of Dr. Peters’ overall approach to this case, because this canon can now support Fr. Guarnizo.)

“the public withholding of the Eucharist for little-known sins, even though they might well be grave, is not permitted under canon law.”

(C: Where does “little-known sins” come into play? This looks like another extra addition thrown in to aid Dr. Peters’ interpretation, but he wouldn’t do that while accusing others of similar actions, would he? Say it ain’t so, Joe,...or Ed.)

“Some folks seem to get the canonical distinction between public and private conduct but think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin.”

(C: There he goes again. Declaring something to be the case when it is not the case. The announcement takes the situation away from being private. If no such announcement was made, it would be private for obvious reasons, and this would even be so under a new and superfluous concept called “canonically private.”)

“They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here.”

(C: Thanks, Dr. Peters. But didn’t Dr. Peters jump all over Fr. Guarnizo and others for appealing to Church wisdom that is also “more than canon-law deep here”? This now seems a bit odd that Dr. Peters would make such an appeal to defend his own interpretations.)

“Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard.” + + +”

(C: They understand Dr. Peters’ interpretation, which may indeed be the prominent one, but is it the only possible one? Another possible interpretation is what Dr. Peters can barely conceive despite the flaws in some of his own statements and applications, and the fact that this particular case brings in some new elements that precedents do not necessarily apply to as he believes they must and do, though others with good reason do not so believe.)

“* Example: I keep saying that a would-be Communion recipient’s brief disclosure to a minister a few minutes before Mass that she has a female “lover” does not suffice to verify, among other things, that the sin apparently being admitted to is canonically manifest in the community;”

(C: Again, what is “canonically manifest”? Where is there a requirement in the canon itself that requires such a thing as “canonically manifest”? This intriguing terminology (and other such statements) reminds me of some Protestant biblical interpretations, especially those that criticize Catholic doctrine that permits more common sense applications and hermeneutics that may not be “biblically manifest” as a Protestant understands the term.)

“others say, c’mon, lesbian sexual activity is manifestly sinful. See? I’m talking about what Canon 915 actually says, while they are talking about what they think Canon 915 says.”

(C: As unequivocally pointed out and illustrated above, Dr. Peters doesn’t always talk about what the canon actually says, but what he believe it says or infers, and again, he also adds to it to support his interpretation that he presents as the only possible one it could have in respect to the Fr. Guarnizo/B. Johnson case, and so those who disagree are simply wrong and “need correction.”)

DB

phoo| 3.20.12 @ 9:02AM

Thank you DB for rebutting Dr. Peters. When I read his article I was disgusted by his flawed reasoning which seemed driven not by an honest interpretation of the Canons, but by where he wished to end up, his errant interpretation. Barbara Johnson's lifestyle was totally "MANIFEST" to everyone in that family. The priest did the right thing, even if he may be fuzzy on what Canon he was attempting to obey. In the heat of the moment one does not think of paragraphs of Canon law, as much as an instantaneous reckoning of wrong/right. Cardinal Wuerl - who is the authority that stands (hidden) behind this case - is culpable for a GRAVE SCANDAL for REFUSAL to uphold the sanctity of the Eucharist. So be it.

DB| 3.20.12 @ 5:35PM

You are more than welcome, phoo, and thanks for the kind words.

It may turn out that authorities above Dr. Peters will agree with his interpretation of the application of Canon 915 in this case, but what I have objected to the most is Dr. Peters and his fellow travelers assuming that the situation involving B. Johnson is sufficiently parallel to other situations that support granting communion when there are many differences that must be considered and not simply dismissed as irrelevant because they do not fit the particular interpretation they believe must be made.

In other words, B. Johnson's actions contain certain new realities (unless marching into a Sacristy prior to a funeral mass and making a public declaration of defiance against Church teaching, and taking other defiant actions as she and her accomplice did is common fare "anticipated" by Canon 915) that must also be fully considered to see if they make it possible for an interpretation of Canon 915 (and others) that supports Fr. Guarnizo's actions.

Dr. Peters and his followers have basically closed their minds to such a possible interpretation that should be more seriously considered in light of the unique facts and circumstances that have no historical parallels sufficiently on point as Dr. Peters and others claim or suggest are applicable.

Thanks again and God Bless!

DB

Frank Natoli| 3.20.12 @ 8:44AM

Ah, no reply.

My mother was a native of Belgium, and lived for four years under the German occupation, the last year hiding in Brussels, her name on a slave labor deportation list.

She told me a story about one Sunday morning in her village, Rotem in the northeast corner, near the Maas Mechelen coal mines where her father worked, and at communion at Mass that morning the parish priest refused communion to the handsome German officer, in his immaculate black uniform, with the SS runes on his collar. The SS, you see, as an entire organization had been condemned by that most villified of all Popes, Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, which the modern media has seen fit to write a book entitled "Hitler's Pope".

Who do you think had greater courage? That parish priest that morning in Rotem? Or the big shots who look into the eyes of Pelosi and Durban and DeLauro and Sibelius?

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 8:59AM

I think this is where a matter of Church discipline should come in. If the Priest knows about specific unrepented sin, even private, and particularly has confronted the parishioner about it, there is likely just cause in making it a public matter.

DDPGH| 3.19.12 @ 7:11PM

The outright disrespect and distain shown in this opinion piece for the man and for the cardinal, the snide, school-girl assessments, the brash false limited-to-verbal bravado -- I cannot get past these to evaluate the worthiness of the opinion expressed. First word of derision, you loose. Speak intelligently if you have something intelligent to say.

Eric Rasmusen| 3.20.12 @ 10:09AM

It's that kind of attitude towards cardinals that encouraged the pedophilia scandal. Leaders who are immune from criticism do bad things.

DDPGH| 3.20.12 @ 11:30AM

Wrong Eric. Treating a person or office with respect doesn't require one to be uncritical and mindless, or afraid to do the right thing. A habit of disregarding the need to show respect to persons and offices however inclines one to hasty and thus oftentimes overreaching remarks.

DDPGH| 3.19.12 @ 7:17PM

typo correction: you lose

Tony in Central PA| 3.19.12 @ 8:42PM

I was a baptized Catholic. For reasons uncertain to me, I was uncatechized and eventually became an adult who maybe went to church once a year. Its too long of a story to recount here, but by the time I hit my 40's, I had come to the realization that Christianity was the Real Thing and that Catholicism was, for me, the most authentic version of it. For the better part of a decade I went to Mass but avoided the sacraments, even though I accepted the Creed and believed the essentials of the Faith as taught by the Church. At the ripe age of 48, I entered RCIA and was received into the Church. I wanted to follow the rules, allow the process to work and take as long as necessary and with the hope of deriving the full benefit of the Sacraments.
When people become offended because the Church denies sacraments to those who belong to different denominations, or don't accept the Creed, I tell them to get over it. I waited and so can they.

Bill X| 3.19.12 @ 10:29PM

The Catholic Church is a cult. It's incredibly evil behavior in protecting pedophile priests is just one example. It denies the truth. It leads billions to hell. It teaches infant baptism and obedience to church rules instead of salvation alone by faith in Christ alone. It teaches that its traditions are equal to scripture when that's blasphemous. The Bible is our soul source of truth. Not the traditions of evil men. It should be no surprise that most Catholics are ignorant of the Bible. You have to be ignorant in order to be a Catholic.

Herb| 3.19.12 @ 10:57PM

Your words are typical of an inbred hillbilly biblethumping snakehandling racist.

RCV| 3.19.12 @ 11:11PM

You are the epitome of ignorance, Bill X.

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 3.20.12 @ 1:49AM

I'm sure there are many pedophile "youth ministers" of your own faith you just may not know it. They seem to find there way into places where children will be like Boy Scouts and day care and junior sports clubs. When I was Roman Catholic I used to believe the problem with pedophilia in the RCC was a primarily Catholic phenomenon but as we've seen with the pedophile teachers at Los Angeles elementary schools and Jerry Sandusky at Penn State that is definitely not the case. Certain Bishops within the Church do need to be severely punished for not doing enough to reprimand priests engaged in such behavior, but in no means do I see this as a problem that is worse in the Catholic Church than it is anywhere else. Even the Black Muslim leader Elijah Muhhamed was discovered to be a pedophile and some rabbi's have also been as well as "good ole" evangelical ministers.

Trent1280| 3.20.12 @ 2:28PM

The problem of pedophilia is not unique to the Church. It is, however, magnified by the Church's recent insistence on priestly celibacy.

Celibacy is an unnatural state. It leads to unnatural acts. It is contrary to who we are as a species, and what we need as human beings.

Celibacy is a relatively recent invention of the Church. It was contrived so to prevent priests from having heirs to whom church property may be passed. Church history is quite clear on this.

Celibacy is an unnatural state that magnifies a propensity to unnatural acts.

"Go ye forth and multiply" also applies to priests. Even the Albigensians understood this much.

Father Richard E.| 3.21.12 @ 2:14PM

With respect, Trent1280, celibacy and pedophilia are entirely separate and unrelated issues. Studies show that (in the US) 3-4% of the population of 300 million are pedophiles, marriage not withstanding, while 4-5% of the 45,000 priests here were accused of pedophilia. Thus the majority of pedophiles are married persons, usually close relatives or trusted friends, neighbors, coaches, etc. Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom was advocated by Our Lord in the Gospel. It is thus not an "unnatural" but a "supernatural" lifestyle lived as a gift received from the Lord. The admonition to be fruitful is fulfilled in the order of grace by the many spiritual children begotten in the waters of baptism through the sacramental/spiritual ministry of priests. There have thus been celibate priests from the earliest days of the Church (2,000 years or so); the fact that Celibacy became manditory only from around 1100 doesn't mean that the charism didn't exist in the Church all along, only gradually becoming the norm. The fact that some priests are unfaithful and/or suffer from a psychiatri disorder doesn't negate the good done by the majority, any more than the fact that 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce negates the value of fidelity in marriage.

Drek| 3.19.12 @ 11:22PM

Bill X,

you're wrong, but it would take a full-fledged theology course to demonstrate as much.

Predatory homosexuals are not exclusive to the Church, it's what they do, inside the Church or outside. The priesthood gave them unique opportunity to tee off on preteens.

Infant baptism developed in an age when kids often didn't last to their teenage years. It was a loving response by parents concerned about the eternal fate of the souls of their children. The practice falls fully within the enormity of the love of the Almighty.

Traditions such as the Trinity are central to the Faith. You've forgotten that for roughly a century, outside of tradition, outside of the repetition of the words of the Apostles, and their disciples, there wasn't any other way to maintain the Faith. The Bible flowed from a Church already created, and created by an already existent episcopate.

Which means authority already existed, which means it wasn't created afterwards as an afterthought.

The Bible originated in a Church, it's books were approved by an already existent episcopate.

The Bible belongs to the Catholic Church, and is not something foreign to it.

To be steeped in history, to be steeped in the early Church fathers, is to cease to be anything but a Catholic. Your denomination, whatever it is, even were it the Eastern Orthodox, stemmed off of, branched away from, that Church established by the blood of Christ himself.

POST American| 3.19.12 @ 11:47PM

"The Vatican has been completely
infiltrated since the 1950s."
-MALACHI MARTIN

Free-'MAY--SIN--Re' is almost
interchangable with Jesuitry.

Mormonism is itself a direct
off-spring of the same---ON RECORD.

AND, further, the historical template
for our current world destroying
capstone USURY--EUGENICS op
can be found in the Jesuit engineered
'Paraguayan Reductions' of the 1500s.

---Occult capstone societies, their obsession
with genocidal systemic 'perfection' --always
working as an instrument of inbred
psychopathic capstone 'EEL-eats'
------------REMAIN THE ISSUE--------------.

"Understand, from the days of 'Play-Dough'
in ancient Greece --and Pythagorus at Cretona
----to hunting down the Cathars in the middle
ages ---sooner or later, the general, decent,
genuine people catch wind of just what these
groups are planning ---just what their agendas
call for ----just what their aims are ---and then
the REAL fun begins. That's WHY these groups
are SO fond of caves. They know, once the
good people catch wind ----they'll be given
NO quarter."

AMEN

Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 3.20.12 @ 1:42AM

It is said to see how much "liberal universalism" has made inroads into the American Catholic Church. That was actually one of the major reasons for my conversion to Russian Orthodoxy in the first place. In the former Soviet Union confession is offered before communion and if you don't make confession you don't recieve communion and if you're not an Orthodox Christian forget about recieving communion in an Orthodox Church. Even the Russians who never go to Church except for maybe Easter, baptisms and funerals would never try to take communion without making a confession because they truly believe it is the "Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".

Trent1280| 3.20.12 @ 3:23AM

One trusts Mr Neumayer would take a similarly principled view when it comes to enforcing the Church's views against capital punishment, and those who support and practice it.

Clearly, no pro-capital punishment authority or parishioner can receive Holy Communion if they hold such abhorrent and anti-canonic views.

Strange he didn't see fit to mention that.

I've always thought it odd that people like Mr Neumayer are so opposed to condoms, and so in favor of hanging. Odd, that.

JP| 3.20.12 @ 8:08AM

Capital Punishment is not intrinsinctly evil, like abortion or artifical contraception.

Trent1280| 3.20.12 @ 11:05AM

Sorry, JP, capital punishment IS an intrinsic evil.

"Thous shalt not kill."

Perhaps you've heard of this?

If you prefer, read "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995. Thanks!

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 11:40AM

Then why was there capital punishment instituted in the Law AFTER that commandment was given?

"Thou Shalt Not Murder" is the better translation, btw.

Trent1280| 3.20.12 @ 12:31PM

Hi Ryan: are you suggesting that God made a mistake in Exodus? That He changed His mind?

No man may take the life of ANY man. Period.

Two wrongs do not... and you know the rest of it. God Bless!

Ryan| 3.21.12 @ 8:43AM

Nope, I'm questioning your position that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, when the Law clearly supports it.

So either God is contradicting Himself when He states "Thou Shalt not Murder" AND places capital punishment in the Law...

...or you are misinterpreting "Thou Shalt Not Murder" to include any and all forms of capital punishment.

Frank Natoli| 3.20.12 @ 7:00PM

The Aramaic read "thou shalt not murder".

They understood the difference between killing and murder.

You don't.

Trent1280| 3.20.12 @ 7:50PM

And Frank, you miss both points.

Taking a life is ALWAYS the moral equivalent of taking a life. It is an original sin, as you would know from reading Genesis. Cain, meet Abel.

The Church is correct and deeply Christian in its opposition to the death penalty. No true Christian can possibly countenance the willful taking of another human life.

Increasingly we also find from DNA evidence a tragic history of wrongful conviction in our country. There is overwhelming evidence that innocent people have been killed by the state.

In the United Kingdom, there are three well-established cases: Timothy Evans, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, and Derek Bentley. All were declared innocent. Posthumously.

In the United States, Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed in 2004. New technical examination of the forensic evidence has proven his innocence.

For reasons of Christian morality, and improving science, we have no business executing any human beings. We are wrong in the eyes of the Lord -- and, as it has happened, wrong in the eyes of the law.

Just imagine, Frank, if it was YOUR brother who had been wrongfully executed in Texas. You might take a more humane position than the one you hold now. God Bless!

Nick| 3.22.12 @ 12:28AM

Trent1280,

You are very ignorant of the Catholic Church's teaching on capital punishment.

God commanded capital punishment in Exodus and Leviticus. God demanded stoning for adulterers, homosexuals, and people who cursed their parents.

The Church has never taught that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. The Church still teaches that states have the right to execute criminals in order to protect society.

You need to educate yourself on this subject, if you are going to comment on it.

James| 3.26.12 @ 8:10PM

Your Apostate Religion does teach that Mary was sinless, which is SIN.

Your Apostate Religion does teach prayer to the dead which is SIN.

Your Apostate Religion & its leaders need to repent and become Christian.

Nick| 3.27.12 @ 5:03PM

James,

"Your Apostate Religion does teach that Mary was sinless, which is SIN."

Not if it's true, which it is.
The Archangel Gabriel greeted the Blessed Virgin Mary with the words, "Hail, full of grace!" This greeting proves that Our Lady was sinless. Twice.

First, by saying "Hail" Gabriel is paying great respect to Mary, as in, "Hail Ceasar!" The Archangel Gabriel is saying that he is lower than Mary. If she had any sin on her soul, Original or otherwise, Gabriel would have been above her. As all angels are depicted in the Old Testament, because they have not sinned.

This is why the angel tells Saint John not to kneel before him (in Revelation,) because now they are equals, thanks to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

The second part of the greeting, "full of grace," states that Our Lady is FULL of God's grace. When something is full, it means no more can be added. Again, if the Blessed Virgin Mary had sin on her soul, she would be in need of God's Grace.

"Your Apostate Religion does teach prayer to the dead which is SIN."

It is not a sin to ask those who "have fallen asleep in Christ" to pray for us. The prohibition in the Old Testament is about mediums and conjuring spirits, not praying to God and asking others to pray for us.

"Your Apostate Religion & its leaders need to repent and become Christian."

No, we don't. We are Christians. We were the first Christians, picked by Christ Himself. We teach what the Apostles, and the disciples who they instructed, also taught.
God Bless!

Egypt Steve| 3.20.12 @ 11:31AM

Our Lord did not deny the First Communion to Judas Iscariot, although He knew that he had committed the gravest sin of all. All those in positions of authority in the Church should follow the example of Christ, not the dictates of bureaucrats.

Ryan| 3.20.12 @ 11:39AM

There is a point to be made about judgment being on the shoulders of the person receiving it; however, there IS some precedent of guidelines prescribed in scripture, and those in authority do have an obligation to protect the body and to call out sin.

Trent1280| 3.20.12 @ 12:35PM

Indeed, Ryan, and to forgive the repentant sinner -- but not to murder him. As EgyptSteve said, if our Lord could give Communion to Judas, he is teaching all of us the great ordination of love.

This lies in a constellation of wisdom and The Law far beyond our childish obsessions with condoms and masturbation. Given the recent history of widespread priestly abuse of children, and the murder of their innocent spirits, I should think we would have learned that by now. God Bless!

Father Richard E.| 3.21.12 @ 12:51PM

It bears noting, Egypt Steve, that Judas' sin was not yet manifest, i.e., known to the others at table with him...they thought he left early to finalize arrangements for the meal. Just saying.....

Max| 3.22.12 @ 9:45AM

Actually Steve, it is not altogether clear if Judas partook of the first Eucharist. It is likely he left earlier.

JR Lineberry| 3.20.12 @ 1:57PM

From George on down- Lots of self idolatry, hatred and slander - seems there are many who in their own minds are entitled to cast the stones- pray that you are as smart as you think you are . Remember tomorrow is wednesday and "The Light is ON"

Stan Wright| 3.20.12 @ 2:41PM

I find it remarkable that Mr. Neumayr feels himself capable of judging the content of anyone's soul on the basis of their clothing. Do tell!

And how Christian of him. Yes, that's exactly what Jesus would do.

Dliodoir| 3.20.12 @ 3:52PM

1. The priest did the right thing in refusing communion.
2. Wuerl was wrong to sanction the priest for this, though it's in dispute that that is what he was sanctioned for.
3. This is NOT the same thing as denying communion to politicians which is, generally speaking, playing politics with the Body of Christ.
3a. If manifest grave sin can be committed through a legislators vote, than NO Catholic politician in the US would be in the proper state of grace to receive.
3b. American Catholics who suggest that the platform and policies of the GOP are ALWAYS in sync with the Catechism and those of the DNC are ALWAYS not, either do not fully understand the world of politics and government or they are cynically using the Church to get votes.

Keep Christ out of politics. They are ALL sinful. . .ALL of them. . .every single one. The road to heaven runs through the sacrements and the Church. . .NOT through a ballot box. You are not a "good" Catholic because you vote Republican and your neighbor is not a "bad" Catholic because she doesn't. Love your neighbor. . .love Christ. . .love His Church. And above all PRAY! Pray to God for His grace! Pray to His Mother for her intercession. Pray that ALL of our politicians exercise wisdom and good judgment in all their decisions.

ice9| 3.20.12 @ 4:29PM

"They desperately crave the approval of America's movers and shakers and live in dread fear of losing it."

I get it. Your disapproval of this bishop--the slurs, the threats of hellfire, the gay-baiting--he brought that on himself because he takes cues from some vague clacque of elites. You dismiss his theological arguments. You reject the assertion that his views are inspired by Jesus.

And, I presume, you justify your grotesquely coy, veiled attacks on the same basis? This is not a Christ-like piece. Raises the question: what is?

For example: would siding with the Bishops and against the elites expiate the sin of abusing a child?

ice9

biomuse| 3.20.12 @ 5:45PM

And here we are again, having gone completely and selectively unconscious with regard to what the law amounts to: a monopoly on the use of violence.

And thus the sole consistent position for a pro-life citizen of a pluralistic republic: that of strenuous objection to late-term abortion, while nonetheless supporting laws which allow women to make that choice according to their own consciences is, nonsensically and tragically, misrepresented as "inconsistent."

I cannot help but wonder how many more abortions might have been prevented had pro-life advocates only put away the filthy sword of the law, instead giving confident and loving witness in the public square, their good faith unsullied by constant appeals to coercive state power.

Such tragic and blind faithlessness, and it continues still, here and now.

biomuse| 3.20.12 @ 5:53PM

I'm referring here to the Comments section, not the article directly.

On that topic, if Wuerl is indeed a "Girl," he's in a likely plurality in our Catholic clergy. I find this irrelevant.

Rick DeLano | 3.20.12 @ 8:13PM

George Neumayr would make a great bishop. I can't say how Donald Wuerl might do as a columnist.

As for the priest in DC, he should be made at least apostolic nuncio immediately.

legatus| 3.21.12 @ 10:55AM

Yep, totally agree. The bishops need to man up or run along like little girls in pink dresses. I respect the office of bishop but I have zero respect for most of these frauds. Burke is the only one whose behaviour represents Catholic leadership. It's clear they "cardinals" and "bishops" are working for the enemy by their actions and inaction. Any idiot can see that.

Michael McHale| 3.21.12 @ 11:16AM

Wurhl is a coward and unworthy of the mitre. Sadly, he is also typical of the post concilar {Vatican Councl II, 1962-1965} episcopate. As Pope St.Pius X warned over one hundred years ago, the Church is now infected with liberalism, rationalism, and heterodoxy. None of the pre concilar popes woud even recognize what today passes for " Mass", as opposed to the august traditional rite that served the Church so marvelously for 1500 years. Many of these clowns wouldn't know a Baltimore Catechism, Marian proccession, or Benediction if it bit them in the behind. Altar girls, Communion in the hand, extaordinary Eucharistic ministers, folk Masses, one hour Eucharistic fasts, cannonizations on a seemingly daily basis, universal salvation, false ecumenism, religious liberty, the Assisi debacles ,"the dignity of the person", "unity in diversity". From where did all this nonsense come.?All of the post concilar popes, including the beloved John Paul II, will, on Judgement day, have to answer this question.

Tea Party Jim| 3.21.12 @ 12:05PM

Well stated, Mr. Neumayr, and properly noted. The lack of example by "go-along" bishops is a scandal; I would hope they admit such to their confessors. We all admit we are sinners; only such are members of the Catholic Church. But some sin in public, and make a spectacle of it; for that action they should be reprimanded.
You, sir, have duly reprimanded Bishop Wuerl; we hope he will take it to heart.

Azul Condor | 3.21.12 @ 6:03PM

Has anyone ever tried to find out if this useful idiot believes in God. Could he actually be one of those young men Bella Dodd and her former Communist allies sent to the seminary to infiltrate the Church and to destroy Her from within. Who does this "wolf in sheep's clothing" associate with? Could he be one of the Lavander mafia? Who is this guy's powerful protector/benefactors? I would not be surprised when my suspicions are confirmed. What quacks , walks and flaps like a duck is certainly a duck.

sikiş | 3.22.12 @ 5:36AM

Talking about real estate loving it Here’s some mildly amuzing stuff I found: Thought for the day? : Crime doesn’t pay… does that mean my job is a crime?

Jim Swavely| 3.22.12 @ 12:11PM

As a Catholic who tries to live the faith as best as I can, I am appalled by this entire incident. What Father Guarzino did was absolutely correct. Ms. Johnson used the occasion of her own mother's death to attempt to administer a slap in the face to the entire Catholic Church, and she should be the one condemned for her behavior, not Father Guarzino. I really wonder how some of these men get appointed Bishop and Cardinal in the first place. Cardinal Wuerl should be ashamed of himself.

Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 12:22AM

JS,
Do you attend your church services regularly? What do your fellow parishioners think about this? Was this discussed or talked about by your clergy at your masses or gatherings? That may be a clue as to how they get apponted.
Just curious....

Simon Templar| 3.23.12 @ 12:17AM

You could say the exact same thing about the GOP. If they do not have the guts to stand on conservative principles and nominate a conservative, then they should just hand over the keys to Obama. It is exactly the same cowardice, weakness, greed for power, self protection, and hypocricy.

POST American| 3.23.12 @ 1:33AM

---------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

"The Vatican has been totally
infiltrated since the 1950s."
-MALACHI MARTIN

CASE CLOSED

-----------------------'AGE-ENDA' OPENING. . . .

aged parent| 3.24.12 @ 12:17PM

Thank you, Mr Neumayr for a brilliant, eloquent article. The Church's weak sister's and enemies are hoping this will quietly blow over and be forgotten but that must never happen. The time to shrug our shoulders and just say, "Oh, well" are over. We have to do something, and that "something" should be to demand that this outrage be publicly corrected. You have made a wonderful contribution; please keep it up.

My little blog www,theeye-witness.blogspot.com has been doing its bit to keep this story from dying. I only hope it encourages others to follow up with the Nuncio, and the Vatican.

Thanks again for a superb article.

Mary Parks| 3.27.12 @ 1:01PM

It appears that Peters thinks that Benedict's law change to canon 1086 et al means that anyone who was ever baptized Catholic, regardless of whether he or she has now adopted non-Catholic beliefs and has joined another religion, is really still Catholic and can receive Communion. I think Peters is reading too much, and of the wrong sort of thing, into this canonical change. It concerns the effect of Baptism on validity, not the effect of apostasy on Baptism.

Don Rampolla| 4.18.12 @ 2:15PM

I just came across this article, and have not read any of the numerous responses.

First comment is on the phrases “control the sacraments”, “protect the sacraments” “gatekeeper” and “stick it to the church”. A sacrament is a sign of God’s love for us, it is God who gives the love, so God has control, it’s impossible for anyone to steal or otherwise misappropriate this love. Jesus refers to himself as the gatekeeper who knows his sheep; only He can know what’s in a persons heart, for anyone else to assume this knowledge is a judgment that He specifically warns us not to make. As for “sticking it to the church” I don’t see how the gross actions of the people you mention diminishes God’s love for me or anyone else; I don’t feel like I’ve been “stuck”.

Second comment is on the final line “Either the bishops take control over their own sacraments or the Church's enemies will”. The bishops do not own the sacraments. To me it doesn’t make sense to apply the word “ownership” to a sign for transmission of God’s love.

Overall, an intellectually flawed and totally unconvincing article.

Don Rampolla
Pittsburgh PA

D Paul| 5.13.12 @ 10:44PM

Very well written article. I cringe at the name Wuerl.

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From Special Report

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obamacare Implodes

May 15, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?

May 14, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/19/cardinal-wuerls-dereliction-of

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular Articles

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

Jeffrey Lord | 5.20.13

Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?

David Catron | 5.20.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

It's.The.Law

Ross Kaminsky | 5.20.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

How Long Is This War?

Jed Babbin | 5.20.13

Downton's Class System -- and Ours

Tom Bethell | 5.20.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.