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.
The choice that the Wuerls face is clear: either they take
seriously the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments
from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will
multiply without end.
The notion that bishops aren’t gatekeepers would come as a
surprise to the Church’s first ones. The apostles were told by
Jesus Christ that the good shepherd watches the gate, lest his
flock be eaten. “Do not give what is holy to dogs,” Jesus
warned them.
The Church’s position on whether a bishop should stop
sacrilege and scandal is not determined by his “comfort”
level, Cardinal Wuerl. It is determined by the clear requirements
of canon law. Cardinal Burke has spoken; the case is closed. Either
the bishops take control over their own sacraments or the
Church’s enemies will.
