Kathleen Sebelius To Speak At Georgetown

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337126105' post='2431056']
I think Pope Benedict knows Cardinal Wuerl and his method quite well. I think there is a certain logic behind the appointment that has been lost on the laity. People in DC, particularly priests and those who work downtown know that the Cardinal's reputation isn't very accurate.
[/quote]

As Bishop he was more of pastoral/ professor type and certainly never fire and brimstone, so I was very surprised by his appointment to a town where the residents eat piranhas for breakfast, I think Cardinal Dolan would have more effect.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1337143122' post='2431133']
As Bishop he was more of pastoral/ professor type and certainly never fire and brimstone, so I was very surprised by his appointment to a town where the residents eat piranhas for breakfast, I think Cardinal Dolan would have more effect.
[/quote]I'm not entirely convinced of that. This town is as nasty a place as I've ever encountered. While Cardinal Dolan is very charismatic and receives a lot of positive attention, I'm not sure how that would come across in this city.

Everyone here spends all their time speaking and never listening. While Cardinal Dolan has much to say, I think he'd get tossed in with the loonies and simply become another voice.

Everyone wants Cardinal Wuerl to speak out more, but in what way? He spoke out very clearly against HHS and no one listened. He was one of the first bishops to come out and condemn the act, way back in September. He has been a leading voice in protecting marriage from those who would destroy it in Maryland. He actively campaigned for marriage and helped get the Maryland vote pushed back a year. I know he has had much support behind the referendum initiative. When DC went in to destroy what's left of marriage a couple years back, Cardinal Wuerl took a fairly vocal and stern response. It got even some conservative Catholics surprised in how far he was willing to go and how dark the line is that he will not cross. I know people were unhappy with the recent Gaithersburg incident, but it wasn't what anyone thought. I don't think he was opposed to denying Holy Communion to the woman.

And this is all that's public. I know behind the scenes he works actively to get stuff done. While everyone knows him as perhaps too soft, he keeps everyone in his office on their toes. He's one of the quiet types, much like Pope Benedict. Pope Benedict always has much to say, but he's not charismatic like Pope John Paul II was. His work is mostly done in private and quietly, but much is accomplished. While I like Cardinal Dolan a lot, I think that he does better work in New York than he could accomplish here. Cardinal Dolan might have some effect here, but I'm not so sure it'd be positive. Cardinal Wuerl is quiet, but look where he sits. He's Relator General, in charge of putting together the Anglican Ordinariate, in charge of the USCCB committee on Doctrine. I could go on.

I know that as Catholics we have an obligation to defend our faith and often we want people to do more. I used to be someone who wanted instant satisfaction. However, I've had time to get to know this city and I think that a certain patience/prudence is required. What was accomplished by all the bishops condemning Notre Dame? Absolutely nothing, unfortunately. I know that the Cardinal is very active in these matters and there is no way that he is simply letting this slide. I have a feeling that this will proceed more slowly than we Americans like, but I am almost certain there will be some sort of action.

[Skinzo]

Qfnol31,
I think the problem with Wuerl has very little to do with public statements, though getting those out of him is not easy. Nancy Pelosi recently trumpted how her faith leads her to support gay marriage! And still no word on what Wuerl thinks of that. But, the real issue as I see it is a question of ACTION. We've had plenty of talk since troubles erupted in the Church after Vatican II. What we want to know is when are the bishops going to restore order and discipline to so many areas of the Church, like Georgetown University? Having an underling run an editorial in the diocesan paper which amounts to saying Georgetown has lost its Catholic character and so it's over? That's just throwing in the towel. No, Ex Corde Ecclessiae does mean something and it needs to be implemented. Cardinal Wuerl is not alone in this problem by any stretch.
As to the incident involving Father Guarnizo, some Catholics noticed how quickly Wuerl moved to discipline him and remove the priest's faculties. I won't get into reviving that again, but the incident leaves some thinking how nice it would be if Wuerl dealt with some other things in the same expeditious manner.
I don't think it's enough for a shepherd to post a sign asking the wolves to play nicely. At the end of the day, there will be one fat wolf snoring under that sign. In that instance, one can only count on the mobility of some of the sheep to save themselves.

S.

[qfnol31]

I just want to respond to two comments here:[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337150389' post='2431158']Nancy Pelosi recently trumpted how her faith leads her to support gay marriage! And still no word on what Wuerl thinks of that.[/quote]Because these aren't actually members of the diocese (or they shouldn't be), he has left it up to their local bishops to make a comment. As far as I know, he has respected Archbishop Naumann's response to Kathleen Sebelius. While politicians are public figures and ought not be flaunting their faith publicly, I'm not sure a public excommunication is necessary or proper. Cardinal Wuerl has said repeatedly that these matters should be addressed in private.
[quote]Having an underling run an editorial in the diocesan paper which amounts to saying Georgetown has lost its Catholic character and so it's over? That's just throwing in the towel.[/quote]This is how Cardinal Wuerl operates in all things. That's why it's so important to see where Bishop Knestout is and what he is doing.

[KnightofChrist]

--

Edited May 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Perhaps if Kathleen had denied communion to a open lesbian Buddhist some type of real action would have been taken against her[color=#282828]. [/color]

But all she's done is openly advocate the murder of babies, the legalization of sodomitic unions, and the US government's attacks on the Religious Liberties of Mother Church. Big honking difference, dont-ya-know!

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337150782' post='2431160']
I just want to respond to two comments here:Because these aren't actually members of the diocese (or they shouldn't be), he has left it up to their local bishops to make a comment. As far as I know, he has respected Archbishop Naumann's response to Kathleen Sebelius. While politicians are public figures and ought not be flaunting their faith publicly, I'm not sure a public excommunication is necessary or proper. Cardinal Wuerl has said repeatedly that these matters should be addressed in private.
This is how Cardinal Wuerl operates in all things. That's why it's so important to see where Bishop Knestout is and what he is doing.
[/quote]

Your post is simply incorrect. I never asked for an excommunication, only a statement. I was referring only to her recent comments! But Wuerl is the canonical authority for the archdiocese of Washington and when she is here she is subject to him. Canon law is quite plain on that. No one can travel around the country and pretend they are not subject to the bishop of the diocese they visit or reside temporarily in.
Moreover, Wuerl pointedly criticized Pelosi in 2008 when she distorted Catholic doctrine on conception, so it's not as if he has always been silent. Wuerl has stated rather that he indeed has an obligation to state things publicly. Niederauer invited Pelosi to meet with him four years ago, but to my knowledge she ignored him.
I disagree that "this is how Cardinal Wuerl operates in all things". It's how he operates in some things. So indeed he has thrown in the towel?
I think it's odd that the article in the Catholic standard would invoke Ex Corde Ecclesia and say so little on the obligation of bishops in that regard. That's in canon law since the new code in 1983. The bishops ignored it and then the Vatican reminded them in 1999. And we are still waiting....

S.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Skinzo

[Papist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337150782' post='2431160']
I just want to respond to two comments here:Because these aren't actually members of the diocese (or they shouldn't be), he has left it up to their local bishops to make a comment. As far as I know, he has respected Archbishop Naumann's response to Kathleen Sebelius. While politicians are public figures and ought not be flaunting their faith publicly, I'm not sure a public excommunication is necessary or proper. Cardinal Wuerl has said repeatedly that these matters should be addressed in private.
This is how Cardinal Wuerl operates in all things. That's why it's so important to see where Bishop Knestout is and what he is doing.
[/quote]

Yes. The bishop is to privately talk to person. However, with a public figure, such as Pelosi and Sebelius, if said person does not mend his/her ways, it is proper for the bishop to make excommunication public, as his/hers wrongs are public. Excommunication is not a punishment. It is an effort to bring back the wayward Catholic to the Church.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1337154120' post='2431163']
Perhaps if Kathleen had denied communion to a open lesbian Buddhist some type of real action would have been taken against her[color=#282828]. [/color]

But all she's done is openly advocate the murder of babies, the legalization of sodomitic unions, and the US government's attacks on the Religious Liberties of Mother Church. Big honking difference, dont-ya-know!
[/quote]Father Guarnizo was never suspended for simply denying a woman Holy Communion. He was never even suspended after the incident and no real actions were taken against her. Saying anything else is just sensationalism and simply not true.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1337168780' post='2431181']
Yes. The bishop is to privately talk to person. However, with a public figure, such as Pelosi and Sebelius, if said person does not mend his/her ways, it is proper for the bishop to make excommunication public, as his/hers wrongs are public. Excommunication is not a punishment. It is an effort to bring back the wayward Catholic to the Church.
[/quote]I never said anything to the contrary. I apologize if my efforts to defend Cardinal Wuerl's prudential judgment comes across as not liking or accepting excommunications. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously I wish excommunications were unnecessary, but they are.

My comment had nothing to do with excommunication per se, but whether or not any such action is public. I don't know what good would come from her being publicly excommunicated versus it being done in private. Archbishop Naumann originally acted in private when he excommunicated Kathleen Sebelius.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337177781' post='2431208']
My comment had nothing to do with excommunication per se, but whether or not any such action is public. I don't know what good would come from her being publicly excommunicated versus it being done in private. Archbishop Naumann originally acted in private when he excommunicated Kathleen Sebelius.
[/quote]

! Naumann has not excommunicated Sebelius. She is barred from receiving Communion.

S.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1337178771' post='2431213']
! Naumann has not excommunicated Sebelius. She is barred from receiving Communion.

S.
[/quote]You're right...I think it was a threat if she didn't stop receiving Holy Communion. I'll go back to reexamine that case, but my original point was twofold. First, it was her local bishop (I know it was while she was still governor, but Wuerl would respect it) and second, it was originally done in private and always meant to be such.

[Papist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337177781' post='2431208']
I never said anything to the contrary. I apologize if my efforts to defend Cardinal Wuerl's prudential judgment comes across as not liking or accepting excommunications. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obviously I wish excommunications were unnecessary, but they are.

My comment had nothing to do with excommunication per se, but whether or not any such action is public. I don't know what good would come from her being publicly excommunicated versus it being done in private. Archbishop Naumann originally acted in private when he excommunicated Kathleen Sebelius.
[/quote]

Because if done in public, the people that are harmed by her influence can be helped. Not everyone is well educated in their Catholicism. They may listen to her and think this must be ok she is Catholic, not knowing the grave error being made. By publicly communicating the excommunication, it helps to guide that person believing Sebelius back to proper Church teaching.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337177477' post='2431206']
Father Guarnizo was never suspended for simply denying a woman Holy Communion. He was never even suspended after the incident and no real actions were taken against her. Saying anything else is just sensationalism and simply not true.
[/quote]

Father Guarnizo is still under "administrative leave" and remains removed from public ministry. But true not suspended by using the term suspended but the administrative leave had the same effect basicly. No action at all was was taken against the woman Father sought to protect the Blessed Sacrament from and I never claimed otherwise. But Card. Wuerl did publicly apologize to her via one of his auxiliary bishops.

Edited May 16, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1337179317' post='2431215']
Because if done in public, the people that are harmed by her influence can be helped. Not everyone is well educated in their Catholicism. They may listen to her and think this must be ok she is Catholic, not knowing the grave error being made. By publicly communicating the excommunication, it helps to guide that person believing Sebelius back to proper Church teaching.
[/quote]I'll start with Pelosi then get to Sebelius. Cardinal Wuerl has spoken on a few occasions why Pelosi simply isn't right. I have never yet met a Catholic who was ignorant of Church teaching without being obstinately against the Magisterium in general, as is Pelosi. But a bishop calling out such a person like Pelosi, those disinclined to follow the Magisterium will just be justified.

As for Sebelius, she was told publicly not to go to Holy Communion. What more should be done? And yet, it has done no good because people simply won't listen.

This is one point with which I agree with Cardinal Wuerl, though I think it's a lot more nuanced than anyone will allow. I am not against bishops denying some of their flock from receiving Holy Communion and think they should do it when most appropriate. By Cardinal Wuerl himself [i]publicly[/i] taking such action against Nancy Pelosi or Kathleen Sebelius (who ought not go to Holy Communion at this time) he makes the Blessed Sacrament into a weapon to be wielded against those who despise the Church. Privately there is not such a danger. Therefore, while I am in support of any bishops denying Holy Communion, I think such action should remain in private. In public these bishops would do well to condemn the statements of such politicians. This has been done already and continues to be done.

This says nothing of where Sebelius or Pelosi live. Half our nation's politicians live in Bishop Loverdi's diocese for less than half the year. Therefore they reside in their home diocese for more than half the year. Are all three bishops equally responsible as their pastor? I'll say more in response to Skinzo in a minute.