Burke Replaced By Wuerl? Really?

[Basilisa Marie]

I prefer this thread, though. It's more blatantly pro-Burke. ;)

 

Lying makes baby Jesus cry. :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:hehe2:

Edited December 21, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Ancilla Domini]

Lying makes baby Jesus cry. :|

 

Lying? In what way did I lie? :unsure:

 

**Update: I just scrolled down and saw the chuckle. :)

Edited December 21, 2013 by Ancilla Domini

[PhuturePriest]

Cursory phatmass thread already talking about this topic: 
 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/132419-pope-replaces-conservative-us-cardinal-on-influential-vatican-committee-from-ny-times/#.UrT74vRDuSo

 

It's not my fault if it was made while I was away and died down before I came back. :P

[Basilisa Marie]

Well, regardless, Wuerl's appointment seems pretty consistent with the rest of what Pope Francis has been doing. It'll be interesting to see how it continues to play out. 

[PhuturePriest]

Well, regardless, Wuerl's appointment seems pretty consistent with the rest of what Pope Francis has been doing. It'll be interesting to see how it continues to play out. 

 

I question Wuerl's opinions on important things like Catechism #WhoCanActuallyRememberTheNumbers when it explicitly states those who do not follow the teachings of the Church are not to be administered Communion, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI sent a letter to all Bishops to remind them of this, and yet Wuerl (As far as I have read) seems to think this is open for debate.

[Basilisa Marie]

I question Wuerl's opinions on important things like Catechism #WhoCanActuallyRememberTheNumbers when it explicitly states those who do not follow the teachings of the Church are not to be administered Communion, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI sent a letter to all Bishops to remind them of this, and yet Wuerl (As far as I have read) seems to think this is open for debate.

 

That's because it is open for debate.  It's not Catechism #whatever, it's Canon 915 which says: 
 

 

 

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

 

Now, the "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" is the tricky part. Burke argued that politicians who support pro-choice stances counted. Wuerl argued that communion was never meant to be used as a weapon, and that withholding communion doesn't work.  Both made good arguments. Even though I personally sympathize with Wuerl's position, we also have to take Burke seriously because he is a canonist and church law is what he does. It doesn't make him infallible, but it means we should take him seriously. Their opposition to each other got really public in 2009ish, and it got a little nasty. But people apologized and whatnot.  Wikipedia does a decent job of outlining how people try to interpret Canon 915 here (imho). 

 

The WitL page I linked has some links to other posts he made outlining some of went down between the two Cardinals.  

 

[PhuturePriest]

That's because it is open for debate.  It's not Catechism #whatever, it's Canon 915 which says: 
 

 

Now, the "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" is the tricky part. Burke argued that politicians who support pro-choice stances counted. Wuerl argued that communion was never meant to be used as a weapon, and that withholding communion doesn't work.  Both made good arguments. Even though I personally sympathize with Wuerl's position, we also have to take Burke seriously because he is a canonist and church law is what he does. It doesn't make him infallible, but it means we should take him seriously. Their opposition to each other got really public in 2009ish, and it got a little nasty. But people apologized and whatnot.  Wikipedia does a decent job of outlining how people try to interpret Canon 915 here (imho). 

 

The WitL page I linked has some links to other posts he made outlining some of went down between the two Cardinals.  

 

I don't see how Wuerl could argue that the Eucharist is being used as a "weapon". If you support the murder of babies, your soul is not in a right state to receive the Eucharist, because you are not in good standing with the Church. To me, that's like saying "People in mortal sin should be able to receive the Eucharist, otherwise it's like we're using it like a weapon". I could be wrong, but that's how it sounds to me.

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't see how Wuerl could argue that the Eucharist is being used as a "weapon". If you support the murder of babies, your soul is not in a right state to receive the Eucharist, because you are not in good standing with the Church. To me, that's like saying "People in mortal sin should be able to receive the Eucharist, otherwise it's like we're using it like a weapon". I could be wrong, but that's how it sounds to me.

 

Because by denying someone communion, some people think you're trying to punish or leverage a person into changing their minds... but when has that ever worked in recent years?  Then you also have the issue of whether or not being a pro-choice politician is grave enough.  Some people say yes, because they're a public figure and cause scandal and stuff, while others think that just being pro-choice isn't grave enough but being an abortion provider is.   Plus, Canon 843 says:

 

 

 

"sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them"

 

There might be a more relevant canon that I can't remember right now, but basically means it's up to the person seeking to receive communion to make sure he or she is properly disposed, not the priest. I mean, it'd be an impossible situation for the priest to know the hearts of everyone who approaches him for communion, so generally speaking it's not his responsibility. So in light of that, it'd have to be a grave exception to publicly deny someone communion.  Which again begs the question - is being a pro-choice public figure grave enough? That's really what it comes down to. Some people say yes, others no, and for good reasons on both sides. 

[PhuturePriest]

Because by denying someone communion, some people think you're trying to punish or leverage a person into changing their minds... but when has that ever worked in recent years?  Then you also have the issue of whether or not being a pro-choice politician is grave enough.  Some people say yes, because they're a public figure and cause scandal and stuff, while others think that just being pro-choice isn't grave enough but being an abortion provider is.   Plus, Canon 843 says:

 

 

There might be a more relevant canon that I can't remember right now, but basically means it's up to the person seeking to receive communion to make sure he or she is properly disposed, not the priest. I mean, it'd be an impossible situation for the priest to know the hearts of everyone who approaches him for communion, so generally speaking it's not his responsibility. So in light of that, it'd have to be a grave exception to publicly deny someone communion.  Which again begs the question - is being a pro-choice public figure grave enough? That's really what it comes down to. Some people say yes, others no, and for good reasons on both sides. 

 

Thank you for explaining it. But still, those "some people" could say the same for denying people communion because they're in mortal sin. They could say you're trying to "punish" or "leverage" them into changing their minds (What if they're unrepentant of their mortal sin and didn't intend to confess it, much like people with pro-choice positions?). It just seems weird to me that this is even being debated. If the case was instead rather people being in support of taking your child up to 10 years and shooting them in the head because you couldn't afford them, there would be no question as to whether or not those people should receive communion.This is the same situation but for babies in the womb, which I know you know is no different.

[Basilisa Marie]

Also: This post includes an interview with Wuerl where he talks about his side of things. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Thank you for explaining it. But still, those "some people" could say the same for denying people communion because they're in mortal sin. They could say you're trying to "punish" or "leverage" them into changing their minds (What if they're unrepentant of their mortal sin and didn't intend to confess it, much like people with pro-choice positions?). It just seems weird to me that this is even being debated. If the case was instead rather people being in support of taking your child up to 10 years and shooting them in the head because you couldn't afford them, there would be no question as to whether or not those people should receive communion.This is the same situation but for babies in the womb, which I know you know is no different.

 

No problem! :)  I totally think you're well within your rights to be a Burke man, but I think it's important to understand that both sides have some good reasons for what they think. 

I think part of the issue is the difference between being in support of people having the choice to do an evil action and committing the evil action yourself.  Obviously doing the action yourself is more grave, but whether or not supporting the choice to do it is that much less grave? Then you've got the people who just support having the legal choice, while others actually think it's a good thing to do.  It kinda sounds like semantics, but I think it's a distinction worth making. It's all sinful, but the person who just thinks people should have the option would be easier to "convert" than the person who thinks it's great. At least, that's what I think. 

And that's the crux - how well can we know someone to be urepentant of mortal sin in a public fashion, and where do the bishops wish to draw the line on the issue? Personally I think we're better off to have bishops making calls themselves on a case by case basis.  All this East Coast bishops calling out politicans publicly is a bit weird to me, a West Coast kid. My bishop met with our pro-choice Catholic governor privately and worked out relevant religious exceptions to laws she was trying to pass. There wasn't a big stink about denying her communion.  But then, she also wasn't trying to use her Catholicism as a political bargaining chip to gain voters, either.  

 

Yeah, I know it's weird, which is why it was such a big deal when the two cardinals were publicly opposed to each other.   Ultimately at the moment it's up to the local bishop to make the call, and I know Wuerl once pointed out that Nancy Pelosi isn't a member of his flock (she's from San Francisco I think?) so it probably wasn't his jurisdiction, at least where her particular case was concerned.  

[Seven77]

I am for Apollos.

[Basilisa Marie]

I am for Apollos.

 

Hush you, making us all look bad.  

[PhuturePriest]

I am for Apollos.

 

My Helios could kick your Apollos' arse any day.

[Kateri89]

I met Cardinal Wuerl once when he was still just a meager Bishop.  He presided over my cousin's confirmation.  That's all I know about him.   :idontknow: