Burke Replaced By Wuerl? Really?

[mortify ii]

Whose genius idea was this and did they spend more than half a millisecond looking at Wuerl's shady record?

 

Signed, a Burke fanboy.

 

The Holy Father is shifting the balance within the curia and he has the authority to do so. Other conservatives such as Piacenza and Bagnasco are also out.

[Luigi]

In a celebrity-obsessed world, everyone gets treated as a celebrity. Bishops are not professional athletes for us to like or not like. Nor are they celebrities for us to compare the performances of, nor are they politicians to vote for or against.

 

We're supposed to pray for the Church and the enlightenment of the pope, the cardinals, the bishops and them.

[Aloysius]

well the congregation for bishops is a rotating position... Burke remains head of the Apostolic Signatura and member of a few other congregations.

 

I'm not as much of a fan of Wuerl as Burke, but for reasons other than the communion for politicians thing as generally I'm not all gung-ho about using canon 915 on politicians... if a bishop wants to do so, it's their right and I support it, but if they don't do it heavy handedly I'm ok with that too.

[NotreDame]

What do you guys think of how Wuerl got rid of the priest that denied communion to the lesbian at the funeral?

[Maggyie]

What do you guys think of how Wuerl got rid of the priest that denied communion to the lesbian at the funeral?

 

denying communion can never be a split-second decision. Which in that priest's case, it was. Even in the case of our politicians, whose misdeeds are in the public record, their shepherd reaches out to them beforehand and educates them on a personal, man-to-man basis first. Then if they persist, something can happen.

 

Even if someone says to the priest, "I'm  lesbian and over there is my partner" you can't just make a split second decision like that. You can't just assume that they're having sex or that they really understand the Church's teaching. Although you can probably guess, it's a bad idea to take a guess about the state of someone's soul when you have a funeral starting in 15 minutes.

 

If someone comes up to you and says "by the way, I'm a Methodist or a Jewish person" you could make a split-second decision because that's a fact, sin doesn't come into it.  Although of course you would do it with kindness and an explanation.

 

Also keep in mind Scripture says "if you eat and drink unworthily, you bring judgment on yourself." Not, "if you administer Communion to an unworthy person, you bring judgment on yourself." The primary onus is on the person presenting themselves. They know their conscience and their status in the eyes of God. The whole point of this exercise is not about "protecting the Host" it's about protecting the soul of the person who may commit sacrilege in this manner.

 

So that's a long way of saying I don't think the Cardinal really made a mistake with this situation.

[KnightofChrist]

The Blessed Sacrament should be protected, and protected to a much greater extent than He is currently protected today. It is a mistake of the bishops to have relativistic and contradictory positions on protecting or not so much protecting the Blessed Sacrament. If a person should be barred in one diocese because of certain public, grave and unrepented sins, then said person should not have the freedom to just shop for a diocese that will allow them to receive profanely.

[NotreDame]

denying communion can never be a split-second decision. Which in that priest's case, it was. Even in the case of our politicians, whose misdeeds are in the public record, their shepherd reaches out to them beforehand and educates them on a personal, man-to-man basis first. Then if they persist, something can happen.

 

Even if someone says to the priest, "I'm  lesbian and over there is my partner" you can't just make a split second decision like that. You can't just assume that they're having sex or that they really understand the Church's teaching. Although you can probably guess, it's a bad idea to take a guess about the state of someone's soul when you have a funeral starting in 15 minutes.

 

If someone comes up to you and says "by the way, I'm a Methodist or a Jewish person" you could make a split-second decision because that's a fact, sin doesn't come into it.  Although of course you would do it with kindness and an explanation.

 

Also keep in mind Scripture says "if you eat and drink unworthily, you bring judgment on yourself." Not, "if you administer Communion to an unworthy person, you bring judgment on yourself." The primary onus is on the person presenting themselves. They know their conscience and their status in the eyes of God. The whole point of this exercise is not about "protecting the Host" it's about protecting the soul of the person who may commit sacrilege in this manner.

 

So that's a long way of saying I don't think the Cardinal really made a mistake with this situation.

 

It's a long explanation that you think the priest made a mistake.  You never discussed Wuerl at all.
 

[Basilisa Marie]

It's a long explanation that you think the priest made a mistake.  You never discussed Wuerl at all.
 

 

But her reasoning is solid, and probably similar to Wuerl's.  It's basically the same answer my canon law professor gave my class when we asked him about the situation.  The priest was acting from good intentions, sure, but he made a quick decision. By denying the woman communion, the priest was making an objective judgment about the state of the woman's soul.  By doing so, he was also making the statement that he had some kind of responsibility to make that call, to judge whether or not she was fit for communion. That's a dangerous position for a priest to be in, because his actions effectively state, "I am responsible for the state of your soul."  It's an impossible responsibility for a priest to bear, so in reality pushing the responsibility of making sure our souls are properly disposed for communion (where sin is concerned) onto the communicant is actually protecting the priest from having to make calls he really isn't equipped to make.   Sure, in that situation you could probably easily extrapolate, but the action has all kinds of implications for other situations.  It's not a good practice to start doing. And even with extrapolating you can't know for sure unless she told him specifically what she was doing with her partner.  The priest can make a call when it comes to barring non-Catholics from communion because that involves an objective fact.  But it's up to the person receiving communion to know whether or not he or she is in a state of sin, not the minister. 


Basically she explained to us why the priest didn't make the right decision.  Plus it doesn't look like the priest was removed, but reprimanded. 

This is a quote from the Archdiocese on the issue: 

 

 

 

“When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

From this article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-washington-reprimands-priest-for-denying-communion-to-a-lesb

Edited December 22, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[PhuturePriest]

But her reasoning is solid, and probably similar to Wuerl's.  It's basically the same answer my canon law professor gave my class when we asked him about the situation.  The priest was acting from good intentions, sure, but he made a quick decision. By denying the woman communion, the priest was making an objective judgment about the state of the woman's soul.  By doing so, he was also making the statement that he had some kind of responsibility to make that call, to judge whether or not she was fit for communion. That's a dangerous position for a priest to be in, because his actions effectively state, "I am responsible for the state of your soul."  It's an impossible responsibility for a priest to bear, so in reality pushing the responsibility of making sure our souls are properly disposed for communion (where sin is concerned) onto the communicant is actually protecting the priest from having to make calls he really isn't equipped to make.   Sure, in that situation you could probably easily extrapolate, but the action has all kinds of implications for other situations.  It's not a good practice to start doing. And even with extrapolating you can't know for sure unless she told him specifically what she was doing with her partner.  The priest can make a call when it comes to barring non-Catholics from communion because that involves an objective fact.  But it's up to the person receiving communion to know whether or not he or she is in a state of sin, not the minister. 

 

This reminds me of when a young man went up to communion in Spain. He took the Eucharist in his hands and then promptly through it on the ground. The priest did the logical thing and dragged him out of the church by his ear, screaming at him the entire way to the door. I want to party with that priest. :P

[Seven77]

I'm not just saying something nice because he is my Archbishop, but I know that Cardinal Weurl is very genuine. A few years ago, I was a Confirmation sponsor for a cousin… because of where my cousin sat, I had my wheelchair parked next to the middle aisle. After Mass, as he was processing out, the Cardinal made a point to greet me cheerfully and say, "it was very good to be with you."

[PhuturePriest]

 

I'm not just saying something nice because he is my Archbishop, but I know that Cardinal Weurl is very genuine. A few years ago, I was a Confirmation sponsor for a cousin… because of where my cousin sat, I had my wheelchair parked next to the middle aisle. After Mass, as he was processing out, the Cardinal made a point to greet me cheerfully and say, "it was very good to be with you."

 

 

I have no doubts as to his genuine nature. I question his position on Canon Law, but I think overall he'll avoid giving us Bishops that would make Mahoney proud.

[mortify ii]

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.  

 

From what Basilisa is saying it sounds like Wuerl has an issue with Canon 915 itself, otherwise if a Catholic politician uses their office to repeatedly publically support what is gravely contrary to morality then I don't know who else might fit the criteria.
 

[Basilisa Marie]

From what Basilisa is saying it sounds like Wuerl has an issue with Canon 915 itself, otherwise if a Catholic politician uses their office to repeatedly publically support what is gravely contrary to morality then I don't know who else might fit the criteria.
 

 

It's not an issue with Canon 915 itself, it's the interpretation of Canon 915, specifically what really counts as a grave enough matter. That's where the issue lies, not whether or not Canon 915 is good.  

 

Hmm, maybe it's also an issue with the application of Canon 915. I know Wuerl argues that in the case of pro-choice politicians, withholding communion doesn't "work" to change their hearts. I think he'd also draw a distinction between a bishop deciding to withhold communion and a bishop urging a person to not approach communion unless he or she is properly disposed. I also think he might be in favor of withholding communion from someone whom he had already spoken to privately and urged him or her not to receive...but even then, given his actions with that one priest, I still think he really values a person's own responsibility for the state of their soul, and would save publicly denying a person communion for the gravest of cases. 

[NotreDame]

But her reasoning is solid, and probably similar to Wuerl's.  It's basically the same answer my canon law professor gave my class when we asked him about the situation.  The priest was acting from good intentions, sure, but he made a quick decision. By denying the woman communion, the priest was making an objective judgment about the state of the woman's soul.  By doing so, he was also making the statement that he had some kind of responsibility to make that call, to judge whether or not she was fit for communion. That's a dangerous position for a priest to be in, because his actions effectively state, "I am responsible for the state of your soul."  It's an impossible responsibility for a priest to bear, so in reality pushing the responsibility of making sure our souls are properly disposed for communion (where sin is concerned) onto the communicant is actually protecting the priest from having to make calls he really isn't equipped to make.   Sure, in that situation you could probably easily extrapolate, but the action has all kinds of implications for other situations.  It's not a good practice to start doing. And even with extrapolating you can't know for sure unless she told him specifically what she was doing with her partner.  The priest can make a call when it comes to barring non-Catholics from communion because that involves an objective fact.  But it's up to the person receiving communion to know whether or not he or she is in a state of sin, not the minister. 


Basically she explained to us why the priest didn't make the right decision.  Plus it doesn't look like the priest was removed, but reprimanded. 

This is a quote from the Archdiocese on the issue: 

 

From this article: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-washington-reprimands-priest-for-denying-communion-to-a-lesb

 

Was probably similar to Wuerl's?  How do you know?  You aren't even aware what happened to the priest, lol.

 

Look, to evaluate Wuerl you need to evaluate how he and his organization dealt with the issue.  Maggie didn't do this and neither have you.  In the context of doing so, what the priest did is irrelevant, except in evaluating the Cardinal and the ADW's response.

 

I have some skin in the game with Wuerl at the moment and am not going to pass judgement or have any opinion quite yet, but y'all need to be a little more intellectually rigorous if you are going to have opinions on these types of things.  

[Maggyie]

Was probably similar to Wuerl's?  How do you know?  You aren't even aware what happened to the priest, lol.

 

Look, to evaluate Wuerl you need to evaluate how he and his organization dealt with the issue.  Maggie didn't do this and neither have you.  In the context of doing so, what the priest did is irrelevant, except in evaluating the Cardinal and the ADW's response.

 

I have some skin in the game with Wuerl at the moment and am not going to pass judgement or have any opinion quite yet, but y'all need to be a little more intellectually rigorous if you are going to have opinions on these types of things.  

 

Au contraire, "what the priest did" is extremely relevant, given that the end result is public knowledge. Basically one party complains that the priest did the right thing and the cardinal should have backed him up. The other party points out that the priest's actions were rash, foolish, possibly violated the woman's canonical rights and were entirely counter-productive. The Cardinal apologized for the big mess the priest made and that certainly is what I would have done in this situation.

 

I don't read sites like Whispers in the Loggia (an ecclesiastical Page Six and therefore a disgrace). I make a great effort to ignore this sort of "news" which honestly has zero impact on the life of the ordinary Christian in living the Gospel and saving his soul.

 

I have been doing some reading about 19th century St Petersburg society and the fact that many of its characteristics are replicated in the church today is wretched. It's all about who's in, who's out, what does it mean. Factions, ideology, power-struggle. Do you suppose at my particular judgment or yours, our opinions of bishops and the correct application of various canons will mean anything? Keep in mind that we do not know the day or the hour, and at any moment your life and mine may draw to a hasty close. The one thing we don't have enough of is time - God has numbered our days and even at this moment life is slipping away from you and from me. The greatest possible urgency is necessary and yet we waste our time on gossip and matters that don't concern us.