I'm as respectful I can possibly be. I've respectfully questioned some of the actions of former Pittsburgh Bishop and now Washington, D.C., Archbishop Donald Wuerl over the years. Much of which I've shared here. In most cases, I got no response from him.
I was not very said to see him leave Pittsburgh. It gives my high hopes for the next Pittsburgh Bishop. But back to Wuerl.
Wurel did not (in my opinion) take a strong stand on much of anything. News out of DC shows that nothing has changed.
A response he made recently to questions about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a self proclaimed Catholic) have infuriated the far-right edge of the Catholic blogosphere, and drawn ire from some of the most conservative Catholic leaders of the anti-abortion movement. Archbishop Donald Wuerl has stuck to the stand he took as bishop of Pittsburgh, refusing to withhold communion from Catholic legislators who support legal abortion.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports: A week ago in San Diego he took questions from a conservative Catholic journalist about Ms. Pelosi.
"Do you intend to discipline her at all for being persistent and obstinate about her support for abortion and same-sex marriage?" asked Allyson Smith of the Web site California Catholic Daily.
"I will not be using the faculty in the manner you have described," he replied, referring to his authority.
"Will you make a statement to your priests and deacons to warn them not to allow her to receive if she presents herself for Communion?" Ms. Smith continued.
The archbishop responded: "You're talking about a whole different style of pastoral ministry. No."
LifeSiteNews.com ran outraged responses from Catholic leaders on the conservative wing of the anti-abortion movement.
"I don't believe Archbishop Wuerl is doing his job," said the Rev. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, adding that Ms. Pelosi should be excommunicated.
Judie Brown, president of the American Life League was "appalled that Archbishop Wuerl not only is not going to do anything about this but has publicly said so."
This was a hot topic during the 2004 election. Some argued no one is really worthy of receiving Christ, so how can we ban a person from communion? It has been the long tradition of the church that the person who presents himself or herself for communion has the primary responsibility to determine whether or not they are worthy to receive it. But when a person openly, repeatedly and publicly sins, it is the duty of the clergy to intervene.
You either call a person to repent and fall back in line with church teaching, or you provide a consequence like with holding communion or for the most egregious cases, excommunication.
We need some solid leadership from the Church. How can you preach on the value of life and turn your head when some of the most public and visible examples of the Catholic faith toss aside that teaching in the public arena? If this is not a "deal breaker" then what in the world is?
3 comments:
I feel that if a person goes to Communion knowing that he has a grave sin on his soul or whatever else, thats on the person, its their conscience and their soul.
I agree. But what of they don't care? Does it not weaken the Church when sin and rejection of Church teaching is continually ignored. I just think they should repent or stop claiming to be Christian if you not even going to attempt to live a Godly life.
I agree Powerball, they should stop claiming to be a Christian instead of rejecting the churchs teaching.
Post a Comment