Abp. Donald Wuerl of Washington DC continues to defend his refusal to withhold holy Communion from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in a number of ways, but his recent claims that canon law supports his inaction attract my attention. I think the prelate’s canonical claims are wrong.
First, Wuerl claims that “there’s a question about whether [Canon 915] was ever intended to be used to bring politicians to heel . . . I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.”
Okay, for starters, “the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world” (that’s more than 3,000 men!), have not made any comments about the impact of Canon 915 on politicians, let alone have they made statements holding Canon 915 inapplicable to politicians. There’s no need to belabor this exaggeration further.
More importantly, I wonder: exactly where is “the question” about whether Canon 915 was “intended to bring politicians to heel” (that’s a derogatory description of Church leaders and Catholic politicians alike) being raised? Who poses the problem in this manner? I’d be happy to examine such sources for the claim as one might care to offer, but I rather doubt any serious ones can be found. Why? Because no canon in the Code was written with the intention of bringing politicians to heel. That’s a disingenuous way to frame this issue.
Canons are designed to advance the salvific mission of the Church (c. 1752). They help to establish an ecclesial order rooted in Scripture and Tradition (JP2, ap. con. Sacrae disciplinae leges, esp. para. 16). To hold, therefore, that any canon is intended to bring a particular secular grouping of people “to heel” is to misunderstand what canon law is for. But the mistake is compounded when one goes on to use that mischaracterization of canon law to avoid the correct application of canon law.[reference]
I quite admire Bishop Weurl as a catechist, but his inactions in this show that he does not quite understand the matters at hand. As Ed Peters points out his view of Canon Law in this case is coming from quite the wrong direction. Where is the concern for the soul of a public sinner who further their sin by receiving the Eucharist while in objectively grave sin? The concern about the scandal causes when pro-abortion politicians are allowed to pretend that their actions don’t put them out of full communion with the Church. Bishops need to stop seeing this as a political issue and to see it in terms as a shepherd.
After Ed Peters describes cases in Canon law where politicians might have some exemptions (not in this case though) he mentions “Second, Wuerl asserts, “Pelosi, as a San Franciscan, isn’t part of my flock!”” That is a rather sad argument for a Bishop to make. Canon 915 is certainly not restricted to just the diocese the person belongs. Canonist Archbishop Burke who is now Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura previously said he would deny Communion to John Kerry if he tried to receive in his diocese. Other bishops have said similar things about other pro-abortion Politicians who were not actually part of their diocese. This year Bishop Martino said exactly the same thing about Vice President Joe Biden. I doubt that Archbishop Wuerl would attempt to make the case that these fellow bishops had no authority to act in this way. The Bishop’s reply reminds me way too much of “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Ed Peters discusses this question from the point of view of Canon Law and concludes:
There is, I conclude, simply no question but that an arch/bishop is authorized by canon law to take the steps necessary to protect the sacraments (especially the Eucharist, cc. 897-898) from unworthy administration in his territory and his people from the danger of scandal that might be given by such reception.
20 comments
I think that this really gets down to the post-Vatican II appointees. I’m not badmouthing John Paul II or Paul IV here. But let’s be frank, several bishops slipped through who shouldn’t have, among them Archbishop Neiderauer.
And he’s from San Francisco… the one who could really help here… 🙁
Several? Cracks?
And both Niederauer and Wuerl are Benny’s fumbles (at least in their current positions).
Didn’t Cardinal Arinze say that it shouldn’t take a cardinal to figure this out? That a 7-year-old preparing for First Holy Communion should be able to get this one right?
It seems to me that you don’t even need to invoke Canon 915 on this one. When I was in RCIA, our pastor and everyone else were very clear that until our First Communion, all of us candidates and catechumens should simply cross our arms over our chests when approaching the Sacred Host. we were not to receive until we had passed through this minimal preparation (i.e. RCIA). Until then we simply were not sufficiently prepared to receive. Our Pastor has always been clear on this point; when celebrating Mass under circumstances where many non-Catholics are present, or even expected, he always offers the same words of welcome: if you are not Catholic, simply cross your arms over your chest when approaching Holy Communion.
And they are words of welcome. No one could ever accuse any of the folks in our parish RCIA program of being anything but gentle and welcoming. The priest whose spiritual direction I sought out during my RCIA preparation (a different man from my pastor) was equally gentle and welcoming about Confession. He explained that until I was close to my First Communion, he could not offer me absolution. But he always welcomed me into the confessional and was always gentle in hearing my confessions. So what if they did not constitute the full Sacrament until I was ready. A spiritual Reconciliation is still a wonderful opportunity for healing and makes the full First Reconciliation that much more peaceful.
My point is this: Speaker Pelosi’s public positions on abortion indicate that she is not ready to receive Communion. It would be merciful, welcoming, and gentle of Archbishop Wuerl if he simply explained this to her and asked her to cross her arms over her chest when approaching Holy Communion.
It would be a very gentle and welcoming way to help Speaker Pelosi.
Niederauer met with her. She refused to reform her obstinant position. Has he decided to do anything? Supposedly, Wuerl was waiting for each individual bishop to make a policy which he would implement.
And I think your hitting the nail on the head. A bishop has to abstract from the fact that aperson is a politician. Is the person doing something gravely sinful and publically or not? That is the question. If a grave sin is public and manifest then refuse holy communion. Even Cardinal Egan, a canonist, said that Giuliani should not receive Communion because of his well know support for abortion!
Niederauer met with her. She refused to reform her obstinant position. Has he decided to do anything? Supposedly, Wuerl was waiting for each individual bishop to make a policy which he would implement.
And I think your hitting the nail on the head. A bishop has to abstract from the fact that aperson is a politician. Is the person doing something gravely sinful and publically or not? That is the question. If a grave sin is public and manifest then refuse holy communion. Even Cardinal Egan, a canonist, said that Giuliani should not receive Communion because of his well know support for abortion!
Didn’t Cardinal Arinze say that it shouldn’t take a cardinal to figure this out? That a 7-year-old preparing for First Holy Communion should be able to get this one right?
Indeed. Cardinal Arinze did a lot of talking.
This is so important Jeff thank you. Its an utter scandal and intolerable.
I don’t know where I’d be without Our Lord’s vigorous chastisement. So its hard for me to understand a charitable man acting so uncharitably toward Nancy Pelosi.
It is an earthquake through our Church – the acquiescing silence from the Archbishop.
The one thing I can say about Archbishop Wuerl, and he is the Archbishop of my diocese, has been consistant on this issue:
DO NOTHING TO GET THEM UPSET WITH YOU, SINCE YOU MAY NEED THEM TO FUND YOUR SOCIAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS.
This is the Cardinal McCarrick Doctrine.
How does Archbishop Wuerl’s inaction in this differ from Pope Benedicts inaction regarding pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist in Rome?
I think, too, that “bringing politicians to heel” is an apt description of what many vocal Catholics are calling for.
Oh, I see now that “to bring politicians to heel” are the words of the interviewer, not the archbishop. Still apt, I think, but not necessarily how Archbishop Wuerl would put it.
“Bringing (Catholic) politicians to heel” (I think) is not the Church’s the main concern here. Bringing (Catholic) politicians to Heaven (preaching repentence, confession, penance, amendment and good works to gain redemption and salvation) ought to be the shepherds’ objectives.
Protecting the Blessed Sacrament from sacriliege and scandal is also vitally important.
We need spiritual warrior bishops and priests.
Then, you have the issue of Obama voters presenting themselves for the Sacrament . . .
I understand the principle, but I’m honestly confused (along with some of the bishops?) as to its application. In some of the cases reported, it seems the dispute is more with the particular political judgement of the public official than with his or her acceptance/repudiation of Church doctrine.
For example, if a politician were to oppose some pro-life initiative on the grounds that it was unconstitutional — or simply out of a calculation that it would never pass anyway — would that action be subject to an invocation of Canon 915 (understanding that actions of the Speaker and others go way beyond this)?
Our Bishops (and Archbishops) are here to lead, and to teach, and so they do. I am just not so sure they are aware of the lessons they are teaching. This is one of those times – as they say – when a “unique teaching moment” is available. Class, what have we learned today?
I feel bad for the Catholics in Washington, D.C. I really do.
Cardinal McCarrick, well before scandalizing the faithful in the D.C., was unfortunately once the President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico (in my beautiful hometown of Ponce). In this capacity, he was one of the 26 signatories of the Land O’ Lakes statement, which makes him partially responsible for the chaos that currently runs rampant in American universities that have Catholic charters.
And after him came Wuerl. He gained a reputation as a good and orthodox administrator when as an auxiliary bishop he helped clean up Abp. Hunthausen’s mess in Seattle back in the 80’s (not being very well versed in that particular history, I am in no position to say how of the clean up was actually his doing), and he has been trading on that reputation ever since. As Jeff said, he is a very capable catechist. However, while Bishop of Pittsburgh, he turned a blind eye to a lot of bad things that were going on in that diocese, and he appears to be continuing that pattern in our nation’s capital. His appointment as Archbishop of Washington D.C has been one of the (blessedly few) unfortunate aspects B16’s papacy. I pray that this misfortune is not further compounded by giving Wuerl a red cap, whether it is traditional to give one to a man in his position or not.
(Translation from an open letter to my friend)
Obispo de Yauyos, mi querido Monseñor Don Ricardo García:
Is extremely hurtful that against the explicit indication of their Bishops Conference, and Ecclesia De Eucharistia, the priest Jenkins of Notre Dame, full of satanic pride, persists in affronting Our Queen of Peace, and especially the 96 % of Catholics non-resident in USA.
This open letter begs you and your Bishop friends (more than 70 in USA already did), to make their voice heard in Rome for two main reasons:
1)The devil (who defamed Pious XII in the Milan’s speech condemning the Holocaust), will obtain that our enemies publish our Pope as a Catholic Prize giver to a genocide that leaves the Stalin’s Gulags, Pol-Pot’s fields of death, and Hitler´s gas chambers… like sucking babies.
2) The Bishop D’Arcy and Rome are RESPONSIBLE of ND using the NAME CATHOLIC, and crowing their GIVING A CATHOLIC HONOR TO GENOCIDAL LEADER Obama, whom in 100 days gave dozens of measures to industrialize human embryos & abortions. He raised from 80 to 980 million the budget of the abortion chambers, going full steam.
1 + 2: History will forget Jenkins and D’Arcy in one day, and this horrendous scandal will be registered as the Vatican washing its hands like Pilates, in ND. Our beloved Benedict XVI will have to see: Hitler, Stalin and Pol-Pot hided their killings. Instead, Obama is a militant of the most historically OPEN and scandalous genocide.
Un abrazo de tu amigo
Perhaps it would help if a clear simple explanation that communion should not be received by any soul who has publicly or privately sinned in a serious manner and has not repented and received absolution for that sin. Publicly supporting or advocating abortion is aiding and abetting others to take the life of an innocent child in other words a serious sin. Until a person renounces their support for abortion they betray Truth and therefore should not present themselves for communion. If they do so the celebrant should give them a blessing and pray for their change of heart.If they have had an abortion or pressured or aided another to have an abortion they are in a state of serious sin and should go to confession and seek absolution and make a fresh start spiritually.Jesus is very merciful but He cannot forgive proud hearts who refuse to admit that they are in error and have done harm by encouraging and supporting others to act in error also.
Jeff, I agree with your thought on Wuerl & appreciate this post. That said, i hope I live long enough to see Catholic Comboxers take some personal responsibility for the state of the Church instead of reflexively pointing fingers at the bishops, Holy Father(s), Vatican II, All of the Above or basically anybody but themselves. Its just so adolescent.
We get the bishops we deserve. While McCarrick was signing the Land of Lakes conference claptrap, the Catholics who are complaining loud & long about him & his cohorts were likely contracepting, sterilizing and/or voting for pro-abortion candidates. My point is, we are all complicit in the mess we’re in now. My hope is that we take the words of Bishop Burke to the Catholic Prayer Breakfast to heart & finally start to live our faith. He said if we don’t, we’re not worthy to be called Catholic.
It simply does not matter what Wuerl thinks or says. He has no role in this at all. His priests have the same obligation to obey Canon 915 as all the other priests in the world, no matter who their bishop is.
Even interviewing Wuerl about his issue gives the wrong impression. There’s no reason to be interviewing him, because he has no authority to disobey Canon 915, AND he has no authority to instruct his priests to disobey Canon 915.
Canon 915 is the law of the Church, in every diocese, in every parish, regardless of what any bishop says. Wuerl is irrelevant. Every bishop is irrelevant.
Read, in particular, section four of this document, which makes clear that the bishop plays no role at all:
http://www.tinyurl.com/pont915
Here is Archbp. Burke’s article:
http://www.tinyurl.com/canon915
IIRC, Abp Wuerl, a number of years ago, also got into a dustup concerning sex ed. He’s always been about 1 inch shy of dead-on.