After I posted yesterday on the Biden-Communion controversy, a few friendly readers asked me to explain how the American bishops settled on their current policy. I’m happy to oblige.
The chief architect of the US bishops’ current policy is: Theodore McCarrick.
Do I have your full attention now?
The debate over whether pro-abortion politicians should be barred from Communion, which had been simmering in the US for years, came to a boil in 2004, when the Democratic Party nominated Senator John Kerry, a Catholic with an unmixed record of support for legal abortion, for the presidency. With prominent prelates split, the US bishops’ conference formed a committee to address the question, with then-Cardinal McCarrick as chairman.
The McCarrick committee sought advice from the Vatican, and received a reply from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. McCarrick never voluntarily disclosed the contents of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter.
When the US bishops gathered in Denver for their annual meeting, McCarrick reported that although his committee was not ready with a final report — and would not be ready until well after the November election — he thought it was not “pastorally wise and prudent” to deny Communion to anyone, because it could “turn the Eucharist into a perceived source of political combat.”
In making that judgment, McCarrick claimed that he had the support of Cardinal Ratzinger. He conceded that Ratzinger “recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied.” But he claimed that the Vatican official “clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors, and leaders whether to pursue this path.” That was false.
Having heard McCarrick’s report, the assembled bishops moved on to consideration of an election-year statement, Catholics in Political Life. Despite the recommendation of the McCarrick committee, the full body of bishops did not recommend against denying Communion to abortion supporters. Instead the bishops decided that “such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.”
Although the conference as a whole had not approved the suggestion of the McCarrick committee, the report from that committee remained posted on the web site of the US bishops’ conference. The letter from Cardinal Ratzinger was not posted. McCarrick said that Ratzinger had requested that his letter be kept confidential. That, too, was apparently false.
Two weeks after the US bishops’ meeting, a veteran Vatican journalist, Sandro Magister of L’Espresso, posted the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter. The contents of that letter, the London Daily Telegraph remarked, “hugely embarrassed Cardinal McCarrick.” The future Pope had not said what McCarrick claimed he said. And as a result of McCarrick’s misleading report to his colleagues, the liberal British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, reported: “America’s bishops have chosen not to follow Vatican guidelines over the distribution of Communion to pro-abortion politicians.”
In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger had written, if a Catholic is a prominent supporter of legal abortion, and persists in that support despite private admonitions from his bishop, when he presents himself for Communion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” [emphasis added]
If the US bishops had been presented with that argument by Cardinal Ratzinger — an argument strongly supporting the stand that had already been taken by then-Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln — would they have adopted a stronger line? We’ll never know, thanks to the characteristically manipulative role played by Theodore McCarrick.
* * *
A few other excerpts from the Ratzinger letter:
The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected.
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
… the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.
When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”
The above comes from an August 18 story by Phil Lawler in CatholicCulture.org.
Expect nothing less than criminal like McCarrick.
Not just a criminal , he is evil , why he is free , why he was sheltered in Kansas needs to be explained truthfully , I refer to him in the most foul and obscene ways outside of this website . When someone refers to honoring our bishops and cardinals this comes to mind and I am filled with a righteous anger and fury .
James 1:19-27
Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath,
for the wrath of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God.
Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls.
Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror.
He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like.
But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does.
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain.
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
McCarrick is a modern day Judas, and we all (with the possible exception of Bishop Barron) know where he ended up.
McCarrick is a modern day Judas, and we all (with the possible exception of Bishop Barron) know where he is.
This is the excerpt:
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
Full letter here:
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153
One such as McCarrick, so deep in sin and perversion, lies and deceives without care. The disordered nature of his homosexual lifestyle cannot be ignored because with total disregard for the Church’s teachings on sexuality, he was open to all forms of moral wickedness. He may die before receiving earthly punishment but he will not escape divine justice, which he will think about for eternity.
Eternal Father, i offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of thy dearly beloved Son, in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. For the sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
If, according to some Bishops, Joe Biden should not receive Holy Communion because of his position on abortion, then should Chief Justice John Roberts not receive Holy Communion because of his rulings upholding abortion and same sex marriage?
To Trumpovsky… good question and yes, I think he should refrain from Communion.
Trumpovsky: there is a difference between Biden and Roberts. Roberts is merely ruling on a point of law, Biden is pro-choice.
Let’s get serious. The Bishops/Archbishops/Cardinals knew all about the pervert McCarrick for years. He did not need to pull the wool over their eyes, each one of them pulled the wool over their own eyes. It has gotten to the point here in the US that I would be reluctant to ask nearly all of them even so much as what time it is.
“[McCarrick] was open to all sorts of moral wickedness”, “he is a modern-day Judas”, “he is evil,” “expect nothing less from a criminal.” Folks, I am not writing this to defend the indefensible, namely McCarrick. I am writing this to remind you, in the midst of your almost jubilant condemnation of the man, the words of Our Lord: “he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
There is no jubilation when a Prince of the Church falls so far from grace and in such a public manner. To discuss is not casting stones, if so then the Vatican itself has promised dropping boulders in the form of the not yet released McCarrick report. But hey, thanks for the preaching jon, yet again.
By your comments, “Kristin,” you have already condemned McCarrick to hell: “he will not escape divine justice, which he will think about for eternity.” As long as a person is alive on this earth, there is hope. If you really care about this man, why don’t you make sacrifices for him, offer Rosaries, offer penances, instead of reassuring yourself that this man is doomed “for eternity.” That is only the Christian thing to do.
jon, none of us will escape divine justice, and we all will have eternity to think about it. There is no condemnation there, as your interpretation insists. Thanks again for reminding us to pray for others, however personally abhorrent they may be to us, as is my practice, would that you do too.
Reading her comment again, I insist that there is indeed condemnation in Kristin’s words–that she has already consigned the poor soul, McCarrick, to hell, given the context of what she had written prior to “he will not escape divine justice, which he will think about for eternity.” Kristin to help you out here, it is better to simply hope that McCarrick repents and is contrite, rather than to reassure yourself that though he may not receive “earthly punishment” that he will be consigned to dwell upon God’s justice “for eternity.” In the Bible, “God’s justice” is a way of saying God’s vengeance and retribution.
So jon, bottom line is that you have stewed over it for days and still prefer your own interpretation, we get it. The August 25 8:28 am post should provide you with my actions and intentions concerning McCarrick’s repentance and contrition. His fate rests in God’s hands alone.
Lastly, ALL are subject to God’s justice and the bible is full of examples of it being dispensed to good and evil alike. That mission, should you choose to accept it, is on you. Peace Out!
Peoples: Kristin’s response denying condemnation in her words about McCarrick hilariously reminds me of CNN’s Omar Jimenez reporting in front of a burning building in Kenosha, WI while telling viewers that the protests are “mostly peaceful.” People, you can’t deny reading the words from her post about the man: “deep in sin and perversion, lies and deceives without care,” “his homosexual lifestyle,” “total disregard for the Church’s teachings on sexuality,” “open to all forms of moral wickedness.” That last phrase there was her “coup de grâce” before rendering her final judgment “for eternity.” People, don’t imitate the deceit from the left-wing media.
Kristin, jon does not quote the Lord’s condemnation on scandalizing the little ones and the application of a millstone around the offenders neck , I join you in taking no joy in this.
Me? Not quoting the Bible sufficiently? You forget Rick W. how that entire discourse of Our Lord in Matthew 18 ends: about forgiveness. There’s no question of God’s judgement upon all, upon McCarrick when He returns. But you seem stuck on certain passages (you’re seemingly stuck all the time on millstones, imagining them for some reason around McCarrick’s neck). Note that He doesn’t actually say that we should put a millstone around anyone’s neck! You fail to see the complete picture of what Our Lord actually says in that chapter. He says: “So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.” He also speaks of the one lost sheep being sought by the shepherd, even leaving the 99 behind. Such is God’s love even for the most wretched in Rick W’s eyes.
I never said about quoting the Bible, just your lack of applying Matt 18:6 to McCarrick a very specific quote that fits him. Who said anything about a actual millstone? The millstone as a allegory for the severity of the punishment. Forgiveness is between the McCarrick, the victims and God, and yes, God does have more mercy then I; as far as the sheep allegory (like the millstone) the lost sheep (sinner) would still be accountable to God. As far as millstones “imagining them for some reason around McCarrick’s neck” it is because of his evil acts against the children and the faithful (the 99).
For myself jon my comments reflect moral rage, righteous anger and the horror of sin that an anointed shepherd should have for the mistreatment of his flock . When I see the response of the hierarchy to the scandals and to the mccarrick in particular , I don’t see anger at someone who has betrayed the trust , faith , finances and has cost souls and lives by his evil .
So you are a bishop?
jon how do you reconcile your post to Kevin T. from the 18th ” I must say your posts reeks of demonic negativity. Straight up.” with this post on casting the first stone ? . This is not the first time that you have cast a post as such , what experience , training and education allows you to surmise this from a simple post ?.
Do please read my comment that you’re quoting more closely Rick W. I identified the post’s “demonic negativity” (you quoted it yourself), whereas comments from folks you see above have already consigned the man, McCarrick, to hell. I referred to the post; whereas you people are speaking about the man.
Xavier, harsh but I do not disagree, these scandals have caused a rift of trust the the hierarchy does not seem to want to acknowledge. Xavier, keep praying for the church in these difficult times. God bless.
Bertolini: with regards to Roberts, a man’s thoughts and writings reveal much about him. The Chief Justice is not off the hook before God!
In a week, it’ll be September. Last year, the Vatican promised that the McCarrick report would be released “soon.”
In 2015, the Pope pledged a Vatican with “absolute transparency.”
Am I missing something?
Still Waiting, no, you’re spot on; more contempt and insults to the laity. In the Los Angeles Archdiocese the assessments on some churchess went up, I call it the Mahony tax as the lawsuits are moving forward. Mccarrick is supposed to be deposed in a lawsuit I believe in New Jersey.
The worst affront to the lay faithful is that McCarrick was laicized. Just because he was an evil predator prelate who got caught doesn’t mean some in the hierarchy should have, in effect, made him a lay person. Dr. Scott Hahn and others have noted this.
“Oh my, we’ve got to kick him out of our club, now that he has been caught and it’s public!” seems to have been the response from some at the Vatican.
As St. John Chrysostom said, the floor of hell is carpeted with the skulls of bishops and priests. They will be priests forever, even if in hell, as Saint Teresa of Calcutta noted.
Let us pray that McCarrick repents. He has not done so, at least publicly. (Do any other readers know otherwise?) Given the public nature of his mortal sins, a public repentance is appropriate.
Is he unrepentant? Might his friends at the Vatican help him see the errors of his ways and the destruction he has caused countless lives and the witness of the Church?