Cdnl Arinze speaks

...in Pittsburgh. Was he clear? You decide

(This is the same answer, I think, he gave to Raymond Arroyo in an interview earlier this year or last year.)

After giving a speech on the importance of the Eucharist for family life, he took written questions on a wide range of topics at a benefit dinner at the Le Mont restaurant on Mount Washington for the Apostolate for Family Consecration in Bloomingdale, Ohio. One question concerned whether Catholic legislators who support legal abortion should "be refused" Communion.

"Should the person be given [Communion]? And I ask you, do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to find the answer?" he said to laughter and applause from an audience of 120 ardent Catholics. "Are there no children from First Communion to whom you can pose the question and receive the answer? You do not need a cardinal to answer that. Because it is a straightforward matter."

Comments

[ambrose]

Does anyone know what the Cardinal's schedule is to be for the rest of his visit to the Pgh area? If there is more visit?
Thank you!

[catholic]

That's a clever evasion of a complex issue posed in an overly simplistic question.

[David W.]

catholic,

It is hardly an evasion. Neither is it really that complex of an issue. And the question is not overly simplistic. For the parish priest, there is a pastoral issue of whether he should give the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord to a person who is publicly supporting abortion through his position as an elected official.

The cardinal is actually seeming to try to cut through the obfuscation which occurs that tries to make this seem like an overly "complex" or "delicate" issue. A child who has learned how to prepare for receiving the Eucharist knows that one cannot be in mortal sin and receive Jesus. He has also learned that the Eucharist is a gift which is given to us through the ministry of the Church. No one can demand a gift.

The only delicate part of this issue involves the pastoral work of addressing the public official in order to help him repent of a sin which is placing his soul in jeopardy. Archbishop Burke has demonstrated how this can be done. However, as he found, when the public official refuses to repent, it rightly becomes necessary to deny him the Eucharist. The burden is on the public official. He has made his support for abortion publicly known. Should he not also have to make his repentance of such support also publicly known in order to undo the scandal that he might have caused?

With regard to the Cardinal's answer in his interview with Raymond Arroyo, he replied: "The answer is clear. If a person says I am in favor of killing unborn babies. Whether they be 4000 or 5000. I have been in favor of killing them. I will be in favor of killing them tomorrow, and next week, and next year. So, unborn babies, too bad for you. I am in favor that you should be killed. Then the person turn around and say, 'I want to receive Holy Communion.' Do you need any cardinal from the Vatican to answer that? Ask the children for First Communion. They'll give you the answer."

[Dad29]

The only "evasion" here is the evasion of responsibility by some of our Bishops and priests.

[Colleen]

It could sound like an evasion or a dodge if we are waiting for him to say either 'yes' or 'no' but it seems like he is making all of us think with the simple faith we had as little children. I doubt that there is one child of First Communion age (who has been taught what the Eucharist is and the proper preparation for reception) who, if the question was put to them and they understood what abortion is and what mortal sin is, would believe that the person upholding and promoting abortion rights would be properly disposed for the Eucharist.

[Rich Leonardi]

That's a clever evasion of a complex issue posed in an overly simplistic question.

I believe "catholic" is the same poster who spent most of '04 shilling for Kerry on St. Blog's. As Fr. Johansen said at the time, "He's a troll; don't feed him."

[BillyHW]

And I ask you, do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to find the answer?"

Yes!

[Venerable Aussie]

The interview with Raymond Arroyo on EWTN is worth getting hold of, not just for Cardinal Arinze's comments on the reception of Communion by pro-abort politicians, but for its sheer clarity on a range of hot-button topics. I've had the opportunity recently to use Cardinal Arinze's paraphrase of St Paul ("Priests are servants of the Eucharistic Mystery, not masters of it) when in post-Mass "conversation" mode with a couple of priests. It's a great line, as even the worst priestly ad-libbers and Mass-abusers seem to get stuck when someone in the pews hints later that they may be lacking in humility.

Here’s the audio link: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=wo_02112005.rm

[Susan]

I think his answer is unclear only to certain US Bishops and Catholic politicians who refuse to see clearly.

[suscipe]

The dignity of an answer would signify that a suitable question has been posed. This is how the bar gets raised. The great Cardinal is properly trying to keep the bar from moving much more than it already has. If someone contemplating moral questions for the first time believes that there is serious question of whether someone who promotes abortion has committed a sin that separates them from God’s grace that person may think this is where the bar now stands. We know the bar doesn’t truly move, but as the Church actually debates this question, more people will believe the bar has moved. Moved to the point where it becomes common perception that everything up to and possibly including promoting the killing of the unborn is still acceptable behavior for receiving God.

[dcs]

Of course it's clear to me and of course it's probably clear to those who read this blog, but then we probably didn't need a curial Cardinal to tell us the answer anyway. It seems to me that His Eminence ought to make it clear to those to whom it is not already clear. (One wonders to what extent First Communicants have been instructed as to the nature of abortion, too.) If one were to ask His Eminence whether calumny or fornication were a sin (a "straightforward matter," no doubt), would he answer that one should instead pose the question to a 8 year-old?

Straight answers are always the best. We shouldn't have to interpret a bishop's remarks in the same way we interpret Holy Writ.

[Ronny]

Arinze answered such a question before in the past, as has been widely reported, in a straightforward way around the time of the election. I can't help but hear a bit of exasperation in the quote.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my five-year-old yesterday. She wanted a snack before finishing what had put before her for lunch. She was told quite plainly, "no snack until you finish everything on your plate." So, she tried repeating the question in different ways periodically during the meal, or she would suggest compromises ("if I eat one slice of meat, can I have a snack"). After this happened a number of times, I replied to another such inquiry "You keep asking the same question in different ways. You already know the answer. Do you think that the answer is going to be any different the next time?" She, of course, responded "yes," after which I told her that the answer already given would not change -- without repeating what that answer was. She dropped the matter after that.

I suspect that Arinze feels a bit like he is responding to a bunch of similarly hopeful children asking the same question in expectation of a different answer the next time.

[mark]

"'Should the person be given [Communion]? And I ask you, do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to find the answer?' he said to laughter and applause from an audience of 120 ardent Catholics. 'Are there no children from First Communion to whom you can pose the question and receive the answer? You do not need a cardinal to answer that. Because it is a straightforward matter.'"

Is there some way that we can freeze His Eminence for about 12 years so that he'll still be young enough to succeed B16?

[Der Tommissar]

Are there no children from First Communion to whom you can pose the question and receive the answer?

The answer is: Jesus loves me, be nice to people and do community service; then I'll have a nice party after church? That's a really weird answer.

My bad, I think he means children preparing for First Holy Communion /outside/ the US.

[mark]

For those who are complaining that he didn't make it clear enough -- what is your opinion of the teaching style of Jesus? Practical every teaching was an allegory or parable or something that some would say is insufficiently clear and an evasion.

Colleen has it right -- "I doubt that there is one child of First Communion age (who has been taught what the Eucharist is and the proper preparation for reception) who, if the question was put to them and they understood what abortion is and what mortal sin is, would believe that the person upholding and promoting abortion rights would be properly disposed for the Eucharist."

[David Kubiak]

The problem the Cardinal evades is that without a uniform policy -- and indeed much was made of the late Pope giving Communion to the pro-abortion mayor of Rome -- it is made to seem that what is a mortal sin in one diocese is not in another.

The tricky thing about this issue however is that it is mostly about scandal, since the moral principle has always been that the internal forum is not judged at the Communion rail. I don't think bishops have been given enough instruction about when and how a pro-abortion politician becomes notorious. The repellent Dick Durbin in Illinois is constantly broadcasting his defiance of the Church, while Mayor Daley cooperates with the Democratic party line without every to my knowledge talking in public about abortion at all. If I were a bishop I would be confused about what line to take in places where there are large numbers of Democratic Catholic politicians operating at various levels of intensity on this issue.

[catholic]

It was an evasion because it was a non answer. If you see a "YES" or a "NO" in there, please point it out.

It was an overly simplistic question because the issue isn't as simple as supporting legal abortion.

There are inconsistencies between Bishops in the US on their positions and practices. Even those Bishops who do press issues concerning Catholic politicians who promote non-Catholic values, we see inconsistencies. A good example of this in California is Bishop Weigand's public confrontations with Gray Davis and silence over fully pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The issue becomes even more complex when Catholic politicians, such as Republican Jeb Bush, oppose some abortions, but not all, yet are unworthily honored with the description of "pro-life".

The question does not exist in a vacuum. The evasion by Cdl. Arinze was purposeful. Do we need a Cardinal from the Vatican to answer these questions? You bet we do. We aren't hearing one voice from the US Bishops, and in this case, the Vatican chose to remain silent.

[catholic]

"The answer is clear. If a person says I am in favor of killing unborn babies. "

David, that answer from Cardinal Arinze doesn't address the real opinions of most Catholic pro-choice politicians who fall into the "pro-choice/personally-opposed" bucket. The Cardinal needs to be painfully explicit on the real situation. There are few, if any politicians, who say they want babies killed.

[Ronny]

There are few, if any politicians, who say they want babies killed.

Which makes them the ones being evasive, not the Cardinal.

[sj]

The Cardinal was being coy; the time for such coyness has passed. As catholic pointed out, very few politicians are likely to fit within the framework of his literal answer. The Cardinal knows that and should frame his answer accordingly.

[Boniface McInnes]

sj,

And as Ronny has pointed out, such coyness is to be found in droves among the "pro-choice/personally opposed" camp.

Sorry to break it to you, but "pro-choice/personally opposed" means you favor killing babies, even if you wouldn't dare do it yourself.

Can I get away with being "pro-choice (regarding slavery)/personally opposed"? "Pro-choice (regarding gay bashing)/personally opposed"?

Of course not, because such positions are cowardly ways of saying pro-slavery or pro-gay-bashing.

So maybe we should quit defending those who are pro-abortion.

[sj]

That wasn't the question here, Boniface. The question was whether Cardinal Arinze's answer was appropriately straight forward. I continue to contend that it was not. The fact that people, rightly or wrongly, argue that there is a difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice is evidence enough that the Cardinal's answer was too coy.

[JonathanR.]

I think that such debates say more about the people having them than about the Cardinal and his "coyness".

[reluctant penitent]

sj, the cardinal was merely saying that a properly catechised child ought to be able to answer a question as basic as the one posed by the silly journalist, because the issue is not one that is either controversial or theologically complex. His sharp and witty answer is just another reason to love the good Cardinal.

[BillyHW]

The issue becomes even more complex when Catholic politicians, such as Republican Jeb Bush, oppose some abortions, but not all, yet are unworthily honored with the description of "pro-life".

I am unaware that Jeb does not oppose all abortions. Show your evidence or take it back.

Are you confusing Jeb with his brother George?

[sj]

"the cardinal was merely saying that a properly catechised child ought to be able to answer a question as basic as the one posed by the silly journalist, because the issue is not one that is either controversial or theologically complex."

No, the question apparently was posed by someone at the benefit dinner for "the Apostolate for Family Consecration in Bloomingdale, Ohio," a dinner, that according to the article, was composed of "ardent Catholics." Previously, the question was posed by EWTN's Raymond Arroyo.

Obviously, Arroyo and the dinner questioner thought the question needed an answer. In that context, the Cardinal was just dishing out more of the same. The hour for straight talk is nigh.

[catholic]

"I am unaware that Jeb does not oppose all abortions. Show your evidence or take it back."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Jeb_Bush_Abortion.htm