« More Anglican news | Main | Pope! Pope! »
November 15, 2006
Burke at the USCCB
BALTIMORE — St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke took center stage during debate on two controversial topics Tuesday as the nation's Roman Catholic bishops met in Baltimore for their annual fall meeting.
Burke, who is trained as a canon, or church, lawyer, submitted 10 amendments to two proposed documents, more than any other bishop except former St. Louis and current Philadelphia archbishop Cardinal Justin Rigali, who submitted 15.
More coverage: Ann Rogers, typically, gives us a balanced view:
Dignity USA, a group for gay Catholics that dissents from church teaching, called it "deeply flawed" and had asked the bishops to delay it to consult with gay Catholics. However, it was a group of very conservative bishops who tried to postpone the document for more consultation, because they wanted an endorsement of psychotherapy to change sexual orientation.
An earlier draft had said that there was "no moral obligation" for gay people to undergo therapy. The final draft eliminated that sentence, but did not endorse such therapy, saying there was no consensus on it.
The document on reception of communion grew out of disputes in 2004 about whether politicians who support abortion rights should be refused communion.
Some bishops thought both topics should have been included, and also wanted to add contraceptive use to a list of reasons that Catholics should refrain from communion. An earlier report indicated that only 4 percent of Catholic married couples of child-bearing age practice the church-recommended natural family planing.
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., said that the drafters did not include contraception because it was not intended to be a comprehensive list of sins and there was a concern that this "particularly difficult pastoral problem" would distract from everything else in the document. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary of San Diego, argued that not mentioning it would draw even more attention.
"If we are silent on this issue, perhaps people won't go so far as to say we are winking at it, but at least we would easily create the misperception that this is not an issue involving grave matter." "Grave matter," along with informed reflection and willful intent, constitutes mortal sin.
The move to name contraception as a reason to refrain from communion failed 148-75.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
"The move to name contraception as a reason to refrain from communion failed 148-75."
And priests rarely - if ever - mention the issue of contraception during their homilies.
The hierarchy does us a disservice here, for, sadly, many, many Catholics have fallen into the trap of relying on artificial contraception.
I suppose it is feared that regular Mass attendees told to refrain from Communion would begin to stay at home in droves.
Catholics staying home tend not to give money to their parishes.
No more money, no more parish.
Pure economic pragmatism.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Nov 15, 2006 8:03:19 AM
Well, I hope that the 75 bishops who voted in favor of it will make such an announcement in their own diocese. It would be a shame if they did not just because the conference voted it down. The USCCB is supposed to be a tool, not an authority.
Posted by: trm at Nov 15, 2006 8:09:02 AM
The decision to include a handful of bars to worthiness reminds me of the framers' arguments about whether or not to include a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Opponents argued that including such a bill would lead people to believe it was an exhaustive list. History has more or less proved them right. Let's hope the same dynamic doesn't kick in here.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 15, 2006 8:40:47 AM
"The move to name contraception as a reason to refrain from communion failed 148-75."
I guess that this maneuvre was predicated on the 96% contracepting catholics stat. Why on earth would politicians/bishops want to offend 96% of their constituents.
Let's follow the scale: Can you imagine the Catholic Church in America being only 4% of its current size?
Posted by: St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse at Nov 15, 2006 8:43:49 AM
Is there any way to break down the 148-75 vote by name?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 15, 2006 8:44:16 AM
Rich just asked the same question for which I was scanning the comments in search of an answer (gee that sounds convoluted!). Hope someone can post the breakdown....
Posted by: TiaKay at Nov 15, 2006 8:47:20 AM
No - the voting was anonymous. No individual record of how individual bishops voted.
Posted by: amy at Nov 15, 2006 9:01:05 AM
For what it's worth, my pastor does homilize on contraception, though with a dose of charity and diplomacy. Yet, he makes it clear that contraception is against Church teaching and correctly so, and exhorts parishioners to abandon contraception. He is also very pro-life and welcoming to Catholic NFP groups. Now, it is true that we have lost some parishioners, and possibly some due to Father's orthodoxy (he refuses to view the Legion of Christ as enemies, imagine that!), but that connection to orthodoxy is not clear. Yet Father has made it clear more than once that he is not going to water down Church teaching in order to be popular.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Nov 15, 2006 9:02:23 AM
Perhaps "informed reflection" on contraception may now occur since the document on "Married Love" clearly states it is never permissable to use artificial contraception. This document is easily printable and should be handed to every engaged and married Catholic couple in the US of childbearing age. No, everyone should be given a copy.
The next step would be for priests to preach this from the pulpit, thus allowing people to hear the teaching (I've never heard it from the pulpit and had to read about it) so that the 96% have the opportunity to accept or reject it, thus entering themselves into the sphere of mortal sin, meaning, using "informed reflection." At that point the bishops may make it clear that the reception of the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin, using AC after informed reflection in willful intent, persons should refrain from the reception of the Most Holy Sacrament.
Ok, now I'm thinking, why didn't they put this in the Married Love document?
Posted by: Lily at Nov 15, 2006 9:09:23 AM
Maybe I am naive, but I think I am not seeing the contraception part. The bishops voted allowing contracepting couples to receive Holy Communion? If so, even if they understand the Church's teaching and partake in the act knowlingly and with consent? This seems strange. I surely hope that I am wrong, if anybody can help me understand please do so.
Posted by: Jared at Nov 15, 2006 9:14:15 AM
The bishop did not vote to allow contracepting couples to receive Communion, they simply refrained (most cowardly, in my opinion) from stating explicitly in the document on the Eucharist that using contraception was a Grave Matter, which makes in a mortal sin. This was stated in the document on Marriage, or so I understand, I haven't managed to get through it yet myself.
Posted by: TerryC at Nov 15, 2006 9:28:57 AM
I just called my wife and told her about the bishops' vote on contraception and communion. I lamented the fact that the vote hadn't gone the other way. Her reaction? "Well, if it had, no one would be receiving communion, especially in our parish."
This vote is just more evidence that most of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church in the US are jokes. They're false prophets and poor shepherds. As far as I am concerned, at this point, there are only 75 who are arguably good. I'd like to know how Cardinal George voted.
Contraception in our opinion is THE issue in the Church in the US. If a husband and wife can't give themselves totally to each other in their married life, how can we expect them to give themselves freely to God? If a husband and wife are selfish in their marital relationship, how can we expect them to be generous in society? If a husband and wife only want two children, how can we expect them to give their children to the religious life, when it might mean rarely seeing that child? If a husband and wife can disobey God in something so fundamental, how can we expect them to obedient in other areas of their lives? And how can we expect them to think or act any different when THEY NEVER HEAR OTHERWISE FROM THE PULPIT OR THE ALLEGED "LEADERS" OF THE CHURCH?
Don't the Bishops realize that there is a direct link between the contraceptive mentality and abortion? If someone so uneducated in the Faith as I can see it, how come they can't?
And besides, WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF? Christ wasn't afraid to speak the Truth with firmness and charity!
They're a bunch of bureaucrats, concerned only with themselves. As long as they don't mess with the Mass and my family personally knows priests we can trust and orthodox parishes where we can receive the sacraments, we don't care what these idiots do or say. We're pretty much done with the institutional church, other than the Pope. Heck, maybe we'll end up following Rod Dreher . . . .
Posted by: Stephen Joseph at Nov 15, 2006 9:29:36 AM
Jared,
The bishops voted not to expressly include contraception in a list of grave sins prohibiting communion. I think the move is prudent. I remember listening to talk radio in Milwaukee about 3 years ago when there was a controversy over Catholic groups covering contraception. I swear every Catholic woman in the diocese called to say that they were exempted due to medical reasons.
Given the prevalence of contraception, the bishops seem to be disposed to take the carrot approach rather than the stick approach. Besides, if you included contraception, you would have had to include contraception's friend sterilization. On top of it, contraception is not the most actionable item on which to be restricting communion. We can add on top of this, that those couples of good will trying to obey the church have or are working with a priest on the issue.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Nov 15, 2006 9:43:13 AM
"We're pretty much done with the institutional church, other than the Pope. Heck, maybe we'll end up following Rod Dreher . . . ."
Wow. We're now leaving the Church 'cause we're more Catholic than the folks around us in the pew because we're NFP users and they're not?
Wasn't there something in the Eucharist reception document about the sin of judgment?
Maybe not...
Whatever happened to to the gifts of witness and charity? Be a witness, Stephen, and stay in the Church. We need ya (and the others around you...).
Posted by: Brigid at Nov 15, 2006 9:44:32 AM
"Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., said that the drafters did not include contraception because it was not intended to be a comprehensive list of sins and there was a concern that this "particularly difficult pastoral problem" would distract from everything else in the document."
The comments here would seem to prove the point. Not a word on Burke, Rigali, gays, dissenting politicians, or poor reporting...
Posted by: lar at Nov 15, 2006 9:47:30 AM
Without dismissing anyone's critiques, may I point out something that encourages me, and I hope others?
Consider that we often have these nationwide meetings of religious bodies; let us compare and contrast:
* Episcopal church: let's ordain active gay clergy, even if it divides us from the rest of Christendom. Come, O Four Winds! Praise the Creator/Mother, Redeemer Christa, and Loving Womb!
* Presbyterian church: trench warfare over "gay marriage."
* Southern Baptist denomination has an uneasy conscience over uniting faith vs. congregationalism.
And the U.S. Catholic bishops?
> Reaffirming Catholic teaching on contraception, sinfulness of homosexual behavior, and the centrality of the Eucharist.
That's not bad. Could be better; but not bad at all.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox at Nov 15, 2006 9:54:00 AM
If they do a good job of enforcing what is there that would be huge. The document says missing mass without good reason requires you to go to confession before recieving communion. Having sex outside of marriage or indulging in pornography mean you can't partake either. That is a huige step forward. On the contraception front we have another huge step forward. They need to give the faithful time to digest this before they do the same with contracepting couples. My guess is they should teach it clearly for 7 years before taking that step more assertively than it is already there.
Posted by: Randy at Nov 15, 2006 9:57:25 AM
Brigid,
I am not "more Catholic than the folks in the pews," I'm just "Catholic." That's it. I'm not judging their souls, but I'm not saying that by contracepting their doing something good. Others can do and say what they want, but I'm tired of the weakness of the so-called leadership.
Just because someone calls a spade a spade, doesn't mean he's "judging" someone. Is contraception wrong? Yes. Too bad the bishops don't have the guts to draw the connection between contraception and abortion. Maybe if they took a stand, people would be called to repent and change their behavior.
Again, what are they afraid of?
Again, we (my family and I) don't need them in order to practice the faith. They are for most purposes irrelevant. They do more harm than good. At least they've proven as much.
Posted by: Stephen Joseph at Nov 15, 2006 9:57:30 AM
"And priests rarely - if ever - mention the issue of contraception during their homilies.
True. There are exceptions to this rule, however.
A (young) priest friend of mine from the Diocese of Belleville, IL recently preached a great homily on contraception. You can read it here.
Posted by: John Jansen at Nov 15, 2006 10:17:39 AM
Actually, Stephen, the USCCB and your Bishop, I assume, have taken a stand. You can find out more here: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/
"don't need them in order to practice the faith"
Actually, Stephen, you do need a bishop to practice your faith. That's a more firmer definition of "Catholic" than whether or not you practice NFP.
Posted by: Brigid at Nov 15, 2006 10:32:07 AM
I think the failure to mention politicians was a supreme act of cowardice. No Bishop responded adequately to Burke's point about scandal because the good Bishop from St. Louis is correct and they know it. You'd think they would learn that NOT dealing with scandal doesn't work. We WILL see the most powerful Catholic in the country, Nancy Pelosi, receiving communion in the pages of Time or Newsweek. I don't think I am being uncharitable when I say this: Most of our Bishops are weak and timid men who hate above all else dealing with confrontation. I was ashamed watching the proceedings on EWTN.
Posted by: Kerna Bloom at Nov 15, 2006 10:34:17 AM
I'm not saying that by contracepting their doing something good. Others can do and say what they want
What the heck? Did you miss the document where the Bishops explicitely say that contraception is evil? There's a whole document devoted exclusively to that. Where they make the explicit connection between contraception and abortion, btw.
Could they have said more? Sure, but we've been moaning for years about how they say nothing. And now they finally say something, and we just ratchet up the moaning. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Posted by: John Henry at Nov 15, 2006 10:44:22 AM
Right, Fr. Fox. Whatever its weaknesses as a body, this is not Cardinal Bernardin's conference any longer. And this document is worthy of our praise. The bishops kick it off with a definition of the Real Presence that could have been lifted from the Baltimore Catechism, and then link Holy Communion to Confession. Those of us catechized during the Silly Season, with its "other presences" and avoidance of the subject of sin altogether, ought to recognize what a step forward this pronouncement is.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Nov 15, 2006 10:45:17 AM
The "Married Love" document contains the following:
This may seem a hard saying. Certainly it is a teaching that many couples today, through
no fault of their own, have not heard (or not heard in a way they could appreciate and
understand).
Which of course, begs the question of whose fault it is. The document doesn't say, but it might be a bit embarrassing if it did, especially if, as this vote suggests, the bishops don't intend to take an active role in addressing the problem.
Posted by: Ipsitilla at Nov 15, 2006 10:49:58 AM
Stephen,
You wrote:
"I just called my wife and told her about the bishops' vote on contraception and communion. I lamented the fact that the vote hadn't gone the other way. Her reaction? 'Well, if it had, no one would be receiving communion, especially in our parish.'"
How in the world do you and your wife know this?? How does anyone know what anyone else is doing in this particular matter?? It is pretty private, no? Am I missing something here?
Posted by: John Sheridan at Nov 15, 2006 10:56:54 AM
