« Moving day | Main | Other life issues »

January 15, 2007

There's your answer

The California Catholic Daily reports on a conversation with Archbishop Wuerl:

Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who has come under fire for failing to speak out against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s attendance Jan. 3 at a Mass at her alma mater, Trinity University, came to San Diego’s Kona Kai Resort the weekend of January 13-14 to speak at an international Communion and Liberation conference.

While in San Diego, Wuerl told California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith that he has no plans to discipline the newly elected Democratic Speaker, who is now the most powerful Catholic in Congress -- and an ardent supporter of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and pro-homosexual legislation.

Smith: “Did you make any statement last week about Nancy Pelosi going to Mass at Trinity University?”

Wuerl: “That was a matter between the university and Nancy. They were offering their location, and the Mass was celebrated by a priest with faculties, and there was no reason to make any comment.”

Smith: “Do you intend to discipline her at all for being persistent and obstinate about her support for abortion and same-sex marriage?”

Wuerl: “I will not be using the faculty in the manner you have described.”

Smith: “Will you make a statement to your priests and deacons to warn her not to allow her to receive if she presents herself for Communion?”

Wuerl: “You’re talking about a whole different style of pastoral ministry. No.”

I hope the comments on this post are charitable and helpful in tone....

BTW. California Catholic Daily is a new online publication from Jim Holman, owner and publisher of the alt-press San Diego Reader, and apparently replaces the other (four? I think) similar Catholic publications he used to operate.

I think what Archbishop Wuerl and others fail to understand is the impact of things like this on the lay Catholic who is struggling to be a faithful disciple in the world. The message that is sent by silence is strong, in terms of the lay apostolate in the world, in terms of the unity of faith and life.

Nancy Pelosi is not "struggling" with the Church's teaching on abortion, trying to work for the protection of unborn human beings within the constraints of the current U.S. law. As we noted before, she is unapologetically, strongly supportive of abortion-rights and unborn children don't even enter into her radar (publicly, at least) as human beings. The same week she was sworn in as Speaker, NARAL issued this statement:

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement in commemoration of the historic swearing in of Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the first woman to serve as the Speaker of the House.

"Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker's gavel to make this historic move forward for our country.  For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women's health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman's right to choose.  In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi's call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses."

On January 4, NOW greeted Pelosi with an oversized congratulations card, on the way to a swearing-in brunch. On the way in, Pelosi greeted them:

When Speaker Pelosi passed by, she waved and exclaimed, "Thank you! NOW has always been there for me."

Nancy Pelosi is in a very powerful position, a Catholic, and is working in opposition to a fundamental, moral teaching of her faith: the preciousness of each human life from conception. She lives in a country in which unborn human beings are unprotected by the law, in which the culture, at every level, dehumanizes them, and she, who is in a position to do something about this, in word and deed, does nothing to help the cause of bringing greater awareness of the humanity of the unborn, and works against legal protection and is the hero of organizations that are the activist core arrayed against the humanity of the unborn. There is not a speck of ambiguity here.

Perhaps Archbishop Wuerl is catechizing and attempting to work with "Nancy" in private, and perhaps he didn't mention it because he and/or Archbishop Niederauer are engaged in this private outreach and the questions asked by this reporter did not directly ask him about that. That could well be the case. And certainly "refusing Communion" has become a flashpoint in this kind of situation which has a few alternative approaches.  A real pastor takes every approach he can before getting to the point at which "discipline" is all that is left. Perhaps this is going on or is in the works.

But resting on Archbishop Wuerl's statements alone, which do not indicate that there's anything problematic about Nancy Pelosi's way of living a Catholic life, and which, I admit, simply might be an expression of a reticent style that only answers the questions posed, I'll just say this again.

If this woman, engaged in a public role, very publicly works against the teachings of the Church to which she professes a very public tie isn't publicly challenged by even one of the primary teachers of the Church - the bishops - the rest of us - lay Catholics, living and working in the world, every day facing decisions on how to be faithful disciples of Jesus in the midst of the complexities of our professions, some of us who really suffer because of the things they refuse to do because of their fidelity to Christ - we get a message.

And the message we get is that - it doesn't matter. Do whatever you want. Catholicism isn't about discipleship, about (among other things) living in the truth that every person God chooses to create -  from conception to natural death - is our treasured brother or sister - I'm not sure what it's about, but it evidently isn't about that.

Note: for those of you with the desire to bring capital punishment and the war into this discussion, another thread will be provided for that. This thread is limited to discussions of this particular situation and the implications for laity living out their faith in the world.

Some words of wisdom: (Emphasis mine)

Every responsible person and each follower of Jesus Christ have an obligation to defend and protect innocent human life. This witness can take place in many ways: teaching, non-violent public demonstrations, the legislative process, preaching, outreach to those in crisis pregnancy, care for the disabled and the dying, as well as financial support, prayer and ministry to those who have had an abortion.

If we are to put an effective end to those things that threaten human life, we must work as good citizens in the area of public policy to change laws. But it is also necessary to change hearts and minds as well as laws. Pope John Paul II reminds us that a pro-life educational endeavor must have "as its goal that shift of perception and change of heart which accompany true conversion."

It is said that evil exists when good people do nothing. We must find a way to make our convictions known and effective. For Catholics, the parish community is an ideal context in which to do this and the role of the priest, as leader, places him in a perfect position to reiterate this most basic principle of respect for life. In particular, the homily at appropriate times can be an effective means for communicating this truth. Other opportunities include the regular intentions of the general intercessions, the use of the parish bulletin, parish newsletters and increasingly web sites. The United States bishops offer guidance and a starting point: "We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem."

The proclamation of the gospel of life is not reserved to the parish priest. All of those involved in parish activity and especially the parish staff must be both committed to the message and able to express it in a convincing manner. Given the importance of the gospel of life regular updating sessions to deal with current issues and to review the teaching of the Church would be a valuable resource for all involved in the life of the parish.

We must also incorporate the Church's teachings on social concerns and respect life issues into the mainstream of Catholic education. All those who teach in Catholic schools and religious education programs must become intelligent and clear voices in defense of life. The U.S. bishops remind us that this educational effort must be made at every level. "The commitment to human life and dignity, to human rights and solidarity, is a calling all Catholic educators must share with their students. It is not a vocation for a few religion teachers, but a challenge for every Catholic educator and catechist." Efforts should be made to integrate this teaching into the curriculum of our education programs at every level.

The U.S. bishops also urge parents, as the primary educators of their children, to give priority to the important areas of human sexuality and respect for all human life. The faithful not only have a responsibility to promote life issues in their homes but also in the workplace, the courts and the legislature. The lay faithful are called to give daily witness to respect for life, in family life, public education, government, institutions of health care, and the instruments of mass communication.

Only in this way can these fundamental human values which are rooted in our very nature as the fruit of God's loving creation make an impact on our growing secular world that seems all too comfortable disregarding human dignity and ignoring the basic truth about the true origins, nature and destiny of every human person.

As children of God we must pray and fast for an end to anti-life practices; be active in the political process and elect responsible leaders; assist women facing unintended pregnancies; support with compassion those who suffer from having had an abortion; affirm the lives of the elderly and the disabled; forgive those who have committed grave offenses, and tirelessly promote the truth about the importance of each human person.

Bishop Donald Wuerl, Pastoral Letter to the people of the Church of Pittsburgh, 1999.

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

Comments

As a native San Diegan, I have known the vile, slanted "journalism" of the Holman papers for decades. They frequently print bold headlines pasted together from rumors and innuendo. And the NEVER paint a bishop in a positive light. I would definitely take this reportage with a big sack of salt.

Posted by: Ephrem at Jan 15, 2007 10:54:00 AM

I want to add something without seeming snide. I was there for the Archbishop's address to CL, and in it, he granted that the Church, at least in America over "the '60s, '70s, and '80s," had, in large part, failed to pass along to its members many of the basic tenets of the faith, so that Catholics were leaving the Church not because they rejected its teachings, but because they simply didn't know them, because they didn't see the point of staying. He told a story about informing at stunned college student that Catholics really do believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I thought it a remarkable, even brave, admission from so high-ranking a source. And while it's dangerous to be disappointed over what people don't do that you wish they would (the list of such things easily become endless), I take your point about sending a message.

Posted by: lickona at Jan 15, 2007 10:54:12 AM

Perhaps Archbishop Wuerl is catechizing and attempting to work with "Nancy" in private, and perhaps he didn't mention it because he and/or Archbishop Niederauer are engaged in this private outreach and the questions asked by this reporter did not directly ask him about that.

Yes. But would it hurt to make a reference to it? It would clarify what he means by a "different style of pastoral ministry."

Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 15, 2007 11:01:37 AM

Oh, and Ephrem,
You may not like the Holman papers, but you will not ever find an instance in one of them where a quote is fabricated. Since what Amy cites here is a question and answer exchange built on quotes, I don't think that sack of salt is required.
It's also false to say that they never paint a bishop in a positive light. I wrote a column for the News Notes for years under the name Broderick Barker, and one of those columns is titled Cheers for Bishop Brom. The paper was founded in response to the diocese's refusal to run a series of pro-life ads in its own paper - perhaps a measure of frustration with the hierarchy is understandable. I'm not going to defend everything that ran in the NN - for one thing, I haven't read it all - but I don't think it fair to call its journalism "vile."

Posted by: lickona at Jan 15, 2007 11:07:39 AM

I'm disappointed that those in positions of leadership in our church refuse to challenge those who both publicly claim the Catholic faith and equally publicly flout the doctrines of Holy Mother Church.

Firstly, I'm married to a non-Catholic Christian, and I've spent quite a bit of time with various groups from his church. One of the most frequent criticisms of Catholics that I hear from these people is the charge of hypocrisy -- that Catholics don't practice what they preach and it doesn't seem to matter. All the publicity about politicians who embrace anti-Catholic positions and face no discipline from the hierarchy reinforces this stereotype.

Secondly, I teach in a Catholic high school. Our students are at a point in their lives where they question everything, up to and including the existence of absolute Truth. We live in a culture of moral relativism, where everything around these teenagers tells them that it's okay to do what you want and not worry about consequences -- that right is a matter of personal taste. When they see Catholics in prominent positions who are prophets of moral relativism and hear the deafening silence of the priests, bishops, and archbishops, it sends them a clear message -- that the Church really doesn't believe, evidenced by the inaction of her ministers, what she preaches in her words. And they go to college and many of them leave the church, because a faith that's built only on the tenet of "be nice to everyone and God will be happy with you" is too weak to bear fruit.

Why must we feel apologetic about an unwavering devotion to Truth? Where is the courage to take a stand against false prophets?

Posted by: Scherza at Jan 15, 2007 11:10:18 AM

"Perhaps Archbishop Wuerl is catechizing and attempting to work with "Nancy" in private, and perhaps he didn't mention it because he and/or Archbishop Niederauer are engaged in this private outreach and the questions asked by this reporter did not directly ask him about that."

Yes. But would it hurt to make a reference to it? It would clarify what he means by a "different style of pastoral ministry.

Yes it would, if you take seriously the value of privacy in pastoral counseling. Note that I'm not saying that such an outreach is going on.

Posted by: Mike at Jan 15, 2007 11:14:00 AM

Russell Shaw wrote on Catholic Exchange about how the pope was trying not to focus on negative teaching. Is it possible Weurl is doing the same thing. If he would do what you want it would totally dominate his public image and put him deep in the mud of partisan politics. There is more to the faith than being against abortion. You need to pick you battles. I would not be so hard on him for not making a scene.

As far as the message others get. There will always be those who choose to disobey and find excuses. Sure they will use this. Do they really believe Catholicism isn't about discipleship? Not if they have been paying attention. If they get the Catholicsm from the Washington Post then maybe they do. If they make a serious effort to figure out what the church is about they won't think that.

Posted by: Randy at Jan 15, 2007 11:18:52 AM

Mike,

He implies he operates from a "different style of pastoral ministry." It behooves him to define what that style is, and I would think he can do so without getting into specifics.

Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 15, 2007 11:20:03 AM

... specifics about Nancy Pelosi's situation.

Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 15, 2007 11:29:11 AM

In the words of Bishop Bruskewicz, roughly paraphrased, a response to Rich from Bp Wuerl:

Some man from Ohio thinks he can tell me how to run my diocese. This person I do not recognize demands that others offer correction to me as if they had the authority to do so.

-----------------

Quite frankly, it is none of your damned business why Archbishop Wuerl offers Nancy Pelosi communion. He doesn't owe you an explanation. He doesn't have to consult you before he acts. He doesn't care if you put a frowny face on your next letter to him.

Why people have so much invested in such a low probability event, I can't figure out excluding the cause of rank partisanship.

Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Jan 15, 2007 11:33:18 AM

This is the questions that should have been asked: What, your Excellency, are you doing to save the soul of Nancy Pelosi?
Forbiding her to receive the Holy Eucharist is not a punishment - it is a tool that may save her soul. As far as we can possible know Mrs. Pelosi has separated herself in a very serious way from God's love. Are you as her Bishop working to help her?

Posted by: Michaelus at Jan 15, 2007 11:33:20 AM

Regardless of whether or not she is allowed to receive Communion, he should be forcefully speaking out about these issues and publicly opposing her stands (just as she publicly opposes the Church's stands) on these issues. I wish he would take his cue from the strong and memorable Cardinal OÇonnor of New York.

Posted by: thomas tucker at Jan 15, 2007 11:36:12 AM

Michaelus,

First, it isn't any of your business what A.Bp Wuerl is doing to save Nancy's soul.
Second, as far as we know Nancy is in communion with the Church. In your and others' judgements she may not be a member, but your opinions don't matter.
Thirdy, A.Bp Wuerl is not her bishop! She is a guest of the diocese of Washington. Her bishop is in San Francisco.

Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Jan 15, 2007 11:39:54 AM

Michaelus: the only one who can save the soul of Nancy Pelosi, or you or me, is Jesus Christ, with her/our cooperation.

Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Jan 15, 2007 11:41:36 AM

Benedict XVI may put a "positive" face on Church dogma, but he always includes the reasons why it is so. Wuerl offered nothing like that. Only excuses. They don't call him "don't rock the boat" Wuerl for nothing. I suspect he'd rather be sipping cocktails with "Nancy" than reminding her about her immortal soul.

Posted by: Janice at Jan 15, 2007 11:42:52 AM

I think I have mentioned previously that I have been involved in a parish study group for the last year on "Deus Caritas Est." We just met, again, last Saturday morning. The topic of Catholic politicians, as discussed in Part II of the Encyclical, always comes up.

I think it is important to distinguish two dimensions here:
1. The "personal life" dimension, whether Pelosi's or ours, in which we must make our own efforts, and mistakes, in living out our Catholic faith.
2. The "political life" dimension, in which we are directly involved, as Catholic laity, in government. For me, that means voting according to my faith. But for Pelosi, who must represent ALL of her constituents, that means, sometimes, putting aside her personal faith and representing the people, ALL the people, she is supposed to elect.
We do not live in a Catholic country.
We do not even live in a "mostly Catholic" country.
Politician need to represent the people they represent. Californians, as a whole, are very liberal, very pro-abortion, very pro-ESCR, etc. Nancy Peolosi represents ALL the people in her district, not just the Catholics. That is what she is supposed to do.

Posted by: Old Zhou at Jan 15, 2007 11:47:08 AM

Other than your well-known aversion to Church teaching on pelvic issues, M.Z., is there any reason for your asinine post?

Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jan 15, 2007 11:49:26 AM

I can certainly understand anguish not only over the culture of death, especially in regards to the the millions of unborn children swept away in the thirty four year holocaust of abortion here in the United States.

As part of Project Rachel I have ministered to men and women who have in one way or another participated in this terrible sin and had received the grace of conversion enough to approach the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church for healing, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is one of the most wonderful aspects of the gift I received in my vocation to the priesthood.

It of course galls me to see or hear of Catholics in politics who either claim -outright to be pro-choice OR to be personally pro-life but publicly (politically) pro-choice.

The bishops have slowly [and I realize for many too slowly and not fast enough] begun to respond pastorally to this problem. In response to many years of harsh condemnations and the like, they had been reacting in the opposite direction with applying pastorally only the 'mercy of forgiveness'. I do believe there has been some change. I believe two approaches from the bishops are worth noting-the first is the catechizing of Catholic pols in Washington DC, begun AFTER the last Presidential election and secondly their teaching document last November for all Catholics approaching Holy Communion

There are IMHO (lol) several underlying issues however that lie even deeper (almost seems impossible to say this) this issue. There needs to be a clear teaching, in the USA-for the American context-of what the Vatican II teaching on "Religious Liberty" is and is not
In other words, the bishops need to first enable the Church in the USA to 'receive' this teaching-given in an authoritative and clear manner.

There are those both in the secular as well as the Catholic world who believe that this document confirms the French Revolutions fiery, anti-Church and anti-religious slogans and sentiments. While much of this interpretation is in Europe it has its own followers here in the States. And this is the last thing that this document teaches or affirms.

Because the bishops have never really catechized on this teaching-many in America have fallen into thinking that Vatican II has thus confirmed the famous [not in the Constitution] letter of President Jefferson to a Baptist minister of a high and total wall of separation of Church and State-and with it, the now famous address of the then candidate for the presidency, John F Kennedy concerning the role-or non role of his faith in his elected position.

It is not that the Bishops have to address-or should address-constitutional issues. That is not their 'expertise' but they can and should address in a clear teaching the Church's relationship with the State, with culture, the relationship of members of the Church with citzenship [some of this has been addressed when elections approach but not all at once] and the parameters of responsibilities Catholics in politics have.

Finally, to clarify clearly once and for all in the American context, the real issues surrounding 'conscience' and 'freedom of conscience'. Everyone, catholics and non-Catholics use the terms but what do they mean?
And in terms of a Catholic understanding- the real sanctity of the conscience but also 'its' relationship with the Church and magisterium

Posted by: Father Elijah at Jan 15, 2007 11:50:40 AM

'well-known aversion'???

That is absolutely false. Retract it immediately.

Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Jan 15, 2007 11:52:15 AM

Lickona, er, Broderick,

Isn't this a quote from "Cheers for Bishop Brom?":

So it is perhaps fitting that I got a rebuke from one of the subjects (targets?) of my discussions -- a bishop.

What is NOT present in the article that is the subject of this post is the context. When and where were these questions asked?

Posted by: Ephrem at Jan 15, 2007 11:53:11 AM

Can we try to raise the tone just a touch, please?

And focus on the issue I've raised?

I think Thomas Tucker succinctly summarized what I labored to say in far too many words. I mean, I used far to many words. He used the right amount.

Big weekends are coming up in DC - the March for Life and so on. It will be interesting to watch.

Posted by: amy at Jan 15, 2007 11:53:54 AM

MZ, St Paul has a boatload of things to say about what the responsibility is of believers when someone in the body of Christ is causing scandal. Perhaps you should look it up.

Posted by: g at Jan 15, 2007 11:55:40 AM

Benedict XVI may put a "positive" face on Church dogma, but he always includes the reasons why it is so. Wuerl offered nothing like that. Only excuses.

I think Wuerl has done things similar to Benedict. He is known as an excellent teacher. He was quoted on the back cover of one of my Scott Hahn books. Even Amy's quote from him is very good. It seems like he teaches the faith and supports other who teach orthodoxy as well. He doesn't need to inject himself into the relationship Nancy Pelosi has with her priest. He just needs to teach the faith. He is doing it. Not in the way you want him to but he is teaching.

Posted by: Randy at Jan 15, 2007 11:56:24 AM

Old Zhou,
Yes, politicians need to represent the people they represent. But that's not to say they need to represent every opinion of the people they represent. And I think it at least worth considering the notion that one's duty to represent the people who elect you ends where it would require you to violate your conscience. If she thought a war deeply unjust and injurious to innocent life, should she vote to support it because her constituency supports it? And if your faith informs your conscience, then it's not so neat a thing to set it aside.
I'll grant that it's a thorny and complicated matter, and I don't pretend to be the authority here. But I think if a politician is willing to violate his or her core beliefs about right and wrong for the sake of representing his or her constituency (not that such is the case with Ms. Pelosi), then that politician is perhaps not the one you want running the show.

Posted by: lickona at Jan 15, 2007 12:00:05 PM

For better or worse (most people would say the former), the days of utter deference and blind eyes toward the actions of our bishops are over. Abp. Wuerl has a particularly visible role due to situations precisely like this: there is no small number of professed Catholics in politics--who make public statements and actions within his jurisdiction--whose public acts may or may not be in accord with basic Church teachings.

Precisely for the reasons that Amy listed, the actions of Abp. Wuerl matter and deserve scrutiny. Even if the readers of this blog know what the church says and who is or is not acting in accord with her teachings, that cannot be presumed for thousands of others. Pelosi's public statements and visible sororitizing with vociferous pro-abortion peddlers, coupled with the silence of the local ordinary, sends the horrible message of assent (or apathy, or otherwise "not-a-big-deal").

Witholding Holy Communion is a difficult call, as it is a serious Canonical penalty. Private conversations and efforts to "evangelize" Ms. Pelosi, if that is what is needed here, are a necessity. So too, it seems, would be prophetic and courageous clarity on Abp. Wuerl's part.

Posted by: Dan at Jan 15, 2007 12:02:34 PM