Archbishop Wuerl says politicians’ support for abortion is wrong
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

Archbishop Donald Wuerl

.- Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl has expanded his previous comments about politicians who support permissive abortion laws but also present themselves to receive Holy Communion.  Though he insisted that support for abortion is wrong, he said that convincing and persuading national Catholic pro-abortion political figures is best done in their respective home dioceses, rather than in the Archdiocese of Washington.

Writing in his archdiocesan newspaper The Catholic Standard, Archbishop Wuerl said that both Catholic citizens and Catholic politicians must follow Catholic moral convictions.

“Just as Catholic voters are not asked to leave aside the most deeply held moral convictions of our faith when they enter a voting booth, so Catholic elected officials are not asked to deposit the moral and ethical convictions of the Church at the door of Congress or at the State Assembly where they serve,” he wrote.

The archbishop reiterated Catholic teaching on abortion, saying, “The teaching is clear. Abortion and support for abortion are wrong. No informed Catholic can claim that either action is free of moral implications, and certainly no one should be led to believe, because of someone else's voting record, that this teaching about abortion is uncertain.”

The archbishop said Catholics’ political actions must be based on the natural moral law and respect for “the most basic of all human rights,” the right to life.

Archbishop Wuerl said that he, along with priests and bishops nationwide, has taught “with persistence and insistence” that abortion is an intrinsic evil.  He noted that the Archdiocese of Washington sponsors a Mass and Rally for Life each January.

He characterized as an “altogether different yet related issue” how to respond to public officeholders who support abortion legislation.  He said that a June 2004 statement from the Catholic bishops of the United States titled “Catholics in Political Life” taught that the responsibility to assess the situation and to apply canon law within a bishop’s own diocese “clearly rests with the individual bishop.”

“Bishops may arrive at different conclusions based on their local situations,” Archbishop Wuerl said.  The U.S. bishops’ document, he noted, was confirmed in 2004 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and is now Pope Benedict XVI.

While emphasizing that the archdiocese would continue to teach about the “evil of abortion,” he said that national political figures must be persuaded and convinced in their home dioceses.

“A decision regarding the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual is one that should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences,” the archbishop said.  “Presumably this is done in the home diocese where the bishops and priests, the pastors of souls, engage the members of their flock in this type of discussion. In the case of public figures who serve in Washington as representatives of other parts of the nation, this dialogue and any decisions would take place within their home diocese.”

Archbishop Wuerl said he had always respected the “role of the local Church.”  For that reason, he wrote, “I have not accepted the suggestions that the Archdiocese of Washington or episcopal conferences have some particular role that supersedes the authority of an individual bishop in his particular Church.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: chuckles
USA 05/07/2009 08:18 AM EST
This controversy will NOT go away until something is done with Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, and Kennedy. The contradiction stands out like a sore thumb. Pelosi even went to Rome and stated the mater wasn't settled! To treat abortion as anything other than murder is contradictory with Catholic teaching. If a known murderer was in the pew next to you every Sunday, paying his/her tithe, taking communion, ect, how can they NOT be confronted by the church? For me it's no different giving communion to a mobster godfather. How can these people be repeatedly elected in Catholic strongholds? Is their "home church" teaching something different? A confrontation of Ted Kennedy while this close to his death, I would think, would be in order. It should be messy, confrontational, and educational. Until the double speak and double standard is taken care of, the church will contiue to decline. The "buying" of indugences is what split the church in the first place. How much dirty money is the Kennedy family paying for their acceptence?
Published by: Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick
Fargo N Dakota 05/07/2009 05:45 AM EST
Archbishop Wuerl's statements on this matter are deceptive. He has an OBLIGATION to deny Communion to public grave sinners. The assertions he makes--that this is all "optional" and "a matter of pastoral style"--were utterly refuted by Abp. Raymond Burke two years ago--in a thorough, scholarly article the existence of which Abp. Wuerl never acknowledges.

Abp. Wuerl also contradicts the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which said that the duty to deny Communion under Canon 915 belongs to the PASTOR. I.e., bishops have NO role to play by setting a "policy" diocese-by-diocese. The POLICY is CANON 915 itself, not some "pastoral approach" that the bishop may dream up.

Everything Wuerl says about the "home diocese" vs. the Archdiocese of Washington is utter nonsense. It is pure evasion, and it should fool no one but little children.

Abp. Wuerl's claim that the issue is "whether Canon 915 was intended to apply to politicians" is also pure nonsense. Canon 915 does NOT specify WHICH grave sins it is about. It is about ANY species of grave sin that is causing scandal. It applies to ALL would-be communicants, whether they are politicians, truck drivers, astrophysicists, or tap dancers. Abp. Wuerl's preposterous claim that politicians are entitled to receive Communion in the state of sin, while others are not--how can one even express how preposterous and laughable such an assertion is.
Published by: Errol Smythe
UK 04/06/2009 03:13 PM EST
Abortion is wrong. No one can justify cold blooded murder of innocent children. Life begins at conception. How else can anyone explain how a fertilized egg divides and differentiates and takes on the characteristics of the parents ?
You ask an expectant mother to tell you the truth if she knows that she carries life in her and she will tell you that she knows and she feels that she carries within her the mystery of life.

Abortion can never be justified under any grounds. Surrogate mothers have found it difficult to break the mother and child bond at the moment of adoption. It is better for an expectant mother to go full term and give birth to a child than to terminate the pregnancy and kill the unborn child. It is wrong to kill a child. Whether or not you believe it , life begins at conception .
How then can any one say with cruelty that a foetus is not a human being and has no life ? To them I say that inorder to grow a foetus must have life from conception to become a baby that is born nine months later. Without life beginning at conception there would be no birth nine months later.
How many lives murdered by people failing to understand the sanctity of life and failing to respect the wonderful mystery of life ?
Adoption is a lesser evil than abortion and it is better that an expectant mother is counselled well to go full term and give birth to her child or twins or triplets and see if there is a change of attitude after birth when she has bonded with her offspring
Published by: Thomas J. Clarey
Manassas Park, VA 05/23/2008 03:07 PM EST
My wife & I are extremely upset over Archbishop Wuerl's and the other Bishops stand on Abortion in regards to the so called Catholic Politicans. Our church officials MUST address these people directly, in public and if necessary, take action. His statement "responsibility of informing the errant politiccians belongs to the respective Bishops of their own Dioceses" is total nonsense. If this is his position, he should resign. We pray for his soul.
Published by: Mary Ratigan
Beatrice,Ne. 05/07/2008 12:19 PM EST
Isn't Canon law - Canon law? How is it that individual Bishops can employ this law at their own descretion? Shouldn't the Bishops at one of their conferences address and come up with unity on this issue? Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a serious sin. There should be no doors left open to continue to confuse the laity. Is it possible that some of the Bishops do not believe in the divine presence of our Lord. By their lack of obedience, they are doing nothing more than to spiritually harm those who need instruction. Pray for the Bishops as they obviously lack the will to honor Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament over the opinions of men, a risk I would not like to answer for.
Published by: Frank Niemiec
Phoenix, Arizona 05/07/2008 11:01 AM EST
"Bishops may arrive at different conclusions based upon their local situations" is in itself a scandal to the Church. Respect for life is not a "local" issue. How can we accept the teachings of our bishops if they equivocate on what is a non-negotiable issue? How many dioceses are there? Is that how many Catholic Churches there are? Nonsense.
Published by: Sissy
Weslaco, TX USA 05/06/2008 10:51 PM EST
Sounds like the moral equivilance of sneaking a pregnant minor across the state line for an abortion where there is no parental notification law.
Published by: Teacher
Lake Charles, LA 05/06/2008 07:46 PM EST
How convenient for the archbishop.
Published by: Dave
Denver, CO USA 05/06/2008 04:42 PM EST
Well said Michael. I do not get it. Would Bishop Weurl deny that it is the same Christ in the Eucharist that is being desecrated no matter if a politician is at Mass at home or at any other Mass in any other part of the world? This kind of “double teach” is why most Catholics in the pews are confused.
Published by: WM
US 05/06/2008 01:41 PM EST
“Bishops may arrive at different conclusions based on their local situations.” What happened to the concept of universal Church teaching? If someone maintains a residence in D.C., attends mass in D.C., etc, he IS their local bishop.

I wish the Bishop would give an example of a "local situation" that makes support for abortion acceptable.
Published by: Michael
Denver, Colo. USA 05/05/2008 06:48 PM EST
It sounds like Pilate passing Jesus to Herod.
These politicians live most of their working career in Wash., DC. So no matter how or what their "home town Bishop" might say or do they are in AB Wuerl's back yard and he is responsible to give them the "rules for the city" just like Marshal Dillon in Dodge City. If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen>
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa