Contrary to what Beregond posted in the comments last week, this does not rise to the level of schism. Perhaps Father JP would care to comment?
Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick downplayed a letter to the U.S. Catholic bishops from the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog on whether priests should refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent his letter in early June to Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the context of dealing with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic whose positions on several issues, including abortion, contradict church teachings.
But its full text, which was published Saturday in the Italian newspaper L'Espresso, contains much stronger language than Cardinal McCarrick used last month at a meeting of the country's Catholic bishops near Denver.
Cardinal McCarrick's nuanced speech during the meeting from June 14 to 19 paraphrased the Ratzinger letter to say that the Vatican had left the issue of Communion in the hands of the U.S. bishops.
I would say that it is probably disobedience, but not schism. Not every act of disobedience is schism - indeed, most aren't.
The next question is: disobedience to Cardinal Ratzinger, or to the law of the Church, both moral and canonical? It does not appear that Ratzinger meant to use the authority of his office to tell them how they must decide, so it could be said that he is not guilty of disobedience to the Holy See. But since the Cardinal *did* offer an analysis *in his official capacity* as CDF head, McCarrick is deliberately obfuscating something that is crystal clear. Not even a bishop can give Communion to someone in manifest public grave sin. That's the moral law of the Church, which Ratzinger laid out, not as something of his own initiative, but as an exposition of the constant teaching of the Church on this matter. McCarrick should have hewn to it without hedging.
Please visit my vocation site at: www.andrewsvocation.blogdrive.com Thank you so much and God bless!
I really wonder what sort of thralldom has seized certain of our bishops.
"Must ... not ... speak ... truth ... clearly. ...
Must ... have ... nuance ...."
I'm going to make a comparison people may disagree with. Also - a disclaimer - I don't believe what I'm about to say, I'm merely making the observation. Feel free to comment away, but don't ascribe this opinion to me.
Could you compare Vatican actions with the Jews prior to and during WWII with the current situation with US Bishops and communion?
The Vatican did not trumpet the crimes of Nazis against the Jews, but rather worked behind the scenes to help as many Jews as possible. When some Bishops from the Netherlands (might be another country - I'd have to look it up) declared open opposition to Nazi policies, the axe fell and the situation was much worse.
Can you make that comparison today? Should this be a behind the scenes activity rather than a public spectacle? Or should this be a public rebuke?
Just tossing that out for discussion...
I don't think there's any question that a private approach to such politicians should be the first step -- perhaps the first SEVERAL steps. The question is, what happens when that approach fails? And keeps failing?
To use the situation of Sen. Kerry as a convenient example, it's certainly possible -- perhaps likely -- that starting out, he's your typical, horrendously-catechized American Catholic. And based on what's been publicized about his "parish," the Paulist Center in Boston, it's unlikely they're doing much to correct that.
So, in step our shepherds, to have private meetings with him. He meets with Cardinal McCarrick. He meets with Cardinal Mahoney. Maybe he meets with some others besides. Presumably (although sadly, it's far from certain), in their meetings they may have mentioned what the Church teaches and why. Yet Sen. Kerry does not repent.
And, unlike the Nazi example, our bishops don't face a likelihood of widespread murderous retaliation if they make a public statement. (They may act like they do, but they don't.)
So, is it time for a public rebuke, where private methods have failed? It's time, and past time. Way past time.
Actually - I think John Kerry is way too smart to be characterized as horrendously catechized. He could learn, practice and believe (not necessarily in that order) but he choose not to do either, but rather go thru the motions of being a respectable, church-going Bostonian.
Actually, Sal, I did not state that the US Bishops' vote *constituted* schism, I said that it raised the possibility. I'm not aware of the canonical weight of Ratzinger's letter (perhaps Pete could explain in more detail) but pointed out that the flat contradiction between Ratzinger's arguments and McCarrick's statements raises the possibility.
Mio is correct; bishops should first privately attempt to instruct pro-abort Catholic politicians on the matter, as Ratzinger explained. But if that fails, the bishop *is* to presume that the politician is in a state of sin and *is* to deny him Communion until he repents.
The Church has always held a high view of human reason, especially when revealed truth is presented to enlighten it of the theological significance of human action. McCarrick's mewlings do not cut it in light of that tradition.
Please forgive my disrespectfulness towards Cardinal McCarrick's office in referring to his faulty arguments as "mewlings." Although it's perfectly fair to criticize bad actions and arguments from our shepherds, I think that word was over the line.