Chaput Cites Disunity Among Bishops on Canon 915

Michael,
You said, "While serving as Archbishop of San Francisco, he did not follow the practice Chaput advises. But, neither has Pope Benedict, or Pope John Paul II before him."

Perhaps you should read the letter Cardinal Ratzinger (who spoke for Pope John Paul II in his capacity as head of the CDF) wrote to the USCCB in 2004. Incidentally, Cardinal McCarrick failed to share this letter with the rest of the USCCB, and misrepresented the contents of the letter by stating that the matter of Canon 915 was to be decided upon by each individual bishop.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion...

Enough of this red herring that Michael Sean Winters and George Dennis O'Brien are trying to float: this is not a dispute about how to "criminalize" abortion. Anybody who thinks that Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, et al. are voting in favor of abortion because they can't decide how best to "criminalize" it needs to go and buy some real cheap bridges on the East River. None of that pro-abortion crowd has lifted a finger to narrow the scope of Roe. Biden and Kennedy, as members of the Judiciary Committee, have made fealty to Roe a litmus test of their idea of a "mainstream" nominee. Most of that crowd has never voted for even incremental legislative restrictions on abortion (e.g., banning partial birth abortions, restricting federal Medicaid payments for abortion, getting the snout of Planned Parenthood out of the federal Treasury). If I were to see that these politicians acting in ways that sought to limit what Vatican II called "unspeakable crimes" (Gaudium et spes,# 51) then I might give this argument an inch of credit. But when this group of Catholic politicians has found no way to circumscribe a murderous regime that has taken over 40,000,000 lives since 1973, then--with all due respect--the "many reasons" why this group takes the position they do is that they are politicians first and Catholics second, ready to jettison their faith commitments for fealty to advance in their Party. They can make that choice, but please don't call them Catholic as a result of it. For somebody who is eternally agitated about the need to implement Vatican II, it seems pretty clear that this very clear statement of the Council has been ignored.

Actually, in a way Chaput is right. If Catholic politicians had to put their fealty to the bishop ahead of their constitutional oaths, they would be disqualified from serving. If the USCCB spoke otherwise, the Papal Nuncio would have to be expelled for sedition.

Your begging the question. It is not the Archbishop's job to write legislation. While there may be a good reason to not vote for a particular legislative bill. Archbishop Chaput is in fact talking about a whole series of Catholic politicians who are on the record as saying that abortion is a constitutional right and have voted for funding of it. There are those who have said that the government should fund Planned Parenthood. They hide behind some form of ambiguity but in fact have a <5% voting record on Pro-Life issues. that is not slightly disagreeing with a given piece of legislation that is wholesale support for abortion n demand and abortion funding. They make no attempt to change the Party's philosophical platform which says abortion is a right. In fact they lead the charge in supporting it.
They won;t even vote for a Parental notification law. this is why there must be a denial of Holy COmmunion. They have withdrawn themselves form any communion iwth the Church on this matter.

For those of us who don't hold office, Chaput's comments reflect the discredited notion of single-issue voting.
I have never taken abortion lightly. It is a major reason, for example, that I never voted for Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
But a presidential election is not a national referendum on abortion. Ditto for an election for governor, as Wisconsinites who voted for the "pro-life" Scott Walker are being reminded often.
I think many of those who would slap bumper stickers on pulpits are taking other issues lightly. If abortion always outweighs every other issue combined, then there is no limit to how many things an elected official can do wrong, as long as he's "right" about abortion.
That isn't single-issue voting. It's blank check voting. I don't give anybody a blank check.

Once again, the National "Catholic" Reporter is wrong. Every time I see our President of the Senate (in Oregon)go up for communion it is a scandal to the church. The priest says he can do nothing about it because of our "progressive" bishop. The church says complicity in an abortion is a grave sin. In a VERY public way this legislator votes for the right of a woman to have her baby killed. He even attends the Planned Parenthood celebration of Roe v Wade every year in the State Capitol while a peaceful demonstration against abortion is being held beneath the very steps of the Capitol. He is Catholic in name only as is your "newspaper". Hurray for Bishop Chaput even if he is only a minority of the bishops. Please God, increase the holy boldness of our priests and bishops. And I predict our Holy Father will eventually enforce Canon 915 in a more speedy manner. REAL liberals defend the right of persons (even babies!)to live.

Michael Sean Winter asks some evocative questions about the repercussions of making abortion illegal. We could start that conversation by researching what the criminal sentencing patterns were prior to 1973 in each and every state. (Anne Hendershott might be of help here.) If memory serves correctly, most women patients did not face jail time for having an abortion; more likely was the case that the doctor and other facilitators were subject to penalties. In the case of coerced abortions, the mother was under emotional duress. Not so the abortionist.

Translation: NCR wants the bishops to ignore Canon 915, but excommunicate Congressman Ryan for his budget proposals...

So why doesn't Chaput apply Rerum Novarum to any Catholic who would vote to evicerate a union?

Winters ought to get a job writing for Pravda. He seems to have no problems pumping out bilge about the Catholic Church. Oh, but then he is writing for the 'National Catholic Distorter' isn't he.

Perhaps Winters and others who write for the 'Distorter' might want to read a bit more about the views of Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II regarding Canon 915 and their writings about the Eucharist. They certainly don't support Winters' mischaracterization that they don't support denial of communion to manifest sinners....quite the contrary. Oh and I recommend (even though the 'Distorter' never misses an opportunity to trash Cardinal Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura) that they read Cardinal Burkes PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA, vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58
The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.

Contrary to the usual dissent of the NCR to all things Catholic Cardinal Burke and Archbishop Chaput are correct in their interpretation of Canon Law.

Here is a link that might help you and the readers you are misleading to understand the Church's position:

http://mariancatechist.com/burke/canon_915.html

In the Name of Jesus,

I agree with Archbishop Chaput on Canon 915. I do believe Wuerl and the Archbishop of San Francisco do not have the courage to confront politicians who claim to be Catholic and vote for funded abortions. Nancy Pelosi continually distorts Catholic teaching publicly; and very seldom does Wuerl come out and confront her. He is nothing more than a political correct Obama Democrat and if you are intellectually honest, I think you will admit most of the Bishops play Canon 915 based on their own personal politics

It does not take much to be a coward. ..you do nothing and that is exactly where most of the Bishops in the country are presently.

When is SMW going to post the comment from the authors of the news report he distorts? Or are these postings being selectively edited so as not to embarrass Sean and jeopardize his tenuous position with NCR, whose editors might realize how unprofessional a writer they have on their hands? No worry, the internet has a way of getting this things out and about. Sleep well tonight Sean.

Mr. Winters, thinking that it is possible you did not receive my earlier comment on your post, I will repeat the gist of it below:

I am the author of the original news report on the Archbishop Chaput talk at Notre Dame to which you refer. I attended the Chaput lecture, took careful notes, and wrote an accurate article for Catholic News Service. Unless I am mistaken, you were not there.

Your commentary on the lecture grossly distorted my article and the actual event I reported on. First of all, you made up your own question for the answer of Archbishop Chaput which you quoted. My article reported the question this way: "The archbishop was asked why there is so much disunity among Catholics on the question of Catholics in political life standing clearly with the church on major moral issues such as abortion." (See my article here: http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=13222.) The question Chaput actually answered said nothing about denying Communion to pro-choice politicians; you invented that question.

Secondly, Archbishop Chaput never characterized his fellow bishops as "cowards;" he merely stated that there is disagreement within the bishops' conference on how to handle Catholic pro-choice politicians, something that anyone who has been paying attention over the past few years already knew.

You do a grave disservice to Archbishop Chaput for mischaracterizing his comments, and you demonstrate a questionable journalistic ethic by distorting my news article.

Ann Carey
South Bend, Indiana

Comments form the author of the original article, which can be found at First Things Blog:
"The news article that was distorted by Winters was written by me. I had not seen the Winters commentary until I read your blog. I have posted a comment under the Winters piece at NCR indicating my displeasure at his unfairness to Arbp. Chaput and my displeasure that he distorted my news story. You are absolutely right: Winters created his own question for the answer he quoted. Furthermore, the archbishop never used the word “coward” about his fellow bishops, nor did he imply that. He simply said there was disagreement about how to approach the issue, something anyone who was paying attention for the past few years knew already. Arbp. Chaput was very open and engaging in his interaction with the students at Notre Dame; it’s realy too bad that his reward is to be mischaracterized by people who disagree with him."