A Tale of Two Cardinals (And Two Popes)

Cardinal Michael von

Faulhaber, inspiration

for the vocation of Josef

Ratzinger

Well the Blogosphere is lit up once again as the Katholic Krazies bemoan that Pope Francis as “thrown him (Cardinal Burke) under the bus, “demoting” him from his curial post as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (roughly equivalent to the Church’s Supreme Court) to the “merely ceremonial” post as some sort of grand poobah for the Sovereign Military Order of the Hospital of Saint John, aka the Knights of Malta (or, as popularly known, the Knights of Moola).  Meanwhile, our wing-nuts lament, that arch-heretic Cardinal Walter Kasper roams the world looking for the ruin of souls  and mouthing idiocies in the name of Pope Francis.  Needless to say, it is all a bit more complicated and to understand what is happening, one has to go back to the Conclave of 2005 which elected Pope Benedict XVI.
Once upon a time Pope Benedict was Josef Ratzinger.  Josef was born on April 16 1927 in Marktl, Bavaria (Germany), the son of a local police officer.  As a young boy he met Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, then Archbishop of Munich.  Upon seeing the Cardinal’s distinctive robes of scarlet silk, he knew he wanted to be a Cardinal.  (I am not making this up—Ratzinger himself tells the story.)  It would launch the young Ratzinger off on a life-long hunger for the vesture of pomp that would result in fabulous hand fashioned (but not by Prada) red leather heeled pumps.  Von Faulhaber of course was a member of the old Bavarian nobility—as all archbishops of principal sees were in those days; Ratzinger was a blue-blood wanna-be from a family of civil servants.  During the years of World War II he, like other German young men, had been conscripted into the German army at age 14 and it was only after the war that he could begin his studies for the priesthood.  To be fair to the man, it was a horrible way to grow up with the unimaginable suffering of those war years.  When the war was over Josef entered the seminary at age 18. 
Ratzinger was recognized early on as being exceptionally gifted intellectually, and shortly after his ordination in 1951 was sent on for his doctorate (1953) and his habilitation (a post-doctoral degree required of those who were to teach at university level) 1957.   He taught at Freising College (a secondary school) before moving on to the University of Bonn and then the University of Münster.  His big break came when Cardinal Frings, the Archbishop of Cologne and a leader at Vatican II, brought Ratzinger to Rome as his theological advisor during the Second Vatican Council.  In those Vatican II years, Herr Pater Doktor Ratzinger was part of the theological circle of the nouvelle theologie led by Karl Rahner and Edward Schillebeecxk and Hans Küng.  These were the men who shaped the Council—some say hijacked it—to be a radical breakthrough in Catholic thought and practice.  Though he lacked the intellectual audacity of Küng or the cerebral depth of Rahner, Ratzinger emerged from Vatican II with a well-deserved reputation as a first-rate theologian.  After the Council he was appointed to a chair of dogmatic theology at the University of Tübingen, the premier faculties of both Catholic and Protestant Theology in Germany, if not the world. 
The cultural disruptions of the late 1960’s and in particular the political and social turmoil that marked the year 1968 shocked the somewhat naïve Ratzinger and made him begin to re-think the liberal idealism that had characterized his work during and immediately after the Council.  This launched him in an increasingly ever more cautious direction intellectually.  He left Tübingen and joined the theological faculty at the University of Regensburg in his native Bavaria.  Here he was among the founders of a theological journal, Communio.  One of his fellow founders of this theological journal was the dean of the theological faculty at Westphalian University, Walter Kasper, who was soon to become Dean at   Tübingen before being named Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart and then being advanced to Rome and a Cardinal’s hat.  Communio was meant to be a balance to the theological journal Concilium which had been established several years earlier by Küng, Rahner, Johannes Metz, Marie-Dominique Chenu and others who had played a key role at the Council.  Communio should, however, by no means be seen as a “conservative” journal as its editors are some of the brightest and most creative minds in Christian thought.   It is ironic that some of Ratzinger’s closest associates and friends of those days, men such as Walter Kasper and Christoph Schönborn, will later play the roles they have more recently played in dismantling the Ratzinger heritage in the reign of Pope Francis.
In 1977 Ratzinger was plucked from academia by Paul VI and named Archbishop of Munich-Freising—the same title held by Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, the prelate of Ratzinger’s youth who inspired his ambition to the Cardinal’s scarlet.  Three months after being installed in his see, Ratzinger’s youthful ambition was realized when he was named to the Sacred College as a Cardinal-Priest.  Sadly, however, Paul VI had meanwhile simplified the elaborate dress of Cardinals leaving the new prelate in middle-class broadcloth rather than ducal silk.  By this point Ratzinger seems to have matured beyond an attraction to the effeminate furs and lace of old-school prelatry and was so steeped in his intellectualism that he was  being wasted in the pastoral work of an archbishopric.  John Paul II brought Ratzinger to Rome and named him as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981. 
By this point, Ratzinger seemed not only questioning of his past role in creating the Church of Vatican II but almost repentant of it.  He seems to have had considerable reservations about the liturgical developments after the Council as well as the implementation of the Council’s ideals on Ecumenism and Inter-religious dialogue.  He did not want to undo the Council, but along with his Boss—Pope John Paul II—to apply a different hermeneutic (interpretation) of the Conciliar decrees to take the Church in a direction that was not backwards into the days of Pius XII but somewhat less trusting of liberal agenda than the path of Paul VI. 
John Paul and Josef Ratzinger had a somewhat symbiotic relationship.  John Paul was a philosopher, not a theologian, and he knew his limitations.  Ratzinger pretty much had free rein over doctrinal matters.   The Pope allowed the Cardinal to check his agenda several times.  Ratzinger blocked the Pope—tactfully but firmly—from the theological morass of dogmatically defining the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the “Mediatrix of All Grace” or “Co-Redemptrix.”  Moreover, by declaring that the teaching of the Church that only men could be ordained to the priesthood was infallible because it had “always and everywhere been believed,” he carried out a pre-emptive strike against Pope John Paul explicitly and de fide defining it as infallible—something that would be extremely difficult (though not impossible) to change down the line should future Popes so choose to do so.  On the other hand, as Prefect of the CDF, Ratzinger presided over a theological reign of terror over any and everyone who did not agree with him from liberation theologian Leonardo Boff to his old friend and colleague, Johannes Metz.  In a scenario reminiscent of the Cadaver Synod of 897, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith posthumously attacked the work of Karl Rahner.  (You can find out more about the Cadaver Synod by clicking the link with that title under the labels column to the right of this posting. )  There were times, such as the interfaith meetings in Assisi, where John Paul did not take Cardinal Ratzinger’s advice to heart and pursued his own policies.   Ratzinger distanced himself from John Paul especially on inter-religious dialogue where he thought the Pope crossed the line of what praxis was consistent with doctrine.  Meanwhile, Ratzinger wrote extensively (and sometimes imprudently) on the Liturgy, making his unhappiness with much of the liturgical developments after Vatican II more than obvious.  I say “imprudently” as his introduction to Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s critique of the Novus Ordo Liturgy of Paul VI, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: It’s Problems and Background is riddled with historical inaccuracies that betray its polemical bias and compromise its—and by extension Ratzinger’s—academic integrity. 
Sometime in the 1990’s Ratzinger realized that he was in a position to be a possible candidate to succeed John Paul II as Pope and correct the Church’s course.  He had been particularly disturbed by the 1986 World Day of Prayer in Assisi where religious leaders from a host of different world religions gathered together for prayer for peace.  The Cardinal had serious reservations about people of diverse creeds—and worshippers of diverse deities—praying together for fear of it leading to a certain religious indifferentism.  When John Paul initiated another Assisi inter-religious gathering in 2002, Ratzinger declined (read: refused) to attend.  Moreover, while Pope John Paul permitted a limited use of the pre-conciliar liturgical rites in the 1988 motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, many bishops still thwarted efforts to revive the older rites.  Ratzinger saw that if he were Pope he could set a clearer policy on how the vision of the Second Vatican Council was to be implemented.
As Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was uniquely positioned to increase his visibility as a potential successor to Pope John Paul.  Every bishop in the Catholic World, including the Cardinal Archbishops, as he came to Rome had to visit Ratzinger’s office to make his report and answer questions that had been raised by the CDF.  Ratzinger used these visits to get to know Cardinals and potential Cardinals, to hear their ideas, and to let them know his stance and vision for the Church.  In 2002 Cardinal Ratzinger was elected (by the six other Cardinal Bishops and at the behest of Pope John Paul II) Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals.   As Dean he presided—and preached—at the funeral of Pope John Paul and also presided—and preached—at the opening Mass of the Conclave. 
There were, at the time of his election, the usual stories of how Cardinal Ratzinger had not wished to be Pope, but only to be allowed to resign his various responsibilities and return to academic life.  The behavior of Cardinal Ratzinger before and during the inter-regnum following the death of Pope John Paul tells a very different story, but it was not for personal ambition that Josef Ratzinger sought the papacy.  He was motivated by a sincere desire, indeed a profound sense of responsibility, to clean up what he perceived to be the mess left by a charismatic but theologically eclectic predecessor and to set the Church on a clearly defined path of doctrinal, liturgical, and canonical discipline.  He is, after all, a German.  Alles in ordnung!
During the inter-regnum a very different picture emerged of Josef Ratzinger from the inflexible Prefect of the CDF.  Perhaps most notable was the discrete directive given to the priests distributing Holy Communion during the funeral of Pope John Paul.  No one was to be refused Holy Communion.  Tony Blair, then an Anglican, was present.   Bill Clinton, the American former President whose receiving Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass in South Africa in 1998 triggered a firestorm of Catholic protest was present.   Many in the diplomatic section were not Catholic.  Cardinal Ratzinger himself gave Holy Communion to the Protestant Prior of the ecumenical monastic community of Taizé, Brother Roger Schütz.  It was a warm and friendly Ratzinger as the Cardinals were about to elect a new Pope.
It was also a sly Ratzinger.  At the daily morning consistories where the Cardinals set the policies to lead the Church through the sede vacante period until a new pope would be elected, Ratzinger persuaded the Cardinals each to take an oath that they would not speak to the press or publicly discuss matter pertaining to the upcoming election.  All the Cardinals took the oath.  None of the Cardinals pro-actively appeared in the various newspapers or electronic media.  Then, in the middle of the interregnum, Ratzinger published a book On the Way to Jesus Christ.  He appeared on television.  He was quoted in the Press.  His picture was everywhere.  One Cardinal emerges to stand in the limelight.  Of course, since the electorate was limited to his fellow Cardinals, the public relations coup had limited effect, but the response was one that showed the other Cardinals that Ratzinger was an effective communicator of the Gospel Message as well as a serious scholar.  It put the question: if not Ratzinger: why not?  If not Ratzinger, who?
OK, so far we have talked about one pope.  We still have two cardinals and another Pope to talk about.  Not all members of the Sacred College were thrilled at the idea of Josef Ratzinger becoming Pope.  There were more than a few who felt that, despite all the talk of a “hermeneutic of continuity,” the Church had veered away from the original intent of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and were anxious to return it to that direction. The Americans and the Germans in particular were among those Cardinals who wanted to find an alternative to Josef Ratzinger.  The leaders of the anybody-but-Ratzinger move were his old colleague from Communio, Walter Kasper and (from the American side of the aisle) the Machiavellian Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington.  They needed a candidate to be an alternative to Ratzinger.  They needed someone who wasn’t tied to the Roman establishment and its culture of intrigue but an outsider.  They needed someone who represented the new face of the Church—not another European from a country where Catholicism was old and tired. 
One interesting sideline to the Conclave was that Walter Kasper preached a sermon in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Trastevere the Saturday night before the Conclave opened the following Monday morning.  This was the weekly Mass for the Community of Sant’Egidio, a strong and popular lay movement that includes among its friends and supporters a wide variety of Cardinals, Bishops, religious, and priests and is widely known for both is work among the poor in Rome and its international efforts for peace and justice.  The weekly Saturday evening Mass is usually celebrated by a guest prelate and is always packed out.  It was the Sunday of the Good Shepherd Gospel and Cardinal Kasper preached a homily on the characteristics of a Good Shepherd.  What did the Church need at this moment for its chief Shepherd?  The answer was clear from the questions posited by the preacher:  the Church did not need Josef Ratzinger for its next chief shepherd.  The qualities Kasper listed for the Church’s chief shepherd were distinctly lacking in Josef Ratzinger.  That was Act I.  Act II was 36 hours later with the homily for the opening Mass of the Conclave.  Cardinal Ratzinger answered Cardinal Kasper’s objections point by point.  It was clear that Cardinal Ratzinger saw himself as the answer to the Church’s needs of the time and was presenting himself as a candidate.  I was fortunate enough to be present and hear both sermons. 
It only emerged in the 2013 Conclave that the runner-up to Josef Ratzinger in the 2005 Conclave was one Jorge Bergoglio, the Jesuit Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires in Argentina.  The attempt to derail the Ratzinger election failed, of course, and sadly Benedict’s papacy was to prove he was not up for the job.  It wasn’t a dismal failure—by any means—but neither was it a success.  His hopes to re-evangelize Europe by reviving the Catholic heart of European Culture went nowhere.  The Vatican Bureaucracy remained every bit beyond his ability to control with the Curia acting independently of his authority at any chance they got.  Curia officials bullied bishops, American nuns, theologians, and any other victims they could trammel beneath their purple stockinged and silver buckled shoed feet.  The Vatican Bank enmeshed itself in ever grater scandals.  Benedict did manage to bring the Legionnaires of Christ founder Marcial Maciel to account and in general made significant steps forward in reining in sexual abuse scandal.  He gave great leeway to the pre-conciliar liturgy but in the process created even more dissension and confusion.  It was a mixed bag of a papacy, but over all not a happy one.  But the Conclave that elected him had forged an alliance between Walter Kasper and Jorge Bergoglio that would have great impact for the Church after Benedict.
Ok, now two popes (Benedict and Francis) and one Cardinal (Kasper) down, one Cardinal to go.  Raymond Leo Burke.  I really need to do a posting on Burke.  Burke is a peculiar man.  He doesn’t have friends.  Or rather, as one person put it: he doesn’t acknowledge peers, only protégés.   Usually somewhat younger and somewhat handsome protégés, whom he has used his position to advance to positions in the Church—protégés like Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco or Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City.  (Neither of whom, I would say in order to hold off the critics, have done a great job of retaining their once youthful good looks.) 
Burke was bishop of Lacrosse from 1995 to 2003 when he was named Archbishop of Saint Louis.  Both in Lacrosse and Saint Louis, Burke worked hard to earn the reputation of being a bully.  In Saint Louis he antagonized the parishioners of the ethnic (Polish) parish of Saint Stanislaus Kostka who judged that Burke was trying to wrest control over the parish from its trustees in order to gain hold of their financial assets.  He also took on the Jesuits at Saint Louis University over a number of issues, including the liturgy in the University Church which, the Jesuits claimed, is under the authority of their Order and not that of the Archdiocese.  The situation became so untenable in Saint Louis that the Holy See had to resort to one of its tried and true solutions: rimuovere con la promozione: to remove by promotion.  Cardinal Burke’s cultivated ties to Cardinal Law, another American who found refuge from disgrace in America by exile in Rome, assured him of a soft landing in his banishment and he was moved from Saint Louis to an administrative position in the Vatican as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.  This position carries with it a Cardinal’s hat and Pope Benedict named Burke to a number of Vatican dicasteries. 
Cardinal Burke was very much in line with the Benedict XVI approach to the Church.  Like Benedict Burke is a strong proponent of the pre-conciliar rites.  He also shares Benedict’s taste for high ecclesial fashion and a certain elegance in his surroundings.  Burke lacked Benedict’s personal humility and kindness however and is generally regarded as a social boor, pompous and opinionated.  He was never very popular in the Vatican among his fellow Cardinals. 
In the 2013 Conclave when there was a general revolt among the Cardinals against Benedict’s style of papacy, Burke was appalled.  It was not so much a defensiveness of Pope Benedict as much a fear of returning to the somewhat déclassé egalitarianism of the days of Paul VI that scared him.  When he heard other Cardinals express their frustration over Summorum Pontificum’s removing control over liturgical policies from the local bishop and giving priests an unrestricted right to celebrate which form of the liturgy they preferred without reference either to diocesan policy or pastoral needs of the people he feared restrictions might be placed on the older liturgical forms.  When he heard calls for simpler taste in liturgy and vesture, he became anxious about what simplifications might be imposed on him and other prelates.  When he heard talk of recovering the Social Justice emphasis of the magisterium and even of recovering the respectability of Liberation Theology, he feared the displeasure of those on whose generosity he depends to maintain his own gracious lifestyle.  In the final matter, he was disgusted with the election of Jorge Bergoglio and has not been discreet about it.  An impolitic “I didn’t vote for him” is his much quoted response when asked about what he thinks of Pope Francis.
Burke is twelve years younger than Francis.  He will undoubtedly vote in at least one more conclave.  He has distanced himself increasingly from Francis in a not-so-loyal opposition.  He is surely smart enough to know he cannot be Pope—no American (i.e. USA American) can be elected Pope given the geo-political complexities of our contemporary world.  But he can be a king-maker.  Should the Cardinals have had enough of Francis’ reform agenda by the time of the next Conclave, Burke will be well positioned to play the sort of role that Kasper played in god-fathering a successful candidate.  In some ways, Cardinal Burke reminds me of the old axiom: if you can’t be the best student in the class, be the worst; it gets you at least as much attention.   He certainly got attention at the recent Synod.  While he now goes into exile over on the Aventine with the Order of Malta, he will not go into obscurity.  You will see him continue to emerge as a vocal critic of this papacy and perhaps as kingmaker for the next.  It will not be easy for Francis and, given Francis’ age and health, it is likely Burke will have the last word.  As to who has the last laugh, however, we will have to wait for the Final Judgment.  In the meantime, I personally think that Francis should have thrown him under the bus—literally.  There is an old axiom among sportsmen: never leave a wounded animal, they can come back to harm you. 

Joe Biden, Pope Francis, and the Communion Kerfuffle

Well, now the fuss is that Vice President Biden and Democratic House Minority leader, Pelosi received Holy Communion at the Mass inaugurating the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis.  Did you honestly think that they wouldn’t?  As for whether they should or not, it isn’t my business to make a judgment call.  I am not sure it is the business of all those who have an opinion on the matter either. 
I was living in Rome during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and the inaugural Mass of Pope Benedict XVI and was working for the BBC and several other networks as a consultant.  As such I had access to a wide variety of sources of information.  Moreover, in the circle of friends and acquaintances with whom I had dinner or went to the beach or spent weekends in the Tuscan countryside were any number of low and medium level Vatican “officials.”  An inveterate gossip, I learned not to give opinions but only to ask questions with a faux innocence that opened the dams of behind-the-scenes information.  I found out, among other things, that the priests giving Holy Communion at the Masses for the funeral of John Paul and the installation of Benedict were instructed not to refuse anyone Holy Communion.  This instruction was especially reinforced for those in the diplomatic section and the sections where special guests were being seated.  This meant that not only were dubious politicians of various nationalities to be given Holy Communion but non-Catholics as well.  In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict gave Holy Communion to Prior Roger Schutz, the Calvinist prior of the Ecumenical Community of Taizé.   Of course precedents had been set when Pope John Paul had given Holy Communion to Tony Blair—at the time not only a pro-choice politician but an Anglican—at a Mass with the Blair family in the Pope’s private chapel.
As prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger had written a letter to the American Bishops supporting the policy that pro-choice politicians should be denied Holy Communion.  Cardinal McCarrick managed to deflect the letter, not releasing it but only summarizing it in remarks to the Bishops at their semi-annual meeting.   McCarrick and Ratzinger were not on friendly terms, at least after that.  McCarrick allegedly led the American Cardinals in the 2005 conclave in an unsuccessful alliance with the Germans to evade a Ratzinger papacy.  Cardinal McCarrick’s resignation, offered on his 75^th birthday, was immediately accepted by Pope Benedict unlike the resignation of most other Cardinals who were invited to stay on for several years.  Was McCarrick’s refusal to implement canon 915 the reason for Benedict’s quick acceptance?  The Holy Father could have removed the Cardinal from his see earlier, of course, but that would have been a too obvious rebuke. Nevertheless, had Benedict wanted canon 915 to be enforced he would not have appointed Donald Wuerl to the Washington See as Wuerl, when Bishop of Pittsburgh, had made it very clear that he was not going to refuse Holy Communion to anyone, even those politicians who supported abortion or euthanasia.  Wuerl’s removing the faculties of Father Marcel Guarnizo, a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow working in the Washington Archdiocese, for Guarnizo’s having refused an acknowledged Lesbian communion, was a clear sign that in his Archdiocese ministers are not to take it upon themselves to decide who may and may  not receive Holy Communion.  We all know where Wuerl stands on this issue. 
Pope Benedict had not found it in his agenda to remove Cardinal Wuerl or, for that matter, Bishop Loverde of Arlington, from their sees for refusing to implement canon 915.  Bishop Loverde has somewhat flown under the radar on this issue while it is likely that more Democratic politicians live in his diocese than in the Archdiocese of Washington.  Loverde is a very gentle and pastoral man—perhaps too gentle with his priests who are often in rebellion against his authority for his being “too liberal.”  Moreover, priest friends of mine in the Washington chancery have claimed that both Wuerl and Loverde are under instructions from Rome not to make this matter of Holy Communion and politicians an issue.  We will see if that changes in the new papacy, but in the meantime I need to remember that it is not up to me to enforce canon 915 and it probably isn’t up to you either.  When I make judgments about who is receiving Holy Communion worthily, I probably am not doing so myself.

 

 

Canon 915 and Who is the Decider, Part I

Cardinal Burke wearing the galero that
someday will hang over his tomb

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication  or interdict  has been imposed or declared,  and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This is the text of canon 915, these days probably the most cited canon in the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church as intra-Church disputes rage concerning congressmen and lesbians coming to Holy Communion..  But we not only have a text we have a context and the text needs to be put into its context for correct application.     

      The first part—those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared…” is fairly clear and does not need to be commented on other than to note it refers to those on whom excommunication has been imposed or declared.  This does not include those who have occurred excommunication latae sententiae or “automatically.”  Such people should not present themselves for Holy Communion but since reason for their automatic excommunication would be “internal forum,” it would not be in the scope of the minister of the Eucharist to deny them the sacrament.  Presumably the only one who could tell their moral state with any certainty would be their confessor and he cannot do anything that would indicate knowledge gained in the Sacrament of Reconciliation even if it meant giving the Eucharist “unworthily.”  Any other minister of the Sacrament would have to presume the person had been reconciled and the excommunication lifted. 

      The issues under debate revolve around “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”  This provision is to cover those who in some circles are called “public sinners.”  Who makes the determination? 

      The controversy has raged in the American Church at least since 2004 when then Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis and several other bishops declared that Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry should not be admitted to Holy Communion because of his support—and his party platform’s support—for the legality of abortion.  Burke had articulated this same position earlier as Bishop of LaCrosse Wisconsin but it only became a practical issue when he held a major See in which a presidential candidate might be likely to be present on a Sunday.  Senator Kerry was not alone under the threat of a Eucharistic ban.  Archbishop Burke had always been pretty free imposing this ban on those whom he perceived as disagreeing from Church teaching.  After numerous conflicts in his diocese with priests, religious, and laity, Burke was (re)moved to Rome where he was given a significant post in the Church’s judicial system but without any direct pastoral responsibilities.  This position rewarded him with a Cardinal’s hat and permitted the archdiocese to heal from his divisive leadership thus being a win/win situation.  He was succeeded in Saint Louis by Archbishop Robert J. Carlson.

      Not all bishops have interpreted Canon 915 in the same way that Archbishop Burke has.  Indeed, most American bishops have tried to duck the issue.  Cardinal Francis George of Chicago advised a Chicago Pastor where it was thought that 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, a faithful Mass-attender, might attend Mass while in Chicago that he should not give Biden communion at Mass but allow him to receive privately in the church sacristy.   The then Bishop of Biden’s family Diocese, Scranton PA, Joseph Martino, told Biden he was not to receive Holy Communion in the Scranton Diocese, but successive Bishops of Wilmington, Michael Saltarelli and William Malooly have not issued any such ban.  Bishop Martino, like Archbishop Burke, had alienated various people and institutions in the Scranton Diocese and though only in his early sixties resigned his See “for reasons of health” soon after announcing that Biden was not welcome to Holy Communion.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas banned from Holy Communion then Governor Kathleen Sibelius.  When Sibelius became Secretary of Health and Human Services, Naumann claimed that this ban was effective in Washington but Canon Lawyers have clarified that his authority to restrict an individual from Holy Communion is limited to his own diocese.  When Sibelius took up residence in the Washington area such jurisdiction passed to the Archbishop of Washington or the Bishop of Arlington, depending on where the Secretary lives and/or attends Mass.  

      Of course, Cardinal Donald Wuerl (and his predecessors Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and James Hickey) and Bishop Paul Loverde of the Arlington VA Diocese are the most watched prelates for how the Canon is applied.  Neither Wuerl (nor his predecessors) nor Loverde have shown any indication that they will ban individuals from the Sacraments because of their stance on political issues including abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research or other “hot button” issues.  Wuerl in particular takes much heat on this issue and is regularly picketed when he appears at his cathedral or other parishes by those who insist that he has a moral responsibility to invoke canon 915 against Democratic politicians.  While Bishop Loverde, a very kind and pastoral man, was named to the Arlington See before this became an issue, Wuerl—as Bishop of Pittsburgh—had made his position very clear that he would not invoke the canon.  This did not stop his appointment to Washington and some sources claim that Rome would not appoint a prelate to Washington who would stir up this controversy.  Rome certainly knew what they were getting with Wuerl on this issue and there does not seem to have been any pressure on him from the Holy See to invoke Canon 915.    But there are those more Catholic than the Pope who fault him for his “lax” defense of the Eucharist.  Maybe the Pope should have appointed one of them as Archbishop. 

More on this subject next time. 

Attempts to Justify--More on Saga of the Priest Who Refused Communion

Cardinal Donald Wuerl,
Archbishop of Washington

The saga of Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who last Saturday, February 25, refused communion to a woman at her mother’s funeral because the woman is living in a same-sex relationship continues to unfold.  It began to appear on the internet on Monday and in the newspapers on Tuesday.  The Archdiocese was quick in damage control and hung the priest out to dry, claiming that he acted contrary to diocesan policy.  (He did—that was very clear, as Cardinal Wuerl has made a point that people are not to be refused communion during Mass for any foreseeable reason.)   By Wednesday the story was circulating that the woman’s partner had encountered the priest in the Church before the Mass as she was preparing a reading and the priest asked who she was.  She supposedly identified herself as the partner of Barbara Johnson, the daughter of the deceased.  That is what gave Guarnizo a heads-up that Johnson was in a relationship that is outside the bounds of Catholic morality.  Following on this information, Guarnizo then refused Johnson communion at the Mass saying “I cannot give you communion because you live with a woman and that is a sin according to the Church.”  By Wednesday evening the story had evolved that Johnson had confronted the priest in the sacristy before Mass, introducing the other woman as her “Lover.”  Well what was a priest to do when challenged like this?  One account has it that he then “warned” Johnson that she should not come up for communion due to this sinful relationship, but she confronted him by appearing first in line for Holy Communion.  In another version Johnson stormed out of the sacristy before the priest could warn her that she should not receive.  Whichever version—if either—being true, Guarnizo felt that under the circumstances he was justified in his decision as Johnson had been duly warned that her living situation removed her from active participation in the Sacraments.  He was only doing his duty.  
I would have more confidence in the story if the versions put out by the priest’s supporters were consistent but details seem to be added with each round to bolster his case.  And I am not saying that the account isn’t true, but frankly it doesn’t wash.  Priest friends of mine say that Guarnizo’s version of the story “sounds fishy.” The usual protocol at a funeral is that the family arrives at the Church accompanying the body just in time for the funeral Mass.  One priest said: “I’m not saying that it couldn’t happen, but in thirty-five years of priesthood  I don’t ever recall a family member being in the sacristy before the funeral.  I invariably meet them at the door of the Church when the undertaker brings in the casket.”   Others who know Ms. Johnson say that she is frank about her relationship but not “in your face” and couldn’t imagine her using the term “Lover” in those circumstances.  Her family and guests at the funeral supports her version of the story that the refusal of Holy Communion was unprovoked.
       Another priest friend of mine said that he could not imagine this happening as it was recounted to him.  He said that in his parish he always visits with the family at least once before the funeral to ascertain their needs and then he attends the wake or vigil service before the funeral to meet the family again and see how they are handling the death.  He said that he would know if there was some “irregularity” in the family situation long before the funeral Mass.  A third priest I spoke with said that the local funeral director always tips him off about family situations when the details are being arranged with the Church.  Both priests thought that if Guarnizo didn’t know the situation before the funeral he should have.  Then a parishioner from the parish said: “Father may seem soft-spoken and quiet, but he is a scrappy little fellow, quick to fight over what he thinks is right.”  But does all this address the issue of his “right” to refuse the woman communion? 
     If the (Arch)bishop has a policy regarding Holy Communion—or any other question about public worship and administration of the sacraments, is an individual minister of the Eucharist, priest or lay, free to take the decision into his own hands?  One canon lawyer said: “Absolutely not!  Look at it from the other side: can you imagine if a priest in Saint Louis had given communion to Senator Kerry after (then Archbishop) Cardinal Burke had said he was not to be given the Eucharist?   The bishop sets the policy, not any Tom, Dick, or Harry who happens to be giving out Holy Communion.”  Another said: “This is not the situation for which canon 915 applies. That canon is for manifest public sinners and the decision about how it is to be implemented rests with the Ordinary (the Bishop).  This woman’s sin—and it is a sinful situation—this woman’s sin is considered in the private realm and not public even though friends and family would be aware of her relationship.  Public sin would refer to something like criminal behavior—heading up a Mafia family, being a racketeer, publicly known to be operating a house of prostitution or an illegal gambling establishment.  It could be applied to the owner of an abortion mill or its physicians if they were publicly identified with it.  Moreover it not only has to be a matter of public knowledge—as distinguished from common knowledge—but the person has to obdurately persevere in the sinful activity.  That is they need to be publicly admonished and remain in the sinful situation after and in spite of the public admonishment.  The case of Ms. Johnson clearly falls under private and not public sin.  Even a first year canon-law student would know this.”  
       But the crazies still clamor for blood—and not Marcel Guarnizo’s.  Local bloggers Restore DC Catholicism and An Archdiocese of Washington DC Catholic have been joined by Les Femmes—a one woman band from the hills of the Shenandoah—and her ties to the Catholic Media Coalition will spread it through the Catholic neo-con network in an attempt to bring down Cardinal Wuerl and his policy of not refusing people Holy Communion.  She has long been critical of Wuerl, his predecessors, Cardinals McCarrick and Hickey, and her own bishop, Paul Loverde of Arlington.  I suspect the publicity will run out of fuel before it achieves its goals of having Cardinal Wuerl or Bishop Loverde “corrected” by Rome, but it is a fascinating picture of the struggle over who determines Church policy.  This—the struggle for controlling Church authority—is an increasingly interesting issue as it puts the religious right into the role of rebellious and unfaithful Catholics, a role with which they are usually most uncomfortable.  We have to do a posting on that topic.

The Silencing of the Shepherds 2

Cardinal Bernard Law, former Archbishop

of Boston.  Cardinal Law was made a bishop

under Paul VI but achieved his powerful

status in the reign of John Paul II where he

served as "kingmaker" of American Bishops.

You may remember (see entry for May 22^nd) that after the Americanist crisis of the late nineteenth century Rome instituted a deliberate policy of appointing Roman trained and oriented clergy to be bishops in the United States in a move to eradicate the Americanist ideals that shaped the Catholicism of Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland.  Leo XIII and  his successor, Pius X were distrustful of such American ideas as democracy and the separation of Church and State and the Americanist situation had made them realize just how different the American mentality—Catholic and Protestant—was from the Roman mentality.  A similar reaction happened with the accession of John Paul II in 1978.  One of John Paul’s first major appointment shifts was in June of 1980, just about 20 months after beginning his papal reign, to remove the Apostolic Delegate in the United States, Archbishop Jean Jadot, a Belgian, to a desk-job in Rome.  Unlike most Apostolic Delegates, before and since, Jadot was never made a Cardinal—a sign of John Paul’s displeasure.  The (relatively) liberal hierarchy of the post-conciliar years was due heavily to Jadot’s influence.  Jadot was succeeded as Apostolic Delegate by Archbishop (later Cardinal) Pio Laghi who began replacing progressive American bishops with such stellar figures as Bernard Law in Boston, and John Joseph O’Conner in New York.  To be fair, Laghi also saw Joseph Bernardin appointed to Chicago and Roger Mahoney to Los Angeles.  He replaced the liberal Peter Gerety of Newark with Theodore McCarrick who was, at the time, seen as a strongly conservative prelate but who turned out to be one of the most talented members of the hierarchy (and, as a corollary to talent, one of the most Machiavellian).  Many of Laghi’s bishops were in fact good pastors and it was not “conservativism” per se that got them appointed but their unquestionable fidelity to Rome.  John Paul had no room for dissent.          
       To understand John Paul’s paranoia (and that is not too strong a word) about dissent one must remember his own experience in Poland.  Poland was the one Soviet satellite where the communist government had not been able to seriously damage the Catholic Church.  Unlike Hungary or Czechoslovakia, the Church in Poland remained strong and retained not only the loyalty but the active participation of the vast majority of the population.  Much like Nineteenth-century  Catholic Ireland where the Church grew and remained strong because to be a Catholic was a declaration of national pride in the face of an occupying Colonial Power that represented another religious tradition, the Poles stood strong in their Catholic faith and practice as a sign of nationalism and resistance to the officially atheistic philosophy of their Soviet-dominated government.  To be Polish was to be Catholic!  The cohesiveness of the Church and indeed its strength came from its rigid unity which the Communist regime could not crack.  And this unity was rooted in an unswerving loyalty and obedience, in public and in private—to the Primate, the long-suffering Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski (+1981).  Pope Wojtyla, as he was often known both in Poland and Rome, understood Wyszynski’s lesson—if you want a Church strong enough to bring down Marxism and to confront the secularism of the West, you need a Church that moves in absolute unity and uniformity.  John Paul would not risk dissent and was rigid in crushing it.  In 1980 he demanded that all priests and religious withdraw from political office because he would not have the clergy in a position where they might have to disregard their ecclesiastical superiors to perform their civil obligations.  Sister Agnes Mansour, a Sister of Mercy, was ordered by the Vatican to resign from her post as the Director of Social Services for the State of Michigan.  She instead resigned from her religious order.  (The Sisters of Mercy never broke their ties with her and she lived and died within their community.)  Father Robert Drinan SJ, on the other hand, did resign his seat in Congress to comply with the Vatican Directives but he was a greater pain to the authority structures in the Church in his post-Congressional years than he had been serving in the halls of Congress.  Nonetheless, it was clear in the John Paul years that there was to be no room for dissent from Church Authority.  In 2006 Cardinal Angelo Sodano retired as Vatican Secretary of State, a position he had held for sixteen years, serving under two popes: John Paul II and Benedict XVI.  The Foreign Ministers (Secretaries of State) of other European Governments hosted a luncheon in his honor as he was the longest serving Secretary of State among them.  When asked to what he attributed is long tenure he joked “There are advantages to working for a Totalitarian State.”  A  joke yes, but one which was funny only because it is true. 
     To see dissent as disloyalty is a dangerous to any leadership.  Dissent and disobedience are two different realities.  To close off dissent is to deprive leadership of voices they need to hear and monitor, not to punish but to be able to critique their own course.  There is such a thing as loyal dissent and within the Church there are many voices which have been silenced in fear of reprisal.  I recently read William L. Shirer’s work The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.  (At a friend’s suggestion I had read Erik Larsen’s In the Garden of Beasts and as a historian it left me wanting to know much more in detail how the catastrophe of the Third Reich had come about.)  What struck me most in Shirer’s book was the absolute stifling of dissent by Hitler and his inner circle and how that dissent was to create a bubble of bogus realities around the Reich’s leadership.  This past week I had coffee with friends who are retired military and the discussion came to a comparison of Church and military leadership styles and these officers spoke of the importance of dissenting views having voice in successful military operations.  It is not healthy for us in the Church that responsible voices whether they be bishops, theologians, or competent clergy and laity cannot speak out freely critiquing policies set by a leadership that is not necessarily any more competent, educated, or informed. As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit speaks through the Pope, but we do not believe that the Holy Spirit (I will avoid the use of a pronoun) speaks through the Pope alone, much less than the monsignoral desk-jockeys that work down the hall and around the corner from him.  But even more serious for the good of the Church and of souls than sealing off prophetic voices that might raise the inspired cries of “yes, but…” is being left with a hierarchy that “loyalty” has reduced to mediocrity.  The atmosphere of blind allegiance has created a culture of codependence in which voices that were consecrated to be prophetic remain silent in the face of the gross injustices of our contemporary society.  Where are the voices to speak for the immigrant?  For the seniors who are in danger of losing their Medicare and Social Security? For the families who have lost their homes?  For the workers who have seen their jobs go overseas?   For the Earth that is being scourged  by the destruction of its resources, its air and its water?  We have a new translation for the Liturgy when what we need is a prophetic and evangelical message of what it means to be a Disciple of Jesus Christ in this world in which we live.  “What father among you,” Jesus said, “would give his children a stone when they ask for bread.”  And we are asking for bread and being given the stones of silence in the face of a rampant and increasing injustice in our society.  We cannot afford to have shepherds who do not raise a cry when the flock is being surrounded by wolves.  The silence of the hierarchy on any subjects other than protecting the right to life for the unborn and the insuring that the right to marriage is limited to heterosexuals implies that the other pressing issues facing us as Americans are without moral consequence and that is simply a flat out lie in itself.  We need the articulation of a consistent and comprehensive moral program for responsible citizenship even if it does mean that the American bishops risk losing the friendship of their political allies and their establishment pals.   

Of German Popes and American Bishops

Cardinal Sean O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston

with Boston College President, Father William

Leahy,SJ

We have been talking about the German Reform popes and I just want to share one or two reflections on the eleventh century reforms of the Church that might give us something to think about for reform and renewal in the contemporary Church. 
    In a few days I want to review the system of papal elections as one of the chief innovations—or reforms—of the Gregorian Reform was to define the exclusive right of the cardinal clergy of the Diocese of Rome to select a pope.  There were two problems.  One problem was that the custom had arisen of the Emperor, as Vicar of Christ, to appoint the popes.  Fortunately these papal appointees—Sylvester II,  Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX—were good men and men ardent for Reform.  In fact, the reason the Emperors usurped the ancient rights of the clergy and people of Rome to elect their pope was that the Romans had a tendency to elect men who blocked reform.   Nevertheless, as we shall see, these very same reform minded popes came to see the danger of outside appointment—that the papacy could get caught in politics and the Church might be used for political purposes rather than be allowed to perform its own function given it by its Lord of continuing His work of proclaiming the Kingdom of God.  
     I think this should give us some thought for today in regard to the selection of bishops.  At one time, being a historian, I favored a return to the ancient practice that bishops be elected by the clergy and faithful.  As I am older—and either wiser or more cynical, I am not sure which—I have come to believe that this would be disastrous at least in our American environment.  The danger is that the election of bishops would devolve into the most crass forms of partisan politics. One of the reasons for the failure of “parish councils” to be effective in most American parishes is that we Americans automatically think “majority rules” and we failed to understand that councils were meant to be an opportunity for discernment rather than governance.   Americans seemingly cannot help but becoming caught in the whirlpools of politics and then devolve into partisan factions.  The fact that American Catholics are already quite divided into social (and political) liberals and conservatives is a harbinger of impending schism should “democracy” be introduced into Church structures.  In a culture that has given us the Tea Party, and the recent denouements of the irresolvable debt crisis, the Church would tear itself to shreds in such episcopal elections.  We see the issues being faced by the Episcopal Church and to some extent the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America today and I believe this is no time to experiment with democracy in the life of our Church.  In fact, I am not sure that Americans any longer merit democracy in their government.  In saying this, I certainly do not want to change our form of government, but I would like to see our citizenry wake up to their political responsibilities to be informed about the issues and civil in their political discourse. I remember the words of Benjamin Franklin to a woman who asked him, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, what sort of government we were to have under the new Constitution.  Franklin replied: “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.”  A Republic demands a responsible citizenship that is informed and educated on the issues before it.  Without mentioning names or espousing one political party over another, it is clear that today’s Americans depend on 15 second sound-bites for their information about some very complex questions.  It would be even worse if the Church with its two millennia of rich and vibrant theological Tradition fell into this trap.  American Catholics—clergy and faithful alike—are too often frightfully ignorant of what it means to be Catholic and fall into the trap of believing what they hear on a “Catholic” radio or TV station or read in blog (even this blog) that portends to speak for the Church.   (This blog has always clearly established that it speaks for no one but its author and that it limits its statements to the historical and make no claim of theological competence.)   
   In expressing my reservations about electing bishops, I am not saying that a process by which clergy and faithful would have a voice in the selection of bishops would not work.  I think the system needs change to permit a genuine discernment process.  But the easy fix of election of bishops would be, I believe, even worse than the current system of papal appointment.  Frankly, it is hard to think of a worse system than the system we now have, but open election would surely be among the possible suggestions.  Papal appointment of bishops is an innovation in Catholic practice, for the most part dating only from the early nineteenth century when, after the defeat of Napoleon, the papacy made a series of concordats with the newly reconstituted European States giving the Holy See the right to appoint bishops in their territory.  For most of history, bishops were elected.  In the early Church they were elected by an assembly of clergy and laity; in the Middle Ages the election tended to fall to the Cathedral Chapters, bodies of clergy that were appointed to staff the Cathedral and often also held the pastorates of the principle churches in the cathedral city.  John Carroll, the first American Catholic bishop, was elected by the Catholic clergy of the new republic and he hoped that future bishops would likewise be elected. Alas, this was the very time that the papacy was wresting the right of election away from the European clergy and was hardly going to grant it to the Americans whose overthrow of monarchy was a challenge to everything the Holy See believed in regarding authority and its Divine Right to govern both in the civil and religious spheres. 
     I think we need to look at the American episcopacy and ask ourselves—and the Holy See—if this is the best they could give us.  Granted we have some outstanding men.  Sean O’Malley of Boston is heads and shoulders above his peers.  Donald Trautman of Erie has a too often overlooked perspicacity.  “Teddy” McCarrick, emeritus of Washington and Cardinal-none-the-less, while sly and ambitious, is a man of unparalleled talents who has well served both the Holy See and the American government in many behind the scenes diplomatic maneuvers.  A trained sociologist, McCarrick has his hand on the pulse of the American Catholic, but alas has gone unheeded by both his mitered peers and Rome.  In fact, the Holy See could not have been more happy to accept his resignation when his 75^th birthday came round some years back.    Another bright boy whose intelligence won him no friends in Rome is John Quinn who took an early retirement (to the relief of Rome and American conservatives) from his post as Archbishop of San Francisco.  Howard Hubbard of Albany and Matthew Clark of Rochester are two survivors of what is now the “Old School” –bishops appointed under the influence of Jean Jadot, the Apostolic Delegate in the late ’70’s.  They have done wonderful work in their respective dioceses, but their influence has been eclipsed by the mediocrity of the vast majority post-Jadot appointees.   There are other bishops of note, but they seem to be in the minority.  Wilton Gregory, once the hope for the future, has fizzled into a bit of a disappointment. Gerald Kicanas was maneuvered out of leadership by the machinations of the intelligent but visionless Cardinal George of Chicago; Timothy Dolan of New York was George’s candidate for president of the Bishops Conference in place of Kicanas.  Dolan seems to have some promise, if not of above-average intelligence at least of good pastoral sense.  Wuerl of Washington has a record of being overly cautious.  He lacks his predecessor’s (McCarrick’s) Machiavellian streak, but he also lacks McCarrick’s dash.  As for Olmstead, Bruskewitz, Chaput, Sheriden—well, alas but mediocrity is beyond their highest reach.  Chaput’s move to Philadelphia and its prospects of a red hat are an indication that the system is broken.   Archbishop Chaput is no Raymond Burke; his Capuchin-Franciscan roots save him from Burke’s pomposity and make him a decent human being but he is not a man of any but the most narrow vision.  Overall, the state of the American Episcopacy is appalling.  When one looks at the outstanding work done in the early ‘80’s with two superbly researched and well thought out  pastoral letters, one on economic morality and the other on the moral issues surrounding nuclear weapons, it is frightening to reflect that today’s hierarchy lack the talent to deliver much needed guidance on contemporary issues.  Sometime I will have to write on why (I think) there has been a dumbing-down of American bishops.  But that will be in the future.  Perhaps a blog on the relationship of John Paul II and Ronald Reagan will give us insight.