Vatican Forbids Japanese Bishops From Banning Secretive "Way"

The bishops of Japan recently made a decision to outlaw the "Neocatechumenal Way" for five years in their country.  Their reason for doing so was the "Way's" secretive activities and divisive methodology.  After a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI in mid-December, the Vatican decided to overrule the Japanese bishops completely.

This is the kind of control that the Vatican maintains over its various episcopates.  Some people erroneously believe that each country's bishops are independent of Vatican authority.  Meanwhile, nothing could be further from the truth as this story indicates.

This article comes from Zenit.
------------------------------------- 

Neocatechumenal Way Will Not Be Suspended in Japan 

Secretariat of State Sends Letter to Movement

MADRID, Spain, JAN. 7, 2011 (Zenit.org).- The Neocatechumenal Way will not be suspended in Japan for five years, as was previously announced by the country's episcopal conference, reports the lay movement.

According to a spokesman of movement, Alvaro de Juana, this decision was communicated recently in writing by the Vatican Secretariat of State to the Neocatechumenal Way founders: Kiko Arguello, Carmen Hernandez and Mario Pezzi.

De Juana informed ZENIT that the letter came after Benedict XVI presided at a Dec. 13 meeting with a representation of several Japanese bishops, among them the president of the episcopal conference, Archbishop Leo Ikenaga of Osaka, to address some aspects of the Neocatechumenal Way in Japan.

A few weeks earlier, the Japanese episcopal conference announced that it would suspend the activities of the movement in Japan for five years.

De Juana explained that "the Holy See has made a series of decisions," which were revealed in Cardinal Bertone's letter.

"The first indicates that the suspension of the Neocatechumenal Way in Japan for five years -- as attempted by the country's Episcopal Conference -- is not admissible," he said.

On the other hand, the spokesman added, it specified that "the dialogue between the bishops of Japan and the Neocatechumenal Way must be taken up again as soon as possible with the help of a competent delegate who loves the Way and respects the problems of the bishops."

"Finally, if necessary, the latter must give concrete indications to the Way for each of its own dioceses, avoiding pronouncements of the episcopal conference," explained De Juana.

"The Holy See points out in addition that the Secretariat of State will be in charge of giving the necessary instructions and will address, in contact with the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the questions referring to the presence of the Way in said country," concluded the spokesman.

The Neocatechumenal Way began in Spain in 1964, initiated by painter Argüello, a convert from atheistic existentialism, and Hernández, a missionary. They worked among prostitutes, gypsies and ex-convicts in a novel approach to the evangelization of the "fallen away."

Archbishop Casimiro Morcillo of Madrid was the first prelate to support the movement, on his return from the Second Vatican Council. The first communities were born in the parishes of Zamora, Madrid and Rome. Today they are active in some 5,000 parishes worldwide.

Australian Cardinal Threatens Disobedient Catholic Politicians

This article comes from the Catholic News Agency.
------------------------------------------

Cardinal Pell corrects politicians who claim to be Catholic but vote differently

Sydney, Australia, Jan 5, 2011 / 05:31 am (CNA).- As the country faces intense legislative debate this upcoming year over same-sex “marriage” and euthanasia, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney blasted politicians who claim a Catholic identity, yet consistently defy Church teachings on major issues.

In a Jan. 4 interview with the Sunday Herald Sun, Cardinal Pell gave a sharp rebuke to Australian members of parliament who "fly under the Christian or Captain Catholic flag" but "blithely disregard Christian perspectives" in their actions.

"If a person says, 'Look, I'm not a Christian, I've a different set of perspectives,' I disagree but I understand," he said. "If a person says to me, 'Look, I'm nominally a Christian but it sits lightly with me,' I understand that.”

"But it's incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they're as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions."

Cardinal Pell called out politicians who endorse secular stances on issues while insisting that they're Catholics, saying, “if you're espousing something that's not a Christian position, don't claim Christian backing for that."

The Catholic Church “doesn't teach the primacy of conscience,” he said, explaining that a person's conscience doesn't trump Church teaching. “You know if somebody said apartheid was all right, nobody would say, 'Yes you can say that because of the primacy of conscience.'"

"To the extent that on a significant number of issues you depart from Christian teachings you know it's incongruous to be billing yourself as a champion of Christian rights,” he said.

"I'm not telling people how to vote," he underscored during the interview. "I'm telling people how I think they should vote. I'm an Australian citizen and I have as much right to do that as any other citizen."

Canon Lawyer: Bishops Have Authority Over the Word "Catholic"

This article comes from the In the Light of the Law blog.
---------------------------------------

Lisa Fullam's dangerous advice should be ignored

When informed that the Vatican would oppose him, Joseph Stalin shrugged and asked “How many troops does the pope have?” To the dictator, the only views that mattered were those backed-up by men with guns.

Lisa Fullam has offered authorities at Catholic Healthcare West / St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix similarly myopic, even dangerous, advice when she suggested that, because the word “Catholic” is not copyright-able, the enterprise should continue to call itself “Catholic” despite Bp. Thomas Olmsted’s threatened prohibition of such use, and simply “let the canonical chips fall where they may.” Apparently Fullam believes that, since men with badges will never show up to enforce a cease-and-desist order (that will never be issued) by a civil court regarding the word “Catholic”, Catholic hospital officials need not worry about bishops tossing a few “canonical chips” their way.

I strongly suggest that St. Joseph's seek advice from another expert.

If the only criterion for authentic Catholic conduct is “what Church rules are enforceable by civil courts?”, then there won’t be much left of Catholic codes of conduct. Thank God. I don’t want states being the final arbiter of what is acceptable Catholic conduct and what is not, and I would hope that Fullam doesn’t want that, either.

But if Fullam’s point is that a bishop’s authority over the use of the label “Catholic” is, absent state enforcement options, nugatory, then she needs to study up on some elementary canon law (and ecclesiology, for that matter). A bishop’s authority over the use of the word “Catholic” is reflected in, e.g., 1983 CIC 216 and 300, and those norms just get the conversation started. Canons 1319 comes next to mind, but an exploration of those options goes beyond what I can cover in blog post.

Fullam’s nonchalance about ecclesiastical authority notwithstanding, I suggest that Catholic Healthcare West / St. Joseph's Hospital officials put a careful reading of these and related canons on the agenda for their next meeting.

I’m pretty sure that Bp. Olmsted has them memorized.

US Bishop Revokes Hospital's Catholic Status

This article comes from the Catholic News Service.
-----------------------------------------

Bishop Olmsted revokes Phoenix hospital's status as Catholic facility

By J.D. Long-Garcia
Catholic News Service

PHOENIX (CNS) -- St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix can no longer identify itself as "Catholic," Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted announced during a Dec. 21 news conference in Phoenix at the Diocesan Pastoral Center.

The Phoenix bishop issued a decree revoking the 115-year-old hospital's affiliation with the Catholic Church. In the decree, the bishop wrote that he could not verify that the hospital provides health care consistent with "authentic Catholic moral teaching."

"I really want to have Catholic health care," Bishop Olmsted said during the news conference. "We should be working together, not against each other."

Still, he said it was his duty to strip St. Joseph's Hospital of its Catholic identity because its leadership, as well as that of its parent organization, San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, is not committed to "following the teachings of the Catholic Church."

To demonstrate that the hospital is no longer Catholic, Bishop Olmsted is prohibiting the celebration of Mass on the hospital's campus and will have the Blessed Sacrament removed from the hospital's chapel.

Linda Hunt, president of St. Joseph's, said in a statement after the bishop's news conference that the hospital was "deeply disappointed" by the action but would "continue through our words and deeds to carry out the healing ministry of Jesus."

In May, officials at St. Joseph's publicly acknowledged that an abortion occurred at the hospital in late 2009. The Arizona Republic, in its initial story on the matter, also revealed that Mercy Sister Margaret McBride had incurred an automatic excommunication because of her role on the ethics committee that sanctioned the abortion.

"Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, our first priority is to save both patients," Hunt said in her statement. "If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case.

"We continue to stand by the decision, which was made in collaboration with the patient, her family, her caregivers and our ethics committee," she added. "Morally, ethically and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save."

The public scandal resulting from the 2009 abortion isn't the first time Bishop Olmsted took issue with Catholic Healthcare West's adherence to the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services," to which all Catholic hospitals in the United States are required to adhere.

Seven years ago, the bishop learned that Catholic Healthcare West did not comply with these directives at Chandler Regional Hospital.

"I have continued to insist that this scandalous situation needed to change," the bishop said. "Sadly, over the course of these years, CHW has chosen not to comply."

During the news conference, Bishop Olmsted detailed other Catholic Healthcare West facility violations of the U.S. bishops' directives.

St. Joseph's Hospital is involved with the Mercy Care Plan -- an organization that provides health care through Arizona's Medicaid program. By virtue of its involvement in the plan, the hospital has been "formally cooperating with a number of medical procedures" against Catholic teaching -- a fact that the bishop said he learned about in the past few weeks.

This cooperation included setting up a structure through which patients receive procedures -- such as abortions and sterilizations -- which are against church teaching, according to Father John Ehrich, director of medical ethics for the Phoenix Diocese.

Learning about the Mercy Care Plan was the "tipping point" in Bishop Olmsted's relationship with the hospital, Father Ehrich said.

The Mercy Care Plan, the largest provider of Medicaid in Arizona, has been in existence for 26 years. In meetings with diocesan leadership, the hospital said it had learned of Mercy Care Plan's cooperation with unethical procedures 16 months ago.

"They hid it from the bishop for a year and a half," Father Ehrich said. The hospital, he said, promised to address the issue but had signed contracts good through 2013.

"It's a systemic problem," Father Ehrich said. "We're not talking about one isolated incident."

Through its involvement in the Mercy Care Plan, the bishop said Catholic Healthcare West has been responsible for a litany of practices in direct conflict with Catholic teaching. These include: contraceptive counseling, provision of various forms of contraception, voluntary sterilization and abortions "due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."

"The Catholic faithful are free to seek care or to offer care at St. Joseph's Hospital," the bishop said. "But I cannot guarantee that the care provided will be in full accord with the teachings of the church."

Bishop Olmsted, explaining his authority to revoke the Catholic identity of St. Joseph's Hospital, cited Canon 216, which states: "No undertaking is to claim the name Catholic without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority."

"I have hoped and prayed that this day would not come," the bishop said. "However, the faithful of the diocese have a right to know whether institutions of this importance are indeed Catholic in identity and practice."

After learning about the abortion earlier in the year, Bishop Olmsted met with hospital officials to learn more about the particular case, he said at the news conference.

"It became clear that, in their decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld," he said. The baby "was directly killed," which is a violation of the ethical and religious directives.

Throughout the process, St. Joseph's Hospital and Catholic Healthcare West have maintained that the intention was to save "the only life that could be saved," the mother's, according to the hospital.

The bishop responded to the claim in a May 14 statement, reiterating that "the direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic."

The U.S. bishops' Committee on Doctrine also weighed in on the issue with a June 23 statement.

"No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the church," the committee said.

The withdrawal of a hospital's Catholic identification is not without precedent.

Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Ore., announced in February that St. Charles Medical Center in Bend had "gradually moved away" from the church's ethical directives and can no longer be called Catholic.

As a result of that decision, Mass is no longer celebrated in the hospital's chapel and all items considered Catholic were removed from the hospital and returned to the church. The hospital retained the St. Charles name and a cross remains atop the building.

US Bishop Threatens to Revoke Hospital's Catholic Status

With this post, I begin a new category of news items on The Vatican Lobby entitled "Vatican Discipline."

Since I started this blog over a year ago, I have received several comments from readers challenging my statements about Vatican control. "The Catholic Church is a lot more than just the Vatican," they say. "The Vatican is a figurehead. The Church is actually controlled by the different priests and bishops in all the different churches of the world. It is simply a lie that the Vatican controls the entire Church from Rome."

For my official response to these comments, see the tabbed page above marked "Vatican Authority?"

The new "Vatican Discipline" category will highlight how the Vatican uses a variety of punishments -- all of them effective -- to maintain tight control of its worldwide dominion. 

I call this punishment "De-Catholicization."  Bishops use it when they want to make a particularly strong point.  Needless to say, they operate under explicit Vatican authority and guidelines when they do so. 

This article comes from the Catholic News Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Bishop extends deadline on threat to hospital's Catholic identity

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Citing "ongoing communication and attempts to rectify the situation," Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted extended from Dec. 17 to Dec. 21 a deadline he had set for a local Catholic hospital to comply with three demands related to the church's ethical directives for health care.

The bishop set the new deadline for Catholic Healthcare West, the San Francisco-based health system that includes St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, to agree that the termination of a pregnancy at the hospital in late 2009 violated the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" and "so will never occur again" there.

The other requirements outlined in a Nov. 22 letter were for Catholic Healthcare West to agree to "a review and certification process" concerning its compliance with the ethical directives and for the medical staff of St. Joseph's to receive "ongoing formation" on the directives, overseen by the National Catholic Bioethics Center or the diocese's medical ethics board.

If the requirements were not met by Dec. 17, Bishop Olmsted said in the November letter, he would be forced "to notify the Catholic faithful that St. Joseph's Hospital no longer qualifies as a 'Catholic' hospital because of its failure to acknowledge the bishop's right and duty to judge whether the (directives) are interpreted and implemented correctly."

After the letter from Bishop Olmsted to Lloyd H. Dean, president of Catholic Healthcare West, was published Dec. 15 by the Arizona Republic newspaper, the Diocese of Phoenix neither confirmed nor disputed the contents of the letter, saying it was "considered to be private and confidential."

"The bishop and his staff are working together with Catholic Healthcare West and St. Joseph's Hospital to find the best way to provide authentic Catholic health care in accordance with the church's teaching," the Dec. 15 statement said.

The case under discussion in the dispute involved a woman, who has not been identified, who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the hospital said carried a near-certain risk of death for the mother if the pregnancy continued.

A nun who concurred in an ethics committee's decision to abort the child was "automatically excommunicated" by her action, Bishop Olmsted said in May.

Mercy Sister Margaret Mary McBride also was reassigned from her position as vice president of mission integration at the hospital after news surfaced about the abortion. She remains at the hospital but has declined to comment on the case.

St. Joseph's Hospital said in a Dec. 15 statement that dialogue with the bishop was continuing "and we hope to achieve a resolution."

"We believe that all life is sacred. In this case, we saved the only life we could save, which was the mother's," the statement added.

The withdrawal of a hospital's Catholic identification would not be unprecedented.

Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Ore., announced in February that St. Charles Medical Center in Bend had "gradually moved away" from the church's ethical directives and can no longer be called Catholic.

As a result of that decision, Mass is no longer celebrated in the hospital's chapel and all items considered Catholic were removed from the hospital and returned to the church. The hospital retained the St. Charles name and a cross remains atop the building.

In his November letter, Bishop Olmsted outlined similar consequences.

"A revocation of my endorsement of St. Joseph's Hospital would necessitate the following actions:

-- "Removal of the Blessed Sacrament from all chapels and tabernacles at St. Joseph's Medical Center.

-- "Prohibition of all Masses celebrated in chapels within St. Joseph's Medical Center.

-- "Public advisory from the bishop's office issued through the Catholic Sun newspaper and website that St. Joseph's no longer qualifies as a 'Catholic' hospital."

Bishop Olmsted said "priestly ministry and other ministry to the sick will most certainly continue with St. Joseph's Hospital, as it does in any hospital when the sacraments or pastoral care are requested by patients."

Although the correspondence from Dean to Bishop Olmsted was not made public, the bishop indicated in his response that Dean had included a lengthy moral analysis of the case by moral theologian M. Therese Lysaught of Marquette University with his Oct. 27 letter to the bishop.

"Undoubtedly, the assessment from Dr. Lysaught is extensive and I appreciate the diligence with which it was drafted," Bishop Olmsted wrote. "At the same time, however, I disagree with her conclusion."

"In effect, you would have me believe that we will merely have to agree to disagree," the bishop told Dean. "But this resolution is unacceptable because it disregards my authority and responsibility to interpret the moral law and to teach the Catholic faith as a successor of the apostles."

Bishop Olmsted also cited problems with Chandler Regional Hospital in Chandler, Ariz., which is not Catholic but is operated by Catholic Healthcare West. He said he found it "deeply troubling" that voluntary sterilizations were performed at Chandler.

"I recognize that my objections to how Chandler Regional operates are more involved, but I would foresee us needing to address those directly in the near future," he said.

Excommunication Threats from Catholic Lobbyists?

These articles come from the Milwaukee Newsbuzz and WHBL respectively.

I can say right now with little hesitation that the early reports were true and that Sullivan is merely covering for his superiors.

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

Did Catholic Lobbyists Play Hardball?

Did a Catholic state senator oppose a bill that would have opened the door to more lawsuits against priests accused of sexual abuse because he feared church officials would cut him off from communion? That’s the question a victims’ group is asking and Wisconsin’s catholic lobby group is calling “ridiculous.”

The group, the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, employs three lobbyists, according to the state Government Accountability Board. Wisconsin bishops, including Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki, serve on its board of directors.

In 2004, the state Legislature increased the age limit for victims of childhood sexual abuse to sue their abuser from 21 years old to 35 (meaning those over the age of 35 could not sue for sexual abuse suffered as a child). Legislation debated in the state Senate and Assembly this year would have made it possible for victims of any age to sue their past abusers.

In a position paper, the Conference opposes the legislation. “In removing all time limits for future cases and in allowing for suits surrounding abuse that occurred decades ago, these bills go too far,” it says. “Parishioners and those served by (the) churches and non-profit groups of today are not responsible for any mistakes made dealing with child abusers decades ago. But they will suffer if a large damage award devastates their church or agency.”

In a Thursday WisPolitics.com story, Marie Rohde, who reported for NewsBuzz on the scandal surrounding Father Lawrence Murphy, a St. Francis priest accused of abusing about 200 deaf boys, writes that the victims’ group, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), is claiming that the threatened state senator was Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa).

A lobbyist not registered as working for the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, Joseph Strohl, a Democrat and former Senate leader, wrote an email SNAP is circulating, the story says, suggesting Sullivan fears losing his communion rights unless he opposes the statute of limitations bill.

In the email, Strohl writes that he talked to Sullivan about the bill. Last session, he adds, Sullivan helped to kill similar legislation. Then, according to the story, comes the controversial part: “As (Sullivan) said, ‘he still takes communion every Sunday’ and wants to be able to keep doing that.”

Strohl told Rohde he didn’t remember what Sullivan meant by the comment. At the time, Strohl was registered as a lobbyist for the Wisconsin Association for Justice, a group representing trial lawyers. WAJ didn’t register a formal opinion on the either the Assembly or the Senate version of the legislation.

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

Lawmaker Denies Pressure from Catholic Church to Oppose Bill

MILWAUKEE, Wis. (WTAQ) - State Senate Democrat Jim Sullivan denies being pressured by the Catholic Church to oppose a bill that would have ended the statute of limitations on child sex abuse lawsuits. 

A group for priest abuse victims publicized a lobbyist’s e-mail, which quoted Sullivan as saying he opposed the bill because he gets Communion every Sunday and he wants to keep it that way. But Sullivan, a Wauwatosa Democrat, said he didn’t mean that the church threatened to withhold Communion if he favored the bill.

The Milwaukee Archdiocese was among those saying the measure would bankrupt the church. Sullivan said he didn’t want to be responsible for that – and he was concerned that defendants in child sex abuse cases would lose their rights to due process. The archdiocese denied putting any pressure on individual lawmakers to kill the bill, which was called the Child Victims Act. It failed to get to the floor in each of the last 2 legislative sessions, and supporters said they would try again next year.

After Health Care, Stupak Retreats into Retirement

This article comes from the Catholic News Agency. For background information, see my posts here and here.

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

After bruising health care fight over abortion, Rep. Stupak to retire

Marquette, Mich., Apr 9, 2010 / 10:54 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the U.S. Representative who secured an executive order he claims will bar federally funded abortions in the health care overhaul law, told the Associated Press on Friday that he is retiring at the end of this term.

Rep. Stupak, who became a national figure for his outspoken role in fighting abortion funding in the health care bill, has been in Congress for 18 years and will make an official announcement on his retirement at 12:30 p.m. ET at Northern Michigan University in Marquette.

Although the Michigan representative recently described his life leading up to the health care vote as “a living hell,” given the harassment he received for opposing federally funded abortions, he told the Associated Press today that this did not influence his decision to retire.

However, Rep. Stupak mentioned prior to today's announcement that he is “burned out.”

“I'm just getting tired being gone all of the time,” he told the Traverse City Record-Eagle. “I have trouble getting up for the count … I'm just burned out.”

Rep. Stupak stepped into the national political spotlight last year when he introduced an amendment to the House health care reform bill that maintained the Hyde Amendment ban on using federal funds to pay for abortions. The Stupak Amendment passed in the House by a vote of 240-194 last November.

However, on March 21, the Congressman voted in support of the health care bill after negotiating an executive order with President Obama that he says will bar federally funded abortions.

In an interview with CNA, Rep. Stupak defended his actions, saying that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had enough votes “in her pocket” to pass health care reform with or without him or those who supported his stance. In Rep. Stupak’s view, securing President Obama’s executive order on abortion funding was “absolutely” a success for the pro-life cause and for the country.

CNA recently interviewed another pro-life Democrat, Rep. Daniel Lipinksi (D-Ill.), who sees flaws in the executive order questions the effectiveness of it. On March 31, Rep. Lipinski called the health care bill “a major step in the wrong direction” in defending the unborn. Although he said that he does not want to “impugn the motives of Bart Stupak,” in his opinion, the executive order “does not really have an impact” on subsidies for individuals to purchase an insurance plan that covers abortion.

Rep. Lipinski added that the bill’s problems can be corrected before its changes go into effect in 2014 and should be fixed regardless of whether President Obama’s executive order functions as promised.

Archbishop Responds to Pelosi

At the beginning of the month, I wondered whether Nancy Pelosi was on thin ice with the Roman Catholic church for her statements to Newsweek regarding her interpretation of church teaching. I knew that her assertion that her pro-abortion stance was "consistent with Catholic faith" would not be quietly ignored by the American bishops.

Well, it took a few weeks but the inevitable happened. The archbishop of San Francisco, George Niederauer, recently wrote a column in Catholic San Francisco responding to Pelosi's comments and explaining why she was absolutely wrong.

It is almost certain that Pelosi received a personal letter or phone call from the archbishop as well. Her comments were too public for Niederauer not to "correct" (reprimand) her personally. Given the huge "success" of Bishop Thomas Tobin's de facto excommunication of Rep. Patrick Kennedy, it also seems certain that Niederauer will take some concrete punitive measures against Pelosi unless she recants her pro-abortion stance. She is a hugely popular and powerful Catholic in government--this virtually seals her fate as the next "communion denial" victim.

The article can be found at the Catholic San Francisco website.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Archbishop's Journal - Free Will, Conscience and Moral Choice: What Catholics believe

By Archbishop George H. Niederauer
Jan. 13, 2010

In a recent interview with Eleanor Clift in Newsweek magazine (Dec. 21, 2009), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about her disagreements with the United States Catholic bishops concerning Church teaching. Speaker Pelosi replied, in part: “I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And that women should have the opportunity to exercise their free will.”

Embodied in that statement are some fundamental misconceptions about Catholic teaching on human freedom. These misconceptions are widespread both within the Catholic community and beyond. For this reason I believe it is important for me as Archbishop of San Francisco to make clear what the Catholic Church teaches about free will, conscience, and moral choice.

Catholic teaching on free will recognizes that God has given men and women the capacity to choose good or evil in their lives. The bishops at the Second Vatican Council declared that the human person, endowed with freedom, is “an outstanding manifestation of the divine image.” (Gaudium et Spes, No. 17) As the parable of the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov, makes so beautifully clear, God did not want humanity to be mere automatons, but to have the dignity of freedom, even recognizing that with that freedom comes the cost of many evil choices.

However, human freedom does not legitimate bad moral choices, nor does it justify a stance that all moral choices are good if they are free: “The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1740) Christian belief in human freedom recognizes that we are called but not compelled by God to choose constantly the values of the Gospel—faith, hope, love, mercy, justice, forgiveness, integrity and compassion.

It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.

What, then, is to guide the children of God in the use of their freedom? Again, the bishops at the Council provide the answer—conscience: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment . . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God . . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” (GS, No. 16) Conscience, then, is the judgment of reason whereby the human person, guided by God’s grace, recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act. In all we say and do, we are obliged to follow faithfully what we know to be just and right.

How do we form and guide our consciences? While the Church teaches that each of us is called to judge and direct his or her own actions, it also teaches that, like any good judge, each conscience masters the law and listens to expert testimony about the law. This process is called the education and formation of conscience.

Catholics believe that “the education of conscience is a lifelong task.” (CCC, No. 1784) Where do we go for this education of our consciences? Our living tradition teaches us that “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (CCC, No. 1785)

Our Catholic beliefs about free will, conscience and moral choice are rooted in the Good News of Jesus Christ’s teaching and his redemptive life, death and resurrection: “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1); “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2Cor. 3:17); we glory “in the liberty of the children of God.” (Rom. 8:17). Common caricatures of Christian morality portray believers as living in fear of punishment or concerned only with an eternal reward. Long ago, however, St. Basil the Great, a fourth-century bishop and theologian, taught that the Christian, in living a moral life according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, “does not stand before God as a slave in servile fear, nor a mercenary looking for wages, but obeys for the sake of the good itself and out of love for God as his child.” (CCC, No. 1828)

From January 15, 2010 issue of Catholic San Francisco.

Bishop Defends Catholic Excommunications

As the author of the following article notes, 2009 was a year marked by conflict between the Catholic clergy and the Catholic laity. In more than one instance, bishops felt the need to castigate and formally "deny communion" to high-ranking Catholic laypeople in response to perceived infidelity to the teachings of Rome. This trend appears to be increasing as bishops struggle to make their influence felt in the public sphere of their respective countries. In America, this practice--quite odious to many (Catholics included)--has prompted widespread outrage both in the media and in private circles.

Bishop Robert Vasa, leader of the diocese of Baker, Oregon, has recently responded to this outrage with a classic apology (in the Greek sense of the word). In his column in the Catholic Sentinel, Vasa has tried to show that excommunication is merely the diagnosis of a "pre-existing condition"--that is, that the bishop who does the excommunicating is only enunciating what is already a reality. The fault, Vasa explains, is ultimately with the offending Catholic. He acknowledges that denial of communion is "de facto" excommunication, but reasons that this practice is necessary for integrity of the church. Drawing an odd parallel between excommunication and diabetes treatment, Vasa succeeds only in presenting a hollow argument and confusing his audience.

I suppose that I am part of the hostile "press" to which Vasa alludes--someone who characterizes the bishops as "tyrannical power mongers." Although I would not use those exact words, I think they do correctly describe my feelings on the issue. Perhaps most disturbing to me is the fact that the bishops only use excommunication for high-ranking public figures. That is, there is a real double standard present here. Despite the fact that their parishes are filled with self-professing Catholics who violate numerous rites and teachings of the church, the bishops seem to care only for the transgressions of those in power. And why?

I believe very strongly that excommunication and communion denial are tools used by the Vatican (vicariously through its bishops) to keep Catholic politicians accountable to Vatican interests. By threatening the revocation of personal identity and eternal life, the Roman Catholic church is able to "scare straight" many politicians who would otherwise vote on personal belief or on the desires of their constituencies.

This not only keeps Catholic politicians answerable to the Vatican, but it also galvanizes those laypeople who feel they are at war with non-Catholic American culture. By excommunicating politicians, the bishops make a show of power against mainstream America and stir their congregations into a frenzy of--I believe--misplaced and even aggressive zeal.

This article comes from the Oregon Catholic Sentinel.
----------------------------------------------------------

Excommunication is a declaration of acts that severs ties

By Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — During the course of this past year there have been a number of occasions when bishops have hinted to laity that being Catholic involves a bit more than claiming the title. This has been done, in particular, with regard to politicians who may, in their own way, love Jesus, who may attend Sunday Mass and who do identify themselves as “faithful” Catholics. The press usually hints at the big “E” word, excommunication. The question of when a Catholic should be excommunicated has even been asked quite frequently and very seriously. While bishops are extremely reluctant to take the seemingly dramatic step of excommunication, I think there is very good reason for us to explore more thoroughly what excommunication really means and why it might be considered in certain circumstances.

The press would undoubtedly accuse Bishops who talk or even think about excommunication as being tyrannical power mongers but this is unfair. Excommunication is a declaration, based on solid evidence, that the actions or public teachings of a particular Catholic are categorically incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It is intended primarily as a means of getting the person who is in grave error to recognize the depth of his error and repent. A second reason, while somewhat secondary but no less important, is to assure the faithful who truly are faithful that what they believe to be the teaching of the Church is true and correct. Allowing their faith to be shaken or allowing them to be confused when Catholics publicly affirm something contrary to faith or morals, seemingly without consequences, scandalizes and confuses the faithful. This is no small matter. The Church, and particularly bishops, have an obligation to defend the faith but they also have an obligation to protect the faithful. We do not generally see the dissidence of public figures as something that harms the faithful but it has a deleterious effect upon them.

I find, very frequently, when I speak a bit more boldly on matters of morality or discipline, there are a significant number of the faithful who send messages of gratitude and support. It is their gratitude which stirs my heart for it makes me realize how much there is a need to support and affirm the clear and consistent teachings of our Catholic faith for the sake of the faithful. While the press may caricature such bishops in rather uncharitable fashion, I trust that they are men devoted to true compassion and to the truth itself. Their compassion extends to those who are misled and to those who, while not misled, are discouraged when their faith is attacked without rebuttal. This discouragement of the faithful is not insignificant. When we look at the word itself we see that its root is “courage” and allowing someone’s courage to be dissipated, or “dissed” as the young might say, is harmful to the person. En-couragement, by contrast, builds up the courage of the faithful and increases their strength for doing good. It is life giving and revitalizing. Allowing error, publicly expressed, to stand without comment or contradiction is discouraging.

When that moral error is espoused publicly by a Catholic who, by the likewise public and external act of receiving Holy Communion, appears to be in “good standing” then the faithful are doubly confused and doubly discouraged. In that case, the error is certainly not refuted. Furthermore, the impression is given that the error is positively condoned by the bishop and the Church. This is very dis-couraging to the faithful. In such a case, private “dialogue” is certainly appropriate but a public statement is also needed. In extreme cases, excommunication may be deemed necessary.

It seems to me that even if a decree of excommunication would be issued, the bishop would really not excommunicate anyone. He only declares that the person is excommunicated by virtue of the person’s own actions. The actions and words, contrary to faith and morals, are what excommunicate (i.e. break communion with the Church). When matters are serious and public, the Bishop may deem it necessary to declare that lack of communion explicitly. This declaration no more causes the excommunication than a doctor who diagnoses diabetes causes the diabetes he finds in his patient. The doctor recognizes the symptoms and writes the necessary prescription. Accusing the doctor of being a tyrannical power monger would never cross anyone’s mind. Even when the doctor tells the patient that they are “excommunicated” from sugar it is clear that his desire is solely the health of his patient. In fact, a doctor who told his diabetic patient that he could keep ingesting all the sugar he wanted without fear would be found grossly negligent and guilty of malpractice.

In the same way, bishops who recognize a serious spiritual malady and seek a prescription to remedy the error, after discussion and warning, may be required to simply state, “What you do and say is gravely wrong and puts you out of communion with the faith you claim to hold.” In serious cases, and the cases of misled Catholic public officials are often very serious, a declaration of the fact that the person is de facto out of communion may be the only responsible and charitable thing to do.

Failing to name error because of some kind of fear of offending the person in error is neither compassion nor charity. Confronting or challenging the error or evil of another is never easy yet it must be done.

The adage usually attributed to Edmund Burke was correct: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

The Lord has called bishops to be shepherds. That shepherding entails both leading and protecting. In an era when error runs rampant and false teachings abound, the voice of the Holy Father rings clear and true. The teachings of the Church are well documented and consistent. Bishops and the pastors who serve in their Dioceses have an obligation both to lead their people to the truth and protect them from error.