Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal

His spokeswoman has filed a complaint against me with TAS.

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator

Last week Cardinal Donald Wuerl lodged a complaint against me with my editors at TAS, via his communications director, Chieko Noguchi, after my article, "Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty," appeared.

This is pretty much what I expected. Wuerl is notoriously thin-skinned about sharp criticism from orthodox Catholics. And since he likes to operate in the shadows -- confrontation is "not his style of pastoral ministry," he told a reporter in 2007 -- he had his paid PR agent do the dirty work for him. Say this for Tod Tamberg, Cardinal Roger Mahony's former spokesman: he at least wrote a straightforward letter to the editor denouncing me after I criticized the former Los Angeles prelate. Two, actually. In the first, Tamberg dismissed me as a "medievalist," which should give you a sense of the low esteem in which Mahony holds the age of Aquinas. In the second, Tamberg accused me of sloppiness while botching the spelling of my last name.

But as I say, at least he put pen to paper. Ms. Noguchi, perhaps reflecting the style of her boss, prefers to create troubles for me by phone.

Go ahead and do damage to me in this city, Cardinal Wuerl. I don't care. I will not surrender one inch to PC prelates like yourself who punish dutiful priests while pandering to the enemies of the Church.

This moronic controversy, triggered by a self-described practicing "lesbian Buddhist" who effortlessly mau-maued Cardinal Wuerl into a craven apology and trumped-up "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, is a grotesque farce beyond the satirical imagination of Evelyn Waugh.

I petition the Holy See -- if anyone happens to read TAS there -- for urgent relief. This scandal is sickening. Cardinal Wuerl has damaged the reputation of a faithful priest, exposed the Holy Eucharist to sacrilege, scandalized confused congregants, and handed a propaganda victory to forces of secularism that seek to destroy the Church in America.

Knowing Cardinal Wuerl, he will probably write to allies at the Vatican after this column appears. That was his practice in Pittsburgh, where he served before arriving in D.C. In 1994, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Wuerl, whenever he saw criticism of his heterodoxy appear in a conservative publication like the Wanderer, would move into action:

If The Wanderer or a letter-writer attacks him, Wuerl doesn't wait for Rome to send him an inquiry. He immediately writes to the appropriate Vatican office, enclosing a copy of the Wanderer article and full documentation on any diocesan program in question.

This ''shows that our teaching material here is absolutely orthodox. But the second purpose is to show that there are a lot of irresponsible statements made, and they need to be accepted as just that,'' he said.

Wuerl doesn't believe that Vatican officials take The Wanderer and its like seriously.
''I have never received an inquiry from Rome based on that type of accusation. If (Vatican officials) were taking it seriously, I think they would raise some questions,'' he said.

But not all bishops are as savvy as Wuerl, said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit political scientist who makes his living studying the bishops.

"Wuerl is sophisticated. He understands the Vatican, he knows who to talk to. The bishop who has never worked in Rome probably doesn't know which office to respond to -- and the people in Rome don't know him. Wuerl is known and respected in Rome. When (conservative pressure groups) start accusing him, they lose their credibility,'' Reese said.

Did you notice the source of that last quote -- Fr. Thomas Reese? He is the openly heterodox Jesuit ninny who had the gall to say that Wuerl should send Fr. Guarnizo back to the gulag. "If I was Cardinal Wuerl, I'd buy him a one-way ticket to Moscow," the Rolodexed Reese said to a purring press.

Perhaps non-Catholic readers of TAS, who have stayed with this column up to this paragraph, are wondering why they should even care about Wuerl's fiasco. Isn't this just one more tedious sectarian squabble in the Church? I agree with you that it is boring, but it is not trivial. As pretentious as it sounds, these skirmishes form small battles in a larger war that affects everyone. Both Catholic and non-Catholic Americans, whether they realize it or not, benefit from a free and orthodox Catholic Church for a very basic reason: it stands as the era's last major barrier to the triumph of the coercive secular state.

The capitulations of the Wuerls to the atheistic agitprop artists of the age -- the "lesbian Buddhist" at the center of this controversy stands as a symbol of them all -- hasten the disintegration of that barrier. Without it, the coercive state will simply replace God, and all Americans will wake up one day to find this pitiless secular deity on their doorsteps, red in the tooth and clause of Obamacare, ravenous for their freedom.

UPDATE: Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis

Link:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
• A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
• Guest letter challenging Dr. Peters on canon 915, Communion, and "manifest" sin
• EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL
• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
• Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out

Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty

By George Neumayr at The American Spectator on 3.19.12 @ 6:09AM

Since he won't control the sacraments, the Church's enemies will.

The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bad bishops. That's a slight paraphrase of a line from St. John Chrysostom.

The saints of old warned bishops to choose holiness and orthodoxy over the blandishments of the "world."

Many bishops today in America choose the good opinion of worldly elites over orthodoxy. These cufflinked cardinals worry not about punishment in the next world but slights in this one. They desperately crave the approval of America's movers and shakers and live in dread fear of losing it.

What will the Pretty People think if I withhold Communion from powerful pro-abortion Catholic pols? Will the Washington Post editorialize against me? Will I lose my place of honor at posh parties? Will my dissenting priests think ill of me? Will I be scorned at the next USCCB meeting?

These are some of the thoughts that race through the minds of modern prelates. Out of these anxieties comes fiascoes like Cardinal Donald Wuerl's recent one. Wuerl and his surrogates have rebuked a visiting priest from the archdiocese of Moscow for denying Communion to a self-described practicing lesbian at a funeral mass. That's not our "policy," gasped Wuerl's horrified surrogates.

But it is the policy of the Roman Catholic Church. If a person is not in communion with the teachings of the Church, said person should not receive Communion. Period. Canon law makes this explicitly clear. If you don't believe me, ask the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, Cardinal Raymond Burke. Though most of his colleagues seem to ignore his stance, he has said for years that canon law places a grave burden on priests to protect the sacraments from defiant sinners. According to Burke, canon law is not a whimsical option for hardline eccentric priests but a moral duty which "obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament" to those in "manifest grave sin. "

Wuerl rejects this authoritative interpretation of canon law. A while back he was asked if he would withhold Communion from the pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi. He said no. That style of "confrontation" makes him uncomfortable, he told a persistent reporter.

I've heard Church insiders call the cardinal "Wuerl the girl," a reference to his precious personality. He has many fine qualities. He seems a little less common to me than some of his hackish colleagues. But cufflinks, starched shirts, learning, and reasonably civilized manners do not a good bishop make. Jesus Christ never required that his disciples place roses in his room or mints on his pillow. He walked straight at the decadent elites of his time, denounced them as a "brood of vipers," and then called it a day. It didn't take long for these vipers to kill him.

Wuerl can only earn the red of his rich robes through a willingness to endure the blood of Jesus Christ's martyrdom. And the truth is that protecting the sacraments would cost him far less than death. Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't clap him on the back so heartily after that. Maybe he would get an angry letter or two from moneyed donors in the tank for the Dems. But who cares?

This latest episode isn't even a close call. If Cardinal Wuerl doesn't have the guts to deny Communion to an agitprop lesbian Buddhist, he should just close up shop and hand the keys to his chancery over to Obama.
This ludicrous controversy reminds me of another fiasco, one from 2008. Remember when San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, while distributing Communion at a parish in the gay Castro district, handed out the sacred species to two garishly painted and costumed members of the homosexual activist group "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."

News of this sparked furor across the Catholic world, and even the liberal archbishop had to admit he blew it, saying dimly: 

Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland. Afterward it was made clear to me that these two people were members of the organization "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," who have long made a practice of mocking the Catholic Church in general and religious women in particular. My predecessors, Cardinal William Levada and Archbishop John Quinn, have both denounced this group's abuse of sacred things many times in the past. Only last year, I instructed the Administrator of Most Holy Redeemer Parish to cancel the group's use of the hall on the parish grounds, once I became aware of it…

Although I had often seen photographs of members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I had never encountered them in person until October 7th. I did not recognize who these people were when they approached me.

After the event, I realized that they were members of this particular organization and that giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so…

Of course, the bishop's passive understanding of his duties and his fear of the liberal elite -- like Wuerl, Niederauer won't deny Communion to Nancy Pelosi either -- invited this outrage. After all, if a bishop announces that he is not a "gatekeeper," who can't come up to receive it? Such passivity was an invitation to abuse and the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" took it. Similarly, the lesbian Buddhist to which Wuerl cravenly apologized seized her chance to stick it to the Church.

The choice that the Wuerls face is clear: either they take seriously the duty enshrined in canon law to protect the sacraments from sacrilege and scandal, or these Communion controversies will multiply without end.
The notion that bishops aren't gatekeepers would come as a surprise to the Church's first ones. The apostles were told by Jesus Christ that the good shepherd watches the gate, lest his flock be eaten. "Do not give what is holy to dogs," Jesus warned them.

The Church's position on whether a bishop should stop sacrilege and scandal is not determined by his "comfort" level, Cardinal Wuerl. It is determined by the clear requirements of canon law. Cardinal Burke has spoken; the case is closed. Either the bishops take control over their own sacraments or the Church's enemies will.

Updates:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis
• Cardinal Wuerl's spokesman files complaint with The American Spectator

Links:

• Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty 
• EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
• Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave 
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
• Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out

Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action

Following Father Guarnizo's suspension, two D.C. area Catholic bloggers, An Archdiocese of Washington Catholic and Restore-D.C.-Catholicism, recommend the suspension of Cardinal Wuerl's Appeal pledges and instead donating money to other Catholic and pro-life causes and charities:

From Restore D.C. Catholicism:

Today, at the 9:30 Mass at St John Neumann parish, Father LaHood read a letter from Bishop Barry Knestout announcing the suspension of Father Marcel Guarnizo's priestly faculties.  Did I say the letter was penned by Bishop Knestout?  Let's not kid ourselves!  This letter came straight from the top - Cardinal Wuerl.  I'll bet my bottom dollar that all Bishop Knestout did was change the wording slightly (so that he could call the letter "his" with a straight face) and sign the thing.  I really don't think he's to blame, as he is vowed to obedience, as is Father LaHood bound to obedience in reading this thing with the introductory comments.  I recorded it so you can listen to the entire thing right here.

"The lesbian who is attempting to get a Catholic priest removed from his parish for denying her Holy Communion at her mother’s funeral is a Buddhist who describes herself as a “naturally born agitator” committed to a “culture war.” - LifeSiteNews

You'll hear towards the middle of the clip that "the issue discussed did not have to do with the distribution of Communion two weeks ago.  The issue pertains to actions over the past week or so."  Then Father proceeds to read the letter from Cardinal Wuerl Bishop Knestout whoever.   He announced the suspension and that it was taken after he "received credible allegations that Father Guarnizo has engaged in intimidating behavior towards parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry."

Why, isn't it just the most peculiar of coincidences that these "credible allegations" are coming out of the woodwork on the heels of the Holy Communion issue two weeks ago?  Father Guarnizo has been at the parish a year now - so these "intimidating behaviors" are now just beginning to surface?   Just what is the nature of these "intimidating behaviors"?  Who are the offended parties?  Unless we see some real basis of these allegations, I'm willing to bet that - none exist!

I think we bloggers did too good of a job in revealing Ms. Johnson's utter lack of credibility.  It certainly did her no good that there were other eye witnesses at the funeral Mass that contradicted her account of the events there.  Thus the Archdiocese cannot act upon Ms. Johnson's complaints without being tainted with her lack of credibility.  In other words, Plan A is shot, so they come up with Plan B.

So where are all these offended parish staff?  Let's hear from them!  If you post, don't do so anonymously for I will ascribe to it no credibility whatsoever.  But I don't think there will be any such posts, for I believe there is really no such subject matter.

In the title of this post I said it's time to take action - perhaps it's way past that time.  What do I suggest?  Well, if you read the blog posts of A Washington DC Catholic, you'll see he suggested it first.  I'm talking of suspension of your Cardinal's Appeal pledges.  I agree with the other blogger when he says that's the only language that the bureaucrats in the chancery seem to understand from us.  Of course let the chancery know precisely why they should not expect one more penny from you.  Contact information is here.

So what to do with that money?  Recalling that we are bound, under the Precepts of the Church, to support its work financially, I'd suggest taking that money and giving it directly to a Catholic and/or prolife cause that you know to be worthy of your donations: a crisis pregnancy center, a solid seminary, soup kitchen - there are numerous worthy candidates for your donations.  Clearly "the work of the Church" does not mean throwing good priests under the bus when they uphold Canon 915 and I for one will not support that.

Links:

• Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - Time To Take Action
• Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave

Related:

• The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
• Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
• Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
  
• Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
• Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
• Fr. Marcel Guarnizo Update
• Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled