Crookston, Minn., Sep 26, 2018 / 04:00 am (CNA).- In 1971, when Ron Vasek was 16 years old, a priest invited him to take a trip. The priest, Fr. Roger Grundhaus, was a family friend, and Ron’s parents supported the idea.
Fr. Grundhaus, a priest of the Diocese of Crookston, Minnesota, was going to a canon law convention in Columbus, Ohio. He said he wanted Vasek to come along to help with the drive.
Vasek had looked forward to the trip. “I’d never been off the farm, basically,” he told CNA.
Vasek said that on the first day of the trip, Grundhaus bought him a beer, and continued to buy him alcohol during the trip.
On the second day of the trip, Vasek recalled, Grundhaus attended meetings in the morning, and then spent time drinking with friends. He and Grundhaus went to dinner together in the hotel’s restaurant, where the priest continued to drink as they ate their meal.
After dinner, Vasek said, the priest sexually assaulted him in their hotel room.
Vasek told CNA he fought the priest off, and then “I just kinda stared at him and then he moved back away and never said anything, didn’t do a thing. And then a little later we went to bed and it was kind of uncomfortable, but I just didn’t know what to think of it.”
“I was 16 years old, off the farm, I didn’t have a clue what was going on,” he said.
“We left there, and we drove home like nothing happened, and he never, ever, ever, said anything to me about it, for a long time, and I kinda just buried it in the back of my head. I just didn’t know what to do.”
“I never said anything to my parents,” Vasek told CNA. “Ever.”
The next year Grundhaus invited him to attend another convention, and his parents, who knew nothing about the abuse, “thought it was a great idea.”
A blizzard stopped them along the way. There were no hotel rooms in the small town where they were stopped, but an armory had been opened as a makeshift shelter to accommodate stranded travelers. They spent the night in the armory along with families and other motorists stopped by the snow.
“So that was– I guess God was watching out for me.”
Grundhaus took him on one more trip, again with encouragement from his parents. The priest tried to get him to drink scotch, he said, but he refused, and was uncomfortable being there, although he said he was not assaulted on that trip.
A few years later, when Vasek’s brother died, Grundhaus grew closer to his family. “He became really an instrumental part of the family, because he counseled mom and dad. He was there all the time.”
Vasek told CNA that he never raised the issue of his assault with his family, although he saw Grundhaus frequently as he became an adult, as they often worked together on retreat teams and other ministry initiatives.
He told CNA the abuse took a heavy toll on his life. He said that he drank often, and struggled in other areas of his life.
“I didn’t know how much that abuse affected me until I can look back on it now with a clear mind.”
Vasek said that even while the abuse had a serious impact on him, he tried not to think about it often. In fact, he told CNA, “I just kind of quit thinking about it until one day, probably ten years ago.”
Vasek was in a parish sacristy during a retreat he was leading in 2008 when Grundhaus approached him, he told CNA.
He said that Grundhaus “said he wanted to apologize for what he did in Columbus, Ohio. And he said he went to confession for it. But he said, ‘if you need any help with anything, if you made bad business decisions or if you’re struggling with anything,’ he said, ‘I have money, I can help pay for therapy or I can help you out.’”
“You know, he kind of shocked me,” Vasek said. He didn’t understand why, after decades, “all of the sudden he’s apologizing. I just said ‘Ok, I accept your apology,’ and kind of just left it at that.”
Vasek said a few days later he went to the priest’s office, asking him to swear there had been no other victims. He said Grundhaus told him he hadn’t abused anyone else.
“And then he tells me, ‘if this ever comes up, I’ll always deny it.’”
Vasek had no idea how to respond to what Grundhaus told him. “I really struggled with that, but I didn’t say anything because of the family stuff.”
__
In 2010, Vasek decided to say something. At the time, he had applied to become a deacon in the Diocese of Crookston, where he still lived. His son had just become a priest in the diocese.
He said he first told a priest in the neighboring Diocese of Fargo. That diocese forwared the allegation to Bishop Michael Hoeppner, Crookston’s bishop. Hoeppner then asked Vasek for an appointment.
(Vasek said this meeting took place in 2010, while the Diocese of Crookston claims it took place in 2011.)
“When I went into the bishop’s office, there was nobody there, it was just him and I.”
“So the bishop, he just kind of, he just chews on me for five minutes,” Vasek told CNA, saying that the bishop told him that Grundhaus was a great priest, and that a “claim” about the matter could be very expensive. After a while, Vasek recalled, the bishop asked him if he intended to make a formal complaint.
“By this time,” Vasek said, “I didn’t know what the hell to think. I just put my hands up and I said ‘I just want to know if I can get through the diaconate program, knowing this information.”
Vasek said that Hoeppner told him he believed the story, adding that he shouldn’t say anything about the matter.
Vasek told CNA he agreed to keep silent. “That was the first time I had revealed my abuse in 40 years, so I was still kind of numb.”
He began the diaconal program in the diocese soon after. He said his allegation did not come up again until October 2015.
__
On Oct. 21, 2015, Vasek said he was summoned to meet with Bishop Hoeppner at the bishop’s home. There, he told CNA, Hoeppner told him to sign a letter recanting his allegation against Grundhaus.
He said the bishop explained that the Fargo diocese had inquired about Vasek’s 2010 allegation against Grundhaus, and intended to forbid the priest from exercising ministry within its territory.
“We want to have Grundhaus be able to do ministry,” Vasek said Hoeppner told him, “so we need to have you sign a letter recanting your allegation.”
The letter had already been printed on diocesan stationary.
Vasek said that Hoeppner asked him, “If news of the scandal of Grundhaus gets out, how could I ordain you? Who would want you? Where would I put you? And besides, it would be very difficult on your son.”
“When he said that, I knew exactly what he meant,” Vasek told CNA. “I was sickened. Absolutely sickened.”
Vasek signed the letter.
It read: “I, Ron Vasek, regarding a trip I was on when I was 16 years old, and on which a priest of the Diocese of Crookston was also participating, clearly and freely state that I have no desire to nor do I make any accusation of sexual impropriety by the priest toward me.”
In August of that year, months before that meeting, the diocese had been ordered by a court to release the names of all priests alleged to have abused children prior to 1985. A priest of the diocese told CNA that he believes Hoeppner asked Vasek to retract his claim in order to avoid naming Grundhaus on that list.
Vasek told CNA he was stunned.
He couldn’t believe what he had experienced. He had struggled for decades to grapple with the abuse he experienced. When he told his bishop about it, he was ordered to keep silent. And now he was being asked to deny it had ever happened.
It felt, he said, “like being abused all over again.”
He thought of words he says Hoeppner said to him in 2010: “This is a cross you’re just going to have to carry.”
__
For two years, Vasek did not mention the letter to his wife or family.
In February 2017 Vasek’s pastor, Fr. Xavier Ilango, recommended him for ordination as a deacon. Vasek was measured for vestments. The Diocese of Crookston mailed invitations for its upcoming diaconal ordination; Vasek’s name was listed among those who would be ordained on June 10, 2017.
But in March 2017, Vasek told CNA, he was abruptly told that his ordination might be delayed by at least a year. With almost everything prepared, he was told his pastor had raised previously unmentioned concerns, and that even though he had already been approved, he might not be ordained with his class.
CNA has obtained a copy of a letter reportedly from Vasek’s pastor, which suggested that Vasek had strained relationships with some parishioners and needed to learn to take direction better. The letter, unsigned and undated, suggested that Vasek’s ordination could be delayed a year.
CNA attempted to contact Ilango, but was told by the Diocese of Crookston that he is on sabbatical. His parish bulletin reports that he traveled to India on July 1.
On April 6, 2017, Vasek and his wife met with Hoeppner, who told them he would give more thought to the possibility of Vasek’s ordination. He seemed non-committal.
Vasek told CNA he believed his ordination was being threatened as a reminder to keep silent about the abuse he had endured, and the letter he had signed.
Vasek decided he had had enough. He decided that he could not trust Hoeppner, and could not promise to be obedient to him, which would be required at the time of his ordination. He told his story to two priests of the diocese, Fr. Robert Schreiner and Msgr. David Baumgartner.
Schreiner told CNA that he remembers Vasek saying to him, “I’ve been abused for 41 years, and now I’m still being abused.”
Schreiner and Vasek had been friends for decades. He described Vasek as a man of “integrity and honesty.” Although he was director of the diocesan diaconal program, and had previously been Hoeppner’s chancellor, he resolved to help.
Baumgartner, a canon lawyer who had previously been Hoeppner’s vicar general- the chief advisor to the bishop- also decided that he would do whatever he could to help Vasek.
Both priests told CNA they believed that Hoeppner had forced Vasek to sign the 2015 letter, and both believed that the bishop was unjustly punishing and threatening Vasek in 2017.
“I believed him,” Schreiner told Minnesota Public Radio in 2017.
“As the account unfolded with each horrifying revelation and event and name, my heart would sink lower and my mind would flinch, not wanting to believe it. But at no point during his testament that night, nor since, did my intuition click with the thought that ‘that doesn’t ring true’ or ‘that just doesn’t sound right.'”
In fact, CNA spoke with several priests and former diocesan employees in the Diocese of Crookston; none questioned the integrity of Vasek’s story.
“This was bad on so many levels,” Schreiner told CNA.
__
Baumgartner told CNA that Vasek wanted to address Hoeppner’s conduct with Church authorities. Vasek hoped he could still be ordained a deacon.
But Baumgartner, Schreiner, and Vasek were uncertain how to make a complaint against their own bishop. After prayer, they decided to try the apostolic nunciature- the Vatican embassy in Washington, DC.
Baumgartner told CNA that he called the apostolic nunciature in March 2017, asking for direction about how to proceed. He said that initially, the nuncio’s office seemed “eager to get to the know the story,” and promised to provide him soon with further instructions.
He said that after weeks passed with no response, he called the nunciature again in early April, and was surprised when a staffer told him that he should not make any accusation unless he had “solid proof.”
“The attitude of the nunciature changed,” Baumgartner said. “They went from being eager to help to saying that we can’t do anything unless we had proof.”
After that conversation, Baumgartner told CNA, he decided the Vatican was unlikely to respond quickly.
“Ron’s ordination was pending. I presumed that the fact that this was a man called to orders mattered, and that the Holy See would respond appropriately, given the timeline that we found ourselves in. That expectation was completely unfounded on my part.”
“We don’t have proof,” Baumgartner added. “We have a story. But we wanted the Church to investigate that story.”
Baumgartner sent a letter to the nunciature explaining the allegation against Hoeppner on April 11, 2017. He asked for advice about how to proceed. Then he waited for a response.
In the meantime, Vasek sent a letter directly to Hoeppner, on April 29, 2017.
“It is my deepest desire to serve in the Diocese of Crookston as a deacon,” Vasek wrote.
“In October of 2015, you asked me to sign a letter to renounce my accusation of sexual abuse against Msgr. Roger Grundhaus….Before I signed it I declared to you that the letter was a lie, and you determined that I should sign it.”
“I renounce that letter as a lie,” Vasek added.
“In another conversation, you asked if I intended to file a law suit regarding my sexual abuse. I would like you to know that I retain the right to seek justice in this matter by legal and canonical means.”
Vasek doubted that he would ever be ordained a deacon in Crookston after that letter was sent. But he wanted the truth to come out.
On May 13, 2017, Baumgartner sent packets to several Vatican offices, including the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formally alleging misconduct on the part of Hoeppner. He reports that he received a response to those complaints in late June of that year, when the nunciature wrote to him, saying that his complaint to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been forwarded to the Congregation for Clergy. The letter offered no other information.
“Msgr. Baumgartner sent letters to four offices of the Vatican,” Vasek told CNA.
“The only that happened was that the nuncio told Bishop Hoeppner to investigate Grundhaus,” Vasek said, adding that there was no acknowledgement of the complaint about Hoeppner.
Vasek was looking for justice. By the time the Vatican responded to say his complaint had been transferred from one office to another, Vasek had already begun a different process.
__
On May 9, Vasek sued Bishop Hoeppner and the Diocese of Crookston. On the same day, Grundhaus was suspended from ministry.
If he’d felt that Church authorities would work toward justice, Vasek would not have sued, several sources told CNA.
“Our preference was to have the Church respond,” Baumgartner said. But when the nunciature did not seem willing to respond quickly, they decided to proceed with a lawsuit.
The lawsuit is a controversial matter for many sources CNA spoke with. Vasek’s lawyer is Jeffrey Anderson, a Minnesota attorney who has led litigation against dioceses in several states, and advocated for changes to statutes of limitation for clergy sexual abuse victims. Critics have called Anderson an opportunist, and argued that his tactics have aimed to bankrupt the Church even when dioceses are willing to help victims of sexual abuse, all while he has collected attorney’s fees for his work.
Anderson has also been accused of paying kickbacks to victims’ advocacy groups that refer potential clients to him, although he denies that allegation.
Vasek was unsure about Anderson. So were his friends. The priests had worked in the curia while Anderson sued their own diocese. But they said that no other qualified lawyer would take their case.
CNA attempted to contact two law firms Vasek says he approached. One said it would not comment on clients or potential clients, and the other did not respond to requests for comment.
Schreiner said Vasek reluctantly went to Anderson, and was clear from the beginning that he did not want his lawsuit to harm the Church. He said Vasek insisted he wanted justice, and for the truth to come out.
Some aspects of the lawsuit have been settled. The letter Vasek signed was returned to him, after being recovered from the diocese by Crookston police.
Vasek also reached a financial settlement with the diocese, the amount of which is undisclosed. He told CNA the settlement was modest, and that he would save it for his retirement.
Other parts of the lawsuit continue, some of which pertain to Grundhaus himself, and the abuse Vasek alleges took place in 1971. Some have to do with the diocesan response to abuse.
The goal of the lawsuit, Vasek emphasized, “is to get to the truth.”
“The money means crap to me,” he said. “I want the truth to come out.”
“To expose these guys for covering up an abuse that happened. The bishop has admitted breaking the rules that Pope Francis laid down,” Vasek said.
“And just to clean up the diocese, period.”
“The homosexual subculture of the priesthood is well and vibrant in this diocese and has been for years,” Vasek said. “That culture has been in our diocese for a long time.”
__
Vasek and his supporters told CNA they hoped that Church authorities would intervene to help with the situation, even after the lawsuit was underway.
On March 28, 2018, a year after Ron Vasek’s ordination was delayed, his son Fr. Craig Vasek, sent a letter to the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, Cardinal Sean O’Malley.
CNA obtained a copy of that letter.
Fr. Vasek, who declined to be interviewed for this story, wrote that Hoeppner was “prepared to do anything…to avoid addressing this matter.”
“All we want is the truth,” Fr. Vasek wrote, adding that “if you give me the chance, you can be the judge of our situation.”
“To be fair, we are pursuing the regular course of action, but the systems in place are not going to help,” he wrote.
“I am writing to you because you are good, trustworthy, and just. And we are in grave need, now.”
The priest asked O’Malley for a brief meeting, offering to fly to Boston, or arrange a phone call or video conference.
On May 2, 2018, the Archdiocese of Boston sent Fr. Vasek a reply to his letter.
“We are sorry to know of the difficulties currently presented to you, your family, and the Diocese of Crookston. Although the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, of which Cardinal O’Malley serves as President, does not have oversights or jurisdiction for any allegations or cases concerning sexual abuse by clergy, we are aware that these are very difficult matters.”
“Thank you for understanding that with regard to any matters concerning clergy personnel in the Diocese of Crookston or any civil or canonical complaints concerning the diocese, we must necessarily respect the jurisdiction and oversight of the Diocesan Bishop and those diocesan officials appointed to assist with such matters. We hope that this information may be helpful for you.”
The letter, which concluded with a promise of prayers, was signed by Fr. Robert Kickham, secretary to Cardinal O’Malley.
On Aug. 20, after reports surfaced about a 2015 letter sent to him by Fr. Boniface Ramsey, a priest concerned with the behavior of now-disgraced Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, O’Malley issued a public apology for failing to personally review Ramsey’s letter, and pledged to modify the procedures of his office.
A source in the Archdiocese of Boston told CNA that the cardinal’s office contacted Fr. Vasek shortly after that apology was issued, inviting the priest to meet with O’Malley.
__
CNA requested to interview Hoeppner, but the Diocese of Crookston declined that request. Instead, CNA was referred to four statements released by the diocese.
The first statement, issued May 9, 2017, said that “Bishop Hoeppner categorically denies that he in any way forced, coerced or encouraged Mr. Vasek not to pursue his allegations regarding Msgr. Grundhaus.”
“Msgr. Vasek’s allegations of abuse regarding Msgr. Grundhaus were reported to law enforcement in 2011.” Multiple sources told CNA that it was the Fargo diocese, and not the Diocese of Crookston, that reported the allegations to law enforcement in that year.
The next statement, a May 14, 2017 letter addressed to Catholics in the Diocese of Crookston, reiterated Hoopner’s denial, adding that “there are two sides to every story and there is another, a very different side to the story reported last week.”
CNA supplied specific questions to the Diocese of Crookston, asking for the other side of the story, but the diocese declined to answer those questions.
The third statement, issued September 20, 2017, after the first aspects of the lawsuit were settled, said that the settlement reached “avoids costly attorney fees and a drawn out legal process. The settlement agreement does not constitute any admission of unlawful conduct or wrong doing by Bishop Hoeppner. No diocesan funds were used to pay the settlement. The Diocese is now seeking dismissal of the remaining claims related to this matter.”
The fourth statement, issued September 27, 2017, in Hoeppner’s name, said that the bishop “did not pressure Mr. Vasek to remain quiet when we met in 2011 or when we met again in 2015. Mr. Vasek had indicated to me that he wanted the alleged incident to remain confidential. I attempted to abide by his wishes.”
“I was willing to ordain Mr. Vasek as a permanent deacon. He attended the final deacon formation weekend in late April, along with the other deacon candidates. Mr. Vasek chose not to be ordained for diaconal ministry. I respect his decision.”
“Looking back and knowing what I do now, I believe I would have handled my conversations with Mr. Vasek differently. However, please know that I did not pressure Mr. Vasek into making any decision with which he was not comfortable,” Hoeppner’s statement added.
“I continue to pray for all those involved in this matter. No one should ever be subject to inappropriate sexual conduct. I ask all Catholics and people of good will to pray for healing for all those who have suffered abuse.”
CNA was unable to reach Grundhaus.
__
Hoeppner, 69, was ordained a priest by Pope Paul VI in 1975, after studies at the Pontifical North American College. After earning a licentiate in canon law, and serving as a teacher, educational administrator, and director of vocations, he became the Diocese of Winona’s judicial vicar in 1988, and the vicar general of that diocese in 1997.
He was appointed Bishop of Crookston Sept. 28, 2007.
On Aug. 22, after the release of a Pennsylvania grand jury report detailing sexual abuse in six dioceses of that state, Hoeppner wrote in a pastoral letter that “All victims are owed sincere apologies for what those entrusted with leadership in the Church have done and have failed to do.”
“It is important that we promise to continue, with renewed effort, our commitment to build in the Church, as Pope Francis puts it, ‘a culture of care that says `never again’ to any form of abuse.’”
“Changes are necessary so that sins and failures of the past are not repeated,” he added.
CNA contacted the press office of the Holy See for comment on the status of any canonical investigation against Hoeppner, but received no response before press time.
__
Vasek told CNA that, through everything he has experienced, his faith has not been shaken.
“I know that these men are not what Christ envisioned for his Church. Judas betrayed the Lord. People will betray the Lord all the time. I know what the Church teaches.”
“I encourage people to keep going to Church,” Vasek added.
“I tell everybody, don’t leave the Church because of these rotten men. That’s just what the devil wants. The devil wants to destroy from within. I say keep going to Church. Keep up with the sacraments. Keep praying. Because Christ’s Church is good. Some of the men in it aren’t.”
“I know who Christ is. He hasn’t done anything to me, other than give me hope.”
[…]
Okay, this is great, but the time for talk is long past. It is time for this to move beyond theoretical discussion. An actual politician needs to be excommunicated by an actual sitting diocesan bishop. Otherwise, the statement has little credibility. Which bishop will be first to take action?
Sound observation, Andrew. At this time, the most recent public statements of Biden and Pelosi et al. are starkly in contrast to Catholic Teaching. As such, the ongoing delays in taking strong action against such politicians are remarkably even less justifiable than they were before when they should have already been taken. Among many such approaches, I suggest something along the following:
The very first thing that should be done ASAP is for Abp. Cordileone to instruct all parish pastors under his jurisdiction to immediately refuse to give Communion to Pelosi (he still has not shown the courage to do this, I believe, which is long overdue) and any other offending politician, and to also have each pastor publish in the parish bulletin the bishop’s clear statement to this effect with the rationale behind it. Also, a copy of the main points of Cordileone’s statement should be posted prominently on some walls and/or doors at various locations within their churches for all parishioners/visitors to clearly see it, and also serve to advise any known reprobate politician of what they can expect at that church. The statement can also include an invitation to the reprobates to make an appointment with the parish pastor (perhaps better yet, the bishop) to receive the proper catechesis with an explanation as to why any nonsense like “personally opposed but” is not acceptable.
Next, Cordileone should strongly advocate that all of his fellow bishops adopt the same policy throughout the US, and work more forcefully toward getting some fellow bishops to support the effort and, more importantly, ACT in a similar manner. Following almost immediately on this should be the development of a policy (aided by sound canon lawyers) which makes it crystal clear that any currently elected politician who continues to advocate for abortion after having been denied Communion and does not publicly change their views will be excommunicated within no more than 6 weeks from the first date the denial of Communion goes into effect. This is more than enough time for the politician to examine his/her conscience, seek the catechesis, and so on.
More details, requirements, etc. addressing various situations can of course be worked out as needed, but the denial of Communion must begin ASAP along with the establishment of a policy of excommunication for any politician who continues to publicly defy Church teaching.
This issue is and has been a Thomas More moment and long since past it’s time of action as this commenter states. I truly believe the Church(and other Christian denominations), Jews included should have stopped all of this after Roe.
So many speak of America as the bed rock of freedom and opportunity. Where were they when these millions of lives were extinguished for what ?
The rhetoric now is just that. Appreciate the Archbishop for the letter, but not enough
I agree with the previous commenter. The time for talk is over. The sides have been drawn and the Cardinal is not about to persuade anyone who wasn’t already pro life to become pro life. Biden, Pelosi, and the others need to be excommunicated. And that needs to happen now. How do I teach my children that abortion is a mortal sin and an abomination in God’s eyes when the Catholic Bishops allow these pro abortion and pro sodomy “Catholic” politicians to receive Holy Communion? And how do I teach my children that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of God Himself when the Catholic Bishops allow these pro abortion and pro sodomy “Catholic” politicians to receive Holy Communion?
Cordileone is not a Cardinal. He will never be made one under the current Pontiff.
Biden and Pelosi both claim to be practising Catholics. Yet each of them openly supports and promotes abortion, and indeed other positions contrary to Catholic teaching.
Their position is a direct and sustained public challenge by them to the Church, of which they claim to be loyal members. It would in my opinion be reasonable to excommunicate them. This would send a powerful message to all catholics and more widely throughout the world. The Church has to be a sign of contradiction to the world – it should not conform to the world. It should not be afraid to take a stand on this issue. We should not be afraid! Let’s do it.
The time for talk is over now and has been for a long time – with Catholics like most of us. But – we are dealing with a majority of people ‘catholic’ (small c) and non-catholic for whom the taking of helpless human lives in the womb is not a big deal.
Step by step – The Texas ruling being the most recent. Both Biden and Pelosi are over the roof about it, which is to be expected – to the extent that they can be ignored because their reactions are so completely predictable. The ‘press’ is (predictably) taking sides with them, saying that this proves that Catholics are really divided about this and only those like Nan & Joey are forward thinkers who can be trusted about it.
BUT
With every passing day, less and less ‘Catholics’ can really support it with a straight face, and I believe that the day is coming closer when a Bishop will publicly excommunicate a ‘Catholic’ politician who publicly supports abortion.
Congresswoman Pelosi is probably shaking in her boots, and she should be.
She needs our prayers.
Compared to LGBT abortion is the greater evil because it’s killing of the innocent. It’s the world’s greatest crime. Many who support it politically in Congress or by individual vote are morally complicit. Archbishop Cordileone is himself morally obliged to act. As said previously regarding Vatican reengineering of the original USCCB agenda to address the issue and sanction, then sandbagged by CDF prefect Cardinal Ladaria at the Pope’s bidding. What was produced an insignificant letter to the faithful of what’s contained in the Catechism. Bishops are Apostolic defenders of the faith. There’s no justification to refrain from their duty. And like the good shepherd guide misled souls from the precipice. From condemnation at judgment. Malaise is not limited to sins by laity. When there’s so much at stake talking of morality has virtually no effect on the support given abortion by Catholics. A few have acted as bishops. All others not simply should, they must act.
I think Abp. Cordileone is not speaking only to Biden and Pelosi and co.
And kudos to him (again).
I think it is one thing for a Catholic politician to argue he has an obligation uphold the law of the US irrespective of his personal beliefs. Its another to have a tantrum over a Supreme Court ruling upholding a law which would limit ( but not completely prevent) abortion and say you are going to make a full court press to overturn the ruling and make abortion as freely available as possible. Its more than a little disgusting and certainly against Catholic teaching. Its past time for these Bishops and Cardinals to stop talking and ACT. Pretending these offending politicians are not giving public scandal is not fooling anyone.
Curious about how long Pelosi has held the pro-choice “Catholic” view, I searched and found an NCReporter interview from 2002. Notable among other quotes was this by Pelosi:
“The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you.” Any theologian want to comment???
There was also this question put to Pelosi: “Is it more difficult today to be a pro-choice Catholic then it was, say, ten years ago?” [NOTE: She had been a member of Congress since 1988; the interviewer was asking about 1992…]
A [Pelosi]: “It’s about the same….
“I have never in my district in California, in my archdiocese…if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion; I never knew if this was the day it would be withheld. And that’s a hard way to go to church. Fortunately, I’m invited — I have a big family — I go to a lot of weddings, I’m in a different church every week. I’m a moving target. I travel, so I’m not exactly a target in terms of always being in the same church, although I go to St. Vincent DePaul, which is my neighborhood parish.
“In addition to that, on many occasions the archdiocese has told the nuns that I couldn’t be the speaker at some event. And that’s hurtful because we have so much in common. But it’s the decision the church has made.”
The decisions Pelosi has made at the intersection of her faith and her politics are her own. If she were to think with the Church, with God’s commandments, and with common sense, she would put herself in penitential stock for whatever days remain in her natural life.
Ms. Pelosi has been in Congress since 1988 and has apparently held her pro-abortion “Catholic” view for all this time.
Question for the Bishop: HOW MUCH LONGER WILL Nancy BE ALLOWED TO CAUSE SCANDAL, SHAME, AND DISGRACEFUL PAIN to the Body of Christ? HOW MUCH LONGER WILL Nancy BE ALLOWED to PUT HER OWN and many another’s ETERNAL LIFE/SALVATION AT GRAVE RISK? Will you wait another 33 years???
I’m not against excommunicating pro-infanticide “Catholic” politicians. But the question is whether they can be excommunicated? Canonist Edward Peters wrote several essays (many of them published on this very site) stating that Canon Law as it stands does not provide for excommunicating pro-aborts.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/01/24/thoughts-on-ecclesiastical-consequences-for-gov-cuomos-pro-abortion-acts/
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/02/07/its-not-fair-but-does-he-deserve-it/
I’m not a Canon Lawyer myself (just the regular civil kind) so anyone comments from those more knowledgeable than me on this subject would be appreciated.
Response to Johann du Toit:
Canonist Peters is indeed a fine canon lawyer who at times uses the fallacy of credentialism as a hammer to dismiss legitimate possibilities of canon law interpretations/applications that differ from his, especially if such possibilities are raised by those who are not canon lawyers. In this he frequently resembles those “experts” of the past who rhetorically asked “is this not the carpenter’s son”? Still, he has a well-deserved reputation as a legitimate voice of canon law interpretation that should always be taken seriously and honestly engaged. However, many people look to Peters as if he has a gift of canon law interpretation infallibility, and so his views on certain Church matters involving canon law are all too often considered the final word on such things. This is, of course, not the case, and Peters does not make this claim, plus at times he will state that his interpretation of this or that law or application may not be correct. This prudent humility is most welcome in the following section from one of the articles cited above:
“Canon 1369 authorizes a ‘just penalty’ against those who violate its terms. That broad (but not unlimited) phrase ‘just penalty’ allows for tailoring the canonical consequences in specific cases to the wide variety of fact patterns that could be addressed in its light, here, everything from Cuomo’s speeches and comments in support of this abortion law to his ordering a ghoulish light show in celebration of its enactment. That said, while the notion of a ‘just penalty’ is broad, there is some question as to whether it extends, at least immediately, to excommunication. Here is not the place to air that technical issue, but neither should its presence derail consideration of using Canon 1369 against Cuomo. Some justice is better than no justice and even if (I say, if) excommunication could not be imposed immediately on Cuomo, the Church could still impose some canonical sanctions for his conduct. If, moreover, such sanctions as could be imposed per Canon 1369 were ignored by Cuomo, Canon 1393 would allow for their augmentation, making the possibility of a ‘just penalty’ reaching to excommunication stronger.”
So instead of declaring that canon law as it stands does not permit excommunication for politicians like Cuomo, Peters acknowledges the possibility of excommunication in the interpretation and application of Canon 1369 and/or Canon 1393 against Gov. Cuomo. Accordingly, the possibility of also “reaching excommunication” in the cases of Pelosi, Biden, and others who continue to act in defiance of Church doctrine seems equally reasonable if not more so based on the public stances of these people that include, at least in the case of Biden, openly declaring his opposition to Church teaching that life begins at conception. No faithful Catholic can maintain this erroneous position, and those who do also at least tacitly deny some related Church teachings, including the infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception (it is not the Immaculate Transplantation, nor is it the Immaculate Birth, and even before modern science demonstrated that life begins at conception, we see once again the Church ahead of its time in declaring an infallible doctrine in 1854 that also underscores when life begins). What’s the point of honoring/celebrating the conception of the Blessed Virgin if she wasn’t even alive according to the heretical beliefs of Biden and others of a similar mindset?
As I set forth in my previous comment, I favor the immediate withholding of Communion from openly reprobate politicians, and then excommunication in due course for those who remain openly hostile to the Church’s teaching in this regard. Even if some canonical hoops have to be jumped through to get to excommunication, such jumping should be done in defense of the Faith.
Long, long past time for this to be done, not merely discussed. One is left to wonder what the eternal consequence is for an episcopate which refuses to admonish the sinner as a result of its own self interest.
Stop “agonizing.”
Do it.
The good archbishop better excommunicate these politician(s) before he submitts his required retirement because this pope (if still in) will accept his retiremnet within minutes.
Texas abortion “law” is far from a pro-life idea. Roe is still “settled law”. Hence, Texas “law” remains unconstitutional until we re-write it to the Hyde Amendment concept. Texas “law” also removes rape or incest and illegally arms the citizenry to act like vigilantes/bounty hunters allowing anyone to file a lawsuit for observing an attempt at abortion. That would more than likely flood the courts with cases.
Anyone openly wearing abortion-on-demand on their sleeve should also be excommunicated. As always, it would be hard to invoke.
Pray to Jesus for guidance on the most egress of mortal sins.
I’m with Terence McManus above. I think Abp. Cordileone is addressing all Catholics, not just Biden and Pelosi and co., all Americans, in fact. He is very articulate and very courageous. To go into the Washington Post is to go into the lion’s den. (Hey). I give him a lot of credit.
Abortion is in deed a terrible thing. And so is sexual abuse of minors. Why does abortion receive so much attention and sexual abuse is swept under the rug? Why are the unborn more important than the already born? Just asking.
3 years after the fact – I just remembered back in 2008 when Obama chose Biden as his VP – in his announcement he said Joe is a “practicing Catholic” in a clear attempt at the ‘Catholic’ vote. Joe said sanctimoniously that he “opposes abortion but would never impose his beliefs on others”, which sounded good to the gum-chewing public.
I for one would never ask him to ‘impose’ what he calls his ‘beliefs’ on others, but I WOULD expect him to DEFEND them.