The pandemic has however led to a greater appreciation of the Eucharist for some. But we worry that many Catholics may not come back to Mass. As St. Paul reminded the Corinthians:
+Rhodes:
The committee hopes to accomplish a document that would help Catholics increase their faith in the Eucharist as mystery to be believed, celebrated, and lived.
+Rhodes:
One section would deal with Eucharistic consistency.
We discussed the idea of national policy, as per c. 915 and 916. That idea arose from visits of US bps to the CDF. It was our intention to explain why we have these laws, not set national norms on probiting Communion
+Rhodes:
None of that was ever meant to be directed at one person. But to be a call to conversion.
+Rhodes:
We know that Aparecida and our own 2006 doc addressed these topics.
+Rhodes
If we are able to draft the text, we will work with many committees, and there will be ample opportunity to weigh in. and we hope it will be a rich theological document that is very useful for Catholics.
+Warfel of Great Falls and Billings:
I'll vote for it.
But I compared the outline of this proposed new document with the outline of our 2006 doc, with the exception of the Eucharistic consistency and missionary discipleship section.
+Warfel:
This fits in with our Eucharistic revival project. I hope bishops will be able to discuss this. And I hope that there is also made time in the process for regional meetings at which everybody gets a chance to talk. That might unify us amid a contentious topic.
Thanks +Rhodes. I support this. Clarity is needed in the section on eucharistic consistency. I urge us to emphasize the clear connection between repentance, confession, firm purpose of amendment, and reception of the Eucharist
+Strickland:
We must focus on Our Lord who is truly present who is truly present at every tabernacle and in every Holy Mass as we all believe.
Prominent persons can't be held to a different standard. High profile individuals are a few souls. The bigger issue is what we are teaching our children.
+Lori:
I am in favor of this document. I hope all of us can unite in agreeing that a pastoral teaching document would be something we would all want and come together to issue.
This doc will provide a fine foundation for our Eucharistic revival project.
JD trivia time:
Who is the cardinal on the wall behind +Lori?
+Cary of Baker, Oregon:
I would like to second +Lori's words. This is an unprecedented situation. We've never had a Catholic president "who is opposed to the teaching of the Church." I support the work of the committee.
+Sample:
I'm for it. It's going to be great for our Eucharistic revival. As to "Eucharistic consistency"- I am very happy to hear that we are not talking about a national policy.
+Sample: It's been reported in much of the media that moving ahead is in contradiction to Cardinal Ladaria's letter. But I don't think it is. I tihnk a teaching doc fulfills what +Ladaria is asking us. I think this is our way forward.
+Tyson:
Also, given a very rich and broad understanding of the dignity of human life and offenses against it, is our approach to this question focused on abortion to the exclusion of other important moral issues. Or would other kinds of issues also lead to a similar response?
+Rhodes: I think our document would be broader, and would include recent magisterium, including that of Pope Francis.
I think it's important that we aren't focusing on one issue. When we talk about canon 915, which we're not setting policy on, a variety of issues could apply.
+Rhodes:
While a lot of the publicity has been about pro-abortion politicians, I tihnk we would also look at someone involved in human trafficking, or a leader in a white supremacist group, going up to receive communion.
+Cupich: There is ambiguity on context and content.
+Ladaria wrote he thought we were talking about worthiness of communion, now you say it's a broad teaching document. But this IS about worthiness to receive communion for public officials. And committee chairs have said as much
+Cupich:
It's hard to know what kind of direction you're going to go in. So would you be willing to delete from your outline that you plan to talk about a specific category of persons, but talk about the expectation that all of us examine our consciences.
Outline:
+Cupich:
And also, we have the task of reconnecting with our people after the pandemic. My pastors are confused that we want to talk about excluding people from the Eucharist when we need to be welcoming people.
+Cupich:
I can not support this. If you delete from your outline the part about politicians I would take another look. Those who want to rush this demonstrate what this is all about it: politicians. Let's take our time and not rush this.
+Rhodes: I've said this is for all Catholics. I've said there is a responsibility for Catholics in leadership, positions but there's no way we want to focus exclusively on politicians.
+Rhodes: As to dropping Eucharistic consistency from the outline, we arent targeting particular individuals or limiting it to one category, but I think we need to accept the Church's disciple that those who persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
+Rhodes: Now, who decides that? The diocesan bishop. We're not going to be setting policy on that.
Of course if the bishops don't like what we write, they don't have to accept it. but it would be good to write it.
+DeGrood of Sioux Falls: I think there is a risk to not doing anything soon. The scandal has already happened - ppl in my diocese are scandalized that the bps haven't come out with something clear. Our responsibility as bps is to preserve, protect, and pass on the faith. #USCCB21
+DeGrood: We should be teaching about this, and some among us have responsibilities if our people are in situations of grave sin. We have the role of stepping forward as shepherds and leaders, with charity and truth.
+Rhodes: I really appreciate that.
+McElroy of San Diego:
We have the problem that this has become a source of division within the life of the Church. Every bishop in the conference believes Catholic politicians should support the right of life to the unborn, so the division is about how to teach.
+McElroy: The doctrine committee's outline is a shift that would make the denial of the Eucharist a significant element of our teaching office in contemporary society.
+McElroy: 3 unintended consequences:
-Eucharist will become a tool in partisan turmoil. It will be impossible to prevent weaponization of the Eucharist. Sacrament will be sign of division.
(cont)
+McElroy (cont)
-Limitation of grounds for "exclusion" to euthanasia and abortion will limit our ability to credibly teach on other issues. That's what +Ladaria said
+McElroy (cont)
- endorsement exclusion for officials who support abortion will strengthen those who claim that conference is partisan.
I'll vote no before we have labored to build unity.
+Rhodes: We don't intend to limit this to abortion and euthanasia- there are other grave crimes against life and dignity.
ALTHOUGH,
Aparecida document points out abortion and euthanasia, and then says "and other grave crimes against life and family."
+Rhodes: I would hope we could be united like the Latin American bishops on these grave issues.
+Conley of Lincoln:
We have a unique opportunity to speak on the truth, goodness, and beauty on the Eucharist. And we have the expectation of our people that we say something about this. Not only for Catholics, but also for non-Catholics. As a convert- the Eucharist drew me in.
+Naumann: I'm for it. And I like the idea of regional meetings. I am amused by those who think we're rushing into this. "We do nothing quickly in this conference." I think that's "hyperbole."
+Naumann: Many issues that we should speak to -- racism or human trafficking.
I call politicians to integrity. It's not bps who have brought us to this point, it's public officials. Pro-abortion pols talk about abortion as a right -- our president talks about it that way
+Naumann: The attack on the Hyde Amendment means that we will all be participating in paying for abortions. This administration is aggressive on abortion, which is an issue we know is preeminent.
+Naumann:
Those in public life "flaunt their Catholicity. Describe themselves as devoutly Catholic and then act like this."
At ad limina visits, Pope Francis agreed with our language of preeminence. Pope Francis speaks with clarity on abortion.
We're calling ppl to integrity.
+Naumann: the president and speaker have a right to disagree with us. But then they should say that.
When we receive the Eucharist, we affirm an oath of fidelity to the Church's teaching.
+Wester of Santa Fe:
It seems to me that conference should not develop major teaching doc on Eucharist which will be seen as partisan at this time of pandemic.
+Wester:
I believe we should consider a brief pastoral reflection on what it means to be the Body of Christ at a time of suffering and loss.
This has been a period of much suffering.
I would call this short reflection "Welcome Home." An invitation to discover what unites us.
+Wester:
I realize this is a pivot from the current document being proposed, but I think it is still focused on the Eucharist.
+Rhodes: We want out document to have a positive tone. But the committee has spent a lot of time preparing this outline, and I don't want to withdraw the plan, but the document would be welcoming and positive.
+Cordileone:
We tried to talk about this in 2004, when McCarrick withheld +Ratzinger's guidance, which Ladaria affirms. I am in favor of being broad about consistency, though the Ratzinger guidance did indeed mention abortion and euthanasia.
+Cordileone:
I hope we can all agree on what the teaching of the Church is, and thus what would be contained in this document.
+Cordileone:
Our approach respects the autonomy of bishops.
Also, our credibility is on the line. The eyes of the country on us. If we fail now, and do not act courageously in presenting Church teaching clearly, how can we expect to be taken seriously again.
+Cordileone:
I would remind us of JPII's go-to phrase: Be not afraid.
+Medley of Owensboro:
My concern is that we have lost the narrative in terms of the media, "both the secular media and media that would call itself Catholic."
All they're reporting on is this Eucharistic consistency tihng. They're waiting to see if we will withhold Eucharist.
+Medley:
We should clarify that we do not want to use this to deny the Eucharist as a policy.
I am also concerned about the media. When I read bishops in the media, I think of Jesus finding the disciples arguing among themselves, and he says "It can not be that way with you."
+Stowe: I hear discrepancy. I hear ppl saying this is important because we have a Catholic president who has a position at odds with the Church on abortion.
There is not serene dialogue, there is ambiguity about why we are doing this...
+Stowe: Many Catholics have gone to non-Catholic churches because of scandals or disagreement of Catholic teaching, so maybe we need to be convincing of ourselves about what is so important about the Eucharist. We need to be a healing presence in the world at this time.
+Gregory:
The last year has made interpersonal and spiritual distance from one another. In my nearly 38 yrs as a member of the USCCB, no similar moment. We have faced similar challenges before, but with time for dialogue, debate, prayer, and always in each others company.
+Gregory:
When we addressed sexual abuse in 2002 -- though not completely -- we did so together, as a conference.
We need to pursue and deepen a spirit of unity before we presume to address other critical matters.
+Gregory:
We need to spend time in candid, straightforward conversation together before taking the next steps toward any statement or plan of action. To seek to advance any discussion prior to a serene and necessary dialogue would further damage our unity.
+Gregory: The choice before us at this moment is either we pursue a path of strengthening unity among ourselves, our settle for creating a document that will not further bring unity, but may very well further damage it.
JD note- I like +Gregory's bookshelves:
+DiNardo: My interest in this document is on the part on the mystery celebrated and the mystery believed. I favor the document going forward. I hope the committee puts emphasis on the presence of the Eucharistic Lord as a part of ecclesial communion.
Ecclesiology is important.
+DiNardo: we do things as a koinia. We do things in communion. Ecclesiology would allow us to say something that sustains the section on the Eucharistic lived.
Our unity in Christ is so important that I think we should develop the document and then discuss it in person.
+DiNardo: I object to those who suggest that those of us who want to see the document go forward is less than Christological and ecclesiological.
I support the document going foward. And there will be ways for us to have serene dialogue.
+Kurtz: I am glad this is not a policy that does not direct a local bishop but a teaching foundation. We need that foundation. And unity will begin with a deep respect for one another. And respect that our pastoral judgments may not always be the same.
+Kurtz: the media has anticipated a document that is not even done. we have an outline and I am persuaded by it. I will welcome the text and the dialogue that will follow.
+Knestout: Secular media has framed this in a political narrative. The Washington Post buried the lede, mention of the Pew poll, many Catholics don't believe in Real Presence.
We shouldn't relinquish our teaching role. We should make sure this doc complements Eucharistic revival
+Gomez: 19 bps still want to talk. So if it's ok with you, we'll extend the conversation.
Interestingly, the guys wanting to have an unlimited vote lost the vote, but we seem to be making time for everyone to speak.
+Jackels: I am opposed to the drafting of the document. Diocesan bishops are competent to teach about this and also to engage individuals in dialogue. I don't think this document or the Eucharistic revival project will bear fruit for parishioners. I don't support another document
+Bambera of Scranton: I have concerns relative to the parameters of +Ladaria's letter. The cardinal calls us to dialogue among ourselves and to dialogue with politicians in light of what's being proposed right now. And the need to consult with other episcopal conferneces.
+Bambera: It is most unfortunate that our unity has been called into question by ourselves and by the people entrusted to our care. We should make clear that we desire to maintain unity-- by following with care and precision the protocols set forth by +Ladaria.
+Olson: We can not focus exclusively on abortion, but we can not ignore that abortion is a sin of such gravity that it carries with it a latae sententiae excommunication. We can not ignore the circumstances in which we are, and we need to proceed with good dialogue.
Stop for a moment and admit to yourself the +Olson is rocking those spectacles like nobody's business:
+Biegler: This document could become a source of discord and disunity, as Cardinal Ladaria said. I think we need the two-stage dialogue and a consultation with other episcopal conferences. We should heed the emphasis of unity and dialogue. Preserving unity is urgent.
I will vote against the document, unless the section on Eucharistic consistency were separated from the document. I propose we separate the Eucharistic consistency section from the doc and then move forward.
+Biegler: This proposal is not to disregard the discipline of the Church, but to have a mature dialogue, and to meet in person to talk about these issues.
+Biegler: We should have regional meetings, then appoint bishops to dialogue with other episcopal conferences, and then we should have additional regional meetings and then dialogue.
+Biegler: Is the doctrinal committee willing to remove the section on Eucharistic consistency so that we can move forward with drafting the document?
+Soto: The Eucharist is a foretaste of the eschatological banquet. This isn't in the document, but it seems like it would be quite helpful to add.
B/c Eucharist should not be defined by the political rancor of the current moment in this country. The Eucharist defines reality.
+Soto: The Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, a prominent theme of BenXVI, and there should be a coherence between the charity of the Eucharist and the charity of our lives.
+Soto: Finally, I want to endorse the recommendation of a strong dynamic of dialogue.
+Etienne: We should focus on the Eucharist as the source of our healing and hope-- elevate this teaching document to that topic.
The challenge we're facing today is that the source of unity and our life is the Eucharist, which is now enmeshed in a conversation about politics.
+Etienne: That's a very difficult place for us to be.
The document seems likely to focus on Eucharistic consistency.
+Etienne:
I keep coming back to the person of Jesus. The grace of the Eucharist is through the cross. Jesus came into the world to save, not condemn.
+Etienne:
Jesus came into the world to reveal the perfect love of the Father, and then he choose us to be the face of the Risen Christ in the Church and the world today.
The document is so enmeshed that it makes it difficult to keep the Eucharist as its intended by the Lord.
+Coakley of OKC:
"Fear is useless, what is needed is trust"- Luke 8:50
What is needed is trust in what the Lord is calling us to do. I think our Church needs a teaching document, we will have ample time to parse and amend this doc, and then vote.
+Coakley:
but we need to propose something. Our people need to hear from us.
We need to be shepherds, and propose the greatest gift that has been given in a clear, and direct, and non-apologetic way. What a great gift the Lord has left us with.
+Wall: Thanks +Rhodes for your clarity. I see this as pastoral not political. A teaching document to teach from the heart and mind of Our Lord.
We were all sad about the Pew study.
+Wall:
I make a plea on behalf of a poor diocese. And I remind you not to forget the poor. We don't have the resources to send people for studies. So we rely on the good work of the conference. So I would really see this as something very helpful to me, our priests, our people.
+Konderla of Tulsa: I want to speak in favor of moving forward with this document. I am hearing from lots of ppl, as you all are, "who have a very simplistic understanding of how c. 915 actually works," I want to help deepen people's understanding of the gift of the Eucharist.
+McKnight: There is a division in the conference, in terms of how we're perceiving the +Ladaria letter.
We have more issue as a canonical when we go outside our lane. There isn't a strong foundation for the conference to be involved in deciding issues of sacramental discipline.
+McKnight: Why wasn't it part of a plan for regional meetings? Why isn't there a plan for more consultation?
+Coerver of Lubbock:
There has been a sense of urgency at the conference since November about a need to respond to the new presidential administration.
A working group was formed, and then on inauguration day, a USCCB presidential msg was released that did not flow from our conversation. I was quite distressed about that.
I want to call for provincial meetings (a province is smaller than a region) so that we listen to each other
+Coerver: I am disturbed that we are rushing because of political calculations, and I am very concerned about that.
JD note: If, like me, you were wondering where Lubbock is, this is the answer:
+Estevez of St. Augustine:
There is unanimity among us on the culture of life and protection of the unborn. We have much unity. I am confident that we can move forward and we can include suggestions like involving regional meetings and consultations, but I recommend we move fwd
+Gomez - 9 bps are waiting, just fyi.
+Daly of Spokane:
I am for it. Landscape has changed since 2006. There is aggressiveness among pro-abortion pols. I think call for dialogue with elected officials might be a delaying tactic.
Many elected officials know what the Church teaches. We should root ourselves in truth.
+Daly: I think we should clarify, speak the truth in humility and charity. We are the shepherds of these elected officials and others.
We don't want to issue a document called "We agree to disagree."
+Daly:
Our credibility has suffered bc McCarrick report, and what it omitted, like information about McCarrick's money and who benefitted from him.
I think +McElroy was very clear. Are we giving consideration to whether we're going to be heard accurately. I would prefer a doc on grave situation that many ppl don't believe in the Real Presence.
+Silva of Honolulu:
The Eucharist is a person. A person who was not afraid to eat with sinners. Not afraid to be criticized for doing so.
*Reads part of Corpus Christi sequence*
+Silva:
"We need to teach what is right, but in the end we need to let the Lord sort it out, I don't think we need to police this, we need to let people know what is right... but I fear we are trying to redeem the Redeemer."
+Silva:
We should have more dialogue in regional meetings before we decide if we want to go ahead with writing a document.
+Hying:
We should proceed with the document. I hear from Catholics who are confused about a pro-abortion Catholic president who receives the Eucharist. We should pray for our Catholic president, we love our president, I pray we can say something beautiful and true.
JD note:
Bishop Hying, Your Excellency. Dude. Clean your inbox.
+Tobin of Newark:
The Holy See points us to unity with the Holy See and national episcopal conferences throughout the world. Our obligation to place unity at the center of things allows us to proclaim the Gospel to the nation.
+Tobin:
The inclusion of Eucharistic consistency in this document undermines our unity. Any effort to limit the Eucharist based upon policy positions will thrust the bishops into our country's toxic political culture and drive a wedge between the Church and American society.
+Tobin:
The inclusion of Eucharistic consistency will also drive away many Catholics. The issues are searing and complex. The whole of our episcopate must be engaged -- that is why +Ladaria wants us in genuine dialogue.
+Tobin:
The proposal before us presents us with a stark and historic choice. Voting in favor of it will produce a document but not unity. Voting against it will send us on a path toward ongoing dialogue and toward unity.
I will vote no.
+Nevares, aux of Phoenix:
Bishop Olmsted has written a pastoral letter on the Eucharist called Veneremus Cernui. I urge you all to read it.
+Hebda: The doctrine committee has prompted the most robust dialogue I've been a part of as a bishop. I think if we have concrete proposals before us, we will be able to move fwd as +Ladaria has called us to do.
+Hebda:
We need to address this matter, even if it means a bit of 'lio' as the Holy Father would say.
+Kalabat, Chaldean eparch:
Everyone has spoken about the Eucharist except us a body. I think it's time. We need to move forward.
+Folda:
I am in support. This is an important document. And the whole picture needs to be presented to our faithful. I take inspiration from the Aparecida of the bishops of Latin America. We should be full in our teaching without zeroing in on one person.
There remains within some aspects of institutional Catholic culture a desire to be affirmed by the legacy legitimatizing institutions of American public life. The fantasy that if we obscure our weird little popish superstitions, the NY Times will think we're cool.
This is the residual gift of our immigrant past, and maybe the historical circumstances once made the aspiration of social normalcy understandable. But anyone can see the damage it has wrought to the Church, and it is time to stop caring that people will figure out who we are.
We do not let our yes be yes and our no be no, because too often we are trying to find some magical gnostic key to explaining the faith in a way that will cause no scandal. We are left causing scandal while failing to explain the faith.
In just a few minutes, day 3 of #USCCB21 will begin.
Stay tuned for live-tweets of the third day.
On the agenda today:
Results from voting on various issues, including the drafting of a document on the Eucharist, liturgical translations, the new pastoral framework on marriage, and the development of new pastoral documents on Native Americans and on youths.
Ok friends, we'll be returning to Day 2 #USCCB21 in just a moment.
First, discussion of a national framework for youth and young adults, presented by +Burns of Dallas.
And we are back.
+Gomez says there are some "questions" regarding the approval of amendments on "Called to the Joy of Love, and we'll discuss it again.
But for now +Burns discusses the development of a pastoral framework based upon Christus vivit, the post-synodal apostolic exhortation that came after the "youth synod."
In 15 minutes, Day 2 of #USCCB21 will begin. Today is a pretty full schedule of debate, and I'll be livetweeting it all right here. (Well, in a couple different threads, just to make it easier.)
Before we get started, just a reminder: I aim to give you a straight summary of what's going on, and I do that in real time. I'm not always 💯, and I am often paraphrasing. A quote is not a quote without "..."
If I make an editorial aside, I try to label it as such
*cont
And I urge you to take this as a real-time, on the fly, best-as-I-can summary of what's going. If I get something wrong, feel free to note it, but please know I'm not trying to spin, gloss, or editorialize here, I'm trying to capture it.
Hey everybody, the opening session of #USCCB21 is set to resume in just a minute.
Right now, kinda heavy jazz is playing in the youtube while we wait.
The meeting is about an hour behind schedule, which, for a meeting scheduled for 90 minutes, is kinda remarkable.
What happened? A virtual floor fight over a motion to allow in the agenda indefinite discussion of the "Eucharistic coherence" document, on the agenda for thursday.
Supporters of motion said that seeking consensus means it is important that every bishop be heard. Critics said it was a stall tactic or a "filibuster" of the Eucharistic coherence document.
Motion failed 59%-41%. Bps have told me they didn't think it would be that close.