In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question? The answer is no. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington. [We’ll see how well he proves this assertion.]
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received Communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did former mayor Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, invited them [to the mass.] Given choice seats, they took Communion as a matter of course. [This is nonsense. Whatever occured, their placement in a set did not compel them to take communion.]
Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicians should be deprived of Communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. [What sources? Could these sources possibly be related to Opus Dei that led you into the Catholic Church? Needless to say those in Rome would question the understanding of his long term position given that he has personally – rather than leaving it to the seat location to determine communion – given communion to both pro-abortion politicians and communists.] The effect was to dull the pope’s messages of faith, obligation and compassion. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he talked of “authority” and “obedience” — acknowledging that “these are not easy words to speak nowadays.” [Perhaps you and your source should have considered this portion of his remarks longer. Interdiction (and given that notice is given in the case of manifest support for abortion, one would be hard pressed to call it an on the spot decision) is most immediately the concern of the pastor and then the bishop, expecting the Pope to exercise immediate jurisdiction on the matter as part of a one time event is a bit much is it not?] They surely are not for four former presidential candidates and two princes of the church, representing Catholics who defy their faith’s doctrine on abortion.
Benedict’s position was unequivocal when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [Principles generally are unequivocal. There are several areas of judgement when applying the principles Cardinal Ratzinger put forth, most notably whether the action was of such length and depth as to constitute formal cooperation.] Asked in 2004 whether Kerry, as the Democratic presidential nominee, should be allowed to take Communion, he replied, “The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” [This is inaccurate. He was asked about a hypothetical politician. While applying an answer of a hypothetical situation to a particular one is generally safe to do, in each case regarding John Kerry, the Vatican denied speaking to his situation. One can dismiss this as the Vatican not wanting to get involved in U.S. politics, but I don’t think it is honest to continue to assert something may or is true that has been specifically denied.]
Ratzinger’s demeanor necessarily has changed with his elevation from doctrinal enforcer to global pastor, but he has not altered his position. [In other words we are continuing from the flawed premise.] When the pope arrived in Brazil a year ago, he declared: “The killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going into Communion in the body of Christ.” [And this statement is perfectly accurate, but irrelevant to your point.]
Benedict did not reiterate that position in Washington and New York, because a pope traveling abroad is influenced by the stance of local church authorities. American bishops are divided. [I’m not completely comfortable with the blanket assertion, but the premise is reasonable.] Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis leads those who believe pro-choice politicians cannot receive Communion. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl’s predecessor as archbishop of Washington, took the opposite position. Blessed with charm and political finesse, McCarrick was not about to clash with his archdiocese’s most famous parishioners.
Wuerl is considered less political than McCarrick, but he is hardly less averse to colliding with powerful laymen. He could have simply not invited the pro-choice politicians to a Mass where there was no room for the vast majority of Catholics who wanted to attend. [He could have done a lot of things. Not inviting dignitaries would have had its own consequences.] The five pro-choice Catholics took Communion from the hand of Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the pope’s representative to the United States as apostolic delegate.
In New York, Giuliani receiving Communion was even more remarkable. Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who attend Mass regularly, the former mayor says he goes to church only “occasionally,” usually for holidays or funerals. [After Mr. Novak’s column was printed, Cardinal Egan of New York issued a press release noting his prior interdiction of Giuliani, his disappointment, and his desire to meet with Giuliani.] …
At Yankee Stadium, Benedict spoke of the “inalienable dignity and rights” of “the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother’s womb.” [Amen.] In parishes across the country, the faithful hear their priests echo the Holy Father’s words. Those professions ring hollow when pro-choice politicians are honored as they were during the pope’s visit. [The idea that the Church honored these politicians conflates what really happened. I think it is manifest that he met with these people because they were members of Congress. Are we to claim that Pope Benedict’s visitation of the Synagogue was an exercise in indifferentism? In the same breath, are we not the same people who placed the politicans into the Halls of Congress?]
Robert Novak, Creators Syndicate.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In