![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Archd. of Washington D.C. responds, sort of, about Senators receiving Communion at papal Mass
In my most recent PODCAzT, about the reception of Holy Communion at papal Masses by pro-abortion politicians, I expressed pleasure at the statement issued by His Eminence Edward Card. Egan, Archbishop of New York that former Mayor Rudulph Giuliani had erred.
I raised the question of whether the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. would express anything officially about the reception of Communion by certain high profile pro-abortion Senators.
This story is from CNA, with my emphases. It raises even more questions, actually:
New York, Washington speak on Communion for pro-abort politicians
Washington DC, Apr 29, 2008 / 11:41 am (CNA).- Robert Novak’s latest column on pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion during the Pope’s visit to the U.S., has caused both Cardinal Egan and the Archdiocese of Washington to speak about the situation.
In his Washington Post column on Monday, the recent convert from Judaism to Catholicism argued that allowing politicians who support abortion to receive the Eucharist during the Pope’s visit “reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington.”
According to Novak and other news sources, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three senators — John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, and Christopher Dodd—received Communion at an outdoor Mass at Nationals Park in Washington. Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, received Communion at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, according to Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York.
Zwilling added that the statement from Cardinal Egan was prompted by Robert Novak’s column [pretty clear, that] and by comments circulating about the elected officials who had received Communion. “The cardinal felt it was important to clarify what had been the understanding, and to address it publicly,” he said.
The Archdiocese of Washington also weighed in on the controversy, telling the New York Times that Archbishop Donald Wuerl had “consistently and persistently presented the Church’s clear teaching on the evil of abortion and the need for those in public office to recognize that the support of abortion is wrong.”
“How to respond to those in public office who support abortion legislation is open to various legitimate pastoral approaches, as the United States bishops affirmed in their June 2004 statement on Catholics in political life,” the statement said. “The decision concerning the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual can best be made by the bishop in the person’s home diocese [!] with whom he or she presumably is in conversation.”
When contacted for additional comment by CNA, Susan Gibbs, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of Washington, said that she would not provide a statement. The reasons she gave for not providing a statement were that she doesn’t consider CNA worthy of a statement [!] and that she is "not interested" in providing one.
Did you get that last part?
Susan Gibbs, Director of Communications for the Archdiocese of Washington, does not consider Catholic News Agency "worthy" of a statement.
Also, the Archdiocese has effective said that it would leave the matter to the bishops of home dioceses of Senators Kerry, Pelosi and Dodd.
This raises the canonical question of the role of the bishop when someone such as a Senator has some level of domicile in Washington or Arlington, etc., that is, in a another place where they obviously live a great deal of the year. A canonist can help here.
Furthermore, it is reasonable that bishops exercise some pastoral role also toward anyone in a diocese, whether they have domicile or not, especially when he is a high profile person. For example, will not a bishop sometimes refuse to allow a prominent person who holds errant views to speak at a Catholic institution?
If that is the case, and it usually is, why would it also not be the case in the far more important act of public reception of Holy Communion?
This, to me, demonstrates the major problem in the American church. As Americans, the national political standard of democracy and the people ‘making decisions for themselves’ has infested the Church. I think many bishops are actually offended that the ‘bishop of rome’ would presume to tell them what to do!
Comment by Bryan Muench — 1 May 2008 @ 7:12 amI shudder when I think of the “passing the buck” or “stonewalling” in this article.
Comment by Kevin J. Symonds — 1 May 2008 @ 7:13 amAccording to Archbishop Burke, the person distributing Communion has a moral obligation to withhold Communion from anyone who persists in manifest grave sin (like supporting abortion). So, at least according to his well-written article on canon law and Communion, any bishop (or any priest, deacon, or layperson) not only CAN withhold Communion, they have an obligation to do so.
I wish they would have seated all the pro-abortion politicians in one particular section and then “accidently” sent Archbishop Burke to distribute to that section. It would be perfect. All of them get denied, and their “home” bishops don’t have to claim responsibility.
Comment by Patrick — 1 May 2008 @ 7:14 amThis is what the typical response is, it seems.
“We don’t want to rock the boat and embarass anyone…”
A great teaching moment lost.
But no doubt, many invites to the ‘right’ dinner parties and hobnobbing with the self-appointed powers that be
We have to pray harder that our Bishops be given a spine, even more than pray for our politicians to have a change of heart.
Sad. But, for all those who expected different…until the biological solution is fully exercised, don’t expect ANY changes. One can hope, but, be realistic. Hypocrisy by those in power has no limits whether clerical or political.
Comment by bryan — 1 May 2008 @ 7:33 amThe Archdiocese of Washington seems to be paraphrasing that hit song of The Platters: “When you’ve been exposed, you must realize, smoke and mirrors get in your eyes!”
How is the USCCB’S “various legitimate pastoral approaches” on this issue consistent with what the Holy Father said in support of the Mexican bishops’ statement that politicians who support abortion should not receive Holy Communion?
Is this really a juridical issue? Doesn’t Catholic doctrine transcend diocesan boundaries? Does the worthiness to receive Holy Communion vary by diocese like the minimum age to get a driver’s license or marry without parental consent does by state? Why is it ok for Teddy Kennedy to support abortion and receive Holy Communion in Washington, but not a Mexican politician that does this same? Does this mean that if Teddy goes to New York and attempts to receive Communion, he may do so because he hasn’t been “in conversation” with Cardinal Egan and made an agreement with him? Please. I thought this was the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Comment by TNCath — 1 May 2008 @ 7:39 amSince when is doctrine a matter to be “understood?” There is no discussion here, it’s black and white. Pro-abort senators should be told, in no uncertain terms, by their Bishops that it is even graver to receive Communion, and that if they persist, then actions will follow.
There should be no “Oh…. I.. had a dialogue with Rudy Giuliani, and he broke our trust…”. Nonononono.
Slaps on wrists Bad bishops.
Comment by Andy — 1 May 2008 @ 8:15 amFor anyone who has not yet read Archbishop Burke’s article in the latest edition of the Canon Law journal, Periodica De Re Canonica:
The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin by Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.D.
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7796
Comment by BK — 1 May 2008 @ 8:25 amIn many ways Washington, D.C. is the “home” diocese of these politicians. Although they legally keep a base in their state, they spend much of their time in Washington. They keep homes in Washington. I don’t know why the archbishop is narrowly focusing on jursidiction. It’s not like these politicians only drop in to his diocese once in a while.
Comment by Lourdes — 1 May 2008 @ 8:26 amSince when is doctrine a matter to be “understood?”
Comment by Andy
Always.
Comment by RBrown — 1 May 2008 @ 8:39 amLast week I was present at a Mass at which the Archbishop also was present. After Communion the celebrant made a few remarks and then invited a representative from the City Council to step forward (for the presentation of a polite citation from the council. It was a celebratory occasion). The council member was met at the communion rail by the Archbishop, where they exchanged a conventional cocktail-party air kiss. Hmm, thought I.
Now I know why it struck me as not quite right. Archbishops and local politicians are constantly running into one another at receptions, fund-raisers, and other civic events. It’s understandable that they cultivate cordial relationships. But when cordiality becomes excessive, as we now see, it inhibits certain prelates from the faithful performance of their less agreeable duties.
All this glad-handing familiarity is very much in the American tradition—and that is a problem. I wish bishops would understand that a bit of old world aloofness is not only proper to their dignity but would make easier the times when they must play the stern paternal role. I wish they would understand that this is not a call to pompous pride, but to holiness that holds at arm’s length the blandishments of this world.
Comment by Romulus — 1 May 2008 @ 8:42 am“How to respond to those in public office who support abortion legislation is open to various legitimate pastoral approaches, as the United States bishops affirmed in their June 2004 statement on Catholics in political life,” the statement said. “The decision concerning the refusal of Holy Communion to an individual can best be made by the bishop in the person’s home diocese [!] with whom he or she presumably is in conversation.”
Does Abp Wuerl have jurisdiction in DC or not? If he does (and of course, he does), then whatever happens in his diocese is subject to that jurisdiction.
Comment by RBrown — 1 May 2008 @ 8:44 amBTW, Abp Wuerl’s appointment to DC happened when Cardinal Sodano was still Sec of State.
Comment by RBrown — 1 May 2008 @ 8:48 amAs a congressional staffer, there are some practical problems regarding domicile/quasi-domicile. I would really love if a canonist could clarify them.
1. MANY of the politicians maintain residences across the river in the Diocese of Arlington.
2. MANY maintain residences in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.
3. The general practice of members is to spend three to four days a week in DC, and three to four days a week in their districts.
The way this works is first votes will either be at 6:30 PM on a Monday or Tuesday, and they generally arrive in the afternoon before votes.
They return home virtually every week to meet with constituents and attend functions.
4. Since they evenly divide their time between two places, over an extended period of time, which would be a domicile, which a quasi domicile?
5. One has to wonder how members consider Catholic teachings, when all the policy letters that come from the USCCB never try to make a distinction between the seriousness of their concerns.
Comment by Papabile — 1 May 2008 @ 8:51 amPapapile,
It shouldn’t matter where they live, maintain a residence, or spend their weekends. If they support abortion, they should not be receiving Communion. Why is this such a difficult concept for the U.S. Bishops to accept?
Comment by TNCath — 1 May 2008 @ 9:03 amAh, RBrown, I mistyped… or conveyed my message poorly. I meant “understood” in the way of Card. Egan’s “understanding” with Rudy Giuliani. It was to be mocking the Cardinal’s word choice, because that implies some kind of friendly agreement, which should not be the case.
Comment by Andy — 1 May 2008 @ 9:06 amThis has been a decades-old problem with the Archdiocese of Washington—somehow the archbishop never seems to have the authority to deal with a problem.
Trinity College? The archbishop has no authority over religious sisters. Georgetown University? The archbishop has no authority of the Jesuits. Mind you, he is the one who technically invites any religious into his diocese.
The same outlook seems to be the case for politicans, even though many indeed own homes in the Archdiocese of Washington and attend local parishes. Perhaps New York has provided a much-needed service and Archbishop Wuerl will step up to the plate to address these longstanding issues. The Church is not a democracy, but it is still important for him to hear from orthodox Catholics so he will never be able to say this outrage over pro-abortion and divorced communicants is news to him.
Comment by Ken — 1 May 2008 @ 9:10 amPapabile,
I really don’t see how domicile/quasi-domicile is relevant here. If a pro-abort politico is used to receiving Communion in his home diocese, that doesn’t give him the right to receive in another diocese.
It is the responsibility of the bishop to make it well known that such a practice will not exist in his diocese.
Comment by RBrown — 1 May 2008 @ 9:10 amEd Peters, canon lawyer and blogger, has a nice explanation of Archbishop Burke’s important article on denying the Blessed Sacrament as the responsibility of individual ministers, ordinary and extraordinary.
Comment by Fr. Andrew — 1 May 2008 @ 9:21 amWhere a politician lives is irrelevant. The decision (and obligation) rests with the individual who is distributing Communion, and of course it is the Bishop’s (where this Communion occurs) responsibility to make those who persist in grave public sin known to those who would distribute to them.
Comment by Patrick — 1 May 2008 @ 9:22 amIf a pro-murder of abortion politician were to come to St. Louis or
Colorado Springs or a few other places, they would NOT dare to present
themselves to the bishop for Communion. They would know better. It does
not matter what the ‘home diocese’ is for when in the jurisdiction of the
local Ordinary, then his rules must be followed (assuming he has rules).
This trying to pass the buck or claim a false prudent ‘pastoral’ excuse
is nonsense and the cover up for the desire for human respect and a
failure to preach the truth, in season and out.
The Archbishop is free to blow kisses to whatever pol he wants, but he
Comment by magdalen — 1 May 2008 @ 9:30 amis NOT free to grant Holy Communion to those pro-abortionists who
automatically distance themselves from the Church. They cooperate in
scandal when they do this.
I agree fundamentally with Ken. He’s right about the excuse that the Archbishop (past and present) have offered as to why nothing can be done.
The issue of domicile/quasi-domicile is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the canonical options open to the Bishop. That’s what Father mentioned in his post.
Yes, they shouldn’t be receiving communion, and I actually have confronted some of these politicians personally, as I know more than one.
However, the issue of domicile/quasi-domicile IS relevant to the options available to the Bishop.
I don’t accept any of their excuses for not denying communion however.
Comment by Papabile — 1 May 2008 @ 9:33 amFrom a strictly legal standpoint, it would appear the Archbishop has the authority to exact penal penalities upon members of Congress. It would seem to qualify as a quasi-domicile. Denial of communion is strictly speaking not a penal action, or at least those denying communion like Archbishop Burke don’t see it as such. This does set up the odd situation where a person doesn’t have the right to appeal what amounts to a punitive action. That is all above my pay grade however.
If you want more complications, Washington is not a primatial see. Much like how Archbishop should be consulted on any decision affected the whole province, any decision affecting the whole US should involve the primate.