Novak on Pope’s Visit
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.
I was half way through this before I realized it was Robert, not Michael, Novak! I think Novak must have missed a few RCIA classes. Maybe a good starting point for him would be the pope’s homily at Nationals’s stadium where he complained about the division and partisanship in the US church. Pope Benedict knows well that publicly lobbying for an intrinsically evil act while receiving communion is a scandal. He also knows that picking one issue solely for the purpose of dragging the Church into partisan politics is not very Catholic.
As a contemporary Catholic and part-time liturgist, I agree whole heartily with M.Z. and M.M. At mass, I don’t think it’s my place to go all “Opus Dei” on people and start kicking them out of the communion line, whether or not they are Catholic, or conform to what I subjectively believe to be the Church’s teaching.
It’s sad that people will read his article and not be able to know that his words are lies.
My concern is more with respecting the person who determines who can go into the communion line rather than concerns over fairness. I don’t have an issue specifically with Opus Dei. Robert Novak simply doesn’t have a reputation of having developed sources in Rome, and I was offering speculation on who those sources were. I think anyone who would claim that denying Senators Kerry or Pelosi communion was without warrant would just be reflecting their own partisan preferences. In the same breath, I think anyone who claims that a bishop who continues to offer communion to certain politicians is just a closeted abortion supporter is engaging in partisanship. Quite frankly one of the more disconcerting aspects of this whole issue is that regardless of partisan allegiance there are numerous people whose respect for the authority of bishops extends only as far as said bishops agree with their opinions. Both sides reek of anti-clericalism.
I’m in Rome and I can assure you that I communicate with Mr. Novak on a regular basis.
Hoo-hoo-ha-ha… :P
I don’t think it’s my place to go all “Opus Dei” on people and start kicking them out of the communion line, whether or not they are Catholic, or conform to what I subjectively believe to be the Church’s teaching.
It has been done before. Michael and I witnessed this not too long ago with a poor woman (she yelled a prayer during the prayers of the faithful). It was very sad and unfortunate that in the presence of our Lord–in the wonderful miracle of the Mass when heaven and earth touch once more for a little while, we are so divisive… we are supposed to “be one” as they are “one”… You’re absolutely right. There is a time and a place.
I’m in Rome and I can assure you that I communicate with Mr. Novak on a regular basis.
Hehehehehe
Novak’s article is certainly wrong on some accounts and definitely not theologically nuanced.
But he’s a political reporter, not a theologian, and I’m sure he’d be OK with being corrected. And yes, Nate, let’s hope no one is led astray – although I think you are wrong to call Novak’s article “lies” – a lie is an intentional deception. I think it’s more likely he is just misinformed, rather than trying to work some evil scheme.
I would ask the contributors – is it beyond the pale to consider the responsibility of the local ordinaries in this matter? Or perhaps more precisely, should we care about highly public officials receiving Communion when they are publicly at odds with the Church on a fundamental teaching? Apart from the manifest sin, is there also not a pedagogical problem? What is the appropriate reaction to this event? Indifference? Does not truth demand that we at least point out publicly that this is not OK behavior for Catholics?
(for my part I don’t think this should be made into a political issue; my intuition says this is a very important pastoral problem and should be handled privately or within the smaller community and no attempt should be made to score political points – e.g. the path Cardinal Egan has taken)
I may disagree with some of the reasons Novak has given, but if I was the Eucharistic minister at those masses, I would have denied them communion. The minister has that responsibility not necessarily the bishop. I for one think that there is no choice but to deny anyone who has manifested a grave sin communion (of course they have to know this, talk to them before hand, etc.). I think a lot of people are too much Roman-centric in their ecclesiology and this is a bad thing, and not a lot of Catholics respect the bishops’ authority, yet on this issue the right choice is simply denying someone like Guliani communion. I definitely would especially with his “marriages.” Kerry and Pelosi I would deny too. And if anyone has any problem with this, I’m pretty sure Arinze got my back.
In the case of Giuliani, the priest was obligated not to give communion because Giuliani was under interdict. I would speculate that the priest was unaware of this.
If you were to make that choice Apolonio that may be the last mass you were a Eucharistic Minister. Archbishop Burke and others have taken to notifying people first that they may not receive communion due to their support of abortion. This is how the USCCB document recommends it be addressed. The offering of communion and the sacrifice of the mass is a participation in the ordinary’s ministering of his people. Ministers are wise to seek his counsel before doing things that may cause embarrassment to him. I think you’re mistaken about Cardinal Arinze or anyone else in Rome having your back.
Zach,
I think it is natural to have concern over who is in one’s flock. If I remember correctly, Jeffrey Dahmer was baptised into the Church when he was in prison and buried in the Church when he died. Needless to say there were people shocked by this despite the fact that we should rejoice with every convert. Personally, I’ll leave Archbishop Wuerl to manage the archdiocese of Washington. In many ways he isn’t the ordinary of these politicians; those would be the bishops in the home states. If my diocese wasn’t vacant, I wouldn’t have an issue petitioning my bishop and asking that action be taken. He would certainly be free to disagree with me, and I would go on living my life. There are plenty of public and private sinners in the Church, and I haven’t been placed as pastor over them. I have responsibility enough being the pastor of my home.
I can understand Apolonio’s point and can appreciate it, but I still think this is not within the competence of an extraordinary minister. This is what I especially struggle with: if extraordinary ministers start doing this, shouldn’t they apply the same judgment when giving communion to everybody else? In other words, is it because the nature of the politician’s sin is public that makes them subject to a different kind of treatment of whether or not they should receive communion? What about the teenage girl or adult woman who just got an abortion, but nobody really knows about it yet receives communion? Or the doctor who is actually performing the abortion yet he/she is not in the public eye like the politicians? Or the husband or wife who is committing adultery and is still in line to receive communion? I mean, where do you draw the line?
What about the teenage girl or adult woman who just got an abortion, but nobody really knows about it yet receives communion? Or the doctor who is actually performing the abortion yet he/she is not in the public eye like the politicians? Or the husband or wife who is committing adultery and is still in line to receive communion? I mean, where do you draw the line?
In the situations you list, I see no reason why the minister of communion cannot go to the pastor and ask. If we were to write Can. 915 in an American style, we would write:
“Those who have been excommunicated (ferendae sententiae or publicly acknowledged latae sententiae), interdicted, acting in such a way as the pastor has indicated communion should not be offered, or acting in such a way where the pastor could reasonably be assumed to desire the denial of communion are not to be permitted to receive communion.”
At the papal Mass at which every detail was jointly planned by the Archdicoese and the Holy See (both the Nuncio and officials from the Vatican given this duty by the Holy Father), Novak presumes that everything done not to his liking was by the Archdiocese and without the consent or involvement of the Holy See. He asserts that absolutely without evidence.
The public officials Novak dislikes were issued special invitiations by the Holy See for a “VIP” section to which the Nuncio himself would distribute communion. The Nuncio certainly was not going to have public officials issued a special invitation to the Mass and then play ‘gotcha’ in the communion line. He particularly was unlikely to do so as his “boss” Benedict XVI has given communion directly to pro-choice politicans as did Pope John Paul II.
The right wing was in full court press in advance of the Mass demanding that these public officals not be given communion (including a full page newspaper ad). The Holy See made the correct call — while the church stands up for human life and is against as a first principle the act of abortion and as a development of that principle, laws and policies that protect the unborn, no one is banned from the sacraments because of an outside observation as to their views on a point of law.
M.Z., but how practical is it? How will the extraordinary ministers know who these people are? And that’s only if the matter is public, but my examples were for “private” sins.
Catholics for Obama? Interesting. I didn’t know about your blog, Katherine. I will read it more often.
Apparently Cardinal Egan has issued a statement saying that he had had (prior to this and to his understanding still in effect) an “understanding” with Giuliani that Giuliani would not try to receive communion until he regularized his situation with the Church. However, Rudy picked this point to break the agreement.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6107824
Katerina,
Good questions. Yes, it’s because of the publicity of the politicians that an extraordinary minister can deny him or her communion (again, i wouldve talked to them beforehand, etc.). As for private sins, that’s actually one of the reasons why I did not want to be an extraordinary minister in the first place. There is a lot of responsibility that a lot of people do not understand. But the best thing is to handle each circumstance differently. If a woman who committed abortion came up to me for communion and I didn’t know about it, it would not be my fault to give her communion. Or suppose I am a minister here at Rutgers. Now, I know I am not stupid enough to think that every young Catholic in Mass is a virgin and faithful Catholic. Yet, I cannot be an inquisitor during communion line. It’s simply not my job.
I hate sounding very leglastic and moralistic but I think the issue here is attentiveness to the presence of Christ. The more I have affection for the Eucharist the more I would be aware of the importance of such things.
M.Z.
If I were EM, and that was my last time ministering, then so be it. I’m gonna sound like Peter here, but I would rather die than committing a sacrilege to the Eucharist.
The problem when it comes to these matters is that people do not understand that bishops are people. My bishop and I and other priests actually talk about these things and we struggle and debate these things. Many people see the Church as a legalistic institution and condemn bishops as if they were Torquemada. But the reality is that the Church is human and all of us struggle with these issues.
As for Arinze, I’m hoping he’ll remember me and he’ll get my back. That doesn’t mean he would, say, tell the bishop to reinstate me as EM, but he would at least confirm that what I have done was the right thing. That for me and my conscience is the important thing.
As for private sins, that’s actually one of the reasons why I did not want to be an extraordinary minister in the first place. There is a lot of responsibility that a lot of people do not understand.
Same here. I did the training and everything, because my parish needed ministers and our deacon asked me so many times to do it… but in the end I couldn’t do it and got out of it.
The way extraordinary ministers of communion are supposed to be chosen doesn not indicate in itself wide discernment for the minister. That many places have created an office for this function has created problems.
For the record, I believe Christ should be offered under one species thereby getting rid of the need for extraordinary ministers. I also believe that Bishop Bruskewicz is wise to limit extraordinary ministers to acolytes.
Apolonio should deny communion to the Vatican Secretary of State, who as Archbishop of Genoa allowed 400 abortions a year to be performed at the Catholic hospital under his change.