Giuliani & Communion

I was a little disturbed about this headline: Bishop Would Deny Communion to Giuliani. Not because it isn't the right canonical policy, but because unlike some folks we could name, he isn't going around presenting himself for communion. He may not be a Catholic in good standing, but he's humble enough to let the Church be the judge of that, rather than trying to insist he's the Best Catholic There's Ever Been, and it's canon law that's out of line. Seemed like unnecessarily singling the guy out.


Of course, as usual, it turns out to be the reporter stirring up trouble. Archb. Burke explains canon law about who can't receive, and the reporter asks, "You mean, Rudy Giuliani"? Here, in the course of a much wider-ranging interview, is Cardinal George on the topic. You can see from his comments the bishops themselves are split on the matter of how to apply the canons. H.E. admits Archb. Burke's position (that eucharistic ministers are obligated to deny pro-abort lawmakers communion) is persuasive...and yet he doesn't seem persuaded, does he?

What about a legislator who has voted in favor of a pro-abortion ordinance?
I don’t think you should have a policy on that. I think you should talk first, determine what the state of the person’s conscience is, what is in fact going on there. We’ve done some of that. Of course, when all that is said and done, you have some people whose voting records are scandalous. Of course, in most cases they themselves continue to say, ‘I personally accept the church’s teaching,’ which is the usual criterion for communion. That’s the moral theology part of it. The other part is, whether you accept it or not, what you’ve done is so scandalous that you’re not worthy to receive the sacrament. That too is a prudential judgment, on the part of the minister. I don’t see how you could have a policy about that.

And later:

Would you agree that both the debates over liturgy and over Catholics in public life are rooted in a push for greater clarity about what makes Catholicism distinct — in other words, Catholic identity?
Yes, and that’s why this argument on the part of Archbishop Burke is persuasive, because there is scandal. It is scandalous that after so many years of the church’s constant teaching that you have so many Catholic politicians for whom this is a non-issue. They made up their mind that public policy is one thing and religion is private, and never the twain shall meet. Well, that’s a scandal.

The question is, do you use a sacramental moment to address that, and risk politicizing the sacrament? That’s my biggest concern. The very sacrament that speaks about our unity becomes the occasion for this kind of fracas and disunity. I think we should think long and hard before we allow the Eucharist to become that.

There are other ways, even a public declaration that Mr. So-and-So or Mrs. So-and-So is unworthy of receiving communion. After that, you don’t put the onus on the minister, it’s just out there. If they come to communion, they know. That would be far better than to take that moment of sacramental communion itself, and, you know, the flashbulbs go off. The minister may not even recognize someone coming up. It’s a tremendous onus on the minister.

Of course, as H.E. points out, none of this has anything to do with Giuliani: who, being married outside the Church, couldn't present himself for communion even if he were to repent this very night of his support for abortion. Seems to be an intentionally misleading headline.