The Pope has said that politicians who support abortion should not receive Communion. And yet, at his big masses in New York City and Washington, D.C., pro-abortion politicians from Nancy Pelosi to Rudy Giulianni took Communion. (Rudy should not have been allowed to anyway, due to his being in his third marriage.) This wasn’t Pope Benedict’s fault, who was not involved in the distribution; rather, it is being described as deliberate disobedience from the Archbishops of New York and Washington, who invited the politicians to the event, seated them prominently, and had them served Communion. See Robert D. Novak – For Pro-Choice Politicians, a Pass With the Pope – washingtonpost.com.
UPDATE: Now New York’s Cardinal Egan is saying that he had an “understanding” with the pro-abortion Giulianni that he would not receive the eucharist in NY parishes, but that he violated that agreement by receiving communion from the Pope. The Cardinal said that he would talk with the former mayor. See this. It still seems like this friendly arrangement–come see the pope, we’ve got great seats for you at Yankee Stadium, we’ll still hang out, we’re good buddies, just don’t take communion–stops short of actual church discipline.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
If you support some type of sin intellectually, but don’t actually do it, is it still a sin?
Maybe they can claim that the pope giving communion to the pro-murder-by-abortion politicos was a “once-in-a-lifetime” situation.
Hey, it’s worked for the LCMS synodcrats at YS.
I too thought that was kind of a funny statement from Cardinal Egan, “We had an agreement.” Excommunication, refusing someone the Eucharist, is not by agreement, or shouldn’t be. The purpose is to bring the person to repentance. You are telling the person that they are no longer in the Church, no matter what the directory says. Not only is this peculiar, but it seems to degrade the importance of communion in the Christian life, to a point I would expect from a Baptist, not a Roman Catholic. When you refuse to let a person receive communion, because of their sin ( I add this clause because their are other pastoral reasons to prohibit communion for a time, that is not tantamount to refusing to forgive the person their sins) , you are letting them know they are not forgiven. That is a pretty weighty thing to do. Being not forgiven is = to not being a Christian.
It seems there is just one thing that calls for excommunication in the RCC.
Didn’t Monica’s ex-boyfriend take communion at a Roman church? After that, who in the world could they refuse?
#3 You mean all those names on the church roster of those who never enter the church sanctuary and have no desire to receive the sacrament are not longer in the church? But, but…their relatives have told me that these are “good people, they do this and that…”
[sarcasm mode off]
#3 You mean all those names on the church roster of those who never enter the church sanctuary and have no desire to receive the sacrament are no longer in the church? But, but…their relatives have told me that these are “good people, they do this and that…”
[sarcasm mode off]