During the Papal Mass at St. Patrick’s Rudy Giuliani received Communion.
Asked if he was uncomfortable with having broken the Church ban on the divorced and remarried taking Communion, Giuliani said, "No."
Now Tim Drake reports on a statement by Cardinal Egan.
“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”
During his presidential campaign he was not receiving Communion and now it looks like that was more of a tactic to prevent John Kerry type coverage than any real obedience. Bravo to Cardinal Egan for saying this publicly and for meeting with Mr. Giuliani at a later date.
I have seen a lot of news stores and editorials lately trying to infer that since a bunch of pro-abortion politicians received Communion at Papal masses that somehow this was connected with a softening of the Pope’s opinion on the subject as if he had anything to do with what happened. This is what he wrote previously to Cardinal McCarrick in Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
I am not sure why it seems that so few bishops seem to be concerned with the souls of pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion. You would think that there would be more concern for the person committing an act of sacrilege by receiving Communion unworthily. It is an act of charity to prevent a public sinner from receiving Communion and from eating and drinking judgment upon themselves as St. Paul said.
The issue of scandal is only secondary and the primary reason to withhold Communion is out of love for the person who is currently in a state unworthy to receive Communion. Exactly how are they going to repent when the issue is not given the weight it deserves. Somebody who constantly votes for the Culture of Death and is allowed to go on as if it is no big deal has little reason to take the Church’s disciplines in regard to Communion seriously. The idea that they should themselves not present themselves for Communion is of course what should happen, but for the most part his is not happening.
The supporters of the Culture of Death enjoy it when pro-Culture of Death politicians receive Communion since they can then infer that it is not that big of deal and that this issue is just one of many. Just look at all of the news stories and blog posts by dissidents who are in fact inferring this.
It seems from an observers point of view that this subject is just kind of icky for may bishops who don’t want to be seen as taking a political action. What those who would actually feel this way don’t understand is that their receiving Communion is also seen as a poetical statement. Though their largest concern should be the care of souls under their care. Though we should also be lifting up our bishops in prayer along with those Culture of Death polls.
19 comments
This is a great move by Cardinal Egan- God bless him!
I only wish that Archbishop Wuerl would do the same for the politicians here in Washington who received the Eucharist at Nationals stadium.
Marcia
All I can say is WOW. The former mayor publicly, beligerently, disobediently and sacrilegiously took communion. Has the man no fear of the Lord? Guess not. I am glad the Cardinal made his position clear to cut down on the scandal these pro-death politicians cause.
They cannot be trusted in any arena.
Good for the Cardinal. But he didn’t even have to go so far as addressing it in the context of pro-death politicians receiving communion. Being divorced and remarried nips the possibility of receiving communion in the bud anyway.
It really hurt me to see Guiliani’s mocking the sacrament on such a beautiful occasion.Then he had the nerve to shake the Holy Father’s hand!
Just another politician who thinks they are above the Church. Divorced, pro-abortion… it’s a joke that he calls himself Catholic. Bravo, Cardinal! That would be an interesting meeting. I’d like to see that on national TV.
We shouldn’t judge the state of Mr. Giuliani’s soul, of which we can have no knowledge. For all I know, Mr. Giuliani wants a closer relationship with the Lord and thinks this is how he should go about it.
Obviously it was inappropriate for him to commune at that time, given his state of life. It is too bad that whoever was administering it in that case did not recognize him or did not refuse to distribute it. But as to Mr. Giuliani’s reasons for wanting to receive the sacrament, how can anyone charitably judge? It is only speculation.
Thank you for keeping an eye on this super important issue. I can’t help but think the Holy Father gently has been laying down the law for our Bishops. For instance, his talk to them at the National Shrine really had elements that looked like a shot across of the bow.
Keep up the good work!
below is a story on this issue in the clmagazine.org Magazine “Now is the time for conversion.”
http://www.clmagazine.org/backissues/2008marchapril_44-45nowisthetime.pdf
Simple, public sin, public penance, private sin, private penance. Simple as that. When someone is showing to the public that they are in sin, it causes scandal to the Faithful who are living out the teachings of the Church. To eliviate this scandal, a public change of heart, penance needs to be performed for the sake of preventing scandal. This is why we are able to “judge” the state of the soul of Guliani, we’re not actually judging, it’s a public offense against an objective fact, which is never judging.
Joe, I think you might have misunderstood my comment. As I said very clearly, Mr. Giuliani’s action was inappropriate. As you point out, a public penance would be appropriate for him to undertake. But what I do not find appropriate are the attributions of particular intent to Mr. Giuliani (not because I like him, which I don’t, but because it is contrary to charity).
adeodatus, looks like i did misunderstand your comment, right, going after inerior intent is absolutely wrong.
“a poetical statement”, Jeff?
Bravo to Cardinal Egan.
I think Egan’s comments regarding pro-death politicians was aimed not only at Giulaini, but all who received the Eucharist at the Papal Mass.
It was the right thing to do.
Bravo to Cardinal Egan ! I have been reading some of the newspapers ( daily rags as it were) out of NY . What is disturbing is what people think the Eucharist in the Catholic Church is. It is obvious the “Real Presence” is not considered in this issue, but the reception of the bread and wine is merely a representation, a symbol as it were, not truly the Body and Blood of Christ. Because of that, it becomes a political not a spiritual issue. How refreshing it would be to hear one of those politians say “yep, I screwed up. I should not have done that”.
Right you are, Joe.
Exactly the point. Ignore what Mr. Guliani believes for a moment. What do we really believe? Do we really believe Mr. Guliani is eating and drinking judgment upon himself?
After he was widely noticed receiving Holy Communion (which if he did not intend, he certainly at least realized) Mr. Guliani was asked by a reporter whether he was uncomfortable doing so, given his pro-abortion stance and being divorced and remarried.
This was his chance to explain if he was trying to return to communion with the Church. This was his opportunity to say if he was re-thinking (re-penting) his earlier mistakes.
He used this opportunity, of being widely noticed and of having a reporter ask him about it — to say no, he was not uncomfortable receiving Holy Communion in such a state.
Fie on the election politics! In charity — out of love (wanting what is best) for the other — we must confront Mr. Guliani and we must pray to God for mercy towards Mr. Guliani and for Mr. Guliani’s conversion. His immortal soul is far more important than public opinion. His eternity is at stake! Or don’t we really believe that?
It is not charitable to let it pass and to say, “The king is a fink! Oh well, what’s on TV?”
God, bless Cardinal Egan and all out bishops!
It is not so much as ‘judging’ an interior intent or guessing that this is the way this publican wants to be close to the Lord—he was told outright by his cardinal NOT to present himself for Holy Communion. It is not only his pro-murder abortion stance but also his third and invalid ‘marriage’ that automatically puts him outside the Church.
We are told over and over not to ‘judge’ so much so that we fail to discern right and wrong actions. We can see and discern the obvious.
We are called to do so. We come to a place where we as a society even tolerate intrinsic evils.
I find it utterly incomprehensible that in most cases, the same bishops who jump gleefully into ignorant and very political stances on things like illegal immigration…and a war they basically know nothing about, but are “agin'” anyway…will avoid a public confrontation over Communion (and sacrilege) on a very clear matter of black-and-white doctrine–on the basis that they’re somehow taking a “political” stand by doing so. No, they’re not. They’re taking a moral stand, a Catholic stand, and a public stand, and it’s their JOB to do so. And to be “horrified”–as some of them were–at the few among them who DID take those stands, and who DID refuse to allow a pseudo-Catholic to eat and drink judgment upon him or herself, means we as the people of God need to confrot THEM, loudly, publicly, and endlessly, until they repent of this disgrace themselves. The blind can’t lead the blind effectively, but so many of them still try to act like that’s exactly what they’re doing.
And no, that’s not violating a principle of “judge not.” As several people so eloquently put it here, if something wrong is going on in plain sight, you’re allowed to say it’s wrong. We don’t hesitate to call 911 when we see someone being mugged, a bank or store being broken into, or a child in danger. We don’t stop to question the perpetrator’s “inner intent.” We act the way we’re supposed to act at that point, swiftly, unequivocally, and IMMEDIATELY. It’s too bad so many of our bishops were so badly formed that they can’t see the moral obligation to “go and do likewise” in this case when it’s right in front of their faces.
JB
Janet,
I wanted to prove you wrong about “most” of our bishops. Ten minutes of research, sadly, lends credence to what you said. However, there ARE exceptions and as to “jumping gleefully into ignorant and very political stances”, I’m sure that’s rare if it happens at all.
What many of our bishops do, in union with the Pope, (whether or not they advocate Communion for pro-choice politicians) is stand for the dignity of the immigrant and plead with us to find charitable solutions to the migrant worker/documentation problems. This is a nuanced issue, of which a fine explanation has been given by Bishop Thomas Tobin recently (He also, btw, petitioned his brother bishops on behalf of the faithful who have been scandalized by dissenting politicians receiving Communion. At the time, [a yr or 2 ago?] he wasn’t heard by many.):
http://www.valleybreeze.com/Premium/EDIT-5-01-Bishop-s-column-clone
Also of interest:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/06-11eucharist.pdf
As the Jester wrote — NOT saying anything and allowing notoriously pro-abortion politicians receive Holy Communion is a political statement every bit as much as coming out and saying what the Church has always said. The only difference is one looks alot like the bishops’ job and the other looks alot like cowardice.
As far as immigration, I would LOVE to see our bishops articulate their position on welcoming the stranger in this way: “Hey, the USA must figure a way to welcome these immigrants because we need immigrants since — well, um — WE’VE KILLED ALMOST 50 MILLION OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS!” They might lose some lefty “amens” and find more conservatives relooking their objections. And the fact that it’s true doesn’t hurt, either.
Comments are closed.