New York, Washington speak on Communion for pro-abort politicians

News Resources Tools Columns Documents ACI Group

Contenidos del sub-menu

Comments: 9

Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani (top to bottom, left to right)

Washington D.C., 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 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.

Comments: 9

Subscriber comments:

Published by: Steve
Boston, MA 05/02/2008 02:44 PM EST

To give such an arrogant and dismissive reply indicates an unworthiness for the job of communications director and a disdain for the ordinary Catholics who would like a response in the first place. We have a serious problem with some of our "Princes of the Church" in that they believe they reign as real princes and not accountable for their actions (or inaction).

Published by: Troy Martz
Hanover, PA 05/02/2008 01:59 PM EST

It is unfair to underreport Ms. Gibbs' statement -- after hearing from her office she said that she would give a response to CNA since CNA had a past of misreporting and distorting statements in the past. Whether or not this is true, it is much more plausible than what was reported here.

Either report the entire comment or don't report anything!

Published by: John Fedor
Yoncalla Or. U.S.A. 05/01/2008 01:26 AM EST

I do not understand why the priests,bishops,arch-
bishops and cardinals feel so free to disregard the Holy Fathers dictum on the subject. If they choose to ignore him I believe they loose any authority they have to lead.

Published by: Diane Ward
San Mateo, CA 04/30/2008 02:34 PM EST

HOW ARROGANT SUSAN GIBBS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE OF THE DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON D.C. IS!!!!

THAT REALLY TELLS THE STORY...

FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH...
I WILL CALL THE OFFICE AND MAKE MY OPINIONS KNOW.

Published by: fr. phil floersh, c.m.
tucson/az/usa 04/30/2008 01:16 PM EST

Thank God for Novak. He voices the opinion of the rest of Catholics.

phil

Published by: D Garrett
Plaistow NH usa 04/30/2008 12:31 PM EST

Question: Should a spokesperson for the diocese of Wash. DC be so arrogant, Susan Gibbs? Is there someone who can do better than this? We hope! D G

Published by: Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz
Peterson, MN, USA 04/30/2008 11:25 AM EST

So CNA Ms. Gibbs doesn't believe CNA is "worthy" of a statement. That's such an obvious cop-out, which only leads one to wonder what she's hiding.

On second thought, we already know that. Abp Wuerl has made his displeasure of denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians known on several occasions. Ms. Gibbs simply doesn't want to open her boss up to more criticism. That, of course, is her job. How she went about doing that is, shall we say, less than professional.

Published by: Stephen A. Morton III
Gaithersburg, MD, USA 04/29/2008 07:30 PM EST

It is a simple matter for me to point my finger at those in public life who provide scandal to the Church. Yet, I must humbly recognize that I am a sinner, too. I am grateful that Jesus came, lived among us, and for my sins, yes, for all of our sins He died a horrible death. That, to me is scandal sufficient to trump anything these politicians have done. Yet, Jesus rose from the dead giving me, yes, all who believe hope for eternal life. I can not fix my sins, let alone the sins of politicians, but I believe Jesus Christ does. These words do NOT condon my sin or that of others, but it does point to the source of our salvation. Praise be to God for His love which we know through the Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, the source of our hope in this life and the life to come. Amen and Amen

Published by: Ron Pichlik
Battle Creek, MI USA 04/29/2008 05:03 PM EST

This problem along with non-members of the Church going up for Communion is an on-going and growing problem for the Church. In the early days of the Church the practice was for the deacons to remove the non-members from the church after the Liturgy of the Word, (a practice which I might add we still practice amongst those studying for entrance into the Church at the Great Easter Vigil). If we are going to have those who are about to enter the Church leave prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist than it would seem to me to be entirely appropriate to have those who are not memebers of the Church as well as those who have, (by their own actions and freewill), excommunicated themselves from the Body of Christ leave the Church at the conclusion of the Liturgy of the Word and prior to the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):


NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:

PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:

* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.

ADVERTISING
CNA does not necessarily endorse these advertisers. Please proceed with discretion. If you feel that a website announced has inappropriate or offensive content, please send it by e-mail to catholicna@catholicna.com