Prominent Archbishop: I Would Deny Communion To Pro-Choice Rudy
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a nice scoop: St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who made headlines when he denounced John Kerry in 2004 for being pro-choice, has now said in an interview that he would deny communion to the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, too:
Asked if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament at the Cathedral Basilica, Burke said: "If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law and I know that person knows it, yes I would."In an interview earlier this year, Burke said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."
Asked about this today on the campaign trail, Rudy offered an intriguing response: "Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know. There's freedom of religion in this country. There's no established religion, and archbishops have a right to their opinion. Everybody has a right to their opinion."
There's been a steady drip-drip-drip of stories like these, but they simply don't seem to be undermining Rudy's support among conservative or religious voters. A couple days ago, for instance, a poll found that Rudy continues to dominate among such voters, with particular strength among Catholics. Go figure.
Comments (31)
Daniel wrote on October 3, 2007 4:36 PM:A lot of evidence in recent days that Giuliani's atypical positions are finally starting to hurt him. Naturally there was the meeting of conservative leaders in which they decided to consider a third-party candidacy against Giuliani. And then there are indications that the cell-phone incident of the NRA speech is starting to make people aware of Giuliani's messy personal history.
phil james wrote on October 3, 2007 4:46 PM:It's so tough being "of faith" when official dogma happens to collide with your personal beliefs (or non-beliefs). Guess that's why the founding fathers were careful to establish a SECULAR nation, not a Christian (or anuy other denomination) nation, i.e. theocracy, as McCain would have us believe. Time to pull out the old JFK response on taking direction from the Vatican.
allsburg wrote on October 3, 2007 4:46 PM:As an ex-Catholic, I have to say that a huge number of the Catholics I've known have held some form of "heretical" belief. Very few have held the Vatican line all the way down. I don't think that Catholics will really knock Rudy for disagreeing with the Vatican on a couple of things.
phil james wrote on October 3, 2007 4:51 PM:And for those who may have forgotten the words of one of our real presidents, I give you the following JFK quote:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him."
And to JFK's words I will only add AMEN!
Oh good. Let the jesus freaks destroy themselves!
Nick wrote on October 3, 2007 4:53 PM:No figuring required. The GOP votership are racists and authoritarian cultists, and Rudy makes them quiver with delight. Only the truest of goobers gives a shit about abortion and all the rest; the party and the big-time "Christian" leadership uses it to fleece the rubes. Underestimating Rudy ... especially as we are set to nominate (gasp!) a woman, with this being the United States and all, is whistling past the graveyard. This guy will win 35 states agaisn HRC.
thereisnorule6 wrote on October 3, 2007 5:04 PM:How odd is it that something that was considered a negative for Kerry by conservatives is ignored with respect to Benito Giuliani.
Fred wrote on October 3, 2007 5:35 PM:The Archbishop's point seems to be a religious one (i.e., a naturally private affair) between a churchgoer and a Church officer. What's next--asking is the Mormon church would deny Romney some Mormon church act if he doesn't wear the underwear?
phil james wrote on October 3, 2007 5:48 PM:Excuse me. There is no "naturally private affair" going on when a church prelate publicly damns a politician on a hotly debated wedge issue. This is church condemnation of secular policy. You can't unscramble that egg.
Sully18 wrote on October 3, 2007 5:54 PM:All Rudy has to do to shut this guy up is go to confession to him.
I didn`t know he was Catholic.Another reason not to vote for him.It`s taken me forty years,and I`m still a recovering Catholic.
I wonder if this is the whole story. It is doubtful that Giuliani, with three living wives, would present himself for communion. He knows the rules perfectly well. I speak as a former fellow-parishioner of his. He would surely not subject himself to the rebuff.
This quite apart from his position(s) on abortion.
DirkVA wrote on October 3, 2007 5:59 PM:No, Sully 18, the confessional would not clear up his marital status.
And, phil james, the Archbishop did not "plublicly damn" Giuliani. He merely said that, in the religious functions that it is his responsibility to regulate, Giuliani would not be a communicant in good standing. This is not a civil matter.
Chesire111 wrote on October 3, 2007 6:30 PM:I'm not surehow Rudy can simultaneously consider himself Catholic while rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church. Kind of like proclaiming yourself a vegetarian in between bites of a Big Mac.
Also, he is already prohibited from receiving communion by his second and thrid marriages.
vlb wrote on October 3, 2007 6:32 PM:Burke is the poster boy for what the anti-Catholic bigots of the 19th and early 20th centures had in mind when they warned people against meddling priests.
phil james wrote on October 3, 2007 6:52 PM:DirkVA said
And, phil james, the Archbishop did not "plublicly damn" Giuliani. He merely said that, in the religious functions that it is his responsibility to regulate, Giuliani would not be a communicant in good standing. This is not a civil matter.
Au contraire my good man. Better bone up on your current theocratic shenanigans. I will quote from the newspaper piece: "Next month, Burke is expected to push the nation's bishops to adopt his position [on not allowing pro-abortion politicians to be communicants] in a document on political responsibility they will issue to Catholics before the election" If this isn't exactly what JFK was talking about, I don't know what is.
Tim wrote on October 3, 2007 6:54 PM:Don't underestimate Burke.
He may be responsible for Bush being in office right now.
In 2004 he made it clear to St. Louis' catholics that voting for Kerry was tantamount to committing a mortal sin. All of it was very indirect, yet very clear. He later backed away from the imputation, but the message stuck.
I am from St. Louis. I am/was Catholic. You can't throw a dead cat there without hitting a catholic. Most of my friends there are catholic and most of them had problems with Bush but couldn't bring themselves to vote Kerry - because of the window of doubt that the Bishop planted in their brain.
It seems probable that without Burke, Bush doesn't carry Missouri, and without Missouri Bush loses to Kerry.
By the way, Burke has single handedly created a crisis of faith for me. My view of the catholic church and Christianity in general was completely altered by this man. I thought it was a religion that believed in separation of church and state, I thought that was a commandment dictated by Christ etc....
Can't bring myself to be a part of what Burke represents.
VinnyD wrote on October 3, 2007 7:09 PM:His first marriage was annulled, so in the eyes of the Catholic church it's as if that hadn't happened. But he is still married to his second wife, in the eyes of the church, and so is now living openly in an adulterous relationship.
Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 7:21 PM:Maybe the Catholic strength actually comes from fellow Italian-Americans, most all of whom are also Catholic, who want to see one of their own in office.
KevinNYC wrote on October 3, 2007 7:34 PM:Of course, a natural follow-up question for that bishop is would he give communion to any politician who is for the war in Iraq which the last two popes have said was an unjust war.
GregVA wrote on October 3, 2007 8:46 PM:KevinNYC raises a good point. The Pope has come out against the Iraq war. If a Catholic supports the war, he's opposing the Church. But while the Church is opposed to abortion, pro-choice politicians are not even saying abortion is right, let alone actually performing or promoting abortion. They are simply saying it should not be illegal. I don't see how this makes them "publicly sinning." I've come to believe religion, like war, is just politics by other means.
chalmers wrote on October 3, 2007 8:53 PM:Kevin,
I think the distinction the church would draw is rests in the archbishop's use of the term "moral law." According to Catholic theology, the Pope is infallible in his interpretation of moral law and Catholics in violation of said moral law are not permitted to receieve Communion.
A Pope's opposition to the Iraq war or GOP policies that punish the poor are considered to be advisories, rather than interpretations of moral law.
tom wrote on October 3, 2007 9:04 PM:It would be nice if Rudy! had been banned for endorsing the war that the last 2 popes have condemned as unholy. Or marrying his cousin & having multiple affairs while involved in multiple marriages.
joefromla wrote on October 3, 2007 10:25 PM:Doesn't this bishop have enough to do, what with protecting pedophiles and all?
Grinch wrote on October 3, 2007 10:36 PM:Divorced and remarried outside the Church--No communion period. Doesn't matter what the politics.
Bill in Silicon Valley wrote on October 3, 2007 10:55 PM:I have to agree with GregVA, though as a Protestant I can't really speak for the archbishop. There's a major difference between saying that a particular sin isn't the government's business and saying it isn't a sin, and an even larger difference between advocating that the government tolerate or not tolerate one sin and advocating that the government go out and commit another sin.
Unlike many (ok, probably most) of you, I think that abortion really is killing human babies and it's wrong, in spite of the obvious problems that pregnancy can cause somebody who doesn't want to be a mother, but killing civilians in a war is also evil, as is bearing false witness about how your neighbor has WMDs because you're coveting his oil.
If the archbishop's saying he'd refuse communion to Rudy because of his abortion stance, and not saying he'd refuse it to the pro-war position, he's playing politics in ways that I seem to remember the last Pope objecting to. It's a bit more excusable for the abortion issue, where it's at least arguable that the government should be protecting babies, than it is for gay marriage issue where the government shouldn't be deciding who can get married anyway and isn't telling the Church that they have to perform gay weddings, and there've been Catholic archbishops who didn't want to give John Kerry communion because of that issue.
Now, if the archbishop doesn't want to give Rudy communion because of his divorce and remarriage status, at least that's in line with Catholic doctrine and most of the religious right wing know enough divorced people that they're not going to throw too many stones about that one.
"But he is still married to his second wife, in the eyes of the church, and so is now living openly in an adulterous relationship."
Exactly. In this case it's not necessary to bring his views into the matter, By standard understanding of Catholic teaching he wouldn't receive Eucharist. It wouldn't matter if he was a member of the "National Right to Life Committee" the rule is the rule.
Although this has little to do with why I'm not going to vote for Giuliani, I'm disappointed that church-going or conservative Catholics like myself seem so positive on him. He's just barely better than Kerry to me and in a few areas he might be worse.
Conservatives hate Hillary more than they hate abortion.
Mike D wrote on October 4, 2007 3:03 AM:Giuliani has been divorced as many times as Elizabeth Taylor. His own kids have disowned him for being a deadbeat dad. He cheated on one of his wives, while she was in the hospital. He's anti-gun, pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. But somehow he made a deal with Fartwell (the devil), before he died. Now Benito Giuliani (thank you, other poster) has the mark of the beast, and is predestined to rule the Christian Empire established by Bush in Iraq. God save us all from these crackheads.
God Hates Us All wrote on October 4, 2007 3:07 AM:Giuliani supports gay marriage. Priests support man-boy love. Who is more corrupt?
r185 wrote on October 4, 2007 6:37 AM:As I understand it, Rudy is being denied communion for the wrong reason. His "marital status" would already be reason enough.
Otter wrote on October 4, 2007 10:52 AM:"...Rudy continues to dominate among such voters, with particular strength among Catholics. Go figure."
I get impatient with this popular misconception. Catholics are not a solid block, obedient to the Pope, bishops, and church law.
As Allsburg says above, the truth is that American Catholics that I've met ("cradle Catholics", not converts) view many of the commands of church hierarchy and church law as irrelevant if not absurd. They don't expect Rudy to follow it all (though they may be uneasy about his divorces).
