It is nice to see Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington publically come out and correct House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s asinine attempt to justify her support for abortion through gross misinterpretation of the Church’s teachings.  Her justification was partly based on what some Church doctors centuries ago wrote—that life began at the third month of pregnancy.  It is not what someone said 1,500 years ago that matters but what is the Church’s teaching now.  According to her reasoning, the U.S. should allow slavery because 160 years ago many justified its existence.

 

I doubt though if Archbishop Wuerl will go so far as to deny Speaker Pelosi and other pro-choice politicians Holy Communion, but at least it is better than his predecessor’s stance.  Theodore Cardinal McCarrick always seemed to downplay the issue, saying priests can’t deny pro-choice politicians Holy Communion because you don’t know what is in their heart.  True—though you can get a pretty good idea by going on the Internet and read their speeches. 

 

I get the feeling part of the reason for the reluctance of many bishops to criticize them is many pro-choice Catholic politicians donate a lot of money to the Church and the various bishops are reluctant to cut off the funds.  Also, I think there is still this infatuation among older Catholics (both clergy and the laity) with the Kennedy family and this makes the bishops shy away from criticizing them.

 

One question I would like the media to ask every pro-choice Catholic politician.  If the United States bishops ruled that they could no longer receive Holy Communion until they renounced their pro-choice beliefs, what would do?  In other words, what is more important to them:  their faith or reelection?  Sadly I believe most would choose the latter.