esides the disproportionately high numbers of people receiving Communion in the hand during the celebrations of the papal visit, the thing that most irked me was that Rudolph Giuliani received Communion at St. Patrick’s Cathedral — and not only that he did so, but that he was allowed to do so, when he should’ve been admonished and turned away.

Well, it turns out that this did not go unnoticed: Cardinal Egan called Giuliani into his office and reprimanded him for his actions. (Cf. analysis of this.)

And it’s about time.

Despite the protests of many liberals, priests can deny people Communion when those people are known to be in a state of sin. Consider the well-known case of Rudolph Giuliani: He received an annulment of his first marriage after he was unfaithful to his wife. His second marriage was also by Catholic ceremony but was similarly plagued by several bouts of infidelity and ended in civil divorce. He subsequently married, by civil ceremony, the lady with whom he had been sleeping and, of course, lives with her presently. Even if he had gone to confession and confessed his infidelity during his first and second marriages, he could not be absolved due to his ongoing affair. His divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, and neither is his third marriage; and thus, he continues to commit adultery. (He would have to end the present affair and either go back to his second wife or choose to live celibately to the end of his days in order to qualify for absolution.) Moreover, in his role as politician, Giuliani has been an ardent and notorious supporter of abortion. In the past, Cardinal Egan warned him, “that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion” (Catholic News Agency).

Now, Giuliani should’ve know better than to have gone up to receive Communion. But he didn’t. (Or maybe he did know better, but didn’t care and, arrogantly, was going to do what he wanted to do anyway.) Handling the Host with reverence extends to denying it to those who are not properly disposed to receive it. This is for the protection of the sacred Species — as well as out of charity for Giuliani himself, since receipt of Communion while knowingly in a state of sin brings condemnation and punishment. He might not know any better, but we (and the bishops) should.

Following the papal visit, Robert Novak wrote a column on pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion.

In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question? The answer is no. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received Communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did former mayor Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium [correction: St. Patrick’s Cathedral] in New York. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, invited them. Given choice seats, they took Communion as a matter of course.

Similar issues were hilighted in the New York Times.

ow to respond to those in public office who commit moral wrongs has been the subject of much debate here in the United States. But what does the Pope say about all this? Again, Robert Novak reports:

Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicians should be deprived of Communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. The effect was to dull the pope’s messages of faith, obligation and compassion. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he talked of “authority” and “obedience” — acknowledging that “these are not easy words to speak nowadays.” They surely are not for four former presidential candidates and two princes of the church, representing Catholics who defy their faith’s doctrine on abortion.

Benedict’s position was unequivocal when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Asked in 2004 whether Kerry, as the Democratic presidential nominee, should be allowed to take Communion, he replied, “The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

Pope John Paul II agreed:

The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion

Recently, Archbishop Burke authored a document entitled, “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin,” clarifying Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law. Archbishop Burke’s document is well-written and important and should be required reading for all Catholics, particularly in the United States where Cafeteria Catholicism seems to be the norm. In summary,

There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.