Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
NOVAK’S CARDINAL SINS.
The prince of darkness is going after the princes of the Church. In his syndicated column today, Robert Novak lambastes the prelates of Washington, D.C. (Archbishop Donald Wuerl) and New York (Cardinal Edward Egan) for allowing prominent pro-choice pols (Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd in D.C. and ex-Hizzoner Rudy Giulilani in New York) to receive communion during Pope Benedict’s recent visit. (Giuliani, as Novak acknowledges, poses a special case, since he’s on to his third marriage without ever having gotten his second one annulled.)
The truly faithful bishop, Novak argues, is St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who refuses communion to pro-choice electeds. To proffer the wafer runs counter to Benedict’s dictat since, Novak writes, “Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicans should be deprived of Communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. The effect,” Novak continues, “was to dull the pope’s messages of faith, obligation and compassion.”
The theological Novak is a relatively new creation; he converted from Judaism to Catholicism in 1996. Now, however, he has anointed himself Protector of the Faith, while functionally, he is becoming the op-ed-page version of the Grand Inquisitor. Where heretics lurk, there Novak shall follow, with column, kindling and a matchbox.
--Harold Meyerson
COMMENTS (9)
No word yet on whether Novak has been denied communion for his flagrant disobedience with regard to the Iraq war...
Posted by: T. Paine | April 28, 2008 4:46 PM
The zeal of the convert....
I must correct Paine, however. Novak opposed the Iraq War.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | April 28, 2008 6:09 PM
The Church has the right establish doctrines for its followers and also the right to see them carried out. To attack it or one of its followers for doing so is merely another example of Catholic bashing, of which there are more than plenty on leftwing websites.
BTW, Catholics already have figured out that leftists like Barack Obama would be harmful to their interests if elected because it'd mean more leftist ideology like this shoved down their throats.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:00 AM
It's interesting to note that the Catholic prohibition on communion for people who are divorced and remarried seems to have been forgotten in the case of Giuliani. Sins that are endemic among right-wing politicians evidently can be ignored. But opinions from the liberal side of the spectrum are unforgiveable.
Posted by: Karl Weber | April 29, 2008 7:40 AM
What amazes me about the Church's attitude is that Rudy, Kerry et. al. are being de facto excommunicated not because they practice or advocate abortion, but because they oppose prohibiting it by law.
In other words, the Catholic bishps are saying that you not only have to follow Catholic morality in your personal life, but you also have to work actively to pass laws against behavior prohibited by the Church, and thus force Catholic morality onto the entire population. Very scary.
The church also considers contaceptives to be sinful. By this logic, Catholic politicians must also advocate banning sale of contraceptives. Or how about compulsory Mass attendance, since the Church considers it a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday? And let's make masturbation a crime while were at it.
Posted by: Virginia | April 29, 2008 8:52 AM
Something to note: the Catholic Church equates the death penalty on the same level as abortion.
So my question is, how many supporters of the death penalty are denied communion by priests like Archbishop Burke? I mean, it's only fair that if someone like Cardinal Egan gives the sacrament to one violator of Church dogma, he gives it to everyone. But if Burke and those like him are giving communion to death penalty supporters and not abortion rights supporters, then that is an issue.
Posted by: 32_Footsteps | April 29, 2008 9:56 AM
Virginia,
No, the Church does not teach that all of its moral teachings ought to be codified in civil law. If you cannot see the difference, for instance, between ending a fetal life and why that is a matter for the state to intervene in (even if you happen to think it ought not to) and, say the Church's opposition to artificial contraception, and why that is not a matter for state intervention, then you are not trying very hard.
And why exactly is it scary when the Church occasionally urges its moral teachings to be reflected appropriately in the law. When it urges Catholics to oppose the death penalty, or when it denied communion to segregationist politicians in the South during the Civil Rights movement, was that scary, too?
32_Footsteps, no, the death penalty teaching is not on the same ground as the teaching on abortion. You can read Evangelium Vitae, which most extensively laid out the death penalty teaching of John Paul II, to find out why. When you do, you will see why the denial of communion is more appropriate in one case than in another.
Cheers.
Posted by: Bill | April 29, 2008 4:39 PM
ugg boots is one of most popular boots in cold winter, UGGso.com have 100% sheepskin UGGS
Posted by: uggs | December 23, 2009 2:16 AM
ugg boots sale
Posted by: ugg boots sale | February 2, 2010 9:02 AM