I saw Gulianni receive Holy Communion at St. Patrick's

[chieftain]

yesterday and am baffled. I asked this question earlier and received many thoughtful responses. But here is the thrice-married, abortion supporting Rudy receiving the Eucharist on national TV. Leaving aside questions of bad example, is anyone else troubled by this? I hardly think it possible that he has already secured an annulment from his second marriage.

[AngryOldDem]

1. That is between him, his priest, and God...

...and nobody else. Just my opinion.

[chieftain]

2. In most circumstances, I am a live and let live kind of person.

I have a very different attitude in this case for at least a couple of reasons.
There have been several instances of Bishops saying that pro-choice Democrats should be denied Communion. The second has to do with the Nuns drilling into my head that giving bad example is a sin. The act of recieving the Eucharist in as public a presentaion as a nationally televised Mass said by the Pope from St. Patrick's would seem to contradict the Church's position is on divorced/remarried Catholics elegibility to access the Sacraments.
Ultimately you are right that this is a matter of conscience between himself and his Maker. My question is not directed at him. It is directed at a Church that selectively singles out Liberals for public exclusion from its Rites and is willing to allow a high profile personage to flaunt its rules for the world to see.

[AngryOldDem]

3. I think some bishops want to make an example of such politicians...

...as Guilani. Burke and Bruskewitz come readily to mind. But there are others who frame the Eucharist question much the same as I -- it is a matter of conscience that needs to be explored by the politician and his or her confessor.

[meow2u3]

4. It isn't the Church herself that singles out liberal Democrats

It's certain (Opus Dei members or sympathizers) right-wing bishops who selectively target Democrats for excommunication, while turning a blind eye to the same sins when Republicans commit them. These are corrupt, politically-motivated clergy no better than the radical Islamic clerics in the Middle East.

[AngryOldDem]

5. Correct.

And thanks for expanding on a point that I omitted in my previous post. Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi et. al. seem to get the stink eye while Guiliani and others like him get a pass. What, really, is the difference? This was what so irked me during the flap back in 2004. Despite all their sanctimonious howls to the contrary, it was clear that the bishops were using the Eucharist as a political tool. That was why it was so refreshing to read statements from other bishops and archbishops -- including my own -- which in effect said that the Body and Blood of Christ should not be used in such a manner, and that public figures need to be treated like private citizens when it comes to their consciences on Church teaching. That's where it should begin and end, and if people want to second-guess someone's perceived "worthiness" to receive, then I suggest that speculation begin with themselves. (Take the plank out thy own eye, and all that.)

It's exactly people like those right-wing bishops and groups such as Opus Dei that do have a political agenda that make me call into question tax-exempt status for religious organizations. They skirt the line "just so" to keep themselves "legal" while yet wielding some political influence anyway. Ya gotta pay to play, IMO.