With due respect, I don't agree with the conclusion you've drawn.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, made the following statement in his letter, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,"
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
(emphasis mine)
His pastor (implying at the parish (in the diocese) where he is registered) does not equal The pastor (implying the pastor (bishop) of the local parish (diocese) where he works).
You can see this, in that Abp. Wuerl has made a statement that he will support Bp. Finn's decree regarding Sebelius.
(BTW, don't think for a second that I am a Wuerl fan. I'm not. But I am glad to see some progress and some fortitude, no matter how small)
Whatever the duties of “his pastor,” the obligation to deny Communion to a notorious sinner belongs to ANY minister of Communion wherever the person attempts to receive Communion.
If you will read the Declaration of the Pontifical Council on the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, you will see that consultation between the pastor and the would-be communicant is desirable, but the obligation to deny Communion is NOT contingent on such consultation’s having taken place.
In other words, if Nancy Pelosi comes up the aisle for Communion in Dismal Seepage, Ohio, and the priest recognizes her, he has the duty to deny her Communion—even though he is not “her” pastor and has not spoken to her at any time. Because of her notoriety, the obligation to deny Communion exists, both in order to prevent a sacrilege, and to prevent scandal.
There is NO role for the bishop in this. There is no such thing as a “policy” in one diocese vs. another diocese.
Wuerl’s proper function is not to have a policy, but to explain to his priests what their obligations are. Wuerl has this duty, in particular, because he has been misleading his priests and the public.
It should be clear that the whole business of Sebelius’s bishop having a policy, and Wuerl’s announcement that he will abide by it, is all nonsense. It’s all misdirection and obfuscation. Sebelius’s bishop has decided to obey Canon Law. Wuerl’s policy is that he will obey Canon Law in some cases, and disobey it in others—for instance, when the bishop “back home” won’t obey it.
BTW:
That letter from Ratzinger was written in 2004—before what Abp. Burke calls the “discovery” of Canon 915.
What Burke means is that Canon lawyers had mentally pigeonholed Canon 915 under “marriage law,” even though it is NOT part of marriage law. It is also NOT a penal canon—which brings to mind another way Wuerl has constantly misled the public. Wuerl has repeatedly talked about denial of Communion as a “sanction,” or a “penalty,” as have other bishops. It is not a penalty. It is a regulation which follows directly from the divine law regarding sacrilege and scandal—and it is in the section of canon law dealing with the administration of sacraments.