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.
OK...
If you will read the Declaration of the Pontifical Council on the Interpretation of Legislative Texts,
I have
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.
The relevant passage is this one:
3. Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.
Keep in mind that the context of the above statement is, CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED
Keeping in mind the context, that is, divorce/remarried Catholics, I read this as follows: if a member of a parish went through a divorce (w/o annulment from the tribunal) and then civilly remarried, the pastor is to counsel the person in question (or, shall we say, the couple in question). If the remarried couple declares that they are living "as brother and sister," then there is no impediment. If, however, the couple tell the pastor to "mind his own business," then the pastor should counsel them to not approach Communion until they regularize their situation. AT THAT POINT, he would instruct the other ordinary and extraordinary ministers to not admit that couple to Holy Communion. (That is the first case) If, on the other hand, he has invited them to counseling, and the couple has refused to appear, the second case would be applicable. In neither instance do I read that an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion should take it upon him or herself to deny communion to a couple who "he/she knows are living in sin" without that guidance.
The word "the Pastor" is used in the Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts because there clearly would not be multiple parishes or dioceses involved (unless you propose having a super double secret list of people to be denied Communion, distributed, with photos, to each and every extraordinary minister of Holy Communion). The word "his Pastor" is used in Cardinal Ratzinger's Worthiness publication because there might be some confusion as to which pastor.
Nancy Pelosi is really not a good example because she is so high profile, but the precedent set can apply to many, many levels...including back-benchers in Congress, state legislators, federal judges, appointees, etc. Niederauer (her Ordinary) has spoken with her. He should speak with her again and lay out the bottom line. As should O'Brien (Mikulski). As should Dolan (Giuliani). Etc. And local ordinaries should speak to their legislators. And individual pastors should enforce this document on divorced/ remarried Catholics.
And I don't like being put in a position to have to defend Wuerl. It makes me feel like I'm voting for McLame again, which is really uncomfortable. But, in this case, he is right to defer to the politician's Ordinary. Sorry.