Forgive me for having overlooked one item:
//"What we have today is a pope who is actively countenancing the public distribution of Holy Communion to public heretics. Such an offense against the Faith of Catholics would have been sufficient for public outcry in ages past. Why not today?"
//That is an opinion. It is also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.//
That might appear to you as my "opinion," but I am doing nothing other than reading the news.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/international/europe/24france.html?ex=1130126400&en=ea10e497c30c78a6&ei=5070)
"...Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, give communion to Brother Roger, even though he was not Catholic."
In this article, the Times reports that "At a Eucharistic service celebrated Tuesday by a Roman Catholic cardinal for Brother Roger, a Swiss Protestant, communion wafers were given to the faithful indiscriminately, regardless of denomination." Walter Cardinal Kasper was the Catholic cardinal celebrant.
Here is what B16 is quoted as saying when Bro. Roger died recently (http://www.cathnews.com/news/508/106.php):
"Brother Roger is in the hands of eternal goodness and eternal love and has arrived at eternal joy," he [B16] said.
You might be inclined to quote the liberal spin, claiming that it was all a mistake. I'll save you the trouble. Here's the link:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/508/167.php
Notice how the Vatican deals with such an issue that "would not go away" (this infers that the Vatican WISHES that it would just go away): "the Vatican made available in July an informal, unsigned statement of explanation." Note: find both quotes in the same Cathnews paragraph.
A big issue is met with an INFORMAL, UNSIGNED statement of explanation.
Please recall that in 1960, when the Catholic world anticipated the formal release of the 3rd secret of Fatima, an informal, unsigned statement appeared in an obscure Roman periodical explaining that it would not be released, nor would it ever likely be released. Don't tell me this didn't happen, because I saw it happen in real time. I am a witness. I am also a witness of this latest repeat of the same tactic. And please don't bother to tell me I'm rambling. These two events are very closely related, and I'm showing them to you together so you might be able to see the pattern, if you have any desire to know what the pattern is. Some people prefer to pretend there is no pattern, because they see that recognizing the pattern demands that a reasoning process begin, and the process might take them where they simply don't want to go.
By the way, while you abhor the thought of analogy, let me point out that this desire to take a left turn 6 blocks ahead, simply because the present road takes one to a point of commitment up ahead, is a result of our fallen nature.
As for your claim that this is "also totally irrelevant to the issue at hand," allow me to point out that this is regarding the pope's longstanding duty to uphold Sacred Tradition, and this question of distributing Holy Communion in public "indiscriminately" and "regardless of denomination" (NY Times quote), is precisely the same topic as his duty to uphold the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mass.
The point is, if it's okay for the pope to create a new rite and call it "normative," then why would it not be okay for the pope to establish a new rule for the distribution of Holy Communion to non-Catholics in public indiscriminately? If he has the power, why can't he choose to exercise it?