The disputed canons

Canonist Ed Peters takes us through the two different canonical approaches of Archbishops Wuerl and Burke in regards to the reception of Holy Communion by Catholic politicians who support issues and causes contrary to Catholic faith.

After reminding us that such disagreements between faithful Bishops are not unknown in the history of the Church, Dr. Peters offers these wise words:

[O]ne must avoid "personalizing" the debate. Both archbishops are distinguished
thinkers and both have many decades of loyal service to the Church behind them,
including some services rendered under very difficult circumstances. In short,
each is an attractive figure. But, while it's tempting to rally behind one or
the other, personalities are not what's at issue here.

Rather, if we want to resolve the question of Communion admission, we must plainly identify the core of the disagreement. I think it's this: may one rely on a single canon to absolve arch/bishops of any direct responsibility to act when pro-abortion
Catholic politicians present themselves for Communion, or must one read both the
relevant canons in these cases, even if one of those canons requires ministerial
intervention under certain circumstances?

Be sure to read the rest of his post.

Capello tip to Thomas Peters.