No. Cardinal Wuerl is a squish.
Well then, Cardinal Wuerl serves at the behest of the Holy See. So who is responsible?
Likewise granting ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS to "notorious apostates, heretics" or "other manifest sinners." The relevant (fallible) canon 1184 states that, "If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed." And if not overruled then his interpretation stands, not FR RCs.
And under which local judgment you have the case of Father Marcel Guarnizo, the priest who, after he denied Communion to a openly lesbian “Buddhist Catholic” woman, has been suspiciously placed on administrative leave [removed from active ministry] by the Washington archdiocese (ostensibly not as a consequence of treatment of the lesbian), while Cardinal Donald Wuerl of the Washington archdiocese where this incident took place stated that he will not withhold the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians. (http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=897)
"...there’s a question about whether this canon’’ – the relevant church law – “was ever intended to be used’’ to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. “I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon [Canon 915] was never intended to be used this way.’’ — from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won’t Deny Pelosi Communion
All of which are not silenced by Rome. We find no infallible teaching on this (among other things) that is not open to manifest uncensored interpretation.