I now remember seeing this quote. It is terribly ambiguous. Let us parse it.
1. Kerry's communion is up to the US bishops. That is the norm of the Church.
2. Unambiguously pro-abortion Catholic politicians are not fit to receive.
3. If they should not receive, they should not be given communion.
There are many ways to connect these dots. (1) is the only straighforward statement and it supports the cafeteria. (2) and (3) do not add up to anything that could offset (1). "Unambiguously pro-abortion" may or may not refer to Kerry who is never unambiguous and is quite ambiguous on abortion as far as his statements are known.
"Not fit to receive" does not mean "should not receive" if the modality "should" is meant binding on the priest. Fitness to receive is an internal condition known to communicant alone. Every Sunday there are communicants in the line that are variously fit and unfit. If they approach to receive, they should receive because the priest does not know if they are fit. And of course, "should receive" with "should" operating on the priest is tautologically the same as "should be given".
If "should not receive" operates on the communicant, then it means that the communicant would be sinning by receiving. But the priest, who does not know that, should of course still give the Communion if asked. In this case, "not fit to receive" is tautologically the same as "should not receive", but "should not be given" does not follow.
Clearly, the "should not receive" implied under "not fit to receive" in (2) is not the same as "should not receive" used in (3).
Third time's the charm. Arinze cannot be this crafty by accident.
I agree. I see this as part of the whole collegiality movement they are talking about again. In truth, this IS the proper role of the local ordinary. Problem is that our Ordinaries are so terribly ordinary.
I don't see any chance that the Vatican will take a forceful role here, its up to the local churches to deal with it, however badly they chose to do so.
patent