AmericanPapist Comments
This sounds great in principle, but I see it breaking down in practice.
How is the minister to know who to deny? Is the minister to exercise independent judgment, or is there some way that this will be commmunicated? Will there be some sort of "black list" at each parish?
Is the minister sinning by not denying a "public" sinner communion? What if the minister mistakenly denies someone who looks like a "public" sinner? What if the minister mistakenly does not deny a "public" sinner? What if the minister knowingly denies a "public" sinner, fearing controversy or recrimination?
Perhaps we should require them to wear a large scarlet "S" on their clothing.
Absolutely, Tom ... and, even if there is accurate knowledge that (___) fill in the blank IS public sinner, how does the minister know whether the person has reformed his/her life?
GREAT points, Tom and Linda,
The Archbishop's comments clearly assume that the guardians of liturgy--bishops and priests--actually KNOW their parishioners, including the pro-abortion politicians are in their parishes. This is, of course, utterly impossible, totally infeasible.
I mean, really, how could a priest or bishop possibly be expected to actually find out who the very visible Catholic politicians under their spiritual leadership are and learn whether they have ever voted for the murder of unborn children? Ridiculous!
Even more infeasible is the notion that such leaders would actually approach pro-abortion politicians and find out what their position on cooperating with this grave evil is, and whther or not they have repented. Unheard of!
Finally, it is totally inconceivable to suggest that bishops and priests would then instruct the extraordinary ministers whom they have deputed to dispense holy communion regarding these prominent public figures who nobody knows.
Clearly, none of this could ever work.
Tom J. this doesn't sound like it's anything new to me - just a reassertion of the way it's always been (or at least supposed to be).
How is the minister to know who to deny?
Burke gave the example: "If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him." So if a priest tells a public sinner that she is in a state of mortal sin and she refuses to repent and still presents herself for communion - then he should deny her for her own good.
Is the minister to exercise independent judgment, or is there some way that this will be commmunicated? Probably both. I'm guessing that bishops will be more likely to form their own judgments while deacons will be more likely to seek advice from higher clerics before making a decision.
Will there be some sort of "black list" at each parish? Probably not. I've never heard of any parish taking this approach and the Church has been denying communion to unrepentant public sinners for centuries.
Is the minister sinning by not denying a "public" sinner communion? If the minister doesn't know that the person is in a state of mortal sin, he's not culpable for any sin of his own in giving her communion. If the minister knows that she's in a state of sin and that giving her communion will harm her soul, then yes, he's sinning.
What if the minister mistakenly denies someone who looks like a "public" sinner? I think Burke addressed this issue in his expectation that the the people who are denied have already been admonished and refuse to repent. But mistakes happen, the minister should apologize profusely. It's happened before, I'm pretty sure people have been excommunicated only to later be proven right. The fact that they make mistakes shouldn't stop ministers from doing their jobs as best they can - but it should push them to do all they can to prevent those mistakes.
What if the minister mistakenly does not deny a "public" sinner? I think this has been answered - if it's a mistake he's not culpable.
What if the minister knowingly denies a "public" sinner, fearing controversy or recrimination? I'm not sure what you're asking here.
Perhaps we should require them to wear a large scarlet "S" on their clothing. Like the black list, I don't think this is necessary. The Church has gotten along for centuries without scarlet S's.
Why is this so hard to understand; it's basic logic? No one should receive communion in a state of mortal sin. No one should help another person to sin. Giving communion to a person in a state of mortal sin helps them to commit a sin. Therefore no one should knowingly give communion to a person in a state of mortal sin.
P.S. what's with the scare quotes around public, do you prefer manifest instead?
Good call, Brian.
This is the way it needs to be. I don't think Archbishop Burke is referring to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that may have just committed a venial sin in public. We're talking culpable, well-known, previously admonished individuals, especially those in a position of power, who are doing bad bad things like publicly defending abortion.
I don't think there is a better canonist out there than Archbishop Burke (with the possible exception of our good friend Mr. Peters :) - and I think this is a great defense of the faith.
Will there be some sort of "black list" at each parish?
What a great idea! The USCCB could publish such a list. That act would make that entire organization worth its weight in gold!
"Even more infeasible is the notion that such leaders would actually approach pro-abortion politicians and find out what their position on cooperating with this grave evil is..."
Uh...their public votes might provide a clue.
"...regarding these prominent public figures that nobody knows."
???
And at the top of the Black List should be the bishops who conspired to allow pedophile priest to continue to rape children! Shame! All those bishops who did that should be excommunicated.
American Life League (ALL) has the black list already... the bishops just need to ask for it. ALL published the ads in the DC papers during the Papal Visit.
It's nice to see Archbishop Burke taking to his new title and using it. If only more bishops were like him, ah time to go pray for them.
I completely agree with the church leadership calling out CINO (Catholic In Name Only) politicians. I just don't agree with putting Dick and Jane Parishioner in the position to confront people who are knowingly looking for a fight. Clearly, if a local bishop identifies publicly a local politician and directs that politician not to present herself for communion, that politician is spoiling for a fight
My concerns are not for the priests, but for the lay ministers, including my 16 year old daughter.
What is my daughter to do if Kathleen Sibelius shows up at our parish and presents herself for communion? What if there are TV cameras (or cell phone cameras) watching her every move?
Finally, I am concerned about what this is starting. It is one thing when a bishop calls out a high-profile politician. What happens when a local parish priest calls out a local town official? Or when a minister of the Eucharist overhears gossip about someone committing adultery? Do we want to become the kind of an institution that condemns people and has the laity treat them badly?
n.b. #1 - Did no one get the McCarthy-ism and Hawthorne references?
n.b. #2 - I quoted "public" because it was used in the CNA citation, as in "persists in public mortal sin".
Tom J., I don't think Burke ever referred to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in the article - only ministers of the Eucharist (bishops, priests, and deacons).
As far as EMHCs go, I think they should probably operate under the close supervision of the priest - checking with him rather than making decisions on their own. If your daughter doesn't feel she would be able to refuse communion to someone if necessary, maybe she should talk to her priest about it. I also share your concern that your parish is putting such young adolescents in such a position - it might be something worth addressing, maybe they should raise the minimum age or make more rigorous training for EMHCs.
I don't think Kathleen Sibelius just pops out of the woodwork at communion time, people would notice here well ahead of time. It's more likely that someone would bring it to the attention of the priest before Mass so that he could talk to her privately and ask her not to present herself for communion. That's the way it's supposed to work - actually denying someone communion in line is the absolute last resort if they refuse to listen to the priest.
Also, I hope the priest would warn people about not taking pictures and kick out anyone who continues to take pictures for politicizing the Mass.
I do wonder, in this hypothetical situation, if the governor presents herself to an EMHC after being warned what's the polite way to handle it. A priest can give her a blessing which wouldn't be very noticable to all but the most astute observers - but an EMHC can't do that. EMHCs make everything trickier.
What happens when a local parish priest calls out a local town official? Well what's the official being called out for? When the Church uses the term public sinner it means a person who commits a certain type of sin, not a person who is well known or a celebrity and sins. If the official is having an affair but doing so secretly, even though he's a public figure he's not a public sinner. On the other hand if Joe Catholic divorces his wife and marries his mistress, I think that makes him a public sinner because he's made his affair public by having it civilly recognized.
So first off, I don't think a priest should publicly call out a public figure for their private sins - it may be detraction. Secondly, if the person is indeed a public sinner, they must also be unrepentant. It may be that they just don't know better and once they have Catholic teaching explained to the more clearly they'll confess their sins and amend their life. So I don't think being called out by a priest is enough to be denied communion, the priest should meet with the official pastorally and then only make that decision if the person is unrepentant.
Or when a minister of the Eucharist overhears gossip about someone committing adultery? 1) It's gossip. 2) It's not a public sin. 3) We don't know that the person is unrepentant. I think the minister would be very wrong
I think my last message was too long and got cutoff. I got your McCarthy and Hawthorne references but didn't want to indulge them, so I answered them literally. I don't think they apply. This isn't a matter of the Church hunting people out and embarrassing them. It's about people who choose to make their sin public - they've already aired their dirty laundry for everyone to see and they refuse to even acknowledge that it's dirty. In that case the Church follows her Husband in declaring that if you insist on wearing those dirty rags instead of the new clothes we gave you, you can't join in the wedding feast.
Look, this is far more simple than the folks here are making this. If CINOs like Pelosi show up in line for Holy Communion and Archbishop Burke realizes it's her, he'll deny her Holy Communion. I would much prefer bell, book, and candle, however. Tom
The Church is not even suppose to be use-ing EMHCs, only in extreme,extraordinary situations.Dave at mid-nite had an interesting point, but does he realize that many enemies of Christ are in leadership roles?...as our Lord fore-warned?
Brian ...
#1 - Abp. Burke may not have intended to refer to EMHC, but EMHC are a current reality and so must be considered. To expect an EMHC to stand up to Kathleen Sibelius, Antonio Villaraigosa or Rudy Guiliani and deny communion is ridiculous. The argument that an EMHC needs to be prepared to do this kind of thing is begging the question.
#2 - The CINO politician ALREADY KNOWS that she shouldn't present herself for communion. If she does so, it is FOR THE PURPOSE of creating controversy, so talking to her privately will be wasting breath. So, because she is intending to be difficult, she seeks out the newly confirmed teenager. The CINO will stick her hands out (or open her mouth). The EMHC will hesitate for a moment, then give a blessing. The CINO will not move, waiting for communion. Now what? Should the EMHC leave her post and go interrupt the presider, who is likely also serving communion?
#3 - I also want to get back to the idea of what kind of people and what kind of church we want to be. You may have appreciated my sarcasm, but others did not and in fact some seem to think a black list it was a good idea! NO SOUP FOR YOU!
#4 - I don't get this idea of reserving Communion to those who deserve it. I realize that there are likely pages of Canon Law about it, but these CINO are among those who are MOST IN NEED of the strength, moral sustenance and peace that come from bring Christ into our body. Christ went among the sinners while he was here on Earth, because the sinners needed him the most. Isn't that still true? The fact is I am no more worthy right after absolution than Kathleen Sibelius or Teddy Kennedy are right after a pro-abortion vote.
Thanks for the perspective and the engaging discussion.
I'll let others handle the other points, but this one:
#4 - I don't get this idea of reserving Communion to those who deserve it. I realize that there are likely pages of Canon Law about it, but these CINO are among those who are MOST IN NEED of the strength, moral sustenance and peace that come from bring Christ into our body. Christ went among the sinners while he was here on Earth, because the sinners needed him the most. Isn't that still true? The fact is I am no more worthy right after absolution than Kathleen Sibelius or Teddy Kennedy are right after a pro-abortion vote.
The objective fact of the matter is that taking the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, one is drinking condemnation, not restoration. That's Catechism 101. AND there is double damage in the case of manifest public sin. If an unknown mortal sinner receives on the sly, only they answer to God. But giving to a public unrepentent sinner indicts everyone involved, causes scandal, and confirms one in the sin.
Tom, I also enjoy your perspective.
#1 If saying that EMHCs need to be prepared to fulfill the duties of an ordinary minister is begging the question, I don't really know how to answer. As far as I know EMHCs are trained to not give communion to someone who doesn't appear to know what they're doing (i.e. isn't Catholic or doesn't understand that they're receiving the Body of Christ) and to stop someone who doesn't consume the host immediately. From here I don't see it as too much of a stretch to train EMHCs what to do if the priest tells them that so and so has been informed that they should not present themselves for communion and should be denied if they try to receive.
If a priest thinks his EMHCs can't do this he could maybe use ordinary ministers to distribute the host and EMHCs for the cup only so that everyone has to go through an ordinary minister first. Or maybe if the particular person has not only publicly sinned but publicly stated that they will not repent and has a history of receiving communion anyway, have the pastor announce that that person is not eligble for communion at the start of Mass so that the whole parish knows. Then much of the pressure will be off the EMHCs. Or he could just not use EMHCs - they're not required.
#2 If someone is using the Eucharist to make a statement or cause controversy, like in your hypothetical situation, that's all the more reason to deny them communion. Yes, I'd say that in such a case the EMHC should call the priest (this is assuming the EMHC has been instructed not to give that person communion). Let the priest handle a situation like that where someone is purposely trying to make a scene.
#3 and #4 You're right that we're all unworthy of receiving the Eucharist. This isn't so much about worthiness in that sense as it is about which actions will do good for a person's soul and which will do harm. Think of the Eucharist as water on a fire. Normally it puts the fire out. Except what if it's an oil fire? Pouring water on it will only make things worse. The same is true with the Eucharist. Receiving the Eucharist is a taste of heaven. If we are in God's grace the Eucharist will remove our venial sins and strengthen us to follow Him. If we are in a state of mortal sin, we're like an oil fire, the immense grace present in the Eucharist will only further inflame our hatred and rejection of God.
Denying someone communion is supposed to be about doing what's best for them, not punishing or embarrassing them. I agree that sinners need God the most. That is why everyone is welcome at Mass and those who cannot receive communion are encouraged to make a spiritual communion. And everyone, no matter how many or how great the sins he has committed, is only one confession away from being in a state of grace and able to receive communion.
I think one thing we can all do to help the situation is examine our own consciouses and refrain from receiving communion if we've comm
One thing we can all do to help the situation is examine our own consciouses and refrain from receiving communion if we've committed mortal sin and haven't gone to confession. I think one thing that makes it hard for people is that they see everyone around them going up for communion and feel like they have to go so they don't stick out. I know I find this difficult at the times when I cannot receive communion.
Responding to Brian at 1:08pm...
#1: ... have the pastor announce that that person is not eligble for communion at the start of Mass so that the whole parish knows.
This is actually a very reasonable solution. Some specific discussion/training on how to refuse someone communion would be very helpful.
#2: I agree that confronting the CINO who wants to cause trouble is necessary. The question is who should be doing the confronting. Having the pastor announce that CINO is not to be given communion is also probably sufficient here.
#3 & #4: I am concerned about a culture of focusing on and calling out the sins of others. It is clear that we are to worry primarily about our own sins. We already have too many busybodies, and I can see this giving them license to harangue pastors about local parishioners. We also do not want to implicitly give permission for the EMHC to judge themselves that others are sinners and deny communion improperly. I don't like "slippery slope" arguments, but this seems like a place where one can apply.
#3 & #4: I am concerned about a culture of focusing on and calling out the sins of others.
I don't know why you are concerned because I don't see any calling out. No one has to call out Guilani and Pelosi on their support for intrinsic evils--they are quite open and public about it. How we handle emhc's and these guys is a question of how to move the chess pieces. But we have to do something, or we all answer for it.
We're talking well known politicians and their stances, not Joe or Jane Pew warmer.
If they present themselves for COMMUNION, without in fact being IN communion with Jesus Christ, his Church and the REST OF US, then yes, any EMHC ought to just wave them by. If they insist to make a scene LET THEM MAKE IT.
It's not like they're going to kill you, manhandle you, or make faces. Take some responsibility people, it's the body and blood of Christ we're talking about. Martyrs have died for less.
There are CONSEQUENCES to one's political votes and moral choices. One of those consequences is loss of actual communion with Jesus, his Church and the rest of us and this ought to be signified by not being given Our Lord in the Eucharist.
These people are happily voting to keep abortion legal. They're happily casting votes for pro-abortion judges.
They're happily carrying water and giving tax payer dollars to Planned Parenthood - and receiving donations and volunteers towards their campaigns from the same. These politicians are not just accidentally Democrats or Republicans who are pro-abortion, they've made choices to go out of their way to be so.
Fine, that's their choice, but so is witholding communion from them, OUR CHOICE.
Commenting by HaloScan
