American Life League: We Insist Bishops Must Deny Pro-Abortion Politicians Communion

[Ham1]

All,

I am confused about this issue. Isn’t it clear that despite the seemingly solid defense of the unborn by the Church in its doctrine, many priests and even Bishops refuse to defend it? How long are we supposed to pray before something is done?

We should pray and PRIVATELY beg the Church to act as long as it takes.

We should NOT publically lobby the Church as if they can be swayed by a public movement against them. This is divisive and attacks the unity of the Church.

 

[Sheeniac]

All,

If years before the molestation scandal broke, a group of the laity would have publicly released information tthat such actions were taking place, would not have some of the great evil that occurred been stopped?

I am confused about this issue. Isn’t it clear that despite the seemingly solid defense of the unborn by the Church in its doctrine, many priests and even Bishops refuse to defend it? How long are we supposed to pray before something is done?

Never stop praying.

With regard to the molestation issue, please know that things like that were hidden and not talked about then. (As Fr. Corapi and my agnostic mother have both said…) It was a societal thing. We are much more open about issues now.

 

[setter]

Will you just be clear and say that you believe that following assertions she made were appropriate and you agree with them. Or tell me that this isn’t what she said or inferred.

I have been clear …hence our disagreement.

Besides **your disrespectful **characterization of Bishops, it is not I who think this is a “political” matter but you who think it appropriate to treat Bishops like they are elected officials. Please do not pull me into your gutter.

If you are speaking to me, I have probably cooperated with evil by keeping this thread alive. After this post, you can have the last word.

Well, your apparent omniscience notwithstanding, I prefer to trust the ordained with regards to Pastoral matters.

Just so I’m sure I understand your point, **is this a statement directed at me or these Bishops you so obviously despise? ** Or both?

You are too hard on yourself and taking this all too personally …none of my comments have been directed to you as a person and fellow believer in Christ. I also note your repeated reframe of and deference to clericalism – “I prefer to trust the ordained with regards to Pastoral matters”.

Noted: You bow out of our exchange by insinuating personal attack on my part and your mud slinging in my direction …the very egregious offense that you accuse Judi Brown of …

 

[fix]

Can you be sure that is what was said or is it more likely what a politician is reported as having said!!

I cannot speak for USA or European politics or press reporting. I can speak for the UK. I can confirm they are not interested in the truth nor anything remotely connected to it.

The press are interested in twisting, distorting, journalistic licence and poetry to sell newspapers. It is after all not wilful misrepresentation, but one’s interpretation. One is [in a democracy] free to interpret how one thinks!

Unless I hear the words from the politicians mouth first hand, then I do not blieve one word, not one syllable or phoneme of that which s/he is quoted as saying

I assume you are being facetious? If you base your vote only on what you hear from the lips of politicians that would be enough to know they are guilty as charged.

 

[Sixtus]

Quite right. Abortion is holocaust, it is genocide.

It makes a nonsense of Neuremburg and the Hague if we are willing to compromise and ignore mass-murder

What a coo for evil, to be able to attack the very foundation and fabric of life: to kill with immunity and to establish killing as a social norm acceptable to politicians in a highly civilized society which values the value of human life.

Jesus said to satan 'do not put the Lord your God to the test’I Abortion is surely testing God’s patience and infiniate love. The other side of the coin of infinite mercy is infinite justice. I fear what God will do when His patience runs out

St John Paul pray for us

 

[Sixtus]

Quite right. Abortion is holocaust, it is genocide.

It makes a nonsense of Neuremburg and the Hague if we are willing to compromise and ignore mass-murder

What a coo for evil, to be able to attack the very foundation and fabric of life: to kill with immunity and to establish killing as a social norm acceptable to politicians in a highly civilized society which values the value of human life.

Jesus said to satan 'do not put the Lord your God to the test’I Abortion is surely testing God’s patience and infiniate love. The other side of the coin of infinite love is infinite justice. I really do fear what God will do when His patience runs out with this our present generation.

I believe Abortion exists only because we are not working hard enough to eradicate it. If every Catholic moved by mass protest, in UK if we all protested to Westminster, and kept going back again and again and again. What a protest that would be. Then I believe we would move mountains.

St John Paul pray for us

 

[Sixtus]

I went on a mass protest to Westminster…once!!!
We should have gone back say once a month year in year out. That is seasoned protest. If we cared, then we would.
We don’t so we are only paying lip service to the wrongs of abortion. We are not too far removed from the pro-choice politicians.

What about a new topic dedicated to the eradication of abortion. What we are prepared to do about it. Mass protest to senior politicians.

We keep talking words come cheap ‘actions speak louder than words’.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
Unless I hear the words from the politicians mouth first hand, then I do not blieve one word, not one syllable or phoneme of that which s/he is quoted as saying

I was once entrusted withthe secret test for determining when a politician is lying.

Watch their lips very closely

If they are moving they are lying.

 

[otjm]

I am confused about this issue. Isn’t it clear that despite the seemingly solid defense of the unborn by the Church in its doctrine, many priests and even Bishops refuse to defend it? How long are we supposed to pray before something is done?

I am not aware that there has been any evidence presented that many priests and even bishops refuse to defend the Church’s stance on the unborn. Perhaps you have some; please present it. That seems to be the sum and substance of Judy’s demand; other than conjecture I have seen nothing that indicates that many priests and even bishops have made any such refusal.

If you are taking the fact that most bishops will not use denial of Communion publicly as the means of defending the Church’s stance on the unborn, you may want to re-read comments throughout this thread.

 

[setter]

I am not aware that there has been any evidence presented that many priests and even bishops refuse to defend the Church’s stance on the unborn. Perhaps you have some; please present it. That seems to be the sum and substance of Judy’s demand; other than conjecture I have seen nothing that indicates that many priests and even bishops have made any such refusal.

If you are taking the fact that most bishops will not use denial of Communion publicly as the means of defending the Church’s stance on the unborn, you may want to re-read comments throughout this thread.

The drumbeat of ostensibly ‘Catholic’ politicians who “personally oppose” but who publicly support abortion goes on unabated. From strictly a behavior consequence, cost/benefit analysis, these wayward politicians are given no incentive to recant from their untenable positions of prostituting the integrity of the Catholic faith for their own personal gain, i.e., they “personally gain” while they “publicly defame” the integrity of the Catholic faith.

The bishops’ lack of public action after exhausting private attempts to lead the politician to repentance is in itself scandalous to the Flock entrusted to their care. Their refusal to defend the integrity of the faith in their realm of responsibility has in effect a refusal to defend the Church’s stand on the unborn. If you disagree, convince us otherwise.

To add a reality check, consider the Catholic politician supporting euthanasia as a private matter, even though they “personally oppose” such killings. Also the words of Jesus to the politician and the neglectful bishop: “And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’” **Matthew 25: 40, 45. **

 

[Ham1]

The drumbeat of ostensibly ‘Catholic’ politicians who “personally oppose” but who publicly support abortion goes on unabated. From strictly a behavior consequence, cost/benefit analysis, these wayward politicians are given no incentive to recant from their untenable positions of prostituting the integrity of the Catholic faith for their own personal gain, i.e., they “personally gain” while they “publicly defame” the integrity of the Catholic faith.

The bishops’ lack of public action after exhausting private attempts to lead the politician to repentance is in itself scandalous to the Flock entrusted to their care. Their refusal to defend the integrity of the faith in their realm of responsibility has in effect a refusal to defend the Church’s stand on the unborn. If you disagree, convince us otherwise.

To add a reality check, consider the Catholic politician supporting euthanasia as a private matter, even though they “personally oppose” such killings. Also the words of Jesus to the politician and the neglectful bishop: “And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’” **Matthew 25: 40, 45. **

I totally agree. The Bishop’s should excommunicate pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

Let us pray that they do so. Let us NOT call them failure’s publically and lobby them “politically” to do the right thing.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I don’t think criticizing do-nothing bishops scandalizes those outside the Catholic Church.

My sister for one is outside the Catholic church and is deeply offended and turned off to the Church BECAUSE our bishops allow the pro-abortion Catholic politicians to get away with supporting murder (abortion). It is people like Judie Brown, on the other hand, with her PUBLIC standing up for what is RIGHT, that draws my sister TOWARD the Church in spite of the do-nothing bishops.

God bless Judie Brown.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[otjm]

The bishops’ lack of public action after exhausting private attempts to lead the politician to repentance is in itself scandalous to the Flock entrusted to their care. Their refusal to defend the integrity of the faith in their realm of responsibility has in effect a refusal to defend the Church’s stand on the unborn. If you disagree, convince us otherwise.

As I said in a previous post, this was fairly thoroughly vetted during the last presidential election. There were some few bishops who chose to take Kerry on over the issue. The press immediately responded that the Church was using an arcane and totally misunderstood law (to them) to obtain political ends. The results were that the public knew that the Church was manipulating politics, never mind that they “knew” a non-fact. It wass neither the first nor last time that has happened.

You might keep in mind several things. It used to be said that Catholics made up the largest denomination in the US. And the second largest denomination was fallen-away Catholics. Those numbers are no reversed. The number of practicing Catholics is about 1/3 of those baptized… and to read these fora, the large to vast majority of those practicing are liberals (to judge, e.g. from hand-holding at Mass). That bon mot aside, any reading of just about any diocesan newspaper should aquaint you with the fact that there are all too many practicing Catholics who will judge an action such as banning politicians from Communion as politically manipulative. You and I may think different, but if the reaction of practicing Catholics is that, what do you really think the reaction will be of non-Catholics?

the bishops are responsible for many things, and one of them is not making the issue of abortion any worse than it is. Banning Catholic politicians who support abortion or euthenasia (practiced legally in my state, by the way) is not likely to stop any of them from voting the way they do - at least on the national level. In fact, I would estimate not as likely as a snowball in a hot place.

So you want them banned because they profane the Eucharist. I agree that objectively they profane it, and I hope God will be merciful when he judges them. St Paul has sharp words for the issue. But if banning them is going to cause more harm to the pro-life movement (and the last presidential election certainly did not show that it would help in any way, shape or form), then I would suggest that there are many steps the bishop can take without a public banning; and they are steps neither you nor I will see.

There is a sense of perceived righteous justice within this thread. I understand it, but I also understand the bishops’ reluctance to do something that has already been labeled as political manipulation. Canon law does not demand that the bishop do so (ban them); it provides the means of doing so but it is not mandatory. It is within the prudential judgement of the bishop whether or not he does so, and it is only available to a bishop who has jurisdiction of the person; Kerry visiting my diocese could only be banned by Archbishop Vlazny within the confines of Western Oregon.

As to the scandal to other Catholics, that can be aleviated by education. It has been a judgement call that the scandal you speak of may not be as great withion practicing Catholics as the reverse scandl potential of them perceiving it as a manipulative tactic. It is a judgement call that is within the perview of the office of the bishops, and they have beenactively discussing this since before the last presidentias election. we all like to think that anti-Catholicism has died. Given what is going on daily in the news, only the most naieve would think so.

 

[chevalier]

I’m surprised to read some of the comments here. What’s more important: the message the Church carries or the position of authority? Is it even appropriate to pretend unity in a certain matter when there is none, for the sake of appearing united more than any other religion? Since when are looks more important than reality?
It reminds me of the “keep quiet” policy. Silent complaints rarely do anything, especially ones against priests. Sometimes you were a sexual abuse victim and were threatened with excommunications if you had gone and told people (USA). Or even punished for reporting things to the Vatican (Poland). When it becomes public, woah, something happens. The Pope steps in and solves the problem.
I don’t like the approach of cutting off the lesser means, or ignoring them, and then complaining about someone using the bigger means.

Though our pleas went unanswered, the dilemma remains. On the one hand we have a Church law that is quite specific and on the other hand we have men in authority, capable of enforcing the law and yet hesitant to do so.

Nothing inappropriate there IMHO as long as it reflects reality.

See my below comments. Are you really saying that a Catholic who publicly implies that Bishops hold eagle eggs in higher esteem than the Eucharist, are effectively intentionally allowing the desecration of the Eucharist, and are comparable to the leaders who turned Christ over to Pilate isn’t egregious?

I would stay away from judging persons, whether from the position of Judi Brown or from the position of judging Judi Brown. I would say the words cited above are not proper for talking about bishops, but bishops’ actions don’t strike me as overly proper, either.

But Judi then tries to use this analogy to accuse the Bishops of effective intentional neglect to protect the Eucharist.

That’s likely her frustration with not even refusal to take action but simply ignoring, ignoring, ignoring.

The non-reception of Communion for anyone living outside the Church is to be self-denied by the individual. Why do we insist on our own personal pound of flesh and not just leave it to God? They have been properly informed.

That would be my position, except those politicians make a point of receiving communion and use that to make statements and continue to usurp Catholic endorsement or at least credit. If a divorced and remarried person were to be prevented from receiving, for instance, it would seem that a pro-abortion activist should as well.

But when they failed to do as she so arrogantly believes is the only correct action (despite her not being ordained and such instruction has not be delivered from Rome), she chose to publicly admonish.

There was a letter from the then Card. Ratzinger as the head of the Doctrine of Faith, regarding the issue. It was “abridged” while being read out to the bishops gathered. The letter was discussed in these forums, so if you’re interested, do a search.

It certainly doesn’t take a Bishop to know that abortion is a sin and not to fight it is against Canon Law.

Yes, although there is a distant possibility that perhaps denying pro-abortion politicians communion would not be in the best interest of the fight against abortion. Just a thought. Yes, I am giving arguments for both sides of the spectrum.

Tell me how the Bishops can be teaching about the horror of abortion when they don’t?

That is strange indeed.

Because canon law says so, Cardinal Ratzinger said so, and most importantly because it will help save souls and desecration of the Eucharist.

The authority of a secular member is below that of a bishop, but that of a bishop is below Canon Law and below the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. I don’t find it so nice how bishops in various places in the world choose to do the opposite of what Rome says. From how people who kneel to receive communion are refused despite kneeling and opening the mouth is the default position in the Latin rite, to how pro-abortion celebrities are not refused despite what higher authorities say.

 

[chevalier]

Judie Brown should know better. In my view, her zeal exceeded her wisdom. By far.

Possible. But how to break the circle of silence? I can relate to people getting frustrated. Bishops lead the Church, but they do not own the Church. Nor is a diocesan bishop a higher authority to a secular member than the Pope in Rome is. Why is it okay for bishops to be at variance with Rome, but not for laity to be at variance with pastors?

Consider this. If the Archbishop of Washington, standing on the steps of the Capital, were to read the formal interdict and writ of excommunication of all those subject to him, with the Papal Nuncio at his side, how many abortions would occur that day and the days following?
The exact same number. That’s how many.

What about a nation-wide campaign of instruction, explaining the Catholic view on abortion and voting in favour of it, organised by bishops? What about some sort of statement of the conditions of worthily receiving the Eucharist?
What about publicly saying that the fact communion is given should not be interpreted as acceptance of that person’s voting record?

And they sure could have. They preached up a storm against abortion but I never heard of them withholding Holy Communion. Therefore, the onus to demonstrate that such an act is prudent and wise is up to those who promote it.

I sympathise with that view, but show me please a modern day follower of archbishop Sheen in his manner of teaching on abortion?

When pressed on such “unambigiously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians, Arinze said such a politician “is not fit” to receive communion. “If they should not receive, then they should not be given,” he said.

Arinze > bishop && Ratzinger > bishop
Simple.

In other words, for the Catholic politician to receive Communion when he or she has publicly violated the moral law in a grave matter like procured abortion risks leading others into thinking that they can accept procured abortion with a right conscience. In such a case, if the Catholic politician does not recognize the lack of the proper disposition to receive Communion, then the church herself must refuse the sacrament, in order to safeguard the worthy reception of the sacrament and to prevent a serious scandal among the faithful.

There is a number and probably a growing one of Catholics believing that abortion may be accepted in clear conscience.

And just what do we expect to be the result if the Bishops would do what Judi demands? I can tell you that in this country the support for abortion and politicians who support it would skyrocket. Those lovely politicians would become the “underdogs” and Americans love underdogs. The Bishops understand quite well in my opinion what will get the result they want and what will in the short and probably long term be counter productive. There may be some Bishops who are dummies, but I think probably very few.

Possible.

While those are both canonically available to bishops, the Church’s approach to such Canonical sanctions is, and has consistently been for a very long time, to use them only very reluctantly. And I mean for long before Vatican 2.

Segregationists were excommunicated in the sixties.

As one state senator who I know personally and believe to be as pro-life as the Pope, said after the defeat. “We had the opportunity to eliminate 98% of the abortions in this state. When a boat is sinking, we wouldn’t quit trying to save people from drowning just because we didn’t have enough lifeboats and life jackets for everyone or say we couldn’t do anything to save them until we had a rescue boat that could save everyone. We’d save who we could. Our “principles” have condemned thousands or even millions to death.”

According to a very specific teaching from Rome regarding abortion and voting, voting to reduce the availability of abortion without even eliminating it, if impossible, is not wrong. It’s proper, actually. Therefore, it’s better to vote for a more restrictive law while making it clear that one opposes abortion altogether, than to refuse to vote in the name of principles.

She is dreaming if she thinks mass excommunication will change there action but she will guarantee they will be harder to beat at the ballot box.

Maybe it wouldn’t change the number of abortions, but maybe it would add some clarity? Not like the politicians wouldn’t choose abortion over the Church and play the oppressed victim image to get more votes. Even from Catholics.

In addition, there is a feeling that if there is a law on the books saying that a bishop may exclude someone from Communion under such circumstances (pro abortion), that therefore the bishop is derelict in his duty by not doing so. But that is a misperception of Canon Law.

Yep.

 

[chevalier]

And something from me in the end…

I don’t like the notion of punishment for its own sake. I don’t like the notion of using denial as punishment or of denial for its own sake, either. The Eucharist needs to be protected, but involving it and its denial in political struggles might in fact do harm to that protection. On the other hand, it does harm, I believe, that so many people are led to believe that being pro-choice is no big deal and that it’s okay to be pro-abortion so long as you’re important enough. I believe people should more often hear the teaching about abortion and about voting in favour of it. Additionally, if reception of the Eucharist by pro-abortion politicians is an issue, I believe people should be given reasons why such politicians are allowed to receive and it should not be left to individual speculation.

Sorry for taking so much space. Now let me sit back and see what unfolds.

 

[childofmary1143]

As I said in a previous post, this was fairly thoroughly vetted during the last presidential election. There were some few bishops who chose to take Kerry on over the issue. The press immediately responded that the Church was using an arcane and totally misunderstood law (to them) to obtain political ends. The results were that the public knew that the Church was manipulating politics, never mind that they “knew” a non-fact. It wass neither the first nor last time that has happened.

It is wrong that we should think about how the Press will respond. Since what Judie is asking is something that has never been done it is impossible to know what the results would be. Who cares what the general public might think. As for the Catholic public, if they see this as “Political” then its high time that Adult Catechism becomes required in every parish.

You might keep in mind several things. It used to be said that Catholics made up the largest denomination in the US. And the second largest denomination was fallen-away Catholics. Those numbers are no reversed. The number of practicing Catholics is about 1/3 of those baptized… and to read these fora, the large to vast majority of those practicing are liberals (to judge, e.g. from hand-holding at Mass). That bon mot aside, any reading of just about any diocesan newspaper should aquaint you with the fact that there are all too many practicing Catholics who will judge an action such as banning politicians from Communion as politically manipulative. You and I may think different, but if the reaction of practicing Catholics is that, what do you really think the reaction will be of non-Catholics?

As I said I don’t care and neither should anyone else here should worry about what the reaction of non-catholics are. I mean can it be any worse than what non-Catholics think about the Catholic church with regard to all the sex abuse scandals?

the bishops are responsible for many things, and one of them is not making the issue of abortion any worse than it is. Banning Catholic politicians who support abortion or euthenasia (practiced legally in my state, by the way) is not likely to stop any of them from voting the way they do - at least on the national level. In fact, I would estimate not as likely as a snowball in a hot place.

I totally agree. However a moderate Politician might reconsider his/her actions in regard to life issues. One never knows. Who would have thought that “Roe” would recant her position 12 years ago (or whenever it took place). But the thing is, the purpose of this action (banning them from communion) is not about having them change their position. Its to prevent the scandal that one should/could have witnessing a Pro-Abortion Politican receive communion.

So you want them banned because they profane the Eucharist. I agree that objectively they profane it, and I hope God will be merciful when he judges them. St Paul has sharp words for the issue. But if banning them is going to cause more harm to the pro-life movement (and the last presidential election certainly did not show that it would help in any way, shape or form), then I would suggest that there are many steps the bishop can take without a public banning; and they are steps neither you nor I will see.

I can’t see how banning them would cause MORE HARM. Since abortion is a public scandal and their receiving communion publicly, then at some point there must be PUBLIC action

There is a sense of perceived righteous justice within this thread. I understand it, but I also understand the bishops’ reluctance to do something that has already been labeled as political manipulation. Canon law does not demand that the bishop do so (ban them); it provides the means of doing so but it is not mandatory. It is within the prudential judgement of the bishop whether or not he does so, and it is only available to a bishop who has jurisdiction of the person; Kerry visiting my diocese could only be banned by Archbishop Vlazny within the confines of Western Oregon. As to the scandal to other Catholics, that can be aleviated by education. It has been a judgement call that the scandal you speak of may not be as great withion practicing Catholics as the reverse scandl potential of them perceiving it as a manipulative tactic. It is a judgement call that is within the perview of the office of the bishops, and they have beenactively discussing this since before the last presidentias election. we all like to think that anti-Catholicism has died. Given what is going on daily in the news, only the most naieve would think so.

You mentioned that what Judie is asking would be bad as its “Political”. I submit to you that the sight of Pro-Abortion Politicians receiving communion while potentially they could be already Ex-Communicated is far more Political and scandalous and makes one wonder why the Bishops would allow for such profane actions to take place.

 

[mary_bobo]

I don’t think criticizing do-nothing bishops scandalizes those outside the Catholic Church.

I agree. I returned to the church about two years ago after many years away. My DH is not a Catholic, and he often mentions that the Church does not say anything about those who openly flaunt the tenets of the Church (particularly politicians.

My sister for one is outside the Catholic church and is deeply offended and turned off to the Church BECAUSE our bishops allow the pro-abortion Catholic politicians to get away with supporting murder (abortion). It is people like Judie Brown, on the other hand, with her PUBLIC standing up for what is RIGHT, that draws my sister TOWARD the Church in spite of the do-nothing bishops.

God bless Judie Brown.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[elts1956]

It is totally inappropriate for Judie Brown or anyone else to “call the Bishop’s to the carpet” publically. To use public opinion as push against the Church is offensive and un-Catholic. It does real harm to the Body of Christ to play this in the court of public opinion. This is not a political campaign and should not be treated as such. Don’t get me wrong I think all of the Bishop’s should refuse Communion to such politicians, but I do think that this is not the right way to address the situation with the Bishop’s. The appropriate action would be to write personal letters and meet with the Bishop’s privately to explain her position.

However, one notes with sorrow that a couple of newspaper headlines on the molestation scandals got a lot more action from the bishops than many years of quiet complaints.

I am beginning, sadly, to believe the same thing. It seems no matter how many letters we write to some Bishops regarding moral obligations, we get no response until the Church is accosted publicly as in the molestation cases and winds up sputtering with a red face. What would happen if a petition with as many names on it as possible were sent to each Bishop who has not responded positively to the admonition by Archbishop Raymond Burke to withhold Communion from public figures who support abortion? How to get such a petition started? We could sign it, “In the name of Christ Jesus and the members of His Mystical Body.”

 

[Ender]

Canon law does not demand that the bishop do so (ban them); it provides the means of doing so but it is not mandatory.

This is incorrect; the action is mandatory.

*Fifthly, the discipline **requires **the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. *

It is within the prudential judgement of the bishop whether or not he does so, and it is only available to a bishop who has jurisdiction of the person; Kerry visiting my diocese could only be banned by Archbishop Vlazny within the confines of Western Oregon.

This is also incorrect. The responsibility of the minister of the eucharist is not limited.

… the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

As to the scandal to other Catholics, that can be aleviated by education.

No, it can’t. The scandal is that they receive communion unworthily. The scandal persists so long as they continue to receive and is not eliminated by saying … what? that “we know this is scandalous but we will continue to permit it?”

The above quotes are from Abp. Burke’s paper The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion. Given that Burke is now the head of what is essentially the Church’s supreme court for canon law, his opinion is significant. Given that he wrote this opinion before BXVI appointed him to that position should lend extra significance to it.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Ender