Archbishop Burke's instruction to EMHC and pro-abort politicians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kelly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The most telling part of the article from Fr Reese.
“Most bishops do not want ministers of Communion playing policeman at the Communion rail,” he added. “This is a significant change in focus. Suddenly, you’re going to have a few thousand decisionmakers in parishes across the country.”
The standard practice is that EMs do not make their own personal judgments about people coming up. That would make communion subject to personal pettiness on self-judging of people. This policy should stay that way even if Burke changes it locally in St Louis.
 
you should read the article. Excellent read.

Here is the actaully article by the bishop- It’s a long but a good read.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

In approaching to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the faithful must both respect the holiness of the Sacrament, the Real Presence of Christ, and examine their own worthiness, lest they condemn themselves by receiving the Lord unworthily.

The emphasis is on self-examination, in order to discover preparedness to receive the Sacrament or not. If one is not prepared, for example, because of serious sin which is unremitted, then he simply is not to approach to receive Holy Communion. Here, one is dealing with what may be simply called a “reality check”. Does the actual state of my soul dispose me to receive the true Body and Blood of Christ?

The self-examination necessarily has reference to one’s relationship both to God and to others. Communion with Christ in His Body and Blood means putting into practice what He has taught us, namely love of God and of neighbor. Serious sin against God or against neighbor makes one unworthy to receive Holy Communion, until the sin has been confessed and forgiveness received through the Sacrament of Penance.

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.

Perhaps the most recent authoritative commentary on Saint Paul’s teaching regarding unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is found in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter *Ecclesia de Eucharistia, *“On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church,” issued on Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, “The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion,” Pope John Paul declared:
The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its *invisible *dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its *visible *dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order [8].


I am deeply aware of the difficulty which is involved in applying the discipline of can. 915. I am not surprised by it and do not believe that anyone should be surprised. Surely, the discipline has never been easy to apply. But what is at stake for the Church demands the wisdom and courage of shepherds who will apply it.

The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the *Code of Canon Law *and can. 712 of the *Code of Canons of the Eastern **Churches *articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.
Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke
 
I respect Archbishop Burke more and more! I’m glad that he’s taking this stance!
 
The dear archbishops courage is edifying, to say the least. This will certainly rattle some cages if it get much coverage.
 
I am confused. Was this an instuction in his diocese or an analysis for the Gregorian on the application of Canon 915?
 
Reese once again show the Spirit of Vatican II.

By the way how nmany parishes have a communion rail. I guess this rehotoric is menat for the Natioal Catholic Reporter reaqder.

“Most bishops do not want ministers of Communion playing policeman at the Communion rail,” he added. “This is a significant change in focus. Suddenly, you’re going to have a few thousand decisionmakers in parishes across the country.”

Pray for poor Father Reese.
 
Reese once again show the Spirit of Vatican II.

By the way how nmany parishes have a communion rail. I guess this rehotoric is menat for the Natioal Catholic Reporter reaqder.

“Most bishops do not want ministers of Communion playing policeman at the Communion rail,” he added. “This is a significant change in focus. Suddenly, you’re going to have a few thousand decisionmakers in parishes across the country.”

Pray for poor Father Reese.
He was speaking metaphorically, not literally. I agree with Fr Reese and most of the Bishops on this and not to have EMs be “communion policepeople”.
 
He was speaking metaphorically, not literally. I agree with Fr Reese and most of the Bishops on this and not to have EMs be “communion policepeople”.
Fr. Reese is incorrect. He was also not speaking metaphorically when he referred to the “Ministers of the Eucharist”.

Lay people are not “Eucharistic ministers” or “Ministers of the Eucharist”. Only deacons, priests and bishops. Lay people may be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

As such, EM’s must be Eucharistic police. If not them, then who? I would also say the EMoHC must also be very careful when providing Holy Communion.

Remember, denying Holy Communion to someone is an act of love and charity as it prevents them from sinning against the Body and Blood of Jesus, a very grave sacrilege.
 
Fr. Reese is incorrect. He was also not speaking metaphorically when he referred to the “Ministers of the Eucharist”.

Lay people are not “Eucharistic ministers” or “Ministers of the Eucharist”. Only deacons, priests and bishops. Lay people may be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

As such, EM’s must be Eucharistic police. If not them, then who? I would also say the EMoHC must also be very careful when providing Holy Communion.

Remember, denying Holy Communion to someone is an act of love and charity as it prevents them from sinning against the Body and Blood of Jesus, a very grave sacrilege.
EMs are the most common term used in all the parishes I have attended and people I have interacted with. EMHC is a mouthful to say and most people shorten it down.

Now, that is a very dangerous precedent for having EMs (or EMHCs depending you your use) being “Eucharistic Police”. It leads to a responsibility of judging of souls that should not be done in the communion line. People’s internal predjucies against known or even worse suspected “limitations of the soul” will lead to a very vindive refusal of communion.

As an EM for well over four years+ that is responsibility I refuse to do. If you minister to a couple hundred/mass then how can we be judges of peoples’ souls? We cannot and that is how the Bishops set their policies.

If the door is cracked open for selected politicians, then it can easily be expanded to everyone on one or more “issues”. In the end it would appear to be a vindictive and not pastoral Church and people would not want to attend out of precieved (or not) pettiness.
 
Reese is very smart. However, as with many of those who advocate “the Spirit of Vatican II” he is also ambiguious in his language.
 
My question is can we borrow him in Illinois and tell Durbin the rules??
 
The most telling part of the article from Fr Reese.

The standard practice is that EMs do not make their own personal judgments about people coming up. That would make communion subject to personal pettiness on self-judging of people. This policy should stay that way even if Burke changes it locally in St Louis.
Actually, no one is making judgements on PEOPLE, but rather on actions those people take. Actions CAN be judged objectively.

So it’s well within the authority of the bishop to set up such objective criteria. In that way, the EMHC’s are judging no one.

And +Burke did an excellent job explaining why it’s a good idea Canonically to prohibit those who manifestly (publically) sin from the Eucharist.

I suggest you read his article.
 
First, I think Burke knows what [and who] constitutes an Eucharistic Minister [Bishop, Priest, Deacon]. It is the Ordinary Minister who should police…

Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion sshould follow the directives of their Bishop and Priest in the distribution of the Eucharist…

As for being the policeman, that is not the point [IMHO] and Archbishop Berke did do a wonderful job presenting the pastoral reasons for withholding Communion…

What is really at stake is the Public Scandal that occurs when politicians openly vote for immoral legislation [Pro - Abortion, Euthanasia, etc] and then also publically proclaim their “Catholic Status” [and the photo op receiving communion]. It is not that this faithful bishop is witch hunting or wanting all Priests to go seeking out the sinners for a scarlet letter…this is purely acting upon public statements and actions…And this crosses party lines: you have Ted Kennedy [D], Arnold Szwartzinegger [R] sp?], Christine Whitman, [R], John Kerry [D], Rudy Guiliani [R], Nancy Pelosi [D]…Everyone in America knows that these politicians have taken a publically Pro-Abortion stance in word and deed…

This is the same treatment that happens every day when a parishioner [who has divirced and re-married civilly] is denied communion or when the baptist spouse of a catholic attends mass but is not allowed to participate in communion. The divirced and remarried person has seperated themselves from the authority and unity of the church and the baptist does not profess that unity…
 
Archbishop Burke sounds like a great bishop! I applaud him! :clapping:
 
EMs are the most common term used in all the parishes I have attended and people I have interacted with. EMHC is a mouthful to say and most people shorten it down.

Now, that is a very dangerous precedent for having EMs (or EMHCs depending you your use) being “Eucharistic Police”. It leads to a responsibility of judging of souls that should not be done in the communion line. People’s internal predjucies against known or even worse suspected “limitations of the soul” will lead to a very vindive refusal of communion.

As an EM for well over four years+ that is responsibility I refuse to do. If you minister to a couple hundred/mass then how can we be judges of peoples’ souls? We cannot and that is how the Bishops set their policies.

If the door is cracked open for selected politicians, then it can easily be expanded to everyone on one or more “issues”. In the end it would appear to be a vindictive and not pastoral Church and people would not want to attend out of precieved (or not) pettiness.
Please read what the bishop said.

“Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.”

and

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.​

The bishop is talking about one specific item. He talks about the general rules for communion first that if you are knownly sinning then you shouldn’t even come up to receive communion. So don’t even make the attempt to come up to receieve communion BUT if you do then the eurcharist should be protected and be denied to that person. For the average person it is a private decision or a decision between the Priest and the party. The average EMCH isn’t going to know because you can’t read the souls as you put it. BUT those in the public you don’t have to read their souls. They have shown through their public actions that they are against the church. I believe that is what the Bishop is talking about. Only the public figures.
 
Excellent, a no nonsense archbishop. This is good, we must take action.

God Bless Archbishop Burke
 
EMs are the most common term used in all the parishes I have attended and people I have interacted with. EMHC is a mouthful to say and most people shorten it down…
True… but the ‘policing’ would be done by the Priests and Deacons, and the EMHE are really supposed to only be there when there are not enough priests and deacons. Sadly, for a lot of parishes, that’s a regular thing, but still, the LEADERS are the priests and deacons.
Now, that is a very dangerous precedent for having EMs (or EMHCs depending you your use) being “Eucharistic Police”. It leads to a responsibility of judging of souls that should not be done in the communion line. People’s internal predjucies against known or even worse suspected “limitations of the soul” will lead to a very vindive refusal of communion.

As an EM for well over four years+ that is responsibility I refuse to do. If you minister to a couple hundred/mass then how can we be judges of peoples’ souls? We cannot and that is how the Bishops set their policies.

If the door is cracked open for selected politicians, then it can easily be expanded to everyone on one or more “issues”. In the end it would appear to be a vindictive and not pastoral Church and people would not want to attend out of precieved (or not) pettiness.
I think the best way for this to happen is if the the entire congregation was informed BEFORE Communion that the EMs (and EMHEs) will be refusing those that are not supposed to come up, and then, some of the people that shouldn’t be receiving won’t come up. This time. Then, next time, more that should not be receiving won’t come up. Eventually, those that should not be receiving will save themselves the trouble and not approach.

Those that are dispensing could place a hand on the shoulder, or make the sign of the cross on the forehead of those that are not receiving. Should the recipient insist, well, that’s on them. Not a time for 20 questions or any discussion.

It is important that those that are dispensing, and those that are receiving, are all aware that this is not a line for potato chips at the bar-be-que, and that we should all take this Sacrament as a keystone to our faith.

It’s hard, but then, being Catholic is hard. Always has been.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top