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

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The article talks about “communion ministers” and I’m not sure if that means clergy or lay people.

I’m not sure I like the idea of clergy deciding at communion who may or may not receive. But I’m definitely opposed to lay people making that judgment.

The only one who really knows the state of my soul is my confessor. I don’t want someone else to make a snap decision about whether I should or shouldn’t receive communion. And I wouldn’t want to make that decision about another person.

 

[rpp]

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.

The usage of the terms EMoHC and EM are the correct and proper Church usages. Yours are utterly incorrect, misleading and wrong.

Unless you are a priest, deacon or bishop you are not a Eucharistic Minister.

Additionally, you have held so many positions in other postings that are opposed to Catholic teaching. Yet you continue to claim to be priest, deacon or bishop.

 

[rpp]

The article talks about “communion ministers” and I’m not sure if that means clergy or lay people.

I’m not sure I like the idea of clergy deciding at communion who may or may not receive. But I’m definitely opposed to lay people making that judgment.

The only one who really knows the state of my soul is my confessor. I don’t want someone else to make a snap decision about whether I should or shouldn’t receive communion. And I wouldn’t want to make that decision about another person.

This is not about the state of your soul. It is about those who publicly sinning by holding a public position in opposition to Church teaching.

Anyone, including the priest mentioned in the article, who describes this as “Eucharitic policing” is seriously distorting what the Good Bishop said. Period.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

This is not about the state of your soul. It is about those who publicly sinning by holding a public position in opposition to Church teaching.

Maybe so. But we normally put the burden of deciding whether someone should receive communion on the person him/herself. In turn, they live with the consequences of their actions.

When I’m at Mass I want to focus on the Mass and on receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. I don’t want it to turn into a battleground over whether someone should be allowed to receive communion or not.

 

[Ender]

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.

Canon 915 says that communion ***must ***be denied to anyone “obstinately perservering in manifest grave sin.” There is no question here of EMHCs judging someone’s soul since that hardly meets the requirement that the sin be manifest. With politicians who have made repeated public announcements of their support for actions the Church considers grave sin (e.g. abortion) all four of the criteria have been met. The obligation to act then falls to the EMHC to follow the laws of the Church.

If the door is cracked open for selected politicians, then it can easily be expanded to everyone on one or more “issues”.

The door is not cracked open for selected politicians; certain public figures, by virtue of their own actions, have placed themselves outside of communion with the Church. The application of the required penalty for such action is nothing more than the requirement to acknowledge the obvious and behave accordingly.

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 am less concerned with the loss of people who disagree with the Church and are offended at being chastised for doing so than I am with the loss of people who agree with the Church and leave because they perceive that the Church doesn’t even take her own commands seriously enough to enforce them.

Ender

 

[fix]

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…R. L. BURKE

PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA

I like his quote here because it says it all. The sad and amazing thing about this issue is that it is even an issue at all. Why would any Catholic be against enforcing canon law? The law is at the service of truth and to safeguard all of us.

 

[irenaeus1]

Maybe so. But we normally put the burden of deciding whether someone should receive communion on the person him/herself. In turn, they live with the consequences of their actions.

Good, then you agree with the bishop. The person should examine his own conscience first. We all agree. But the issue here is what about those who refuse private and/or public admonishment, and obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Then Holy Communion is to be denied to the would-be communicant. This should not be that difficult to understand.

 

[BobP123]

Seems like the right thing for a priest or deacon to do is to give his blessing instead of communion to any public figure that is detrimental to the Church, ie. pro-choice, Mason, etc.

However, an EMHC is not exactly in a good position to do this. So maybe the Archbishop should ban EMHC’s altogether or put them in very awkward positions indeed.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe so. But we normally put the burden of deciding whether someone should receive communion on the person him/herself. In turn, they live with the consequences of their actions.

Normally, that is true, but if you read +Burke’s article, you will see that he makes a very compelling case for the application of Canon 915

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

The Church REQUIRES that those is Manifest (that is publically known) sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Not that it doesn’t say that these people should self police themselves, but rather that the Church, and Her ministers, not admit them.

This normally doesn’t come into effect as most mortal sin is not publically known (manifest). Private sins are just that, private.

But when one trumpted the sin on national television and other media, then the sin becomes manifest and the ministers of the Church are then obligated, under Canon 915, not to admit them to Holy Communion.

When I’m at Mass I want to focus on the Mass and on receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. I don’t want it to turn into a battleground over whether someone should be allowed to receive communion or not.

The only time it becomes a ‘battleground’ is when these people present themselves for Communion, in oppostition to the Church’s instructions.

It is they, not the Church, or the EMHC, who make it a ‘battle’, so blame them, not the EMHC.

It is because it is Christ in the Eucharist that it becomes critical. It is damaging\fatal to their souls to recieve. Would you stand by if you saw an EMHC pass them a cup that you knew was poisoned. Would you let them drink it and suffer the consequence of their actions, or would you act to prevent it?

If you would prevent it to save their mortal existance, why not their immortal existance?

 

[irenaeus1]

Normally, that is true, but if you read +Burke’s article, you will see that he makes a very compelling case for the application of Canon 915

This is exactly right. Many confuse Canon 916 with Canon 915.

 

[Apryl]

The article talks about “communion ministers” and I’m not sure if that means clergy or lay people.

I’m not sure I like the idea of clergy deciding at communion who may or may not receive. But I’m definitely opposed to lay people making that judgment.

The only one who really knows the state of my soul is my confessor. I don’t want someone else to make a snap decision about whether I should or shouldn’t receive communion. And I wouldn’t want to make that decision about another person.

But… what if you tell the Lay person that you know is a communion minister, ‘I am not Catholic’, or ‘I’m very Pro-Abortion’ and you approach to receive communion.

Then what?

I’m not in favor of any one making any judgements, but if you TELL them, is that them making a judgement?

What should be one’s reaction be if they have divulged such information?

 

[iamrefreshed]

As the EMoHC how am I to know if the receiptient of communion did not just come from confession?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As the EMoHC how am I to know if the receiptient of communion did not just come from confession?

Exactly!

I can see this evolving into a scenario where, Mrs Church Lady is an EMHC at her parish. Recently, she saw who she thought was Mr Green, looking at dirty magazines at the local drug store. This is a mortal sin, in her mind. At Sunday’s Mass, the real Mr Green goes up to receive communion, and Mrs Church Lady denies him Holy Communion.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Exactly!

I can see this evolving into a scenario where, Mrs Church Lady is an EMHC at her parish. Recently, she saw who she thought was Mr Green, looking at dirty magazines at the local drug store. This is a mortal sin, in her mind. At Sunday’s Mass, the real Mr Green goes up to receive communion, and Mrs Church Lady denies him Holy Communion.

Jim

Not quite. again, the example given is private sin.

Sin is confessed to the one to whom it damages. Private sin is confessed to God, who will forgive those who are penitent.

A sin against others requires confession and forgiveness on behalf of others. If a wife gains knowledge that her husband has had an affair, it is not enough for the man to simply say that he has been to confession and absolved. The wife must also forgive before the husband is permitted to make use of the marriage bed. The husband has sinned against both God and the wife, and must seek forgiveness from both.

Manifest sin is a sin against both God and against the Public. One confesses the sin to God, and one confesses the sin to the Public ( look as an example of the Prodigal Sin " I have sinned against Heaven and you" and note that he confessed his sin against the father TO the father. - who then forgave him)

One confesses Manifest sin to BOTH God and the Public ( in the form of a recanting of one’s sinful position) and seeks forgiveness from both God and the Public.

 

[Apryl]

Exactly!

I can see this evolving into a scenario where, Mrs Church Lady is an EMHC at her parish. Recently, she saw who she thought was Mr Green, looking at dirty magazines at the local drug store. This is a mortal sin, in her mind. At Sunday’s Mass, the real Mr Green goes up to receive communion, and Mrs Church Lady denies him Holy Communion.

Jim

… or worse, Miss Church Lady tries to deny him the Holy Communion, and Mr. Green in anger and defiance snatches the chalice from her hands… they together wind up wrathing on the floor of the church, while Little Billy is trying to understand what just happened!

(I think I watch waaay too much tv)

 

[irenaeus1]

Exactly!

I can see this evolving into a scenario where, Mrs Church Lady is an EMHC at her parish. Recently, she saw who she thought was Mr Green, looking at dirty magazines at the local drug store. This is a mortal sin, in her mind. At Sunday’s Mass, the real Mr Green goes up to receive communion, and Mrs Church Lady denies him Holy Communion.

Jim

“… obstinately persist in manifest grave sin…” Again, please read Canon 915.

 

[joelacour]

Next shot across the bows:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_communion_9;_ylt=Ap2ek5qjvHOynOXAT7RNM4AE1vAI

 

[Adonis33]

**Bishop Would Deny Communion to Giuliani

** ST. LOUIS (AP) - Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, who made headlines last presidential season by saying he’d refuse Holy Communion to John Kerry, has his eye on Rudy Giuliani this year. Giuliani’s response: “Archbishops have a right to their opinion.”
Burke, the archbishop of St. Louis, was asked if he would deny Communion to Giuliani or any other presidential candidate who supports abortion rights.
“If any politician approached me and he’d been admonished not to present himself, I’d not give it,” Burke told The Associated Press Wednesday. “To me, you have to be certain a person realizes he is persisting in a serious public sin.”

apnews.myway.com/article/20071004/D8S24K980.html

 

[Nordar]

I love Archbishop Burke. BRAVO!!! Now all we need are lots and lots of Archbishops just like him.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Hooray for Archbishop Burke :clapping:

So glad to have this man leading us in St. Louis.

Archbishop Burke article