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

[estesbob]

Often what I see when people claim to be against abortion personally, but pro-choice for others, is that they’re attempting to take a neutral position toward abortion.

Of course, this is not possible.To be pro-choice, especially in the political context, means that you’ll provide support for abortions, even indirectly, and therefore are culpable in the aiding and abetting of the evil act of abortion.

Its not possible to be pro-choice and not support abortion at some level.

However, this is off track from the subject of the thread, which is about giving EMHCs the authority to refuse communion to those who they believe support abortion.

I don’t think its a good idea to allow EMHC’s to make this judgment call.

Jim

Saying one opposed abortion but does not want it illegal is an untenable position. It is a lame attempt to opt out of the biggest moral issue facing us Today. The only possible reason for opposong abortion is the acknolwedgenent it is the unjust taking opf human life. Accordingly to say its ok for others to kill their chidren is support for this evil act whether one wants to admit it or not.

 

[irenaeus1]

Again, the EMHC would not know if the politician has just gone to confession.

If a politician has not been excommunicated from the Church, I don’t think there are grounds for refusing communion to them.

Jim

Neither would a priest or a bishop necessarily know whether the politician had just gone to confession, so following your logic, a priest or bishop is also not allowed to refuse Holy Communion to the said politician.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Neither would a priest or a bishop necessarily know whether the politician had just gone to confession, so following your logic, a priest or bishop is also not allowed to refuse Holy Communion to the said politician.

If the politician just went to the priest for confession, prior to Mass, then he would know, but he might not if the politician went somewhere else. Should a debate take place during Communion between the priest and the politician?

I think, once a politician is told that he should not receive, and he should by the diocesan Bishop, but from there on, its between him and God.

I think a debate at Mass during Communion, would be scandalous.

Jim

 

[KathleenElsie]

I wish more of our bishop’s were like him.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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”.

Then the EM’s should not be distributing the Eucharist. If you are giving it then you are responsible for it IMHO.

 

[irenaeus1]

If the politician just went to the priest for confession, prior to Mass, then he would know, but he might not if the politician went somewhere else. Should a debate take place during Communion between the priest and the politician?

I think, once a politician is told that he should not receive, and he should by the diocesan Bishop, but from there on, its between him and God.

I think a debate at Mass during Communion, would be scandalous.

Jim

No debate is being requested nor sought. Just deny Holy Ccmmunion - period. A public offense demands a public redress. And if the politician just had gone to confession, he could have gone behind the screen, in which case, even the very priest or bishop to whom he just confessed would not necessarily know it was the politician. And if the politician just had gone to confession, that does not necessarily mean that he confessed and repented of his position on abortion, in which case, his absolution would be invalid. And if the politician just had gone to confession, one would think that his sincerity would cause him to announce publicly soon thereafter that he has recanted his advocacy of support for legislation in support of a woman’s right to murder her unborn. In fact, with all the pro-abortion politicians receiving Holy Communion and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’ve gone to confession prior, one would think that this would be demonstrated by their voting record trending in the other direction. Of course, this is exactly what we don’t see.

 

[Nordar]

See this is what I have a real problem with, and I am serious I mean a real problem as in huge.

A politician is pro choice pro abortion, this is part of his/her platform when running for office. They are not hiding that fact, they make it very obvious, they know they are going against Church teaching if they are Catholic. Apparently they do not care because they make sure everyone knows they are pro choice. We know who they are.

Now I do not know about anyone else but I have yet to hear one of them announce that they have gone to confession and are now changing their stance. Yet we have some Catholics who are making the weak and absurd argument that they should not be denied commumion because they may have gone to confession.

What can they go to confession and say I am sorry and go right out and do the exact same thing? With absolutely no intentions of changing and that is OK? they should still recieve?
How is that a legitimate argument? How is that being obedient to Church Teaching/ Magisterium?

 

[irenaeus1]

They can only be delegated, if needed and only with a priest present.

They can not go up uninvited, and begin to distribute Holy Communion.

Their authority is limited.

Jim

We are not discussing the proper use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. And no one claimed that their authority was unlimited. Please rebut the ideas presented.

 

[Nino]

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.

 

[Nino]

“…personal pettiness!” how quaint…lets see…whats the figure now…50 million developing babies aborted…a political decision…so if a political person comes to receive the sacred Host and is responsible for a portion of that holocaust and the priest …not making a scene,but makes the gesture and the usher moves the culprit along…how noble that would be…when Hitler arrived at Rome Pope PiusX11 left and refused to meet with him…years ago I showed and spoke with the film…Heart of a Priest…the adventures of Jesuit Father John Houle,who was (name removed by moderator)risoned by the Chinese reds and one day received all of the sacred items needed to perform mass in his prison cell…to allow a pro-abort poll to partake of the Host is a sacrilege to the upmost…can we not have standards at all or is PC our god?

 

[Ender]

Nino:

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.

It has already been pointed out that there is no judgment involved on the part of the EM or anyone else. This is a non-issue and Fr. Reese should know it.

This policy should stay that way even if Burke changes it locally in St Louis.

This policy should either be in every diocese or in none at all: Burke is either correct or incorrect in his analysis. If the bishops are concerned about politicizing the eucharist then they should know that not coming up with a universal approach is precisely the worst way to handle the issue.

Ender

 

[Jerome42]

It has already been pointed out that there is no judgment involved on the part of the EM or anyone else. This is a non-issue and Fr. Reese should know it. This policy should either be in every diocese or in none at all: *Burke is either correct or incorrect in his analysis. If the bishops are concerned about politicizing the eucharist then they should know that ****not coming up with a universal approach is precisely the worst way to handle the issue. **

Ender

Just a couple of comments:

• I believe we are referring to His Excelency, Archbishop Burke. The least we can do is use the proper etiquete when speaking about one of the Shepards of the Church. It seems we know how to address Fr. Reese but do not know how to address a Bishop.

** A universal approach may be a problem since Bishops in charge of a Diocese have their own Autonomy. They are Shepards of their flock and responsible for all of the members. This is a very big responsibility. They may not want to relinquish this power. They must be the teachers and defenders of the Faith and they are in need our prayers.

 

[fix]

Part of it is that only a small group of people think that “pro-choice” = “pro-abortion”. It is a subjective thing based on how you define it. You can be pro-choice and still want to minimize abortions, but not feel that making it a hard law is the best way to do it. It comes down to the whole of the person, which gets into muddy territory of judgments.

This is from the CCC:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined.

. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

 

[Brendan]

Neither would a priest or a bishop necessarily know whether the politician had just gone to confession, so following your logic, a priest or bishop is also not allowed to refuse Holy Communion to the said politician.

Wheter or not a person has been to confession is immaterial to Canon 915. Personal sin, vis a vis the state of one’s soul, is address by Canon 916, a seperate but related Canon.

Canon 915 prohibts ministers from offering the Eucharist to those who, through their actions, sin against the PUBLIC.

It does not speak to the state of their soul at all (again that is Canon 916, not 915), but rather the actions the person publically does.

The Canonical remedy for a offense against Canon 915 is a public recanting of the offending position\actions.

If the politician went to confession, all that means that that Canon 916 would no longer apply, if they have not publically recanted their position, Canon 915 would still apply.

 

[Ender]

A universal approach may be a problem since Bishops in charge of a Diocese have their own Autonomy.

A universal approach has very much been a problem and this is one thing that lends credence to the charge that some bishops are politicizing the eucharist. If one bishop enforces canon 915 and another does not it can be reasonably assumed that there is no “right” position but only a personal preference made for political reasons. I certainly believe that many bishops make their choice on this issue based on political considerations.

They are Shepards of their flock and responsible for all of the members. This is a very big responsibility. They may not want to relinquish this power.

Bishops don’t want to relinquish their power … too true.

Ender

 

[Nordar]

A universal approach has very much been a problem and this is one thing that lends credence to the charge that some bishops are politicizing the eucharist. If one bishop enforces canon 915 and another does not it can be reasonably assumed that there is no “right” position but only a personal preference made for political reasons. I certainly believe that many bishops make their choice on this issue based on political considerations.
Bishops don’t want to relinquish their power … too true.

Ender

Bishops seem to forget they do not have the power only God does!

 

[DebChris]

When I was commissioned as a Eucharistic Minister (EMCH), my name was sent to the diocesian bishop. He wanted to know who was handling the host. I was commissioned in the Diocese of LaCrosse shortly before Raymond Burke was ordained bishop.
Every EMCH was told not to judge any person who came forward for reception of the host. As mentioned throughout this thread, that is not the role of the Eucharistic Minister.
Katie D (#75) makes the point that the refusal requested by the Archbishop is for those politicians who are vocal about their view. It is not simply a matter of a single vote on a bill that continues to allow legalized aborticide yet has many other features that promote women’s health and the welfare of children. Did the politician vote “yeh” over personal objections that were voiced on the legislative floor? How closely do we watch, or do we simply jump to conclusion about a person’s moral character?
We do not know, as has been mentioned, if the person received the Sacrament of Reconciliation and in the process repented of past positions. The requirement is to refuse those who vocally advocate for the continuation of legalized aborticide.
A similar case is those who wearing a “gay pride” sash proclaimed their opposition to the Church’s teaching on chastity. On that day, with the public advocacy, the Church in its judgment saw fit to deny Communion. On a different day, myself not knowing the person’s lifestyle, I would distribute Communion. It is not my place to judge. Did they repent and receive God’s grace through forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation? I accept the person who comes forward simply on face value, as a Child of God ready to receive the gift of life through the ministry I have been given.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When I was commissioned as a Eucharistic Minister (EMCH), my name was sent to the diocesian bishop. He wanted to know who was handling the host. I was commissioned in the Diocese of LaCrosse shortly before Raymond Burke was ordained bishop.
Every EMCH was told not to judge any person who came forward for reception of the host. As mentioned throughout this thread, that is not the role of the Eucharistic Minister.
Katie D (#75) makes the point that the refusal requested by the Archbishop is for those politicians who are vocal about their view. It is not simply a matter of a single vote on a bill that continues to allow legalized aborticide yet has many other features that promote women’s health and the welfare of children. Did the politician vote “yeh” over personal objections that were voiced on the legislative floor? How closely do we watch, or do we simply jump to conclusion about a person’s moral character?
We do not know, as has been mentioned, if the person received the Sacrament of Reconciliation and in the process repented of past positions. The requirement is to refuse those who vocally advocate for the continuation of legalized aborticide.
A similar case is those who wearing a “gay pride” sash proclaimed their opposition to the Church’s teaching on chastity. On that day, with the public advocacy, the Church in its judgment saw fit to deny Communion. On a different day, myself not knowing the person’s lifestyle, I would distribute Communion. It is not my place to judge. Did they repent and receive God’s grace through forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation? I accept the person who comes forward simply on face value, as a Child of God ready to receive the gift of life through the ministry I have been given.

I don’t think it could be explained any better than this.

God job!

Jim

 

[fix]

It is not my place to judge. Did they repent and receive God’s grace through forgiveness in the Sacrament of Reconciliation? I accept the person who comes forward simply on face value, as a Child of God ready to receive the gift of life through the ministry I have been given.

I do not know if the bishop is referring to EMHC or ordinary ministers, but the argument is the same. It is not about subjective culpability on the part of the manifest sinner. It is about scandal.

Two kinds of error are involved. One has to do with the supreme holiness of the Eucharist, that is, the necessity to be well-disposed before approaching to receive the Sacrament. The other regards the objective moral evil of the acts which the person is known to have committed. Giving Holy Communion to one who is known to be a serious sinner leads people astray in two ways. Either they are led to think that it is not wrong for an unrepentant sinner to receive Holy Communion (and to be given the Holy Eucharist), or they are led to think that what the person is known to have done was not gravely sinful…

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

 

[Jerome42]

A universal approach has very much been a problem and this is one thing that lends credence to the charge that some bishops are politicizing the eucharist. If one bishop enforces canon 915 and another does not it can be reasonably assumed that there is no “right” position but only a personal preference made for political reasons. I certainly believe that many bishops make their choice on this issue based on political considerations.
Bishops don’t want to relinquish their power … too true.

Ender

Sad to say our Bishops are gambling with their very souls when it comes to many of these issues. Just an observation, but why is it that when we read the lives of the Saints most of those who were Bishops were also Martyrs. The Bishop is a teacher and defender of the faith. Without the Bishops we would have no Church. They need our prayers more than ever.