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

[Marauder]

The priest would inform the EMHC that Johnny Darkside is prevented from receiving communion.

Maybe they could put up a “Do Not Communicate,” board in the back of the Church, with the pictures of the people who are prohibited from receiving. You know, much like the Most Wanted posters at the police station?

Jim

Actually I have seen scenarios where a priest before Mass tells EMHCs and other priests present that certain people are not to receive communion. It was during one of those rainbow sash Masses during Pentecost. The rector told everyone that anyone presenting themselves with the rainbow sash was not to receive.

An EMHC is not to make a decision one way or the other on whether someone should receive except in obvious situations, but if they are told by the pastor/priest/bishop that someone shouldn’t receive they are supposed to obey.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

rpp
the point of the hyperthetical scenario, was to show how a vote by a politician could be misinterpreted by an EMHC.

BTW, if you don’t think the media doesn’t burry stories that they don’t want the public to know,…well I don’t need to say more.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Marauder;

An EMHC is not to make a decision one way or the other on whether someone should receive except in obvious situations, but if they are told by the pastor/priest/bishop that someone shouldn’t receive they are supposed to obey.

I think that’s what I’ve been saying. However, absent being told by the pastor, they shouldn’t make the decision on their own.

Jim

 

[rpp]

An EMHC is not to make a decision one way or the other on whether someone should receive except in obvious situations, but if they are told by the pastor/priest/bishop that someone shouldn’t receive they are supposed to obey.

Incorrect. All ministers of communion are to deny those who are “in manfest grave sin.” That includes EMHCs.

Marauder;

I think that’s what I’ve been saying. However, absent being told by the pastor, they shouldn’t make the decision on their own.

Jim

We realize that is what you have been saying. What you have not said is why you feel that Canon Law should be violated.

 

[DebChris]

Actually I have seen scenarios where a priest before Mass tells EMHCs and other priests present that certain people are not to receive communion. It was during one of those rainbow sash Masses during Pentecost. The rector told everyone that anyone presenting themselves with the rainbow sash was not to receive.

An EMHC is not to make a decision one way or the other on whether someone should receive except in obvious situations, but if they are told by the pastor/priest/bishop that someone shouldn’t receive they are supposed to obey.

I think that is what I have been saying all along.
It is not my place to pass judgment on anybody who steps forward for Communion.
Sometimes when you go to a grocery store, the cashier will have a list of persons whose checks are not to be cashed. Everybody else can use a check to make a purchase.
It is the same idea. Unless I am told to specifically withhold Communion, I am not to deny the communicant. The Eucharist is a healing Sacrament. I am not to withhold the Grace it signifies, unless told otherwise, anymore than an EMT is to withhold medical care from a person in need.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Incorrect. All ministers of communion are to deny those who are “in manfest grave sin.” That includes EMHCs.

We realize that is what you have been saying. What you have not said is why you feel that Canon Law should be violated.

Show me the canon law where an EMHC has this authority.

Jim

 

[Marauder]

Incorrect. All ministers of communion are to deny those who are “in manfest grave sin.” That includes EMHCs.

Can you tell me how an EMHC is supposed to know someone is in grave sin? Was that EMHC in the confessional all day knowing what people went and confessed their sins and which didn’t?

It is one thing for an EMHC to deny communion to someone that obviously shouldn’t be receiving (i.e. kid way to young, person wearing rainbow sash, etc.) but it is not up to the EMHC to decide beyond that unless they are told differently by their priest/pastor/bishop. If there is a question the EMHC can refer the person to the priest’s line but it isn’t the call of the EMHC to make morality judgements.

 

[Moiphey]

Burke has guts. I hope good catechesis comes along with his directive…

 

[Apryl]

The priest would inform the EMHC that Johnny Darkside is prevented from receiving communion.

So what you are saying is that if the priest tells the EMHC to not give a person communion, then the EMHC can not give communion?

… I can deal with that.

I think the impression I was going with was that the EMHC was to give communion, PERIOD.

I also think that the point I was making, the feeling that I have, is that if a person KNOWS that they shouldn’t be receiving communion, they know that they shouldn’t, and they know that they have INFORMED this EMHC that they shouldn’t, IN THAT CASE, the EMHC shouldn’t give them communion.

Now, had this person said, ‘last night, I ate purple grapes’, and didn’t know that purple grape eating was a sin, then the EMHC should just go with the flow.

But when a person TELLS an EMHC of something they have done, or are doing, and it’s wrong, then the person should, if they are going to be of good conscience, get in line with the PRIEST, and not put the EMHC in the position, any way.

… and another thing:

Just like if a person approaches and they are not Catholic, as an EMHC, you really can’t know who is or is not Catholic. I was instructed (by the pastor of my church) to make the sign of the cross on their forehead. If the insist, go ahead and give them communion.

However, by not automatically giving them communion, I have hopefully given them a pause to think about what is going on. Should they insist, well, that’s on them.

 

[rpp]

Show me the canon law where an EMHC has this authority.

Jim

I am not intentionally deflecting your question. But the proper answer is the very document that started this thread, Archbishop Burke writing regarding Canon 915 as it applies to denying Holy Communion to pro-Abortion politicians.

Have you read it? It will answer your questions. If not, I will re-post the link to the his article.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

By the way, Archbishop Burke is considered one of the foremost authorities on Canon Law.

 

[Nordar]

The priest would inform the EMHC that Johnny Darkside is prevented from receiving communion.

Maybe they could put up a “Do Not Communicate,” board in the back of the Church, with the pictures of the people who are prohibited from receiving. You know, much like the Most Wanted posters at the police station?

Jim

Your flippant attitude to Sacriledges of the Body and Blood of Jesus is very very sad!

 

[rpp]

Can you tell me how an EMHC is supposed to know someone is in grave sin? Was that EMHC in the confessional all day knowing what people went and confessed their sins and which didn’t?

It is one thing for an EMHC to deny communion to someone that obviously shouldn’t be receiving (i.e. kid way to young, person wearing rainbow sash, etc.) but it is not up to the EMHC to decide beyond that unless they are told differently by their priest/pastor/bishop. If there is a question the EMHC can refer the person to the priest’s line but it isn’t the call of the EMHC to make morality judgements.

You make the point yourself. Communion is to be denied to those who are notoriously engaging in or publicly supporting grave moral positions against Church teachings.

It is not up to an EMoHC or a priest for that matter, to determine if someone is in a state of grace. That is up to the individual receiving. There is a significant distinction between private sin and public sin. That is the key here, notorious public sin.

The topic being addressed is very narrow. To broaden it introduces error.

No one is suggesting that an EMoHC, or even priest, make moral judgments about the soul of a person.

 

[fix]

Can you tell me how an EMHC is supposed to know someone is in grave sin? Was that EMHC in the confessional all day knowing what people went and confessed their sins and which didn’t?

A priest hearing confessions could not act on that information outside the confessional. The point here is that the politician’s conduct is what is in issue, not the state of their soul.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I am not intentionally deflecting your question. But the proper answer is the very document that started this thread, Archbishop Burke writing regarding Canon 915 as it applies to denying Holy Communion to pro-Abortion politicians.

Have you read it? It will answer your questions. If not, I will re-post the link to the his article.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

By the way, Archbishop Burke is considered one of the foremost authorities on Canon Law.

If you read Archbishop Burke’s document, which you just posted, you’ll see that even he says that the Bishops could not come to an agreement on the issue of denying communion. Further, I looked through Canon 915 and 916, but could not find Extraordinary minister, but only minister. Again, back to Archbishop Burke’s document, he seems to be using the term minister of communion as being equal to extraordinary minster of communion. He’s treating both as equal, but again, the Bishops are not in agreement on this either.

So, this is an opinion by Archbishop Burke, which he is running with. Fine, if I were in his dioceses, I would obey.

I disagree with the Archbishop only to the degree in giving EMCH’s the decision making authority on this matter.

I can accept EMCH’s under instruction from their pastors, can and should deny communion to people that are identified by the Bishop.

In all that, the USCCB’s Committee on the Sacred Liturgy, are not in agreement on how to handle this.

Another Bishop,(I don’t remember his name off hand) said once a person is told by the Bishop’s office not to receive, the rest is left up to the conscience of the person. I think I agree with this approach more than Archbishop Burke’s.

The bottom line at this point for me is, what does MY Bishop say about it? I’ll be obedient to him.

Not being liturgical experts in the Catholic Church, I think we have no other choice but to be obedient to the Bishop of your dioceses.

Jim

 

[rpp]

If you read Archbishop Burke’s document, which you just posted, you’ll see that even he says that the Bishops could not come to an agreement on the issue of denying communion. Further, I looked through Canon 915 and 916, but could not find Extraordinary minister, but only minister. Again, back to Archbishop Burke’s document, he seems to be using the term minister of communion as being equal to extraordinary minster of communion. He’s treating both as equal, but again, the Bishops are not in agreement on this either.

So, this is an opinion by Archbishop Burke, which he is running with. Fine, if I were in his dioceses, I would obey.

I disagree with the Archbishop only to the degree in giving EMCH’s the decision making authority on this matter.

I can accept EMCH’s under instruction from their pastors, can and should deny communion to people that are identified by the Bishop.

In all that, the USCCB’s Committee on the Sacred Liturgy, are not in agreement on how to handle this.

Another Bishop,(I don’t remember his name off hand) said once a person is told by the Bishop’s office not to receive, the rest is left up to the conscience of the person. I think I agree with this approach more than Archbishop Burke’s.

The bottom line at this point for me is, what does MY Bishop say about it? I’ll be obedient to him.

Not being liturgical experts in the Catholic Church, I think we have no other choice but to be obedient to the Bishop of your dioceses.

Jim

Fair enough.

 

[Marauder]

A priest hearing confessions could not act on that information outside the confessional. The point here is that the politician’s conduct is what is in issue, not the state of their soul.

My point was that only a priest would know whether someone repented of their sins. Not an EMHC. Only a priest would know if the person had been given the pastoral message talked about by Archbishop Burke in his letter. Do you personally know whether politician so and so has explicitly been told that there are not supposed to approach for communion? Not just some reporters telling him or other people that are not in position of authority. Even Archbishop Burke’s letter talks about the fact that the first place for confrontation is not supposed to be at the communion rail. Also Archbishop Burke’s letter only applies to his diocese.

An EMHC is supposed to be following the instructions of his pastor/priest/bishop. If the bishop says that so and so should not receive in their diocese the EMHC should obey. But the EMHC is not supposed to be making these calls on their own.

Which politicians get denied communion, only those that state they are pro-abortion? How about those that say they are pro-life and vote for pro-abortion legislation? How about those that vote for legislation that only makes baby steps towards getting rid of abortion instead of getting rid of it in one step?

Should a person that has probably had maybe at max two days training be deciding if so and so politician is pro-life enough? No, they should be deferring these decisions to the bishops and other people that have more knowledge of the situations.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Marauder;
I think that’s what I’ve been saying. However, absent being told by the pastor, they shouldn’t make the decision on their own.

Jim

If the same EMHC knows the politician (or other public person)and the priest did not know the person was presenting themselves for communion, is it not the EMHC’s responsibility to protect the Eucharist? If the EMHC knows the situation are they not responsible for their (EMHC) actions? If the priest is held to a higher culpability then is not the EMHC also held to a higher culpability also? With privilege come responsibility.

 

[KathleenElsie]

There was an old and tiresome joke that went around when I was a child. It went something like this:

A Catholic can do anything from Sunday afternoon (after Mass) and then go to confession before Mass the next week and be forgiven.

The thing that was forgotten was the true meaning of repenting and the promise to not do it again. So what many of these politicians are doing is falsly showing is that faithful Catholics don’t follow what the Church teaches and just provide lip service. Many people believe this of us all and that is sad.

 

[rpp]

My point was that only a priest would know whether someone repented of their sins.

Really? How? If I fail to confess a priest, how does he know? And suppose the priest I confess to is not the priest who celebrates Mass, what then?

No, priests are as well informed about the state of someone’e soul as an EMoHC.

That is why the presumption is that the people who present themselves are worthy.

It is only those cases where someone is obviously unworthy, in this case a politician who supports abortion, is communion denied. Communion would also be denied to someone who has been excommunicated (a public action).

Remember, we are talking about public sin. We are not talking about who is sleeping with whom, or who got angry or whatever. We are talking about politicians who publicly support abortion. Public sin requires public recanting.

Do not broaden the subject.

 

[Nino]

…if one wants to give out the sacred host…oops…sorry about that…to just anyone…why not leave them in a bucket by the church entrance…why should parishioners have to stand up in line and shuffle up slowly…hear a short prayer ,receive etc…if anyone can receive its no big deal…the seventh inning stretch in most baseball parks have all standing for the national anthem or God Bless America…is not Jesus the equal…NIno