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

[rpp]

It doesn’t matter the EMHC is not in a position of authority to withhold communion from a Catholic who presents himself.

To give EMHCs this authority is a recipe for disaster.

Jim

This statement is explicitly contradicted by Canon Law. Citations to the relevant parts of Canon Law have already been made on this thread.

If you want to claim that what you are saying is consistant with Catholic Church teachings, then please provide citations from Canon Law or infallible Church teachings. Until you can provide citation that show why Cacnon 915 and 916 do not apply, your position cannot be supported.

 

[Ender]

Having EMHC decide if a person is worthy enough to receive Holy Communion, is judgment.

The EMHC isn’t making a decision and there isn’t any judgment involved. Read Ratzinger’s letter to McCarrick (2004) on Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.

*"*6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” … This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

Understand the relevant points:

• communion **must **be denied
• this applies to **all **ministers of communion
• this action is not a penalty
• the minister of communion is **not **passing judgment

This seems pretty straightforward; I don’t understand what the objections are all about.

Ender

 

[Nordar]

The EMHC isn’t making a decision and there isn’t any judgment involved. Read Ratzinger’s letter to McCarrick (2004) on Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.

*"*6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” … This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

Understand the relevant points:

• communion **must **be denied
• this applies to **all **ministers of communion
• this action is not a penalty
• the minister of communion is **not **passing judgment

This seems pretty straightforward; I don’t understand what the objections are all about.

Ender

Thank you for posting that, I knew the objections to and saying it was judgemental just made no sense!

 

[irenaeus1]

No, I’m saying (I’ll write it out) Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion,(lay people), don’t and should never have the authority to withhold communion from those they think are in mortal sin.

However a priest, does have this authority.

I hope I’ve explained myself well enough.

Jim

I’ll write this out; if Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion can be delegated the authority to give out communion, then they can surely be delegated the authority to withhold it from a known public sinner.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The EMHC isn’t making a decision and there isn’t any judgment involved. Read Ratzinger’s letter to McCarrick (2004) on Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.

*"*6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.” … This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

Understand the relevant points:

• communion **must **be denied
• this applies to **all **ministers of communion
• this action is not a penalty
• the minister of communion is **not **passing judgment

This seems pretty straightforward; I don’t understand what the objections are all about.

Ender

In stating “minister of communion,” is he really saying EMHC’s, or is he talking about priest ?

My guess and my hope is, he is not.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’ll write this out; if Extra-ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion can be delegated the authority to give out communion, then they can surely be delegated the authority to withhold it from a known public sinner.

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

 

[Ron_Conte]

The refusal of Communion to pro-abortion politicians applies only to those politicians whose heretical views are common knowledge. The Bishop is not authorizing EMHCs to judge each person who approaches for Communion.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The refusal of Communion to pro-abortion politicians applies only to those politicians whose heretical views are common knowledge. The Bishop is not authorizing EMHCs to judge each person who approaches for Communion.

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

 

[Nordar]

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

I am really not getting it, What is it that you do not understand?

Those said politicians who have publicly stated they will and do condone voting for pro choice.

In order for them NOT to be excommunicated and to recieve The Holy Eucharist, they would have to publicly denounce their stance on pro choice.

Why are you not getting that?

Going to confession ( If they did) DOES NOT MEAN A THING, if if they are still advocating pro choice.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

John Allen published an interview with Cardinal George of Chicago. His take on this issue is somewhat different.

The full interview is here. And here are some excerpts:

Another arena in which these identity tensions play themselves out is the question of Catholics in public life. Are we going to see a replay in 2008 of the tensions that surrounded the issue of communion for pro-choice Catholic politicians in 2004?

It depends what the media wants to play up. The bishops are not of one mind in approaching this question, and so that division can be played upon, in which case it will be with us. There are some who would say it’s a moral theology question about the conscience of the individual.

Meaning that it’s their business to make the proper decision?

Yes, [this view holds] that it’s our business to instruct them, it’s their business to make the decision. Others would say that it’s not entirely that, because there’s also public scandal, and therefore the public law of the church comes in. You have a canon that says the minister of communion, not the bishop, is to determine if it’s a case of public scandal, then someone is to be refused communion. But that’s the minister giving communion on the spot. The bishop can either encourage that or discourage that, but in the canon itself it is first of all the minister giving communion at the time who makes that decision … the celebrant, or the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, or the deacon, or whoever’s giving communion.

To take the case of the Catholic seemingly most likely to become a major party nominee, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican candidate and he shows up for Mass in the Archdiocese of Chicago, would you give him communion?

I don’t think he’s married in the church, so that’s an easy one. We wouldn’t even get to the question of his position on abortion.

Would you agree that both the debates over liturgy and over Catholics in public life are rooted in a push for greater clarity about what makes Catholicism distinct - in other words, Catholic identity?

Yes. It is scandalous that after so many years of the church’s constant teaching that you have so many Catholic politicians for whom this is a non-issue … The question is, do you use a sacramental moment to address that, and risk politicizing the sacrament? That’s my biggest concern. The very sacrament that speaks about our unity becomes the occasion for this kind of fracas and disunity. I think we should think long and hard before we allow the Eucharist to become that … The problem is instrumentalizing the Eucharist and the church, even for a good cause. Worship should never be manipulated by anybody. Worship is worship, even for a good cause. I feel strongly about that.

 

[DebChris]

The refusal of Communion to pro-abortion politicians applies only to those politicians whose heretical views are common knowledge. The Bishop is not authorizing EMHCs to judge each person who approaches for Communion.

The important point made is “common knowledge.” As an EMCH, it is not my place to pass judgment. A gesture from the priest would most likely be given were I to be intentionally approached for the purpose of receiving, rather than him. It is the same gesture that may be made by a parent or grandparent indicating that a child may not receive because of age or not belonging to the Catholic Church. I have done this for a priest unsure when my granddaughter approached. Safeguarding the Eucharist is not limited to the Eucharistic Minister.
Respect can be shown by both sides as was done when gay activists approached and were denied Communion in a well publicized demonstration last year.
I have only once denied Communion. By actions, the individual indicated that he was not a Catholic. After asking discretely, I covered the cup.
The Archbishop is saying we hold the Eucharist sacred. Not holding the line denies the value we give this sacred gift.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I am really not getting it, What is it that you do not understand?

Those said politicians who have publicly stated they will and do condone voting for pro choice.

In order for them NOT to be excommunicated and to recieve The Holy Eucharist, they would have to publicly denounce their stance on pro choice.

Why are you not getting that?

Going to confession ( If they did) DOES NOT MEAN A THING, if if they are still advocating pro choice.

What part don’t you understand? We’re talking about EMHC’s, not the Bishop or priest.

Politicians who publicly state that they will support abortion, should be told by the Bishop, that they are not permitted to take communion. It would be for the parish priest to enforce, not the EMHC. But even for the priest, even the USCCB aren’t in agreement on how it should be handled, are you going to leave it up to an EMHC?

Are we going to have arguments at Mass, between EMHC’s and people the refuse to give communion? I don’t want to attend such a Mass.

Jim

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

order for them NOT to be excommunicated and to recieve The Holy Eucharist, they would have to publicly denounce their stance on pro choice.

Why are you not getting that?

Going to confession ( If they did) DOES NOT MEAN A THING, if if they are still advocating pro choice.

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.

I do not believe that confession is deemed null and void in your example Nordar.

 

[Ender]

It would be for the parish priest to enforce, not the EMHC.

According to information in post #69, Cardinal George addressed this: “*in the canon itself it is first of all the minister giving communion at the time who makes that decision … the celebrant, or the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, or the deacon, or whoever’s giving communion.” *Not surprisingly, minister of communion means exactly that: whoever is administering communion.

But even for the priest, even the USCCB aren’t in agreement on how it should be handled, are you going to leave it up to an EMHC?

I suspect that the issue within the USCCB has nothing to do with whether politicians who publicly support abortion should receive communion and everything to do with whether such action would, in Cardinal George’s words, “politicize the sacrament.” I guess the bishops need to determine which is worse, to knowingly allow those who are not in communion with the Church to receive the eucharist - both a serious sin for those who receive and a source of scandal for the faithful - or deal with the political fallout of enforcing Church law.

It’s a tough decision.

Ender

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

When will he become Raymond, Cardinal Burke?

 

[KatieD]

Sorry, it is NOT a small group of people who think that pro-choice means pro-abortion. That’s exactly what it means. And it isn’t subjective depending on how you define it. If you are not pro-life, what are you? One can say all day that they want to minimize abortions, but that isn’t necessarily make them pro-life, does it?

And the problem with pro-choice (yes, pro-abortion) politicians who call themselves Catholic (and we all know who they are since they’re quite vocal) is that they know they won’t be denied Holy Communion - and they frankly don’t care whether they politicize the sacrament. When was the last time you head a pro-choice “Catholic” politician come out and say, “I was wrong to push the pro-abortion position and now I will be working on pro-life issues?” We sure don’t have any here in Illinois that I can remember.

 

[Jerome42]

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…

I guess I must be part of that small group of people who think that “pro-choice”, that is the “choice to kill the fetus” = “pro-abortion”. Doesn’t look that muddy to me.

 

[Nordar]

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.

I do not believe that confession is deemed null and void in your example Nordar.

Minimize abortion? what does that mean exactly? every third woman can get one that is OK?

If you are Pro choice then you are also Pro abortion… Choice being the operative word here. Anti abortion ( Catholic Church’s stance) … No Choice…Abortion is just wrong it is very clear.

Pro choice… choosing to have an abortion is A OK!.. that in my book is Pro abortion…

It is not your definition of Null and Void that is important, it is the The Church’s definition of The Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Which is you confess your sins and have a sincere disire not to commit those same sins again. A politician who continues to be Pro Abortion, Pro Choice is NOT, if he goes to confession being honest. So like I said the confession means nothing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

 

[estesbob]

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.

I do not believe that confession is deemed null and void in your example Nordar.

Of course pro-choice is pro-abortion. “Choice” is a euphanism that those who support abortion hide behind to try and keep from admiting the evil of what it is they support.