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

[rpp]

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.

Public sin requires public recanting.

 

[DebChris]

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.

As mentioned earlier, the celebrant has the ability to signal if the “recipient” would cause scandal. It is similar to my signalling that a child may not receive because I personally know, but the EM does not know, that he/she is not a Catholic or has not received first Communion. I do not keep up to date on the latest gossip. I do not know, for instance, who is or who is not living in a state of adultery. It is not my place to give credence to rumor.

 

[rpp]

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.

Sorry, but the statement in bold does not make sense to me. A person has voted to permit the muder of innocent human beings. How can there possibly be anything else that is more important than saving defenseless innocent people.

Yes. It is the matter of a vote.

How is giving Holy Communion to a politician who either vocally or by their vote, supports abortion different than giving Holy Communion to a Nazi Death Camp prison guard, while the war was still raging and the prison camp was active?

 

[Nordar]

Sorry, but the statement in bold does not make sense to me. A person has voted to permit the muder of innocent human beings. How can there possibly be anything else that is more important than saving defenseless innocent people.

Yes. It is the matter of a vote.

How is giving Holy Communion to a politician who either vocally or by their vote, supports abortion different than giving Holy Communion to a Nazi Death Camp prison guard, while the war was still raging and the prison camp was active?

Thank you

 

[fix]

As mentioned earlier, the celebrant has the ability to signal if the “recipient” would cause scandal. It is similar to my signalling that a child may not receive because I personally know, but the EM does not know, that he/she is not a Catholic or has not received first Communion. I do not keep up to date on the latest gossip. I do not know, for instance, who is or who is not living in a state of adultery. It is not my place to give credence to rumor.

That is not the issue.

This is from the Bishop Burke essay:

If a word, an action or an omission leads another into error or sin, there is scandal, whether the person who is led astray knows that he has been scandalized or not. If, as the commentator suggests, the faithful in North America believe that persons who publicly and grievously sin should be admitted to Holy Communion and that it would be wrong to deny to them the Sacrament, then effectively the faithful have been scandalized, that is, they have been led to forget or to disregard what the perennial discipline of the Church, beginning with Saint Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians, has always remembered and safeguarded. This is not the scandal to which can. 855 §2, of the Pio-Benedictine *Code *refers…

Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it>> [90]…

 

[DebChris]

Sorry, but the statement in bold does not make sense to me. A person has voted to permit the muder of innocent human beings. How can there possibly be anything else that is more important than saving defenseless innocent people.

Yes. It is the matter os a vote. Anyone who give Holy Communion to someone who either vocally or by their actions, supports the murder of innocent might as well say they would give Holy Communion to Nazi Death Camp prison guards.

I understand that statement might not make sense to everybody. There are funding bills that are not as black and white as we would like them to be. Not every prison guard was there by choice or an advocate of the Nazi regime.
There is a small group of Democrats working on proposals to reduce the number of abortions by 50 per cent over the next five years. It is not an ideal situation, but might lead toward fewer deaths. Were I a politician, I might vote for their agenda, even though my ultimate goal is no legalized aborticide (the term comes from a 1956 dictionary). I do become angry with politicians who claim Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and therefore must be supported while overlooking the use of check and balances that constitutional amendment provides.

 

[Brendan]

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.

Did you read the posts above at all before posting this?

No one is calling for anyone to make any personal judgements on people. Only a condemnation of positions held by that person.

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.

Actually, the promotion of ‘women’s health’ cannot justify a vote to promote or expand abortion

We do not know, as has been mentioned, if the person received the Sacrament of Reconciliation and in the process repented of past positions.

Whether or not a person has been to confession recently is immaterial to Canon 915. The remedy in that case is a public recanting of the position. Until that happens, the ministers of the Church are prevented by Canon Law from offering the Eucharist.

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.

You are among what seems to be a large number of people who falsely believe that the only determining factor in the reception of the Eucharist is the state of a persons soul.

The Reciepient must make sure that their soul is in order, (that’s one)

And the Church must make sure that the Gift of the Eucharist is not offered to those who act against it.

Because that is what the Eucharist IS, a Gift. We have no claim to it at all, we have no intrinsic Right to recieve the Eucharist, but may do so ONLY under the guidlines of the Church, who is the custodian of this Gift.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is not the issue.

This is from the Bishop Burke essay:

Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion.

I think this is the key part of the statement that I agree with.

I understand this to mean that the Bishop in communication with the priest of his dioceses, have told the person not to approach to receive Holy Communion. This being done, the pastor would have the duty to inform the EMHC’s of this person and the decision made by the Bishop. Such a person must be cleared by the Bishop, not the confessional, to be able to receive.

I can accept this course of action.

Jim

 

[DebChris]

I think this is the key part of the statement that I agree with.

I understand this to mean that the Bishop in communication with the priest of his dioceses, have told the person not to approach to receive Holy Communion. This being done, the pastor would have the duty to inform the EMHC’s of this person and the decision made by the Bishop. Such a person must be cleared by the Bishop, not the confessional, to be able to receive.

I can accept this course of action.

Jim

Thanks, Jim. It is not my judgment to make whether or not a person is worthy to receive the Sacraments. I would refuse based on instruction given by my pastor. It is not my decision to make and I do not think this goes against anything I have previously posted. It is through the Sacraments that we receive God’s grace.
I am reminded St. Joan of Arc. “If I am not in God’s grace, I pray He shall put me there. If I am in God’s grace, I pray He will keep me there.”

 

[rpp]

I think this is the key part of the statement that I agree with.

I understand this to mean that the Bishop in communication with the priest of his dioceses, have told the person not to approach to receive Holy Communion. This being done, the pastor would have the duty to inform the EMHC’s of this person and the decision made by the Bishop. Such a person must be cleared by the Bishop, not the confessional, to be able to receive.

I can accept this course of action.

Jim

As the essay from Archbishop Burke is a public statement, and has been widely publicized by the news media, it is reasonable to assume that
politicians know about it. And therefore know not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Therefore, if one does, then an EMoHC may reasonably deny them.

Additionally, as the canon requires, not only is the Sacrament of Confession required, but a public recanting of the position must be made. This is because the sin is public.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As the essay from Archbishop Burke is a public statement, and has been widely publicized by the news media, it is reasonable to assume that
politicians know about it. And therefore know not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Therefore, if one does, then an EMoHC may reasonably deny them.

Additionally, as the canon requires, not only is the Sacrament of Confession required, but a public recanting of the position must be made. This is because the sin is public.

I have a strong opinion against an EMHC denying Holy Communion to a person, without the instruction to do so from their pastor.

I can see a clear path to abuse and scandal, if this were ever to be the case.

Jim

 

[Mimi]

I have great respect for Archbishop Burke & his taking a stand against pro-abort politicians.

What if one of those politicians is regularly an EEMC?

Should one complain to the bishop of that diocese & as well to the pastor?

This happened in my area. I do not know if this person still continues in that position. She is not in my parish.

Mimi

 

[DebChris]

I have great respect for Archbishop Burke & his taking a stand against pro-abort politicians.

What if one of those politicians is regularly an EEMC?

Should one complain to the bishop of that diocese & as well to the pastor?

This happened in my area. I do not know if this person still continues in that position. She is not in my parish.

Mimi

Is the pastor aware of her stance? As mentioned earlier, I was EMHC under Bishop Burke. Names of those handling the hosts were made known to the bishop of the diocese. I do not know whether or not this is still the case. If so, the bishop has the authority to ask her pastor to remove her from that role. In terms of concern, I would speak to the pastor first.

 

[rpp]

I have a strong opinion against an EMHC denying Holy Communion to a person, without the instruction to do so from their pastor.

I can see a clear path to abuse and scandal, if this were ever to be the case.

Jim

We have already seen a clear path to and a pattern of abuse when EMoHC are used to begin with.

 

[Ender]

The requirement is to refuse those who vocally advocate for the continuation of legalized aborticide.

I agree … and I’m really getting confused about who accepts what. Jim, who has disagreed with me about most of this discussion, also agreed with Deb’s post. Brendan, who I thought agreed with me on this topic, was critical about this post.

Maybe we can simplify this: there are a few dozen nationally known Catholic politicians who have publicly and repeatedly supported abortion (Ahnold, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Guiliani, et al). I accept Archbishop Burke’s contention that ministers of communion (priests, deacons, EMHCs) have the obligation of withholding the eucharist from these people until such time as they have publicly recanted those positions.

I am interested in hearing what objections could be raised to this action.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

No one is asking you to pass judgment on the state of the individual’s soul; but we are asked to make a judgement of a public behavior.

 

[irenaeus1]

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

God job!

Jim

It was not stated well at all… only disclosed a complete misunderstanding of Canon 915.

 

[Nordar]

It was not stated well at all… only disclosed a complete misunderstanding of Canon 915.

Exactly!

 

[Grace283]

Click here for the full article: catholicism.about.com/b/a/000120.htm?nl=1

I am on the side of the bishop!..

what are your thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[Woodstock]

As the Post-Dispatch points out, there are six Catholics running in the Democratic and Republican primaries for president, but only one–Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), a former evangelical who converted to Catholicism in 2002–is pro-life.

My thought is what are these other 5 bishops doing.