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

[Grace283]

My thought is what are these other 5 bishops doing.

hmmm… do you mean the other 5 presidential candidates are doing? i believe most (if not all) are practically pro-choice. (i believe to gain votes!)…

by the way did you watch BELLA? didn’t you just love it? hehe

Grace

 

[Woodstock]

hmmm… do you mean the other 5 presidential candidates are doing? i believe most (if not all) are practically pro-choice. (i believe to gain votes!)…

by the way did you watch BELLA? didn’t you just love it? hehe

Grace

I mean what the other 5’s bishops are doing. Bishop Burke doesn’t have any of the five in his diocese. So it is nice that he’s being public, but it isn’t changing anything. Where are the 5 bishops who could be doing something about it?

Bella is great! Everyone here should go see it! I can’t wait to see it in a real theater! Opening weekend is really important for them, so I’m hoping every Catholic will get out and support them and support life with them on Oct 26!

 

[Grace283]

Bella is great! Everyone here should go see it! I can’t wait to see it in a real theater! Opening weekend is really important for them, so I’m hoping every Catholic will get out and support them and support life with them on Oct 26!

yeah… did you get some of the symbolism in it? leo severino came to our church and told us some… after hearing some i have to watch the movie again… hehe

 

[Woodstock]

yeah… did you get some of the symbolism in it? leo severino came to our church and told us some… after hearing some i have to watch the movie again… hehe

Lucky you! I missed the talk and only made it in time for the movie. It was so rich that I felt it was one of those you could watch several times to take in all the layers.

I’m really impressed with how unabashedly Catholic and pro-life they are, and how many awards they are winning. Society needs the Gospel and the message of life.

 

[Ender]

Dennis Kucinich (D), Joe Biden (D), Rudy Guiliani (R), Chris Dodd (D), and Bill Richardson (D) are all Catholic and all have publicly supported abortion. Does anyone feel they should not be denied communion, whether by a priest, deacon, or ECMH?

Ender

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

I don’t object to this action. I don’t object to the Bishop making a public statment on his action, along with instruction to pastors, who will instruct their EMHC’s on the issue.

My objection is EMHC’s making the decision on their own.

Jim

 

[Jerome42]

Seems we are spending a great deal of time defending the rights of EMHC’s to offer the Holy Eucharist to those who present themselves at Mass even though they are unworthy. We are overlooking the fact that these people are in fact commiting a sacrilege.

As stated recently by the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy:

“Greater scandal is given when bishops, priests, and deacons do not protect the sanctity and dignity of the Most Blessed Sacrament by allowing public persons notoriously known for their positions which directly violate the Divine and Moral Laws.”

Full article: catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10591

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The other problem that comes to mind is the fact that in our political system, bills are often attached to pieces of legislation, which have nothing to do with the bill itself.

For instance. A bill is written which will prohibit children from obtaining an abortion without the permission of their parents. Senator X, supports this legislation. However, Senator Y manages to attach to this bill a provision, which will spend $10 billion on building a space station on Mars. Senator X disagrees with this piece and votes against the bill.

Now he’s running for re-election, but the media reports that this Senator, voted against a pro-life issue and sites the bill he voted against. Once again, Church Lady sees the story in the news, without knowing all the details. When Senator X presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, she refuses him.

Do you see the problem here?

Without direct instructions from the Pastor, who has received instructions from the Bishop, I don’t think its a good idea to allow EMHC’s to make this decision.

Jim

 

[Strevel]

Just my humble personal opinion here. I speak only for myself.

As in all things we have our own views and opinions, and rightly so. However. it is fundamently importantl that we do not confuse the Church with a Democracy. I share this in a positive supportive light. We are part of an institution that was formed by Christ, and is not open to us confusing it with a representative form of Government made to communicate our whims to God. it is quite the reverse. It is also the worlds first (sociologically) self improvement course with rewards beyond the grave.

If the Churchs Aithorised Reps feel that the Eucharist (take a moment and remember ~what it is~ and stands for) should be denied to those that have not made a proper confession, made themselves spiritually clean for it, then they really and truly are within their right to stand and stand their ground on it. Cannon Law will back them up, and what we all know about Transubstantiation will back them up as well. The rail was never ment to be a judges bench. The people that make it so (Congregation) can make it all go away by not presenting themself if they are not worthy. I do not mean that they have rationalized themself into “Worthiness”, but that they have not gone thru and accomplished the preparitory steps prerequisite to reciving the Body of…Christ. I still kneel and do not touch the host with my hands. I love and respect the Church and realise that they do not have to treat us as if we are the guests in a Las Vegas hotel and they are behind the front desk. We have requirements we must meet. Some are mad, …that’s nice. Now, get on with life (me, too) and straighten your life up. Stop making excuses and wanting to take short cuts, being a cry baby when you do not get your way, and do what is needed to do what you want. The Church is the greatest self improvement course around, …but you and I must always apply the principles and stop whining.

Pax Vobuscum.

…qui prolixe fuerit acceptus, eo die fortasse suaviterafficietur, sed postridie dolbi caput, crudus erit stomachus (Lavish hospitality may be welcome at the time, but it leads to a headache and an upset stomach on the next day.)

 

[rpp]

The other problem that comes to mind is the fact that in our political system, bills are often attached to pieces of legislation, which have nothing to do with the bill itself.

For instance. A bill is written which will prohibit children from obtaining an abortion without the permission of their parents. Senator X, supports this legislation. However, Senator Y manages to attach to this bill a provision, which will spend $10 billion on building a space station on Mars. Senator X disagrees with this piece and votes against the bill.

Now he’s running for re-election, but the media reports that this Senator, voted against a pro-life issue and sites the bill he voted against. Once again, Church Lady sees the story in the news, without knowing all the details. When Senator X presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, she refuses him.

Do you see the problem here?

Without direct instructions from the Pastor, who has received instructions from the Bishop, I don’t think its a good idea to allow EMHC’s to make this decision.

Jim

Actually, I do not see a problem. The senator failed to protect the lives of innocent people and that trumps all issues. In the sentor’s desire not to spend some money, he condemned to death and untold number of innocent children. The EMHC would be right to refuse the senator Holy Communion.

 

[rpp]

Well apparently, Archbishop Burke is not alone is his desire to protect the sanctity and sacredness of the Body of Christ.

US clerics’ group backs Archbishop Burke on Communion
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54006

And the statement from the Confraternity of Catholic Clerics itself.
catholic-clergy.org/

So those who disagree with this should perhaps reconsider.

 

[DebChris]

The other problem that comes to mind is the fact that in our political system, bills are often attached to pieces of legislation, which have nothing to do with the bill itself.

For instance. A bill is written which will prohibit children from obtaining an abortion without the permission of their parents. Senator X, supports this legislation. However, Senator Y manages to attach to this bill a provision, which will spend $10 billion on building a space station on Mars. Senator X disagrees with this piece and votes against the bill.

Now he’s running for re-election, but the media reports that this Senator, voted against a pro-life issue and sites the bill he voted against. Once again, Church Lady sees the story in the news, without knowing all the details. When Senator X presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, she refuses him.

Do you see the problem here?

Without direct instructions from the Pastor, who has received instructions from the Bishop, I don’t think its a good idea to allow EMHC’s to make this decision.

Jim

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Not every bill is as black and white as it may appear. Did the senator vote for a piece of legislation after voicing his personal objections to amendments that had been attached? Is he working on legislation to correct what was wrong with the first bill? Often times we only have a small piece of the truth regarding what is happening on Capital Hill.
During the last election, Focus on the Family supported one candidate as pro-life over another when in reality both politicians held exactly the same views on abortion. Neither candidate had a legislative record to check. We do need to be careful about any rush to judgment.
Ender (#114) writes about “a few dozen nationally known Catholic politicians who have repeatedly supported abortion (Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Guiliani,etc.).” I have no problem refusing them Communion. The list would be given to the pastor and handed on to me. As mentioned in my first post, were one of them to approach me in order to avoid refusal from the priest, it is most likely the celebrant would non-verbally signal my need to deny Communion. This is not an issue I commonly confront and there is the very real possibility I would not recognize the politician, although the features of Kerry and Guiliani are hard to miss.
The focus during Eucharistic Minister training was again on being non-judgemental. Political positions are not the only reasons a person is not to approach the altar for Communion. A person who has re-married without an annullment is living in adultery. I do not generally look at the recipient as married or unmarried. I do not know who has and who has not obtained an annullment. Unless a person is wearing a sash as part of a political demonstration, I do not know who is engaging in homosexual intercourse. Again, I do not give credence to societal rumors. Only my pastor can tell me in advance who I may refuse.
Again, as mentioned in my first post, I refused a non-Catholic once. His actions betrayed his lack of knowledge and I asked to be sure. There are ways that members of the congregation can protect the Eucharist. These include showing children who are too young how to cross their arms across their chest for a blessing. Non-Catholic visitors can be taught the same.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual who chooses to defy Catholic teaching and request the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is available. I will not deny God’s power to bestow his grace within the Sacraments.

 

[rpp]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Not every bill is as black and white as it may appear. Did the senator vote for a piece of legislation after voicing his personal objections to amendments that had been attached? Is he working on legislation to correct what was wrong with the first bill? Often times we only have a small piece of the truth regarding what is happening on Capital Hill.
During the last election, Focus on the Family supported one candidate as pro-life over another when in reality both politicians held exactly the same views on abortion. Neither candidate had a legislative record to check. We do need to be careful about any rush to judgment.
Ender (#114) writes about “a few dozen nationally known Catholic politicians who have repeatedly supported abortion (Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Guiliani,etc.).” I have no problem refusing them Communion. The list would be given to the pastor and handed on to me. As mentioned in my first post, were one of them to approach me in order to avoid refusal from the priest, it is most likely the celebrant would non-verbally signal my need to deny Communion. This is not an issue I commonly confront and there is the very real possibility I would not recognize the politician, although the features of Kerry and Guiliani are hard to miss.
The focus during Eucharistic Minister training was again on being non-judgemental. Political positions are not the only reasons a person is not to approach the altar for Communion. A person who has re-married without an annullment is living in adultery. I do not generally look at the recipient as married or unmarried. I do not know who has and who has not obtained an annullment. Unless a person is wearing a sash as part of a political demonstration, I do not know who is engaging in homosexual intercourse. Again, I do not give credence to societal rumors. Only my pastor can tell me in advance who I may refuse.
Again, as mentioned in my first post, I refused a non-Catholic once. His actions betrayed his lack of knowledge and I asked to be sure. There are ways that members of the congregation can protect the Eucharist. These include showing children who are too young how to cross their arms across their chest for a blessing. Non-Catholic visitors can be taught the same.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual who chooses to defy Catholic teaching and request the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is available. I will not deny God’s power to bestow his grace within the Sacraments.

So you are saying money is more important than an innocent life in certain situations? I am afraid that will be a difficult position to justify morally.

 

[Brendan]

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. Not every bill is as black and white as it may appear. Did the senator vote for a piece of legislation after voicing his personal objections to amendments that had been attached?

So Deb,

How would you feel is you heard about a Senator who, after looking at legislation that creates concentration camps for blacks, voiced some personal objections to it, but ended up voting for it anyway because it included X billion dollars for health care for poor whites.

Not to use a pun, but exactly how ‘black and white’ do you need a bill to be.

If it advocates, or even permittes the death of millions of innocent children, it’s a no-brainer, (to Jim) even if it means that $10 billion would be wasted on a Mars mission)

The can be no dollar amount too great to justify a vote to allow abortion.

 

[fix]

The ultimate responsibility lies with the individual who chooses to defy Catholic teaching and request the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is available. I will not deny God’s power to bestow his grace within the Sacraments.

With all due respect from what I am reading it seems you are mixing up different issues here. The Church has said, in canon law, how certain manifest sinners are to be treated when it comes to reception of communion. That canon is not something we are free to disregard.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, I do not see a problem. The senator failed to protect the lives of innocent people and that trumps all issues. In the sentor’s desire not to spend some money, he condemned to death and untold number of innocent children. The EMHC would be right to refuse the senator Holy Communion.

But as things usually go, the bill came back and the $10 million provision was removed and the Senator voted to pass it.

However, Church Lady didn’t get that part of the story, because the media burried in on the inside of the newspaper, where she didn’t see it.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

The focus during Eucharistic Minister training was again on being non-judgemental. Political positions are not the only reasons a person is not to approach the altar for Communion.

I still think you don’t get it. Yes, there are lots of reasons for a person not to approach the altar for Communion. That is Canon 916. But +Burke is refering to a DIFFERENT CANON!!!

Can I make that any clearer???

A person who has re-married without an annullment is living in adultery. I do not generally look at the recipient as married or unmarried
I do not know who has and who has not obtained an annullment.

Unless a person is wearing a sash as part of a political demonstration, I do not know who is engaging in homosexual intercourse.

BINGO, you finally see the distinction. What you can see vs. what you cannot. What is private sin ( Canon 916) vs what is public ( Canon 915, politicians, Rainbow Sash…)

(and actually, you don’t even need to care if they were having homosexual sex at all. They could be a celibate as the Pope, but the very fact that they publically oppose the Churches teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage in that way is alone enough.)

If someone comes up to you who is fornicating, or living a adulterous life. Guess what, you don’t know the state of their soul, so you give them communion.

If John Kerry, or Rudy Guiliani comes up with their paparazzi, their public stance on abortion is well know, or there is a Rainbow Sash protest at your parish and they all come up. You don’t need to know the state of their soul. I will repeat this again for clarificaition YOU D-O NOTNEED TO KNOW THE STATE OF THEIR SOUL. You need to make no judgements on their soul at all.

They could be just coming right out of confession and it doesn’t matter at all. zero, zip, nada. Canon 915 prevents you from giving them Communion until (AND ONLY UNTIL they publically recant their position).

If there was a politican who voted in favor of abortion against his\her better judgement, that should be pretty easy. They can just issue a press release saying that they do not support any so-called right of a woman to have an abortion. Simple.

But for politicians who refuse to make such a statement, not only should they not present themselves, but once the bishop has made the determination that they are obstinate in their public sin, a minister of any type may not give them the Eucharist.

 

[Apryl]

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

Actually, no, you haven’t.

Ok: A priest has the authority to withhold communion.

So, Johnny Darkside sees that if he gets in this line, Fr. Spine will not give him communion. So, he steps to the left and gets in line where Frank Niceguy is serving. Since Frank is an EMHC, Johnny can take communion, although he will be withing 30 inches of the priest that won’t give him communion, and since the priest is dispensing communion in his line, it’s not like he can stop and say to Frank, ‘don’t give him that’, or ‘go ahead, and give it to him’, then the priest has to see that this blatant violation is taking place?

I get that the EMHC can’t say, ‘Tess Trueheart ain’t so true’ and not give Tess communion, but if Tess Trueheart stands on the steps of the church right before mass and says, ‘well, last night, I was at the abortion clinic and we need to make sure we keep this right available for all women for all time, and no one is going to stop me even if they want me to not take communion’ and then comes into the church, the EMHC who Tess was talking to still has to dispense to her… is that what you are telling me?

If the priest can deny communion, what is to stop ANY ONE from just going to the line with an EMHC? I am at a church where the EMHCs are used at nearly every mass - I know that’s not how it’s SUPPOSED to be, but with shortages of priests and deacons, we are doing what we have to do, and it’s been approved (as far as I know) by the Bishop

I just want to know what my role is: am I just a way to keep people from serving themselves from the paten like it’s an hor’s d’oevre?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, no, you haven’t.

Ok: A priest has the authority to withhold communion.

So, Johnny Darkside sees that if he gets in this line, Fr. Spine will not give him communion. So, he steps to the left and gets in line where Frank Niceguy is serving. Since Frank is an EMHC, Johnny can take communion, although he will be withing 30 inches of the priest that won’t give him communion, and since the priest is dispensing communion in his line, it’s not like he can stop and say to Frank, ‘don’t give him that’, or ‘go ahead, and give it to him’, then the priest has to see that this blatant violation is taking place?

I get that the EMHC can’t say, ‘Tess Trueheart ain’t so true’ and not give Tess communion, but if Tess Trueheart stands on the steps of the church right before mass and says, ‘well, last night, I was at the abortion clinic and we need to make sure we keep this right available for all women for all time, and no one is going to stop me even if they want me to not take communion’ and then comes into the church, the EMHC who Tess was talking to still has to dispense to her… is that what you are telling me?

If the priest can deny communion, what is to stop ANY ONE from just going to the line with an EMHC? I am at a church where the EMHCs are used at nearly every mass - I know that’s not how it’s SUPPOSED to be, but with shortages of priests and deacons, we are doing what we have to do, and it’s been approved (as far as I know) by the Bishop

I just want to know what my role is: am I just a way to keep people from serving themselves from the paten like it’s an hor’s d’oevre?

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

 

[rpp]

But as things usually go, the bill came back and the $10 million provision was removed and the Senator voted to pass it.

However, Church Lady didn’t get that part of the story, because the media burried in on the inside of the newspaper, where she didn’t see it.

Jim

Oh brother. What a ridiculous, contemptable and bizarrely unrealistic scenario. As if an abortion vote would by hidden by the news media. What a silly contention. There is no way that would ever happen. Such a story insults the intelligence of everyone.

You can what-if yourself to death.

The real question is why in the world do you promote sacriledge? The pollution of the the Body and Blood of our Lord, the Creator of the Universe? Why? Why doi you want promote violating Canon law? Why? Why do you want to go against the teachings of the Church. Why do you want to defy a bishop and the Pope?