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

[Marauder]

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?

See you are making my point for me. Nobody knows the state of sin of the person except the person and/or his confessor. Should an EMHC on their own, a person who maybe has a maximum of maybe two days training, be making these decisions.

Do not broaden the subject.

First off this is a public forum and you are not a moderator, I can say what I want as long as it is permitted by the moderators. Second I didn’t broaden the topic. How do you know what a public person has confessed? It may be Burke’s view that a person has to publicly denounce pro-abortion views before he can return to communion, but not every confessor and/or bishop may have the same view. I never said this involved other things that a person should remove themselves from communion. You never addressed this part of my post.

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.

Even in Burke’s letter, it is stated that it is up to the bishop and/or pastor to discuss this issue with the public official before having a confrontation at the communion rail. The EMHC has no knowledge of whether this conversation took place.

 

[irenaeus1]

See you are making my point for me. Nobody knows the state of sin of the person except the person and/or his confessor. Should an EMHC on their own, a person who maybe has a maximum of maybe two days training, be making these decisions.

No, you are demonstrating that you do not understand what the meaning of Canon 915 is, which has nothing to do with the state of a person’s soul. It has everything to do with those who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Notice that is does not state mortal sin, but rather obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Why? Because these attributes can all be verified objectively without sunjective judgement upon a person’s soul.

Even in Burke’s letter, it is stated that it is up to the bishop and/or pastor to discuss this issue with the public official before having a confrontation at the communion rail.

Yes, I think the bishops agree on that, but the question is what do you do when private admonishment and correction have not had their desired effect; i.e., you have discussed the grave situation privately with the public official, he refuses to recant his position, and he still continues to present himself for Holy Communion.

 

[Marauder]

No, you are demonstrating that you do not understand what the meaning of Canon 915 is, which has nothing to do with the state of a person’s soul. It has everything to do with those who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Notice that is does not state mortal sin, but rather obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. Why? Because these attributes can all be verified objectively without sunjective judgement upon a person’s soul.

See the problem is that you are trying to take a discussion out of context. An EMHC has NO knowledge of discussions that may be going on between a bishop and/or pastor. How do you know what so-and-so politician has said about what they are doing? How do you know if the person is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin? Making it bold doesn’t make it different. It is not up to the EMHC, a person that has maybe a max of two days training, to be making these decisions. It is up to the people that are dealing with the situation to be judging the situation. An EMHC does not know whether this has been discussed with the candidiate, an EMHC does not even know what litmus test the church may be using to determine whether a person is persisting in manifest grave sin. It is not up to a lay person to determine this. It is up to the church.

Yes, I think the bishops agree on that, but the question is what do you do when private admonishment and correction have not had their desired effect; i.e., you have discussed the grave situation privately with the public official, he refuses to recant his position, and he still continues to present himself for Holy Communion.

Then it is up to the bishop and/or pastor to tell the EMHCs not to distribute communion to that person, not the EMHC themselves.

At no time have I said that a politician shouldn’t be denied communion if he persists in manifest grave sin, but I have said that it isn’t up to the EMHC themselves to determine this. It is one thing if a priest/bishop says someone is to be denied it is another thing if an EMHC takes it upon themselves to determine it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

The EMHC doesn’t necessarily have the absolute truth and should understand this.

Unless the Bishop, has put out the mandate to withold Holy Communion from a particular person, I think it would be a wrong for EMHC’s to make the decision on thier own.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

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

But that is immaterial to the prohibition of Canon 915. Private sins are covered under Canon 916.

It doesn’t matter of a manifest sinner had just come from the confessional. That has no bearing of if they publically reject Church Teachings. The Canonical remedy for the manifest sinner is to publically recant their position. That, by definition, would be a matter of public record.

Also Archbishop Burke’s letter only applies to his diocese.

Sort of.

+Burkes letter was published in the Journal for the Roman Rota ( the ‘Supreme Court’ of Canon Law, not in a diocesan publication. Before being ‘tapped’ to pastor the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Archbishop Burke was a member of that tribunal.

So to that that body publish the article shows the leanings of the Rota on this issue.

So to give it an example. If a Catholic in Boston opened a Canon Law case against Ted Kennedy (for example). The case would be tried by the tribunal under Cardinal O’Malley.

No matter what the decision by +O’Malley, either party could appeal to the Rota ( this issues is a matter of Canon Law, not simply an episcopal decision.

Since it was the Rota itself that published this, it gives us some indication on how the Rota would rule.

And all parties, including the bishop (and EMHC’s), are obliged to follow the courts ruling.

So the letter is not binding outside of +Burke’s own diocese, but it’s effects reach far further than that.

 

[fix]

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.

I am not arguing for the EMHC to act unilaterally based on insufficient knowledge. What I am saying is that the piece by Bishop Burke is about scandal and protection of all involved. The knowledge of the subjective state of anyone’s soul is not the issue hear.

 

[DebChris]

Even in Burke’s letter, it is stated that it is up to the bishop and/or pastor to discuss this issue with the public official before having a confrontation at the communion rail. The EMHC has no knowledge of whether this conversation took place.

The commuion rail is not, as stated the place for confrontation. Excommunication is a grave matter and not to be taken lightly. Neither is denying reception of Holy Communion to a person who presents himself at the altar.
An earlier post asked about legislative baby steps. Sometimes in order to change a societal mindset, that is where we need to start. Maybe we cannot save the millions of unborn killed each year, but we can help with preventative programs that may save a few of them. How many mothers terminate pregnancies because they do not know whether or not they can afford the necessities? Providing funding for childcare vouchers may save a life. Schindler did what he could to save Jews during WWII. He was not in a position to save them all.
Amendments to legislative bills may alter their original intent. What is presented as a pro-life bill may turn into one of fiscal irresponsibility (ie funding for Mars). An anti-abort bill could have an amendment that expands the practice of euthanasia. When the bishop meets with the politician, I have no doubt all these issues would be addressed.
It is not my role as a Christian to pass judgment on the conscience of another. If the politician is indeed excommunicated for his position, that name would be passed downward and I would abide by the bishop’s decision. I do not think any EMCH on this thread has said otherwise.

 

[rpp]

I guess the best way to sum this up is…

A bishop and and a priest are not permitted under Canon 915 to commit the sacrilege of giving communion to a person who is “obstinantly in manifest (public) sin”.

However, a layEMoHC is permitted, and in fact required, to commit this sacrilegious act.

Now that we have cleared that up, we have just one point remaining.

What about a deacon?

 

[fix]

One of the points in the Bishop’s piece says this:

…the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion…

…the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior…

It seems Catholics have come to the point where they believe refusing communion to a manifest sinner is more scandalous then obeying the Church and denying them communion.

 

[rpp]

One of the points in the Bishop’s piece says this:

It seems Catholics have come to the point where they believe refusing communion to a manifest sinner is more scandalous then obeying the Church and denying them communion.

It is so sad and regrettable that you appear to be correct.

 

[beckers]

One of the points in the Bishop’s piece says this:

It seems Catholics have come to the point where they believe refusing communion to a manifest sinner is more scandalous then obeying the Church and denying them communion.

You would be correct. I like this one part too…

"In approaching to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the faithful must both respect the holiness of the Sacrament, the Real Presence of Christ, and examine their own worthiness, lest they condemn themselves by receiving the Lord unworthily.

The emphasis is on self-examination, in order to discover preparedness to receive the Sacrament or not. If one is not prepared, for example, because of serious sin which is unremitted, then he simply is not to approach to receive Holy Communion. Here, one is dealing with what may be simply called a “reality check”. Does the actual state of my soul dispose me to receive the true Body and Blood of Christ?

The self-examination necessarily has reference to one’s relationship both to God and to others. Communion with Christ in His Body and Blood means putting into practice what He has taught us, namely love of God and of neighbor. Serious sin against God or against neighbor makes one unworthy to receive Holy Communion, until the sin has been confessed and forgiveness received through the Sacrament of Penance.

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ."

i don’t understand why we are trying to protect the face of someone instead of protecting the Body and Blood of Jesus and the soul of the sinners. For if they were to receieve in a state of unworthiness then that would be even worst! Those who publicily sin against the church shouldn’t even approach to receieve. They shouldn’t put anyone in the test to have to deny them for they should already be doing that for themselves.

As for the EMHC- you are under the bishop. If you swtich dicoese then you have to get new permission to be a EMHC.
Therefore if your bishop/priest tells you not to give Communion to someone then you listen to them. You are there in service to the church and if the church tells you something then you should follow. Your conscience is not the part at issue but your obedience.

 

[Apryl]

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.

… and I think this is what makes it challenging for any Eucharistic Minister.

See… if we didn’t KNOW that their behavior had been objectionable (whether they changed or not) it wouldn’t be an issue.

If I decide to never put my dishes away, no one knows that if I don’t tell them, unless they come into my home. The number of people in my home will be very limited.

If, otoh, I decide to never put away my lawn mower, that is something that every one that’s on my block would know, since they don’t have to come in.

Still, my decision to dye my hair black becomes common knowledge if I send out my Christmas cards with the new 'do, and I also am a tv reporter.

Get me?

For those that have the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of being there when we share in the Feast of the Eucharist, this sacrament, this Holy time, this communion, we really do have to act on the stuff that’s in the Christmas cards and on television.

No one is saying ‘I was in the house and know the dishes weren’t put away’. Most wouldn’t even comment on the lawn mower being out. But that new hair? Well… we can’t deny that, can we?

 

[Apryl]

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

I don’t know about things in your diocese, but I don’t talk to my Bishop that often. Usually, it’s at some public event when he is shaking hands.

How do you get audience with your Bishop? And do you go to him with these questions? Or do you wait for him to be aware and come to you?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I guess the best way to sum this up is…

A bishop and and a priest are not permitted under Canon 915 to commit the sacrilege of giving communion to a person who is “obstinantly in manifest (public) sin”.

However, a layEMoHC is permitted, and in fact required, to commit this sacrilegious act.

Now that we have cleared that up, we have just one point remaining.

What about a deacon?

An EMHC isn’t in an authoritative position to determine if a person is in a state of mortal sin, Bishops and Priest are. Deacons?

Well, being they’re not allowed to hear confessions, I don’t believe they would be either.

Jim

 

[Apryl]

An EMHC isn’t in an authoritative position to determine if a person is in a state of mortal sin, Bishops and Priest are. Deacons?

Well, being they’re not allowed to hear confessions, I don’t believe they would be either.

Jim

I’m not going to shout

I’m not going to scream

I’m not going to shout

I’m not going to scream

(deep breathing)

Jim… Hi… Apryl here… trying to follow your logic, and to get some clarity on this situation.

Could you please try to answer directly, yet succinctly, a question that I’ve had on this matter:

Why do you believe that an EMHC, or a priest, or deacon or any one else, has to make any judgments if a person has TOLD you what they have done or are doing?

We are talking about them telling you what they have done, or are doing, that would make them not eligible for the communion on that day?

See? I did it. No screaming, no yelling, and I really hope I was not insulting.

 

[fix]

An EMHC isn’t in an authoritative position to determine if a person is in a state of mortal sin, Bishops and Priest are. Deacons?

Well, being they’re not allowed to hear confessions, I don’t believe they would be either.

Jim

How does a priest or bishop know if one is in a state of mortal sin? I mean, they may know if one has committed a grave sin, but how do they know the state of one’s soul as it appears to God for judgment? And, why is that knowledge needed to decide if a manifest sinner is causing scandal?

Can you see my point? One who is a manifest sinner may not be culpable for his sins, yet his objectively sinful behavior causes scandal and must be dealt with.

 

[fix]

… and I think this is what makes it challenging for any Eucharistic Minister.

See… if we didn’t KNOW that their behavior had been objectionable (whether they changed or not) it wouldn’t be an issue.

If I decide to never put my dishes away, no one knows that if I don’t tell them, unless they come into my home. The number of people in my home will be very limited.

If, otoh, I decide to never put away my lawn mower, that is something that every one that’s on my block would know, since they don’t have to come in.

Still, my decision to dye my hair black becomes common knowledge if I send out my Christmas cards with the new 'do, and I also am a tv reporter.

Get me?

For those that have the DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY of being there when we share in the Feast of the Eucharist, this sacrament, this Holy time, this communion, we really do have to act on the stuff that’s in the Christmas cards and on television.

No one is saying ‘I was in the house and know the dishes weren’t put away’. Most wouldn’t even comment on the lawn mower being out. But that new hair? Well… we can’t deny that, can we?

My understanding, and it may be wrong, is that scandalous behavior is the issue. Whether the one causing the scandal is guilty of a mortal sin is not the issue. It is not about deciding who is culpable for mortal sin. It is about knowing a public person is contradicting the Church on a serious issue, receiving communion, and leading others to think it is acceptable.

 

[Apryl]

My understanding, and it may be wrong, is that scandalous behavior is the issue. Whether the one causing the scandal is guilty of a mortal sin is not the issue. It is not about deciding who is culpable for mortal sin. It is about knowing a public person is contradicting the Church on a serious issue, receiving communion, and leading others to think it is acceptable.

Yeah… what he said.

 

[Marauder]

I guess the best way to sum this up is…

A bishop and and a priest are not permitted under Canon 915 to commit the sacrilege of giving communion to a person who is “obstinantly in manifest (public) sin”.

However, a layEMoHC is permitted, and in fact required, to commit this sacrilegious act.

Now that we have cleared that up, we have just one point remaining.

What about a deacon?

The problem is that you are trying to make the decision of whether someone receives communion or not lay in the hands of the EMHC, a person that has received a maximum of about 2 days training. The Bishop and/or pastor decide whether someone is able to receive communion or not, not the EMHC. The EMHC just does as they are told, if the bishop in that diocese says politician so and so doesn’t receive, then the EMHC obeys. If the pastor says that so and so doesn’t receive then the EMHC obeys. If the bishop says that so a so does receive, unless the Pope says differently, then EMHC either allows that person to receive or steps down from the EMHC position.

It isn’t up to the EMHC on there own to decide who does and does not receive. They do not have all the facts. They do not have the years of training. They are not aware of any behind the scenes communications that have gone on between the bishop and the politician. They do not know exactly what degree of voting pro-abortion makes a person going against church teaching. Does an EMHC know what the exact litmus test is?

It’s funny many of the same people that think we shouldn’t have EMHCs at all are trying to allow them the ultimate decision as to who receives and who doesn’t.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m not going to shout

I’m not going to scream

I’m not going to shout

I’m not going to scream

(deep breathing)

Jim… Hi… Apryl here… trying to follow your logic, and to get some clarity on this situation.

Could you please try to answer directly, yet succinctly, a question that I’ve had on this matter:

Why do you believe that an EMHC, or a priest, or deacon or any one else, has to make any judgments if a person has TOLD you what they have done or are doing?

We are talking about them telling you what they have done, or are doing, that would make them not eligible for the communion on that day?

See? I did it. No screaming, no yelling, and I really hope I was not insulting.

Well even if a person told an EMHC what they did, it doesn’t mean they are excommunicated, or even that they committed mortal sin. Look up the three conditions necessarily for committing mortal sin. An EMHC isn’t a confessor, they’re not necessarily trained in theology, liturgy or anything in particular, to give them enough knowledge on the subject. Heck, in my parish, I bet I could question the EMHC’s and most wouldn’t know the conditions for committing a mortal sin. Heck, many in my parish, don’t believe in sin anyway.(Unfortunately, I’m not joking.)
So, EMHC’s are not the one’s to determine if a person should be prevented from receiving Holy Communion.

Thank you for not yelling, BTW.

Jim