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

[KathleenElsie]

Of course this interpretation is literal interpretation, and not in accord with the USCCB. Bishops in the US, have allowed for EMHC’s even when a priest is present. I for one prefer the literal interpretation. It is what was meant and not in the personal “spirit” of the meaning.

However, in my parish, when there is more than one priest, celebrating Mass or there is a deacon, we don’t have EMHC’s, nor are they scheduled for those Masses. However, there are still 3 other Masses, where the pastor will be by himself.

Also in my dioceses as I’m guessing is the case in most, the Bishop has given the priest the authority to make the decision, whether to use EMHC’s or not.

Jim

 

[KathleenElsie]

Off topic. The OCDS are Carmelite Seculars (Third Order)

     The Rule of Saint Albert is the original expression of the spirituality of Carmel. It was written for the laypeople who gathered on Mount Carmel to live a life dedicated to meditation on the Word of God, under the protection of Our Lady. The following principles of that Rule guide Carmelite life:

a) Living in allegiance to Jesus Christ;
b) Being diligent in meditating on the law of the Lord;
c) Giving time to spiritual reading;
d) Participating in the Church’s Liturgy, both the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours;
e) Being concerned for the needs and the good of others in the community;
f) Arming ourselves with the practice of the virtues, as we live an intense life of faith, hope and charity;
g) Seeking interior silence and solitude in our life of prayer;
h) Using prudent discretion in all that we do.

The above is a quick overview of what is expected.

More at this site: ocd.pcn.net/

 

[DebChris]

You, as well as many others here, have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand what the real point is. Canon 915 does not address the issue of determining whether one is in the state of grace or not. It only addresses whether one obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. This can be objectively verified and does not require anyone to determine the state of another’s soul.

I should just copy and paste the same answer everytime someone regurgitates the same false dichotomy.

You only selected a small part of my post. I do not determine whether or not a person is/is not in a state of grace. If the greivance is blatant (I think I highlighted that word), I would be informed not to distribute communion to that peron, as Jim has likewise posted.
The Catholic Church places the primary responsibility on the individual to examine his or her own conscience. A person, knowing that he is in the state of mortal sin is not to approach the altar for Holy Communion. It is only when a known ex-communicant approaches for the purpose of receiving Eucharist, that I would be in a position to refuse.
A person who is living in adultery, because of remarriage (without annullment) is not to receive Holy Communion. Such a person would be living in persistant and manifest sin. As stated in one of my earliest posts, I do not listen to scandal or gossip. I do not personally know who this person might be. The person, if he/she receives, is responsible for his/her own sacrilege.
Again, I used the example of the rainbow sashes. The sash is an outward sign of defiance against Catholic teaching. I would be bound not to offer Communion, although the individual could receive a blessing, as given by NY priests during the demonstration last year. If the individual should approach the altar at another time, I would not know whether or not he/she is still living the sinful lifestyle.
Jesus was quite explicit in his teachings about judgement. It is more important that I remove the beam from my own eye than the speck from the eye of my brother.
The altar is not the place for confrontation. Refusing the Eucharist to a brother or sister is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly. We need to be praying for one another so that the person unable to join us at the family table may once again receive.

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Church places the primary responsibility on the individual to examine his or her own conscience.

Examining one’s conscience is the responsibility of the individual. This, however, says nothing at all about the responsibility of the minister of communion. The fact that the individual fails in his responsibility does not relieve the minister of his. Archbishop Burke’s instruction is a reminder to the ministers of their responsibility, a reminder long overdue.

Again, I used the example of the rainbow sashes. The sash is an outward sign of defiance against Catholic teaching. I would be bound not to offer Communion

This is an interesting position: you would deny communion to someone with a rainbow sash because it is an outward sign of defiance against Catholic teaching but you argue for giving it to those who have publicly and repeatedly supported abortion in defiance of Catholic teaching. They are both outward signs of defiance - how do you justify granting communion in one case and not the other?

Jesus was quite explicit in his teachings about judgement. It is more important that I remove the beam from my own eye than the speck from the eye of my brother.

He might have been explicit but we seem to get it wrong with regularity. It isn’t that we are prohibited from all judging but rather from rash judgment or from judging things we cannot know. Clearly we must judge some actions or we could never say “this is wrong” or “that is right.”

Ender

 

[DebChris]

Examining one’s conscience is the responsibility of the individual. This, however, says nothing at all about the responsibility of the minister of communion. The fact that the individual fails in his responsibility does not relieve the minister of his. Archbishop Burke’s instruction is a reminder to the ministers of their responsibility, a reminder long overdue.
This is an interesting position: you would deny communion to someone with a rainbow sash because it is an outward sign of defiance against Catholic teaching but you argue for giving it to those who have publicly and repeatedly supported abortion in defiance of Catholic teaching. They are both outward signs of defiance - how do you justify granting communion in one case and not the other?
He might have been explicit but we seem to get it wrong with regularity. It isn’t that we are prohibited from all judging but rather from rash judgment or from judging things we cannot know. Clearly we must judge some actions or we could never say “this is wrong” or “that is right.”

Ender

Let me return to the analogy of a cashier. In this particular store, IDs are not checked (although I have heard that some African churches do ask those who wish to receive Communion to bring their Baptismal Certificates). Everybody’s money is good and accepted. The individual knows whether or not they are overdrawn unless by bookkeeping error (venial sin).
The boss keeps a list of habitual and defiant offenders. These are the only persons I am allowed to deny. The bishop, in other words, provides the names of those who are not to receive Communion and I abide by that list. I do not think Jim or I have said anything else.
Is God or is he not all powerful? St. Paul writes about the illnesses that those who receive unworthily develop. Jesus can take care of himself.
On the other hand, protection of the Eucharist is not simply a matter for the eucharistic minister. Each of us, as members of the Body of Christ has the responsibility to teach the truth. I do write congressmen concerning my position on legalized aborticide and the need for a constitutional amendment to protect life from the moment of conception. I recognize that some bills may be altered by amendment to a point that they no longer resemble their original intent. These are issues that the bishop and congressmen can discuss privately, away from the altar rail. If then, the congressman persists in promoting aborticide, the information is sent to the parishes of the dioceses in which he might receive Communion and receipt of Communion is denied. It is unlikely I will ever be placed in such a position. It would be more common in New York where Guilanni, unfaithful to his family (I read his book) as well as pro-aborticide, might seek Commuinion.
If the congressman never approaches the altar rail, the question is moot.
In an earlier post I wrote that procuring or helping procure an abortion is an excommunicable offense. The woman can return to the Church through the healing ministry of Rachel’s vineyard. Guilanni and Kerry can recant of pro-abortion stances and return to the Table of the Lord. That should be our goal. That all who claim the title of Catholic Christian accept the healing grace of our Lord and join us in the celebration of the Eucharist. For this repentence, we can all pray.

 

[c659smith]

God Bless All

If this was followed then the San Francisco incident would never had happened.

 

[Ender]

The bishops will hold their annual fall General Assembly conference in Baltimore, November 12-15, where, among other things, they will vote on the latest version of their *Faithful Citizenship *statement. Not listed on their agenda is any discussion of Archbishop Burke’s comments.

So once again it looks like the faithful will be presented with a political document that provides no real assistance in making political choices, and abdication on a moral issue that has political implications.

Personally, I feel that the lack of a clear distinction between moral and prudential issues reflects not a failure to make a decision but is the decision itself. In the absence of moral directions it will be reasonably assumed that all choices are equally moral. If not, wouldn’t the bishops surely say so? In this case, equivocation is not failure, it is policy.

Ender

 

[Jerome42]

The bishops will hold their annual fall General Assembly conference in Baltimore, November 12-15, where, among other things, they will vote on the latest version of their *Faithful Citizenship *statement. Not listed on their agenda is any discussion of Archbishop Burke’s comments.

So once again it looks like the faithful will be presented with a political document that provides no real assistance in making political choices, and abdication on a moral issue that has political implications.

Personally, I feel that the lack of a clear distinction between moral and prudential issues reflects not a failure to make a decision but is the decision itself. In the absence of moral directions it will be reasonably assumed that all choices are equally moral. If not, wouldn’t the bishops surely say so? In this case, equivocation is not failure, it is policy.

Ender

Once again our cowardly Bishops are going to be fiddlin’ around in Baltimore while Southern California burns in the punishing fires.

HOW MUCH MORE CAN OUR HEAVENLY FATHER TOLERATE!

Our country has fallen into sins of imorality, 50 million abortions, etc, etc. The worst part of it is that many of the 64 million Catholics in this country tacetly and/or indirectly support these sins by voting for politicians, many of which have the audacity to flaunt their Catholicism.

 

[rpp]

The bishops will hold their annual fall General Assembly conference in Baltimore, November 12-15, where, among other things, they will vote on the latest version of their *Faithful Citizenship *statement. Not listed on their agenda is any discussion of Archbishop Burke’s comments.

So once again it looks like the faithful will be presented with a political document that provides no real assistance in making political choices, and abdication on a moral issue that has political implications.

Personally, I feel that the lack of a clear distinction between moral and prudential issues reflects not a failure to make a decision but is the decision itself. In the absence of moral directions it will be reasonably assumed that all choices are equally moral. If not, wouldn’t the bishops surely say so? In this case, equivocation is not failure, it is policy.

Ender

While I share Enders’s pessimism, I believe prayer really does work and that providing positive support for our bishops will ultimately lead to the changes that we need in the USA.

And Canada.

And Europe.

And Australia.

Africa and Asia, despite the persecutions there seem to remain fairly faithful from what I can tell.

Hmm… Perhaps there is a relationship between comfort and lack of faithfulness.

 

[Apryl]

Once again our cowardly Bishops are going to be fiddlin’ around in Baltimore while Southern California burns in the punishing fires.

Just what does one have to do with the other? Maybe you have a point, but it was honestly lost on me.

I’m sure the Bishops planned this event long before they were aware of any fire.

And the fires won’t be put out, or even addressed, by the Bishops that won’t be at the conference… or will they?

What would you have the Catholic Bishops do with the fire that isn’t better handled by someone else?

 

[DebChris]

Never underestimate the power of God to change the hearts of men. In an effort to prove his hypothesis that the embryo has no feelings, Dr. Nathanielson produced the Silent Scream and in the process converted from an abortionist to an outspoken pro-life advocate.

 

[Sheeniac]

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.

Indeed. The way the discussion has been on this thread, one would think we were discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin… something unknowable, and purely an intellectual flight of fancy.

There are certain politicians that are pro-choice, and who claim to be Catholic. We’re not talking about some minor rep in the state house who votes in a questionable manner on a state vote. We’re talking about those few who are openly in disagreement with a very major Church teaching. Why is this being discussed in the theoretical? As an EMHC, I would not give Communion to Nancy Pelosi unless I am told to. Is it that hard of a concept? Would I make such decisions in the case of a minor state politician? Doubtful - this national debate is aimed at the major players who spit in the eyes of the Church. So, no, it would be **incredibly rare **for me to not give it out.

Oftentimes the Church is vague, but not in this case. She, and her Bishops, are taking a stand. There are a cowardly few who are trying to sidestep the issue, but these lukewarm ones are in serious danger themselves.

 

[DebChris]

Indeed. The way the discussion has been on this thread, one would think we were discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin… something unknowable, and purely an intellectual flight of fancy.

There are certain politicians that are pro-choice, and who claim to be Catholic. We’re not talking about some minor rep in the state house who votes in a questionable manner on a state vote. We’re talking about those few who are openly in disagreement with a very major Church teaching. Why is this being discussed in the theoretical? As an EMHC, I would not give Communion to Nancy Pelosi unless I am told to. Is it that hard of a concept? Would I make such decisions in the case of a minor state politician? Doubtful - this national debate is aimed at the major players who spit in the eyes of the Church. So, no, it would be **incredibly rare **for me to not give it out.

Oftentimes the Church is vague, but not in this case. She, and her Bishops, are taking a stand. There are a cowardly few who are trying to sidestep the issue, but these lukewarm ones are in serious danger themselves.

I have no problem denying these major players. The important point that you made is that denying the Eucharist is very rare. It is not something taken lightly.
I think I mentioned in one of my earliest posts the reality that one of these “major players” might come to me in an effort to avoid being denied by the priest. That being the case, the priest could signal me to refuse the Eucharist.
Each of us who are EMCHs serve at the pleasure of the priest, and by extension, the pleasure of the bishop. In this role, we are called to obedience. It is an honor that is also very humbling.
Protection of the Eucharist belongs to all of us, not merely those chosen for this special role. In this regard, a Catholic would inform a non-Catholic friend who joins us in worship why he/she may not receive. A parent or grandparent may signal the Eucharist minister that a child may not receive because of development or not being a Catholic. How else would the priest know? Much of this is done non-verbally.