Can a priest refuse communion to someone?

[GwenL]

Can, should and does could well be three seperate conversations.

Bingo. I was wondering the “legality.” Yet another separate conversation would be “why don’t they refuse communion?” especially when considering some of our more prominent “Catholic” pro-abort politicians.

I would think, though, that such a decision would be difficult to apply uniformly. Let’s say the Archbishop of San Fran tells a politician “you are not to receive communion,” and even sends such a directive to all the priests in the archdiocese. What’s to stop the politician from receiving in Washington, or wherever she travels?

On the other hand, when a person presents themself for communion, how would the priest know that they haven’t received absolution through reconciliation? Even if the person is a politician well-known for pro-abort actions, there’s always the hope that they will change.

I do understand that it is the individual who is placing themselves in mortal danger by receiving unworthily. The judgement in the end will be the Lord’s. But the scandal is pretty horrendous, as is the perception of unequal treatment.

 

[Don9of11]

The chapel on EWTN is not a parish church. It was built as the chapel of the monastery when the nuns lived there. Traditionally, Franciscans have never had communion rails or kneelers in our chapels. We have had them in our public churches.

If you visit our first motherhouse, San Damiano and St. Mary of the Angels, both were rebuilt by St. Francis. Neither had communion rails or kneelers. The brothers and sisters stood during the entire mass. But if you go into the Basilica of St. Francis or the Basilica of St. Clare, those churches have kneelers and rails. They were built for the use of the laity. In the Franciscan tradition, Franciscan women knelt to receive communion and Franciscan men stood. That is still observed in those communities that follow the ancient observances, such as the Friars fo the Eternal Word, the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration, the Franciscans of the Renewal and several other Franciscan communities.

The chapel at EWTN had a pass-through where the nuns received communion on their knees. On the side that we see is where the friars were. There friars received communion standing. So there was no need for the rails.

There is a difference between a chapel, oratory and monastery church and a public church. Those that are part of the religious house usually follow the customs the religious community, because these customs have been in place for hundreds of years.

I hope that helps you understand why they do not have rails.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I didn’t mean to criticize or find fault, simply an observation. Thanks for the explanation though, very enlightening.

 

[ProVobis]

On the other hand, when a person presents themself for communion, how would the priest know that they haven’t received absolution through reconciliation? Even if the person is a politician well-known for pro-abort actions, there’s always the hope that they will change.

A priest may deny communion for reasons other than that the communicant may be in the state of mortal sin or avoid setting a bad example. However, I think it is only right that he explains why from the pulpit.

 

[JReducation]

There is another point in law that makes this a very confusing question for most of the clergy. The rule is that the priest celebrating the mass may withhold communion. However, if there is a concelebrant, a deacon or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, none of them have the jurisdiction to do so. This jurisdiction goes from bishop to pastor and past to presider. It does not pass down to concelebrant, deacon or EMHC. This only passes down if the bishop orders them not to give communion to a certain person. If the bishop asks the person not to present themselves for communion, that is not the same thing. The order has been given to the person, not to the clergy and the EMHC.

The request from a bishop to a person not to present themselves for Holy Communion, does not constitute excommunication. A person who is excommunicated cannot receive any of the sacraments of the Church until the excommunication is lifted. These persons who are asked not to present themselves to the Eucharist may receive the sacraments of the Church. For example, they may get married, be confirmed, receive Annointing of the Sick or Penance., because there never was an act of excommunication or an automatic excommunication.

Many bishops around the world have asked Pope Benedict to make it a rule that pro-abortion politicians may not be given communion. This makes it easier as it is universal. But the Holy Father refuses to do so on the grounds that he feels that the communion line is not the place to have a confrontation over an issue that is so politicized. It is his feeling that the situation can cause a scene that is irreverent to the Eucharist and disruptive to the mass. The bishops have been given instruction not to cause a disruption in the mass. This was a big question the last time the major superiors of men gathered with the Vatican athorities. The answer is that the local bishop must decide whether it can be done quietly and with dignity and that the Holy Father yields to the principle of subsidiarity in this case. Each bishop must resolve his own problem at the local level, because there is no way to predict what the situation would be in every parish around the world.

It’s very difficult when the law has limits and when there is not central policy. The bishops are in a difficult situation, not to mention the priest who is celebrating a mass. We will have to wait and see how the Holy Father wants to manage this on the big scale.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

A priest may deny communion for reasons other than that the communicant may be in the state of mortal sin or avoid setting a bad example. However, I think it is only right that he explains why from the pulpit.

Here is where you get into another sticky point of law. A priest may say from the pulpit that those in mortal sin will be denied communion. But that can call attention to the individual. The law says that the priest cannot call attention to the individual. It says nothing about the individual calling attention to themselves. That’s a whole other story.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictgal]

JR, would you please cite your source? In the letter issued by then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he does not make that distinction.

1. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

1. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

1. 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” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement 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.

The former prefect (now Holy Father) does not make the distinction between celebrant, concelebrant or deacon.

 

[JReducation]

JR, would you please cite your source? In the letter issued by then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he does not make that distinction.

The former prefect (now Holy Father) does not make the distinction between celebrant, concelebrant or deacon.

This is what was told to us by our superior. That the law is not clear on this question. And despite the questioins, no one seems to have an answer. I know that we depend on the local bishops and they don’t seem to have a clear grasp of the rule either.

It is true that then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this, but there is another point that is raised by bishops and major superiors about this and that is whether the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith was making law or commentary.

There is much in the air about this point. I just wish that someone would come out with a rule that is easy for everyone to follow, because it is an important question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictgal]

This is what was told to us by our superior. That the law is not clear on this question. And despite the questioins, no one seems to have an answer. I know that we depend on the local bishops and they don’t seem to have a clear grasp of the rule either.

It is true that then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this, but there is another point that is raised by bishops and major superiors about this and that is whether the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith was making law or commentary.

There is much in the air about this point. I just wish that someone would come out with a rule that is easy for everyone to follow, because it is an important question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

He was not writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. He was writing in his official capacity as Prefect. That is a huge difference. As the Church’s chief doctrinal officer, he had the capacity to issue that kind of a directive, since the matter concerns an issue of Faith and Morals, and, this, certainly, fell under the scope of the CDF. Furthermore, abortion issues were sent to his Congregation to decide.

 

[ProVobis]

Here is where you get into another sticky point of law. A priest may say from the pulpit that those in mortal sin will be denied communion. But that can call attention to the individual. The law says that the priest cannot call attention to the individual. It says nothing about the individual calling attention to themselves. That’s a whole other story.

JR, I was referring to still other cases. One where certain groups of individuals want to do harm to him, through suits and stuff like that. I can’t get too much into it as I don’t know all the details of the case where I saw this but things like that do happen these days.

 

[JReducation]

JR, I was referring to still other cases. One where certain groups of individuals want to do harm to him, through suits and stuff like that. I can’t get too much into it as I don’t know all the details of the case where I saw this but things like that do happen these days.

I just find the answer to the question as baffling as many of my confreres do. I guess eventually we’ll get a more specific response from Rome. In the meantime, we follow the local bishop when in his parishes and the major superior in our colleges and our chapels.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FrCorey]

Kneeling is not illicit, but it could be potentially disruptive to the communion procession. Sudden kneeling could cause the person behind you to trip over you (someone I know almost tripped over someone hitting the floor kneeling just this week). But you shouldn’t be denied communion for kneeling.

On the topic post, a Bishop should be able to deny communion if the person is continuously, unrepentantly sinning. Publicly declaring it should be the last step though, and only if private discussions and requests are ignored.

yeah really, I have seen people genuflecting properly and almost causing a pileup.

 

[adriancombe]

I was denied Holy Communion for kneeling to receive at a church my family and I were visiting. The priest told me he was denying me Holy Communion for kneeling, and then he just stepped to the side, and told the next person to come forward (who happened to be my youngest daughter, who was terrified and didn’t know what to do because my entire family always kneels to receive).

Something similar happened to a friend of mine. Afterwards he went to talk to the priest. He was very calm and respectful as always. The priest was rabid in appearance. It was not what you would consider a conversation. Afterwards my friend and his wife speculated the priest was not alone and not in control, if you get my drift. God help that priest.

 

[sedonaman]

When I was a Eucharistic minister, the priest in charge of our group informed us at a training session that there some people, wearing T-shirts with a pentagram emblem [sign of the devil], going around and presenting themselves for Holy Communion, and that we were to refuse to give it to them. So, yes, a priest can refuse communion to someone.

 

[benedictgal]

When I was a Eucharistic minister, the priest in charge of our group informed us at a training session that there some people, wearing T-shirts with a pentagram emblem [sign of the devil], going around and presenting themselves for Holy Communion, and that we were to refuse to give it to them. So, yes, a priest can refuse communion to someone.

I had a discussion about this with a prelate friend of mine over lunch last week. We talked about denying Holy Communion to someone. Two mutual priest acquaintences of ours had been denying Holy Communion. In one instance, the communicant was chewing gum; in the other the communicant had a piercing on his tongue.

My friend told me that both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion needed to exercise some restraint in the denial of Holy Communion. In the first instance, he said that the priest may not have known if the communicant, in fact, was taking medication, since some prescriptions are now made through chewing gum. In the second instance, the celebrant may or may not have known the individual who had the piercing. In either way, what the celebrants should have done was to meet with the individuals after Mass to ascertain the situation.

By the way, laity are not Eucharistis Ministers. That term is reserved only to the bishop and the priest because only they can confect (that is to say, cause to happen) the Eucharist. The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the bishop, priest and deacon (by virture of his Holy Orders). The laity are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

 

[Newbie2]

I had a discussion about this with a prelate friend of mine over lunch last week. We talked about denying Holy Communion to someone. Two mutual priest acquaintences of ours had been denying Holy Communion. In one instance, the communicant was chewing gum; in the other the communicant had a piercing on his tongue.

My friend told me that both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion needed to exercise some restraint in the denial of Holy Communion. *** In the first instance, he said that the priest may not have known if the communicant, in fact, was taking medication, since some prescriptions are now made through chewing gum. *** In the second instance, the celebrant may or may not have known the individual who had the piercing. In either way, what the celebrants should have done was to meet with the individuals after Mass to ascertain the situation.

By the way, laity are not Eucharistis Ministers. That term is reserved only to the bishop and the priest because only they can confect (that is to say, cause to happen) the Eucharist. The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the bishop, priest and deacon (by virture of his Holy Orders). The laity are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

To consider this as a possible reason for exercising restraint, methinks, is rather lame. Sure, meds may be administered in this manner, but not any medication that is so essential that a person could not remove the gum from their pie-hole long enough to get in line, receive the Eucharist, consume it and go sit down.

The piercing issue, OTOH, seems like a reasonable area in which to exercise restraint. I’m unclear as to how having a tongue or even a lip piercing would make one disrespectful of the Eucharist, any more than someone else wearing a ring or wearing fake nails/nail polish and receiving in the hand.

 

[benedictgal]

To consider this as a possible reason for exercising restraint, methinks, is rather lame. Sure, meds may be administered in this manner, but not any medication that is so essential that a person could not remove the gum from their pie-hole long enough to get in line, receive the Eucharist, consume it and go sit down.

The piercing issue, OTOH, seems like a reasonable area in which to exercise restraint. I’m unclear as to how having a tongue or even a lip piercing would make one disrespectful of the Eucharist, any more than someone else wearing a ring or wearing fake nails/nail polish and receiving in the hand.

I wasn’t at either Mass. However, the person in the first situation went and spoke to my friend. I don’t know what happened afterwards. But, I do agree with you that the individual should have removed the gum or done something with it.

 

[lutherlic]

I was denied Holy Communion for kneeling to receive at a church my family and I were visiting. The priest told me he was denying me Holy Communion for kneeling, and then he just stepped to the side, and told the next person to come forward (who happened to be my youngest daughter, who was terrified and didn’t know what to do because my entire family always kneels to receive).

Now, in this case, the priest was entirely in the wrong for refusing me Holy Communion, but he did it anyway, and no action was taken against him by the Archbishop, who was notified.

We know the priest was wrong, but you can not really say if any action was taken or not. Hopefully this was addressed and the priest now has changed his heart and actions …at least I sure hope so.

 

[Karmartia]

When I was a Eucharistic minister, the priest in charge of our group informed us at a training session that there some people, wearing T-shirts with a pentagram emblem [sign of the devil], going around and presenting themselves for Holy Communion, and that we were to refuse to give it to them. So, yes, a priest can refuse communion to someone.

Did the priest tell you why you were to refuse communion to these people? I say this because a pentagram may mean many things to many people, it isn’t only a sign of devil worship. I’ve heard of devil worshippers attempting to get the host for use in their perverse rituals but I doubt this is commonplace. Merely wearinng a pentagram on a T-shirt seems to me like a dumb reason to deny someone communion. What if they’re wearing a yin-yang symbol, or an ankh earring, would they be denied? I think the priest would have a hard time justifying his actions to the bishop.

 

[amgp]

We know the priest was wrong, but you can not really say if any action was taken or not. Hopefully this was addressed and the priest now has changed his heart and actions …at least I sure hope so.

The Archbishop never replied to my letter (and I asked for a reply), and the priest continues to deny people Holy Communion. I since have found out about others who have been denied by this priest for kneeling to receive, and I know of someone who was denied by this same priest because she knelt in her pew during the final blessing at a previous Mass. The priest saw her and remembered until the next week’s Mass, and when she went to receive (while standing) he told her that he would not give her Holy Communion for kneeling during the final blessing the previous week. The Archbishop was notified by all of these people, and there has been no response for over a year.

 

[CDNowak]

Then it is time to contact the Congregation for Divine Worship.