Denial of Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter MusicMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MusicMan

Guest
The Does Ted Kennedy Take Communion thread really bothered me on a lot of levels. It bothers me that there are people out there who seem to make it there business to know about other people, and it got me a bit paranoid.

My wife comes from a non-Catholic, non-church attending family. When I visit her relatives on the weekend, I still make good on my obligation to attend Mass, but I often go by myself. Several times a year, I’m the stranger in the middle pew. Would anyone, priest, deacon, bishop, EMHC ever feel it within their responsibilities to deny me the Sacrament? Perhaps on the grounds that because they don’t recognize me as a member of the parish that I’m not actually Catholic or not properly disposed to receive?

What if I wrong a fellow parishioner on Monday, go to Confession on Saturday, attend Mass in a state of Grace on Sunday and that parishoner is the EMHC giving Communion in my line. Can they attempt to deny me the Sacrament on the grounds that I sinner against them Monday?

In both of these cases, I could see a “busy-body” EMHC who thinks they know best (and don’t, actually), decide that it’s their responsibility to deny me Communion for a reason that doesn’t actually exist.

We all know that I cannot be denied Communion for any of these reasons. Just because I cannot be denied it, however, doesn’t mean that someone won’t try, thinking that “they know best.”

This is what I fear when I see these threads out there. Because, when it gets right down to it, they don’t know best, and one of these times they’re going to create a bad situation. I know that I certainly wouldn’t take kindly to being denied Communion by an EMHC because they thought I wasn’t properly disposed.

I’m not intending this to be an attempt at reopening that Ted Kennedy thread. Quite honestly, if I were an EMHC and he (or any other Catholic politician with a pro-abortion voting record) attended my church, I would only deny him Communion on the direct order of the parish priest or diocesan bishop.
 
An extract from Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D., Editor of “Annals Australasia”'s September 2005 article on
"Whatever Happened … to the Apostles?
13. JUDAS ISCARIOT

According to St John Chrysostom, [7] many other Fathers of the Church,[8] and St Thomas Aquinas, [9] Judas did receive the Body of the Lord at the Last Supper.

St Thomas notes that St Hilary of Poitiers [315-367 AD] says that Jesus did not give Communion to Judas.

'And this would have undoubtedly been only right, granted the malice of Judas. But because Christ wanted to set us an example of Justice it wasn’t right to deny Communion to Judas whose sins were not publicly known, without anyone accusing him of evil, and without evident proof, lest prelates in the Church use this example as a pretext for acting in the same way; and Judas, exasperated, use this as an occasion of further sin. [10] 'Christ gave Judas Communion’, adds St Thomas, 'so as to set an example for other priests not to deny Communion to those whose sins are not publicly known’. [11]

I will be putting the full dociment on my website in due course.
 
I think Sean makes a valid point, Music. It’s one thing to have sins unknown to anybody else. And I seem to recall that priests, deacons and EMHCs are instructed not to ASSUME certain people have private sins by manner of dress, being not known in the parish, or simply being the “stranger in the middle pew” when those folks present themselves for reception of the Eucharist.

But Teddy Kennedy is best described as “notorious”. He’s publically spoken out against Church teaching (we won’t go into some of his reported behaviors in public). He’s on the record as being pro-abortion and has a voting record to prove it, for one thing. That is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
 
**

REMINDER
We are all aware that reception of the Eucharist with regard to public figures varies from bishop to bishop. There are differences of opinion and practice.

Those wishing to discuss the various decisions of bishops who differ on the question, or public figures in general, are free to initiate a thread to do so, but in order to illuminate our faith, it is not required to dispense with our charity.

in kindness, let us not select individuals as examples of diocesan policies we may or may not agree with and attempt to discuss something we can know nothing about, the individual state of conscience or soul of another.
**
 
Marian Carroll said:
**

REMINDER**
We are all aware that reception of the Eucharist with regard to public figures varies from bishop to bishop. There are differences of opinion and practice.

Those wishing to discuss the various decisions of bishops who differ on the question, or public figures in general, are free to initiate a thread to do so, but in order to illuminate our faith, it is not required to dispense with our charity.

in kindness, let us not select individuals as examples of diocesan policies we may or may not agree with and attempt to discuss something we can know nothing about, the individual state of conscience or soul of another.
Click to expand...

That’s quite true and it’s also terribly sad. The lack of agreement and coordination amongst the bishops has long kept the Church from realizing its full potential in the USA. These “differences of opinion and practice” (which can be profound) is the only thing that have made me personally question my faith.
 
I think your fears are ungrounded, MusicMan, because of the provisions of canon law which provide for withholding the Eucharist from certain individuals. Without finding the exact wording, there are conditions two conditions I can think of right away that would not fit the stranger in the middle pew.

One, the sin must be manifest. Sure, there are sexual sins, for instance, that render one unfit to receive, but since they are normally hidden, one can’t just assume that an individual has committed them. Public sinners, on the other hand, create scandal because they are known to have committed grave sin. So not only are they in an unfit state, but they are teaching contrary to the Church when they receive as such.

There is still, though, a need for obstinance or persistence. As you said, who can know whether you’ve just been to confession? Persistence in a particular manifest grave sin begins to create an assumption that the person has not repented, and to avoid scandal it is better for the person to have publicly been reconciled to the Church in some manner before they just start receiving again with everyone assuming they are in the same state as before.

The anonymous man in the pew does not fit either category, so without even addressing who has the authority to deny the Eucharist your situation has already been resolved.
 
To address another matter in your post the EMHC does not have the authority by himself to deny the Eucharist to someone without permission of the pastor/priest or explicit order from the Bishop.

Obviously there are a few cases where an EMHC is supposed to deny the Eucharist without getting permission first (i.e. kid obviously too young, person obviously isn’t Catholic) but if a person you believe to be Catholic approaches you in line and you have not been told otherwise you are to administer it. If there is any doubt the person should be referred to the priest’s line. But in general it is the priest/pastor/bishop’s choice whether to administer to someone not the individual EMHCs choice. If he/she has a problem with it he can take it up with those people and/or resign from the position.

I have been at a Mass where the Rainbow Sash Movement was supposed to be there. The EMHCs are told not to administer to anyone wearing a sash.
 
Marian Carroll said:
**

REMINDER**
We are all aware that reception of the Eucharist with regard to public figures varies from bishop to bishop. There are differences of opinion and practice.

Those wishing to discuss the various decisions of bishops who differ on the question, or public figures in general, are free to initiate a thread to do so, but in order to illuminate our faith, it is not required to dispense with our charity.

in kindness, let us not select individuals as examples of diocesan policies we may or may not agree with and attempt to discuss something we can know nothing about, the individual state of conscience or soul of another.
Click to expand...

I guess what people are trying to say is that it is Not the role of the layman to say who gets Eucharist. But it is the role of the bishops to say and defend what the Church teaches. Obviously anyone can see where that goes logically in regard to public figures that publicly deny or skew the teaching of the Church.
 
The difference is that a Public Sinner can be denied communnion because of scandel. Canon law is clear on this point. St. Charles Boromeo states that while we cannot know the internal workings of the heart of an individual we do have an obligation to judge them by their works. Thus, if a person is a public scandel then they can be licitly denied communion.
 
40.png
OutinChgoburbs:
I think Sean makes a valid point, Music. It’s one thing to have sins unknown to anybody else. And I seem to recall that priests, deacons and EMHCs are instructed not to ASSUME certain people have private sins by manner of dress, being not known in the parish, or simply being the “stranger in the middle pew” when those folks present themselves for reception of the Eucharist.

But Teddy Kennedy is best described as “notorious”. He’s publically spoken out against Church teaching (we won’t go into some of his reported behaviors in public). He’s on the record as being pro-abortion and has a voting record to prove it, for one thing. That is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Click to expand...
When I first read this a couple of years ago, it surprised me that St. Thomas Aquinas had already addressed our “contemporary” problem in the 1200’s:
"Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. "
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it.

newadvent.org/summa/408006.htm
 
40.png
Confiteor:
When I first read this a couple of years ago, it surprised me that St. Thomas Aquinas had already addressed our “contemporary” problem in the 1200’s:
"Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. "
But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it.

newadvent.org/summa/408006.htm
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top