Denial of Holy Communion to unfaithful Public Officials

[Gregory_Eric]

In the encyclical “Redemtionis Sacramentum” the Pope states in regards to administering holy communion:
82.] Moreover, “the Church has drawn up norms aimed at fostering the frequent and fruitful access of the faithful to the Eucharistic table and at determining the objective conditions under which Communion may not be given”.[165]

[83.] It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should receive Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

I am confused on why some of our local priests still argue and say basically that no one should be denied. Even when the archbishop over their dioceses confirms Rome’s decisions.

 

[Marauder]

I’m not argueing either way here, but the primary reason that people have a problem with this is that they are making Communion a political thing.

Technically a person is supposed to examine their conscience and determine whether they are worthy to receive. If they are not worthy they should not be presenting themselves for communion.

The question comes up, what happens if the person is a public “sinner” and presents themselves for communion.

Cardinal McCarrick and other Bishops on the US committee investigating this have taken the attitude, that:
a) the person should not be presenting themselves at communion.
b) the local Bishop should be determining policy on this in their own diocese. As a minimum the should let people that violate policy know that they are doing so.
c) The 'Altar Rail" should not become a political tool.

It is a complex issue, because unlike when a Act Up person presents themself for communion wearing a sash (a political statement) and they are denied, the person giving out communion has no way of knowing whether the person has repented, gone to confession, and promised to never do it again. For all we know every week the politician goes to confession, promises to change their ideals and then recants later.

The other issue is where does it end? The week we start refusing to give communion to someone that votes for abortion (a horrible sin) but next week do we also do the same thing to a person that the USCCB has determined voted for say an “unjust war”

As I said, I am not argueing either way, just presenting the other side. Since I go to a church in Cardinal McCarrick’s Archdiocese, we hear a lot about this.

I personally feel that Kerry should be denied communion, but I see how it is a difficult issue.

 

[Annunciata]

Marauder:

I’m not argueing either way here, but the primary reason that people have a problem with this is that they are making Communion a political thing.

Technically a person is supposed to examine their conscience and determine whether they are worthy to receive. If they are not worthy they should not be presenting themselves for communion.

The question comes up, what happens if the person is a public “sinner” and presents themselves for communion.

Cardinal McCarrick and other Bishops on the US committee investigating this have taken the attitude, that:
a) the person should not be presenting themselves at communion.
b) the local Bishop should be determining policy on this in their own diocese. As a minimum the should let people that violate policy know that they are doing so.
c) The 'Altar Rail" should not become a political tool.

It is a complex issue, because unlike when a Act Up person presents themself for communion wearing a sash (a political statement) and they are denied, the person giving out communion has no way of knowing whether the person has repented, gone to confession, and promised to never do it again. For all we know every week the politician goes to confession, promises to change their ideals and then recants later.

The other issue is where does it end? The week we start refusing to give communion to someone that votes for abortion (a horrible sin) but next week do we also do the same thing to a person that the USCCB has determined voted for say an “unjust war”

As I said, I am not argueing either way, just presenting the other side. Since I go to a church in Cardinal McCarrick’s Archdiocese, we hear a lot about this.

I personally feel that Kerry should be denied communion, but I see how it is a difficult issue.

I totally agree with you especially this last statement about Kerry.
Annunciata

 

[carrieloon]

I logged in on my wife’s computer (but I am really Gregory Eric) and I wanted to thank you both for your opinions. I agree that it is a sticky issue. I too am most displeased with someone like Kerry who calls himself Roman Catholic but acts completely opposite. Anyway, thank you again!

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The problem is that protecting the sanctity of the Eucharist as well as the soul of the unrepentant sinner is not a political issue, regardless of the fact that in the most publicized case the sinner is a public official. It is a matter of preserving, and proclaiming, the Truth. Non-politicians should be just as barred from the rail if they are as publicly and persistently unworthy of receiving the Sacrament.