Denial of Holy Communion

[rpp]

Here is an article by Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, Missouri.

While it is a bit long, it is very interesting. Even the title is catchy.

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin

**8. The Pio-Benedictine *Code of Canon Law ***(1917)

The question of those to be excluded from the reception of Most Holy Communion is treated in can. 855 of the 1917 *Code of Canon Law. *The canon reads:Can.855 §I . The publicly unworthy, who are the excommunicated, the interdicted and the manifestly infamous, unless their penance and conversion have been established and they will have first made up for the public scandal, are to be excluded from the Eucharist.§2. The minister is also to refuse occult sinners, if they request secretly and he will not have recognized them as converted; not, however, if they publicly request and he is not able to pass over them without scandal. [62]Father Felice Cappello, S.J., noted commentator on the Pio-Benedictine Code, describes the principle which underlies the discipline of can. 855. He reminds us that the minister of Holy Communion is held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, that is, <<to those who are indeed a capable subject of the sacrament, but are not able to receive its effect, because they are in the state of mortal sin without the will of reforming themselves>>. [63]

Basing himself on Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Father Cappello goes on to explain the reason for the discipline:The dignity itself of the sacraments and the virtue of religion demand it, lest sacred things be exposed to profanation; the fidelity of the minister demands it, who is forbidden to give holy things to the dogs and to throw pearls before the swine; the law of charity> demands it, lest the minister cooperate with those who unworthily attempt and dare to receive the sacraments, and offer scandal. [64]

All text in bold, except the section title, is mine. Italics are in the original.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Here is an article by Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, Missouri.

While it is a bit long, it is very interesting. Even the title is catchy.

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin

All text in bold, except the section title, is mine. Italics are in the original.

Ok, in this case if I was in that situation as an EM, I would still give it to them and then have confession later.

Even though the usual policy that EMs are told is to give it out as it is not our place to do that.

 

[LilyM]

Ok, in this case if I was in that situation as an EM, I would still give it to them and then have confession later.

Even though the usual policy that EMs are told is to give it out as it is not our place to do that.

Your confession in such circumstances is likely to be invalid - you’re required firstly to truly believe what you did was wrong (doesn’t appear that you do) and then to firmly resolve never to do that sin again (it appears that you WOULD do it again).

Then there’s the whole presumption issue - seeing God’s mercy as available like a coke from a slot machine whenever you enter the confessional.

You can’t plan to sin, plan to confess afterwards and pretend that you have anything like true sorrow for your sin. Any more than a man can plan to cheat on his wife and plan to make it up to her with roses or jewellery or what have you afterwards, and pretend he’s truly sorry for his philandering.

 

[Other_Eric]

Ok, in this case if I was in that situation as an EM, I would still give it to them and then have confession later.

Even though the usual policy that EMs are told is to give it out as it is not our place to do that.

There is nothing loving about participating in another’s manifest grave sin through silence. As an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, your responsibility would be to safeguard the holiness of the Sacrament by keeping Christ from those in a state of grave and public sin.

 

[BobP123]

Your confession in such circumstances is likely to be invalid - you’re required firstly to truly believe what you did was wrong (doesn’t appear that you do) and then to firmly resolve never to do that sin again (it appears that you WOULD do it again).

That’s a matter for the priest to decide, not you. Perhaps the priest might be able to make suggestions on how to avoid that sin in the future and the penitent will follow it. Unless you’re living IN SIN, confession is always the way to try to get back into God’s full graces, whether you have something major to confess or not, whether you feel trapped or not.

 

[LilyM]

NO!! That’s a matter for the priest to decide, not you. Perhaps the priest might be able to make suggestions on how to avoid that sin in the future and the penitent will follow it. Unless you’re living IN SIN, confession is always the way to try to get back into God’s full graces, whether you have something major to confess or not, whether you feel trapped or not.

I’m not saying to not go to confession, quite the opposite. As you say confession can be helpful in many circumstances.

I’m just informing the person of what the requirements for a valid confession are. And it’s not a matter for the priest to judge either, so much - he’s not a mind reader any more than I am.

Certainly people can and often do say they’re sorry without meaning it and without intending to amend their lives. Only the penitent can truly know their sorrow and their intent to avoid future sin.

If one or other of these are absent, then it makes for an invalid confession regardless of the priest being convinced otherwise and pronouncing absolution.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

I have had the priviladge of meeting Bishop Burke personally while on retreat in Windsor, Canada. Marvelous fellow. We need more like him.

 

[baltobetsy]

It strikes me that this article is referring to ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, that is, priests. And that the question addressed is not what an EMHC should do if he suspects someone in his line is not in a state of grace, but rather, what a priest or bishop should do about pro-abortion politicians and the like who present themselves for Holy Communion.

EMHCs have absolutely no way of knowing the state of another person’s soul. I believe they are instructed to give Holy Communion to anyone who presents himself. If they should happen to give Communion to someone who is not in a state of grace, they would incur no guilt because they were acting in obedience to the Church.

This awkwardness is another reason to follow the Church’s guidelines and restrict the use of EMHCs to extraordinary circumstances.

Betsy

 

[Melo]

It strikes me that this article is referring to ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, that is, priests.
Betsy

Actually, the article applies to both
(copied from article)
First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin [1].

 

[BobP123]

This awkwardness is another reason to follow the Church’s guidelines and restrict the use of EMHCs to extraordinary circumstances.

Exactly. The burdens placed on any Eucharistic minister are very serious and proper care must be taken to select only those who can perform the task according to the norms of the Church and St. Paul (worthiness to receive).

And when it’s taken into account that some people should only get the blessings of the priest or deacon instead of communion, maybe the roles of extraordinary minister should be abolished altogether. I’m sure the Church had good reasons to appoint them in the first place, but with no offense intended against those who feel they have a calling to this ministry, maybe those reasons need to be revisited one of these days.

 

[Newbie2]

EMHCs have absolutely no way of knowing the state of another person’s soul. I believe they are instructed to give Holy Communion to anyone who presents himself. If they should happen to give Communion to someone who is not in a state of grace, they would incur no guilt because they were acting in obedience to the Church.

Dittos. It is inappropriate to place such a responsibility of who is and who is not in a state of grace in the laps of lay individuals, particularly in a large parish with one priest, no deacon, and the necessity of using many EMEs.

 

[rpp]

Ok, in this case if I was in that situation as an EM, I would still give it to them and then have confession later.

Even though the usual policy that EMs are told is to give it out as it is not our place to do that.

So, NewUlm, are you a deacon, priest or bishop? You said you are a Eucharistic Minister (EM), so which are are you? If you have not received the sacrament of Holy Orders, then you can only fill the role of Extrodinary Minister of Holy Communion.

And by the way, planning to commit a grave sin, even hypothetically is itself a grave sin. To knowingly desecrate the Body and Blood of our Lord is something that you, as a deacon, priest or bishop, should know better than to do.

Also, since you apparently have received the sacrament of Holy Orders, you should also know that your confession would be invalid unless you resolved to never commit this sin again.

If you disagree, with any of this, then, for the sake of your soul, I would encourage you not to distribute Holy Communion.

 

[rpp]

Dittos. It is inappropriate to place such a responsibility of who is and who is not in a state of grace in the laps of lay individuals, particularly in a large parish with one priest, no deacon, and the necessity of using many EMEs.

In the case of grave public sin, it is reasonable for an Extraordinary or Ordinary minister of Holy Communion to prevent a sacrilege by denying Holy Communion. It is also better for the person being denied, as we are keeping them from committing a very grave sin.

This is the Body of Blood of the Creator of the Universe and Author of life, not chips and beer.

 

[Newbie2]

What do you mean by “grave public sin”? And how would the EME know that person has not gone to confession?

 

[rpp]

What do you mean by “grave public sin”? And how would the EME know that person has not gone to confession?

Cohabitation. A lawmaker who publicly supports immoral laws like abortion or same sex marriage.

But this is a phrase from canon law. It is not mine.

 

[Newbie2]

I see your point…but yet, how can you KNOW that this person hasn’t made a confession and has made a change of heart before coming to communion that day?

It would be just as serious to deny someone the Eucharist who HAD confessed and made themself right before God, no?

I guess I’d feel much better about leaving that decision to the parish priest…otherwise, we start being lay judges of our fellow parishioners…and where does “grave public sin” end?

And…I suppose that I see the sacrament as being beneficial for sinners (as we all do)…so as an EME I don’t feel it’s my call to make. At least that’s the way we instruct our EMEs.

“…unless their penance and conversion have been established…” is kind of vague. I guess if there was some sort of list that all those who fit the bill that all the EMEs know about, that would be different…but for an EME to make that judgment on their own…methinks could be problematic.

 

[latinmasslover]

Dittos. It is inappropriate to place such a responsibility of who is and who is not in a state of grace in the laps of lay individuals, particularly in a large parish with one priest, no deacon, and the necessity of using many EMEs.

If the laity feel too awkward to make that call if necessary, than they are likely not called to that particular ministry.

 

[Newbie2]

That I would disagree with completely, at least in my experience. Out of 100 or so EMEs in our parish, I know of maybe 2 or 3 who would be comfortable doing so.

In fact, we have to frequently reinforce that our EMEs should make those who come up in line chomping on gum get rid of it before receiving; every now and then an EME (who’s been trained to do so) will ask if it’s OK to tell people to get rid of their gum.

Volunteers. Sheesh.

 

[Tommy_Joe]

I wonder about this:

Christ knew what Judas was about to do, and had even said that “one of you is a devil”, and “that it would be better if he not been born”,…yet celebrated the first Holy Communion with him anyhow.

Maybe I should ask this in the Ask An Apologist forum…

 

[Newbie2]

Excellent point to consider.