Giving Holy Communion to the unworthy is a mortal sin, says Archbishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caesar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe under canon law, Bishop Burke can only place this mandate on his own dioceses, not on EMHC’s in other dioceses.

You are obligated to follow the norms laid out by your Bishop.

If your Bishop has not ordered withholding Holy Communion from a particular person, you would be wrong to do so on your own.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I believe under canon law, Bishop Burke can only place this mandate on his own dioceses, not on EMHC’s in other dioceses.

Jim
Click to expand...
Sort of.

Archbishop Burke’s ‘letter’ was actually an article published in the Journal of the Roman Rota ( the ‘Supreme Court’) of Canon Law.

+Burke used to be a member of that Tribunal before John Paul ‘tapped’ him to pastor the Archdiocese of St. Louis. So you can consider +Burke to have been a Justice of the Vatican’s Supreme Court and that the current ‘Justices’ found enough merit in +Burke’s article to publish it in their Journal.

So if a Canon Law case was filed against someone like Ted Kennedy for example, it would go before the local Tribunal. But since Canon Law is universal, and is to be applied Universally, any party can appeal the judgement of the local Tribunal to the Roman Rota. When the Rota renenders it decision, all parties ( Kennedy, the local bishop and yes, even EMHC’s are obliged to obey) And THAT is where +Burke’s article would have more wide reaching effect.
 
I would like to read what the Bishop wrote himself. Does anyone have the reference? Because from what that article said everyone who gives out communion is going to be in a state of mortal sin.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I believe under canon law, Bishop Burke can only place this mandate on his own dioceses, not on EMHC’s in other dioceses.

You are obligated to follow the norms laid out by your Bishop.

If your Bishop has not ordered withholding Holy Communion from a particular person, you would be wrong to do so on your own.

Jim
Click to expand...
Well, it would be far more accurate to assert that you are obligated to follow the law, because it just might be that the norms laid out by your bishop are not in conformity with the law. Now, for the non-canonist, it would probably be prudent to follow your bishop in good faith, since you won’t really have sufficient legal knowledge to tell whether something falls within a bishop’s authority or not. That being said, it is my contention that a lump of bread mold can tell that canon 915 requires these notorious politicians to be denied communion, which should at least raise serious doubts as to how a bishop can “implement” that law by saying we have a general policy of not following it. That suspicion should be sparking a lot of questions to higher authority.

I myself, if an EMHC faced with the likelihood of having a notorious politician present himself to me, would probably withdraw from the ministry if I didn’t think the bishop would back me up in doing the right thing. That would avoid both dangers: disobeying a bishop based on my faulty understanding of the law and giving communion to someone barred by the law.
 
I’ve never had any desire to be an EM. This issue makes me glad I never felt called. —KCT
 
Brendan said:
Sort of.

Archbishop Burke’s ‘letter’ was actually an article published in the Journal of the Roman Rota ( the ‘Supreme Court’) of Canon Law.

+Burke used to be a member of that Tribunal before John Paul ‘tapped’ him to pastor the Archdiocese of St. Louis. So you can consider +Burke to have been a Justice of the Vatican’s Supreme Court and that the current ‘Justices’ found enough merit in +Burke’s article to publish it in their Journal.

So if a Canon Law case was filed against someone like Ted Kennedy for example, it would go before the local Tribunal. But since Canon Law is universal, and is to be applied Universally, any party can appeal the judgement of the local Tribunal to the Roman Rota. When the Rota renenders it decision, all parties ( Kennedy, the local bishop and yes, even EMHC’s are obliged to obey) And THAT is where +Burke’s article would have more wide reaching effect.
Click to expand...
Actually, Archbishop Burke is currently a member (since July of 2006) of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura which is the highest judicial authority in the Church, higher even than the Sacra Rota Romana.
 
And is there anyone on this board who thinks him/herself actually worthy of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist?

As one of the prayers of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy begins, “NONE is worthy…”

The whole point is that we are ALL unworthy. Jesus supplies the worthiness.
 
Caesar said:
Thought you lay Communion ministers might like to read this- dispatch.com/live/content/faith_values/stories/2007/09/28/communion.ART_ART_09-28-07_B4_BF80U7I.html?

So, what will you do? Make a statement, or risk falling into sin to avoid being a policeman?
Click to expand...

No one is worthy. Holy Communion is not a reward - it’s a medicine. It was Ignatius of Antioch who called it “the medicine of immortality”.​

Or has the Archbishop never heard the words “Lord, I am not that you should come under my roof - but only say the word, and I shall be healed” which are said just before Holy Communion ? Maybe a reading of Luke 18 would not be out of place.
 
bpbasilphx said:
And is there anyone on this board who thinks him/herself actually worthy of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist?

As one of the prayers of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy begins, “NONE is worthy…”

The whole point is that we are ALL unworthy. Jesus supplies the worthiness.
Click to expand...
Gottle_of_Geer said:

No one is worthy. Holy Communion is not a reward - it’s a medicine. It was Ignatius of Antioch who called it “the medicine of immortality”.​

Or has the Archbishop never heard the words “Lord, I am not that you should come under my roof - but only say the word, and I shall be healed” which are said just before Holy Communion ? Maybe a reading of Luke 18 would not be out of place.
Click to expand...
The Archbishop’s article doesn’t begin in the '83 code but draws on centuries of Catholic discipline surrounding the sacrament and the rationales given for barring individuals therefrom. He’s well aware that no one is worthy. But he’s also well aware that those who are, for various reasons, most notably unworthy have always been barred.

BTW, doesn’t the Byzantine liturgy also say “Holy things for the Holy?”
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

No one is worthy. Holy Communion is not a reward - it’s a medicine. It was Ignatius of Antioch who called it “the medicine of immortality”.​

Or has the Archbishop never heard the words “Lord, I am not that you should come under my roof - but only say the word, and I shall be healed” which are said just before Holy Communion ? Maybe a reading of Luke 18 would not be out of place.
Click to expand...
The whole thread should be retitled. The Archbishop is speaking not about sinners (which would be all of us) but about PUBLIC sinners. Not only that, but GRAVE PUBLIC sinners. That is not a big contingent folks.

In a parish that would mean: notable recognizable pro-abortion politicians, parishioners who are living notoriously out of wedlock, catholics who are PUBLICALLY KNOWN to be married outside the church. In most parishes, that just isn’t very many people. The minister or extraordinary minister is obligated to exercise his best judgement in this matter.
 
CARP!
ask him if jesus would have turned anyone away.
We are suppost to be jesus on earth here for him.
 
Sure said:
The whole thread should be retitled. The Archbishop is speaking not about sinners (which would be all of us) but about PUBLIC sinners. Not only that, but GRAVE PUBLIC sinners. That is not a big contingent folks.

In a parish that would mean: notable recognizable pro-abortion politicians, parishioners who are living notoriously out of wedlock, catholics who are PUBLICALLY KNOWN to be married outside the church. In most parishes, that just isn’t very many people. The minister or extraordinary minister is obligated to exercise his best judgement in this matter.
Click to expand...
Is each parish supposed to post a list and pictures of those who are PUBLIC sinners in the sacristy for the EMHCs and visiting priests to see?. As an EMHC how am I supposed to know if someone fits that catagory?
 
bpbasilphx said:
And is there anyone on this board who thinks him/herself actually worthy of receiving the Most Holy Eucharist?

As one of the prayers of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy begins, “NONE is worthy…”

The whole point is that we are ALL unworthy. Jesus supplies the worthiness.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Jesus, through His Church, supplies the worthiness. But there are those who publically chose not to accept this gift by submitting themselves to the Church.

The Church must protect the Sacrament against such profanity.
 
Our bishops and priests have a duty to guard the sacraments. Our Lord made sure that Mary who had Him in her womb was pure. Why should any of us think we don’t have to be?

A pro-abortion politician is very vocal about his stance.

He approaches communion

The priest/bishop gives him communion

Some people can then think “oh, the church must think its ok now”., others: " well, if he can receive communion then I can go now…(while still in a marriage outside church, etc etc)."

This is scandal.

Even if said politician would honestly have a true change of heart and confess, he publicly should not approach for communion because the scandal would still exist. (receive in private from confessor) After he makes known his change publicly, then he will no longer be giving scandal by receiving.
 
Having read the article, I am not convinced that all issues were resolved by it.

It may well be that a bishop in a different diocese than, say, Kerry resides, could tell Kerry not to present himself for Communion at any church in his diocese; and likewise, it may be that a bishop could tellthe priests in the diocese not to give Communion to Kerry should he show up.

However, the issue goes more to the parish priest in any given parish. If the priest does not know the status of an individual who shows up (say, the governor of Oregon, a Catholic who supports abortion), or does not particularly know what position the governor holds but might think that he is a candidate for exclusion, then I would think that before refusing the Governor, the priest would have to speak with the Governor.

In other words, Burke’s letter seems more directed to the pastor of the parish the individual resides in that to the sometimes hapless pastor of the parish the indvidual happens to go to Mass at next week while traveling.

And as to an EMHC, the issue is to be decided by the pastor, not on the EMHC’s call.

All of which gets back to Burke’s article; I wonder how many people would actually recognize Nancy Pelosi if she showed up, and if they did, how many would actually know what her postion was on abortion (or whatever specific issue would result in exclusion).

I know her position, but unless she were making a photo-op Mass, I wouldn’t know her from any other middle aged female who might be visiting the parish.
 
Joannm said:
Is each parish supposed to post a list and pictures of those who are PUBLIC sinners in the sacristy for the EMHCs and visiting priests to see?. As an EMHC how am I supposed to know if someone fits that catagory?
Click to expand...
Like anything you make an effort to do the right thing. If a pro-abortion politician comes to you for communion and you don’t recognize them, that’s okay it’s not a sin. IF you know full well and give Communion, well that’s a problem and a sin.

It’s really very simple: Do your best to protect the Holy Eucharist!
 
otjm said:
All of which gets back to Burke’s article; I wonder how many people would actually recognize Nancy Pelosi if she showed up.

I know her position, but unless she were making a photo-op Mass, I wouldn’t know her from any other middle aged female who might be visiting the parish.
Click to expand...
Same here. I know her position, but I would not be able to recognize her unless she was surrounded by an entourage.
 
lak611 said:
Same here. I know her position, but I would not be able to recognize her unless she was surrounded by an entourage.
Click to expand...
Right, so you would not be committing a sin if you gave her Communion. If you knew it was her and you gave her Communion, well that’s a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top