No one is being asked to judge someone’s soul.I wouldn’t as an EMHC presume to judge the state of anyone’s soul, as a rule, that is between them and God and their confessor…
I don’t think recognising a politician would be difficult, because he or she would probably have a huge entourage plus TV cameras taking up considerable space in the church. Then again, the politicians are looking for “photo ops” in church, so they would probably go to the priest’s line, since it would be “better publicity”.the thing that bothers me is that, as an EMHC, I usually do not notice who is on my line until he or she is right in front of me and even then I may not even recognise if it is someone who is a “public sinner.” I recall once I had a very famous television personality that anyone would easily recognise in other situations, come to me in the communion procession and it wasn’t until after he walked away that I realised who it was. I don’t think I would recognise a pro-choice politician since I am not big into politics…maybe Hilary but I don’t think I would recognise John Kerry on a communion line.
I think that would make a darn interesting new thread, maybe even a poll. If you get to it before I do, I will participate.The story does touch on something however that irritates me, the idea of politicians of either party making a public spectacle of their worship. From Mr. Kerry’s reception of communion to Mr. Clinton’s huge bible he carries to church for the cameras, its all a bit much. I hope in the 08 election cycle that at least the Catholic candidates won’t attend with their hangerson, security personnel, local politicos and TV cameras in tow. It just seems so sacreligious and distracting to the others in church, regardless of the views of the politician.
Our pastor would not allow cameras and reporters into the church no matter who it is.I don’t think recognising a politician would be difficult, because he or she would probably have a huge entourage plus TV cameras taking up considerable space in the church. Then again, the politicians are looking for “photo ops” in church, so they would probably go to the priest’s line, since it would be “better publicity”.
I personally would still not refuse even on those two grounds at the end of the post for the same reasons at the start of your post.I wouldn’t as an EMHC presume to judge the state of anyone’s soul, as a rule, that is between them and God and their confessor.
The only occasions I would refuse would be to someone I knew wasn’t Catholic or someone in the vein of a pro-abortion politician or Rainbow Sash member.
Read Archbishop Burke’s article. That doesn’t cut it. The EMHC has a MORAL OBLIGATION to withhold Communion from one who persists in manifest PUBLIC sin. You are not judging the state of the Communicant’s soul, you are judging their PUBLIC actions.I personally would still not refuse even on those two grounds at the end of the post for the same reasons at the start of your post.
In enforcing this canon, bishops, pastors, etc. are supposed to have first admonished the sinner to change his behavior. I don’t have time to check but I believe the canon uses the word “obstinate.” So the individual shouldn’t be getting surprised in the communion line but should have been warned beforehand not to present himself before making public redress for his actions. I would think this could involve a certain degree of oversight, then, from bishops and pastors informing extraordinary ministers of who has been warned.Are we talking about the situation where the priest has previously told the EMHC to deny communion to Mr. X, or are we considering an EMHC making their own call on the spot, so to speak?
This is what makes the quote from Fr. Reese so misguided. He says “Most bishops do not want ministers of Communion playing policeman,” and makes an argument from the possible effects the practice would have, but he never addresses the fact that *the law requires, *as Abp. Burke explains, for these individuals to be denied communion by whomever they present themselves to. Fr. Reese’s statement is indicative of the reality on the ground in the US: the bishops don’t want to enforce canon law because they think they have a better way of doing things.Read Archbishop Burke’s article. That doesn’t cut it. The EMHC has a MORAL OBLIGATION to withhold Communion from one who persists in manifest PUBLIC sin. You are not judging the state of the Communicant’s soul, you are judging their PUBLIC actions.
Actually, it is a different interpretation and application of the law. Many feel this approach only makes things worse and there are different ways to approach the problem. Witholding communion appears pretty petty and vindictive to many Catholics and non-Catholics. It appears to be trying to use some credibility which the Church as a whole lost in the sex scandals, in that the Bishops/Church have not made enough amends yet to be coming down hard on the laity yet.Fr. Reese’s statement is indicative of the reality on the ground in the US: the bishops don’t want to enforce canon law because they think they have a better way of doing things.
That is corrected by Catechisis and correct instruction. Too many Catholics some how think that people have an intrinsic right to recieve Communion, and when it’s denied, that someone’s rights are being violated. This is patently untrue.Actually, it is a different interpretation and application of the law. Many feel this approach only makes things worse and there are different ways to approach the problem. Witholding communion appears pretty petty and vindictive to many Catholics and non-Catholics.
One does not gain credibility by making even more mistakes. We got into the whole scandle mess by bishops not following rule, but rather making them up as they went along.It appears to be trying to use some credibility which the Church as a whole lost in the sex scandals, in that the Bishops/Church have not made enough amends yet to be coming down hard on the laity yet.
Once again, Canon 915 does NOT involve judgeing someone’s soul. They could come out of the confessional in everybody’s sight, but that doesn’t matter until the person involved publically recants their position.This is where **soul judging **gets messy and most Bishops do not want to go there themselves much less put the responsibility on the parish and EM level.
This seems okay by me then. What worried me was that an EMHC had to somehow magically know who qualified. Just because I have heard of presidential candidate X doesn’t mean I know they are Catholic, much less that they are a Catholic who had been told not to come to communion. That’s the part that seemed a real mystery to me.In enforcing this canon, bishops, pastors, etc. are supposed to have first admonished the sinner to change his behavior. I don’t have time to check but I believe the canon uses the word “obstinate.” So the individual shouldn’t be getting surprised in the communion line but should have been warned beforehand not to present himself before making public redress for his actions. I would think this could involve a certain degree of oversight, then, from bishops and pastors informing extraordinary ministers of who has been warned.
Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
We can call it an “interpretation” of the law, but it’s one that is clearly erroneous. An application of the law might apply some sort of equity or epikeia in certain cases, but we would be hard pressed to call a policy an “application” which says “we will never enforce this law.” Cdl. Ratzinger’s letter to the bishops last election cycle made it clear that after exhortation has failed to bring about a change of action in the offender, he must be denied Communion. Despite the fact that this involves *no *judging of souls (as has been adequately expressed on this thread), the bishops, as you say, “feel this approach only makes things worse and there are different ways to approach the problem.” They know the law, but think they have a better idea.Actually, it is a different interpretation and application of the law. Many feel this approach only makes things worse and there are different ways to approach the problem. Witholding communion appears pretty petty and vindictive to many Catholics and non-Catholics. It appears to be trying to use some credibility which the Church as a whole lost in the sex scandals, in that the Bishops/Church have not made enough amends yet to be coming down hard on the laity yet.
This is where soul judging gets messy and most Bishops do not want to go there themselves much less put the responsibility on the parish and EM level.