Joe Biden Denied Holy Communion

[Tis_Bearself]

As the policy did not name him, there was most definitely a decision

Yes, there was a decision by the individual priest to follow the policy set by his bishop.
In other words, Obedience. It’s what diocesan priests are supposed to do when their bishops set a policy.

The same way as priests in Wilmington are supposed to decide to give communion to Joe Biden when he presents himself, because of Malooly’s policy there (unless of course they are aware of some other unabsolved mortal sin that Joe Biden has on his soul).

I am also not sure how it’s “public penance” for a politician to make a public statement that he’s voting pro-life…or just vote for it without saying anything (almost impossible for a politician to do anything quietly though). It’s just weird that anyone would consider it as such. I just consider it “following Church teaching.”

Leaving this thread now as it appears people are simply not following logic in trying to make their cases one way or another.

 

[acanonlawyer]

This addition to Cannon 915

You have used this phrase several times but there has been no addition to canon 915.

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

To reinforce a point made earlier: It’s not about being in a state of grace or not. It’s about obstinate persistence in manifest, grave sin, yes, but this is not to say that the offending party is certainly in a “state of mortal sin.” It’s the difference between canon 916 (about personal knowledge of one’s own sin) and canon 915 (about obvious behavior that is simply contrary to fundamental, Catholic morals).

Dan

 

[Maximus1]

There was a memo by Pope Benedict and the American Conference of Catholic Bishops

 

[Fauken]

There was a memo by Pope Benedict and the American Conference of Catholic Bishops

A memo is not a motu proprio. The canon was not changed. Nothing was added to it.

 

[Maximus1]

Nothing was added? I just said what was published.
They were not done without purpose. There was question about whether the politician issue was even appropriate under 915. And if so I’m what conditions.

 

[Fauken]

Nothing was added? I just said what was published.

This addition to Cannon 915

You phrased it as an addition.

 

[Maximus1]

It was in addition. I didn’t intend to represent additional text

 

[Diaconia]

I also support the priest. We have an Orthodox church nearby where, on Sanctity of Life Sunday, the priest said: “Our church is pro-life. If you don’t support life, well, there’s the door. Come back when you’ve repented.”

This sort of integrity and holiness reminds me of the Precursor and Forerunner, John.

Correct the mistaken and wayward sinner,
Deacon Christopher

 

[Justin_Mary]

From the original article

In such cases, “his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist,” Ratzinger wrote.

Sorry I haven’t read all the posts in this thread & this may have been answered.

Does anyone know if the priest did this step or did he wait until Biden was ready to receive?

 

[bookshelf]

Biden’s stand on abortion has to do with an oath to serve all the people, not just those who are for or against abortion.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia also was in a similar position.

8 Times Justice Scalia Affirmed There is No Right to Abortion in the Constitution - LifeNews.com

Hailed by many as a pro-life hero, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia never was shy about explaining how the Constitution does not grant women a so-called right to abortion. Scalia was found dead on Saturday morning at a Texas resort, LifeNews reported. Authorities say he died of...

www.lifenews.com

 

[Maximus1]

Jesus would be surprised in that church. He would say," let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and the Adulteress would be pummeled to death in an avelanche of stones in seconds.
Of course that hyperbole is intended to make a point. Every member of that church still needs saving and there are actual reasons why.
I panic when I see Catholics turn into righteous stone throwers who forget their humility.

 

[pnewton]

Leaving this thread now as it appears people are simply not following logic in trying to make their cases one way or another.

Realize that be for you posted, I had asked for the canon law upon which this statement was made.

He would have to publicly recant and renounce those positions.

But I agree about being frustrated with people not following logic. Following policy still requires a decision, not to follow a policy, but how that policy is to be followed when it is general. This is basic. It is why organizations have levels of management.

In any case, the instruction given from bishop to priest may have nuance we do not understand. Now you could be right and he might have been told directly that this policy was to apply to Biden, in which case the Bishop made the decision. We do not know everything, surprise, surprise. This is why judging this priest for overstepping his bounds, or as some sort of hero crusader, cannot be accurately done over the internet.

 

[Vico]

Snopes: “However, no witness accounts or other corroborating evidence have so far emerged. That doesn’t mean the incident did not occur.” and "Until and unless we receive information that corroborates Morey’s account, we are issuing a rating of “Unproven.” "

 

[Genesis315]

This is a long thread, and I haven’t read it all, but it seems like two things are being conflated (even bishops seem to do it all the time too). I’m not canon lawyer, but there are two canons at issue, both based on the divine law, one falling on the conscience of the recipient and one applying to the minister.

Here’s my understanding:

Under canon 916, the recipient is not supposed to present himself if he is conscious of grave sin. But this falls on the conscience of the recipient. Even if the priest knows the person has committed a grave sin and hasn’t been absolved, he can’t withhold the Eucharist (at least in a public setting under the 1917 code, not sure if in private also under the 1983).

Under canon 915, the priest can and should withhold the Sacrament when administering it would harm the community through scandal, that is when the sin is manifest and obstinate. In this case administering the sacrament implies that the sin is not grave or important or at odds with fruitful reception of the sacrament. This implication is harmful to the flock, not just the person receiving.

916 is for the protection of the recipient’s soul and falls on his conscience. 915 is for protection of the flock and therefore responsibility falls to the pastor of the flock. Both are related to the proper reverence for the sacrament.

 

[pnewton]

I always believe, and err on the side of, not assuming. Period. It helps one be less easily “irked.”

That may be a quirk of English. I cannot hear the word word “recant” without thinking of the Middle Ages. It sounds out of time and unexpected to my ears, like the Spanish Inquisition. And as they say, “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.” (look up Spanish Inquisition Monty Python to get the reference.)

 

[Maximus1]

We are all RANK UNWORTHY to receive the Eucharist. There is nothing meek about it.
And if you read my posts you would have seen my my objection is that the priest failed to follow the protocols.

 

[Ender]

It is disappointing that this is presented as a diocesan policy, as if a bishop has the authority to give or withhold communion, rather than what it actually is: clarification of the meaning of a particular canon law and how it necessarily applies. That other bishops (notably Biden’s own) have asserted that obeying that law is optional and somehow “politicizes” the Eucharist simply shows the depth of the problem. “I can’t
do what is right because it has political ramifications” is not an argument I’d try to hide behind.

Fauken: He would have to publicly recant and renounce those positions.

The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should be imposed on him… (Catechism of Trent)
…
The sacramental rite of penance, in its evolution and variation of actual forms, has always preserved and highlighted these truths. When it recommended a reform of this rite, the Second Vatican Council intended to ensure that it would express these truths even more clearly, and this has come about with the new Rite of Penance. For the latter has made its own the whole of the teaching brought together by the Council of Trent, transferring it from its particular historical context (that of a resolute effort to clarify doctrine in the face of the serious deviations from the church’s genuine teaching), in order to translate it faithfully into terms more in keeping with the context of our own time. (Reconciliatio et paenitentia, JPII 1984)

I don’t have access to the Rite of Penance so I don’t know precisely what it says, but it would seem that the teaching of Trent on the subject, while they may have been updated, have not been substantially changed. It seems to me that eliminating the need for a public apology for a public sin would be a substantial alteration.

And if you read my posts you would have seen my my objection is that the priest failed to follow the protocols.

If you had read the posts from @acanonlawyer you would have seen that while such a meeting might be recommended, it is not an obligation, and not having had one does not invalidate the priest’s action.

 

[Maximus1]

It makes his conduct inappropriate. And all you have to do is read the memos that accompanied Cannon 915 on this from Cardinal Burke, Pope Benedict( Cardinal then) and the Conference of Catholic Bishops.
It I a meeting and his own Pastor( the latter requirement was written on by Cardinal Burke)

 

[acanonlawyer]

requirement was written on by Cardinal Burke

I readily admit that Burke uses obligatory language in his 2007 article on this topic (e.g., there “must” be a meeting between the minister and communicant) and, being the kind of pastor he was as a diocesan bishop, he sought out such conversation before telling people that they would not be able to receive Holy Communion. However, strictly speaking, there isn’t a requirement, in the law itself, for this prior conversation. If the minister of Holy Communion is certain of a communicant’s obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (however he arrived at that certainty), he cannot administer the Sacrament.

Catholic priest was correct to deny communion to Joe Biden — here’s why

However the decision to withhold holy communion from Biden made headlines, it was unquestionably the pastor’s decision to make and he made it, in my view, correctly.

thehill.com

Here’s more commentary.

Dan