Maybe, but those notorious political figures don’t get elected without the votes of plenty of anonymous parishioners. If it’s really about protecting the sanctity of a sacrament from those not eligible to receive it, it seems everyone ought to be held to account. If it’s not about that, it starts to look like an attempt to dictate public policy from the pulpit and position bishops as an unelected fourth branch of government.
(Mine neither!)I believe it would require a public excommunication, which priests and EMHC’s would know the person attempting to receive Holy Communion and thereby refuse to give them the Sacrament.
I know of no such disagreement since there is no bishop who is advocating the use of “the communion line as a place for confrontation” or who thinks that such an event is “appropriate.” Bishop Hubbard seems to be sidestepping the issue of what, precisely, c. 915 means and how it should be applied in such a way that is meaningful and coherent as well as in conformity with Tradition, starting with St. Paul. “The Vatican” has issued guidelines on a particular application of c. 915, and others have published substantive studies of the whole issue. For example:
That is not the goal. Canon law is rather specific about who should be refused communion - sorry, canon law is specific about who ***must ***be refused - communion, and it doesn’t include “sinful people.”
If you really want to understand the subject you should read what the law requires.
There is no doubt they should do a better job of catechesis but that doesn’t give them a pass on fulfilling their other duties - which includes adherence to Canon law.
Canon 916 obligates the individual to examine his behavior to determine whether or not he should receive communion; this is the self policing that is sufficient for better than 99% of all communicants.
Canon 915 obligates the bishop to protect the sanctity of the Eucharist, and not just the bishop but everyone who distributes communion faces the same obligation. This is not something new that has been invented just to badger modern politicians; it is an understanding that goes back to the beginning of the Church.
This was a helpful source. It concerns the admission to communion of those who have divorced and remarried and this is its conclusion:
In practice, the bishop can only go so far. After all, he has to promote the sacrament of Eucharist as well. Placing restrictions doesn’t seem like a very Christian thing to do in that kind of environment. What’s next, putting up mug shots of everyone who shouldn’t be calling himself Catholic? I’m with most of you guys, but I don’t think this is the solution.
What is appropriate for them to do is to follow the teachings of Christ. If the priest just make a point of what the teachings are related to the Eucharis I am sure those in sins would probably think twice before going to receive the Body of Christ. Since they remain in silence these people dont really believe that hte Eucharist is the True Body of Christ.
Why is it so hard to accept that the obligation, not just of the bishop but of everyone who distributes communion, is defined by canon law? What you consider to be not very Christian is actually a positive obligation.
Again, why does this seem so hard to understand? Someone who is publicly sinning is not to be admitted to communion. Your caricature of the situation doesn’t begin to address the real problem. At least address yourself to what’s happening in the real world, not some Monty Python skit.
Except for the excommunication part, people in the living arrangements you describe should be prohibited from receiving communion. The Church has already addressed this specific issue and that was the answer she gave.
It isn’t a particularly tough call to determine what ought to be done; it appears much more difficult to actually summon up the nerve to do it.
The problem with this argument is that many bishops say that the canon law was never meant to be used in the way you suggest, and the vast majority of bishops do not apply the law that way – including the Pope. Maybe the canon needs to be changed or clarified, but the fact is that the successors to the apostles obviously either do not think the canon requires denying communion under these circumstances, or they think the canon is wrong.
I am not making an argument one way or the other about what the Canon means. I am merely pointing out that the practice of the Church does not match the interpretation of the Canon that has been put forth in the public statements of some Canonists. In the last year or so several bishops, including at least Archbishop Dolan and Cardinal Wuerl (and I believe Cardinal Mahoney and some other Archbishops) have said they don’t read the Canon that way. And the current and last Pope each offered communion to politicians whose public positions were in conflict with the Church’s teaching on abortion and/or gay rights. I think its apparent that the Canonists and the Bishops have a different view of the issue - so it must be that they are interpreting the Canon differently, or that the Bishops believe the Canon should be changed.
I readily admit that many (perhaps most) bishops do not apply canon 915. I reject the argument that this is relevant to the actual meaning of the canon.
The bishops are divided over this issue but that fact cannot mean that there is no right position or that the conflicting claims are equally valid. Archbishop Burke, appointed by BXVI as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest judicial authority in the Church), wrote a lengthy analysis of canon 915 just months before his appointment and his conclusion contradicted the position taken by the bishops you listed. It seems, based on the arguments, that his position is clearly the correct one.
I see your point, but I’m not sure I agree. The bishops seem divided, sure, but it seems like the vast majority are on one side - I just checked and saw that Cardinal George has publically taken the same position as Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Mahoney and Archbishop Dolan. So it appears that all or most of the senior leaders of the US Church disagree with the Canonists. As I mentioned earlier, the Pope seems to be on the same page, as he has offered communion to at least two pro-choice politicians - Prime Ministers Prodi and Blair. So there appears to be a split between the judicial authorities in the Church and the pastoral authorities. It would be good if the Church would clear up the split, but until that happens I think the Bishops are the ones with the authority within their own Sees.
I’m not an expert on canon law, but its my guess that canon law also specifies who is the authority for interpreting Church teachings on morality and doctrine and its probably not lay people.
Yes, that would be the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest court. The head of that court is Archbishop Burke … who wrote that lengthy article (about 50 pages) addressed to understanding canon 915 less than six months prior to being assigned to the court by BXVI. His conclusion seems straightforward: