Q: Can a Eucharistic minister withhold Communion from someone?

[Kevin812]

As I previously said that happened to me, it was in regard to inappropriate handling of the Blessed Sacrament. Please see post #55 too.

With deepest respect, I do not find that as an authoritative statement of the Church’s position.

 

[Corki]

Unless one is the local Ordinary or priest (who must consult with the Ordinary), it is none of one’s business. Otherwise, one is engaging in scandal.

That is not what scandal means. To give scandal is to act in a way that gives the impression that something sinful is actually alright and to possibly encourage someone else to follow your example. When a person who is known to be out of Communion with the Church goes to receive Communion, this could lead others to believe that it is fine to receive Communion when not in a state of grace. That’s scandal.

As for the priest, he does not need to consult with the Ordinary on each case. For example, in my parish there are several couples who are living together or remarried without annulment. Father does not give them Communion even if they join the line. Now, it they got into the line with the EMHC, that would be different but Father has the knowledge and authority to decide.

 

[Corki]

snipped to address specific point

IMHO, the whole idea of what you say here is scandalous to me.
Just because I have “seen” something, I still do not know the state of the persons soul.

The sin of giving scandal has nothing to do with knowing the state of anyone’s soul. It is about actions that might lead someone to sin or to conclude that an sin is not a sin.

Unless told to do so by a priest or Bishop, which we all seem to agree only happens for very grave and rare reasons-

Which is exactly what I said. I was replying to Kevin’s post that such instruction isn’t ever given. It is. It’s rare, but it is.

 

[Corki]

With deepest respect, I do not find that as an authoritative statement of the Church’s position.

You didn’t ask for authoritative teaching. You asked for evidence.

Please provide evidence on the matter of a priest requiring an individual from only receiving from him, the priest.

We gave you two first hand accounts.

 

[Kevin812]

As for the priest, he does not need to consult with the Ordinary on each case. For example, in my parish there are several couples who are living together or remarried without annulment. Father does not give them Communion even if they join the line. Now, it they got into the line with the EMHC, that would be different but Father has the knowledge and authority to decide.

You can with absolute knowledge and authority say that you personally know this to be true? And why would you be telling others and especially the whole internet?

As a previous poster noted. The question in this thread has been answered.

 

[Corki]

You can with absolute knowledge and authority say that you personally know this to be true?

Yes. (knowledge yes, I have no “authority.” I am just a simple layman.)

And why would you be telling others and especially the whole internet?

I was just answering a question that was asked. Consider it an act of mercy.

 

[PLAT]

We have this thing in my cathedral parish, where after Agnus Dei and the “… my soul shall be healed” bit there would be an announcement saying that non-Catholics and Catholics knowing they have committed un-absolved grave sin should not receive communion.

If people in that category choose to receive communion after being warned then they’re digging holes for themselves. (which, unfortunately, I used to )

I guess in the obvious facepalm situations such as paying a hundred dollars for communion the communion minister should question whether he/she is a Catholic.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is not relevant. An annullment might point to the fact that one or both spouses did not have the needed information at the time of their wedding but has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge they have regarding actions during the course of the marriage.

Please give me an example of how someone could commit adultery without full consent?

Of course not. That is why I have said, repeatedly, that you don’t know if the person may have confessed and actually be in a state of grace. But it IS possible to know that a person has committed a mortal sin.

Wrong. I do know what he learned. I either graded or reviewed all of his tests. I was there for his First Communion interview. I know for a fact that he knows that missing Mass, without a serious reason, is a mortal sin.

Yes, in the hypothetical I gave, I DO know. He told me he didn’t want to go to Mass. He consented to missing Mass.

Having some psychological issue is not a release from consent. Does he have the ability to say “yes” or “no” to the sin? In this case, he did.

Yes, you can.

I agree, you rarely have a right or duty to “say” anything. But you certainly have a duty to recognize mortal sin.

There is no possible way for you to know that anyone else has committed a mortal sin short of you being able to read minds and souls.

I am sorry that you disagree with this.

There is no other way to state this so I think it is best that we just agree to disagree.

 

[Corki]

There is no possible way for you to know that anyone else has committed a mortal sin short of you being able to read minds and souls.

I am sorry that you disagree with this.

There is no other way to state this so I think it is best that we just agree to disagree.

Yes, I disagre with you on this. The only way your view works is if all priests have the ability to read minds and souls. In the Sacrament of Confession, a priest regularly must determine if a sin is mortal or not. I am certainly not saying I have any of the graces that a priest has but most priests do not have the charism to read souls. Thus the “absolute” that **no one **can know if another person has committed a mortal sin is false.

I am not proposing that most mortal sins are able to be determined by others, let alone by EMHCs. I am only disputing the absolute.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is really rare. Someone earlier in this thread gave the example of the Rainbow Sash protestors. The Bishop told everyone they were not to be given Communion…

This is at least a very clear-cut response to the choice of certain communicants to be publicly and unequivocally confrontational in their defiance of the bishop.

I cannot remember a training for EMsHC where the subject of withholding holy communion was not treated very clearly, that is: This is a matter in which the EMHC is to do exactly what their bishop says, not a single bit more and not a single bit less, and that the EMsHC who cannot do that are duty-bound to recuse themselves from serving.

I suppose that someone given guidelines they find too unethical to follow are of course free to pursue an explanation from the bishop or to object to competent authorities, but of course the training doesn’t go there! It was just “do this, don’t do that, and do not take it upon yourself to improvise”. If your training is not that clear, it is time to raise your hand and ask questions.

 

[Irishgal49]

Communion can only be withheld if the sin is publicly known. Private information should not be used to publicly address an issue.

At our parish someone was denied when it was determined she was not Catholic. She signaled the priest who came over and affirmed her denial this woman and who talked to her after mass. So evidently you can deny someone.

 

[Cristiano]

At our parish someone was denied when it was determined she was not Catholic. She signaled the priest who came over and affirmed her denial this woman and who talked to her after mass. So evidently you can deny someone.

This is a completely different scenario. In this case it is not really to deny communion. Non catholics are not in communion independently of their sins, thus they cannot communicate it is really an impossibility whether they receive the host or not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

At our parish someone was denied when it was determined she was not Catholic. She signaled the priest who came over and affirmed her denial this woman and who talked to her after mass. So evidently you can deny someone.

This is a completely different scenario. In this case it is not really to deny communion. Non catholics are not in communion independently of their sins, thus they cannot communicate it is really an impossibility whether they receive the host or not.

Not only that but it was not the EMHC who denied communion but the priest that the EMHC called over.

 

[superamazingman]

How do you know this person didn’t go to confession right before Mass? Has God given you the ability and authority to judge souls?

Ugh…we can not judge souls, but we can judge actions. Ever heard of Canon 915?

 

[jaquetarr]

Interesting and active discussion. I see lots of references about “judging”" and “reading souls”’ and Canon Law.

One thing I do not see are any comments about protecting the Soul of the EM.

Does the lay minister commit a Mortal Sin by withholding the Body Of Christ?

Does the lay minister commit a Mortal Sin by giving the Body Of Christ?

Should the lay minister risk going to Hell for giving Our Lord to someone not in union with the Church or causing public scandal by actively challenging the Teaching of the Church?

I would think the lay minister has a responsibility to his / her Salvation; but do not see this as an element of this discussion.

Is it just easier to shed all responsibility and place it on the Priest / Bishop? On the day when we stand before the Lord God to answer His Charges will it be enough to say ““He told me it was OK.””

““Whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians XI: 27.””

Peace be with you
jaque

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Most of the EMsHC in my parish would have no idea what is meant by “Real Presence” if you asked them. Absolutely none. It’s very much a social thing including mingling in the sacristy before Mass.

That is not nice to judge as such…I am an EMHC and know the Real Presence and take my job very seriously!

BTW…often priests cannot refuse communion…it’s not just the EMHC’s

 

[superamazingman]

That is not nice to judge as such…I am an EMHC and know the Real Presence and take my job very seriously!

BTW…often priests cannot refuse communion…it’s not just the EMHC’s

Keep in mind that those who are on here are above par. This is in the wild. I’ve seen many of the same things.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Keep in mind that those who are on here are above par. This is in the wild. I’ve seen many of the same things.

Yes, but can we know just by looking at people? We have to be very careful not to judge people as we can not see their heart. Quite often it can be these same people who we think badly of that God uses to speak to us…just a thought.

 

[Irishgal49]

That is not nice to judge as such…I am an EMHC and know the Real Presence and take my job very seriously!

BTW…often priests cannot refuse communion…it’s not just the EMHC’s

We had this happen. The EMHC refused to serve someone but signalled the priest who came over and confirmed what she suspected…that the person wasn’t Catholic. She had acted like she didn’t know what to do when the body was held up in front of her and it turned out to be a good call. Our priest asked the woman to please stay so he could talk to her afterwards. He then explained to everyone what happened and then after Mass was over he stood and talked to this woman for a good 30 minutes. He explained it was for her protection not to serve her and I was very proud of how it was handled.