Refusing the Cup

[richsmith]

This may be a new twist to the controversy surrounding Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic.

Last Sunday, a man openly living with his unmarried girlfriend (a small town and everyone is aware) approached me as Minister of the Cup. The Priest had already given both of them Eucharist. I teach a teen Catechism class, and since we had discussed the conditions for proper reception of the Eucharist in class, some of my students were closely watching to see what I would do. I refused them both. After Mass, the man angrily accosted me with the “how dare you judge me” admonition. I explained that I was not judging him yet in my opinion it would have been scandalous and a sacrilege to give him the Cup. He took his complaint to the Pastor, who told me that since he had administered the Host, I should have administered the Cup. I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not, but it was not my place to refuse the Cup. I don’t believe EM’s should be placed in this position and have since dropped out of the EM program. What say you?

 

[Orogeny]

This may be a new twist to the controversy surrounding Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic.

Last Sunday, a man openly living with his unmarried girlfriend (a small town and everyone is aware) approached me as Minister of the Cup. The Priest had already given both of them Eucharist. I teach a teen Catechism class, and since we had discussed the conditions for proper reception of the Eucharist in class, some of my students were closely watching to see what I would do. I refused them both. After Mass, the man angrily accosted me with the “how dare you judge me” admonition. I explained that I was not judging him yet in my opinion it would have been scandalous and a sacrilege to give him the Cup. He took his complaint to the Pastor, who told me that since he had administered the Host, I should have administered the Cup. I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not, but it was not my place to refuse the Cup. I don’t believe EM’s should be placed in this position and have since dropped out of the EM program. What say you?

I say that you made the right decision to step down as an EMHC.

Peace

Tim

 

[lizaanne]

It certainly is not YOUR fault that Father did not know about this couple - I think you did the right thing given your knowledge of the situation. I also think you did the right thing leaving the role of EMHC if Father is not going to support you in such decisions.

Had the situation been even more dire and the man approaching the cup was an known abortion provider from another state that you happened to personally know or recognize, and Father still gave you the same response to the situation, then Father should have said that HE acted on his own understanding of the man (which would be nothing) and you acted on yours. Both did the right thing in that situation.

Sadly, Father did not see it this way in your real life scenario. You did the right thing.

~Liza

 

[Dirk_Skene]

You did correctly. Furthermore you did Right. I have to question the pastor. Why is he intentionally sending signals that such a life style is acceptible? I’d say he is out of line.

 

[BrendanD]

I’m fairly sure that EMHCs are not to withhold Communion unless told to do so by the priest. Sounds like you did the best you could though.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I’m fairly sure that EMHCs are not to withhold Communion unless told to do so by the priest. Sounds like you did the best you could though.

I agree with Brendan. It’s not up to the extraordinary minister to determine who may or may not receive communion, but to give it to those who approach. If you can’t do that then you should not serve.

I couldn’t find anything official (from the USCCB or the Vatican), but a quick search did turn up a document from the Diocese of Galveston-Houston that gives the instruction:

“The extraordinary minister may not refuse communion to a person unless the pastor has first given this instruction.” [See http://www.diogh.org/Worship/Worship-Liturgical Procedures vis.pdf]

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Brendan is correct. Canonically, a Catholic is entitled to receive the sacraments unless some action has been taken to prevent it. Such action is taken by the bishop of the diocese.

While it is certainly true that there are requirements for the reception of the sacraments it is not up to the minister of the sacrament to determine if those requirements have been met. That is between, in this case, the communicant and God.

There is also the issue of a person’s good name. By refusing a person communion it is possible to affect that person’s good name if the reason for the refusal is not a public matter. For example, if a bishop tells someone they may not receive communion that is generally made public. Then it is permissible to refuse that individual communion.

In this case, however, that does not appear to be the case.

While the realize that the OP was attempting to do what was right, it turns out that this action was in conflict with the canons that govern the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[ChristIsLord]

I gotta disagree with most here, I think you were way out of line. You don’t know if the man went to confession prior to Mass and repented, you don’t know if they’re living together for financial reasons and “living as brother and sister” until the wedding, maybe she moved out and both repented and word hadn’t gotten back to you yet?

Having 50 EMHC’s coming forward every Sunday and watching the ham handed festival at the altar is bad enough, to think that we’re going to have all of them making judgments on the worthiness of parishoners to recieve holy Communion or not based on gossip and assumptions makes me cringe.

 

[Aramis]

I’m fairly sure that EMHCs are not to withhold Communion unless told to do so by the priest. Sounds like you did the best you could though.

I also agree with Brendan.

You exceeded your authority. You should, however, make certain that Father is aware of the issue for the future.

 

[agapewolf]

I gotta disagree with most here, I think you were way out of line. You don’t know if the man went to confession prior to Mass and repented, you don’t know if they’re living together for financial reasons and “living as brother and sister” until the wedding, maybe she moved out and both repented and word hadn’t gotten back to you yet?

Having 50 EMHC’s coming forward every Sunday and watching the ham handed festival at the altar is bad enough, to think that we’re going to have all of them making judgments on the worthiness of parishoners to recieve holy Communion or not based on gossip and assumptions makes me cringe.

No, no one knows if they went to confession, but the public scandal is STILL present. This is the same with the politician/abortion issue. A politician may confess, but until he has publicly recanted, his receiving Eucharist is still scandal to the church.

I’m not saying the right action was done here, I don’t know. But I know that the situation was scandalous.

 

[ChristIsLord]

No, no one knows if they went to confession, but the public scandal is STILL present. This is the same with the politician/abortion issue. A politician may confess, but until he has publicly recanted, his receiving Eucharist is still scandal to the church.

I’m not saying the right action was done here, I don’t know. But I know that the situation was scandalous.

These people are not public leaders with thier views espoused in print, what this is is gossip, plain and simple. Regular parishoners are not required to publically recant their sins prior to receiving Holy Communion. This is nothing like the Politician and the abortion scandal.

That and like I said the idea of EMHC’s now deciding on who recieves and who doesn’t based on who they feel is in a State of Grace or not is scary.

 

[lada]

I’m fairly sure that EMHCs are not to withhold Communion unless told to do so by the priest. Sounds like you did the best you could though.

I agree as well.

Further, I thought that even a priest was not to refuse communion to anyone. I was aware that that had to come from the bishop.

From your point of view, though…you just don’t know the situation or what that couple have discussed with the priest. I knew a couple who moved in together prior to their marriage for purely financial reasons. Her lease was up and she would have had to renew for a year. Hotels are really expensive, she didn’t have friends or relatives to stay with and she didn’t want to have to find a new apartment, move all her stuff and live there for 6 months before moving in with her husband. They talked with the priest and were “allowed” to live as brother and sister until the wedding.

Now, what went on behind closed doors is between them and the Good Lord, but the point is that they had the priest’s blessing and would have likely been really offended if and EMHC had decided that they were living in sin.

 

[estesbob]

This may be a new twist to the controversy surrounding Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic.

Last Sunday, a man openly living with his unmarried girlfriend (a small town and everyone is aware) approached me as Minister of the Cup. The Priest had already given both of them Eucharist. I teach a teen Catechism class, and since we had discussed the conditions for proper reception of the Eucharist in class, some of my students were closely watching to see what I would do. I refused them both. After Mass, the man angrily accosted me with the “how dare you judge me” admonition. I explained that I was not judging him yet in my opinion it would have been scandalous and a sacrilege to give him the Cup. He took his complaint to the Pastor, who told me that since he had administered the Host, I should have administered the Cup. I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not, but it was not my place to refuse the Cup. I don’t believe EM’s should be placed in this position and have since dropped out of the EM program. What say you?

You were wrong. You are not the Pastor and such decisions are his and his alone.

 

[agapewolf]

These people are not public leaders with thier views espoused in print, what this is is gossip, plain and simple. Regular parishoners are not required to publically recant their sins prior to receiving Holy Communion. This is nothing like the Politician and the abortion scandal.

That and like I said the idea of EMHC’s now deciding on who recieves and who doesn’t based on who they feel is in a State of Grace or not is scary.

Actually, regular parishioners ARE required to publically recant, when it has to do with a remarriage and without getting an annullment. They cannot receive the Eucharist because it is a public state of adultery. When they get the annullment, they then publicly convalidate their new marriage.

It isn’t gossip, the OP said he was OPENLY living with his girlfriend. It is still a public scandal.

Again, I don’t know if the OP was right or not. Seeing as how the priest gave it to them, I dont’ know if refusing was a good idea. But he certainly was put in a very awkward position, especially wiht the teens watching. There would have been scandal.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Actually, regular parishioners ARE required to publically recant, when it has to do with a remarriage and without getting an annullment. They cannot receive the Eucharist because it is a public state of adultery. When they get the annullment, they then publicly convalidate their new marriage.

It isn’t gossip, the OP said he was OPENLY living with his girlfriend. It is still a public scandal.

Again, I don’t know if the OP was right or not. Seeing as how the priest gave it to them, I dont’ know if refusing was a good idea. But he certainly was put in a very awkward position, especially wiht the teens watching. There would have been scandal.

No one said anything about marriage in the OP, and it is definitely gossip. He could be openly living as brother and sister, he could’ve spoken to Father two days before and cleared everything up. A private matter between Pastor and members of his flock. There isn’t a public scandal here unless people want to start making assumptions and making it into one.

Better to leave it up to the Pastor, the parishoners, and God.

I won’t go back and forth here, but it’s clear to me that the OP was way out of line and shouldn’t be looking to examine ones worthiness when they come up for Holy Communion.

 

[sarah_anne_628]

I understand your intentions and admire your resolve to stand firm despite the opposition, but I believe that denying someone the cup after the priest has already given the host was worse than giving the cup to someone openly living in sin. It was publically thumbing your nose at them and at the priest and was really judgmental (whether that was your intent or not).

If I were in charge…I would require a private apology to the priest and to the people who were denied the cup before allowing you to serve again (should that be something you desired to do). An apology for appearing to be insubordinate to the priest and for not following protocol serving the cup. You don’t need to apologize for taking a strong stance for morality.

BUT…with my all my harsh words and opinions…I still admire you for not wanting to take the easy, compliant road. You were put in the uncomfortable situation of knowing too much and having to make a decision in front of an impressionable audience. Furthermore…training for this service should cover how to handle situations such as these…which are extremely common (we all know who is sleeping with who and what not!). So, in a sense…it’s not really your fault that protocol was broken if you were never told what proper protocol was to begin with!

Ultimately, you have to follow your conscience.

At any rate…this whole situation has provided plenty of material to use in discussions with your youth (just be sure not to use names or turn it into a gossiping session, even though they all know who you are talking about!).

Peace.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan is correct.

Yes Brendan is correct ( I do so enjoy seeing that in print )

While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, the decision resides with the priest.

I would have pained me terribly to give them the cup, just as it paines Christ to be received by one in Mortal Sin. The best we can do is hope they are in a situation of repentance. If not the guilt resides with the recipient.

 

[benedictgal]

This is a rather fine line because if the couple is living in sin, they shouldn’t be in line to receive Our Lord. I know that this sounds judgmental, but, we need to remember what St. Paul told the Corinthians in his first letter to them:]

27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Of course, this letter also is the first record of liturgical abuse that we have. St. Paul was quick to call a spade a spade.

The problem is that we have, perhaps, become so anesthetized to sin that, instead of living by what the Church teaches, we take what society preaches as acceptable.

As EMHCs, there is a respnsibility that also comes with distribution the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. However, I fear (and I do not want to sound judgmental), that the greater culpability lies in those who partake of the Body and Blood of Christ without a firm purpose of amendment in changing their ways, espeically if they are in moral sin. Jesus allows Himself to be placed at our mercy, but, there are risks involved. What the OP described is one such risk.

 

[Stewmont]

This may be a new twist to the controversy surrounding Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic.

Last Sunday, a man openly living with his unmarried girlfriend (a small town and everyone is aware) approached me as Minister of the Cup. The Priest had already given both of them Eucharist. I teach a teen Catechism class, and since we had discussed the conditions for proper reception of the Eucharist in class, some of my students were closely watching to see what I would do. I refused them both. After Mass, the man angrily accosted me with the “how dare you judge me” admonition. I explained that I was not judging him yet in my opinion it would have been scandalous and a sacrilege to give him the Cup. He took his complaint to the Pastor, who told me that since he had administered the Host, I should have administered the Cup. I asked the Pastor if he had talked to the couple about their lifestyle, and he said he had not, but it was not my place to refuse the Cup. I don’t believe EM’s should be placed in this position and have since dropped out of the EM program. What say you?

How in the world do you know what goes on in their bedroom? Did they personally tell you directly or are you relying on gossip and assumptions?

Further, what makes you believe you are in a position to question your pastor about his possible council to their “lifestyle?”

I think it’s very positive that you chose to no longer be an EMHC. In time with enough prayer you might well be granted the grace to minister in this way in the future, but for now it sounds like you did the right thing.

 

[turtle18]

Wow–it amazes me how many people on this forum think that unmarried people live together as “brother & sister.” I highly, highly doubt that most people living together are being chaste. If you can’t afford to make it on your own, why wouldn’t you get a roommate or move back in with your parents? The single person was making it on their own before they found their boyfriend/girlfriend & then all of a sudden it makes economic sense for them to room together? Please tell me why they could make it on their own before they met each other & then after meeting each other they suddenly become impoverished and have to live together “economically” in order to make ends meet?

Isn’t is ironic that when they speak to their devout Catholic friends & family members that they always claim to be living as “brother & sister” for economic reasons?