Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Joseph Ratzinger
- Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
- The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
- Apart from an individual’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
- Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), 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.
- When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
I think everyone knows that…yet does that mean Catholics are not allowed to hold an opinion? It sounds like that is what you are saying.First off, it is not the laity’s job to declare who or who should not receive the sacraments. We must, rather, adhere to Holy Mother Church. On that note, this is what Cardinal Ratzinger said on Holy Communion:
Sen. Brownback by voting in favor of Governor Sebelius made a statement with his vote. That statement is that he supports her to become HHS. Governor Sebelius has a clear track history of supporting radical abortion especially her support of George Tiller. By virtue of that vote, he is supporting the abortion lobby.I think Sen. Brownback had a good reason to do what he did. I can promise you he is not pro-abortion. Maybe his reasoning was that whoever b.o. nominated would be pro-abortion, so why not get her out of Kansas, and let the republican Lt. Gov. take over…
Everyone can have an opinion. I’m just weary of laypersons who belive they, and not the Church, have the position to tell someone they may not recieve Holy Communion. But this differs from reminding someone of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is always good.I think everyone knows that…yet does that mean Catholics are not allowed to hold an opinion? It sounds like that is what you are saying.
Lay Catholics do have the right to challenge their Bishops to do the right thing.Everyone can have an opinion. I’m just weary of laypersons who belive they, and not the Church, have the position to tell someone they may not recieve Holy Communion. But this differs from reminding someone of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is always good.
I don’t know if I can agree with his decision, but I think that’s what his thought process was. Gov. Sebelius was considering running for Brownback’s seat in 2010. Governor Sebelius was able to be elected Governor in a very “red” Kansas by attracting the moderate and non-social conservatives to vote for her over the Republican nominees. With Brownback leaving the Senate in 2010 to run for Governor of Kansas, the Kansas GOP currently has two state senators who will probably be in a tough primary battle for that Senate seat, and Sebelius would have probably been a tough opponent for either of them. So considering the numbers in the Senate 58-41 (soon to be 59-41 with Al Franken), I think he felt that sweeping this through since her nomination is almost guaranteed due to 58 votes + at least 3 Pro-Choice Republicans, was the better opportunity because it opens up the Governorship to the Republicans and therefore a Pro-Life candidate, and keeps the Senate seat safe for a Pro-Life candidate.I think Sen. Brownback had a good reason to do what he did. I can promise you he is not pro-abortion. Maybe his reasoning was that whoever b.o. nominated would be pro-abortion, so why not get her out of Kansas, and let the republican Lt. Gov. take over…
It is our privilege and God given right to hold an opinion, but if that opinion goes against the teachings of Jesus as preached by His Holy Catholic Church, then that person is accountable for their actions!I think everyone knows that…yet does that mean Catholics are not allowed to hold an opinion? It sounds like that is what you are saying.
YES!
That is totally irrelevant. Brownback is required as a Catholic to support life in any way possible. A vote for this woman is NOT supporting life.Do you think President Obama would EVER nominate a Pro-life person for this job?
Again - totally irrelevant. He voted FOR a woman who openly supports Dr. Tiller, a KNOWN late term abortion monster.Did Senator Brownback vote AGAINST a Pro-life canidate for this position?
Blending in with the lemmings is not what Catholics are called to do. It does not matter if he was the ONLY vote, or one in three million. He needs to vote appropriately, and he did not do that.Was his the deciding vote?
Yes - it would have not put his immortal soul in jeopardy by supporting a woman who has friends who kill babies for a living. It also would have been an example to other Catholics to DO THE RIGHT THING.Would voting against her change anything?
This could not be further from the truth. His vote shows the world that it is perfectly fine for a “good Catholic” to support such despicable behavior. It waters down the pro-life message, it makes a mockery of our good and holy Bishops who preach openly that to support pro-abortion politicians is unacceptable. Oh yes - every single time a Catholic is lukewarm about their Faith it impacts the entire Church by leading others away.Voting for her changed nothing.
He is not on “our side” if you mean the side of those trying to save the lives of innocent children. My God - do you realize that she gave Dr. Tiller (more HERE ) an award!!!This negative energy would be better spent on trying to remove the real Pro-abortion culprits instead of picking on Sam Brownback who is on our side!
That sounds quite reasonable.I don’t know if I can agree with his decision, but I think that’s what his thought process was. Gov. Sebelius was considering running for Brownback’s seat in 2010. Governor Sebelius was able to be elected Governor in a very “red” Kansas by attracting the moderate and non-social conservatives to vote for her over the Republican nominees. With Brownback leaving the Senate in 2010 to run for Governor of Kansas, the Kansas GOP currently has two state senators who will probably be in a tough primary battle for that Senate seat, and Sebelius would have probably been a tough opponent for either of them. So considering the numbers in the Senate 58-41 (soon to be 59-41 with Al Franken), I think he felt that sweeping this through since her nomination is almost guaranteed due to 58 votes + at least 3 Pro-Choice Republicans, was the better opportunity because it opens up the Governorship to the Republicans and therefore a Pro-Life candidate, and keeps the Senate seat safe for a Pro-Life candidate.
As I said, I don’t know if I can agree with his decision, but I think that’s what he’s thinking. And it is at least different in the fact that Obama is never going to appoint a Pro-Life HHS, and Brownback has a solid and consistent Pro-Life record. This is not the same as Pelosi with a cosistent Pro-Choice record who understands the issue and does not care. I do not think Brownback has all of a sudden become Pro-Choice.
Sins do not make you a goat. Lack of repetence can. Holding an opinion does not equal sin.It is our privilege and God given right to hold an opinion, but if that opinion goes against the teachings of Jesus as preached by His Holy Catholic Church, then that person is accountable for their actions!
“All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left.” Mt 25:32-33.
I have chosen to be a goat by my constant sins, but I must warn others to avoid the damnation that I choose.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
Mark