WHO should be REFUSED THE SACRAMENTS and WHO SHOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED?

[puzzleannie]

just bear in mind that we are all sinners, whether our sins are done in public or private, whether they make the 6 oclock news or whether they are done in the privacy of the heart, which James reminds us is the source of our sin. Am I willing to be judged as we are judging others in the public forum and return to the days of the early church with public confession and public penance? If not beware lest the sins hidden deep within our own hearts come to the light of public scrutiny.

the pastoral care of sinners is reserved to priests and bishops and the lay Catholic is obliged in Christian charity to always assume the best possible scenario about others, including those whose public actions bring them to our notice.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I said all of the above. The only problem with the first option is that most of them aren’t catholic and thus can’t be excommunicated (or receive the sacraments) but if they are then obviously they should be.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

The poll is a waste of time because it is NOT up to us to decide or say who should be excommunicated and refused the Sacraments. That decision lies solely with those in the Church with such authority.

Of course, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a poll and that those with authority are doing their job. For example many openly pro-abortion Catholic politicians are known to receive communion. That’s simply wrong and you don’t need to have any authority to see that.

 

[puzzleannie]

Of course, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a poll and that those with authority are doing their job. For example many openly pro-abortion Catholic politicians are known to receive communion. That’s simply wrong and you don’t need to have any authority to see that.

if you are not in a position to affirm absolutely without question that any individual you observe receiving communion has not just confessed and repented you are not in a position to make this judgement. Neither are you in a position to make a judgement about a fellow parishioner receiving who is divorced and remarried, who is openly gay, who is notorious for hiring and exploiting illegal aliens in his business, who has been convicted of tax fraud. Neither are you in a position to make a judgment about the parish gossip, the person who treated you shabbily, or anyone else in the communion line.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Threads like this bother me. Who are we to be the excommunication police of the Catholic Church?
Has the chuch given us some sort of authority on this matter, of looking out for and reporting heretics and sinners?

Anyway, there are three different levels of excommunication. In the lesser cases, confession to a priest is all that is necessary.
How would the OP’er, know whether a person he deems to be excommunicated, has not been to confession?

An excommunication can be lifted when the individual admits and makes appropriate efforts to atone for it. In many cases the excommunication can be lifted by a priest through sacramental Confession, although in some cases other conditions must be fulfilled. cwnews.com/news/biosgloss/definition.cfm?glossID=91

Jim

 

[TMC]

I’d like to offer another ‘write-in’ vote for None of the Above. It’s not my position to judge. Even if it were, I couldn’t make that kind of decision based on the publically available information on any of these groups. I think excommunication is over used, threatened way too often, and is rarely (if ever) appropriately applied to groups.

 

[Spirithound]

And if you excommunicate any or all of these persons, how do you propose to enforce the excommunication? How exactly do you ensure that no clergyman administer sacraments to them? In this day of easy long distance travel, the chances of anyone being recognized as an excommunicate in all parts of the Catholic world are slim to none.
Excommunication doesn’t work. Try to find something else.

It’s the bishop’s responsibility to lay down discipline for his flock. If a priest or EMHC deliberately disobeys, it is their sin. Are you suggesting that someone would move just to receive Communion?
Sometimes the salutary effects of excommunication are not realized by the sinner in question, but the rest of the community.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

if you are not in a position to affirm absolutely without question that any individual you observe receiving communion has not just confessed and repented you are not in a position to make this judgement. Neither are you in a position to make a judgement about a fellow parishioner receiving who is divorced and remarried, who is openly gay, who is notorious for hiring and exploiting illegal aliens in his business, who has been convicted of tax fraud. Neither are you in a position to make a judgment about the parish gossip, the person who treated you shabbily, or anyone else in the communion line.

Well, we are speaking of people who proclaim such things publicly. For example it’s about politicians who openly take the pro-abortion standpoint. In these cases I think the Church should require them to openly take back all their past claim in order to be reconciled back to the Church. This way it would be much easier and no one would need to make wild guesses (which is a wrong thing to do).

Ultimately, denying communion to people who are excommunicated is an act of charity. We all know what Paul says about those who drink Christ’s blood unworthily…

 

[Soldier4Cristo]

I only wish we had more bishops like Burke and Bruskewitz.

I say if a bishop or priest sees a pro-abortion politician coming up for communion maybe he should quietly ask them if their stance has changed, they had a conversion and if they have been to confession since this conversion. If the answer is yes then I don’t see why they should be refused communion. I think part of the conversion should be a public proclamation of their changed views and beliefs though especially if they are public figures this will keep the faithful from being scandalized even further.

 

[Soldier4Cristo]

Anti-Catholic, pro-homosexual groups like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence should be refused communion and excommunicated, if they are even Catholic. I don’t believe non-Catholics can be excommunicated. It would be rather difficult for a priest to recognize and refuse communion to a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence if they are out of costume though.

A friend of mine who lives in San Francisco told me that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence held vulgar fundraising bingos at the same parish where they received communion from the bishop until faithful Catholics complained to the diocese. You can view the bingo video at www.qdomine.com. After viewing that video I think the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence should be immediately excommunicated.

 

[rwoehmke]

I only wish we had more bishops like Burke and Bruskewitz.

While I don’t disagree with their decision and action, I fail to comprehend what impact excommunication has on individuals who may belong to a group, but are unidentified by name or mug shot and who may very well feel like they are heroes standing up to that nasty Bishop. The positive fallout is that there will be some individuals who will not join such a group because of the Bishop’s action.

 

[drafdog]

I just think that the Church should find something other than excommunication. The Vatican can’t make it stick since anyone wanting access to the sacraments and thinks s/he has a clear conscience will go to a parish where s/he is unknown and receive. If the punishment cannot be enforced as excommunication clearly cannot, it isn’t really a punishment. Again, I think the Church should find something else.

Matthew

 

[benedictgal]

Excommunication is a sad event for the Church. Unfortunately, the person who publicly goes against Church teaching brings it upon himself or herself. In the 1980s (correct me if I’m wrong), then-Bishop Rene Gracida of the Diocese of Corpus Christi excommunicated someone (or a group, I don’t remember) because of the person(s) public stance on abortion. There were protests, but the bishop held his ground.

No one likes to see a fellow Catholic excommunicated. As I said at the beginning, it is a very sad time for the Church because she doesn’t like to see her children cut themselves off from the body of Christ. However, it is the persons’ choice, and, as unfortunate as it sounds, they bring it upon themselves. Henry VIII brought it upon himself, as did Martin Luther.

The fact of the matter is that the person chooses to excommunicate himself or herself from the Church when he/she takes a public stance against the Church and willfully disobeys Church teaching. They can come back, so long as they repent of the evil they have done. But, with many, pride gets in the way.

 

[anamchara]

I’m not sure exactly how to say how much polls like this scare the bejeebers out of me. Why ask such questions?

I know what you mean.

I vote none of the above.

I think some would like to see the practice of putting people in the stocks, to come back.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Where is the “None of the Above” option?

 

[fix]

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

 

[TMC]

The link to an article on refusing sacraments is a lengthy interpretation of Canon 915 which says:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

I don’t know anything about the author or the organization, but it seems to claim support of Francis Cardinal George and Archbishop Burke. The author, who is surely more versed in Canon Law than I, makes out a good case for denying the sacraments to some, but doesn’t sufficiently address three points, in my opinion.

First, he says that the Canon does not say who should make the deterimination that someone is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” but then goes on to say that it is obviously the duty of the Minister of the Holy Communion, whether Ordinary or Extraordinary. I think it is a large leap from 915 to allowing lay people to deny the Eucharist, especially in light of Canon 912.

Which leads to my second point. The article makes no attempt to take the command of Canon 912 into account. 912 says:

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

912 says that any person not prohibited by law MUST be admitted to holy communion. This is inconsistent with the author’s viewpoint that “canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.” 912 does not only permit administering the Sacrament, it commands it. And it does not seem to turn on external disposition, but on whether the person has been prohibited by Canon Law.

Which leads to my third point. The author is adament in asserting that the internal disposition does not matter when deciding that a person is persevering in grave sin because it cannot be observed and would make 915 a nullity. First, the difficult in making such a discernment does not relieve the obligation to administer under 912. But there is a solution, as the article itself points out:

Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion.

This would seem to preclude an Extraordinary from making this determination on his own, and also give the pastor the opportunity to make a reasoned judgment on the internal disposition of the person.

So although I think the article makes a good case that pastors are sometimes required to deny the Eucharist to the obsinately sinful, it does not support blanket denials of sacraments to groups, or denials to individuals based on their public persona without further inquiry. It also does not, in my opininion, make a credible argument for Ministers making snap judments of a person’s worthiness when he approaches.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Somehow, I don’t think lay people on a computer board are competent to decide these things.

What do you think?

 

[fix]

The link to an article on refusing sacraments is a lengthy interpretation of Canon 915 which says:

I don’t know anything about the author or the organization, but it seems to claim support of Francis Cardinal George and Archbishop Burke. The author, who is surely more versed in Canon Law than I, makes out a good case for denying the sacraments to some, but doesn’t sufficiently address three points, in my opinion.

The author of the scholarly article is Ab Burke who I believe is a member of the highest tribunal in the Church.

His “opinion” is what matters in this discussion. For all the talk about the laity having no right to hold a view I think it is funny we now find the authentic expert is “wrong”?

 

[TMC]

The author of the scholarly article is Ab Burke who I believe is a member of the highest tribunal in the Church.

His “opinion” is what matters in this discussion. For all the talk about the laity having no right to hold a view I think it is funny we now find the authentic expert is “wrong”?

I saw it was a priest named Burke, but didn’t connect those dots. I would agree that his opinion matters, but not that it is controlling outside of his diocese. I think many of the bishops diagree with him. My bishop hasn’t spoken on this issue, but I can tell you that what the Archbishop describes in the article is not the practice in my diocese.

I stand by my three points. I don’t see how a lay minister can make this decision, and his own article says that the pastor should counsel the person, which contradicts having the lay person make the decision. Canon 912 is as authoritative as 915 and this article fails to take its mandate into account, at all. And to reinterpret 915 to reject the need to look at anything but a person’s external disposition is to de facto ex communicate a Catholic based on personal opinion and no real investigation.