Thursday, March 1, 2012
OPENINGLY DENYING CATHOLICS HOLY COMMUNION--GUESS WHAT? I HAVE MY OPINIONS ON IT!
Only in the rarest of situations should a Catholic be denied Holy Communion. In that case it should be for someone who has publicly been asked not to receive Holy Communion because an "interdict" or "public excommunication" has occurred. Katherine Sebelious would be a good example. I also believe that the former bishop of Pensacola reminded priests and candidate for vice-presidency Joe Biden, not to receive Holy Communion in his diocese.
All priests know Catholics who are married outside the Church and should not be receiving Holy Communion. Mass isn't the place to deny them the sacrament if they come forward, they should be counseled outside of Mass about that. If they persist, it's their immortal soul that is in jeopardy. I just don't think there should be scenes created at Mass except in the rarest of situations.
I have denied non-Catholics Holy Communion but only when I realized that they were not Catholic because they were clueless about how to receive Holy Communion. I simply give them a blessing. However, some of you may recall that last year at our Confirmation our bishop denied a Protestant Holy Communion and he responded on this blog with great indignation and continued to do so even after it was explained to him why he isn't in full communion with the Catholic Church--we are dealing now with a culture of "entitlement."
This brings me to the story of a priest in the Washington, DC Archdiocese who denied Holy Communion at a funeral to the lesbian daughter of the women who had died. You can read about it by pressing here and the rage and apology that ensued.
I don't think that it is anyone's business at a funeral to judge family members who are grieving and come forward to receive Holy Communion. Let God be the judge and if the person is receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin, then that person will need to answer to God. I know many will disagree with me about this, but I know for a fact that a great number of people who present themselves for Holy Communion each and every Sunday more than likely haven't been to confession in years. Do priests really want to be detectives about this? And do we want extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion being detectives about this. I've know some EM's who would be even more rigid than the priest in Maryland about denying someone Holy Communion.
Those who are known to have been publicly asked by their bishop not to receive Holy Communion is another story. Ultimately, I think it is the bishop's responsibility to have a very clear policy in place. I understand canon law has it already, but each bishop is responsible for its enforcement and should make it known in the most public of ways if he thinks it is important for the general Church to do in these days when so few people actually make use of the Sacrament of Penance and thus more than likely shouldn't be receiving Holy Communion anyway.
This is canon 915: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."
But this canon doesn't describe what measures should be in place before a priest or an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion denies someone Holy Communion although the presumption is that a "public" excommunication or interdict has been imposed--that means only a bishop can impose that--we're not talking about general sinners here. That's my interpretation any way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Father, let me start by saying I respect your opinion, and I hope you respect mine, which differ with yours. I mean no offense or slight to you.
1) The Priest in DC was right to refuse Communion. He had no "cover" for denial as the homosexual partner was proudly declared to be such before the service. The shadow of doubt you wish to operate under was removed for the Priest.
2) The apology offered by the Diocese was wrong because it placed kindness above truth and charity, and treated the Funeral as a "celebration" of life instead of a prayer for the deceased. The Priest upheld the Canon and the Diocese should have upheld the Priest.
3) Bishops have the powers you ascribe to them in their Diocese surely, but it is beholden upon each pastor to act as Bishop within his Parish and enforce the Canons therein. If a particular Bishop is weak on these things it is all the more important the Pastor do so.
4) The above are predicated not upon the state of a communicants soul, which rightly you say is on them, but upon the scandal the Priest causes every single time he distributes Communion unworthily. It's not about the Lesbian, whose soul is likely damned anyway, but about the others standing nearby, watching the Priest treating it as no big deal, which attacks the faith of those who believe you in the Real Presence.
5) In the end it's not about any individual who presents themselves for Communion, but about the Sacrament itself, and the casual disregard displayed for it, both by the person who receives and the person who distributes it. If the one who is charged by the Church to distribute will not accord it the Honor to which it is entitled, why should the recipient?
6) Great video clip. That's the Catholic Church.
Difficult times require harsh measures; open scorn for the Church (of which receiving unworthily is an exdample) requires harsh responses.
Perhaps more preaching and teaching about who should receive and how would help.
The hurdle is whether or not the priest has the understanding and strength of faith to deny in kindness. You, for example, denied communion in full knowledge and strength of faith in the kindness of God that you as a priest acting as Christ blessing was adequate and appropriate. There is no slight nor ranking of the person, but exactly what you said: the person did not understand and did not know God in the form of the host.
It is one thing to stand on a dais and proclaim the value of life and Church doctrine on the matter. It is another thing altogether to live it in this world and act on it with another individual. The Evil One knows the ways of God and His tactics and uses them himself. Consider how hard it is for us to forgive what we perceive to be transgressions against us personally, yet how easily we forgive the transgressions between others. Do we really help the sinner and act as Christ, or are we misusing Christ's teaching to avoid the unpleasant task of confronting the unrepentant to defend the weak?
Some people, perhaps the homosexual in the example, are simply trying to avoid a commitment. Thinking of it as 'dues' there are a priori requirements to receive communion. In the really old days when confession was needed before you could receive, this was taken seriously. We have become lax to the point where we are not sure if the commitment to the Church and her teachings means anything at all. We have created constructs wherein we allow for possible mental states of the individual and proclaim agnosticism of what God knows about this person so as to avoid the single unpleasant task of saying 'No'.
Let me ask a question: If I know that I have committed a grievous mortal sin, should I receive communion before confession?
rcg
I'm just waiting for Cardinal Weurl or Archbishop Neiderauer to perform that ceremony for Nancy Pelosi.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law allows for the requirement of sacramental confession can be dispensed if the following four reasons apply:
1.There must be a grave reason to receive Holy Communion
2. It must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first
3.The person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition
4. He must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible
RCG, NO. You should go to Confession first...but, you should wait until they blindfold and cover the ears of the statues in the Church so they do not run out when you walk in...LOL!
I understand and appreciate that any priest must be extremely reluctant to withhold Holy Communion. However, some of the commentary given in this case, particularly that from Dr. Ed Peters, confounds me.
My understanding of the woman's disposition with respect to her sexuality and living relationship is that she appeared quite proud of herself. This has been reported by a few people who have personal knowledge of the woman.
If she is indeed proud of living in a gravely disordered relationship (to borrow words used in the CCC to describe homosexual intercourse), and she brags of it at the wake (as has been reported) and makes a point of seeking out the priest in the sacristy to declare it, then when she presents herself to receive the Eucharist, how is that less egregious than were Nancy Pelosi to seek to receive? In both cases, they have declared they are qualified to receive, and in both cases, have made public declarations which render them unfit to receive. In Pelosi's case, the gravity of her position is aggravated by its impact on millions of citizens; in this woman's case, the scandal of her position is aggravated by her public declarations to a group of (presumably) faithful, and to the priest, before Mass.
Given her declarations, and her apparent desire to be very public about her lover, how then can it not be seen that for the priest to give her Communion is, in effect, a public ratification of her sinful activities? And if it is a misleading message to those assembled, should it not be avoided?
Dr. Peters seems to argue that the priest was wrong, and the bishop was right, but in some of his posts elsewhere, is less than stunningly clear to this reader, at least. I am not a Canon lawyer, and need help in understanding the issues from that perspective.
The Media (and typical leftwing knee jerk reaction) misses the entire point of "communion". It's not an empty ritual whose point is to express social decorum. It's the core sacrament of Catholicism, and by stepping forward to receive Jesus the individual is proclaiming publicly that he/she is in full "communion" with the whole of the Church community; doctrine and morals, by uniting with Jesus.
To step forward and receive Jesus without being in communion (mind and soul), without being actually of one heart with all other believers, without being of the same relationship with God.... is to lie. To publicly say "amen" when you don't mean it, really.
So if you don't in fact accept all that the Church teaches, and don't believe Jesus' presence requires sincere conversion of heart and mind and a state of loyalty/friendship "communion" with Him..... then reception is of no use but is actually a grave sin, a wound to your soul.
Just as other actions are wounds without people realizing it. Smoking hurts you whether you believe it or not. So does being rude to children. So does being rude to God and the general community.
Obliviousness does not exonerate or hold one free of negative consequences of our free actions.
She wanted to be "included" in a liturgical act, perhaps in some vague awareness of a need for communion - but she did not show any signs of self-awareness, the need for repentance (which she's only reminded of 7 times in the Mass), the need for sacramental confession (which she had time to do before Mass started), and the need to either accept the Church 100% or refrain from claiming via communion to something that she did not believe!
You can't have it both ways. It'd be like me,a life-long pro-lifer demanding Planned Parenthood give me the Margaret Sanger Award because I like the idea of being given an award and a standing ovation....but I don't believe in anything PP or MSanger stands for.
My subjective desire for praise doesn't transmogrify the cosmos so as to mandate a private association with which I disagree with to give me their highest honor "just because it'll make me feel good about myself".
But let it be about sex and the Church and suddenly the individual disbeliever has a RIGHT and the Church with which she disagrees has none?
Thanks for the answers, FrAJM. It would them seem that the possible option these folks can claim is #3. And because most mortals cannot determine if another is truly in perfect contrition the priest must be ignorant of the sin in order to offer communion. It seems that if the priest became aware of it, and the person confessed on the spot, then communion could be offered. In any case these people are still public sinners and are defending their sin rather than rejecting it. This just seems so obvious. But it is not easy due to compassionate nature of a good priest.
Pin, the statue of Michael the Archangel was arguing with the painting of David the other day. I'm hoping David can help me out. LOL!
rcg
Thank you, Father. I was born and raised a Catholic, and for reasons I will not go into here, I do not regularly attend mass. I did receive communion at the funerals of my immediate family members, out of respect for and in honor of them, and knowing that God was now taking care of them. I lead a good and honest life and was certainly not in a state of mortal sin. It was only at the last funeral when I returned to my pew that I noticed that three cousins had turned around and were staring at me. One was a non Catholic, one was a non practicing Catholic, and one was a practicing Catholic. The remaining cousin who was a practicing Catholic did not turn around, but I was advised by this cousin during a subsequent visit that I was not allowed to receive communion because I did not go to church, which is something I really had not shared with her. Although I found her to be particularly judgmental, I simply said I was not aware of this new rule, which was true, and changed the subject when she tried to continue. I find it curious that many Catholics who go to mass on Sundays and holy days do not really practice the teachings of the church, but nonetheless consider themselves good Catholics, but I don't judge them. That's up to God.
Post a Comment