No hard line from pope on communion for pro-choice pols

If it were just a cluster of cells, there would be no controversy. You do yourself a disservice by failing to recognize this--and the fact that someone's being a soldier does not equate to someone's being a killer. Perhaps it is not that you are a woman that prevents your opinion from being considered, but rather that your opinion is so unreasoned.

There would be a canonical issue if eucharistic ministers made this judgment to deny a sacrament on their own power. And certainly a problem keeping this one (me)--and others--volunteering the time we do for this ministry if we were told to obey these orders by a pastor. I think you'll find they would have to do it themselves and not shy away from their own decision.

Eucharistic Ministers (ie priests and bishops) have the responsibility to protect the Eucharist (see canon 915 and my post elswhere).

Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (such as yourself) should follow the directives of their bishop and pastor.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

I'm afraid I don't see the word "protect" anywhere in that canon, Here Today.

If I have a defective copy of the code, please let me know.

From what does the Eucharistic Christ have to be "protected"?

William D. Lindsey

The word 'protect' is not in the canon, but is appropriate because if "those who have been excommunicated or interdicted... and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be ADMITTED to Holy Communion", then it must be somebody's job not to admit them.

If you object to the term 'protect' being used, please suggest another word to describe what the person fulfilling this canon is doing for Our Lord.

While this cannon, to a certain extent, protects the 'Eucharistic Christ' (or even just plain old 'Christ', but I prefer 'Our Lord') from the sacrilege of being consumed by someone who does not love Him (ie in the state of mortal sin), its main purpose appears to be the protection of the faithful from the scandal of seeing such an even occur, which is why it is only those whose grave sin is MANIFEST who are not to be admitted.

Jude 10

Thanks for this interpretation, JP Borberg.

But, as with scriptural interpretation, I think it's a mistake to try to interject our own ideas into texts. The best way to read a text--canon law or scripture or any text--is to try to understand what the text meant in its original context.

Adding the word "protect" to the text distorts its meaning. It rips this text out of context. It layers the canonical text over with an interpretation that represents what we'd like it to say, rather than what it actually says.

While not speaking of protecting the Eucharistic Lord (since when does God need to be protected, in any case?!), it DOES speak of the excommunicated or interdicted.

Yet all the controversy seems to be centered on Catholics who have no more been excommunicated or interdicted than you or I have been.

I find it deeply disturbing that any Catholics would propose "protecting" the Eucharist from other Catholics who are, just as you and I are, sinners in need of the healing and grace brought by this sacrament. The best of Catholic tradition has always left it up to the individual conscience, in collaboration with her or his confessor, to determine who should approach the Eucharist or not.

I'll gladly stand with the tradition.

William D. Lindsey

Bill, I appreciate your considerate analysis, but I have to tell it the way it is. JP and HT can use the thought of 'protecting the Eucharist', but that's not what the canon is about. The canon is about 'expelling' a dogmatically defined loser human from the table. This isn't about Jesus at all. He didn't even 'expell' Judas from His table. No, this is all about authority and who has it and who doesn't, and who will obey and who won't.

One can dress this reality up by claiming to protect the Eucharistic presence, but in actuality one is blaming the inadequacy of the Eucharistic presence for this all to human need to expell the institutionally defined loser human.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

hmm, I didn't say that the canon had the word 'protect' in it, but it does indeed refer to others besides the excommunicated and interdicted :"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." (If we are avoiding eisgesis, then let's do so).

I'm glad that you say you will stand with tradition, but perhaps you want to look at it first?
The Pio-Benedcitine code was stronger in forbidding the priest from giving communion to manifest sinners, and the tradition continues back through Aquinas, to St Paul, to Christ.

Now certainly given private sin, it is a matter of private penance, no one is denying that.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

What ideas of mine have I injected?

The canon clearly applies to people beyond those under excommunication or interdict, as it states "those... obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion". If that bit is not in your code you do have a defective copy. Go to the Vatican website and look it up if you don't believe me. Or are you injecting YOUR interpretation here.

I also asked for you to suggest a word to describe the action of somebody carrying out the 'not admitting' part of this canon, if you rejected the word 'protect'.

Yes, we’re all sinners. I follow the tradition of the Church and drew a distinction between mortal and venial sin. And in the case of someone in ‘manifest grave sin’ going to communion, the Church traditionally relies on her priests and bishops act if the individual conscience takes it upon itself to contravene what the Church teaches.

Jude 10

Well, since you are making this personal, HT, let me assure you that I do follow the directives of my bishop and pastor. They happen to agree with me that it is their responsibility not ours, so I'm still in the right place at the right time.

The responsibility to protect the Eucharist is not seen as the need to protect God from people who stand in the communion line, and although there could be the rare incident with someone not quite right of mind attempting harm to the host or cup, someone else would still step in; in my parish we are not alone in our work and not left alone to be hurt or judged. God can take care of [Himself]. Your interesting interpretations aren't really those of the canon lawyer quite yet. :-)

I realize that you will have problems seeing this next issue, but I do believe that you yourself believe me to be all wrong by gender for the role of decision maker in the Church. I would guess that you believe that I shouldn't even be washing the communion dishes (which was just fine with me!), so I hardly think that I am suddenly going to be the one thrust into the role of standing in for a gutless priest/bishop. If some politician walked into my church, the pastor or priests would know it within a short time, and I fully expect that they would intervene and deal with it if they saw fit for some reason. Which, as i mentioned, seems not to be their plan (and I'm not in New York!). In any case, if I should someday have a pastor or bishop that saw this as my role as a Eucharistic minister, I would certainly step out of the role and into another. I didn't seek this one to begin with, but was asked to it, and I can surely spend the time and energy on something else. Nor would I put myself into the middle of a canonical complaint process by choice, so they will have to dig up a different minister for that also. I'm not the "clerical" type, so I can step aside in a heartbeat.

But, ya know, this is all such pharisetical (should be some such word if there isn't!) chatter. There are so few times that any politician has actually been denied communion (ever?) that it is just the threat that is so entertaining for us all.

I meant nothing more than to acknowledge your previous post, (and perhaps correct terminology a little) so relax. (May I ask why you have been taking my posts so personal as of late? You know full well that they aren't intended as such, from previous conversations we have had, and yet we find ourselves at it again... perhaps this is the true rabbit hole...)

It is not chiefly a matter of protecting the Eucharist (although there are times and places where that has been/is a major concern), but of protecting people from themselves (ie from eating and drinking unworthily, to their own Judgment) or from the bad example of others (ie the true meaning of the word 'scandal, to lead others to sin, something about a millstone from that one...)

Interesting that you should say that my interpretations are not those of a canon lawyer, for my arguments largely come from canon lawyers as well as theologians and plain sensible folk.

"I would guess that you believe that I shouldn't even be washing the communion dishes" You would guess right, and yet wrong. Who purifies the sacred vessels after communion has nothing to do with 'gender', and everything to do with ordination and obedience. So I should be handling the sacred vessels no more than any woman or man except the pries or deacon, as that is who is supposed to purify them.

I know it is pointless to argue that I do, in fact, feel that women 1) have had tremendous influence on the Church throughout Her history, 2) that they continue to have tremendous influence, and 3) that there are some areas in which they ought to have more influence (that might just happen). Of course this is pointless because I believe as the Church does regarding the ordination of women and therefore am a terrible misogynist. (/sarcasm)

I do applaud you for having the integrity to realize that if you could not directly follow the request the bishop or pastor in regards to withholding communion that you would still obey by recusing yourself from that ministry. (which essentially is the part of my post you took as personal, something that we agree on!)

A few politicians have been refused the Eucharist in various English speaking countries, but many other people have been: the rainbow-sashers, members of various protest(-ant) groups, etc. There are also cases, apparently, where the politicians have followed instructions not to try to receive (ie Giuliani until the Pope's Mass). So it is a little more than 'entertainment'.

Beyond that, too, there are the underlying principals that the decision is based on that does have broader applications, not just to Canon Law, but to theology and popular belief. Action by the Church on this matter can send the signal (among others, I won't pretend that people won't read their own meanings into any action) that She really believes what She claims, inaction could send the opposite message. (for example)

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

The problem with your post, KEM, actually begins with a lack of understanding of how one does a moral analysis of a public issue, meaning one that doesn't actually affect you very much or you alone (I'm guessing that you are male, because of the tone, but you can correct me) but one that affects lots of people and about whom you want to provide legislation.

It actually is not a strong moral analysis of one's own personal actions or possible actions to do so only through one dimension, but it is less than Catholic to look at public issues that way (it is more protestant). Without making this post overally long since you probably are not going to come back to this, looking through the dimension of a part of moral theology, catechism, or doctrine (whatever you do on that part) is only part of the analysis. The other part (and actually there are others) is to look at the social justice teachings of the church for their applicability as well. 'Dealing with compassion and understanding' is nice and very pretty and may be helpful and supportive, depending on your meaning of those words, but women with children need economic and social supports, and if they are not there, they need to be put there by the public, especially since charity is stretched past its limits now. So part of the 'truly complex situation' is not to approach a public issue with a simple answer that ignores the demands of social justice. In other words, solutions. And yep, that means you paying taxes to help out some woman and some child.

In a political sense this is also part of the key to change. You'll find that most people don't want to return to a time of coat hangers and back alleys, and even should a change be made in law or constitution, you surely must realize it would only take a few media reports of real bad situations to start turning the tide the other way again. So, the question might be whether you want a real change or just want to feel good about your position. It's not clear to me that the emotionalism isn't on your side.

Actually, KEM's analysis seemed pretty bang on. Very Catholic too.

Jude 10

Actually, not fully Catholic. Just the beginning step in public policy.

Well, the principle he starts from is the main one in the Catechism, and the conclusion he ends on is the position of the Church. A step anywhere else would be misplaced.

Jude 10

I grant the tidiness of your reply and I can see that you read his post well and carefully.

But as to mis-steps in my reply that you probably didn't read or don't understand (perhaps due to feigned ignorance or real ignorance, as HT would say), what I say is actually how one needs to proceed in terms of ethical decision-making, given the "objective" definitions of the Catechism toward individual moral decisions and the social justice teachings of the Church toward social moral decisions, all of which has to be contextualized (oh my gosh, there are consequences that might affect ourselves and others differently than if someone else did the same thing--wow!! it's subjective TOO!). As you live longer, you will perhaps suddenly see that two possible sins lay in front of you or two choices for good, and they seem not to fit into some easy papered decision and you will have to make a decision, which is why the Church as well as other ethicists have developed some frameworks for ethical decision making.

So, I walk boldly with the Lord (and have studied Catholic (and other) ethics)and I do have some notion that the social justice teachings of the church were not just pretty window-dressings, but to be used. I grant that the Church thinks that they can proceed in one direction and later push in the other--but it won't work in the United States of America, and that is THEIR tragic mis-step; there is no later on here. All that is happening under this "pro-life" regime is that social and economic supports for women are being cut back and out while other people pump themselves up on the individual sinfulness of women and how they will get theirs in the end. Pretty tidy stuff, and way too easy for any catholic christian to swallow whole. That's what the majority of bishops here understand and that is why they really aren't going to continue down the road of denying communion as a political tool of the Republican party.

The Churches position on abortion predates the Republican Party.

In fact, it predates the republic.

KEMs post was on abortion in general, not the communion issue.

He stated it was actually a simple issue.

He is right. The deliberate destruction of innocent life is always wrong, regardless of context. Therefore abortion is wrong. That is the Catholic position.

What should happen instead is complex. But that is not the issue being disputed here.

Jude 10-13

I have a simple question for all those who have posted pro-life with no exceptions even in the case of a brutal rape or incest perpetrated by the moral equivalency of a dog, if you also all believe that it is wrong to be in the War in Iraq in which thousands of innocent men, women and children and the unborn have been killed?

I will reply to myself? I suppose I will ...

... Abortion you say is the issue of our time, as soldiers are buried, recuperating from amputated limbs, no job to go to, in emotional agony over what they have witnessed in war. Silence. Let's not talk about this. Let's talk about not giving communion to whomever we believe is "not worthy" of the love of God. Silence. Let's not talk about babies that have been burned beyond recognition, orphaned and widowed, crippled and maimed, homeless, forgotten thousands of Iraqis. Silence. Let's not talk about it. Let's not talk about the greed of a system that takes its youth to serve its selfish needs, and sends them to a foreign land and tells them it is for the good of the country that they sacrifice their lives. Silence. Let's not talk about this. The issue is abortion. The issue is something else. It's over there. It is not here.

Let's talk about what the papers say in an archive in the Vatican. Let's talk about the law. Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about sin, someone else's. Let's talk about anything except this question that is posed to those who say they follow Jesus and His every word. Thou shall not kill. Let's not talk about this. The issue is abortion. The issue is something else. It's over there. It is not here.

Let's read the Gospels. Let's proclaim the good news. Let's talk of love. Let's talk of God. Let's talk and talk and never walk the walk. Silence. Let's not talk about this. The issue is abortion. The issue is something else. It's over there. It is not here.

This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from the "abortion is murder" premise.

Then you would also agree that any male parent who provides assistance or knowing the intent and does nothing to stop the woman, is also culpable and deserves jail. I believe in full equal rights for men.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

"Justice" as in 'a sentence of life in prison without parole' is an issue of law not of morality. As in the child abuse scandal it seems that as weak as the law is it is more effective than our "pastoral" and catholic hierarchy

Edward Cardinal Egan anounced that he had an agreement with Mayor Giuliani not to present himself at the Communion rail. The reason that Cardinal Egan blasted Mayor Giuliani is because of the pressure from Robert Novak’s letter accusing Egan of disobedience to the Pope. Most of the argument against Giuliani seems to be that he has been pro-choice. Yet, Rudy has publicly recanted his support of Roe v. Wade and openly stated that he hates abortion.

Instead of falling into the trap set by the anti-abortionists, Egan should have made clear that the most important reason Rudy should not receive Communion is that he, in the eyes of the Church, is living a life of adultery.
By his actions, Cardinal Egan declared open-season on Catholic politicians who are not aggressive anti-abortionists. It was wrong of Egan to have done this in a presidential year.
I am pleased that Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington D. C. was smart enough to avoid the trap. In this matter Wuerl acted much more like Our Lord did over the issue of paying taxes to Rome.

... the greatest of these ...

It appears that some "Catholics" do "take" Communion rather than "receive" Communion. Perhaps they have already forgotten what they had just proclaimed when they said the words, "Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed."

But they remember Jesus' words: TAKE and eat, all of you.

"For Catholic politicians to flaunt their religion while voting against Church teaching is a scandal to the laity. Is it any wonder so many Catholics reject their Church's teaching on matters such as abortion when Political leaders get away with this?"

The day I let my faith practice be influenced or determined by politicians is the day I should be excommunicated.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

It is sad to me that so many see the Eucharist as a place and time constrained tool of human judgment, or worse, a presumption of God's prerogative or intent rather than as a spectacular celebration of human/divine Love and communion.

It might be sad, but it's the Church that distributes the sacrament, and it's the Church that constrains it too. See 1415 and 1385 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the latter of which happens to quote that bit from 1 Corinthians that SJ thought wasn’t relevent.

Nice to know it's not just me...

Jude 12,13

Oh, and by the way, the Church also recognizes catholics' rights to the sacraments and provides a canonical process for complaint in the diocese when those rights are denied.

I assume you refer to this: "Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion."

However there is also this (same link): "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."

A certain bishop from the CDF clarified that canon 915 is appropriately applied to politicians who promote abortion. The letter particularly calls for exactly the action taken by Cardinal Egan in regards to Giuliani (who, of course, has already barred himself from communion by his "marital" condition).

Take of a blogging canon lawyer and a rather better known one.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

So nice to have somebody around with a fair grasp on what they're on about.

Jude 12,13

Nope. not the one.

Well. That's rather useless, now, isn't it? If this is not what you are referring to, than from whence do you derive your assertion? I could do multiple guess, but certainly I have presented my case (or at least that of Archbishop Burke and Ed Peters, among others), regardless of where yours is derived.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Oh, sorry, I was in a rush. As you know, I don't really spend my time in canon law and I don't actually have time to. I don't, by the way, follow all these links you provide although it may be that others do; I tried that a couple of times, but am a bit beyond internet trolling, is that what that is? I am formed to a more scientific or academic study and want more to read in that vein, so you will have to at least take time to summarize if you want me to seriously look at an issue. My comment actually is related more to process. I had an interesting dinner event not long ago with a friend's friend who is a canon lawyer, who spoke to this subject at some engaging length. Like attorneys of all stripes, what he really loves is the process of debating the interpretations (the "subjective") of all those "objective" words and laws, and he really stressed that he would advise people to make complaint about many things they don't, including any denial of the sacraments at all. The point is not always the outcome, HT, the process of complaint itself is pretty onerous to chanceries and not only takes up time and energy they can ill afford, but often brings up a veritable pandora's box of issues they wish to avoid, especially given the current climate of public focus on them. So, the process of complaint actually is one of the reasons that they will back off from the confrontive approach at the communion line, confessional etc. I think sometimes as I read your messages that you think the outcome outweighs the process, but I do agree with him, 't'ain't always so. And it seems that the tide has turned, given a pope who has decided to rely more heavily on the positive process rather than the punitive. And God bless him for that!

"Trolling" is a behavior tied to forums, message boards, and comment boxes in which a poster is deliberately antagonizes other people, usually trying to provoke an outburst. "Browsing" the internet, could refer to following the links, but I think 'research' would be the most applicable term.

If you can't be bothered to support your assertions, or to check my references, then that is your problem. I will continue to provide links to my sources. You are free not to read them.

BTW, any complaint would be based on Can 912.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Annie,
I was shocked when a friend told me the church charged her $600 to get married. Is it licit to charge for a sacrament?
Thanks, Frannie

I don't think so. Could it be that it had to do with something surrounding the wedding? Like the hall, or even what some parishes have now, a wedding planner ministry involving a something extra rather than the sacrament? I can sure see that parishes might try to work around the edges of the sacrament, but I don't think they can charge for the sacrament per se. I'm not much into the canon law stuff, but I'm pretty sure that charging for a sacrament is not acceptable, or the abuses over time would be horrible, not to mention the statement it would make.

When people get married, they usually give something to the priest for his time since it's outside of their usual schedule, but at least in my experience, that's a rule of etiquette or custom, and sure never came up from the priest involved. But that was a long time ago for me...:-)

anyone?

I never said that 1 Cor 11:29 wasn't relevant.

Now, can you please provide me with information about the policy in the Diocese of Rome which stipulates that pro-choice politicians be denied the Eucharist? Is it a secret policy? I would think that if the Catechism, Canon Law, the Scriptures, etc. were as clear as you say on this subject, then such a policy would at least exist in the pope's own diocese.

It is relevant? Then this is a case where people are able to 'eat and drink their own condemnation', despite the bits in the New Testament about 'humility' and 'not judging'.

Then shouldn't something be done to prevent people from doing it. St Paul thought there was. We could start by admitting it is a possibility.

I know nothing about diocesan policy in Rome, beyond the fact that, despite your assumption to the contrary, there is no necessary connection between what the Church teaches and what a person does or permits.

Jude 12,13

And nice to know pope, bishops, and clergy aren't with you on this interpretation!

Oops...
Oh well!

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers