In a story about John Kerry’s “parish”, the ultra-liberal Paulist Center, we are treated to this tidbit from the spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston:
The Archdiocese of Boston “does not hold to the practice of publicly refusing Communion to anyone,” said archdiocese spokesman Rev. Christopher Coyne. He said it was up to the individual to decide whether to receive Communion.
Anyone? Anyone?! How about the naked guy who saunters up the aisle? Are you going to put it in his hand? How about the guy dressed up as a Satan worshipper who is probably collecting the Eucharist for a black Mass? What about the guy whol just told you outside on the steps that he doesn’t believe that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ? How about the Methodist you were just introduced to before Mass who saunters into the Communion line? Anyone, Father? Anyone?!
Can anyone point me to anywhere in an authoritative document, an ecumenical council decision, a canon law, that says that the decision whether a person can receive Communion is solely up to the person standing in the Communion line? You can’t because it all says exactly the opposite. Why are they all so afraid of this issue?
I appreciate the thoughts regarding the inability of the minister of Holy Communion to see into another’s soul.
Yet Church law—for example, Canon 915—I believe exists to aid us in what appears to be a quandary.
“Those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin cannot be admitted to Communion.”
I emphasize the word “obstinately” for a reason. In America, anyway, I cannot imagine ANY citizen, or at least any politician, who is unaware of the Church’s teaching on abortion. Can you?
And so I think it’s safe to say that the Catholic, pro-abortion politicians have been warned. If they continue to promote the sin of abortion, are they not, in fact, behaving obstinately?
Jane, you’re right. The only person who would be refused is the one who kneels.
And Kelly makes the point: Kerry’s (and those like him) case is different because of his public scandal. Because it’s a public scandal it would require a public renunciation. Remember, the Eucharist is a privilege, not a right. You can lose that privilege in various ways, most of them falling under the category of mortal sin.
Jim,
I’m sure your question is rhetorical, but I’m compelled (okay, not compelled, but eager) to reply:
Because your last name describes you, or should.
Because that’s the rule and you’re following it.
Because, just because your neighbor jumps off a 12 story roof, that doesn’t mean you should!
(Sorry—my mom had a lot of influence over me, apparently.)
Thank you for reading this, and God love you.
PS: New blog:
http://catholickerrywatch.blogspot.com/
It’s well done, in my opinion. The Curt Jester, among others, are contributors.
Most of our bishops are cowards, and they impugn the Eucharist (and thus Jesus Christ) out of cowardice. They themselves should refrain…
At the core of this refusal to uphold Canon Law and Catholic doctrine regarding the Eucharist, is both the fear of losing power and influence among the political elites (as with Kerry and Kennedy), and the fear of losing popularity with the elites and their followers (with regard to sins like abortion and homosexual acts). One of the reasons that the sacrament of penance has become invisible and ignored by huge numbers of Catholics is that the Eucharist is freely given to any who are unconfessed and in mortal sin. When you accept everything, you devalue everything – as the American church has so greatly devalued itself for having accepted widespread priestly pederasty in its ranks. Through their fear to use the ‘no’ word, the leaders of the American church have generally made themselves stupid and irrelevant, and worse, have sided, as in the pederasty scandal, with evil.
Dan J., somewhere around Can. 915 is a clear prohibition of giving the Sacrament to one who would use it sacreligiously.
Now, a high-profile politician who has OBSTINATELY PERSISTED in pro-abortion activity, who has NEVER recanted his position publicly, and who is going to receive the Sacrament is doing so SACRELIGIOUSLY.
Jim Noble is correct, heroic, and shouldn’t have to ask these questions.
Certain Bishops, on the other hand, have a LOT of questions to answer—from an Inqusitor who may be much less polite and forgiving than Dan J.
I agree with the noble Mister Noble. For the most part, “activist-let’s-take-over-Jesus’-church” folk aren’t worthy to be Protestants. Protestants, after all, believe in the Bible.
That said…I was hoping to find the “schism” post removed or at least reproved. Tom, I am NOT in “schism,” full or otherwise. That is an egregious accusation and should be at least thought out.
By the way, this is the THIRD time today I’ve had the “S” word float across my desktop. Three times too many.
If you don’t understand the seriousness of hurling “schism” epiphets—or, more than likely, you have no idea what the term actually means—then I humbly suggest that you do some research. Actually a LOT of research.
Let’s be careful out there.