Posted on 05/18/2004 9:51:10 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
Cardinal Roger Mahoney, amid a variety of interesting comments that I am sure will attract competent commentary from others, spoke inaccurately about certain canonical considerations surrounding pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving Communion. Some of the most salient canonical assertions by the cardinal were:
1. "The [C]hurch has always been quite cautious about denying anyone the sacraments of the [C]hurch.” That’s right. See 1983 CIC 18, 213, 843 & (most topically) 912.
2. "In fact, with respect to the Eucharist, it really is not possible for a priest or bishop to deny someone Communion unless that person is known to have been a public sinner, in the sense of having been interdicted or excommunicated or formally sanctioned in some way.” That’s wrong. Canon 915 plainly says that those who “are excommunicated, interdicted, or…obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” It is patent that one need not be under a formal sanction to fall within the purview of Canon 915. Politicians who chronically support abortionism are persisting in grave sin.
3. "The presumption is that if someone presents himself for Communion, that they are doing so with the belief that they are in a state of grace and receiving in good faith the Eucharist.” That’s incomplete. Like most presumptions (say, the presumption of innocence), we must also say that the presumption of one's eligibility to receive the Eucharist yields to sufficient contrary evidence.
4. "That is the decision the communicant makes, not the person giving Communion.” That’s wrong. The cardinal is confusing Canon 916, wherein an individual who is conscious of being in grave sin should indeed refrain from receiving the Eucharist, even if no else is aware of his sin, with Canon 915, wherein a minister who is aware of an individual’s obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin must not admit such person to the Eucharist.
Let's be clear about what Abp. Burke and others are doing: Their stance against pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist is completely justified. In brief, their decisions are 1) made in the realm of sacramental discipline, not penal law; 2) meant to prevent serious scandal to the faithful, curb sacrilegious reception of Communion, and impress upon certain persons the gravity of their deeds; 3) binding on all ministers of the Eucharist in their jurisdictions; 4) illustrative for others who, someday, as will we all, have to account to Jesus for what they did with His Precious Body and Blood. I need hardly add that all that is necessary to secure one’s readmission to the Eucharist would be confession and firm purpose of amendment.
I agree with His Eminence that we have had pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist since 1973. What’s changed is that we now have bishops who are saying enough is enough. +++
As has been done in Eastern Orthodox practice all along.
Their stance against pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist is completely justified. In brief, their decisions are 1) made in the realm of sacramental discipline, not penal law; 2) meant to prevent serious scandal to the faithful, curb sacrilegious reception of Communion, and impress upon certain persons the gravity of their deeds; 3) binding on all ministers of the Eucharist in their jurisdictions; 4) illustrative for others who, someday, as will we all, have to account to Jesus for what they did with His Precious Body and Blood. I need hardly add that all that is necessary to secure one’s readmission to the Eucharist would be confession and firm purpose of amendment.Nicely summarized.
Ed Peters guests on Catholic Answers monthly. I'd like to hear him speak about this matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.