Posted on 07/03/2004 6:45:41 AM PDT by RockDoc
In a letter to US bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger threw his full support behind the few bishops who have said they will deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion, according to an Italian press report. The US bishops voted overwhelmingly to take a less rigorous stance.
The Italian weekly L'Espresso has reported that Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the American bishops should speak privately with prominent Catholics who defy Church teachings on key issues involving the sanctity of life, alert them to the gravity of their offenses, and warn them that they should not receive Communion. The Vatican's chief doctrinal official wrote: "When ìthese precautionary measures have not had their effect...and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ìhe minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
L'Espresso has published the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, which had not previously been available to the public. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who heads a committee of US bishops studying possible responses to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, told reporters that the Ratzinger letter left the issue in the hands of the American hierarchy.
At their Denver meeting, the US bishops adopted a policy statement re-affirming the Church's condemnation of legal abortion, but stopping short of any call for withholding the Eucharist from prominent abortion supporters. The bishops reportedly turned down a milder form of the resolution, backed by Cardinal McCarrick, which would have said that it was imprudent to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians. In conversations with the press, Cardinal McCarrick had hinted that the Ratzinger letter gave support to that position.
Sandro Magister, the veteran Vatican reporter who is the author of the Espresso report, writes that Cardinal Ratzinger was clear in his letter, which was sent to Cardinal Ratzinger and to Bishop Wilton Gregory, the president of the US bishops' conference. But as Magister put it, in the headline of his article, the text of the Ratzinger letter shows: "What he wanted, but didn't get."
This would be a quandry for a lot of people. Some of us know things about follow congregants that the priests don't know.
I was born in 1966, never knew the Tridentine Mass, and received 12 years of post-conciliar "catholic" education devoid of any real Roman Catholic catechesis.
Give us post VII brats a break. I just started studying my Faith in 1991. Until then I never even cared enough to know what these bishops were up to.
And that's the very reason we don't allow EEMs to make an independent determination. They have no right to embarrass someone for something that is not a publicly known.
When it's discussed across the quilt, it's publicly known.
I imagine that vote tally is secret, but it sure would be interesting to know who the six who voted no are. I have a pretty good idea of at least some of the names.
Why not? Bishop Hubbard has already extended the *Welcome* sign to John Kerry, with full assurance that he would not be denied communion here.
Were I an EEM and John Kerry presented himself to me, I would deny him. What is the bishop going to do - excommunicate me?
No, but don't be surprised if you're asked to step down.
You simply are not empowered to make these decisions, as an EEM. If you could not follow this prescription, then you have no business being an EEM.
Amen!
Ratzinger:
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it”
Notice that Ratzinger simply states, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” . He makes NO distinction between bishop, priest, deacon or EEM.
Therefore, regardless of the cowardice or cooperation with evil of the USCCB or the local bishop, all ministers of Holy Communion MUST refuse to distribute it. That would include EEMs the way I read Ratzinger's statement here.
Knotts, EEMs are to do one thing: distribute the Eucharist. They are not to judge the status of other Catholics or take it upon themselves to determine who and who is not to receive.
If they're concerned they might be giving the Eucharist to someone who shouldn't receive it, they should seek direction from the pastor, or step down.
Then you read it wrong, Brian. EEMs have no business making private judgments about who is to receive and who is not.
If the pastor or bishop directs them to refuse someone, they should. If the pastor or bishop directs them to give the Eucharist, they should do it, or step down, if they cannot, in conscience, do so.
But, IMO, if you are going to have such persons, part of the responsibility that goes along with that necessarily would include the obligation to refuse Holy Communion in exceptional cases.
Would you expect a EMHC to hand over the Sacred Species to someone wearing a "Satanist and Proud" button on their lapel?
But, like I said, when you consider the tremendous responsibility this engenders, it becomes clear why EMHC use is required to be truly "extraordinary," and not habitual. Redemptionis Sacramentum even instructs EMHCs to resign if they are used habitually. The problem we are discussing is part of the reason why we should not have laymen distributing Holy Communion in any but the most exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.
If the pastor or bishop directs them to refuse someone, they should. If the pastor or bishop directs them to give the Eucharist, they should do it, or step down, if they cannot, in conscience, do so.
Are they a "minister" of the Eucharist or aren't they? If they ARE then the fact that they are lay persons would be immaterial. Rome has spoken. The local bishop or parish pastor cannot trump Canon Law or this clear Vatican directive governing matters of Faith and morals.
Good time to revisit why the Church forbids the habitual use of EEMs, huh? Maybe it wasn't such a prudent idea in the first place to allow laity to be ministers of the Eucharist, and this debate brings that fact into sharp focus.
I would be thrilled to see 90% of EEMs in this country resign. Then MAYBE we would be at a level commensurate with Vatican demands to stop the abusive use of EEMs at every mass.
Excellent post.
The US bishops are in open schism.
They have been for years. Altar girls, Communion in the hand, wreckovations, the Indult -- time and again they've saluted Rome with the middle finger. The GOOD news is that 25% of the USCCB voted WITH Rome. A full quarter of the Bishops stood tall. More good news, over 350 diocesan priests are taking instruction from the SSPX US District office in Latin prepatory to resumption of the Tridentine Mass.
There is no "problem." EEMs distribute the Eucharist, period. And they act at the direction of the pastor of the parish.
You both are conflating something into an issue that simply is not.
If an EEM is bothered by giving the Eucharist to Catholics he feels should not receive, he should STEP DOWN!
Where? When? I thought the vote was 183 to 6?
I pray they do so en masse.
That IS good news.
Uh, where did you get that figure?
Six bishops voted against the resolution. Six out of 189.
That's 3%, not 25%.
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.