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.
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.
First of all, you are beginning to sound like the Supremes in Griswold who found a "right to privacy" which does not exist in the Constitution--or like those legislators who find that the Second Amendment applies only to active members of the Reserves, the cops, and themselves.
As they say in Green Bay: Boooschwaaaa.
That letter is clear as can be: MUST REFUSE.
Secondly, you are again playing the "strawman" game.
The case of John Fn Kerry is notorious and well-publicized, as are the cases of State and other Federal legislators. They are either FOR babykilling, or AGIN it.
An EEM who cannot make these distinctions should NEVER have been made an EEM in the first place: another discussion you should have with your Pastor.