[NYer]

Does anything exempt Eucharistic Ministers from carrying out this Canon?

An excellent question that has surfaced in the forum on several occasions. One of the issues, obviously entwined with this question, would be: "Is this (well known political) communicant in a state of grace?" And the only one to answer it would be the priest to whom the individual applied earlier that day or the day before, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (assuming that even happened).

From what I have seen over the years, normally the 'celebrity' communicant is seated up front in the Church and receives from the priest. I do recall, however, that during his run for the presidency, when all eyes (and cameras) were focused on him, John Kerry avoided the priest and went to a Eucharistic Minister. I also recall at the installation Mass for Bishop Sean O'Malley, Ted Kennedy was seated up front and left the Church before Communion.

Since the Eucharistic Minister would have no way of knowing if the 'celebrity' had gone to Confession, the onus is on the EEM to withhold communion, based on their own conscience.

At Pentecost this year, a group of Eucharistic Ministers actually stepped forward and distributed Communion to the rainbow sashers. They even planted individuals in the front rows, equipped with cameras, to catch their "statement" on celuloid.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Please read the 1997 statement on cooperation of lay people in certain priestly ministries. There is no "office" of EEM. The person is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion on an ad hoc basis. This is being widely abused throughout the church. Routine use of extraordinary ad hoc distributors of Communion and training sessions for them etc. have created in the minds of people a quasi-clerical state that has no reality in fact, as the document clearly states. To think of the "EEM" as a lasting "office" or lasting "ministry" role blurs the line between clergy and laity and thereby undermines the Catholic understanding of the ministerial priesthood for which thousands of Catholics gave their lives during the Reformation. It plays right into the hands of the liberals who wish to destroy the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

For traditional Catholics, in the name of defending the Sacrament, to usurp a governing role (and denying communion is a governing role) that belongs solely to the bishop (delegated to the pastor of a parish and to other priests in hearing confessions) is monstrous.

No matter what you wish priests and bishops would do on this matter, lay people would be utterly wrong to take this into their own hands. It's the same kind of violation of the "constitution" of the Church that a judge legislating from the bench is guilty of.

I'm appalled that a conservative or traditional Catholic could even ask this question. I understand the deep desire to see CINO politicians disciplined and to see an end to the scandal their sins are causing. But the bishops have to do this. We cannot, as lay people, take this into our hands. We have plenty of "ministy" to do in teaching our children and each other the Catholic faith and living it out in our state in life. That is the true priesthood or ministry of the lay person. Just because we have good intentions (stopping the scandal of pro-abortion politicians acting as they were Catholics in good standing) does not make it right for us to blur the lines between clergy and laity and usurp a clerical role.