Can Communion be denied to wayward Catholic pols at a papal stadium Mass?
Our religion-blogging compatriots at Get Religion, spotlighted a story from Politico Monday about Pope Benedict XIV’s U.S. visit that might be of interest to St. Louisans, especially St. Louis Catholics.
On Thursday, Benedict will celebrate the first of two stadium Masses during his visit. Thursday’s Mass will be at Washington’s new Nationals Stadium, and the second will be at Yankee Stadium on Sunday.
Politico reported that earlier this week, in ads placed in the Washington Times and in Politico,:
the anti-abortion-rights American Life League is urging the pontiff to “protect the body of Christ from the bloodstained hands of pro-abortion ‘Catholics’” by denying Communion to politicians who support abortion rights.
The issue of denying Communion to such politicians is well known to those who have followed St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke’s words and actions on this topic since his time as bishop of LaCrosse, Wis.
While most bishops agree that such politicians should not approach for Communion, a relatively small number - led by Burke for the last five years or so - say they would deny those politicians the church’s most important sacrament.
In an 11,500-word scholarly article published a year ago in a prestigious (if obscure) Catholic legal journal, Burke expanded his parameters on who should deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. Under certain conditions, Burke said, any Catholic who distributes Communion - a priest, deacon or even a lay Eucharistic minister - has a moral obligation to deny the Eucharist to such politicians if they know that politician has been warned about public views they hold that are contrary to church teaching.
…it is clear that Church discipline places an obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to refuse Holy Communion to persons known, by the public, to be in mortal sin,” he wrote in Periodica de re Canonica, adding, “…the minister of Holy Communion is held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy.
The archbishop told me in November that nothing in his article - published by his alma mater, the Jesuit-run Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome - was new, and that he was simply offering pastoral clarification of traditional church teaching. He said in denying Communion to wayward politicians, the church is not judging their souls, rather it is protecting them. By denying Communion to such politicians, the church is also protecting the sacredness of the Eucharist and the Catholic faithful from scandal, he said.
Asked if it would be a mortal sin for Eucharistic ministers - priests, deacons or lay people - to serve Communion to such politicians, Burke said it would.
“Yes, that is the point,” he said. “That’s been, consistently, the church’s position. It redounds to the minister.”
So - where does that leave the hundreds of Communion ministers who will be distributing Communion to 45,000 Catholics Thursday in Washington, including Catholic legislators invited by the Vatican. Some of those politicians include those who have legislated contrary to church teaching on abortion-rights issues like Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Politico reports that Pelosi’s and Kerry’s offices signaled that they would be at the Mass Thursday, and would received Communion. Burke is, of course, best known outside of St. Louis for saying in January 2004 that if the circumstance presented itself, he would deny the Eucharist to Kerry - the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate at the time.
But an important part of Burke’s writing on the issue explains that the person offering the sacrament has to know that the offending politician has been warned by his or her bishop before the sacrament is denied. In the 20 minutes the Vatican has allotted for the distribution of Communion, that’s a tall order - and potentially a lot of pressure - for the ministers in charge of distributing the sacrament.
Tim Townsend has been the religion reporter at the Post-Dispatch since June 2004. He previously covered personal finance and consumer news for The Wall Street Journal. He holds master's degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and Yale Divinity School. In 2005 he won the Templeton Religion Reporter of the Year Award, given by the Religion Newswriters Association. 
Dear Tim,
To make a quick distinction, for a person to commit a mortal sin he or she must 1) commit a sin that is grave matter, 2) be fully informed that it is grave, and 3) do so with full consent. This means that an Extraordinary Ministry of Holy Communion (full title for a non-cleric charged with distributing communion) who doesn’t know that he or she is communicating the Eucharist to an ‘offending politician’ is not guilty of mortal sin because he or she did not meet all three requirements. Thus, for the thousands of EMHC’s, they need not fear that they will ‘accidentally’ commit a mortal sin, for that is impossible. In regard to the EMHC’s knowing what ‘offending politicians’ will be in attendance and who to be aware of, prudence must be used.
Also, where you mention that the Archbishop said it would be a mortal sin, it seems the quote is the latter part of his statement. As a person interested in theology, I’m curious what the Archbishop’s full quote is. Would it be possible for you to provide it? Please forgive me if I am presuming falsely.
Thank you.
Paul - the link to the archbishop’s full article is embedded in the post at the beginning of the 7th paragraph or so, next to his photo.
Tim:
Would you be kind enough to give some history on when abortion issue became such an explosive topic for the catholic church.
Also, I am wondering about the communion. Is it a form of ‘bonus’ for good Catholics, or is it a ritual to help the believer strengthen their faith by sharing it with their community.
If it is the latter, should not it be better not to deny it to the sinners. Excuse my total ignorance on the subject..
http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07402a.htm
A lot of what Catholics believe about Holy Communion is from John 6:53–58 and 1 Cor. 11:27–28 in the Bible.
Below is a basic summery from http://www.catholic.com but it would still be good to look at the websites.
Basically, “Communion is an intimate encounter with Christ, in which we sacramentally receive Christ into our bodies, that we may be more completely assimilated into his. “The Eucharist builds the Church,” as Pope John Paul II said (Redemptor Hominis 20). It deepens unity with the Church, more fully assimilating us into Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; CCC 1396).
First, you must be in a state of grace. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.
A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
There is a long tradition on withholding Communion.
From the first apology in defense of the Christians by Saint Justin, martyr:
“No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.”
Permit me to observe that this whole question of whether communion (the Eucharist in latin) could be withheld from believers due to their sinful nature was one of the fundamentals of the Protestant Reformation.
As a protestant who worships in a place where the table is open to all who profess faith, I’ve never really understood it. Of course, I also have a real problem with transubstantiation, but that’s for a whole ‘nother day.
Communion is a sacrament, literally a “outward and spiritual sign of an inward and spiritual grace”. The fact that the Lord’s Supper was instituted as one of Jesus’ last acts with his disciples is incredibly significant, along with the words of the institution: “This do in remembrance of Me”. The fact that Judas Iscariot was not barred from the table suggests that sin was a non-issue. The issue is the profession of faith. “Faith alone, God alone, Scripture alone” are one statement of the main tenets of the Reformation.
By the way, can someone explain to me the Catholic insistence that only the bread is to be served at Communion?
For Khalid: The fundamental basis for Communion, or the Lord’s supper, or the Eucharist , is found in the events leading up to the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. He and his disciples celebrated the Passover meal together, and after supper he broke the bread and gave it to them, telling them that “this is my body, broken for you”, and then with the wine he said, “this is my blood, drink ye all of it”. And then, he commanded them to do this in remembrance, with the promise that whoever ate the bread and drank the cup would have eternal life. There is much written on the meanings of the texts, and their interpretation over the last 2000 years.
Fundamentally, however, partaking of the communion or the Lord’s Supper is a sign of commitment to the Christian life. It is celebrated at every meeting in some churches, others celebrate it perhaps 4 times a year, and everything in between. For most Christians, it is a deeply important part of their faith.
Actually, “hs”, it is common to see both the Body and Blood served at Mass nowadays, even on weekdays. The tendency traditionally to shy away from the Blood (it is still consecrated) was more for practical reasons. And we do believe as Catholics that Our Lord is present in the Body alone. Both as always consecrated at each Mass, though.
Archbishop Burke has even drawn the distinction between private sinners whom the priest may know to have mortal sin on their soul and those are known to have publicly sinned and stepped away from communion with the Church. A priest is never to forbid Holy Communion in the first case.
What would Jesus do? His life shows us the way to have a personal relationship with God and that relationship is based more on endeavors, like love and truth, than events like Communion. Events come and go but love lasts as long as there is life. Jesus served Communion at the last supper to Judas, whom he knew would betray him to the Sanhedrin. Jesus knew that event would cause his death. We Christians know that love, the Spirit of Truth and Jesus are still alive.
If Communion is not served to pro-abortion politicians in the United States, what does that mean for Catholic politicians and Catholics in general who are pro-life?
It appears to a protestant like me that the real purpose for not serving Communion to Catholic pro-abortionist politicians is to solidify the Catholic political base - to confer a divine right to rule from the Catholic Church to all Catholics who represent not only Americans but the Vatican as well, provided they concur with the wishes of their bishop. The recent conflict between Saint Louis University and Bishop Burke over some statements made by their coach comes to mind.
What is next? From the Taiwanese medical system we see that people can be registered on a central database and issued a card that can be electronically read when they are ready to receive medical care. Will Catholics be issued a card to identify them to a central database so they can be identified as not being known to have committed mortal sin before taking spiritual medicine, that is, Communion? Certainly, such a system would be important to protect Eucharistic ministers.
If the Jew from Nazareth were to attend a Catholic mass he would be discouraged from taking Communion. Who is protecting who from Christ?
Davel:
See my note above (No. 7). Communion is only to be withheld under current church law in very narrow circumstances where people are very clearly and publicly recognized as problematic. And the “Jew from Nazareth” comment was a little out there. A Jewish person would not want to receive Catholic Communion in the first place! How would they be able to say “Amen” when the priest holds up the Host and says “Body of Christ”?