Clinton Communion

[zunshynn]

Isn't Blair pro-abortion? How Catholic could he want to be?

Edited September 6, 2006 by zunshynn

[CatholicCid]

I must admit I have no clue what Clinton or Blair's religions are.
If I had to offer them Communion for some reason, I would do so since I just have no clue if they are Catholic or not >_<

[Aloysius]

when they get up to you, stop them and wisper in their ear "are you a Catholic who attends mass every sunday?". if they say no, don't give them communion.

dispensers of Holy Communion have a sacred duty to protect the Blessed Sacrament from being received by anyone who is not worthy.

Like the Apostles themselves said:

"But [i]let no one[/i] eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs.""

"But [i]let no one[/i] who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. "

it is up to the priest not to let someone receive if he knows that they should not receive.

[CatholicCid]

This is why I'll never give out communion lol

Aloysius, in the example you gave of your friend, would the Priest not be breaking the Seal of the Confessional by using the knowledge he gained from it to deny Communion?

I'm lucky since I'm somewhat spoiled... Our Priest goes over the requirements for recieving Communion before Communion in the Mass usually...

[prose]

Why would you go to confession if not to be absolved? Who would confess to something and then say "but I think I'll keep doing it"?? That sounds weird to me. And it sounds even weirder that a priest would just cut her off in the confessional and say that she shouldn't even try to get communion. That is strange.

[musturde]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1057968' date='Sep 6 2006, 03:41 PM']
when they get up to you, stop them and wisper in their ear "are you a Catholic who attends mass every sunday?". if they say no, don't give them communion.

dispensers of Holy Communion have a sacred duty to protect the Blessed Sacrament from being received by anyone who is not worthy.

Like the Apostles themselves said:

"But [i]let no one[/i] eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs.""

"But [i]let no one[/i] who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. "

it is up to the priest not to let someone receive if he knows that they should not receive.
[/quote]

Most priests don't do this. Why? The priest can never know if the person confessed just before Mass.(if he is Catholic)
Also, while training to be a Eucharistic Minister, they told me to give to whoever to recieve, even if you know the person's not Catholic. You're supposed to tell them afterwords that they shouldn't recieve. This is due to a couple of reasons, including the fact that with-holding the eucharist from everyone who doesn't deserve it during mass would cause a stir. Think about it, there are a lot of people who recieve when they really shouldn't and talking to each one about it while the Mass is going on isn't the best way of going at it.

Edited September 7, 2006 by musturde

[Era Might]

Jimmy Akin talks about this today:

[quote]First, let's start with a general, hermeneutical canon:

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

Laws that would restrict the faithful's right to receive Communion therefore must be interpreted strictly. If there is doubt as to the applicability of a law, the doubt must be read in favor of the free exercise of the right of the faithful.

Now let's hop forward in the Code:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

This canon is phrased negatively--that is, it says what sacred ministers cannot do. If a person meets the qualifications listed then a pastor cannot deny them the sacraments. Whether the canon is convertible such that a pastor can deny a person who seeks the sacraments at an inappropriate time, who is not properly disposed, or who is prohibited by law is not stated, but it seems clear that the minister can do so.

If the minister were to deny the girl Communion based on anything in this canon, it would have to be the on the grounds that the girl was not properly disposed, since her clothing has nothing to do with what time she is seeking to receive Communion and since there are no laws that expressly prohibit a person from receiving Communion based on the clothing they are wearing.

But there is a problem here. Actually, there are three.

First, the Code says further on:

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Whatever else it does, this canon lays additional stress on the gravity of reasons that a minister must have for denying Communion to one seeking it (at least during the context of a Mass). The fact that the earlier condition of proper disposition is omitted from this canon is at least suggestive that the minister should not be attempting to judge the dispositions of the communicant. He should not be trying to judge whether the person is displaying sufficient reverence, for example. He should only focus on whether the person is prohibited by law from receiving.

Thus he should be asking questions like, "Is this person baptized?", "Is this person a Catholic?", "Has this person been admitted to Holy Communion?", "Is this person under a penalty like excommunication?"--not "Does this person appear sufficiently reverent?", "Has this person fasted for an hour?", or even "Has this person been to confession?"

This is further undrescored by the following canon:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

You'll note that the condition needed to deny someone Communion in this canon on grounds of sin is not just that they are in mortal sin or have not been to confession since committing a mortal sin. It is that they are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin," which means a whole bunch of things--not only is the sin mortal (or at least grave), it must be publicly known, they must be continuing to do it (as opposed to having stopped it and just not gone to confession yet), and they must do so after some kind of warning (obstinately).

This indicates that, if a priest knows that a person does not have the proper disposition of being free of unconfessed mortal sins then he cannot deny the person Communion. For example, if he knows that the person recently committed secret sin X and that the person has not been absolved of it because just before Mass the person attempted confession to the priest in question and the priest denied him absolution because he wasn't actually contrite then the priest still cannot refuse him Communion because the sin was secret (not publicly known and thus not manifest) and thus he is not "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."

The conjunction of canons 912 and 915 thus suggests that, in the case of the Eucharist, the question of whether a person is properly disposed is to be judged by the communicant and not by the minister. He can deny you Communion if you are prohibited by law from receiving it (e.g., if you are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin) but it is not his job to judge whether you are sufficiently disposed. That determination is your job, not the ministers. (And, after all, do we really want extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion making that determination on our behalf?)

-[url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/spagheti_strap_.html"][u]Source[/u][/url]-[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Brother Roger has apparently been Catholic since 1972.[/quote]

No he hasn't. Read the wikipedia article

[CatholicCid]

[quote]He was given a Catholic funeral (by his own request) leaving some people to wonder if he had died as a Protestant or a Catholic.[/quote]


[quote]So when Cardinal Ratzinger celebrated Pope John Paul's funeral Mass in April, he was probably surprised to see Brother Roger being rolled up in a wheelchair at the head of the Communion line.

What to do? Cardinal Ratzinger had long defended the church's general prohibition on shared Communion. Special circumstances might allow for Communion, but the cardinal could hardly probe the matter in the middle of the pope's funeral.

In the end, he did what many pastors in local dioceses do in such circumstances: He gave Communion. What made it different was that the world was watching, and wondering. Immediately people began asking: Had Brother Roger converted to Catholicism? Or had Cardinal Ratzinger changed his mind about shared Communion?

The answer in both cases was no, according to Vatican officials interviewed over the summer.

Because the questions about Brother Roger's taking Communion would not go away, the Vatican made available in July an informal, unsigned statement of explanation.

The bottom line appeared to be: It was all an unfortunate mistake. Brother Roger, it seems, had been moved to a closer vantage point at the start of the Mass and had unwittingly ended up in the section reserved for those receiving Communion from the chief celebrant, Cardinal Ratzinger.

When he was wheeled forward, "it did not seem possible to refuse him the most Blessed Sacrament," the Vatican said.

The statement noted that Brother Roger shared the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It also said his situation was unique and stressed that his receiving Communion did not represent a generalized policy.[/quote]
[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504883.htm"]http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504883.htm[/url]

[Aloysius]

the person of whom I speak had been to confession many times with more liberal priests who just absolved her anyway. a priest ought to, at times, refuse to absolve a person if they do not appear sufficiently sorry or express a purpose of ammendment... "whose sins you retain are thus retained"

Era Might's artical backs up the position that a priest may use

as to whether the priest would be breaking the seal of confession, I am not sure. it did not come to that, this girl obeyed the priest's command not to present herself. I think that since it is all in the realm of the administration of the sacraments, and he is not using this information for anything other than the administration of sacraments, and he is not exposing the persons sin nor disadvantaging her in any means in the outside world, it would be permitted that a priest refuse communion because he recognized a person who made a failed confession of a mortal sin right before mass.

again, I could be wrong.

the main point stands that ministers can and should refuse communion to whomever they know with near absolute certainty are not properly disposed.

anyway, this was during a retreat when it would have been impossible for her to have received confession between her failed confession and mass.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1060320' date='Sep 10 2006, 03:27 PM']
the person of whom I speak had been to confession many times with more liberal priests who just absolved her anyway. a priest ought to, at times, refuse to absolve a person if they do not appear sufficiently sorry or express a purpose of ammendment... "whose sins you retain are thus retained"

Era Might's artical backs up the position that a priest may use

as to whether the priest would be breaking the seal of confession, I am not sure. it did not come to that, this girl obeyed the priest's command not to present herself. I think that since it is all in the realm of the administration of the sacraments, and he is not using this information for anything other than the administration of sacraments, and he is not exposing the persons sin nor disadvantaging her in any means in the outside world, it would be permitted that a priest refuse communion because he recognized a person who made a failed confession of a mortal sin right before mass.

again, I could be wrong.

the main point stands that ministers can and should refuse communion to whomever they know with near absolute certainty are not properly disposed.

anyway, this was during a retreat when it would have been impossible for her to have received confession between her failed confession and mass.
[/quote]

[quote]CCC 1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that [b]every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him.[/b] [b]He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.[/b]72 [b]This secret, which admits of no exceptions[/b], is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament. [/quote]

I think the penalty for breaking the Seal is excommunication?

And from Era's article:
This indicates that, if a priest knows that a person does not have the proper disposition of being free of unconfessed mortal sins then he cannot deny the person Communion. [b]For example, if he knows that the person recently committed secret sin X and that the person has not been absolved of it because just before Mass the person attempted confession to the priest in question and the priest denied him absolution because he wasn't actually contrite then the priest still cannot refuse him Communion because the sin was secret (not publicly known and thus not manifest) and thus he is not "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin."[/b]

and I agree, that ministers can and should refuse communion to whomever they know with near absolute certainty are not properly disposed, ie - someone publically excommunicated by the Church ect...

Edited September 10, 2006 by CatholicCid

[Ellenita]

Tony Blair attends Mass with his family (who are Catholic). He is anglican and was apparently receiving Communion until specifically asked not to by Cardinal Basil Hume. He replied at the time that as a matter of respect he would cease to do so but that he disagreed with Church teaching on this. He is not alone - many anglicans find the teaching of the church on this matter difficult to understand and adhere to, especially since of all the protestant churches, their teaching is as close as possible to Catholic understanding of the Blessed Sacrament.

It is strongly rumoured that Blair will convert as soon as he steps down as PM, and may even have entertained the idea earlier but a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury perhaps persuaded him to wait in order to prevent any constitutional crisis. There is still a great deal of anti-catholic feeling in the UK in terms of the establishment and an unwillingness to change the law with regard to the head of the nation and the Catholic church.