For some U.S. bishops to deny and other U.S. bishops to not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a source of disunity and confusion for the entire universal Church and a grave scandal against the faithful worldwide.
The Democrat National Convention of the pro-abortion party of the United States is underway within the Archdiocese of Denver from Saturday, August 23 through Friday, August 29, 2008.
More than 50,000 persons, including Democrat Party elected politicians, party members, delegates, and media, are in attendance at the weeklong event at various venues throughout the city. Many of these visiting folks are pro-abortion Catholics – or Catholics in name only. Ironically, the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is posting a billboard near the Convention Center that says, "Keep Religion Out of Politics."
Many are wondering if Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver is prepared spiritually to take advantage of such a momentous teaching moment? Here's why.
It's well known that the Denver Archbishop has failed to say that he will implement Canon Law's canon 915, a clearly taught discipline against persons who obstinately persist in grave, manifest [public] sin, such as the murder of the unborn child and infanticide. This is a moral stand, not a political one.
Let's take the Democrat Catholic governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, for an example, who lives and works in the Denver area. Archbishop Chaput has warned him publicly for almost two years, has written columns denouncing Ritter's legislations, and I assume the Archbishop has written him personal catechetical appeals.
What is so morally offensive about Governor Bill Ritter that Archbishop Chaput should deny him Holy Communion? Let us look at Ritter's record to date.
Shortly after taking office, Ritter restored state funding for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, signed legislation that requires all Roman Catholic hospitals to distribute emergency contraception to rape survivors, and pledged that he will not seek to appoint judges who oppose abortion rights. To date, Ritter has no anti-abortion legislation on his agenda. Ritter also has made it clear that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, he would veto legislation that is "too restrictive" against abortions in Colorado. Ritter also supports sodomite marriage. The Catholic Church condemns all of Ritter's beliefs.1
When a public pro-abortion person disregards a bishop's directive to stay away and comes to Holy Communion "of his own volition," and the Minister of the Eucharist gives the Host to such a person, the bishop is doing evil [CIC, n.1755] because he has not instructed his Ministers to deny. The Denver Archbishop refuses to walk the talk.2 He failed to teach his flock that these persons must be denied Holy Communion.
Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail. This is not correct. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion. This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings3 regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away.
Canon Law also places the responsibility on the minister — 'ne admittantur' — who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.
Therefore, if pro-abortion Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi approaches the altar in Denver to receive the Eucharist, the Ministers of the Eucharist, including "ordinary" and "extra-ordinary,"4 must deny Holy Communion themselves, regardless that their bishop has failed to instruct them to do so.
Archbishop Chaput in May of 2004 in his regular column for the Denver Catholic Register, wrote:
The current media turmoil over "denying Catholic politicians Communion" is filled with ignorance about the Church and the real meaning of the Eucharist. Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal. But the Church always expects Catholics who are living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the Church — whether they're highly visible officials or anonymous parishioners — to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion.
All right, Archbishop. What are you waiting for? Isn't murder [abortion] and sodomy grave enough and extraordinary enough to deny Holy Communion?
This is not a political decision, dear Archbishop, but a moral decision, for all times, not just for election times. It is not a sudden decision of piety, as you say in your column, but of concern for the eternal salvation of souls of persons who refuse to abandon their pro-abortion, pro-sodomite views. Abortion is murder and evil actions have consequences and a bishop is called to "govern" and "correct" using the discipline of canon 915.
If Archbishop Chaput's statement and action in regard to Governor Ritter is morally correct, this would mean that priests in the Denver Archdiocese, and everywhere else for that matter, should give Holy Communion without question to anyone approaching the Altar, to people publicly professing beliefs contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church or publicly living lives at serious variance with the teachings of the Church. This would include homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm and arm, the divorced and "remarried" without benefit of annulment, directors of Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, et al.
Let's ask this question of the Archbishop – if you were distributing Holy Communion and in front of you stood a known serial killer with a severed bloody head in one hand and a bloody machete in the other hand, would you give him the Eucharist? And after you denied the serial killer you next had standing before you the known pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi. Would you also deny her? Murder is murder, isn't it Archbishop?
It is well for us to remember that in his memorandum entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said without ambiguity:
"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."5
In contrast to Archbishop Chaput, 15 U.S. Archbishops and Bishops6 have publicly stated that they would deny Holy Communion to such persons. Of this list of 15 Bishops, is included Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Does the disunited U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops now teach that it is correct for Bishop Sheridan to deny Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist in his diocese while Archbishop Chaput, in his Archdiocese, just 75 minutes away, allows his ministers to give evil Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist?
For some U.S. bishops to deny and other U.S. bishops to not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a source of disunity and confusion for the entire universal Church and a grave scandal against the faithful worldwide.
This leads the common observer to wonder why a group of 268 active U.S. bishops, including 25 Archbishops and 11 Cardinals, should even pretend to exist as a united Conference when they cannot agree on the most fundamental and crucial teaching of the Church, that abortion is murder.7
Recently, in the prestigious canon law journal, specifically the 2007 edition of the Pontificia Università Gregoriana Periodica De Re Canonica, volume 96, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke wrote an important essay entitled, “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.” In it, he suitably and accurately named three of the 253 active, obstinate bishops who refused to obey the Church’s canon law c. 915.8
Furthermore, on May 9, 2007, Pope Benedict reiterated lofty and long-held Church teachings at 35,000 feet above sea level while in flight to Brazil, agreeing with the Mexican bishops’ recent warning of automatic "tolerati" excommunication9 or "Latæ sententiæ"10 for Catholic persons who supported, legislated, or promoted abortion [cf. formal accomplices, c.1329; cf. EV 62B]. Benedict said the teaching was, in fact, the law of the Church:
Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon Law11 which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the Body of Christ. [The Mexican bishops] did nothing new, surprising, or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church . . . which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment . . . [Politicians who support abortion] will get the penalty of excommunication. This is not revenge, it is just what happens in the case of serious sins.12
Pope Benedict and the Bishops who teach in union with the Pope speak loud and clear what the church's priorities are for voting as a Catholic. They teach that one may not consider other human conditions without giving first predominant consideration of the five most important conditions of the right to life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same-sex marriage.
To send a note of encouragement to Archbishop Chaput to enforce canon 915, you may email him personally at: shepherd.
Endnotes
1. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 'Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life' 11/24/02 states in No.4: "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them"[Evangelium vitae, n.73].
2. Shortly after the CDF's November, 2002 'Doctrinal Note' on Catholics in political life, in the Congregation of Divine Worship's December, 2002 Notitiae edition we read from its prefect Cardinal Estevez: "Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in Canon 213, is 'the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments.' In view of the law that 'sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them' (canon 843 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared."
3. Pope John Paul II, in 'Ecclesia De Eucharistia' states that only the faithful who have confessed grave sins in the Sacrament of Penance may receive Holy Communion, and that those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" must be denied Communion.
4. This loss of the ‘fullness of unity’ in teaching means that most ‘ordinary ministers of Holy Communion’ [cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons] and EMHCs [laymen who are duly installed by the bishops as ‘extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion’] are handing Jesus over to be crucified once again.
5. Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to an earlier Vatican document, "Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics," nos. 3-4, 6/00.
6. Revised 8/14/08: Archbishop Raymond L Burke, Bishop Emeritus, St. Louis; Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Lincoln NE; Bishop Joseph A. Galante, Camden, NJ; Bishop John M. Smith, Trenton, NJ; Bishop Michael Sheridan, Colorado Springs, CO; Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR; Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, Evansville, IN; Bishop Robert J. Baker, Birmingham, AL; Bishop Peter J. Jugis, Bishop, Charlotte, NC; Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo, ND; Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, Phoenix, AZ; Bishop Paul S. Coakley, D.D., Salina, KS.
Retired Bishops:
Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus, Corpus Christi, TX; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop, Atlanta, GA, Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop Emeritus, Amarillo, TX.
7. Cf. endnote #4. Also, Pontius Pilate told Jesus that "It was your own people and the chief priests who have handed you over to me" [Jn. 18:35]. And Jesus responded to Pilate that "he who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin" [Jn. 19:11].
8. Specifically Archbishop Burke named Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles [cf footnote n. 4 of Periodica De Re Canonica essay], Cardinal Theodore McCarrick [cf footnote n. 5 of same essay], the former Archbishop of Washington, D.C.; and McCarrick’s successor, Archbishop Donald Wuerl [cf footnote n. 87 of same essay], affectingly called “McWuerl” by some.
9. The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with the knowledge of the penalty attached and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed [Canon 1329]. Any person who promotes, legislates, and supports abortion is clearly a formal accomplice. Clearly, U.S. Catholic politicians have been enlightened to the facts of excommunication by this time by their bishops and Catholic laity.
10. ‘Automatically without sentence.’ A censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime. This excommunication is inflicted by the perpetrator on himself…by his very act.
11. Canon Law is law; it is not a suggestion. Canon Law 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." For a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion legislation is a "manifest grave sin." According to Code of Canon Law, a bishop has not only the right but also the duty to stop a grave sinner from committing sacrilege and scandal. Canon 1369 tells bishops: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who…gravely harms public morals….” The Church has an innate and proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal sanctions (canon 1311). Diocesan bishops as well as the Pope possess legislative power, and the Code of Canon Law (canons 1315 and 1318) expressly recognizes their right to enact laws for their dioceses.
12. Excommunication is a "medicinal penalty" [Canon 1312]; it is fundamentally oriented toward bringing Catholics to repent of certain seriously wrong behaviors. Meant not as punishment, but rather to bring people to wake up to what they're doing and the seriousness of it. The Pope has the right, the obligation, and the duty to enforce the moral law, which is superior to all municipal, state, federal, or even international law.
Unfortunately, since the 1960s the Catholic Church has operated more like a political party than a monolithic religious institution. It has certain broad, "universal" principles and a recognized leader, but it leaves the implementation of its policies to the vagaries of local dioceses. In its desire to become socially relevant, the Catholic Church — at least in America — has become largely irrelevant as an institution that stands for a unique set of principles. If you don’t like what one priest tells you, just shop around until you find another who will give you a more lenient interpretation of Catholic doctrine.
The Pope only represents Catholics, not the "universal church." "Catholic" means universal, of course, but notwithstanding the claims made by Catholicism, the universal church is comprised of all who call upon the name of the Lord in faith.
Dear Ma'am,
While I found your article well written, and I agree with much of what you wrote, I take exception to the assertion that extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must, on their own authority, deny the Eucharist to "manifest sinners" or those giving "public scandal": [Therefore, if pro-abortion Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi approaches the altar in Denver to receive the Eucharist, the Ministers of the Eucharist, including "ordinary" and "extra-ordinary,"4 must deny Holy Communion themselves, regardless that their bishop has failed to instruct them to do so.]
I was an altar server for a decade at various parishes in four states, from ages 8 to 18; and I have served as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion at various times while deployed over the past two decades. Setting aside momentarily the uncharitable idea that a lay minister would deny the Eucharist to any who *appear* to worthily and reverently approach the Eucharist, it is unreasonable to expect extraordinary ministers to recognize on sight, and without specific instruction from the pastor or bishop, the "manifest sinners" in the congregation. At no time during any training has any priest ever stated or implied to me that the lay minister has any authority to do other than what the priest has requested – distribute the Eucharist. The extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is called to assist the priest – my card from the Archdiocese of the Military Services specifies that I may perform certain acts of assistance to the priest such as assist with distribution of Holy Communion at Mass, and bring Holy Communion to the hospitalized or homebound, at the specified location only. The card further states that "no other authorization is implied or granted".
Were extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to act without direction from the bishop or priest, such individualistic determinations by lay ministers would lead to arbitrary denial of the sacrament; and would this not then lead inexorably to unnecessary divisions in the Church? And who is the lay minister to decide, on arrogated authority, that any person who appears to reverently come to Holy Communion has in fact unworthily approached the sacrament? Isn't it presumptive arrogance to substitute a lay minster's individual judgment for that of the bishop or priest?
Certainly all the bishops would agree with Archbishop Chaput that "denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter…". I respectfully submit, then, that it is incumbent on those ill-disposed to the reception of the Eucharist to refrain from approaching the sacrament, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:27-29; and in the event that circumstances make further action needful, it is the responsibility of the bishops and their priests, to declaratively specify those who should either not present themselves for the sacrament, or should otherwise be denied the Eucharist by the Church. Lay extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion should refrain from acting independently of ecclesial direction.
yours respectfully,
Matthew
This Catholic fell away when the American church and Pope supported the idea of open borders. Catholic Charities lost a major annual donation as a result due to their role in empowering illegal immigration.
The abortion issue is a difficult one for both sides of the issue. Using religion to force a point of view rather than to persuade toward a viewpoint demeans the religion. More important to me is the forcing of my beliefs on everyone else. Do I like abortion? Categorically NO!
Mickey G.,
In recognition of the scientific fact that life begins at conception, the Catholic church condemns abortion, just as the Church condemns the taking of life in the act of murder. Yet, for some reason, you seem to indicate that the Church should try to "persuade" in the first instance while I am pretty sure that you would agree that the Church should condemn murder outright. To me, your stand is curious.
Further, the Church does not force its beliefs ove everyone else as you have stated. Rather, one makes a choice whether to belong to the Church or not.
Abortion is one of the non-negotiable beliefs of the Church. Those who cannot adhere to this are free to start their own church…no coercion, involved.
It is also fair to note that the Church would deny communion to an unrepentant murderer/adulterer if that information was proffered. We all sin. The trick is asking for genuine forgiveness. In the case of a public figure contributing to the murder of the unborn, the unrepentant aspect is known to all. Therein lies the difference.
[...] In her insightful article Barbara Kralis rebukes the archbishop of Denver for refusing to follow canon 915. She poses the following scenario: Let's ask this question of the Archbishop – if you were distributing Holy Communion and in front of you stood a known serial killer with a severed bloody head in one hand and a bloody machete in the other hand, would you give him the Eucharist? And after you denied the serial killer you next had standing before you the known pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi. Would you also deny her? Murder is murder, isn't it Archbishop? [...]
Mountain Man,
The Catholic Church is the Universal Church. The word "Catholic" is derived from the Greek Katholou, which means universal. One need not be Catholic to be a good Christian, but denominations outside of the Catholic tradition are, by very definition, not members of the Universal Church.
Jeff,
I believe I said that in my post: "'Catholic' means universal, of course…"
I continued, "…but notwithstanding the claims made by Catholicism…" I know that the Catholic church claims that it is the one true church. The whole point of my post was to contest that claim.
"By definition," which means by Catholic definition. The Catholic church is wrong, all believers comprise the universal church.
MM,
The Catholic Church has refered to itself as the Universal Church since its inception. When Luther and the other Protestants walked away from the Catolic Church, they walked away from the Universal Church: the Catholic and universal Church are one and the same. Protestants cannot co-opt for themselves the name of the ancient Church after separating themselves from it.
Clearly all professing Christians of all denominations are members of the Body of Christ, but the Universal Church is a specific entity, a proper noun which refers exclusively to the ancient Holy Catholic Church.
Quit nitpicking.
I said universal church, not Universal Church.
The Church damages itself when its beliefs and edicts mean nothing. Politicians who confiscate my money to turn it over to Planned Parenthood have no business at the rail. Any bishop who refuses to enforce the rules is failing in his pastoral mission and maybe should find another vocation.
No one is nitpicking. Words mean things. You cannot have two entities called the Universal Church. If Protestants wish to retain that title, they should rejoin it.
When Teddy Roosevelt became dissilusioned with the Republican Party he left it and formed a new party called the Progressives, he did not form a new party also called the Republican Party. That would have been silly, no?
universal church… Universal Church. Are you tracking yet?
Ephesians 1:22
"And He has put all things under His feet and has appointed Him the universal and supreme Head of the church [a headship exercised throughout the church]…" (Ampl. version)
Neither I, nor the Universal Catholic church deny the truth of the passage you quoted above. This passage refers to the very Church, established by the Lord of Lords and entrusted by Him to St. Peter and the Apostles (and which was handed down by them in succession to the Bishops throughout the ages) from which Luther, Calvin, and the other Protestants walked away.
Once again, one cannot leave the Church, then appropriate its name.
universal church… Universal Church. Still not tracking.
Only one church, only one Lord who is head. Sorry.
You are exactly right: One Church with Christ at its head. Its name is the Catholic Church. Converts are welcome. God Bless You.
Let me try another analogy since you didn't pick up what I laid down with my Republican-Progressive example: Instead of using the name Mountain Man in your future posts, why don't you just call yourself jeff osonitsch? Since you wouldn't be using caps its all good! What's in a name anyway? You can even share my social security number while you're at it. Of course you'll have to write it using Roman numerals otherwise people might get confused.
All faithful Christians are brothers in the Body of Christ and will share in the fruits of our Lord's salvific grace. All the Catholic Church contends, as do all other Christian denominations, is that its doctrine is closest to the Truth, thus the surest path to salvation. It does not claim to be the only one.
What part of this don't you understand, and why do you insist on diputing with me? Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord is saved, and part of the one true church. I really don't care about the claims of Catholicism.
This article, in its entirety was a defense – based on Catholic doctrine – of innocent human life, and the controversy surrounding the administering of the Holy Eucharist to Catholic politicians who oppose the doctrinal and eternal magisterial teachings on the issue.
Being a pro-life Christian, you could have left it alone, but you did not. Instead you decided to make a gratuitous and entirely beside-the-point statement against my Church. I, as a Ctholic, simply defended the teachings of the Church.
If you don't care about the claims of Catholicism you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
This article is about Catholic doctrine and teaching. Are you suggesting that if anyone disagrees they cannot comment?
I disagree with Catholic doctrine on this matter. The Catholic Church misuses the term universal, as do you. You assert that The Catholic Church is the "original" church, and all other Christians abandoned the one true church. That is also wrong, and I showed you why.
Like every church, the Catholic Church gets some things right and some things wrong.
I never suggested you could not comment if you disagree. You asked why I "insist on disputing with you." I explained that you made a comment on which I disagreed, so I made a comment of my own.
How exactly did you show me I and the billions of Catholics over the ages are wrong. You said exactly nothing logical.
There was one logic proof posited here, let me repeat: If Catholic = Universal, then The Catholic Church = the Universal Church.
Those who left the Catholic Church cannot claim to be members of it.
[...] Will Denver Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915? Intellectual Conservative – Phoenix,AZ,USA Ironically, the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" is posting a billboard near the Convention Center that says, "Keep Religion Out of Politics. … See all stories on this topic [...]