Interview With an American Theologian in Rome

ROME, APRIL 26, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Moves by the Church to deny Holy Communion to staunchly pro-abortion Catholic politicians are growing.

At a Vatican press conference last Friday, Cardinal Francis Arinze said that politicians who unambiguously support abortion must not go to Communion and priests must deny them the sacrament.

Last January, then Bishop Raymond Burke of La Crosse, Wisconsin, issued a decree forbidding Catholic legislators who support abortion or euthanasia from receiving Communion.

To learn more about the canonical and pastoral implications of these declarations, ZENIT interviewed American theologian Father Thomas Williams, dean of the School of Theology of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

read the Interview

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.

There is no reason why anyone should ever be refused the Eucharist. No priest, no member of the hierarchy has the right to refuse anybody God's sanctifying grace through communion. Unless you refuse to believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, you should always recieve. In the Eucharist we encounter the same grace present in confession. It's not a different grace, or more grace, or a different class of grace, that's nonsense. Grace is grace. Kerry's stance on abortion is morally wrong, and I wish he'd reconsider his position, but if a priest refuses him communion, that priest is commiting the worst of sins, acting in a way that dininishes somebody's faith.

EC

-- E.C. (EC@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

There is no reason why anyone should ever be refused the Eucharist

Tell that to the canon lawyers: Canon Law 915 states:

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 27, 2004.

E.C...so your position is that there should be no rules whatsoever for prohibiting anyone from the Eucharist? That's nice, but the Church makes the rules, we don't..and the Church does have such rules. When people want to follow their own rules, they become protestants.I rather enjoy the fact that there is such a thing as canon law..it has already been debated over and over again by many erudite people with outstanding credentials who have more knowledge about Theology in their fingernail clippings than I do in my entire brain.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

read the interview at the top of the thread

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

Thanks to Bill for this great link. I'm glad to see the Church's position presented in such logical, matter-of-fact, according-to- cannon-law terms.

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 27, 2004.

I said if you believe in the real presence, you may recieve. That's a rule. Why would you say, "so you believe there shouldn't be any rules regarding the Eucharist?" My writing wasn't that complicated, why did you miss that?

By the way, the Church also asks us to form our own conscience when it comes to matters of faith and morals. If you're so big on rules, why would you so blatently ignore that one?

Theology reduced completely to rules and canon law destroys itself.

I haven't read the article yet, my comp sucks and for some reason its not allowing me to view the link. I haven't yet formed an opinion on John Kerry. I do believe his public position, statements, and "potential" power to allow the practice of abortion to continue do not fit the proper qualities of a communicant, but even still, no priest should have the authority to refuse the Eucharist to a believer? Let him decide if he wants to recieve. Now if he was a Catholic politician who publically states he only recieves Eucharist for votes, and doesn't believe in the real presence, then I believe the priest has the authority to refuse the communion.

Please don't speak down to me. Just tell me what you think.

EC

-- EC (EC@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

E.C...I am sorry that you felt I was speaking "down" to you..it was not my intention..and I did , indeed, tell you what I thought. As Catholics, it is not up to us to determine who shall be permitted to receive or not receive any of the sacraments..it is the Canon Law of the Church which does that. People who are divorced and re-married for instance, cannot receive the Eucharist. Now they can say to themselves all they want to that their "conscience" tells them this is OK, but they KNOW that the Church says it's NOT..so if they present themselves for communion, the priest has an OBLIGATION to refuse them. This subject has little to do with Senator Kerry, IMHO..he is merely a public figure who happens to be a more visble example of a much larger problem..the problem of folks who want to mold the Church to fit their lifestyle rather than change their lifestyle to adhere to their Church.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004.

E.C.

To receive Communion in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege. An individual who is obstinately in sin, as a politician who actively supports abortion is, CAN be refused the sacrament. Yes, people who are in the state of mortal sin are asked on their own consciences to abstain until they go make a GOOD confession. The problem with public sinners (such as those who cohabitate, unrepentant killers, heretics, etc) is that they commit a sacrilege against Our Lord every time they receive Him, and EVERYONE sees. The priest has not only the right, but also the duty to refuse Our Lord to the public sinner for three purposes... 1, obviously, to protect Our Lord from further offense. And 2, to prevent scandal among the faithful. Think about it. What good is it if all the priest can do is say "You can't do this..." but when people do not obey, all he can do is throw up his hands. The ones on the edge see the bad example and follow the easy road of the one who is not living as a Catholic. If the one who causes the scandal does not amend his ways, he does not deserve to be called a Catholic (I hope this second point made some sense. I think it sounds more like I’m rambling… :-) And 3, to bring the errant soul back to the faith. If someone does not believe a tenant of the faith, whether it be the Real Presence or that abortion is murder, their soul is in danger. This act of refusing Communion is meant as a wake up call to bring the errant soul back home (as also is excommunication). Yes, it is meant as a punishment and should not be taken any other way. But as are all just punishments, it is an act of love.

Now on to your point regarding the type or level of grace in Communion and Confession. Each sacrament does confer a different type of grace. Confession confers sanctifying grace to the worthy penitent who is in the state of mortal sin. The Holy Eucharist confers sanctifying grace, but in order to receive worthily, one has to already be without a mortal sin on ones soul. If one does receive unworthily, he does not receive the strength that is ordinarily conferred. He actually places his soul in further jeopardy by committing yet another grave sin, putting himself even further from his Creator.

Pax Steve

-- Steve Y (stephen.yavorski@wpafb.af.mil), April 28, 2004.

I'm starting to understand that, in the same way a characteristic of God is to be "hidden," or in the same way Jesus sometimes "stalled" when it came to people who were big on signs and wonders, maybe refusing the Eucharist is done in the same Spirit how Jesus tested those around him in order to bring out a more authentic faith.

But wait...I have an uncle who got a divorce. He cheated on his wife, and she left him. They got a divorce and he has since remarried in civil courts. He goes to mass every week but never recieves cause he says the Church doesn't allow him to. he even told me that he goes to confession monthly. Why can't he ever recieve again? I know of a retired priest living in my diocese that celebrates mass for himself in the rectory. He was involved in a pedophile scandal but the Church settled out of court and let him retire. Why can HE say mass for himself AND recieve?!? he even publically asked for forgiveness from that parish, and to allow him into the community. This doesn't seem right to me. Why can the priest recieve the Eucharist but not my uncle?

EC

-- EC (EC@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004.

Because your uncle is still living in sin. If he leaves his current "wife" (and this is publicly known), repentance of his public sin is seen by all. He could then receive Communion. After all, he can say he is sorry all he wants, but if he has no intention of leaving his adulterous relationship, no true contrition exists (ie. no firm purpose of amendment, which is a prerequisite for absolution in the confessional).

The priest, on the other hand, committed a horrendous crime. Personally, I think he should be held criminally accountable for his actions to fulfill his debt to society. However, this is obviously a moot point. What has happened in his case is that he was removed from the occasion of sin of pedophilia (he can no longer be around children, and therefore in no longer the head of a parish). His confessor must have seen the signs of true contrition, because this priest can now say Mass (which necessitated the reception of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament).

This is just my take on the situations given to me. I have answered generally, although there might be additional mitigating circumstances, which would change my answers. As always, each case is different and must be handled according to the specific circumstances of the problem. Oh, by the way. Sorry if my responses seem a little dry or clinical. I really do have a much better personality in real life ; ).

Pax, Steve

-- Steve Y (stephen.yavorski@wpafb.af.mil), April 28, 2004.

E.C. Your Uncle is submitting to canon law by recognizing that he is prohibited from the Eucharist..There are folks who are in the same situation that he is in who defy the Church and take the stance that "I don't agree with canon law, therefore my conscience is clear, so I can receive the Eucharist". My point that I was making above was that as a Catholic, a person doesn't have that choice. ..a divorced and remarried couple who have applied for annulment of their original marriages and have agreed to live as brother and sister, met with their priest and confessed, repented, etc. can then both receive the sacraments. I will pray for your Uncle and the woman in his life that they will consider doing that.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004.

The local tribunal refuses to give them an annulment. Also, he has already had children with his present wife. The Church is putting my uncle in a position where after the sin of adultery, he will forever be punished, even after confession and still goinf to mass every Sunday, he will forever be refused the Eucharist. he has repented, but will still be refused the Eucharist. you don't see the problem there?

this priest in a way, cheated on his wife the Church, and comitted not only one of the most disgusting sins, but comitted a crime! once a priest always a priest right? once married always married right? well, the priest is lucky, its not like a marriage between persons, the Church can simply stash him away and never see him. my uncle's wife understandably, fell out of love with this man who betrayed her. his wife can;t simply stash him away like the church does with its priests.

you don't see the problem here?

EC

-- EC (EC@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

To repent means, among other things, that you do not intend on committing the sin again. I don't think your uncle has repented if he is still married to his original wife (in the eyes of God) and is living with another woman and intends on continuing to live with the other woman and have sexual relations with that woman. That is called the sin of adultary. Your uncle intends on continuing an adulterous relationship every time he steps out of a confessional, so he has not repented.

I have no idea if the priest intends on continuing to molest children, but if he does not, and truely repented, then he can recieve the eucharist.

There is NO SIN so grave that God will not forgive it if you truely repent and indend on not committing it again.

Note though, that the graver the sin, the longer in Pergatory you have as your temporal punishment (this assumes your sin is absolved). In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

I'm starting to see your point. But, hypothetically, lets say he were not to have met this woman and had children. He certainly would not be granted an annulment, right?...and he'd still not be able to recieve the Eucharist, right? The former marriage is lost b/c his wife wouldn't give him another chance, and then even if he made a good confession he could not recieve the Eucharist? That really blows.

I understand that the priest, as long as he has repented and does not intend to molest again, may say mass for himself and recieve Eucharist. But why can't we be more compasionate to those whose marriages have failed? I understand that today we live in a society with high divorce rates, people who give up too soon and refuse to see the sacredness of marriage, but the fact is, sometimes people make mistakes and cannot make marriages work. Is not the priesthood sacred as well? The situation of the Church and its priests is different. Mistakes by priests can be forgiven and they may continue making it work, but there are more factors involved when two people commit themselves to marriage, unfortunately it doesnt always work. The priesthood is easier to perpetuate because he can make a mistake and not have the church "leave him" like a spouse would. Why can't the the Church be more accepting and compasionate and give annulments, carefully and where its due, to marriages who have failed?

EC

-- EC (EC@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

E.C. the Catholic Church does not teach that civil divorce prevents anyone from receiving any of the sacraments. So if your Uncle's wife had divorced him, and he had never re-married, he would be free to receive the Eucharist, after repenting of his sin of adultery (the adultery you said caused his wife to leave him in the first place).Since you said he applied for an annulment of that marriage and it was not approved by a Tribunal,then he would still be considered married to his wife by the Church..he would be called to live a chaste life unless she was willing to reconcile with him. Marriage is a sacrament..a sacred covenant involving not only the two people, but also God. The only time the Church grants an annulment is when it has determined that there was no real marriage to begin with, not when there WAS a true marriage which later failed.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

oh my goodness.... oh, my, my, my. I am so glad I am where I am with The Lord today. I attended Catholic school for nine years, K-8th grade. In 4th grade I refused to pray to Mary the mother of Jesus. Now that I am 40 years old, looking back I see more clearer why God allowed that to happen in my life. When I refused to pray to Mary I was questioned by the nun's. My answer was simply why should I pray to Mary when I have a direct line to Jesus Himself? They had no understanding of this. I was then directed rather forcefully to the confessional... (lol) oh, my, my, my! My answer to that one was why should I tell a priest who I dont know the things I have done wrong, when I have a direct line to Jesus Himself? LOL oh my, my, my! My parents got a letter on that one and I was thus no longer a catholic child, and could no longer take communion with my classmates, nor was I allowed to kneel on those padded kneelers in the pews... well, it hurt me to see my parents have to pay a higher tuition for me, however they kept me in the catholic school, and I graduated five years after this display of my belief. I do know that over the years I realize that never having communion again since the fourth grade was not the worst thing because the most important issue is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. I believe not as the catholic's believe... I believe communion is to be done in remembering the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin. I think 'Religion' makes things so very complicated. Jesus said it so very clear "whosoever believeth in me should not perish but have everlasting life" why do people have to make Jesus' gift of salvation so complicated? Just believe!

-- kathryn mc kinney (oceanwave251@aol.com), May 25, 2004.

Dear Kathryn,
You're describing yourself as a free-lance Christian; independent of the flock.

Many others think they also can serve God without His commandments. It's all up to themselves; they believe their own ideas carry all the authority necessary.

To you and your kind of lambs, there is no flock anywhere, no shepherd in this life they must follow. You must know better than our Church; there wasn't any need for apostles, nor even for the Gospel. Because you only need Kathryn's version of salvation.

This is the kind of attitude Satan had. He was not about to serve. Neither are you. You can demand anything of God and it's yours.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 25, 2004.

kathryn,

sorry, I'm not buying your story. You say nor was I allowed to kneel on those padded kneelers in the pews. This is a hard one to swallow.

I was thus no longer a catholic child...well, it hurt me to see my parents have to pay a higher tuition for me

So they declared you, a 4th grader, to be a non-catholic and thus charged your catholic parents a higher tuition for you? Sorry again if I'm wrong, but call me skeptical.

At any rate, eugene is correct. You are all alone out there. Jesus told us to behold our mother (Mary) and he gave us the apostles and the church and the rock (Peter). Why do you think you have any semblance of love for Jesus in you right now. It came from Jesus himself, passed on to the apostles and to the Catholic Church, taught through the centuries.

Jesus said it so very clear "whosoever believeth in me should not perish but have everlasting life"

Why then, do you think the apostles constantly were baptizing people? From EWTN: "The Greek word in John 3:16 refers to a continuing process. It is not a matter of believing once, but believing and living out the beliefs. It is also important, when interpreting any verse of Scripture, to look at the rest of the Scriptures. Throughout the Scriptures, Jesus is telling us to DO things to bring about our salvation. He tells us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, to follow the Beatitudes, to not be attached to material things (Sermon on the Mount), to feed the hungry and otherwise attend to those in need (Matthew 25) and so on. Most importantly, He tells us to eat His flesh and drink His blood."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 26, 2004.

Kathy said she has a ''direct line to Jesus.''

It is in Holy Communion the Christian has the most direct line to Our Holy Redeemer. Not merely in the privacy of a person's mind.

Our Lord told the story of the Pharisee and the publican. (Luke 18:10) Both went to the temple and prayed. ''The Pharisee stood and began to pray thus within himself: ''Oh God, I thank thee that I am not like the rest of men,'' --That one believed he was using his direct line to God. But he was not.

You, Kathryn, decided to take the direct line, and you abandoned it. The Holy Eucharist gives our souls the actual presence within us, of Jesus Christ. He is there, in your heart and aware of you, your thoughts, your love for Him. Because you are there doing exactly what He taught you to do through His holy apostles. They started our Church. You have abandoned it. You exchanged Gold for Lead.

To have Jesus truly in your heart (I trust that's your most ardent desire) you must return to the True Faith. Jesus loves you and misses you; He calls for you. --Return to Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 26, 2004.