Monday, May 31, 2004
Crucial distinctions
Yet according to some critics, recent statements by bishops aimed at dissenting Catholic politicians breach the “wall of separation of church and state.” This is sheer nonsense. Set aside the question of whether such a separation of church and state was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It’s an infringement on the free exercise of religion to insist that Catholic pastors — or any other kind of pastors — must accept as full participants in their church politicians, or their supporters, who act contrary to the church’s central beliefs. So much for civil law. Does denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, or pro-same-sex marriage Catholic politicians violate Church law? Not according to the Vatican’s Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. At an April 2004 press conference to present a new document on the Sacred Liturgy Cardinal Arinze said pro-abortion politicians shouldn’t try to receive the Eucharist and priests ought not to give it to them. Cardinal Arinze’s position is no innovation. According to the Code of Canon Law, “Those who…obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (CIC 915).
...
Still, some Catholics object. One priest sermonized that since Jesus didn’t deny Judas the Eucharist at the Last Supper, bishops and priests have no business denying the Eucharist to Catholics, not even to obstinately persistent committers of manifest grave sin. The priest’s objection ignores a crucial distinction between what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when He alone knew of Judas’ sin, and what a pastor does in giving the Eucharist to one who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. It’s one thing for a pastor to allow someone to receive the Eucharist whom the pastor alone suspects of unrepentant grave sin. It’s another thing for a pastor to do so when everyone in the congregation knows the man to be unrepentant. In the former case, the recipient of the Eucharist brings judgment upon himself, as Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. In the latter case, both the recipient and the minister of the Eucharist risk leading others to sin.
...
Still, some Catholics object. One priest sermonized that since Jesus didn’t deny Judas the Eucharist at the Last Supper, bishops and priests have no business denying the Eucharist to Catholics, not even to obstinately persistent committers of manifest grave sin. The priest’s objection ignores a crucial distinction between what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when He alone knew of Judas’ sin, and what a pastor does in giving the Eucharist to one who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin. It’s one thing for a pastor to allow someone to receive the Eucharist whom the pastor alone suspects of unrepentant grave sin. It’s another thing for a pastor to do so when everyone in the congregation knows the man to be unrepentant. In the former case, the recipient of the Eucharist brings judgment upon himself, as Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. In the latter case, both the recipient and the minister of the Eucharist risk leading others to sin.
