Denying Holy Communion: A Case History
12/20/04
The controversy over denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion
politicians has generated a lot of heat and very little light. Sacred
Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church have spoken clearly on the
subject, but some either do not understand what has been said, or
worse, have chosen to ignore it.
In This Article...
The Shepherd's Task
A Scandal to the Faithful
A Penalty Imposed
The Shepherd's Task
Saint Paul said: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the
cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the
Lord. A man should examine himself first, only then should he eat of
the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself" (1 Cor
11:27-29). The prohibition found in the declarations of the
Magisterium is based on this divine revelation. The Church is not free
to enact positive ecclesiastical laws which would oppose this revealed
doctrine.
"Therefore it is the shepherd's task not to keep silent, and it is
your task, even if we the shepherds are silent, to hear the words of
the Shepherd from the Scriptures" (St. Augustine, Sermo 46, 20-21).
The Magisterium repeats the injunction of Saint Paul in Canon 916 of
the Code of Canon Law: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not
to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior
sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is
no opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition, including the
intention of confessing as soon as possible." The Code of Canon Law of
the Eastern Churches has a parallel canon: "Those who are publicly
unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist" (can.
712).
According to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in that
Council's June 24, 2000 Declaration on the question, "Should a priest
deny Communion to a Catholic who is an obstinate public sinner?" the
answer is "Yes." The reason cited by the Pontifical Council is, "In
effect, the reception of the body of Christ when one is publicly
unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it
is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the
faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion" (no.
1).
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Code of Canon Law clearly
states that "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" (can. 915). Significantly, in the light of the current
controversy in the United States, the Pontifical Council further
stated:
Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the
canon's substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the
Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the
centuries, are clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the
wording of the law (cf. can. 17) with the improper use of the very
same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or
emptying them of their substance.
"Relativism" is a philosophical term describing a theory that
conceptions of truth and moral values are not based on objectivity and
the absolute, but instead are baseless and grounded on that which is
relative and subjective to the persons or groups holding them.
I suggest that those who maintain that they cannot support the
refusing of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians because the
time of the distribution of Holy Communion is a time of unity in the
Body of Christ are indeed relativizers of the objectively established
precepts. Further, their belief that it would therefore be wrong to
make it a time of confrontation and discord by refusing Holy Communion
to anyone is indeed relativizing the precepts, but moreover, emptying
them of their substance as well.
Those who relativize the belief that it would be wrong to make the
time of receiving Holy Communion a time of confrontation and discord
are guilty of relativizing the objectively based precepts which are
based on Ultimate Truth Himself. He is the Way, the Truth, and the
Life. To relativize or compromise the objectively based precepts is to
directly relativize Truth Himself!
The position of those who are opposed to the implementation of Canon
915 for the reasons just cited is untenable. First, because most
priests have had to refuse Holy Communion to someone at one time or
another for reasons having nothing to do with that person's beliefs.
No priest, upon seeing a person standing before him whom he recognizes
as having profaned the host on another occasion would give the host to
that person again.
Similarly, most priests, on recognizing that the person standing
before him is not a Christian, would not give that person Holy
Communion but would simply give the person a blessing and ask the
person to see him after Mass. To do otherwise in either case would
gravely scandalize the congregation.
Prudent Application Does Not Equal Non-Application!
Some have indicated their unwillingness to act under the provisions of
Canon 915 because they say that they are not in a position to judge
another person's thinking or conscience on the subject of abortion,
euthanasia and fetal experimentation. This is another example of
relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance. This is
another example of attacking the Truth Himself, Who is the objective
foundation for these precepts, and Who is the Holy Communion being
attacked!
"When you hear Me say anything, you shall warn them for Me. If I tell
the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to
dissuade the wicked man from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but
I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked
man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his
way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself" (Ez
33:7-9).
The Pontifical Council clearly stated that "The phrase ‘and others who
obstinately persist in manifest grave sin' is clear and must be
understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render
the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:
a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of
communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;
b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective
situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the
individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other
requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being
necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the
Church.
c) The manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.
There can be no doubting that most of the major political figures who
are on record publicly as favoring abortion on demand, euthanasia,
cloning or fetal experimentation qualify under those three conditions
for censure. They qualify for being denied Holy Communion because they
have a direct impact on the moral or immoral structure of a
government, inasmuch as they are the direct agents in matters
pertaining to legislation which forms a structure of sin, or a
structure of goodness.
It is true that the Pontifical Council stated that: "Naturally,
pastoral prudence would strongly suggest (emphasis added) the
avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion." Those who
seize upon this statement to justify their refusal to act under the
provisions of Canon 915 relativize the Canon and rob it of all its
force. Note that the Pontifical Council used the word suggest rather
than the word demand.
Prudence as defined by Aristotle is the virtue which deals with
contingency and gray areas (cf. Nicomachean Ethics 1144a-1145a). What
prudence strongly suggests in one contingent scenario might be totally
different from another contingent scenario. In an ideal world, we
would always avoid confrontational instances. We are obviously not in
an ideal world.
There is no need for public denial of Holy Communion. There is no need
to reduce the need for public denial of Holy Communion to the
worst-case scenario: the minister of Holy Communion loudly refusing to
give the Host to a loudly protesting pro-abortion politician in front
of a church full of people. The implementation of Canon 915 can be
carried out in complete privacy and confidentiality.
A Scandal to the Faithful
Here is a real case history of implementation of the Church's
prohibition against politicians who are publicly notorious for their
promotion of abortion, euthanasia, cloning or fetal experimentation.
In 1993 a state representative, a member of the House of
Representatives of the State of Texas Legislature who maintained a
domicile in the Diocese of Corpus Christi, gave an interview to the
Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the major newspaper in South Texas. The
paper profiled the state representative on two full pages.
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times has always been, and remains today, a
strongly pro-abortion newspaper. The wife of the founding publisher
was one of the founders of Planned Parenthood of Corpus Christi. The
paper was eager to reveal to the world that the state representative,
who had voted in the Legislature for pro-abortion legislation was a
"practicing Catholic."
In the course of the interview, as reported in the newspaper, the
state representative admitted being a practicing Roman Catholic who
felt justified in supporting abortion on demand.
Recognizing the scandal to the faithful which the publication of this
interview would cause, I realized that it was my duty, as Ordinary of
the Diocese of Corpus Christi, to write to the state representative. I
pointed out to the state representative that grave scandal had been
given in that interview. I proposed a meeting to discuss the matter
with a view to obtaining a retraction which could be published.
First Comes the Teaching
Here is the text of that letter:
June 3, 1993
Dear -------,
I recently read in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Local News Section
(May 20, 1993), a story entitled "Abortion Amendment is Defeated" in
which you are quoted as having said that you consider yourself "a very
good Catholic." If you are a Catholic I am confident that you will
understand that I am writing to you as the Bishop of the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Corpus Christi, and therefore as your pastor.
I am most disturbed to learn about your views regarding abortion. I am
writing this letter to offer you an explanation why no Catholic can be
for abortion in any manner and be a Catholic in good standing. The
arguments against abortion can be seen from two perspectives, from
natural law and from faith. Natural law refers to the fact that when
God created us, He made unwritten laws which bind all human beings in
virtue of our nature regardless of any particular beliefs they may
have. From natural law we have the norm "Thou shalt not kill," which
is binding upon all citizens in any human society. This norm of
natural law respects all innocent human beings from the moment of
their conception in the womb of their mothers to the time of their
natural death. Medical science is very clear in showing that the
origin of each human being in the womb of his/her mother is the moment
of conception. After conception normal development occurs until the
baby is actually born. Therefore from the perspective of natural law
abortion is a grievous offense against this norm which binds all human
beings.
But we Christians have an even greater responsibility to respect human
life from conception until natural death. Our faith sheds additional
light on this issue. I am speaking now of the birth of our Savior,
Jesus Christ. We are told in the Scriptures that when the angel
Gabriel came to Mary, she conceived of Jesus Christ and the Word
became flesh. In other words, Jesus Christ became man from the moment
of His conception in His mother's womb. As Christians we proclaim the
truth in the Apostles' Creed that Jesus Christ our Savior became man
when He was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He did not
become man when He was born, but when He was conceived in the womb of
Mary. And if this is true of Jesus, Lord and Savior of the human race,
then clearly it is true of every human being who God creates through
conception in the womb of its mother. The Church has always taught
that Jesus was like us in every way but sin. We even have a feast day
we celebrate in the Catholic Church to proclaim that Jesus became man
at the moment of Gabriel's greeting and Mary's response. This feast is
called the Annunciation and it celebrates the fact that God became man
at the Annunciation.
[Here followed a paragraph devoted to the Visitation of Mary to
Elizabeth and another paragraph devoted to teaching that "…no Catholic
man or woman can say ‘I believe that a woman has a right to chose to
kill the baby in her womb.'"]
I realize that civil law can go against God's law. This was a problem
for the early Church when Christians were willing to die at the hands
of the Roman state rather than disobey God's laws. As Catholics we
know that God's law is to be followed even when civil law fails to
recognize it or even legislates against it. God's law expressed
through the Bible and in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church
has a greater value than civil law. This is particularly true of God's
law concerning abortion.
[Here followed a paragraph explaining that abortion is a mortal sin
and that automatic excommunication from the Church immediately befalls
anyone directly procuring an abortion, and eight paragraphs further
detailing the Church's teaching on the subject of the sacredness of
human life.]
In light of the important teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on
human life beginning at conception, I would like to meet with you
personally about this issue. The position which you presented in the
Caller-Times as a "Catholic" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus as
expressed in His Church. As bishop of this diocese and the shepherd of
the souls entrusted to my care by the Lord and by the successor of
Saint Peter, I have the responsibility to resolve this serious scandal
which your public position on abortion has created.
I will be looking forward to visiting with you about this matter.
Please call my office (XXX-XXX-XXXX) and ask for an appointment to
meet with me.
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Reverend Rene Gracida
Bishop of Corpus Christi
There was no response to this letter.
Next Comes the Warning
On Sunday, January 30, 1994, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times published
another interview with the state representative in which it was stated
that the representative, "a devout Catholic" had not backed away from
advocacy of abortion rights. On February 4, 1994 I sent the
Representative the following letter:
Dear ------,
I am writing concerning the article entitled "Upbringing Shaped
-----'s Career" on the front page of the Sunday edition of the Corpus
Christi Caller-Times dated January 30, 1994. I am most distressed that
the article notes "-----, a devout Catholic, has not backed away from
advocacy of abortion rights." If the article accurately states your
beliefs and your status as a Catholic, then I am confident that you
will understand that I am writing to you again as the Bishop of the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Corpus Christi, and therefore as your
pastor.
My earlier letter to you dated June 3, 1993 was a teaching letter
explaining why no Catholic can be for abortion and be in good standing
in the Catholic Church before the eyes of God. In my earlier letter, I
had asked you to see me about your views, but I never received a
response from you.
I regret that now I am compelled by the pastoral good of the local
Church and for the salvation of souls to take the followings actions.
I am attaching to this letter a copy of the teaching letter I wrote to
you on June 3, 1993. Secondly, I am writing to inform you that your
public position for abortion is in violation of Canon 1371 which
forbids any Catholic to teach a doctrine condemned by the Roman
Pontiff or by an ecumenical council. Both Pope John Paul II and the
Second Vatican Council have condemned abortion as a grievous offense
against the law of God. Thirdly, I am by this letter giving you a
formal warning according to Church law that unless you repent of your
position, I will have no other choice for the good of the Catholic
Church and for the salvation of souls to impose the penalty of
forbidding you from receiving the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist and
the Anointing of the Sick.
As Bishop of this Diocese and the Shepherd of the souls entrusted to
my care by the Lord and by the successor of Saint Peter, I have the
responsibility to resolve this serious scandal which your public
position on abortion has created.
I pray that God will give you the grace to repent and retract your
advocacy of abortion. I do want to hear from you about this matter.
Please call my office (XXX-XXX-XXXX) and ask for an appointment to
meet with me.
Sincerely in Christ,
Most Reverend Rene Gracida
Bishop of Corpus Christi
A Penalty Imposed
Again, there was not response from the state representative.
Accordingly, on November 9, 1994 I signed and mailed to the state
representative the following decree of Interdiction:
DECREE OF CANONICAL PENALTY
In the name of God, Amen!
His Holiness John Paul II, Supreme Pontiff, Gloriously Reigning
I, Rene H. Gracida, Bishop of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, am
issuing this decree to you, -----, concerning the matter of your
advocacy of "abortion rights" as reported in the Corpus Christi
Caller-Times dated May 20, 1993 and January 30, 1994. I am distressed
that you have not responded to my two letters dated June 3, 1993 and
February 7, 1994 (copies of which are attached to this letter). My
letter to you dated June 3, 1993, was a teaching letter explaining why
no Catholic can advocate abortions and be in good standing in the
Catholic Church. My letter dated February 7, 1994, was a pastoral
warning, asking you again to meet with me and calling you to repent
and retract your advocacy of abortion. To both of these letters, I
have never received a response from you.
As bishop of this diocese and the shepherd of the souls entrusted to
my care by the Lord and by the successor of Saint Peter, I have the
responsibility to resolve this serious scandal which your public
position on abortion has created. Having failed to obtain a retraction
from you, I regret that now I am compelled by the pastoral good of the
local church and for the salvation of souls to take the following
action.
In virtue of the fact that your promotion of abortion is in violation
of Canon 1371 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and in virtue of the fact
that Pope John Paul II and the Second Vatican Council have condemned
abortion as a grievous offense against the law of God, and in virtue
of the fact that you have not responded to my two letters nor made
known to me any intention or effort to repent and retract your
advocacy of abortion, I, as Bishop of the Diocese of Corpus Christi,
have no choice but, by this letter, to formally impose upon you the
penalty of forbidding you to receive the sacraments of the Holy
Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick.
I continue to pray that God will give you the grace to repent and
retract your advocacy of abortion. If you come to a change of heart on
this matter, please call my office (XXX-XXX-XXXX) and ask for an
appoint to meet with me. It is with deep sadness and with much regret
that I am required for the good name and pastoral well-being of the
Catholic Church to affix my signature to this decree, on this the
Seventh Day of November 1994.
(signature)
Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop of Corpus Christi
(signature)
Reverend Deacon Roy M. Grassedonio
Chancellor
The Internal Forum
I never heard from the individual, who died in 2001, while still under
Interdiction. I never publicized the Decree of Interdiction. It was a
matter between me, the individual and God. Whether or not the
individual ever received Holy Communion after having been Interdicted,
I do not know, and it is not important that I should have known since
it was a matter of the internal forum. If the individual did receive
Holy Communion while under a Decree of Interdiction it would have been
a further sacrilege.
Some will argue that the Decree of Interdiction should have been made
public at the time it was issued. I disagree. The Corpus Christi
Caller-Times would have exploited the news just as they had exploited
the three Decrees of Excommunication I had earlier issued against
three abortionists in Corpus Christi who chose to make their
excommunication known publicly. If it had been reported to me that the
individual was receiving Holy Communion after receiving the Decree of
Interdiction, I would have published the decree in the diocesan
newspaper.
In summary, every bishop has the duty and obligation to implement the
provisions of Canon Law in accordance with the Declaration by the
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. There is no need for
confrontation at the altar rail during the distribution of Holy
Communion. The Canons can be implemented without public confrontation
at the time Holy Communion is being distributed.
"So you wish to stray and be lost? How much better I do not also wish
this.
Certainly, I dare say, I am unwelcome. But I listen to the Apostle who
says:
‘Preach the word; insist upon it, welcome and unwelcome.'
Welcome to whom? Unwelcome to whom?
By all means welcome to those who desire it; unwelcome to those who do
not.
However unwelcome, I dare to say: ‘You wish to stray, you wish to be
lost;
but I do not want this.' For the One whom I fear does not wish this.
And should I wish it, consider His words of reproach:
‘The straying sheep you have not recalled; the lost sheep you have not
sought.'
Shall I fear you rather than Him?
‘Remember we must all present ourselves before the judgment seat of
Christ'
I shall recall the straying; I shall seek the lost.
Whether they wish it or not, I shall do it." — St. Augustine, Sermo
46, 1-2: CCL 41, 529-530
(The Most Reverend Rene Henry Gracida, DD, is Bishop Emeritus of
Corpus Christi, Texas.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Holy communion is for the repentent, those that contradict bible
teachings by supporting a sin are not repentent so they are not
forgiven. Better off they go eat at a resturant then mislead the
believers around them to follow in their footsteps.
End times:
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/
.
|
