There are not many discussions going on at present. So here I revisit one of my hobby horses, the lack of Catholic support for Catholic politicians.

At present in the US Catholics seem to be destroying their abiolity to contribute to society. It seems that Catholics will support any one in politics, provided they are not Catholic.

It is not up to the ordinary Catholic to make s judgement about the moral standing of any individual.

However we should support our own.

I am writing this to get a debate going and also because of what I read in http://www.thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/

"At least three times during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States, a prominent pro-choice Catholic politician has received communion during a papal Mass. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, both Democrats, took communion during the Mass on Thursday at Nationals Park in Washington, and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a Republican, received communion in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Saturday.

In none of these cases did the politicians receive communion directly from the pope, but it nonetheless happened during a papal Mass, and it took no one by surprise. Pelosi, for example, announced her intention to take communion in response to a question I asked her during a conference call with reporters the day before the Thursday Mass.

While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary. The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life."

Regards,

Noelfitz.

Zachaeus,
thank you for your post.
I considered that if my post did not get a response, nothing would. But I did think it would come from a different view than yours.
I really agree with you. It would be very difficult in practice to refuse communion to anyone who approaches the altar.
When on earth didn't Jesus eat with sinners?

God bless,

Noelfitz.

I was thinking about this recently.
So I looked it up in the cannon law.
There are two principles.
Basically it breaks down this way.
A practicing catholic shall not be denied communion unless they 'obsinatley persist in grave sin'.

Note it does not say they are guilty of mortal sin ( that would require judging the state of thier soul.) However supporting abortion in anyway is a grave sin.

If a politician like say john kerry , or nancy poloski to get in line for communion , the proper thing for the minister of communion to do, would be to cover the challice with thier hand when they recognized them and refuse to give them communion. It's that simple. No wrestlers need attend. I suppose it MIGHT get difficult if the politician then started yelling or refused to move or some other sort of thing , but I doubt most of them would do that. Again if they did the ushers would simply come up and escort them out of the sanctury the same way they would do if someone stood up and started shouting at the priest during the homily.

Let me ask you this question though, suppose you were passing out communion at at mass and someone who 'looked' alot like john kerry ( the most recognizable of the aboved mentioned because of his presidedtial run ). Could you be sure it actually was john kerry? would you ask him?

Realistically where they SHOULD be denied communion is in thier home parish by each and every priest who knows with certainty who they are. One would expect them to be able to blend in with all the rest of the faces in a croud of over 1000 at a papal mass.

I'm being tempted to speak negatively about clergy now so I will just stop here.

Michael
many thanks for your post.
As an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist I would never refuse commmunion to anyone.
As you know one of my permanent concerns is that so many of us Catholics seem to be in the state of mortal sin.
Who really is a Catholic now? Is the poitician who claims to be a Catholic but is not as pro-life as we would like a Catholic? Are Catholics only those who share our views axross the board?
One is reminde or the story of a French Catholic who did not go to Sunday Mass, because he was a Catholic not a fanatic.

The difference between the two is fairly simple.

( this is my understanding so take it as exactly that but I claim it is consistant with what the holy father is saying and why).

in order to meet the critera of obstinately persisting in grave sin.

1) must have been told by lagitimate authority that what they are doing is a sin. aka obstinate.
2) they must continue that action in disobediance to that authority. They persist.

3) the matter of the sin must be grave.

Notice all three critera are externally verifiable and it is entirely possible for a person to believe they are doing what is right and run afoul of those 3 things.

in order for a sin to be a mortal sin it must.
1) concern grave matter
2) be done with full knowledge it is wrong.

Notice that it is impossible to externally observe what a person knows or undestands, therfore it is impossible to know if the sin they are commiting is mortal. Only God can judge that.

However, if the sin is grave, if they sinner persists , and if they have been told to stop by the ordinary minister of holy communion , then he has ever right NOT to give that person communion.

I know it is a serious duty to be an extrodinary minister , as that task has been my great joy several times. In this however be obidiant to your pastor unless you are certain it would be sinful not to be. You must of coarse never knowling give communion to a non catholic, but beyond that who are you to judge.

Maybe a great sinner made a full confession to your pastor the day before the mass , would you know? that is one of the problems with extrodinary ministers. If you have doubts someone should be admitted to the sacrament, the pastor or his bishop are the only ones who can answer that question definatively.

If I knew and recognized john kerry on sight when I was passing out the eucharist I would follow the holy fathers insturctions. However I probably would not definatively recognize him , having only seen him on television, unless he was wearing a name tag saying 'i'm Senator John Kerry of massachutes'.

Noel, one is always to obey authority in ... all but sin.
However, in humility one must also admit that much of the time we are uncertain as to what is or is not sin.

If you would like to discusss this more deeply we should start another thread.
specifically though please read this if you haven't had a chance:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/ratzcons.htm

it is very easy to read. A little long , but very enlightening and I think you might find it helpful.

after re-reading your last post to me... it occured to me that perhase the question in your mind is. To whom does it fall to make the determination as to weather or not the conditions for presitant grave sin have been met. The answer is the priest presiding over the sacrament. It is part of his authority as the teacher of the community to decide weather or not the denial of communion, ( which is an action taken out of both love for the community and the sinner ) is nessary correction. If he fails to do so he allows the sinner to eat and drink condemnation on himself and to a lesser extent becomes responsible for that persons continued sin. ( by his refusal to take action to encourage the correction of the sin).

On the other hand if the priest is wrong and punishing an innocient person, he also is sinning, so it is a difficult decision for him that should be made in prayer.

The longer I wait until this round-table is fully restored the more I appreciate it and the friendship of contributors. I feel we are part of a family, where we can be ourselves and are accepted for what we are. Thanks to all.

Today our Prime Minister,Bertie Ahern, addressed both houses of Congress in Washington. Bertie paid tribute to America’s role in achieving peace in Ireland. This year we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which gave us peace. Senator Mitchell and President Clinton contributed very much to this agreement.

It was a Catholic event, since the invitation for Bertie to speak came from Nancy Pelosi, and the contributions to Ireland by President Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy were noted, as well as those of Tip O’Neill.

One of my hobby horses at present is that Catholics should hang together, rather than hang separately. Thus Catholics should not be too critical of each other.

Regards,

Noelfitz.

Peace is wonderful. After 30 years of murder bombings and destruction, it is great to see people living together respecting the views of others.
The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to be part of the UK.

Regards,

Noelfitz.

Michael

Of course I agreee with you to a great extent.

The fifth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill". Thus a Catholic cannot be in favor of abortion.

Incidentally I have been reading an article by Archbishop Charles Chaput, where he makes the point that there are parallels between the Church now and the early Church. Perhaps when this site is sorted out we may discuss this idea.

Yesterday at Mass the priest was taklking about the serious failures of the Church in Ireland. He ended up saying it is a messy Church of messy people, but also the bride of Christ.

God bless,

Norelfitz.