“Quite frankly, there is a disagreement among bishops about using the communion line as a place for a confrontation. And I don’t think that the bishops of New York State feel that’s appropriate.”
~Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany discussing the issue of denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Culture, March 9
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Then the Bishops of New York State do not understand the significance of communion. They don’t understand the gravity of sharing communion with people who are flagrantly disobeying God’s will.
In the case of politicians whose beliefs and votes mean death for preborn humans- Yes!!!
Public sin requires public penance to avoid confusion and scandal. It is also can act as a corrective against politicians using the Church as a wedge to get more votes from Catholics.
Before the whining starts, remember that no one is guaranteed Communion and physical injury is not remotely involved. The only risk is that the politician loses a little face and a PR moment.
Bishops can and should meet privately with proabort Catholic pols. But the time has come to respond in a public way, too. The faithful are sick of being used and embarrassed by such phonies.
Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany is considered by many to be someone who has enabled abortionist “Catholic” Governors of New York for several decades now. It is tragic that the Catholic Bishops refuse to do anything to discipline politicians who claim to be “Catholic” while supporting what the Catholic Church correctly teaches is the “unspeakable crime” of prenatal homicide.
Not only should abortionist “Catholic” politicians be denied Communion, but all of them should be immediately excommunicated, as they have already excommunicated themselves by their support of the crime of killing our unborn children. This is especially the case with politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo who have already killed large numbers of unborn children with taxpayer dollars.
For a good article discussing Bishop Howard Hubbard and Governor Andrew Cuomo, go to this website:
http://www.christorchaos.com
and go to “February 25 Article: Memo To Howard Hubbard: Public Scandal Is Never A Private Matter”.
I think we should pray for Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany and all misguided public officials and clergy, that they will see the error of their ways.
As a Catholic, I disagree with the comments above. The time for confrontation is NOT in the church during the mass. That is disruptive for all the Catholics and disturbs the sacredness of the mass. The time for confrontation is during the week, maybe even on Saturday.
It’s easy to point fingers at people like Nancy Pelosi, whom I agree should be excommunicated. But, wait just a minute: what about my neighbor who cheats on his taxes? What about the guy in the 3rd pew who beats his kids? What about the woman in the 10th pew who cheats on her husband? Once you start the Sunday witch-hunts, where will they end?
“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”
ninek,
Yes, the “confrontation” should take place during the week, but if the forewarned offender presents himself for communion on Sunday, the priest can and should simply refuse to serve him. It must be done to preserve the honor and sanctity of the sacrament, as well as for the good of the person’s soul. When the scandal is public, ongoing and unrepented, then it’s time to withhold communion. Otherwise, the faithful are further scandalized and the message is sent that sin means nothing, breaking Church law means nothing, and there’s no accountability. That’s not a Sunday witch-hunt.
The Church in central-upstate New York is not in very good condition and here you see why.
Hmmm…I personally can’t think of a BETTER place to stand up for God’s word…
Well… Canon 915 (of the Catholic Code of Canon Law) really takes the decision out of the hands of the bishops in question (who are, with all due respect, being flagrantly disobedient):
“Can. 915: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
Issue settled. Now, if only some of the bishops who currently defy the Holy Father on this matter would humble themselves enough to implement it, despite their political and other personal tastes…
(BTW: tax evasion is sinful, but it’s usually not public–i.e. “manifest”, nor is it an excommunicable offense–as is abortion and its direct enablement).
The rest of the world sees the holding of communion as a political statement. Any educated Catholic would see it as an effort to preserve the person’s soul. Oh and no one has a RIGHT to communion (or any other sacrament).
Exactly, debval, the world sees it in political terms but it is not. On a personal level, I resent fallen-away Catholics and non-Catholics even clamoring for this refusal of the eucharist. In this case, I have to say, it’s none of their business. If the bishop in Nancy Pelosi’s diocese wants to bar her from mass altogether, then so be it. If you are fallen-away, you need to look to your own conscience and your own soul. If the eucharist means something to you, then go to confession and reconcile with the Church and God. If the eucharist is just a political tool, then I am not interested in helping you politicize the body of Christ.
Jesus gave bread and wine to Judas. Jesus and the apostles did not trick Judas and tell him dinner was going to be somewhere else. Jesus did not give everyone a piece of bread except Judas saying, “Oh, not you, betrayer-guy!” In fact, if Judas had not committed suicide, he would have had every chance at reconciliation himself.
Turning the reception of the eucharist into a political pageant is NOT why we go to mass on Sundays. And if that ever happens, I’d head to the Orthodox because there will be no place else left to go.
ninek,
Withholding communion from someone who persists in public scandal and mortal sin is not politicizing the Eucharist. It is the necessary thing to do, and as Paladin pointed out, it’s what the code of Canon law requires. Some bishops have turned their refusal to follow Canon law into a political pageant, but that does not make withholding communion a political ploy. Frankly, how the rest of the world sees it is irrelevant. The rest of the world does not understand that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ, it is the Living Bread of Heaven. St. Paul warns us that receiving the bread and cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner makes us guilty of profaning the Lord and we heap judgement on ourselves. Each of us has to be diligent over our own souls in this regard.
But when the scandal is public, the refusal to be corrected is public, the sin is ongoing and public, and the person is simply unwilling to turn from their sin and repent, then what is the Church supposed to do? She must protect the faithful, the Sacrament, and the soul of the person in danger by refusing to give that person the Eucharist. That’s not political posturing. That’s shepherding souls.
It’s a cold day in hell when I publicly disagree with my Bishops, and so they must be having snowball fights today…
The issue is the tax-exempt status of the Church. The fear is that the Bishops will be perceived as trying to drive legislation through thuggery in Church. So if the Bishops will permit this scandal to continue, they have fundamentally thrown in the towel.
We now cower in our Churches for fear that we will lose the tax-exempt status that will permit us to retain churches in which to cower.
The purpose of denying Communion comes directly from St Paul who admonished:
“He who eats and drinks (The Eucharist) unworthily, eats and drinks condemnation upon himself.” Denying communion to those who legislate for mass murder, fund mass murder, is a medicinal remedy meant to recall the sinner to their senses.
It’s one thing to discuss this for abortion, because that’s such a clear-cut moral issue. However, I’m afraid that if the RCC made a habit of excommunicating politicians over how they vote, it could turn into spiritual blackmail for other voting issues. “Vote for those tax cuts, or you’re excommunicated.”
I can only speak as an Orthodox Christian, and say that in our tradition, an excommunication, even for a public sin, is generally considered to be between the person and their spiritual father. (One’s spiritual father is the priest who is their guide and confidant in spiritual matters, and is the person to whom they routinely confess.)
I would think most Orthodox priests and bishops would not consider it appropriate to publicly humiliate someone for being pro-abortion, but instead use the opportunity to teach them why the Orthodox Church is pro-life, and only levy a penance, privately, as a last resort.
There are a few politicians who profess to be Orthodox, and sadly some of them are pro-abortion. Are they in good standing with the Orthodox Church? I honestly have no idea, and it’s none of my business. I have no authority to excommunicate them. It’s better if I concentrate on my own sins and doing what I can to stop abortions around me rather than worrying about barring other people from the chalice. If those politicians partake of the Eucharist unworthily, Scripture is very clear about the consequences:
“[W]hoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.” – 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (NKJV)
George Tiller was excommunicated by his LCMS church.
He would not stop committing abortions.
So, he went to an ELCA church.
Well it is a good thing the bishops have standards, even if they don’t enforce them consistently.
It would do more good if the ‘faithful’ would do as the ‘book’ instructs and simply shunned, stood aloof from, ostracized ”those [who are] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.
The bishops don’t have to make a big public show of denying the sacrements to “those [who are] “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”.
The bishops just have to refuse to acknowledge the presence of “those [who are] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” when the bishops encounter “those [who are] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” in the line to receive the sacrements.
The bishops should just leave it up to ”those [who are] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” to make a public scene if “those [who are] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” have mind to do so.
I do not deminish the value of the sacrements by pointing out that ‘communion’ is not just the sacrements.
The Greek word that is translated ‘communion’ is the same word that is translated ‘fellowship’. We can have ‘fellowship’ without sharing in the sacrements.
1 John 1:7 But if we [really] are living and walking in the Light, as He [Himself] is in the Light, we have [true, unbroken] fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses (removes) us from all sin and guilt [keeps us cleansed from sin in all its forms and manifestations]. AMP
Clarice says: March 9, 2011 at 9:31 pm
“I can only speak as an Orthodox Christian, and say that in our tradition, an excommunication, even for a public sin, is generally considered to be between the person and their spiritual father. (One’s spiritual father is the priest who is their guide and confidant in spiritual matters, and is the person to whom they routinely confess.)”
==============================================================
Matt 18:15-20 15″ If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so thatBY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”
NASU
The apostle Paul also deals with the application of this teaching in his letter to the corinthians.
This ‘body discipline’ seldom occurrs, not because there is a lack of ’cause’, but because there is a lack of maturity and understanding.
Ken, public sin is NOT condoned in our faith. The process you described is certainly done in the Orthodox Church, but the authority to levy penances like excommunication is something completely different from that.
Excommunication is not like “shunning” or throwing someone out of the church, it’s saying this person should not receive the mysteries – either until they repent, or for a specified time – for their own protection.
Let me be very blunt:
If born human beings (translation: ”real” human beings) were being ruthlessly exterminated, we would not be having these conversations. The Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Protestant Churches and Mormon Churches would all long ago have taken strong, aggressive, effective action against ANY politician who supported or committed crimes against born humans.
It is only because unborn humans are dying that we born humans can afford to be diffident and blase and laid back about the whole thing. Once again, we do not have an incentive to care about the unborn (after all, it is not we who are dying), and so we born humans fail our unborn children, as we always have. Thus, we have the sad spectacle of the Church founded by Jesus Christ sitting back and doing NOTHING while the worst killers in human history destroy our children’s lives and the very future of our race. This is sick, sad and tragic.
I don’t know, Joe. Maybe if all these crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life protesters had been around before abortion was legalized, maybe it would have never happened. It always has fascinated me, as someone born after Roe V. Wade, how the pro-life movement seemed to appear out of nowhere after 1973. Maybe if pro-lifers had searched out doctors who performed murders in their offices after hours, and exposed their crimes to the world, more people would recognize abortion as murder.
And hey, maybe if people hadn’t relentlessly shamed unwed mothers in those days instead of recognizing there is nothing sinful about having a baby, people wouldn’t have demanded abortions in order to conceal their sin. The sin was having sex outside marriage, but the other partner is equally guilty, and it’s sinful whether or not it results in a baby.
I think you hit the nail on the head Joe, about the unborn not being real humans. As a society we have become densensitized to the unborn. This could be beause of many factors, such as the fact that the child is in a womb where they aren’t visible. This makes it easier to ignore the humanity of the unborn. Just think about the arguments that pro-aborts use to justify abortion, would they be acceptable as a reason to kill a born child? We need to ask why this is, Why is it no longer considered a legitimate reason after a child is born? What has changed at that point?
It could be because of pro-choice buzz words like “fetus” that dehumanizie the unborn. “Right to choose”, “my body, my choice” and “women’s rights” are terms that take away the focus of what abortion does and puts all the focus on how the mother is being victimized by the law. Throw the word Rights around and suddenly you garner sympathy from people.
Seems like this kind of desensitizing is prevalent in the Catholic Church which is why a lot of churches remain divided over the issue. Church leaders need to speak out and start questioning this pro-choice mindset. Instead of ex-communicating people now is a time to get a conversation going in the church. Often times, it’s hard to get through to people and make them see things your way. The church is a good place to do this because those who attend are willing to listen to their pastor and listen to the word of God.
As far as communion goes, I don’t think that’s the best way to get people’s attention. Denying communion might push people away from the church, it might make them feel abandoned and more hardened in their beliefs.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the case of unrepented mortal sin, the person is already automatically excommunicated. Excommunication is not a public chastisement in every and all cases. Excommunication does not involve throwing someone out of the Catholic Church; it is a penalty that is actually out of charity, and it can be lifted through repentance. Namely, the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
A bishop, as per Canon Law, has a moral duty to instruct pro-abort politicians privately that in their spiritual state, they may not receive Holy Communion. Especially given that Catholics believe in the Real Presence– that, there <I>is</I> the True Body and Blood of Christ, and not merely a symbol (and it most certainly is disrespectful to flippantly refer to it as “wine and crackers”). And that if they persist on joining the Communion line, while persisting in public scandal, then they will be denied Communion. All parties know that going in.
This is not a politicization of the Eucharist. Rather, this is an act of charitable discipline. Not only out of concern for the politician’s soul, but also for others of the faithful.
St. Paul clearly states that partaking of the Eucharist unworthily can make you sick or even kill you.
Excommunication is not cutting someone off from conversation or contact; I think that mistaken idea comes from hearing “communication” in the word, and thinking an excommunicated person is therefore shunned or something.
Excommunication is an act of mercy and charity for people who are unable to bring themselves to repent. It is an expression of the very nature of sin itself, which is something that cuts us off from Christ.
Again, this is coming from the Orthodox POV, but I can’t imagine the RC view is too different about their own Eucharist.
Hey Wsquared.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the case of unrepented mortal sin, the person is already automatically excommunicated.”
Indeed, this is not quite right. If you have unrepented mortal sin, then you are not in a state of grave, and if you die, you will go to hell. But that isn’t the same thing as excommunictaion. As you correctly go on to point out, it is a punitive act which cuts one off from receiving the sacraments. But in theory it is technically possible to die and go to heaven while excommunicated. Thus, because mortal sin and excommunication have different properties, they cannot be the same thing. Hope that clarifies. God love you.
And isn’t taking communion while knowingly in a state of mortal sin – well, isn’t it a sin in and of itself? So if a priest has made a congregant aware of the fact that they are sinning, and the congregant doesn’t repent, wouldn’t it be…like, an accessory to sin, for the priest to give communion? Like not even an occasion of sin, but an enabler of it. I don’t know if that’s possible. It would be like how Catholics aren’t supposed to drive non-Catholic friends to an abortion clinic – he would be directly aiding a member of his congregation in further sinning. Which must be, like, a total job failure, somewhere in the structure of these things.
Like, if I were on some medication that reacted badly with…I don’t know, any alcohol in any quantity. And my doctor saw me at the bar one evening, and asked at our next appointment if I were drinking, and I said yes. And he said, “You really can’t drink alcohol,” and I said, “Well, I think that’s none of your business. Give me my prescription.” Would it be understandable for him to not prescribe me the medication anymore? Would it be morally right? Would it be within the boundaries of his job? Should it be? etc.
“So if a priest has made a congregant aware of the fact that they are sinning, and the congregant doesn’t repent, wouldn’t it be…like, an accessory to sin, for the priest to give communion? ”
Yes, I believe thats correct Alexandra.
Like not even an occasion of sin, but an enabler of it.
Alexandra:
It would be sacrilegious if a priest were to knowingly and with full consent of his will participate in this scandal. But I think it highly unlikely that any priest would do that. It is in the bishops’ corner to direct the priests and ultimately it is up to the individual bishop to lead and instruct the faithful in his diocese. When the then Archbishop (now Cardinal) Burke was at St. Louis he was very clear on the matter. Perhaps someone in St. Louis could tell us how that went.
I am proud to have had Bishop Hubbard as my Bishop since the time that I moved to Albany. I have even had the honor of meeting him several times, and he is very much what I imagine that Christ was like; compassionate, friendly, an amazing listener, storteller, AND leader… the Church needs more advocates of common sense like Howard Hubbard.
Why single out pro-choice Catholics? What about other “sins”? Why can pedophile priests be granted communion?
The hypocrisy within the Catholic church is atrocious.
Because, Jack, as horrible as child molestation is, child murder is worse.