tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post4556148795825016666..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: When a priest refuses communion to a public sinner, it is not to protect the EucharistFather Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-27188314525762568022012-05-17T04:24:52.215-07:002012-05-17T04:24:52.215-07:00Father Erlenbush,
Perhaps we could come to a bett...Father Erlenbush,<br /><br />Perhaps we could come to a better understanding of the Church's mind on the matter of who may receive Communion by examining the canons and litrugical norms. I cite three canons and two norms that seem intructive to me.<br /><br />The canons:<br />http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM<br /><br />Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.<br /><br />Can. 917 A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice to the prescript of â‡' can. 921, §2.<br /><br />Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.<br /><br />The Liturgical Rites Instructions:<br /><br />"The Catholic Handbook for Visiting the Sick and Homebound 2012"<br /><br /> "Who May Receive Holy Communion"<br /><br /> "Catholic shut-ins, caregivers, or others who assemble with them may receive Holy Communion ..." (pg. 15).<br /><br />"Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (1976)"<br /><br /> "The faithful should be encouraged to receive communion during the Eucharistic celebration itself. Priests, however, are not to refuse to give communion to the faithful who ask for it even outside Mass." (No. 14)<br /><br />Are you, Father, aware of canons or norms which instruct the ordinary minister of Communion on those particulars of person, place or time which allow or require him to refuse Communion to canonically qualified Catholics other than canon 915?<br /><br />Peace,<br />ChuckChuck O'Malleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00238498212411850491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-84268418051824305142012-05-16T04:24:46.183-07:002012-05-16T04:24:46.183-07:00Father Erlenbush,
Thank your insight.
May I in...Father Erlenbush,<br /><br />Thank your insight. <br /><br />May I infer from your reply that a general refusal of Communion to the family and friends of the sick is illicit in that any refusal must attach to a present reality of the particulars of time, place and person? <br /><br />Although "so many factors" or such particulars may come into existence, they must, in fact, be in existence to provide a rationale for examining the validity of the decision to refuse Communion.<br /><br />Peace,<br />ChuckChuck O'Malleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00238498212411850491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31541004668058785252012-05-11T12:30:25.889-07:002012-05-11T12:30:25.889-07:00Chuck,
It sounds like you have a particular priest...Chuck,<br />It sounds like you have a particular priest and situation in mind ... so, I'd rather not give my opinion -- there are just so many factors to take account of when it comes to practical situations.<br /><br />However, I will say that those present with the sick may be permitted to receive Communion ... but there are certainly times when this is not feasible (for one reason or another).<br /><br />Peace! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-54705509308708330092012-05-11T09:36:57.142-07:002012-05-11T09:36:57.142-07:00Fr. Erlenbush,
Does your research on refusing com...Fr. Erlenbush,<br /><br />Does your research on refusing communion show that a pastor ever has the canonical or liturgical discretion to, as a matter of general policy, refuse communion to all friends and all family at Communion to the Sick on non-holy days of obligation?Chuck O'Malleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00238498212411850491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40478864903896263132012-05-04T04:09:52.405-07:002012-05-04T04:09:52.405-07:00Since sin has subjective components, i.e. knowledg...Since sin has subjective components, i.e. knowledge and intent, no one can know with certainty that another is in the state of sin for no one can know the mind of another. The third component of sin is objective -- the act which, if in itself is evil, is apparent to the community. The actor is perhaps a sinner but certainly an evil-doer. If obstinate and persisent in his evil act, his defense before God is invincible ignorance, however the Church, as a medicinal action ex-communicates him to avoid scandal to the community. Excommunicate means "out of communion."Chuck O'Malleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00238498212411850491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-5062060803201661012012-04-20T15:39:06.735-07:002012-04-20T15:39:06.735-07:00I think it is a difficult question!
Fr. you admit...I think it is a difficult question!<br /><br />Fr. you admit in one of your responses that protecting the Eucharist was one of the motivations behind the rule in the 1917 canon:<br /><br />"Yes, I do agree with you that, when private communion is privately denied to a private sinner ... this is done to protect the Eucharist,"<br /><br />yet everywhere else you say that, in public, protecting the eucharist is not a proper reason for denying.<br /><br />You say that Jesus didn't deny Judas therefore it can't be ok to deny it; but then what is the justification for denial under the old canon? If we accept your dictum that protecting the eucharist is not sufficient reason to deny in PUBLIC to a private sinner, then, the priest is left to judge in each situation not only whether the sinner is public or private, but also whether the communion is public or private.<br /><br />We have already seen the difficulty in defining whether a sinner is public or private. Mustn't we now double the difficulty by putting the issue of the status of the venue in question, if the priest's knowledge of the sin of the sinner is insufficient to deny communion?<br /><br />Why must the actions of Jesus toward Judas be the prototype for all future situations? Would the disciples have been scandalized if Jesus did NOT give Judas communion? [I would think not.] Wasn't Judas a public sinner anyway, a thief that stole from their purse? Maybe He allowed Judas to take communion not for a pattern for future priests to follow, but for some other reason?yannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72130232053578254772012-04-10T16:27:06.939-07:002012-04-10T16:27:06.939-07:00Oh, and thanks for the link! When I saw you menti...Oh, and thanks for the link! When I saw you mention Fr. Wolfe, I lost my head!<br /><br />Mea culpa.........Tantumblogohttp://veneremurcernui.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-12686260804643420402012-04-10T16:26:15.300-07:002012-04-10T16:26:15.300-07:00Yes, you are indeed very blessed to have Fr. Wolfe...Yes, you are indeed very blessed to have Fr. Wolfe at your parish. I only know of him as a friend of friends ... and, outside of facebook, that doesn't really amount to much! :-)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-38533745139494071922012-04-10T16:22:53.027-07:002012-04-10T16:22:53.027-07:00Fr. Erlenbush -
I know Fr. Wolfe well. We are i...Fr. Erlenbush - <br /><br />I know Fr. Wolfe well. We are incredibly blessed to have him as the assistant pastor at our FSSP parish. <br /><br />You can see a picture of him with my son from last Sunday here:<br /><br />http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/holy-week-awesomeness/<br /><br />Scroll down to the last pic.Tantumblogohttp://veneremurcernui.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-48630671138108550552012-04-10T16:16:27.324-07:002012-04-10T16:16:27.324-07:00@Tantumblogo,
I do have a blog with some sermons o...@Tantumblogo,<br />I do have a blog with some sermons on it ... though I no longer update or post new sermons (because I never write out my homilies or use any notes ... so it is just too much work for me to go back and write them out for a blog).<br /><br />Here is an example (and I've given similar sermons a couple other times) ... http://fatherryanssundaysermons.blogspot.com/2010/11/when-confession-is-needed-before.html<br /><br /><br />Regarding audiosancto, the sermons on there from Fr. Phil Wolfe are priceless! <br />Here is an example of one of his best: http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20080406-Good-Shepherd-Sunday.html<br />[you may have to download it in order to get the whole sermon]Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-7132677815220830662012-04-10T16:04:27.620-07:002012-04-10T16:04:27.620-07:00Fr. Erlenbush stated:
"Priests need to start...Fr. Erlenbush stated:<br /><br />"Priests need to start preaching about the need for confession after the most common mortal sins (like: skipping Sunday Mass, contraception, sins against purity, etc).<br />Also, when a penitent confesses a mortal sin, the Confessor has a moral obligation to question and instruct the penitent regarding the reception of communion in the state of sin."<br /><br />I'm very glad to hear you say that. Have you given sermons on these subjects? Some priests, like Fr. Philip Neri Powell, print their sermons online. Others have them recorded and are available anonymously (audiosancto). Have you considered placing your sermons on these critical subjects online?Tantumblogohttp://veneremurcernui.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-9802020125407787192012-04-07T05:08:38.442-07:002012-04-07T05:08:38.442-07:00In a perfect world, priests would distribute Holy ...In a perfect world, priests would distribute Holy Communion to only the cannonically qualified and properly disposed communicanats (no one is truly worthy). <br /><br />But in the real world two disordered events may occur: the priest might give Communion to a disordered communicant, or the preist might unjustly withhold Communion from a communicant who is in proper order. <br /><br />In her wisdom the Church, in her theology of the Eucharist, in her canons, and in her liturgical guidelines, clearly thinks the latter the greater evil.Chuck O'Malleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00238498212411850491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-31308451048064354322012-04-06T06:48:13.820-07:002012-04-06T06:48:13.820-07:00I have had the priviledge of serving at many funer...I have had the priviledge of serving at many funeral Masses. Not once have I heard a word about the guidelines of who is and who isn't suppose to receive the Eurchrist. Also at many other special Masses have I hardly ever heard anything said. In the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortataion of His Holliness, Pope Benedict XVI says in 'The Sarament of Charity' paragraph 50: " In these cases,(wedding Masses, funerals and the like) there is a need to find a brief and clear way to remind those present of the meaning of sacramental communion and the conditions required for its reception. Wherever circumstances make it impossible to ensure that the meaning of the Eurchrist is duly appreciated, the appropriateness of replacing the celebration of the Mass with a celebration of the word of God should be considered."<br />If more priests listened to that, these horrid situations would be much less.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-34503726894196029202012-04-05T09:01:20.007-07:002012-04-05T09:01:20.007-07:00Father,
No, I don't think any canonical actio...Father,<br /><br />No, I don't think any canonical action was taken against Fr. Guarnizo, and when I spoke of his "case" I didn't mean it a legal sense. What I meant was that the decision to remove him from the parish can't be understood as anything other than a response to complaints over this incident; that the natural interpretation of it is that it is a disciplinary action, not in the canonical sense but simply an instance of a bishop exercising his authority to modify the behavior of one of his priests; and that if, as Fr. Guarnizo claims, the letter relieving him of his duties was on the bishop's desk before they discussed what had happened, when the bishop had no information apart from Ms. Johnson's complaint and the testimony of two individuals who do not seem to have been present for the conversation in the sacristy, then Fr. G.' s removal from the parish unjustly put his reputation at stake without permitting him to say anything in his own defense. The sad truth,as we all know, is that many priests are removed for a wide variety of offenses -- sexual misconduct, drug and alcohol abuse, embezzlement -- and a bishop owes it to his priests to consider every possible angle before taking any action that might set tongues wagging.Bernonensisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-44388867012202124482012-04-04T19:41:28.561-07:002012-04-04T19:41:28.561-07:00@Unknown,
The greater scandal is caused by the fac...@Unknown,<br />The greater scandal is caused by the fact that Ms. Johnson was denied by the priest but then received from a Eucharistic minister right next to the priest ... thus, far more widespread scandal has come from the event, since it has been publicized.<br /><br />Now, I think that she was not (at the time) a public sinner ... but if you think that she was, then Fr. G should have taken greater precaution to protect the Church from this scandal. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3110979649804445292012-04-04T19:39:14.242-07:002012-04-04T19:39:14.242-07:00@Bernonensis,
I have never seen any evidence to in...@Bernonensis,<br />I have never seen any evidence to indicate that Fr. G's case has been decided or that any disciplinary action has been taken against him.<br /><br />If you think that his leave of absence constitutes a case, trial, conviction, and punishment ... then you have terribly misrepresented the Diocese. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-18476591877984495462012-04-04T18:48:37.147-07:002012-04-04T18:48:37.147-07:00I agree with what you're saying, but I think y...I agree with what you're saying, but I think you err on the assessment of whether Fr. G. caused scandal through his actions. Isn't "scandal" where we (or the Church) appears to give public approval to sin? Isn't giving the Eucharist to a public sinner what would cause the scandal through the appearance that "it's no big deal"? That she subsequently received the Eucharist through a minister who probably didn't know of her sin should not cause scandal. I am thinking that Fr. G. would have caused scandal if he had given her communion, since she confronted him with her sins (not confessed) immediately prior.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02633385419871416439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-73407651801421860272012-04-03T10:58:11.360-07:002012-04-03T10:58:11.360-07:00You are certainly right about that, Father; we oug...You are certainly right about that, Father; we ought to presume the best of everyone involved, based on the evidence we have. But if the evidence shows that Fr. Guarnizo's case was decided and disciplinary action taken before he had a chance to make his side heard ....Bernonensisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-44635832266743172162012-04-03T10:28:25.452-07:002012-04-03T10:28:25.452-07:00@Bernonensis,
If we are going to start talking abo...@Bernonensis,<br />If we are going to start talking about presuming the good intention of our pastors ... then I will presume that the bishop who issued an apology to Ms. Johnson knows more about the situation than any of us ... and that he (i.e. the bishop) acted rightly, while Fr. Guarnizo was mistaken (though, presumably, good-willed).Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-74611578540153395582012-04-03T10:23:52.583-07:002012-04-03T10:23:52.583-07:00Father,
Neither of us knows what was said in the ...Father,<br /> Neither of us knows what was said in the sacristy that day, but I am willing to give Fr. G. the benefit of the doubt and believe that when he walked out into the sanctuary he thought he had made it clear to the women that Ms. Johnson was not to receive Communion. If their attitude was defiant, that in itself was no sure indication of what would happen next.<br />At Communion time, Fr. G. may have suspected that Johnson would try to receive from one of the EMs and that he would have to intervene, but when she came to him instead, he probably thought that his refusal would settle the matter. Fault him if you must for lack of insight into the obstinacy of this woman, but please don't read cowardice or duplicity into his actions on no more evidence than your suspicions. <br /><br />When a priest refuses Communion to a public sinner, his concern is primarily to prevent scandal, that is true, but not exclusively;he also wishes to avoid sacrilege. <br />When the sin is private, and the refusal is likely to cause scandal, he does not withhold the Sacrament, because permitting the harm done by the sacrilegious reception, harm to none but the recipient, is better than actively causing harm to others through scandal.Bernonensisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25644202440549130472012-04-03T09:09:17.696-07:002012-04-03T09:09:17.696-07:00@Bernonensis,
This is getting a bit silly ... Ms. ...@Bernonensis,<br />This is getting a bit silly ... Ms. Johnson's "lover" physically blocked Fr. G in the sacristy ... how can anyone think that the situation was resolved and under control when the encounter ended like that?!<br /><br />My goodness! Fr. G was surprised that the woman was defiant?! Nothing about the meeting before the Mass would have indicated that?!<br /><br />Well ... whatever ... setting the particular case aside: When a priest refuses communion to a public sinner it is about preventing scandal - since he does not do anything to prevent sacrilege when the sin is private. +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-77942830698948542522012-04-03T05:03:14.303-07:002012-04-03T05:03:14.303-07:00Father,
Fr. Guarnizo had very good reason to thin...Father,<br /><br />Fr. Guarnizo had very good reason to think that Ms. Johnson was a manifest public sinner. By her own admission she was engaged in a relationship that was objectively sinful; if she announced this to a perfect stranger on first meeting, it is morally certain that her friends,some of whom were at the funeral, were also aware of her state, and this meets the criteria for being a manifest public sinner. Because of this, and because she proclaimed herself an adherent of a false religion, Fr. G. had no choice but to deny her Communion. <br /> <br />This does not mean that everyone in the church knew of Ms. Johnson's way of life; some of her mother's friends may have had no idea she is a lesbian or a Buddhist, and it is really none of their business if she is. Father G.'s duty was to prevent her committing sacrilege, not to publish her faults, and so he attempted to refuse her Communion as quietly as possible. <br /><br />Now, it is true she actually did receive anyway, but this fact can't affect the rightness or wrongness of Fr. G.'s prior judgment. If he thought their talk in the sacristy had dissuaded Johnson from coming to Communion, he would have had no reason to alert the EMs about her before Mass began. If he thought she was headed to her seat after being refused, he would have had no reason to warn the EM then. As I suggested before, the most charitable view is that Fr. G. was simply unaware that Johnson was making another attempt to receive before she succeeded. I see no reason to suggest that he was of two minds in this matter, and really believed "deep down" something different from what he claims.Bernonensisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-8521757450443873262012-04-02T13:20:25.654-07:002012-04-02T13:20:25.654-07:00@dcs, Thank you for the info! Yes, Dom Gueranger i...@dcs, Thank you for the info! Yes, Dom Gueranger is an invaluable resource! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-45449029912996617032012-04-02T12:58:55.622-07:002012-04-02T12:58:55.622-07:00Reverend and Dear Fr. Erlenbush,
It is also the o...Reverend and Dear Fr. Erlenbush,<br /><br />It is also the opinion of Dom Prosper Gueranger that Judas received Holy Communion at the Last Supper. Just FYI - and I only know this because I am working through the Passiontide volume of <i>The Liturgical Year</i> right now.dcshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18424510747759223459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-8731283013905051382012-04-02T11:14:24.979-07:002012-04-02T11:14:24.979-07:00@Veronica,
Don't worry ... I did chuckle!
.....@Veronica,<br />Don't worry ... I did chuckle! <br />... and this is how I try to make a smiley face<br />:-) or :)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com