A possible solution for clergy and eucharistic ministers

Whoever makes the container consecrated hosts are put in for Holy Communion have clips on the side to put in unconsecrated hosts? The world can we know we are doing that. That way, even if a scandalous “Catholic” celebrity or anyone you know who knows better approaches you, you can give them something and neither the recipient nor the pewsitters would know, thus the scandalizer wouldn’t have the benefit of knowing he/she is receiving Jesus or being denied. All the while, the prohibition of receiving in that state is still taught, so people in the pews might think the celebrity or public heretic is likely getting a placebo, but, if not, who can be scandalized? Granted, a celebrity who shouldn’t receive receiving a placebo would still be a mortal sin, but the weight is off the priest or EM or anyone who cares in the pews or watching on tv, if it is a national event.

For the blood of Christ, maybe they could work in a magic trick, where a separate pool of unconsecrated wine is opened by a button or a twist. I’m not being silly! I can’t think of another way for it, unless the priest doesn’t use the chalice he consecrates for the pewsitters. After all, people receive all of Jesus in the host. Is this all like a lie or mental reservation? An old Lutheran guy told me mental reservation is a Jesuit thing. Is that true? Of course, lies can be excusable in rare occasions, like if the government is out to wipe out a kind of people and you are hosting those people upon being questioned by authorities.

:bigyikes::dts::doh2:

This would keep the Blessed Sacrament from being profaned, but that’s only part of the problem.

Someone who receives Communion in the Catholic Church is supposed to be in Communion with the Church. One of the reasons Communion is withheld is because grave sins have been publicly manifested by a person, and the Church publicly separates them from the Sacraments, as a means to encourage their repentance.

Some people will call me a little bit medieval, but the best example I found was from the Formula of Excommunication. When someone has publicly manifested grave sin, they should be denied Communion with and in the Church, to encourage penance.

We [The Church] deprive him [the person is named] with all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord; we separate him from the society of all Christians …] So long as he will not burst the fetters of the Devil, amend himself and do penance and make reparation to the Church which he has offended, …] so that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.

[RIGHT]– Formula of Excommunication, 1952 Roman Pontifical[/RIGHT]

Does that make sense? Please let me know if I got anything incorrect

It is not for an EMHC to decide who does and who doesn’t get to receive. Someone might have gone to confession right before Mass. How is the EMHC to know that.

Our pastor told the EMHC that the only reason we can every deny someone is if they are chewing gum.

We have no right to judge the state of anyone’s soul, not even a politician or celebrity.

-Tim-

We are not allowed to deny anyone. Only the priest can. Just as well, because we are supposed to be offering the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and our judgement can be very shaky. What if I swopped because someone said “Thank you” instead of “Amen”? How do I know their heart or their spiritual status? What if they are so lost in meditating the preciousness, that they made a mistake?

If someone is receiving, when they shouldn’t, then the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus won’t be there when they have it in their mouths. I think it is best to leave it to the priest and God instead of a servant (and in my case a servant who will often get it wrong).

I think that it would be a simulation of sacrament, and Canon Law is quite severe about it.

Handing out placebos instead of Communion is almost as ridiculous as approaching the altar for a blessing in place of the Eucharist, but we can see how much traction the latter has gotten, so this thread is not entirely outlandish…

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree that receiving a blessing instead of the Eucharist is ridiculous.

When a Catholic rightly or wrongly believes that they cannot receive the Eucharist, at least they can participate as fully as they can in the mass and this can also be a signal to the priest that one of the sheep is in spiritual distress. The blessing that our priest gives to someone who normally receives but approaches with crossed arms is whispered in their ear and is very different to the blessing given to children and non-Catholics.

For non-Catholics or children awaiting their first Holy Communion, surely we are lovingly including them as much as possible? Aren’t we meant to be welcoming and as inclusive as possible, within the Bible, Catechism and teachings of the Catholic Church?

[quote=TimothyH]It is not for an EMHC to decide who does and who doesn’t get to receive. Someone might have gone to confession right before Mass. How is the EMHC to know that.**…**We have no right to judge the state of anyone’s soul, not even a politician or celebrity.
[/quote]

[quote=Avila123]We are not allowed to deny anyone. Only the priest can. Just as well, because we are supposed to be offering the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and our judgement can be very shaky. What if I swopped because someone said “Thank you” instead of “Amen”? How do I know their heart or their spiritual status? What if they are so lost in meditating the preciousness, that they made a mistake?

[/quote]

Both of these posts are definitely true and the EMHC has no right to deny someone communion based off of their own judgement. However even if we were to take it to a hypothetical level and lets say that an EMHC could rightly judge if someone can take communion or not. Even if an EMHC, again hypothetically, had the ability to judge this and judged that someone should not be taking communion giving that person an unconsecrated host would only cause more of a problem because the person wouldn’t know and would continue to think that they can receive communion.

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.

**[Canons 230 and 915

Withholding of Holy Communion by Extraordinary Minister](“http://www.canonlaw.info/canonlaw915.htm”)**

Under what conditions, if any, may extraordinary ministers withhold Holy Communion? (1) My roommate regularly lets her boyfriend spend the night with her in our apartment. I have objected to this behavior, and have been told to mind my own business. If she comes to me for Holy Communion on Sunday, must I give it to her knowing what I do about her conduct? (2) A prominent, pro-abortion Catholic politician belongs to our parish. I am very uncomfortable giving him Holy Communion. May I withhold it? (3) A man with an obscene tattoo came to me for Holy Communion. When I saw it, I told him to cover it up. He did, and I gave him Holy Communion. Later I wondered whether I had any right to say anything, but I also wondered whether I should have given Holy Communion to him knowing what I did about what was under his shirt sleeve. Can you advise?

**Opinion
**
Analysis of these three questions turns primarily on Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law: “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.” Nothing in this (or any other) canon exempts extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion from the duty incumbent upon all ministers of the Eucharist to protect the Blessed Sacrament from objectively scandalous or sacrilegious reception. Put another way, extraordinary ministers are responsible before ecclesiastical authority, and eventually before God, for their administration of Holy Communion. That said, however, extraordinary ministers are unlikely to know what canonists take for granted, namely, that Canon 915, even though it is a sacramental disciplinary norm and not penal law, requires a very careful reading for proper application. Huels, CLSA New Comm 1110-1111. We begin with an overview of the rights of the faithful in regard to the reception of the sacraments in general and the Eucharist in particular.

(snip)

Canon 915 is drafted in a way that seems to assume that ministers of Holy Communion will have sufficient time and the information necessary to reach conclusions about administration of the sacrament. But sometimes, life is not [83] so cooperative; sudden, on-the-spot decisions might need to be made regarding one’s eligibility to receive Holy Communion. The most likely way this question will present itself is in regard to deportment or dress. For example, a neo-Nazi, in brown shirt with swastika armband, may appear one day in the Communion line; a woman dressed in a way that, according to prevailing social norms, seems intended to provoke sexual arousal in men, may present herself for the Eucharist; activists for causes at odds with Church teaching might wear distinctive garb or accouterments as a way to imply their right to Holy Communion despite their ecclesially contrarian stances. In each of these cases, it is likely (and indeed, it may even been intended) that a minister of Holy Communion will have little time to reflect on the situation and make an informed decision.

It would easy, and I think defensible, to fall back on the analysis offered above and conclude that a minister’s lack of certitude about, say, a subject’s degree of obstinacy justifies the administration of Holy Communion under such circumstances. But a good case can be made for exactly the opposite response as well. How so?

(snip)

[RIGHT]Edward N. Peters, J.D., J.C.D.[/RIGHT]

Full citations: Edward Peters, Incrementa in Progressu 1983 Codicis Iuris Canonici: A Legislative History of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Wilson & Lafleur, 2005); J. Beal, et al., eds., New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Paulist Press, 2000).

Point taken. In reality, our priest would intervene quickly. What I should have said is that we are not allowed of our own volition to refuse anyone but must comply with the guidance given by the priest. If I knew someone will attempt to receive and they shouldn’t, I think my responsibility is to raise it with the priest before mass and comply with his decision. Then, if I genuinely believe the priest was wrong and will continue to do wrong, it is a matter to put before the Bishop.

:slight_smile:

There are some cases that are blatant. Rainbow Sash-ers, for example. Or, the so-called ‘Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence’

Or, for example, we have this here:

Chicago’s Archbishop Francis Cardinal George refused communion to gay activist Joe Murray, who wore a rainbow sash during George’s appearance at the 25th anniversary of the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach Sunday, June 16.

About 25 LGBTs and allies protested outside of AGLO’s Mass at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church, 708 W. Belmont. They could be heard shouting outside during Mass, and cars honking in support were also a frequent sound heard during the service.

The protest was organized by the Rainbow Sash Movement and the Gay Liberation Network. Murray is the founder and executive director of the U.S. Rainbow Sash Movement. While several others took rainbow sashes from Murray ahead of Mass, no one else protested inside.

Murray stood up with his back to Cardinal George during parts of the Mass, and then he went up with the estimated 200 others in attendance to receive communion. George refused him, and Murray walked away with his hands open and empty, showing the congregants that he had been denied.

But in an emotional show of solidarity, Brenna Cronin, who had already received her communion as part of the church choir, went back up and took another communion wafer (called a Host) and brought it to Murray herself.

I was talking about the obvious mortal sinners. If the bishop actually says one may not go up to receive Holy Communion, then one should not administer Christ, as a consecrated host, to that one. I’m not saying one can go off of rumors or personal opinions of one.

Still, let’s face it, Pelosi, Sebellius and Biden were born and raised when Catholics were catechized right at Mass, if not at home. They don’t need a bishop’s interview with them to know better. I would think the verse about eating and drinking of Christ’s body being a sacrilege, if one has mortal sin and knows he/she knows better, would apply to the EM or priest as an accomplice, if he/she goes ahead with giving the public heretic Jesus in that form.

With my way, even a timid EM need not worry–and I wrote this with them in mind. Knowing they might get a phony host, the public heretic won’t know any better and neither will the pewsitters, but the teaching of not receiving if one is aware of mortal sin will still be taught, because thinking you are receiving Jesus, while knowing you’re in that state, would still be a serious sin. Of course, obstinately thinking you are being able to receive Jesu, though knowing better and not being mentally ill, it might encourage that obstinacy. That is a hole in that plan.

We have to remember we are “talking” about Holy Communion here.

When I was a child preparing for my First Holy Communion, I stayed kneeling at my pew while my parents went to Communion. I could not wait to go up and Receive! What a joy-full day that was for me, my family, and my parish! :extrahappy: These days I see children going up for a blessing. Then these children go and Receive after their First Communion and they are playing and walking in ways that say “I do not care”! One child came up to me that way for the Precious Blood. I stood there. Waited for her to “get serious” or calm down, and then told him, “The Blood of Christ.” It took just a few seconds. He has never again done that again with anyone. I did not scold him or looked at him angrily.

It is not Eucharistic Minister, it is Extraordinary Minister.

Another over used and abused ministry in the Church.

Unfortunately, we are talking about people who believe it is okay to rip a baby limbs off with a curette vacuum (which occurs in over 90% of all 1st tri abortions). So, I don’t think these people are going to care about public scandal or sacrilege either.

Distributing unconsecrated hosts would be deceit. Since the reception of Communion is a Sacrament, this seems to be an additional sacrilege.

It is possible to return to the state of grace with a perfect act of contrition. However, whether an act of contrition is perfect or not is something we can never know for ourselves or anyone else.

Distributing unconsecrated hosts would also be its own source of scandal in that onlookers would have no way of knowing that the “unworthy person” (particularly in the case of a prominent celebrity) wasn’t actually receiving the Eucharist.

As another poster has noted EMHC’s are NOT Eucharistic Ministers. Lay people cannot be that. Only the ordained can be Eucharistic Ministers.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.