Senator Dick Durbin 'not permitted to receive Holy Communion' Bishop says

This kind of shepherding calls people to think about the seriousness of what they are doing.

Bishops are supposed to warn their sheep not to do sinful things. Bishop Paprocki is.

Some might think this is being “mean” to Senator Durbin … or “too political” of a Bishop; but receiving the Eucharist unworthily is a sacrilege (mortal sin) by itself … and doing so publicly while also publicly championing the worst of mortal sins with the power of one’s office shows contempt for the authority of the Church.

It also confuses the low information Catholic who might reason "Senator Durbin is “pro-choice” on abortion - and a “good Catholic” who goes to Communion - surely this must be OK now or the Church would tell us.

And since being pro-abortion (tolerant of it - unto advocacy) can sometimes bring earthly rewards (notwithstanding the jeopardy it puts one’s soul in per mortal sin :eek:) - Church silence on such a public matter works to the end of abortion itself being accepted (or considered perhaps by some as a mere venial sin - instead of a dealbreaker per salvation if not repented of and absolved).

What will happen if Senator Durbin presents himself for Communion somewhere?

IMO he probably will. Some priests might give him communion (accidentally or benignly one would hope at least) . Eucharistic Ministers, etc. (?) all the more … as they might not be as aware of the ban. All the more if Durbin just “blends in” – after all, who knows if he might not have gone to confession the day before … in which case denying him might be a sort of … false witness? Communion is largely on the “honor system” and there are probably many people who go while having unconfessed and unrepented of mortal sins on their souls. :sad_yes: But a Eucharistic Minister doesn’t want to go making those calls.

Some priests (sad to say) might even hold with Senator Durbin’s views on abortion … or at least not “deny him communion” should he present himself in the “right” (or is it wrong) Church. That is to say … the interdict of the Bishop might not be on their minds to enforce at Communion time (though they should) as much as just distributing the Eucharist is.

Sometimes the Eucharist is denied to people making overt displays against the Church as in the case of one gay leader who attended a mass in Chicago to protest Church policy … (as part of a demonstration that outside falsely accused the Church and Cardinal George of “bigotry”) then presented himself for communion. < Here is the astounding video of that “protest” which IMO was hostile intimidation bordering on a hate crime but for the lack of actual violence done.

In that “communion denial” case, another gay activist, who was given communion, got in line a second time, took communion in the hand … and gave it to the “denied” activist. :ouch:

Best case: Senator Durbin decides that receiving the Eucharist in a state of grace and repenting of his public support of the mortal sin of abortion is more important to him than -
playing the “courageous rogue” Catholic who stands for his political “principles (sic - considering that’s abortion)”. In which case, welcome back Prodigal Son! :clapping:

Good post good points.

Bishop Paprocki is a Chicagoan. He confirmed both my son and daughter. He is the Bishop/Goalie (avid hockey player and coach). Perhaps when Cardinal George finds eternal rest, or retires, Pope Francis will consider calling Bishop Paprocki back to Chicago.

If you voluntarily belong to an organization one needs to abide by the rules

the Bishop has every right to deny the sacraments to the Good Senator ( and he is a good long standing Public Servant)

the Bishops should deny the sacraments to Sec Kerry -MInority leadr Palosi and likely every Progressive member of the Congress and Administration who identifies as roman catholic -would do wonders for the perception of the Church in the media

we mainline Protestants need more members:eek:

I think it’s important we support this Bishop however we can. Whether that be by writing him to thank him and/or remembering him in prayer. Those who stand for truth in this current political climate WILL be persecuted so he has a rough road ahead of him. BUT, blessed is he who is hated because of Christ. :slight_smile:

What I didn’t know when I posted this … is it comes on the heels of a bigger story that broke earlier this week

Catholic Priest Denies Sen. Dick Durbin Communion *

  • Details in this story (possibly edited out or omitted in this version?) do not make it clear if the denial affirmed in the headline was face to face in a Communion line … or more generally … as in a warning not to present oneself in the future (or “again”, if it comes on the heels of Durbin having received). :confused:

Paprocki’s e-mail was reported Thursday by Catholic commentator Matt Abbott.

“Senator Durbin was informed several years ago by his pastor at Blessed Sacrament Parish here in Springfield that he was not permitted to receive Holy Communion per canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law,” Paprocki wrote. “My predecessor upheld that decision and it remains in effect. It is my understanding that the senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.”

THAT predecessor turns out to be my present Bishop, Kevin Vann, Bishop of Orange (County) CA.

In April 2004, Vann said that he would be “reticent” in giving communion to Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a former parishioner at Blessed Sacrament whose “pro-choice position puts him really outside of communion or unity with the Church’s teachings on life.”[3][4]

One year later Vann was promoted to the office of Bishop of Fort Worth, Texas.

This “controversy” regarding Durbin is not new apparently. And (apparently?) Durbin presented himself in that SAME parish for communion and caused a priest to have to deny him? I’m looking for more details … but it looks so far like an incident triggered Bishop Paprocki’s pronouncement (rather than an out-of-the-blue reiteration of a warning given to Durbin 10 years ago). < The headline of this story AGAIN recounts a priest’s decision to deny communion in this case. The following story recounts Bishop Paprocki supporting the priest’s decision. Details of whether Durbin actually presented himself, was going to present himself soon, or otherwise were not givien in this article. :shrug:

BUT an excellent explanation of the Church’s position (per the Catechism’s Canon 915 and Cardinal Burke’s … and "Cardinal Ratzinger’s’ " writings ARE. :thumbsup:

This is an interesting strategy in how to handle such situations charitably.

Back in 2004 Monsignor Kevin Vann (today Bishop of Orange, CA) is reported to have added to his decision to deny communion to Durbin if he presented himself …

Instead of Holy Communion, the Monsignor said he would give the senator a blessing, common practice for people who attend Mass at a Catholic parish and wish to receive communion, but are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The quote above is from the April editions of the “Illinois Review” and the “Quincy Journal”.

Critique: Vann is no longer Pastor at Blessed Sacrament in Springfield, the parish in question, though it might appear the above publications presumed that after Bishop Paprocki referenced Vann’s prior decision.

The full contents of the email Bishop Paprocki was responding to does not seem to have been published, nor the name of any priest who either gave communion to or denied communion to Senator Durbin at Blessed Sacrament.

The only priest listed presently at Blessed Sacrament on the parish’s site is a Fr. Jeff Grant … whose name does not show up on Google as being linked to any communion controversy (publicly) with the Senator.

CRITICAL qualifying words of Bishop Paprocki to the email inquiry into the status of Durbin’s being allowed to take communion (No he is not … but …)

It is my understanding that the senator is complying with that decision here in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois.” – Bishop Paprocki added to his answer to the email inquiry.

Paprocki’s Stance and Canon 915 (per Communion) Not Applied the same elsewhere.

As a Catholic issue, this comes up a lot. Several well known people (Catholic politicians especially) have rather publicly received communion while just as publicly remaining champions of things that directly contradict the teachings of the Church. Sometimes nothing is done about it … at the time (denial) or later (warnings or rebukes).

And in fact, at least one priest in a well known case, who denied communion to a woman who told him beforehand she was in an ongoing same sex relationship (at her mother’s funeral) – was (coincidentally or otherwise) removed from his position and told to apologize to the woman by his Bishop at the time. < Washington Post’s article at the time (which starts out as decidedly sympathetic to the “openly gay” woman … but balances out the facts with a defense of the priest later).

That Washington DC case seemed to be a setup IMO, shortly before some critical same sex marriage laws were coming to a vote. Father Marcel Guarnizo was following Canon Law 915. But in the article above a “high ranking Diocesan Spokesperson” (another priest)
apologized to Barbara Johnson (the woman in question) for the priest’s “insensitivity”.

Johnson nevertheless wanted Fr. Guarnizo “removed”. Shortly thereafter he was put on leave with the Vicar General of the Washington DC diocese writing (according to the Huffington Post):

… prohibited from exercising any priestly ministry in the Archdiocese of Washington until all matters can be appropriately resolved, with the hope that he might return to priestly ministry.

2014: Fr. Marcel was (is still?) back in Virginia in February being interviewed on the Ed Morrissey Show about his essay on " … the fundamental conflict between Christianity and Socialism and Communism …" . He is listed however as a priest from the Diocese of Moscow (Russia). He is no longer listed as a priest at St. John Neumann parish in the DC Diocese.

This is the key point right here. 915 of the Canon Law was designed for situations exactly like this. This Senator switched positions, has a 100% voting record from Planned Parenthood, accepted awards from them and been very vocal about his support for abortion. A good case to refuse Communion on the hopes that he recognizes the seriousness of the situation.

On the radio it was announced the the Senator has agreed to approach for a blessing instead of communion.

But that’s another topic for discussion.

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