Eucharist – Refusal of Communion: Once again, I have found a reference to clerical refusal to give Holy Communion to individuals requesting it. It happens with more and more frequency it seems. The reference this time, I read in an article in the September 8 issue of the New Yorker Magazine. In “Party Faithful,” by Peter J. Boyer, writes of the Democratic Party’s problem with trying for the “religious vote.” The article cites an instance in which a Catholic political activist (Douglas Kmiec) was refused communion by a priest, reminding me of the bishops who, during the campaign for President in 2004, issued a statement that they would not allow the Democrat, John Kerry to receive communion in their dioceses.
I am outraged every time this action is recounted in the press. I am outraged on two levels: One, a priest has no business presuming a person has committed a mortal sin. Two, even if a person wanting to receive the sacrament, has done something the Church has defined as a grave sin, it may not constitute a mortal sin for the rejected individual. if an act fails to meet all three of the characterizations necessary to “qualify” as mortal sin, then it falls to the level of venial sin, and reception of the Blessed Sacrament is allowed. The catechism describes these as: Knowledge, free will and grave matter. The conduct in question must be a grave (or serious) matter, it must be committed with full knowledge, and it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent. If any one of these is missing, the act is venial.
In my opinion, the last one, involving free will and conscience, is the “kicker.” But you wouldn’t know it, if you’re depending only on what you hear in most priestly homilies, which almost always paints everything in black and white. In many conversations with lapsed Catholics, I have been appalled at the unnecessary pain caused by not knowing the full truth of what the Church teaches about mortal sin, and are made to feel guilty, when they are not. I am aware that many such people deny they feel guilty, but guilt has a way of burying itself quite deeply in the human soul, and I cannot but feel its presence in their hearts.
It saddens me to consider how many “fallen away” Catholics no longer “practice” their faith because of some bit of nonsense taught them by the good nuns back when they attended parochial school. I mean no disrespect to parish priests, but a clear distinction can/should be made between them and moral theologians. Parish priests typically have far too many administrative duties and obligations, and have little or no time to spend on continued study of moral theology. And, even if they do know it well, are too constrained by time to explain things in greater detail during their homilies. Questions about mortal sin might be answered sufficiently by a priest during confession, but there too, time constraints can be an obstacle. And, since lay theologians are few in number, not commonly found in the yellow pages, most such catholics just leave the Church.
I have often thought about the advantage I have in such matters, having spent some years studying in a Catholic seminary. For although I did not pursue it to the point of ordination, I had sufficient exposure to moral theology to know that the mere fact of ordination, does not make a man a theologian…enough to cause me to take some of what I hear in priestly homilies with a grain of salt. Indeed, I would be much more likely to follow the advice of a lay-theologian on some issues than that of a good and kindly Father So and So.