GIVING COMMUNION TO PRO-CHOICE POLS: WHAT DOES THE PRIEST RISK? A question about these kinds of policies, in which the question of whether to receive Holy Communion or not is left up to the individual parishioner, which I'd like a more knowledgeable Catholic than I to answer: if a priest distributes Holy Communion to a person whom the priest knows to be in a state of mortal sin, hasn't that priest committed the sin of scandal? He's assisting the communicant in committing the sin of sacrilege, fully cognizant that the communicant is unfit to receive the Host, and is multiplying his sin by taking Communion while unfit.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression was that scandal was sort of the spiritual version of accomplice liability, whereby one becomes liable for the sins of another when one aids, encourages or (post facto) praises those sins. (No doubt you can tell I'm getting ready for my Criminal Law & Administration exam.) This seems to apply whether or not the scandalous aid/encouragement was the but-for cause of the sin - you can't escape responsibility by saying that someone else would have bought Li'l Timmy those condoms, although, of course, someone would have - but it would seem to be especially present in instances, like these, in which the scandalizer is in fact a but-for cause of the sin. If the priest (or extraordinary minister) refuses to give the Eucharist, the would-be recipient isn't going to be able to commit sacrilege. (I mean, I suppose he could go to another church, or try to punch out the priest and grab the Host from his prone body....)
What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that priests have a responsibility for their own spiritual well-being not to distribute Communion in circumstances in which they know it would be a sin for the person to receive Communion. I'm not advocating establishing a national inquisition, or posting hall monitors at the confessionals and denying Communion to people who don't show up regularly. There are plenty of good reasons (for one, the charitable obligation to assume the best of our fellow man) to have the default policy be that individuals determine whether or not they should be receiving the Eucharist, based on an examination of their own consciences. But in instances in which the priest has actual knowledge that a specific individual has on his conscience an unconfessed mortal sin (say, he's just been caught stealing from the collection basket, or masturbating in one of the pews) it seems not only reasonable but necessary that the priest deny that person receipt of communion. The priest cannot be neutral as to whether one of his parishioners is committing sacrilege. "Feed my sheep," people.
Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression was that scandal was sort of the spiritual version of accomplice liability, whereby one becomes liable for the sins of another when one aids, encourages or (post facto) praises those sins. (No doubt you can tell I'm getting ready for my Criminal Law & Administration exam.) This seems to apply whether or not the scandalous aid/encouragement was the but-for cause of the sin - you can't escape responsibility by saying that someone else would have bought Li'l Timmy those condoms, although, of course, someone would have - but it would seem to be especially present in instances, like these, in which the scandalizer is in fact a but-for cause of the sin. If the priest (or extraordinary minister) refuses to give the Eucharist, the would-be recipient isn't going to be able to commit sacrilege. (I mean, I suppose he could go to another church, or try to punch out the priest and grab the Host from his prone body....)
What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that priests have a responsibility for their own spiritual well-being not to distribute Communion in circumstances in which they know it would be a sin for the person to receive Communion. I'm not advocating establishing a national inquisition, or posting hall monitors at the confessionals and denying Communion to people who don't show up regularly. There are plenty of good reasons (for one, the charitable obligation to assume the best of our fellow man) to have the default policy be that individuals determine whether or not they should be receiving the Eucharist, based on an examination of their own consciences. But in instances in which the priest has actual knowledge that a specific individual has on his conscience an unconfessed mortal sin (say, he's just been caught stealing from the collection basket, or masturbating in one of the pews) it seems not only reasonable but necessary that the priest deny that person receipt of communion. The priest cannot be neutral as to whether one of his parishioners is committing sacrilege. "Feed my sheep," people.
<< Home