The Mercy of Withholding the Eucharist
This essay was published in full at Crisis Magazine. The nature of the topic is likely to be of much more interest to Catholic readers, but of course, it is open to all. The introduction follows:
It is a strange feature of our times that when a priest fulfills his sacred duty it becomes news. Such is the case with Fr. Ian Vane, who rightly refused Holy Communion to British MP Chris Coghlan after Coghlan’s public support for assisted suicide. Such an action by a priest should be common—as common as “Catholics” who promote evils while maintaining a public platform are today.
Receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin is a sacrilege because it profanes the sacredness of the sacrament by placing Him in a marred vessel. Instead of receiving the graces normally associated with reception of the Eucharist, one who receives Communion in a state of mortal sin causes further spiritual harm and compounds the sin. This teaching is not ambiguous, and it never has been. It can be found in Scripture itself: “And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood” (1 Corinthians 11:27, Knox). Thus, a priest who denies Communion in such cases is attempting both to assist the parishioner and prevent an act of sacrilege.
Keep reading at Crisis Magazine (freely).
I wish more priests would take this initiative. I was absolutely appalled When the clergy here in the United States, was continuing to give Pelosi and Biden communion. as they were pushing for full term, no limit abortion. It was an insult. They have to go down in history as the worst Catholics ever. how can you profess to be a Catholic while you’re encouraging an entire country to embrace minor trans surgery and the LGBTQ community?
I see that you "liked" my comment (below) earlier, but that "like" seems to have disappeared (that is okay, I have a copy if you need for me to retrieve it). I wonder what that means that it disappeared.
Here is that comment as a refresher:
"David Schmitt, Ph.D.
American Siberia - David Schmitt…
16h
Of course, to clear thinking, classically-educated or influenced minds, this is precisely how to think about such matters. The "fast food," "microwave," pleasure-seeking culture of radical individualism is shrieking offended by such prescriptions. The question is always, always, always: "What is good for the eternal Soul of a person?"
So, is there something that is now objectionable about that comment that you no longer "like" it? Perhaps you accidently pressed the wrong button. If not, was your original "like" somehow now considered by you to be incorrect? Why so? If there's something incorrect about the statement, please do, for the sake of my Soul, offer a possible correction to my statement. If all of that is incorrect, then what is there left for me to consider that your original "like" was careless, or was it insincere?