Conservative lawyer Douglas Kmiec was denied communion recently at a mass connected with a gathering of Catholic business people. The priest denounced Kmiec's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, then refused to give Kmiec communion.
Listen to it all.
E.J. Dionne also has a piece in New Republic on this entitled "Denied the Rite" which begins thus:
Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.
Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?
Read it all.
Filed under: * Culture-Watch Religion & Culture * Economics, Politics US Presidential Election 2008 * Religion News & Commentary Other Churches Roman Catholic
Posted June 5, 2008 at 4:19 am
To comment on this article: Go to Article View
The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/13048/
|
2. Irenaeus wrote:
What’s next? Denying communion to politicians who support the death penalty and the Bush Administration’s torture policies? And to those politicians’ supporters? June 5, 2:15 pm | [comment link] |
|
3. An Anxious Anglican wrote:
It sounds like neither party took the time to read the entire memo from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the US Catholic Bishops on this issue some years back, quoted below in relevant part:
IMHO, this was the right thing done the wrong way to the wrong person. Perhaps next time the Catholic clergy (or even a Bishop) will focus on a more culpable example of complicity with the culture of death. June 5, 8:17 pm | [comment link] |
|
4. Chris Molter wrote:
#1 I agree that this is something that ought to have (and perhaps was) been handled privately. It IS rather extreme to call someone out like that. |
© 2012 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.
For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com
<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)

As a general rule calling someone out from the pulpit is a pretty extreme act. Unless there was a private meeting or at least some sort of warning calling for repentance this was likely inappropriate. Withholding communion comes under the same general rule. In the Orthodox Church we take communion rather seriously. But we also give fair warning usually in church bulletins and signs often posted in the narthax that we don’t do inter communion and specifying the conditions necessary for communing.
In my parish our priest routinely announces that only those who are fully Orthodox and who have prepared themselves through prayer, fasting (all of the fasts for the last week and no food or drink from midnight the night before) and recent confession should approach the chalice. Unless someone is not Orthodox and trying to take communion it would be extremely unusual to refuse them the sacrament if they approach the chalice. If someone is doing something very scandalous that precludes them from communion then I would think that is best handled privately.
Then there is the rather overt interference by a priest into a matter of political conscience. It is one thing for a priest to remind the faithful from the pulpit that they are morally obligated to consider certain issues when deciding who to vote for. It is quite another to directly dictate someone’s vote under pain of excommunication. All in all this left a rather bad taste in my mouth.
ICXC NIKA
June 5, 1:47 pm | [comment link]John
(Happy Ascension Thursday!)