Report on the Incident at Mass and the Withholding of Communion By Steve Ray

Transcription

1 Report on the Incident at Mass and the Withholding of Communion By Steve Ray An unfortunate incident took place during a recent Mass. I was in charge of the group attending. The priest had an outburst from the altar and I disagreed with his injunction against me so he refused to give me communion. It caused a scandal. Since this incident publicly affected everyone I felt it necessary to comment on the situation to those involved. It is best to get to the bottom of the situation, look at the law of the Church and clear the air. We are commanded in Scripture to walk in the light and to speak the truth. I am leaving out a lot of the none essential details such as names, places and dates in order to defend the innocent and protect the guilty. I am writing this to address the issue involved and not to point fingers at any individuals. I wrote a much more detailed response to those involved, but for the sake of charity I am only addressing the issue here and not the persons involved. The Outline of this document is as follows: Introduction On Taking Pictures during Mass and my Contractual Obligations The Unfortunate Situation On Forbidding Photography during Mass and Imprudent Behavior from the Altar On the Withholding of Communion Canon Lawyers Consulted What Does the Book Mass Confusion Have to Say? Final Thoughts on Withholding Communion Summary Introduction: According to contractual arrangements I was fully responsible for the group event and the Mass. The priest was an invited guest to fulfill the role of priest and spiritual director for this group. Other than to officiate at Mass and the spiritual exercises he was not in any position of authority or decision making. I had not met nor spoken personally with the priest prior to this event. I endeavored to resolve the problem at the time, but now the matter needs to be discussed openly and thoroughly. I felt this response was necessary for the sake on honesty and truth, but also because of the way it affected some of the people as revealed by numerous subsequent comments. Thus I have taken it upon myself to provide this report and evaluation of the incident so that everyone understands what took place, why it took place and to hopefully avoid such incidents in the future. I also want to make it very clear that Janet and I are respectful of the authority of the Catholic Church 110%. We love the Magesterium of the Church and the Laws and Traditions of the Church. Discovering the authority of the Catholic Church made me become a Catholic. Every one of my books and DVDs have been submitted to my bishop

2 for his approval. I have received his Imprimatur on every one of them. My work is constantly offered for review to holy priests and advisors. We have never had anything but approbation from those to whom we humbly submit our efforts. We also love and respect the priesthood, especially the young priests who are renewing the orthodox teaching and practice of the Church. I made this clear in regard to the priest in question. I appreciate and love him for being a priest and for striving to faithfully serve the people of God in the Roman Catholic Church. We all appreciate the sacrifices priests have made and battles they have fought. However, a priest is not infallible nor is always right simply by virtue of being a priest. No one is required to slavishly obey a priest right or wrong. We are obliged to show respect and honor and obedience but not a robot-like obedience if he is wrong. Laymen must be discerning. The authority in a diocese is invested in the bishop who is in union with the Pope, not in any individual priest. However, we should love and respect and obey the priests and give them the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. But slavish obedience to a priest whether he is right or wrong is never required of the people of God. On Taking Pictures during Mass and my Contractual Obligations: On special occasions I offer my services as designated photographer. I take short videos clips and pictures. I have done this many times before nothing was done differently on this occasion. Everyone was aware of my duty to document the experience and I announced it clearly to everyone. Those who were listening knew of my obligation and how I intended to implement it. One of the advantages of me taking pictures and videos during this Mass was precisely to achieve the priest s and my own mutual goal: to avoid distractions at Mass. When I take pictures, others don t need to. If I as the professional photographer take pictures and videos the Mass, others do not need to take them and can thus relax and concentrate on the Mass and enjoying the spiritual fruits. Maybe the priest didn t realize all the dynamics going on, which is why he is not the one making the decisions. It was, by the way, his first time in this unique situation which is another reason he should have worked a bit harder at communication and cooperating with me. I on the other hand have managed such Masses many times for many holy priests and I know the ropes, so to speak. Twice I have been invited to a private chapel of the Pope to join his Mass in the Vatican and both times, for my own memories, I took pictures during certain parts of the Mass. At a small public Mass with then-cardinal Ratzinger, when I met him for the first time, I took pictures during the Mass. Even at papal Masses and many I have attended with Cardinals, Archbishops and holy priests around the world, not only did I take pictures, but so did the official photographers, often very close to the altar and seemingly without limitations. There has never been any issue with respectful photography. 2

3 In the past I have taken pictures from my own personal use, but on this occasion it is my job and responsibility to document the Mass. To my knowledge there are no liturgical rules, nothing in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), or in the Code of Canon Law that forbids picture-taking during Mass. If there were, I would not do it. I am always respectful. I always use a small and silent camera and I never step out during the reading of the Gospel or during the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament. The Unfortunate and Tense Situation: There was an unfortunate incident which I will relate the situation to the best of my recollection. Like I had done at previous Masses, I respectfully stepped out to take a 20 second video clip. The priest interrupted the Mass from the altar to tell me to stop taking pictures. I instantly stopped, said OK, and knelt on the spot out of respect, thinking that I had missed something or had mistakenly stepped out during the consecration without realizing it. I was shocked and know that many others were as well. One lady approached me in tears afterwards and apologized to me, shocked that any priest would do such a thing. I waited until the Sign of Peace as everyone was mingling to greet each other. I rose from my knees and resumed taking a short video clip. Instantly the priest confronted me again saying quite loudly (it was heard by everyone) something like I told you not to take pictures! I was more shocked than before. Nothing had been communicated to me beforehand that he expected such an extreme prohibition. I said, Fr. we can talk about this later and finished my 20 second video clip on my way back to my seat. When it came time for communion he gave me the sign of a blessing but refused to offer communion. I thought there must be some mistake so I continued to hold out my hand, never dreaming he would or could refuse to give the Blessed Sacrament. At this point he said loud enough for most to hear NO! and he covered the paten with his other hand. I respectfully went to my seat and sat down. After the Mass I approached the priest to discuss this matter but he said he said he did not want to talk with me. During the next few hours I continued to try to rectify the situation with the priest, though he stubbornly refused to talk reason. There were a series of animated discussions including my assertion that he was out of line and wrong to deny communion. I told him I would respect his wishes in regard to photography in the future out of respect and that we should come to a deal. He said there were no deals. I reminded him that I was in charge of this event and that he was an invited guest to which he said, Get another priest. After the priest cooled down a bit (he has a very bad temper) he was finally willing to talk reasonably and I suggested a compromise not because I agreed that he was correct, but to show him respect and to make peace. I suggested that I would limit photography in the future to before the Gospel reading and after the start of the Communion line. He agreed. I reached out my hand to shake his. I bought him a book and said I was giving it him to demonstrate my love and respect for him as a priest. I announced that we had 3

4 come to an agreement. I asked everyone to applaud him for being a priest and for serving the Lord. On Forbidding Photography during Mass and Imprudent Behavior from the Altar I have tried to understand the priest s actions why he did what he did. It appears from the patchy information I have gleaned, that he has suffered at the hands of liberals those who do not respect Catholic teaching and the sacredness of the Mass. I share his frustration. I am also disappointed and frustrated with much of the laxity and disregard for orthodoxy. Regarding his stand for orthodoxy, I commend him. Regarding the imprudent way he expressed his orthodoxy that day, I do not. It seems that when some good priests fight heterodoxy and liberal tendencies in the Church they sometimes swing like pendulums too far in the other direction. They end up violating the laws of the Church the same way the liberal does, only in the other direction. It is sadly ironic. I find no prohibition against photography during Mass. It is done routinely at papal Masses and in general, especially during special occasions. I understand the need for reverence and adoration during the consecration and the presence of the Eucharist on the altar. Reverent and orthodox Catholics can differ on whether respectful photography after the consecration is disrespectful of the Sacrament or not. But I was the leader of this event the priest had no authority to forbid me from respectfully taking pictures during this Mass. For the record I will state two things: First, I limit myself out of respect for the Mass. I never take pictures during the Gospel reading or the consecration of the Blessed Sacrament; and second, I usually take videos very discreetly, but the inconvenient circular layout of this particular church forced me to the front which is probably what irritated the priest. The priest had obviously has taken a more stringent and rigorous stance on this matter than most priests. It seems that I am not the first one to step into the barbed wire fence in the dark, so to speak. Later I learned that in his home parish he refuses to let parents take pictures during their children s first communions and confirmations. It seems he has verbally imposed his injunctions during the Mass before but I was unaware of his personal rule in this matter. His parishioners take pictures with other priests but are intimidated from taking pictures during this priest s Masses. Interestingly, I searched for any Guidelines for Photography at Mass and found very little on the topic. One article did contain this interesting question: Question: Is there any official Church teaching on photography at Mass? Answer: Not as far as I can tell. Usually, each local Church has its own guidelines for photography during Mass. Most will tell you to not use flash, and be respectful of others, while others may only allow one photographer (e.g. the pro hired by the couple at a wedding) to take pictures. I was that pro at this Mass. Any reasonable person knows there is a huge difference between having many people jumping up and down during the Mass with cameras clicking and flashes popping and 4

5 having only one official photographer respectfully doing his job. Since I was the organzier and also the official photographer it is I who determine the protocol, not the invited guest priest. I have worked with MANY good priests and I have NEVER had any trouble with any of them, nor with respectfully doing my job during any Mass. This priest never communicated his stringent rules with me ahead of time, nor did he ask me what I expected of him during this particular event. (In fact, he didn t want to talk to me about anything and even refused to extend the common courtesy of a Hello or Thank you to others assisting me.) Had this priest expected something extraordinary or unusual, it would have been proper for him to inform me in advance rather than to embarrass me and everyone else with his outbursts. AND, the prudent and charitable thing to do to avoid making an uncomfortable and scandalous scene would have been to wait until after the Mass to talk to me about his expectations in private. I would have willingly and happily worked out the strategy for each of us to achieve our goals in any future Masses. However, that was not done and the ensuing verbal altercation was very uncomfortable for everyone and it made for a quite unnecessary distraction during the Mass. It also created a dark cloud over the event that day. On the Withholding of Communion The priest refused to give me communion that day. I have consulted with a number of solid Catholic theologians, canon lawyers, and some good and holy priests, not to mention Church documents. Every one of these men agreed that the priest was way out of line and violated the laws of the Church in refusing communion. The Church is not willy-nilly about who can and cannot receive communion. There are very specific laws concerning the distribution of communion contained in the Code of Canon Law, the rule book of the Church. Within the Church there are canon lawyers who earn their PhDs or STDs in their study of this Code of Canon Law. This Code is what regulates the Church. Everyone, including priests, are subject to its rules. According to the Code of Canon Law, this priest was way out of line in refusing me communion. He was in violation of the law of the Church and the Code of Canon Law. He arrogated to himself an authority he does not have and as a result ended up with scandal and a rogue action. Again I say, I find it ironic that in the attempt to defend orthodoxy in the face of laxity and liberalism in the Church, some good priests come full circle and find themselves in violation of Church Law like the liberals whom they despise. They sometimes take things into their own hands, as does the liberal, and in doing so find themselves in the same boat. I am not stating this for any other reason than to set the record straight and to hope this does not happen to another hapless Catholic at a future date in one of this priest s or any other priest s Masses. 5

6 There are three canons that specifically apply to the withholding of communion. They are #843, #912 and #915. Can Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them. I was certainly seeking the sacrament at the appropriate time, there was no canonical or moral disposition against me, and I was not under the sanction of any law prohibiting me from receiving. The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary comments on this code: [T]he proper disposition of faith and devotion can be judged adequately only by the person who seeks the sacrament. Although a judgment can and sometimes must be made by the minister, the canon establishes a presumption in favor of the Christian person (page 609). However, the minister can only make a judgment in very strict cases of religious affiliation, excommunication, interdict or if a person has been judged to be obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin (Code 915) of which my situation was not even close, and this is based on the opinion of canon lawyers. Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion. As a baptized Catholic in good standing with the Church and his own bishop, and without any prohibition of any law forbidding my reception of Holy Communion the priest must admit me to Holy Communion. It was a gross and egregious violation of Church law to withhold communion from me. A disagreement with the priest about taking pictures at Mass certainly imposes no law against me that allows him to refuse communion. Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. I have never been excommunicated nor interdicted. These are both penalties that can not be imposed by a priest. 1 They can only be imposed by a bishop or other such higher authority, of which this priest was not. Nor could I remotely be accused of obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. 1 Interdiction: My deceased friend Fr. John Hardon JS, wrote in his Catholic Dictionary, A general interdict may be inflicted only by the Holy See. Parishes or persons may be interdicted only by the local ordinary. I have never been interdicted and the priest fits neither of these criteria to bring about an interdiction. Excommunication: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, But a priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner. The priest could never excommunicate me and I have never been excommunicated therefore he is not allowed to forbid the Eucharist in this case. 6

7 Grave is the word the Church uses for very serious or mortal sin. There was no mortal sin involved, thus this priest was in violation of Church law in refusing communion. He was abusing his office as priest and it seems to me he withheld communion because of his bad temper, or to inflict punishment or embarrassment or possibly to intimidate others to an implicit obedience to all his demands whether they are legitimate or not. I suspect he thinks he was acting to defend the sacred reverence of the Mass, but I think there was more to it his anger and temper got the best of him. Now when I asked the priest to explain what in the world he thought he was doing, he said he refused communion because I disobeyed his injunction to stop taking pictures. However, I could find nothing in Canon Law or the GIRM or any other document which asserts that a disobeyed injunction of a parish priest can incur the penalty of withholding communion. Even if I did disobey an injunction forbidding me to take photos (which he had no authority under these particular circumstances to impose), it certainly does not rise to the level of forbidding communion. And as we have seen, a priest is not allowed to withhold communion just because he feels someone disobeyed his arbitrary injunction, that is, some order that is not clearly established in liturgical norms or canon law, and to which a Catholic has not been warned about in advance. Regarding the ministering of the Sacrament to the faithful, the Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 60-61) established: All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. [namely] The publicly unworthy, which are the excommunicated, those under interdict, and the manifestly infamous, such as prostitutes, those cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of the public kind, are, however, to be prevented, unless their penitence and amendment has been established and they will have repaired the public scandal. Referring to the above paragraph, Archbishop Raymond Burke, himself a outstanding Canon Lawyer, wrote in his document Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding The Denial Of Holy Communion To Those Obstinately Persevering In Manifest Grave Sin 2 that: 2 The full context is provided here: The discipline by which those persevering in manifest and grievous sin are kept from receiving Holy Communion is seen as integral to the worship and care of the Holy Eucharist. The responsibility of the Church in the matter clearly rests with the priest as the minister of the Sacrament, lest the greatest good of the Church be violated, the communicant commit sacrilege, and the faithful, in general, be scandalized. The language of the discipline reflects the language of the Decretal Law. The same language will be found in the subsequent articulation of the Church's discipline. The Rituale Romanum concludes the instruction to the priests by taking up three other cases of persons to whom it may be necessary to refuse Holy Communion. The first case involves occult grievous sinners who ask for Holy Communion. If they ask occultly and the priest does not recognize them as having amended their life, he is to refuse Holy Communion to them. If, however, they publicly seek the Sacrament and the priest cannot deny the Sacrament to them without causing scandal, then he is to give Holy Communion to them. Here, it is necessary to note two meanings of the term, scandal, in Church discipline. The first and 7

8 The Rituale Romanum concludes the instruction to the priests by taking up three other cases of persons to whom it may be necessary to refuse Holy Communion [occultist, mentally ill, senility]. The first case involves occult grievous sinners who ask for Holy Communion. If they ask occultly and the priest does not recognize them as having amended their life, he is to refuse Holy Communion to them. If, however, they publicly seek the Sacrament and the priest cannot deny the Sacrament to them without causing scandal, then he is to give Holy Communion to them [emphasis mine]. Notice that even an occult grievous sinner is to be allowed reception of the Blessed Sacrament if it will avoid scandal. Did not the refusal of communion cause scandal and a cloud to hover over the Mass? Of course it did. What this priest did was cause for scandal according the second sense of the word. 3 (The whole context of this section is provided in footnote 2.) Unless the person is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin public mortal and grave sin the priest cannot withhold communion. And even when it IS withheld, it would be prudent and proper that the sinner be duly warned and counseled by the bishop or his representative. Without these elements in place, there should no withholding of the Eucharist. In my own State of Michigan a great friend of mine and a solid priest was assigned to a parish where the governor of our state attended. On Sunday the governor was a lector and extraordinary minister of the Sacrament, but during the week as the governor of Michigan she was promoting abortion and even vetoed the Michigan law prohibiting partial birth abortions. She was notoriously pro-abortion and the perfect example of what the Code of Canon Law refers to as obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. Under these circumstances a priest would certainly be justified in withholding communion presumably though, after consulting with his bishop. This is a legitimate refusal of the properly theological meaning of scandal is to do or omit something which leads others into error or sin. The second meaning is to do or omit something which causes wonderment (admiratio) in others. Denying Holy Communion publicly to the occult sinner involves scandal in the second sense. Giving Holy Communion to the obstinately serious and public sinner involves scandal in the first sense. The second case involves persons suffering from mental illness. The third case involves those who, because of senility, no longer recognize the Sacrament. In the section, "On the Communion of the Sick" (De Communione infirmorum), the priests are urged to employ the greatest effort and diligence in providing Viaticum to the sick, lest, through the pastor's lack of attention, the sick die without the Blessed Sacrament. The priests, however, are cautioned lest, to the scandal of others, they give Holy Communion to the unworthy. The following groups of people are listed as examples of the unworthy: <<public usurers; the cohabiting; the notoriously criminal, namely, the excommunicated or the denounced, unless beforehand they will have purified themselves by holy Confession, and will have repaired, as according to the law, the public offense>>. The discipline set forth, with its particular application to the case of the sick and the dying, is the same as that articulated in the section on the Holy Eucharist. 3 Defining scandal in this context I quote: Here, it is necessary to note two meanings of the term, scandal, in Church discipline. The first and properly theological meaning of scandal is to do or omit something which leads others into error or sin. The second meaning is to do or omit something which causes wonderment (admiratio) in others. Denying Holy Communion publicly to the occult sinner involves scandal in the second sense (Archbishop Raymond Burke in his document The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately ersevering in Manifest Grave Sin). The priest s actions certainly caused scandal in this second sense of the word. 8

9 Eucharist one I support wholeheartedly. The question of those to be excluded from the reception of Most Holy Communion is also treated in the older 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 855). The canon reads: Can.855 I. The publicly unworthy, who are the excommunicated, the interdicted and the manifestly infamous, unless their penance and conversion have been established and they will have first made up for the public scandal, are to be excluded from the Eucharist. 2. The minister is also to refuse occult sinners, if they request secretly and he will not have recognized them as converted; not, however, if they publicly request and he is not able to pass over them without scandal. This is extremely serious business and a priest should be extremely careful when treading these waters, especially the withholding of communion. Those I ve consulted felt that the priest in this case was very careless in this matter and acted imprudently and illegally. I personally think that his temper got the best of him. A priest has no business withholding communion because of his temper or to get even, or to punish someone. This is a complete violation of Canon Law and an abuse of power. Canon Lawyers Consulted Among others, I consulted Dr. Ed Peters who is one of the most respected canon lawyers in the country. His orthodoxy and reputation are unimpeachable. He is the professor of Canon Law of Sacred Heart Major Seminary, has written books on Canon Law and was the translator of the Code of Canon Law. His is a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live and has written many books and articles. For a list of his books, check out this footnote. 4 I gave him a detailed account of the Mass and the fact I had been refused the Eucharist. He wrote back to me with his professional opinion, with permission to quote him: Steve, you wrote: All the priests and theologians I have talked with so far said he was way out of line especially to refuse communion.... I agree completely. Canon 912 says those not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy Communion, and canon 915 says only those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin can be denied communion. You fall under neither category. Even if, which I question, the celebrant can, on these facts, order cessation of filming, what you did was not close to rendering you ineligible for Communion. 4 Excommunication and the Catholic Church (2006), Incrementa in progressu 1983 Codicis iuris canonici: A Legislative History of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (2005), Annulments and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions (2004), 100 Answers to your questions on Annulments, (1997), Tabulae congruentiae inter Codicem iuris canonici et versiones anteriores canonum (2000), Penal Procedural Law in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (1990). (Dissertation), Home Schooling and the New Code of Canon Law (1988). 9

10 I am sorry you experienced this behavior... This was the same sentiment expressed by every priest and theologian I consulted. All of them used words like outlandish behavior, that was awful, he was way out of line, that is horrendous. One good priest just closed his eyes and shook his head. Several theologians and canon lawyers apologized to me profusely for the outrage perpetrated by the rogue actions of this priest. Isn t it interesting that conservatives often react in such a way that they end up at the same point as the extreme liberal both in violation of Church law one to defend their ultra-liberalism, the other overreacting to defend their conservatism. What Does the Book Mass Confusion Have to Say? I have also provided here two pages from an excellent book by my friend Jimmy Akin (Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers) entitled Mass Confusion: the Do s and Don ts of Catholic Worship. EXCOMMUNICATION, INTERDICT, AND MANIFEST GRAVE SIN In addition to the legal prohibitions dealing with religious affiliation, the Code also includes a prohibition concerning those who have been excommunicated or interdicted: CANON 915 Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Sometimes Catholics are scandalized when priests have given Communion to public figures that have bad reputations especially Catholic politicians who vote contrary to Catholic moral teaching or who have shaky marital records. But priests are not allowed to refuse a public figure Communion simply because he has a bad reputation or even because his past behavior has been scandalous. Only those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" may be refused. This condition must be interpreted strictly. In establishing the norms for interpreting its canons, the Code states: CANON 18 Laws which establish a penalty or restrict the free exercise of rights or which contain an exception to the law are subject to a strict interpretation. In the case of canon 915, we have a canon which restricts the free exercise of a right the right of the baptized to the sacraments and to Communion, which is established in canons and 912 (cited above). Canon 915 therefore must be interpreted strictly, which means that whenever there is a doubt concerning whether a person fits the definition of one who "obstinately persists in manifest grave sin," then the question must be decided in favor of 10

11 the person seeking Communion. (emphasis mine) For a priest to deny someone Communion in this case, it must not only be true that the person sins, but that the person sins gravely, that the person's grave sins are publicly known (not just rumored or assumed to be occurring in a vague, general way, but known specifically), that he is persisting in these publicly-known sins, and that he is doing so obstinately that he is not innocently ignorant or partially ignorant or suffering from a psychological disorder that relieves him of full accountability for his actions. As it stands, a priest is not allowed to refuse Communion to someone just because he is a notorious individual. A much stricter test must be met, and often the public that is sitting in judgment on the situation does not have all the facts. For example, the public has no way of knowing if the notorious individual has just been to confession or what his confessor has been telling him (or not telling him) in private. (pages ) The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary agrees. It says that the benefit of the doubt is extended to the one approaching to receive communion. It states: Clearly, those who are excommunicated or interdicted by an inflicted or declared sentence are regarded by the Church as grave and manifest sinners, and they are excluded from the sacraments by penal law as well (cc. 1331, 1, 2 ; 1332). Other categories of manifest and grave sins are not so neatly discernible. The minister cannot assume, for example, that the sin of public concubinage arising from divorce and remarriage is always grave in the internal forum. Any prudent doubt about either the gravity or the public nature of the sin should be resolved by the minister in favor of the person who approaches the sacrament (emphasis mine) (page 653). You see nothing here about any arbitrary injunctions. It is almost silly to equate my photography at Mass and disagreement with the priest during the Mass as persevering in manifest grave sin. Grave or mortal sin is something in quite a different category. As Dr. Edward Peters said, what you did was not close to rendering you ineligible for Communion. Final Thoughts on Withholding Communion There has been much discussion of late regarding withholding of communion from proabort politicians who persist in promoting, legislating and defending abortion in our country. Their persistent support of abortion in the face of the direct and clear Church teaching against the culture of death puts them specifically in the kind of situation that the Code of Canon Law refers to as obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. These words apply to those who practice, promote and encourage abortion and others who grievously disobey the Church s moral teaching, not to someone who takes pictures at Mass or who is willing to cooperate with the priest s personal preferences if he would have communicated them prudently and charitably to avoid scandal. 11

12 And I would dare say that before refusing communion to anyone in this egregious category of obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin they would have been personally counseled and warned repeatedly in advance and the bishop would have been intimately involved in the process. Taking pictures during a Mass and resisting what could be seen as an arbitrary injunction by a priest, is not remotely equivalent to something like persistently advocating or performing abortions. Respectfully doing one s job of taking photos at a Mass is not a sin at all, nor is it a violation of any Church Law; rather, it is a legitimate activity especially when one is under obligation something that is done every day in papal Masses and others Masses conducted by holy and orthodox priests around the world. If the priest thought my actions were serious enough (which they weren t not even close) to refuse communion that I was obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin as the Code of Canon Law says, or excommunicated or interdicted by the Church then he should have been consistent and refused me communion the next time I came up for communion or until the excommunication, interdiction or grievous sin was publicly resolved, which only a bishop can do in the first two cases. The very fact that he did not withhold the Eucharist at later Masses, shows there is was no serious sin. I never agreed with his injunction, nor did I promise to abide by it. I did however agree to a compromise in order to keep peace. His inconsistency in this matter again demonstrates that his actions and his withholding of the Eucharist were wrong. Summary I am sorry that the situation took place at the Mass. It could have been avoided. I don t believe I m the first to be on the receiving end of this priest s fiery temper. I ve was the recipient of his temper more than once. I m not the first, but I hope I m the last. I would summarize with a few points. First, I made it clear that I was the official photographer under obligation to document the Mass. Second, if the priest knew he had very restrictive rules during his Masses, he should have talked with me ahead of time to explain his wishes, to which I would have happily conformed within reason. Third, if he thought I had overstepped some liturgical or canonical bounds, he could have avoided making a big scene (a scandal) by approaching me charitably after Mass, to which again I would have complied within reason. Fourth, there was no violation of Church law by taking pictures, especially since it was my job to do so. Fifth, my resistance to the priest s unexpected reproof during Mass was not grounds, not even close, for refusing communion. 12

13 Sixth, under these set of circumstances and based on Canon Law and prudence it was wrong for the priest to deny the Eucharist. Seventh, due to the serious nature of this violation I am sending a copy of this report to his bishop. And though I am not asking for one, I still think he should apologize to me and to everyone affected by his rogue actions. Finally, lay people have the right and responsibility to know the teachings and laws of the Church. They have the right and responsibility of holding priests and others accountable to the orthodox and faithful teaching and practice of the Church. When a priest abuses his authority or teaches and practices contrary to the faith and the Code of Canon Law, the layman has the right and obligation to respectfully and knowledgeably speak out. This is not a lack of respect or humility, it is a sacred duty. God bless you all. Steve Ray 13