While A priest does in fact, maintain the dignity and awesomeness of the gift of the Eucharist, it is not a priests place nor anyone else's to decide who should or should not receive the Eucharist. We are responsible for our own actions. Lets not forget the quote that one should not judge lest they be judged. Politics and religion should not cross over We are answerable to the Saviour for our own actions and thoughts and words. The Eucharist must never be treated as a pawn. Let us remember wonder and awe in this gift and not make a judgement on another individuals worthiness to receive.

Cam, that is truly one of the best known myths. the Founding Fathers counted on people of religious faith to practice self restraint in order to maintain a sound democracy. You can't legislate morality (you can try). The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the federal government did not force a religion on the colonies, now states, so they put a limit on the federal government. There was no intent to separate government from religion but to ensure that, as in England, there would not be a National Religion. Many use the constitution and Jefferson's personal letter that used the term separation of church and state to try and evict God from the public square.

It is the body of Christ. The individual is responsible for making sure you are not in the state of sin when you receive. The priest, obviously, would normally not know. However, if I told the priest that I was in a state of serious sin, do you seriously think he would give me communion? He has an obligation also to treat the body of Christ with respect. When a person makes his/her rejection of Church Teaching public, as in the case of a politician, in addition to the Bishop who has an obligation to attend to this person, a priest would not give that person communion if he recognized him. That is not politics, that is doing his job in treating the host with appropriate reverence and respect and helping the sinner to avoid further sin.
It is not a matter of telling someone what to do - did Christ tell us what to do? The Church is here for us to show us the way of Christ. You have free will to do what you want but not all ways are the path to Heaven.

In the Bishops' statement about the Eucahrist, they said that we should be very careful about judging the consciences of others. In other words "take the plank out of your own eye before judging the speck in your neighbor's eye."

The Church has been wrong before (ask Luther, Galileo, et al.) Making a public spectacle of who should and should not receive the Eucahrist follows in that tradition. Let's mind our own consciences and stop worrying about what others do and think.

James 4: 11-12

I recall Jesus saying that his disciples could extend or deny forgiveness to others but no where did I see that they have the right to deny the Eucharist to others. Clearly Jesus shared the Last Supper with Judas. It is his gift to us of himself and anyone who presupposes to withhold that gift puts himself between his brother or sister and the creator. That's no position I'd care to be occupying at the last judgement. My personal belief has always been that Christ is present whenever we offer up what we do in his name. We don't really need a priest to do that for us. Not the way I read it. Show me where Jesus says different if I'm wrong. No man can presume to speak for the Father. That's the simple truth of it. Let's down off our high horse, every one of us!

1 Corintians 11 23:34

1 Timothy 1:20

"On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you . . . " How many times have we heard these beautiful words at Mass. If Jesus could share this first Eucharistic meal with his betrayer - who he knew was about to betray him - who are we to deny anyone his body and blood.

It's not a matter of politics. The central issue is unrepentant public sin which causes scandal tot he faithful. Anyone, politician or regular Joe on the street who is a known unrepentant sinner must be denied the Eucharist for it is offensive to the divine substance of said Eucharist to be placed into a stained temple, and besides, it behooves the cleric to not make a case for eternal damnation by giving the Eucharist to a publicly unrepentant known sinner. Read St. Paul's admonition in the new testament if you don't understand what it is that I refer to.

In April 1962, the Archbishop of New Orleans, Joseph Rummel, excommunicated Catholic politicians who publically supported segregation.

I believe that was a good move to bring to the attention of the public the Church’s stand against segregation. It was also an act of love to those politicians that they clearly understand that they fall outside out of the Church on this serious matter.

Archbishop Charles Chaput discusses the issue in a radio interview linked below.

http://townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=20620c...

Kellie, Cam, and Melinda, do you want to condemn the Bishop Rummel's excommunication of Catholic politicians who publically supported segregation? If not, please explain why the Church should segregationist politicians but not pro-abortion politicians.