"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"(emphasis added)
That is the Full text of can. 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law
It seems relatively straight forward right? Unfortunately many United States Bishops do not take this Canon very seriously. Many (if not most) of them would not deny communion to anyone regardless of what manifest grave sin they are engaged in. This case becomes particularly relevant when it comes to Catholic politicians who support euthanasia and abortion. One US bishop put his position in the matter this way:
The archdiocese will continue to follow church teaching, which places the duty of each Catholic to examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive holy communion. That is not the role of the person distributing the body and blood of Christ
In other words: "Come on in and receive the Eucharist, if
you don't think your persisting in a grave sin, neither do we"
Fortunately for us Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has just published an article in a prestigious Canon Law Journal arguing for the application of can 915 entitled "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin". The Article is quite long and gets a bit technical at times so I suggest you read
In Light Of the Law's Post on it (who thinks it's even cooler that I do). Then if you are so inclined (which I do recommend) Read
Archbishop Burke's entire articleIt will be very difficult for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to ignore this highly public article and the arguments therein. We will see just how obstinate our US Bishops really are.
I cannot do any real justice as to any commentary regarding Burke's article (not being a canon lawyer, nor playing on on TV), but I do have just a few observations after reading it
First of all there are some tangential issues raised in the article worth noting. The holiness of the sacrament is paramount to the argument Burke is making and in doing this he quotes from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - Now Pope Benedict XVI (B16):Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria.... The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion merely as a consequence of being present at Mass is an abuse that must be corrected
This is a huge problem in the church and is something I have been mulling about for some time. The pressure to receive communion while at mass is enormous. Just try and not receive communion once. You may get stares, people wondering why you are not receiving. Absolutely EVERYONE goes up to receive communion. Even people outside of the church and children who have not yet made their first communion. These people may only opt for a 'blessing' which is preferable to be sure, but the fact that everyone get up and proceeds down the isle creates tremendous pressure to receive communion regardless of your particular worthiness to do so. This is one of the reasons I object to giving 'blessings' in lieu of receiving the sacrament.
Secondly the article address the misconception that the disagreement among catholics in regards to abortion is no different than the disagreement regarding war and the death penalty. Again Burke quotes B16:There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia
The difference here is what is considered a 'prudential judgement'. There are legitimate cases where War or the death penalty is justified although they should be avoided if possible. The distinction between when it is acceptable is left to the individual to make a prudential judgement upon. In the case of Abortion there are no acceptable uses because of it's intrinsically evil nature and therefore all knowing cooperation in deeds that are intrinsically evil are always immoral.
Thirdly, as a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMOHC) myself I found the following to be something I was not aware of before: Father Felice Cappello, S.J., noted commentator on the Pio-Benedictine Code [i.e. the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The one used until the 1983 code was established], describes the principle which underlies the discipline of can. 855. He reminds us that the minister of Holy Communion is held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy, that is, "to those who are indeed a capable subject of the sacrament, but are not able to receive its effect, because they are in the state of mortal sin without the will of reforming themselves (emphasis added)
That's harsh language, and directed at all ministers, either ordinary or extraordinary. Now, before anyone reading this decides to start denying communion to people, there is one caveat. The person manifesting great sin must first be notified by their pastor that they are doing so and that they should not attempt to receive communion. So until an EMOHC is aware of this having been done, the onus is still on the pastor.
I really enjoyed How Burke handled one of the chief objections in executing Canon 915 and I cannot due it justice without a somewhat lengthy quote, I'll offer no further commentary except the emphasis in the quote which is mine:
John M. Huels, the commentator on can. 915 in the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, reduces scandal to a subjective reality, ignoring its essential connection to what is objective, what is right and wrong. He states:
"The fact of actual scandal is, moreover, culturally relative. What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church's denial of sacraments and sacramentals than by the sin that occasions it, because it seems to them contrary to the mercy and forgiveness commanded by Christ."
If a word, an action or an omission leads another into error or sin, there is scandal, whether the person who is led astray knows that he has been scandalized or not. If, as the commentator suggests, the faithful in North America believe that persons who publicly and grievously sin should be admitted to Holy Communion and that it would be wrong to deny to them the Sacrament, then effectively the faithful have been scandalized, that is, they have been led to forget or to disregard what the perennial discipline of the Church, beginning with Saint Paul's admonition to the Corinthians, has always remembered and safeguarded.
Two kinds of error are involved. One has to do with the supreme holiness of the Eucharist, that is, the necessity to be well-disposed before approaching to receive the Sacrament. The other regards the objective moral evil of the acts which the person is known to have committed. Giving Holy Communion to one who is known to be a serious sinner leads people astray in two ways. Either they are led to think that it is not wrong for an unrepentant sinner to receive Holy Communion (and to be given the Holy Eucharist), or they are led to think that what the person is known to have done was not gravely sinful.
(later Burke argues)
A similar argument has been used to deny the application of can. 915 in the case of a Catholic politician who votes for legislation which gravely violates the natural moral law. For example, during the discussion of the matter prior to the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004, after citing the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the conditions necessary for a sin to be mortal, one Bishop wrote:
"Given the long-standing practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Holy Communion, it does not seem that it is sufficiently clear that in the matter of voting for legislation that supports abortion such a judgment necessarily follows. The pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for Holy Communion."
The opinion expressed effectively, in the language of the Declaration, would make it impossible to apply can. 915. It confuses the norm of can. 916 with the norm of can. 915 in a way which makes can. 915 superfluous.
For clarification, it is canon 916 that deals with the examination of one's own worthiness of receiving communion.
Finally Burke concludes:
I am deeply aware of the difficulty which is involved in applying the discipline of can. 915. I am not surprised by it and do not believe that anyone should be surprised. Surely, the discipline has never been easy to apply. But what is at stake for the Church demands the wisdom and courage of shepherds who will apply it.
The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.
Well said Bishop. USCCB is so notified, we await their response!
Postscript: One thing that I ran across as the particular grievous sins were quoted throughout the article that in the past were grounds for denying communion was the sin of usury. Usury is a difficult issue and which has been pointed to as proof that the Church has changed it's moral teaching over the years. This is an issue you can expect to see me explore in a future post.
Continue reading "Canon 915"
Collapse Canon 915
and to be brutally honest, I was disappointed. I found Anne quite often to be annoying and found my self skimming through many of her rambling soliloquies. Many (especially those of the female gender I suppose) may find her apt to talk ad nauseum to be one of her most enduring qualities, I however did not.
(Read more about that 
and after two sessions things are going well. I hope to get them excited about the same things Archimedes was excited about and lead them up to the Copernicus and Ptolemy controversy so as to contrast their thinking. Then move on to Galileo and Newton. I plan on being flexable enough so we can move in directions that they are excited about; so I gave my first assignment: To Wonder. Wonder about how the world works. Ask questions about the things they see. Each of them are to bring 5 questions about how the world works and I plan on taking few of those questions and exploring the solutions with them. By the end of the year I have a modest goal of having them (at least the older two) understand a few concepts like D=Vt (where D=distance, V=Average velocity and t=time) and F=MA (where F=Force, M=Mass, A=Acceleration). Mind you I don't want them to memorize them, I want them to understand them and actually go through the process of deriving them.
(you should probably read it even if you can think of what some the consequences of creating Human - Cow Chimeras might be)
---
