Auschwitz and Malmö

[*from correspondents]

Malmö, Sweden

[http://vodpod.com/watch/1428923-sweden-in-grip-of-islam]

Europa murió en Auschwitz

[http://www.gentiuno.com/articulo.asp?articulo=1865]

The following is a summary of an article orginally written in

Spanish by a writer said to be named Sebastián Vivar Rodríguez

which may be a pseudonym.

Let us hope the author and any who agree with him do not

kill the innocent to reach their goals. The loss of the Jews is

an incalculable loss, as he says.

But rounding up the Muslims for a renewed “Auschwitz” is not

the answer.

=====================================================

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastián Vivar Rodríguez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible

truth – Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced

them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought,

creativity, talent. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of

life: science, art, international trade, and the conscience of the world.

These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to

ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates

to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious

extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness

to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into

the third world, drowning in filth and crime.

Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan

the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred,

creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and

superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their

talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined

clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for

people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our

children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe .

***

The biblical foundation of

priestly celibacy

Ignace de la Potterie

For several centuries there has been much debate as to whether the obligation of celibacy for clerics in major orders (or at least that of living in continence for those who are married) is of biblical origin or whether it is based merely on ecclesiastical tradition dating back to the fourth century, since from then on, without question, legislation exists on the subject. The first of these two possible answers has recently been presented. once again, this time with an extraordinary wealth of material, by C. Cochini in Origines apostoliques du célibat sacerdotal.¹ Clearly set forth in the title, the author’s position is apparently that celibacy can be and should be upheld, given that account is taken (more perhaps than in the past) of the growth of ancient tradition, a point on which A.M. Stickler also insists in his preface,² and H. Crouzel in a review.³ In other words, it could be said that the obligation of continence (or of celibacy) became canon law only in the fourth century but that, before that, from apostolic times, the ideal of living in continence (or in celibacy) was already held up to the ministers of the Church, and that this ideal was indeed deeply felt and lived as a requirement by quite a number (Tertullian and Origen, for instance) but was not yet imposed on all clerics in major orders. It was a vital principle, a seed, clearly present from apostolic times but which gradually then developed until the ecclesiastical legislation of the fourth century.⁴

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1579) seems to take the same line. Out of prudence, however, it omits to mention the canon law on celibacy, which nonetheless forms part of Church law today (CIC 277 par. 1), and merely sets out the biblical reasons for celibacy. Yet even here it no longer refers (as often in the past) to the Old Testament, and only quotes two passages from the New: the one in Matthew 19:22, about celibacy: «for the sake of the kingdom of heaven»; and then the Pauline text of 1 Corinthians 7:32-35, where the Apostle speaks of those who are called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and «his affairs»; and adds by way of conclusion that «embraced with a joyful heart, it (the celibate life) radiantly proclaims the kingdom of God». Here of course one might quote other New Testament passages to which, for instance, Paul VI referred in his encyclical Sacerdotalis coelibatus (nn. 17-35), to indicate the reasons for sacred celibacy (its Christological, ecclesiological and eschatological significance). But the problem is that these various texts describe, as a typically Christian ideal, the theological and spiritual value of celibacy in genere. This ideal, however, is equally valid for the religious and for people living consecrated lives in the world; they do not show any particular connection with the ministries of the Church.

The precise question that arises, therefore, is this: do texts .exist in Holy Writ which point to a specific connection between celibacy and priesthood? It would seem so. But if this is the case, more importance will have to be attached to certain New Testament passages which (oddly) have not received much attention in the recent debates. These are the texts in which the Pauline norm (much contested, to be sure) of ‘unius uxoris vir’⁵ is set out, for analysis of which C. Cochini has also now adduced new material. Enunciated several times in the Pastoral Letters, this principle is uniquely important in our case for two reasons. The first is, as has been convincingly shown by Stickler⁶ as well as by Cochini,⁷ that the stipulation was one of the main formulae on which the ancient tradition was based for claiming an actual apostolic origin for the law of priestly celibacy. This was, of course, an immense paradox: how can one base the celibacy of priests on the evidence of texts which talk about married ministers? Such reasoning can only make sense if there is a middle term between the two extremes (marriage of ministers and celibacy): it is that of continence, to which, in fact, married ministers were bound. It was probably because this mediating value of continence was overlooked, that in recent times the formula unius uxoris vir dropped out of discussions on celibacy. It is therefore timely today to re-examine carefully the traditional argument.

The other reason why these texts are especially important from the strictly biblical point of view lies in the fact that they are the only passages in the New Testament where an identical norm is laid down for the three groups of ordained ministers, and only for them. For, according to the Pastoral Letters, the bishop ought to be unius uxoris vir (1 Tim 3:2), so ought the priest (Tit 1:6) and so ought the deacon (I Tim 3:12), whereas that formula (a technical one, it would seem) is never used for other Christians. So here we have a special requirement for the exercise of the ministerial priesthood as such. Further, it should also be observed that the complementary formula unius viri uxor (1 Tim 5:9) is only used of widows at least 60 years old. That is to say, it does not apply to any Christian woman only but to elderly women who exercise a ministry in the community (comparable, one imagines, with that of deaconesses in ancient times). The stereotyped character of this formula in the Pastoral Letters makes one suspect it must have already been rooted in a long biblical tradition.⁸

So what does it mean that the minister of the Church should be «the husband of one wife»? In the following pages we shall first try to show that the formula unius uxoris vir, up to the fourth century, was understood, as Stickler so well puts it, «in the sense of a biblical argument in favour of celibacy of apostolic inspiration: for the Pauline norm was interpreted in the sense of a guarantee assuring effective observance of continence by ministers who were already married before they were ordained.»⁹ In the second part, we shall take a step forward: we shall propose a deeper theological interpretation of the Pauline stipulation itself, to show that, already in New Testament times it actually does propose the model for the ministerial priesthood of a marital relationship between Christ the bridegroom and the Church his bride, on the basis of the mystical view of marriage which St Paul frequently mentions in his letters (cf 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:22-32).¹⁰ From this, it will become abundantly clear that, for married ministers, their ordination implied an invitation to live in continence thereafter.

The stipulation unius uxoris vir: an argument in

ancient tradition for the apostolic origin of

celibacy/continence

a. Ecclesiastical legislation from the fourth century onwards

Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century onwards. Here certain incontrovertible texts are quoted repeatedly: three pontifical decretals around AD 385 (Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius and Dominus inter of Siricius or Damasus) and a canon of the Council of Carthage of AD 390.¹¹

However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition. The Council of Carthage, for instance, said that it was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus): «so that what the apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe».¹² The decree on the obligation of continence was then passed unanimously: «It is pleasing to all that bishop, priest and deacon, the guardians of purity, abstain from marital relations with their wives (ab uxori bus se abstineant) so that the perfect purity may be safeguarded of those who serve the altar.»

The Pauline unius uxoris vir is not explicitly quoted here but reference to this stipulation is implicit since, as in the Pastoral Letters, the bishop, priest and deacon each are mentioned. Besides, 1 Timothy 3:2 is quoted explicitly in an earlier text, the decretal Cum in unum of Siricius himself, who presented the norms of the Council of Rome of AD 386. Here the Pope first formulated an objection that the expression unius uxoris vir of 1 Timothy 3:2, some said, specifically guaranteed the bishop the right to use marriage after sacred ordination. Siricius answered by giving the stipulation’s correct interpretation: «He (Paul) was not speaking of a man who might persist in the desire to beget children (non permanentem in desiderio generandi dixit); he was speaking about continence which they had to observe in future (propter continentiam futuram).» This fundamental text was repeated a number of times subsequently.¹³ This is Cochini’s comment on it: «Monogamy (that is to say, the law of unius uxoris vir) is a condition for receiving Order, since faithfulness (observed up till then) to one woman is warranty for supposing that the candidate will be capable (in the future) of practising the perfect continence to be asked of him after ordination.»¹⁴ And the author goes on: «This exegesis of St Paul’s prescriptions to Timothy and Titus is an essential link by which the bishops of the Synod of Rome (AD 386) and Pope Siricius are cited in continuity with the apostolic age.»

But is this exegesis, for which an apostolic tradition is claimed, properly founded? Not without reason, some scholars think it doubtful.¹⁵ For certain questions have to be asked: is it not rather odd to discover in the past behaviour of the married minister (that is to say, his faithfulness to one woman, even in sexual relations) a sufficient guarantee of his future but different behaviour (that is, continence in conjugal relations with that same woman, his lawful wife)? The legislators saw in the past a guarantee for the future, but at the same time they changed the tune to be played: from the (lawful) use of marriage to renunciation of it. To justify this twofold transition from past to future and from sexual relations to conjugal continence, we need an explanatory tertium quid: such justification is only possible if an interpretation of this same formula can be found to bring out, perhaps, some hidden and hitherto unnoted aspect. And this is what we shall try to do in the second part.

But first let us briefly investigate whether, in the history of exegesis and canonical legislation, there may not be elements that can lead us to a deeper understanding of the Pauline stipulation.

b. Theological reasons for the continence and celibacy of priests

From the patristic period until today, we find ourselves faced with two different interpretations of the Pauline formula: for some people, the norm unius uxoris vir prohibits serial polygamy; for others, only simultaneous polygamy.¹⁶

The first solution is undoubtedly the more traditional: the expression then means that the sacred ministers could be married men, but only married once; and if the wife had died, they must not have contracted a second marriage, nor could they marry again later. Today, too, this interpretation is the more commonly held among Catholic exegetes. According to the other solutions, however, unius uxoris vir means only being forbidden to live with more than one woman at the same time; it would thus simply be a recommendation to observe conjugal morality.

But neither of these two solutions is entirely satisfying. To the first, it can be objected: if the union in which the married minister was hitherto living was virtuous, why should a second marriage not be so, after the first wife’s death? It is also the case that the Apostle himself on the one hand required the elderly widow who served the community to have been unius viri uxor (1 Tim 5:9), whereas he advised young widows to get married again (1 Tim 5:14). But the other solution raises problems too: conjugal faithfulness in married life is certainly required of all Christians. Why then is the expression unius uxoris vir (and analogously unius yin uxor) used only for those who exercise a ministry in the community?

We may add that the second interpretation goes no further than the simple level of general morality; applied to ministers of the Church, it has something commonplace and reductive about it. The first — the prohibition of a second marriage — is rather of a disciplinary and canonical nature, but its theological basis is not indicated. The same omission has indeed already been noted in the canonical legislation of the fourth century: Pope Siricius and many others after him interpreted the Pauline stipulation as the obligation to continence for the married clergy. They did, it is true, give their reason: the purity required of those approaching the altar. But it has to be recognized that this is not in fact what is being talked about in the text of the Pastoral Letters.

At the end of Stickler’s historical investigation, he too recognized that, in this whole problem of priestly celibacy, there had been too much concentration on the juridical aspect.¹⁷ Throughout that lengthy history there had been a lack of theological reflection on the deeper significance of the ministerial priesthood, on the reason for its celibacy and on its spiritual value. This is particularly true of the canonical use of the norm unius uxoris vir from the fourth century onwards. So we shall have to search the patristic and canonical tradition itself to see if any theological reasons are given for basing the disciplinary obligation of clerical continence on the Pauline stipulation.

Three pieces of evidence are significant here. The first is provided by Tertullian at the beginning of the third century. He reminds the clergy that monogamy is not only an ecclesiastical discipline but also a precept of the Apostle.¹⁸ It thus dates back to apostolic times. Furthermore, he insists on the fact that, in the Church, not a few believers are not married, that they live in continence and that some of them belong to ‘ecclesiastical orders’.¹⁹ Now, the men and women who live like this, Tertullian goes on, «have preferred to marry God» (Deo nubere maluerunt);²⁰ and speaking about virgins, he says that they are «brides of Christ».²¹

But what is the connection between monogamous marriage on the one hand and continence on the other? Tertullian does not say, but here invokes the example set by Christ who, according to the flesh, was not married and lived in celibacy (he was not, therefore, «a husband of one wife»); yet, in the spirit, «he had one bride the Church» (unam habens ecclesiam sponsam).²² This doctrine of Christ’s spiritual marriage to the Church, here inspired by the Pauline text of Ephesians 5:25-32, was common in early Christianity; Tertullian saw this spiritual marriage as one of the main theological bases for the law of monogamous marriage: «because Christ is one and his Church is one» (unus enim Christus et una eius ecclesia).²³ But it does not follow from this that Tertullian had already- made the connection between this doctrine and the formulae unius uxoris vir or unius yin uxor of the Pastoral Letters, where monogamous marriage is explicitly referred to; this connection between the two themes is what we shall be trying to establish further on.

Besides, in the last text quoted, Tertullian’s reasoning was not soundly based: the problem dealt with in Ephesians 5:25-32 was not monogamous marriage but, in principle, the relationship of every Christian marriage with the covenant. Here Paul is speaking of all married members of the Church. When, referring to Genesis 2:24, the Apostle says that husband and wife «will be one flesh» (v. 31), he is justifying the use of marriage for them.²⁴ The formula unius uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters, however, is not used for all married men but only for ministers of the Church (this fact has been too little noted); yet subsequently it came to be regarded as the biblical basis of the law of continence for clerics. This is the point that still needs to be cleared up.

With St Augustine we take a step forward. He, having taken part in the deliberationsof the African synods, was certainly aware of the ecclesiastic law governing the ‘continence of clerics’.²⁵ But how does Augustine then explain the stipulation unius uxoris vir which is used by Paul for married clerics? In De bono conjugali (written in about AD 420), he advances a theological explanation for it, and asks himself why polygamy was accepted in the Old Testament, whereas «in our own age, the sacrament has been restricted to the union between one man and one woman; and consequently it is only lawful to ordain as a minister of the Church (ecclesiae dispensatorem) a man who has had one wife (unius uxoris virum)». And here is Augustine’s answer: «As the many wives (plures uxores) of the ancient Fathers symbolized our future churches of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ (uni viro subditas Christo), so the guide of the faithful (noster antistes, our bishop), who is the husband of one wife (unius uxoris vir) signifies the union of all nations, subject to the one man, Christ (uni viro subditam Christo)».²⁶

In this text, where we find the formula unius uxoris vir being applied to the bishop, the whole accent falls on the fact that he, ‘the man’, in his relations with his ‘wife’, symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. An analogous use of the phrase ‘man and wife’ occurs in a passage of De continentia: «The Apostle invites us to observe so to speak three pairs (copulas): Christ and the Church, husband and wife, the spirit and the flesh».²⁷ The suggestion these texts offer us for interpreting the stipulation unius uxoris vir applied to the (married) minister of the sacrament is that he, as minister, not only represents the second pair (husband and wife) but also the first: henceforth he personifies Christ in his married relationship with the Church. Here we have the basis for the doctrine which was later to become a classic one: Sacerdos alter Christus. Like Christ, the priest is the Church’s bridegroom.

One further word on the canonical legislation of the Middle Ages. On various occasions, in penitential books, it is said that for a married priest to go on having sexual relations with his wife after ordination would be an act of unfaithfulness to the promise made to God. It would be an adulterium since, the minister now being married to the Church, his relationship with his own wife «is like a violation of the marriage bond».²⁸ This weighty accusation against a lawfully wedded, decent man only makes sense if something is left unexpressed because it is well-known, i.e., that the sacred minister, from the moment of his ordination, now lives in another relationship, also of a matrimonial type — that which unites Christ and the Church in which he, the minister, the man (vir), represents Christ the bridegroom; with his own wife (uxor) therefore «the carnal union should from now on be a spiritual one», as St Leo the Great said.²⁹

With these various historical and theological preliminaries, we have gathered enough material for us to be able to tackle the exegetical problem, that is to say, to make an accurate analysis of the actual formula unius uxoris vir in the Pastoral Letters.

‘Unius uxoris vir’: a covenantal formula

We have already seen that, of the two traditional interpretations of the stipulation, one (the more widespread) was of a disciplinary type, and the other exclusively moral. But it was virtually never explained why a minister of the Church should be ‘the husband of one wife’. We shall now attempt to show that the reason for this norm, its deeper meaning and its implications are already present in the text itself if we succeed in analyzing it properly. First we need to clear up the problem of where this mysterious form comes from, with its undeniably fixed, technical, stereotyped nature. But let it be said forthwith: the stipulation is actually a covenantal formula.

This becomes plain when we consider the parallelism between the formula in the Pastoral Letters and the passage in 2 Corinthians 11:2, where Paul describes the Church of Corinth as a woman, as a bride, whom he has presented to Christ as a chaste virgin:

I am jealous about you with the jealousy of God, because I have betrothed you to one man (uni viro), to present you to Christ as a pure virgin.

The context of this passage is particularly clear if we read it with 1 Timothy 5:9. The same formula unus vir is used of the relations whether of the ~2hurch with Christ, or of the widow who has only had one husband and discharges a ministry in the community. In 2 Corinthians 11:2, Christ’s bride is the Church itself. Let us carefully read the text over again. The jealousy of which Paul speaks is a sharing in God’s jealousy over his people.³⁰ It is the zeal devouring the Apostle that his Christians may remain faithful to the covenant made with Christ, who is their true and only bridegroom. Another detail confirms this interpretation:

the Church-bride is paradoxically presented to Christ the bridegroom as ‘a pure virgin’. This is a reference to the Daughter of Sion, sometime called ‘virgin Sion’, ‘virgin Israel’ by the prophets,³¹ especially when she is invited, after past infidelities, once more to be true to the covenant, to her marriage relationship with her only Bride groom.

The other decisive New Testament passage is the classic text in Ephesians 5:22-23: husband and wife united in matrimony are the image of Christ and the Church. Now Christ, the bridegroom, gave himself up for the Church, so as to make her his glorious, holy and spotless bride (cf vv. 26-27). But the fact that the expression unius uxoris vir is not used here in the Letter to the Ephesians for all married Christians, and is reserved in the Pastoral Letters for the married minister, shows that the formula refers directly to the priestly ministry and the Christ-Church relationship: the minister must be like Christ the bridegroom.

We can also point out another important consequence of the connection between the unius uxoris vir (or unius viri uxor) of the Pastoral Letters and the passage in 2 Corinthians 11:2. It is that the Church-bride is called a ‘pure virgin’. Marital love between Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church is ever a virginal love.

For the Church of Corinth (where obviously the great majority of Christians were married), it was an immediate question of what St Augustine calls virginitas fidei, virginitas cordis, unblemished faith,³² well described also by St Leo the Great: «Discat Sponsa Verbi non alium virum nosse quam Christum».³³ But for the married ministers of whom the Pastoral Letters speak, it is the norm that — in that mystical view of their ministry — the radical call to virginitas cordis should also be lived by them as a call to virginitas carnis as regards their wives, that is to say, as a call to continence, as becomes clear in Tradition, at least from the fourth century onwards. So we are now no longer dealing with an external, ecclesiastical prescription but rather with an inner perception of the fact that ordination makes the priestly minister a representation of Christ the bridegroom in relation to the Church, bride and virgin, and hence he cannot live with another wife.

The decisive relationship between the unius uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters and the ‘pure virgin’ of 2 Corinthians 11:2 has also been well brought out by E. Tauzin: men who are consecrated to God, he says, «should represent Christ; now, he is only the bridegroom of one bride, the Church: ‘Virginem castam exhibere Christo’»³⁴ And he then applies this principle to the parable in Matthew 25:1-13, where the ten ‘virgins’, who are (in the plural) the brides of Christ, in fact present this one bride: «Outwardly there is multiplicity; inwardly, unity. Isn’t virginity perhaps the best outward image of an inner unity?»

This sacramental and spiritual argument of the unius uxoris vir, based on the theology of the covenant, emerges first in the Western tradition with Tertullian, then with St Augustine and St Leo the Great. We find it well summed up by St Thomas in his commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2 (Oportet ergo episcopum… esse unius uxoris virum): «This is so, not merely to avoid incontinence, but to represent the sacrament, since the Church’s bridegroom is Christ and the Church is one: Una est columba mea (Song of Songs 6:9).³⁵ But St Thomas does not as yet make the connection with the text in 2 Corinthians 11:2, which speaks of the bride-virgin; and therefore he does not add that the representational role of the monogamous priesthood also entails the call to continence for the married minister, and consequently, for the unmarried ones, the call to celibacy.

Conclusion

In order to grasp the way in which we have tried to show the biblical basis of priestly celibacy, it is important to distinguish between celibacy and continence. In the ancient Church, many priests were married. This explains why, in speaking of the ministers of the Church, the formula unius uxoris vir came to be used. It also explains the great interest the Fathers had in monogamous marriage (cf for instance Tertullian: De monogamia). But it becomes clearer still in the Tradition that for a minister of the Church, united once in matrimony with a woman, acceptance of the ministry brought with it the consequence that he had to live in continence thereafter.

In later times, the separation was introduced between priesthood and marriage. And so the formula unius uxoris vir, in its literal and material sense, is no longer of immediate application to the priests of today, since they are not married. Yet paradoxically, precisely in this lies the interest of the formula. We set out from the fact that in the apostolic Church it was only used for clerics; and so it took on, besides the immediate sense of conjugal relations, a further, mystical sense, a direct connection with the spiritual marriage between Christ and the Church. St Paul was already hinting at this. For him, unius uxoris vir was a covenantal formula: it introduced the married minister into the marriage relationship between Christ and the Church; for Paul, the Church was a ‘pure virgin’, it was the ‘bride’ of Christ. But this connection between the minister and Christ, due to the sacrament of ordination, today no longer requires as human support for the symbolism a real marriage on the part of the minister; so the formula is still valid for priests of the Church, although they are not married. Hence, that which in the past was continence for married ministers, in our own day becomes the celibacy of those who are not. Yet the symbolic and spiritual meaning of the expression unius uxoris vir remains ever the same. Indeed, since it contains a direct reference to the covenant, that is to say, to the marriage relationship between Christ and the Church, it invites us to attach much greater importance today than in the past to the fact that the minister of the Church represents Christ the bridegroom to the Church his bride. In this sense, the priest must be «the husband of one wife»; but that one wife, his bride, is the Church who, like Mary, is the bride of Christ.

It is precisely thus that on various occasions John Paul II expresses himself in his post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Pastores dabo vobis. By way of conclusion, we quote some of the more telling passages from it.

In n. 12, having said that, as regards the identity of the priest, his relationship with the Church must take second place to his relationship with Christ, the Pope goes on: «As a mystery, the Church is essentially related to Jesus Christ. She is his fullness, his body, his spouse… The priest finds the full truth of his identity in being a derivation, a specific participation in and continuation of Christ himself, the one High Priest of the new and eternal covenant; the priest is a living and transparent image of Christ the Priest. The priesthood of Christ, the expression of his absolute ‘newness’ in salvation history, constitutes the one source and essential model of the priesthood shared by all Christians and the priest in particular. Reference to Christ is thus the absolutely necessary key for understanding the reality of priesthood.» On the basis of this very close union between the priest and Christ, the deep theological reason for celibacy is easier to grasp.

In some editions of the document, n. 22 bears the crosshead: «Witness to Christ’s spousal love». Further on, it reads: «The priest is called to be the living image of Jesus Christ, the spouse of the Church.» The Pope then quotes a proposition of the Synod: «Inasmuch as he represents Christ, the Head, Shepherd and Spouse of the Church, the priest is placed not only in the Church but also in the forefront of the Church.»

In n. 29, in the very paragraph where the Holy Father speaks of virginity and celibacy, he cites in full the Synod’s Proposition 11 on this subject. Then, to explain «the theological motivation for the ecclesiastical law on celibacy», he writes: «The will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and Sacred Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her.»

NOTES

1. Christian Cochini, Origines apostoliques du célbat sacerdotal (Le Sycomore), culture et vérité, Lethielleux/Namur, Paris 1981. On the much debated problem of celibacy in the Church today, see a special number of the review Conciluum: Le Célibat du Sacerdoce catholique, in Concilium 78 (1972).

2. A.M. Stickler, in Cochini, (ut supra), Préface, p. 6.

3. H. Crouzel, Une nouvelle étude sur les origines du célibat ecclésiastique, in Bull. de Litt. eccl. 83 (1982), 293-297.

4. See also two studies by canonists: P. Pampaloni, Continenza e celibato del clero. Leggi e motivi delle fonti canoniche dei secoli IV e V. in Studia Patavina 17 (1970), 5-59; J. Coriden, Célibat, Droit canonique et Synode 1971, in Concilium 78 (1972), 101-114.

5. See our article Man d’une seule femme. Le sens théologique d’une formule paulinienne, in Paul de Tarse, apôtre de notre temps (ed. L. De Lorenzi), Rome 1979, 619-638. In the present study we confine ourselves to the Latin tradition; as is well known, a different discipline obtains in the Oriental Churches.

6. A.M. Stickler, L’évolution de la discipline du célibat dans l’Église en occident de la fin de l’âge patristique au Concile de Trente, in Sacerdoce et célibat. Études historiques et théologiques (ed. I. Coppens), Gembloux-Louvain 1971, pp. 373-442.

7. Cochini, op. cit., pp. 5-6.

8. See our study Mari d’une seule femme, (ut supra), p. 635, n. 64, where we show that the formula unius uxoris vir (1 Tim 3:2) expresses the marriage relationship of the covenant between God and his people, between Christ the bridegroom and his bride the Church. Furthermore, the similarity of the formula in 1 Tim.3:2 with the one nearby in 1 Tim 2:5: unus Deus, unus… homo Christus Jesus permits the connection to be made with the prophetic theme of the covenant, and to uncover a link with the Old Testament; cf especially Mal 2:14 (LXX): ‘the wife of your covenant’ 2:10: ‘the covenant of our forefathers’.

9. A.M. Stickler, in Cochini, (ut supra), Préface, pp. 5-6 (our italics).

10. Cf our article La struttura di alieanza del sacerdozio ministeriale, in Communio 112 (July-August 1990), 102-114, where we summarise the results of the previous study: Man d’une seule femme, (vide supra), in order to apply them specifically both to the case of priestly celibacy and to that of the priesthood of men (not of women).

11. For this historical part, see the texts in Cochini, op. cit., pp. 19-26.

12. The text (taken from CCL 149, 13) is given in the original Latin with a French translation in Cochini, op. cit., pp. 25-26.

13. For the decretal Cum in unum of Pope Siricius, cf Ep. V. c. 9 (PL 13, 1161 A); it is also found in the African Council of Theleptis (AD 418): Conc. Thelense (CCL 149, 62): French trans.: Cochini, op. cit., p. 32; see also the two letters of Pope Innocent I (AD 404-405) to the bishops Victricius of Rouen and Exuperius of Toulouse: Ep. II, (PL 20, 476 A. 497 B; Cochini, op. cit., pp. 284-286). Africa, Spain and the Gauls thus take direction as indicated by the Popes.

14. Cochini, op. cit., p. 33 (our italics).

15. For P. Pampaloni for instance (art. cit., 41-42), this would involve «a forced interpretation of the Apostle»; he does however concede that, according to the sources of the period, that interpretation was probably regarded as the correct one. H. Crouzel (art. cit., 294) also rightly observes: if it were true, as these Fathers thought, that the Apostle regarded ‘monogamy’ as guaranteeing suitability for continence, we should then have to suppose that, for Paul, it was a known fact «either that the wife was dead or that the candidate was to live with her as with a sister: which unfortunately the Pauline text does not make clear.» This is true. But the Pauline text does contain a literary contact with 2 Cor 11:2 (vide infra), which allows the indirect recovery of the theme of continence as a covenantal theme.

16. Cf our article Mri d’une seule femme, (art. cit): ‘I. Histoire de d’exégèse’ (pp. 620-623); ‘II. Insuffisance des deux interpretations en présence’ (pp. 624-628).

17. Stickler, L’évolution de la discipline dui célibat, (ut supra), pp. 441-442.

18. Cf Ad uxorem, 1, 7, 4 (CCL 1, 381); the reference here is to 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6; see too De exhort, cast., 7,2 (CCL 2, 1024).

19. De exhort. cast., 13, 4 (CCL 2, 1035): on this passage, see Cochini’s comment, 01). cit., pp. 168-171.

20. Ibid., cf Ad uxorem, 1, 4, 4, speaking of women who, instead of choosing a husband, have preferred a virginal life: «Malunt enim Deo nubere. Deo speciosae, Deo sunt puellae» (CCL 1, 377).

21. De virg. vel., 16, 4: «Nupsisti enim Christo, illi tradidisti carnem tuam, illi sponsasti maturitatem tuam,» (CCL 2, 1225); De res., 61, 6: «virgines Christi maritae» (CCL 2, 1010).

22. De monog., 5,7 (CCL 2, 1235)

23. De exhort, cast., 5, 3 (CCL 2, 1023); hence, Tertullian goes on, the law of single marriage is also founded on ‘Christi sacramentum’.

24. The Apostle thus in no way excludes the ‘carnal’ use of marriage between Christian husbands and wives, despite what Tertullian the Montanist was to pretend to the contrary, cf De exhort. cast., 9, 3 (CCL 2, 1028): for the latter, marriage as such (not a second marriage) was to be regarded as a sort of stuprum. As can be seen from this brief analysis, ‘una caro’ (Eph 5:31) and ‘una uxor’ (1 Tim 3:2) have very different functions, although the same adjective una occurs in both texts: Tertullian’s mistake was to have virtually identified them: ‘una caro undoubtedly legitimizes conjugal relations; whereas ‘una uxor’, as we shall see, excludes them, and instead becomes the theological basis for continence.

25. St Augustine speaks of this in the De coniugiis adulterinis, II, 20, 22: «solemnus eis proponere continentiam clenicorum» (PL 40, 486).

26. De bono coniugali, 18, 21 (PL 40, 3 87-388).

27. De continentia, 9, 23 (PL 40, 364).

28. Stickler, L’évolution… (ut supra), p. 381; sundry texts from penitential books are quoted in the notes.

29. St Leo the Great, Ep. ad Rusticum Narbonensem episc. Inquis. III: Resp. (PL 54, 1204 A): «ut de carnali fiat spirituale coniugium».

30. Cf J. Daniélou, La jalousie de Dieu, in Dieu vivant, n. 4, 16(1950), 61-73.

31. Cf our work Mary in the Mystery of the Covenant, New York 1992, pp. xxiii-xxv, xxxv-xxxvii.

32. Cf R. Hesbert, Saint Augustin et la virginité de la foi, in Augustinus Magister. Congrès international augustinien (Paris, Sept. 1954), II, Paris 1954, pp. 645-655.

33. St Leo the Great, Epistolae, 12, 3 (PL 54, 648 B).

34. E. Tauzin, Note sur un texte de Saint Paul (Essai d’exégèse synthétique) in Revue apologétique 36 (1924-1925), 274-289 (see p. 289, in the note). It should be noted that this author too has spontaneously made the connection between the formular unius uxoris vir of the Pastoral Letters and the virgo casta of 2 Cor 11:2.

35. In 1 ad Tim., c. III, lect. 1 (ed. Marietti 1953, n. 96); see too Denis the Carthusian, on 1 Tim 3:12 (Opera omnia, 13, 420).

[http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_bfoun_en.html]

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA
vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy
Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering
in Manifest Grave Sin

R. L. BURKE

ROMA
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSITÀ GREGORIANA
PIAZZA DELLA PILOTTA, 4

PERIODICA 96 (2007) 3-58

CANON 915:
THE DISCIPLINE REGARDING
THE DENIAL OF HOLY COMMUNION
TO THOSE OBSTINATELY PERSEVERING
IN MANIFEST GRAVE SIN

Introduction

During the election campaign of 2004 in the United States of America, some Bishops found themselves under question by other Bishops regarding the application of can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law in the case of Catholic politicians who publicly, after admonition, continue to support legislation favoring procured abortion and other legislation contrary to the natural moral law, for example, legislation permitting the cloning of human life for the purpose of harvesting stem cells by the destruction of the artificially-generated human embryo, and legislation redefining marriage to include a relationship between persons of the same sex. The gravity of the sin of procured abortion and of the sins involved in the commission of other intrinsically-evil acts seemed to place the Catholic politicians among those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin, about whom can. 915 treats.

The discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the discipline of can. 915. First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin ^[1]. The denial of Holy Communion can be the effect of the imposition or declaration of the canonical penalties of Excommunication and Interdict (cf. cann. 1331 §1, 2º; and 1332), but there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.

The matter in question was extensively discussed by the Bishops of the United States during their meeting in June of 2004. The statement of the United States Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life”, adopted on June 18, 2004, which was the fruit of the discussion, failed to take account of the clear requirement to exclude from Holy Communion those who, after appropriate admonition, obstinately persist in supporting publicly legislation which is contrary to the natural moral law. The statement reads:

The question has been raised as to whether the denial of holy communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. ^[2]

While the judgment regarding the disposition of the individual who presents himself to receive Holy Communion belongs to the minister of the Sacrament, the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

The question of the scandal involved does not seem to be addressed by the Statement. While concern was expressed about <<circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends>>, there is no mention of the gravely wrong conclusion which is per se drawn from the Church’s admission of politicians, who are persistent in supporting positions and legislation which gravely violate the natural moral law, to receive Holy Communion ^[3].

The Statement also seems to take away the serious responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, resting the matter entirely with the Bishop. One bishop issued a statement on the same day as the statement of the body of Bishops, which intimated that can. 915 is not to be applied in his diocese. He stated:

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 ^[4].

The statement of the bishop in question confuses the norm of can. 916, which applies to the self-examination of the individual communicant, with the norm of can. 915, which obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament in the cases indicated.

Other bishops issued statements questioning the denial of the Holy Eucharist on the grounds that it somehow contradicts the whole nature of the Eucharist itself, asserting that the practice transforms the celebration of the sacrament of unity into a theater of conflicts ^[5].

In the midst of what must objectively be called confusion, it seems best to study the history of the legislation articulated in can. 915, in order to understand the Church’s constant practice and the mind of Pope John Paul II, the legislator of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

1.  1 Cor 11,27-29 and Ecclesia de Eucharistia

The canonical discipline in question has its source in the Word of God. In the First Letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul addressed the question of unworthiness to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. First, he gives an account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, in which the teaching on the Eucharist as Sacrifice and Real Presence is clear (1Cor 11,23-26). He then admonishes the disciples to examine their consciences before approaching to receive Holy Communion. He states:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself (1Cor 11,27-29) ^[6].

The relationship between the teaching on the Holy Eucharist as Sacrifice and Real Presence, and the admonition regarding the correct disposition for reception of the Holy Eucharist is clear in the text.

To receive Holy Communion unworthily is to sin against Christ Himself. One commentator observed:

The focus remains on Christ, and Christ crucified, as proclaimed through a self-involving sharing in the bread and wine. If stance and lifestyle make this empty of content and seriousness, participants will be held accountable for so treating the body and blood of the Lord. ^[7]

In approaching to receive the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the faithful must both respect the holiness of the Sacrament, the Real Presence of Christ, and examine their own worthiness, lest they condemn themselves by receiving the Lord unworthily.

The emphasis is on self-examination, in order to discover preparedness to receive the Sacrament or not. If one is not prepared, for example, because of serious sin which is unremitted, then he simply is not to approach to receive Holy Communion. Here, one is dealing with what may be simply called a “reality check”. Does the actual state of my soul dispose me to receive the true Body and Blood of Christ?

The self-examination necessarily has reference to one’s relationship both to God and to others. Communion with Christ in His Body and Blood means putting into practice what He has taught us, namely love of God and of neighbor. Serious sin against God or against neighbor makes one unworthy to receive Holy Communion, until the sin has been confessed and forgiveness received through the Sacrament of Penance.

If the lack of right disposition is serious and public, and the person, nevertheless, approaches to receive the Sacrament, then he is to be admonished and denied Holy Communion. In other words, the Church cannot remain silent and indifferent to a public offense against the Body and Blood of Christ.

Perhaps the most recent authoritative commentary on Saint Paul’s teaching regarding unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is found in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia, “On the Eucharist in Its Relationship to the Church,” issued on Holy Thursday, April 17, 2003. In Chapter Four of the Encyclical Letter, “The Eucharist and Ecclesial Communion,” Pope John Paul declared:

The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church’s hierarchical order ^[8].

It is especially the invisible dimension which the discipline of can. 915 safeguards.

Regarding the invisible dimension of communion, the Holy Father reminded us of the requirement that we be in the state of grace in order to receive Holy Communion. Making reference to 1Cor 11,28, Pope John Paul II declared that he who desires to participate in Holy Communion must be about the daily work of growing in holiness of life, that is, in the practice of the virtues of faith, hope and love ^[9]. He quoted from a homily on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah by Saint John Chrysostom:

I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called “communion,” not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but “condemnation,” “torment” and “increase of punishment” ^[10].

Noting the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 1385) and following the rule of the Council of Trent, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that, in order to receive Holy Communion worthily, one must have confessed and been absolved of any mortal sin of which he is guilty.

Pope John Paul II then proceeded to discuss the case of grave public sin, relating the self-judgment of unworthiness to receive to the refusal of Holy Communion to the person remaining in manifest grievous sin. He declared:

The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who <<obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion ^[11].

Pope John Paul II made it clear that the norm of can. 915 is required by the Church’s teaching on the respect due to the Most Blessed Sacrament and her concern to avoid scandal in the community.

With the words, <<cannot fail to feel directly involved>>, the Roman Pontiff clarified the obligation, on the part of the Church, to take action, when a person who remains in grievous and public sin approaches to receive Holy Communion. The obligation in question is distinct from the obligation of the person to examine his conscience regarding grave sin before approaching, which is treated in can. 916.

2. Fathers of the Church and Theologians

The Fathers of the Church and approved theologians have addressed the Church’s serious concern that due respect be paid to the Most Blessed Sacrament, that souls not fall into the sin of sacrilege by receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily, and that scandal not be given to the faithful by a careless administration of the Holy Eucharist to individuals who clearly are not rightly disposed, that is, who obstinately persevere in manifest serious sin. The just-cited text from Saint John Chrysostom, found in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, is an excellent example.

Saint Basil the Great, in his First Letter on the Canons, indicates that the man who marries his brother’s wife is not to be permitted to receive Holy Communion, until he separates from her. ^[12] He, likewise, declares that the widow who takes a husband after her sixtieth year is not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until <<she will have renounced her impure passion>> ^[13]. Although little commentary is offered regarding the reason for the discipline, it seems clear that, in both cases, the reason for the prohibition is a public violation of the Church’s discipline regarding marriage and the resulting scandal in the community. The just-mentioned canons of Saint Basil the Great are among the fonts of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which corresponds to the discipline articulated in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law¹⁴.

The fonts of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches also include a text of Saint Timothy of Alexandria, which underlines the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Blessed Sacrament to a public sinner. The question is posed: Whether it is permitted to give Holy Communion to a heretic who presents himself to receive amidst a large crowd? Saint Timothy of Alexandria responds that it is not permitted to give Holy Communion to the heretic, even if he is not recognized in the huge crowd. He comments that the one who gives Holy Communion to the heretic in such a situation, that is, not recognizing the heretic in the crowd, <<is not responsible because of the crowd and of his ignorance of the fact>> ^[15]. The discipline is clear. Holy Communion is to be denied to the public sinner, whether the congregation is large or small. The minister, however, is not responsible for giving the Sacrament to the known heretic whom he fails to recognize because of the size of the crowd.

Saint Augustine, in Sermon 227, preached to the newly-baptized on Easter Sunday, comments on the text of Saint Paul regarding worthy reception of Holy Communion. Giving the newly baptized a fuller catechesis on the Holy Eucharist, he instructs them:

What is receiving unworthily? Receiving with contempt, receiving with derision. Don’t let yourselves think that what you can see is of no account. What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end. ^[16]

Saint Augustine draws the attention of the newly-baptized to the reality of the Eucharistic species, the glorious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, cautioning them, lest in looking upon the species, which passes away, they fail or forget to recognize that the reality, the substance, is eternal, that is, never passes away. Saint Augustine’s text recalls to mind the words of Pope John Paul II about the invisible dimension of Holy Communion, which demands that those who stubbornly remain in “manifest grave sin” be denied the Sacrament. ^[17]

Saint Francis of Assisi addressed the question of the indiscriminate distribution of Holy Communion in his Letter or Exhortation to the Clergy. Saint Francis, first of all, lamented the lack of care for the sacred vessels and sacred linens, which hold and touch the Body and Blood of Christ, on the part of the clergy, the ministers of Holy Communion. He, then, addressed their responsibility to attend to their own worthiness and to the right disposition of those who present themselves to receive. He declared:

And besides, many clerics reserve the Blessed Sacrament in unsuitable places, or carry It about irreverently, or receive It unworthily, or give It to all-comers without distinction. ^[18]

With regard to the reception of Holy Communion, Saint Francis underlined two solemn moral obligations of the minister of Holy Communion: first, the obligation to be personally disposed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ worthily, and, second, the obligation to give Holy Communion with discretion, that is, with attention to those who, in a public way, have made themselves unworthy to receive the Sacrament.

3. Decretal Law

The first legislation in the matter, collected in the Decree of Gratian, is a letter from Pope Gregory the Great to an elderly Bishop Januarius who was reported to have gone out to take the harvest of a certain man before the celebration of the Mass and, then, to have proceeded to celebrate the Mass. The letter comments: <<All who hear about the fact know that a punishment ought to follow it>>. ^[19] The case is somewhat complicated. The discipline, in fact, is not imposed upon the Bishop because of his simple-mindedness and age. Pope Gregory, however, imposed two months of excommunication upon those who counseled the Bishop to act in such a way. The letter further specifies that, if they will have suffered illness within the two months, they are not to be deprived of the blessing of Viaticum. The letter concludes by reminding the Bishop that, henceforth, he has been cautioned against the counsel of such persons. ^[20]

Although the norm, as is proper for legislation, does not comment on the reason for the severe discipline, it is clear that the action of Bishop Januarius was in public violation of the divine precept to avoid servile labor on the Lord’s Day. Clearly, the scandal caused was greater because the sin was committed by a bishop.

The Decree of Gratian also quotes the discipline from the Council of Carthage that an excommunicated bishop or priest who receives Holy Communion before a hearing is judged to have passed upon himself a judgment of condemnation. ^[21]. Once again, the case of denying Holy Communion involves a public and grave sin, which until it has been addressed through an ecclesiastical hearing, demands that the bishop or priest be refused Holy Communion.

In addition, the Decree of Gratian quotes the discipline of the Council of Agde or Montpellier: <<And we have judged that murderers and false witnesses are to be kept from ecclesiastical communion, unless their crimes will have been absolved by the satisfaction of penitence>>. ^[22] The cases which demand refusal of Holy Communion are seen to include murder and false witness, both public acts involving grave matter. Until the guilty party has been absolved of the grave sin, his reception of Holy Communion would constitute sacrilege and would give scandal to others, leading them to confusion regarding the sacredness of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

In the Decree of Gratian, we also find a quotation from a letter of Cyprian Euricacius to a confrère, in which he responds to a request for counsel regarding the question of whether a certain charlatan and sorcerer ought to be given Holy Communion. The question makes reference to the fact that the person in question perseveres in the shamefulness of his art, becoming a teacher and expert for children who, because of his bad example, are not educated but are led astray ^[23]. It further references the truth that evil taught to some also reaches others, which seems to be a clear reference to scandal. The response is: <<I think that it is neither congruent with the divine majesty or evangelical discipline, in order that the modesty and honor of the Church not be sullied by such an indecent and infamous contagion>>. ^[24]

In the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, we find the decree of the Third Lateran Council, which established that <<manifest usurers are not to be admitted to the communion of the altar>>. The decree also denied ecclesiastical burial to an unrepentant usurer, mandated that their offerings were not to be accepted, and suspended from the execution of his office the cleric who would accept their offerings, until, in the judgment of his Bishop, he had returned the offerings ^[25].

From the Decretal Law, it is clear that Church discipline places an obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to refuse Holy Communion to persons known, by the public, to be in mortal sin. The discipline, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul, safeguards the recognition of the most sacred nature of the Holy Eucharist, preventing public sinners from inflicting further grave damage upon their souls through the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist and safeguarding the faithful from the inevitable confusion regarding the sacredness of the Sacrament, which is caused by the admission of manifest and grave sinners to the reception of Holy Communion.

4. Rituale Romanum of 1614

The Rituale Romanum published by Pope Paul V on June 17, 1614, presents the discipline of the Church regarding the Sacraments and sacramentals, in accord with the reforms of the Council of Trent. It was published principally for the use of priests, even as the Pontificale Romanum and Caeremoniale Episcoporum were published, in 1595-1596 and 1600, respectively, for the bishops. It is a universal vademecum for priests in what is their principal and highest activity, the celebration of the Sacraments and sacramentals.

In the section, “On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist” (De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento), the priests are reminded that the Holy Eucharist contains <<the principal and greatest gift of God, Christ the Lord, the very author and font of all grace and holiness>>. ^[26] They are, therefore, urged to put forth the greatest effort in the reverence before and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament, on their own part, and in the worship and holy reception of the Sacrament, on the part of the faithful in their pastoral care. The priests are reminded of the specific instructions which they should give to the faithful in preparing to receive and in receiving Holy Communion.

The discipline regarding the reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the tabernacle and the tabernacle itself is given in detail. The parish priest is reminded that he is to take care that everything ordered to the worship of the Most Blessed Sacrament be intact and clean, and be maintained so. ^[27] The care of the sacred linens and vessels is a very concrete expression of the integral respect owed to the Most Blessed Sacrament, as Saint Francis of Assisi had declared in his succinct admonition to the clergy regarding the care to be given to the Holy Eucharist.

Regarding the ministering of the Sacrament to the faithful, the Rituale Romanum established:

All the faithful are to be admitted to Holy Communion, except those who are prohibited for a just reason. 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. ^[28]

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 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 ^[29].

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>>. ^[30] 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.

5. Pope Benedict XIV

In order to understand the discipline of can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law, it is important to review briefly the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV, the noted canonist Prospero Lambertini, in the matter. Pope Benedict XIV served as Successor of Saint Peter from August 17, 1740, until his death on May 3, 1758. The case in which his teaching is set forth concerns the followers of Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719).

Pope Clement XI (1700-1721), by his Constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius of September 8, 1713, condemned certain propositions taken from the writings of Quesnel, a French Oratorian who fell into the errors of Jansenism and Gallicanism. ^[31] Sadly, Quesnel refused correction and became obstinate in his errors. As is not uncommon in the history of the Church, he gained a following.

Pope Benedict XIV had to address the question regarding whether adherents to the errors of Quesnel might be admitted to receive Holy Communion as Viaticum ^[32]. In his Encyclical Letter Ex omnibus, to the Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of the Kingdom of France (“Regni Galliarum”), dated October 16, 1756, he responded that <<inasmuch as they are publicly and notoriously obstinate before the just mentioned Constitution, it is to be denied to them; assuredly from the general rule which forbids that a public and notorious sinner be admitted to participation of Eucharistic Communion, whether he publicly or privately requests it>>. ^[33]

Pope Benedict XIV goes on to provide pastoral instructions for those ministering to a person who is believed to be obstinate in holding to Quesnel’s errors. He urges a personal and calm and understanding approach to ascertain the truth regarding the individual’s conscience. If the individual holds to the errors which endanger his or her eternal salvation, the Holy Father urges the minister of Holy Communion to point out that receiving the Body of Christ will not make him secure before the tribunal of Christ but rather guilty of a new and more detestable sin, because he has eaten and drunk judgment on himself. ^[34] The allusion is clearly to Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (1Cor 11,27-29).

6. Synodal Legislation of the Eastern Churches

The discipline regarding the denial of Holy Communion to public sinners is also clearly enunciated in the synodal legislation of the Eastern Churches. For example, in 1599, the Malabar Church of southern India held a synod in the city of Diamper, which was convoked by the Latin Archbishop of Goa, Alexius de Menezes ^[35]. Decree III of the Synod of Diamper, referring to the teaching of Saint Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians, declared:

Wherefore, it is not permitted to give this Sacrament to public sinners, until they will have given up their sins, such as are public sorcerers, prostitutes, the publicly cohabiting, and those who publicly profess hatreds without reconciliation. ^[36]

The decree in question also gives careful instruction regarding the vigilance of the local vicars, lest they sin gravely by offering the Sacrament to public sinners.

In 1720, the Ruthenian Church held a provincial council at Zamostia, in which the Apostolic Nuncio, the metropolitan archbishop, 7 bishops, 8 major superiors of religious, and 129 members of the secular and regular clergy participated. ^[37] Regarding the denial of Holy Communion, the Synod made its own the perennial discipline of the Church:

Lest occasion be given to some scandal or loss of good name, the Holy Eucharist is not to be denied to the unworthy sinner because of some secret sin, above all, if the priest giving Communion will have received news of it from the confession of the sinner himself, seeking publicly the Eucharist. Heretics, schismatics, the excommunicated, the interdicted, public criminals, the openly infamous, as also prostitutes, the publicly cohabiting, major usurers, fortune-tellers, and other evil-doing men of the same kind, however, are not to be admitted to the reception of this Sacrament, according to the precept of Christ: <<Do not give the Holy to dogs>>. ^[38]

The legislation seeks to safeguard the good name of the sinner whose sin is not public. The term, scandal, is used in the second sense, that is, wonderment causing loss of good name. At the same time, the legislation requires that the public sinner be denied Holy Communion. The Scriptural quotation is from the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 7,6). The legislation, however, >makes reference to the healing of the Canaanite woman, recounted in the Gospel according to Matthew (15,26), underlining the necessity of integrity of faith for the reception of grace. The Canaanite woman, in fact, because of her faith was the recipient of the healing grace of our Lord. The person who persists in grave and public sin lacks the integrity of faith, which is required to receive the Sacrament.

Regarding the discipline of the Eastern Churches in the matter, the legislation of the Synod of the Maronites of 1736, confirmed “in forma specifica” by Pope Benedict XIV on September 1, 1741, is most instructive. The legislation of the Synod of 1736 is the principal font of the canonical legislation of Catholics of the Maronite Rite and is also a font of can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. ^[39]

Regarding Holy Communion, the Synod of 1736 legislated that the “publicly unworthy” are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. The legislation gives as examples of those to be denied Holy Communion the following: <<heretics, schismatics, apostates, the excommunicated, the interdicted, and the openly notorious, such as prostitutes, the cohabiting, usurers, sorcerers, fortune-tellers, blasphemers and other sinners of this public kind>>. The legislation gives two conditions under which they may subsequently be admitted to receive Holy Communion: 1) the establishment of their penance and change of life; and 2) the prior repair of public scandal. ^[40] In other words, the canonical discipline is directed both to the eternal salvation of the soul of the sinner and to the correction of the scandal given by a person who publicly violates the moral law in a grave mat>ter and then presumes to receive Holy Communion.

7. Responses of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia

The understanding of the canonical discipline regarding the refusal of Holy Communion is also illustrated through the responses of the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in the matter. For example, on April 29, 1784, the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith issued an instruction to the Apostolic Vicariate of Soochow, addressing several pastoral questions of missionaries in China.

One of the questions concerned the withholding of Holy Communion from those who had confessed and repented of their sins but, in the judgment of the missionaries, were not sufficiently disposed to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament. The Instruction takes due note of the fitting preparation which is required for the reception of Holy Communion, making allusion to Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians.

After providing direction for the missionaries, drawn especially from the teaching of the Council of Trent, the Instruction makes reference to the section of the Roman Ritual on the Holy Eucharist, which prohibited the giving of Holy Communion to those guilty of scandalous behavior, namely <<drunks, usurers, the impure, the sacrilegious, the disturbers of the peace, the inconstant in faith, hypocrites, those who hand over their daughters for marriage to the unbaptized, the scandalous, and others who are contaminated by the more serious shameful acts>>. ^[41] The Instruction goes on to ask the question:

But, if pitiable and completely defiled men of this type have truly and soundly repented of their sins; if they will have carried out those remedies, given to them by confessors, for the conversion of life, the restitution of stolen goods and the repair of scandal, according to the above-given rules, and moreover will have shown the worthy fruits of penitence, by which they also hope for forgiveness from God, and nothing prohibits the request of the absolution of their crimes by the priest penitentiary, why would they not be admitted to Eucharistic Communion? ^[42]

To be noted here are the requirements of true conversion, restitution in the case of sins against the Seventh Commandment, and the repair of scandal.

On December 10, 1860, the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary published a number of responses to serious pastoral questions. Question no. 20 read: <<Whether the Most Blessed Eucharist may be given to those who are notoriously bound by censure, unless, as is fitting, they first will have been reconciled with the Church?>> ^[43] The response is negative.

Although no explanation of the response is given, one has to suppose that three reasons underlie the response. They are: the most sacred nature of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the serious sin committed by a public sinner who would receive Holy Communion without repenting of his sin, and the grave scandal caused by giving Holy Communion to a member of the faithful notoriously bound by censure, who has not been reconciled.

On July 27, 1892, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office responded to the question: <<Whether it is permitted to administer the sacraments of the dying to the faithful who certainly do not adhere to the Masonic sect and are not led by its principles, but, moved by other reasons, have ordered their bodies to be cremated after death, if they refuse to retract the order?>>. ^[44] The response given was: <<If, having been warned, they refuse, No. As to whether or not a warning should be given, the rules handed on by the proven authors are to be followed, taking into account, above all, the need to avoid scandal>>. ^[45]

The response centers upon the correction of a wrongly formed conscience before the denial of Holy Communion. It rightly requires that scandal be avoided.

On July 1, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a decree in response to four questions regarding the involvement of Catholics with the Communist Party. The third question was: <<Whether Christ’s faithful, who have knowingly and freely performed the acts treated in nos. 1 and 2, may be admitted to the Sacraments>>. ^[46] The acts treated in the first two questions were: <<whether it would be lawful to join the Communist Party or to offer support to it>>; and <<whether it would be lawful to edit, distribute or read books, periodicals, journals or manuscripts, which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them>>. ^[47]

The response to the third question was: <<To 3. No, according to the ordinary principles of denying the Sacraments to those who are not disposed>>. ^[48] In the response to the first question, the reason why those who cooperate, in some formal way, with the Communist Party are not disposed to receive the Sacraments is provided. The response explains:

For Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; the leaders of the Communist Party, moreover, even if at times they declare that they do not oppose Religion, in truth, they show themselves, both by teaching and by action, to be inimical to God, to true Religion, and to the Church of Christ. ^[49]

The discipline, in particular, indicates that among the categories of persons who are to be denied Holy Communion are they who publicly espouse political doctrines which are hostile to the Faith and to the Church. In a similar way, those who publicly support political platforms or legislative agenda which are gravely contrary to the natural moral law show that they are not rightly disposed to receive Holy Communion.

On November 26, 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration regarding Masonic associations, with the approval of Pope John Paul II who ordered its publication. The declaration responded to the question whether the judgment of the Church had changed regarding Masonic associations, since they are not expressly mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, as they were in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The response given in the declaration contains four points: 1) the Church’s negative judgment regarding Masonic associations remains unchanged because the principles of the associations are irreconcilable with the Church’s teaching; 2) membership, therefore, in them remains forbidden; 3) members of the faithful who join Masonic associations fall into serious sin; and 4) <<they may not approach for Holy Communion>>. ^[50] Making reference to the Congregation’s declaration of February 17, 1981, the declaration further indicates that local ecclesiastical authorities do not enjoy the faculty <<of offering a judgment regarding the nature of Masonic associations, which would involve the derogation of the above-stated judgment>>. ^[51]

Before the meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004, various Bishops had spoken and written about the application of can. 915 in the case of Catholic politicians who, after being duly admonished, publicly persist in supporting legislation grievously contrary to the natural moral law. A certain and, in some cases, serious diversity of judgment in the matter became evident among the Bishops. In early June, in order to assist the Bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a memorandum, entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who was exercising leadership in the Conference of Bishops regarding matters of domestic policy. The memorandum sets forth six “general principles” regarding worthiness to receive Holy Communion.

The first principle reads: <<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>>. ^[52] It further declares: <<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>>. ^[53]

The second principle quotes nos. 73 and 74 of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, in which Pope John Paul II sets forth the Church’s perennial moral teaching forbidding, always and everywhere, formal cooperation in intrinsically evil acts. With respect to the activity of legislatures and courts, the principle makes it clear that Catholics must oppose <judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia>> ^[54].

The third principle underlines the diversity of moral weight between abortion and euthanasia, on the one hand, and war and the death penalty, on the other. The memorandum declares: <<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>> ^[55].

The fourth principle distinguishes between the judgment which the individual must make about his worthiness and the discretion which the minister of Holy Communion must employ regarding those who present themselves to receive the Sacrament. The principle calls to mind that <<the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin>>. ^[56]

The fifth principle provides instruction for the pastor regarding the handling of a case of obstinate persistence in public serious sin. It refers explicitly to the case of Catholic politicians:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. ^[57]

The principle makes clear the application of can. 915 to the case of a Catholic politician who persists in publicly supporting legislation in grave violation of the natural moral law. It also provides the pastoral instruction regarding the procedure to be followed in observing the norm of the law in the matter.

The sixth principle, making reference to a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of June 4, 2000, declares that, when a person who has been duly admonished persists in presenting himself for Holy Communion, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to give the Sacrament. The principle further clarifies that the decision of the minister of Holy Communion <<is not a sanction or a penalty>> but rather the recognition of objective and public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion. ^[58]

The memorandum has an appended note regarding the situation of the Catholic who would deliberately vote for a candidate <<precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia>>. ^[59] It also states the applicable moral principles governing the action of a Catholic who <<does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons>>. ^[60]

On July 9, 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick who had forwarded to him a copy of the statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” adopted on June 18, 2004. The letter declared:

The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service – to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue – in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations. ^[61]

The letter does not offer further comment on “Catholics in Political Life.”

8. The Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law (1917)

The question of those to be excluded from the reception of Most Holy Communion is treated in can. 855 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 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. ^[62]

Father Felice Cappello, S.J., noted commentator on the Pio-Benedictine Code, 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>>. ^[63]

Basing himself on Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Father Cappello goes on to explain the reason for the discipline:

The dignity itself of the sacraments and the virtue of religion demand it, lest sacred things be exposed to profanation; the fidelity of the minister demands it, who is forbidden to give holy things to the dogs and to throw pearls before the swine; the law of charity> demands it, lest the minister cooperate with those who unworthily attempt and dare to receive the sacraments, and offer scandal. ^[64]

Father Cappello clearly summarizes what are the certain elements of the canonical discipline regarding the denial of Holy Communion before the codification of 1917. The sublime reality of the Sacrament demands that it not be subjected to profanation by unworthy reception. The responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion demands that he not give the Sacrament indiscriminately to those who are not rightly disposed. Pastoral charity requires that Holy Communion be denied for the sake of the salvation of the person wrongly presenting himself to receive and for the sake of those who would be led astray regarding the truth of the Sacrament and the requirements for worthy reception.

9. 1983 Code of Canon Law

In order to understand the mind of the Legislator of the Code of Canon Law of 1983, it is necessary to review the work of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, appointed by the Roman Pontiff to assist him in his responsibility as legislator. Regarding the discipline contained in can. 855 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the first proposal for the text of the legislation read:

They who have sinned grievously and manifestly remain in contumacy are not to be admitted to the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist or to Communion. ^[65]

The proposed canon was discussed by the Special Committee on the Sacraments (Coetus specialis de Sacramentis) at its meeting from May 29 to June 2 of 1978. ^[66] Cardinal Pericle Felici, President of the Commission, the then Archbishop Rosalio I. Castillo Lara, Secretary of the Commission, and Monsignor Willy Onclin, Adjunct Secretary of the Commission, were present. Father Mariano De Nicolò took the minutes of the meeting.

The first observation regarding the discipline sought to provide for the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and remarried. All of the Consultors of the Commission responded that it was not the work of the Commission to treat such matters and that it would be for the Holy See to respond to the observation. ^[67]

Secondly, the words referring to the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist were removed, because the canon treats of participation in the Holy Eucharist. It was observed that exclusion from the celebration carries with it the nature of a punishment and, therefore, is treated in the penal law. The removal of the reference to the celebration was also seen to respect the title of the section, namely, “Regarding Participation in the Most Holy Eucharist”. ^[68] Finally, the words <<and publicly>> were added after <<grievously>>. ^[69]

The discipline in question appeared as canon 867 in the 1980 Schema of the Code of Canon Law and read:

They who have grievously and publicly sinned, and manifestly remain in contumacy are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. ^[70]

The observations presented by the Fathers of the Commission and the responses from the Secretariat and Consultors of the Commission are indicated in the Report Including the Synthesis of the Observations by the Most Eminent and Most Excellent Fathers of the Commission to the Latest Schema of the Code of Canon Law, with the Responses Given by the Secretary and by the Consultors. ^[71]. The section of the Observations regarding the Sanctifying Office of the Church is also found in Communicationes 15 (1983) 170-253; the observations regarding can. 867 are found on page 194.

Regarding can. 867, one of the Fathers, namely Cardinal Ermenegildo Florit of Florence, indicated that he found the text too generic in relation to can. 1135 of the Schema. Canon 1135, in Chapter 2, “On Those to be Granted and to Be Denied Ecclesiastical Burial,” of the Second Title, “On Ecclesiastical Burial,” of the 1980 Schema read:

§1. They are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless before death they will have given some signs of repentance:

1. 1. notorious apostates, heretics and schismatics;
   2. who have chosen the cremation of their body for reasons adverse to the Christian faith;
   3. other manifest sinners to whom ecclesiastical burial cannot be granted without the public scandal of the faithful.

§2. When there is any doubt, the Ordinary of the place is to be consulted, whose judgment is to be followed. ^[72]

Cardinal Florit also urged that attention be given to can. 855 of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1135 §1, of the 1980 Schema provides examples of those who are to be denied ecclesiastical burial, as can. 855 §1, of the 1917 Code provides examples of those who are to be denied reception of Holy Communion. Although Cardinal Florit’s observation is not further elaborated, it seems that he was asking that the canon on the refusal of Holy Communion to those who persist in public and grievous sin should give examples, as can. 1135 §1, of the 1980 Schema and can. 855 §1, do.

Cardinal Pietro Palazzini observed that can. 855 of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law had been too much tempered in the matter. He further objected that the scandal, which can. 855 §2, of the 1917 Code treats, was not considered, in any manner, by the proposed text. It should be noted that the term, scandal, in can. 855 §2, is used in the second, not properly theological, sense, that is, wonderment (admiratio) causing loss of good name.

The response given to both observations was:

The text suffices for it contains all of the requirements: namely, gravity of the act, the public nature of the act, and contumacy. Most certainly the text refers also to the divorced and remarried. ^[73]

The response seemingly does not address, in any way, the request of a list of some of those to be denied the Sacrament. The question of scandal, in either of the senses noted above, is not addressed.

The text of the discipline in the 1982 draft of the Code of Canon Law appears in can. 913. The 1982 draft was prepared after consultation with the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the Conferences of Bishops, the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the Faculties of Ecclesiastical Universities and the Superiors of Institutes of the Consecrated Life. It had been revised at the pleasure of the Fathers of the Commission and had been presented to Pope John Paul II. Can. 913 read:

The excommunicated and interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who remain obstinately in manifestly grievous sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. ^[74]

The text appears unchanged, as can. 915, in the final text promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

The text of the canon is clear. Those under the imposed or declared ecclesiastical penalties of interdict and excommunication, and those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be given Holy Communion. The text makes it clear that the Church has the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to those who are known to be under the imposed or declared penalties of excommunication and interdict, and to those who are known to persist obstinately in manifest grave sin. Although the text does not state so explicitly, it is clear that the Church’s responsibility is carried out by the minister of Holy Communion.

Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion. The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, summarizes the point:

Likewise excluded are those <<who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin>>. In this third case, unlike the first two, there has been no public imposition or declaration of the person’s state and so, before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave. ^[75]

Clearly, the burden is on the minister of Holy Communion who, by the nature of his responsibility, must prevent anything which profanes the Blessed Sacrament and endangers the salvation of the soul of the recipient and of those scandalized by his unworthy reception of Holy Communion.

What about the question of scandal? The safeguarding of the sacred necessarily means avoiding scandal. In its properly theological sense, scandal is an objective word, action or omission which leads others into wrong thoughts, actions or omissions.

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. ^[76]

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. This is not the scandal to which can. 855 §2, of the Pio-Benedictine Code refers.

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.

10. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches

The first draft of the canons regarding divine worship and, above all, the Sacraments (Schema Canonum de Cultu Divino et Praesertim de Sacramentis) of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, not surprisingly, contained a discipline similar to the discipline of the Latin Church, regarding the exclusion of public and grievous sinners from reception of the Holy Eucharist. Can. 47 read:

The publicly unworthy, unless their repentance and correction has been established, are to be kept from participation in the Divine Eucharist. ^[77]

The draft of the canons was sent to the organs of consultation, that is, the Patriarchates and other Eastern Churches, the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia, the Conferences of Bishops which have oriental hierarchs as members, the ecclesiastical universities and faculties of Rome and others. ^[78]

As a result of the consultation, the draft canon 47 underwent two revisions. First, the phrase, <<unless their repentance and correction has been established>>, was omitted, because it was held to be unnecessary. Second, the phrase, <<from participation in the Divine Eucharist>>, was changed to <<from reception of the Divine Eucharist>>. ^[79] No official explanation of the second change is given. No doubt, the change reflects the greater precision which also marked the drafting of the Latin Code, taking care not to confuse participation in the Holy Eucharist with reception of the Holy Eucharist.

The draft of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (Schema Codicis Iuris Canonici Orientalis), sent, with the blessing of the Roman Pontiff, to the Members of the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of Oriental Canon Law, on October 17, 1986, contained the canon as revised. Can. 708 read:

The publicly unworthy are to be kept from the reception of the Divine Eucharist. ^[80]

The text of the discipline remained unchanged as can. 712 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated by Pope John Paul II on October 18, 1990.

Father Victor J. Pospishil, in his commentary on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, gives only one example of those to be denied Holy Communion, namely, the member of the faithful who contracts marriage with an Eastern non-Catholic without the permission of his or her Catholic Bishop. ^[81] For the rest, he comments negatively on the denial of Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried, advocating <<some better future solution>>. ^[82] His commentary makes no reference to the lists of those to be prevented from reception of Holy Communion, which are found in the fonts of can. 712, for example, the legislation of the Synod of 1736 of the Maronite Church.

Father George Nedungatt notes the following in his commentary on the language of the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches:

The Latin word “arcere” means <<to prevent from approaching, keep away, repulse>> (OLD, s. v. 2). It is more than “to forbid”. ^[83]

Can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is more lapidary in its formulation, but it expresses one and the same discipline found in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

11. Declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts

On June 24, 2000, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, <<in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments>>, issued a declaration making it clear that can. 915 applies to the faithful who are divorced and remarried. Referring to the text of 1Cor 11,27, 29, the Declaration expresses the theological and canonical reasons of can. 915:

In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful. ^[84]

The Declaration contains the basic reasons for the discipline of can. 915 and indicates the serious implications of the application of can. 915 for the communion of the Church, which Pope John Paul II presented in Ecclesia de Eucharistia. It also treats the serious element of scandal, noting that the error of so many of the faithful in the matter confirms, in fact, the scandal, and the need of a patient but firm action on the part of the Pastors of the Church.

The Statement refers clearly to an objective situation of sin, “a behavior,” and the “objective harm” caused, when a person who exhibits such behavior is given Holy Communion. The Declaration explicitly addresses those who would say that to deny Holy Communion, in accord with the norm of can. 915, <<it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo>> and <<to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor>> ^[85]. Such requirements would <<render the norm inapplicable>>. ^[86]

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. ^[87]

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.

The long-standing discipline of the Church requires that the minister of Holy Communion exercise discretion regarding the distribution of Holy Communion to those who persist in manifest and grievous sin. The exercise of such discretion is not a judgment on the subjective state of the soul of the person approaching to receive Holy Communion, but a judgment regarding the objective condition of serious sin in a person who, after due admonition from his pastor, persists in cooperating formally with intrinsically evil acts like procured abortion. In the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II made clear the Church’s teaching regarding the obligation of a Catholic legislator, when he declared:

Abortion and euthanasia, therefore, are crimes which no human law can make ratified. Laws of this kind not only do not bind the conscience; truly they gravely and expressly compel that the same be opposed because of repugnance to conscience. ⁸⁸

The fifth principle of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, makes it clear that a Catholic politician’s formal cooperation in abortion or euthanasia, that is, <<his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws>>, constitutes an <<objective situation of sin>>, and that, therefore, <<he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin>> ^[89].

Conclusions

What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?

First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.

Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.

Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.

Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it>> ^[90].

Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.

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.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation ^[91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.

Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke

1. Card. W.H. KEELER, <<Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians: Summary of Consultations>>, Origins 34 (2004) 106.
2. UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, <<Catholics in Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 99.
3. US CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, <<Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 2), 99.
4. Card. R. MAHONY, <<Catholic Politicians and Holy Communion>>, Origins 34 (2004) 110.
5. Card. T. McCARRICK, <<Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians>>, Origins 34 (2004) 108; Bishop F.J. GOSSMAN, <<The State of the Soul of Those Presenting Themselves for Communion>>, Origins 34 (2004) 190.
6. The translation is from the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.
7. A.C. THISELTON, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Grand Rapids (Michigan) 2000, 890. Cf. G.J. LOCKWOOD, 1 Corinthians, Saint Louis 2000, 406; and A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, New York 1953, 1093-1094.
8. <<Eucharistiae celebratio tamen non potest esse principium communionis, quandoquidem illam iam veluti exsistentem praeponit, ut earn confirmet et ad perfectionem perducat. Vinculum huiusmodi communionis exprimit Sacramentum turn ratione invisibili, quae per Spiritus Sancti motum in Christo nos cum Patre alligat atque inter nos, turn visibili ratione quae cornmunicationem in Apostolorum doctrina, in Sacramentis, in hierarchico ordine secum infert>>. IOANNES PAULUS II, Litterae Encyclicae Ecclesia de Eucharistia [=EdeE], AAS 95 (2003) 457, n. 35a. English translation from: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City State.
9. EdeE 36a.
10. <<Ideo nunc etiam ex hoc tempore clara voce denuntio, obtestor, precor et obsecro ne cum macula, ne cum prava conscientia ad sacram hanc mensam accedamus: neque enim hoc accessus, neque communio dici potest, quamvis milies sanctum illud corpus attingamus, sed condemnatio, supplicium et poenarum accessio>>. EdeE 36b.
11. <<De gratiae statu, ut patet, iudicium solum ad singulos homines spectat, cum de conscientiae aestimatione agatur. Quotiens vero de moribus exterioribus agitur graviter et manifesto et perpetuo contra normam moralem, Ecclesia, pro sua pastorali cura boni ordinis communitatis et ex observantia ipsius Sacramenti, non potest quin se etiam appellari sentiat. De hac condicione manifestae moralis perturbationis loquitur norma Codicis Iuris Canonici ad eucharisticam communionem non admittens quotquot “in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes” inveniuntur>>. EdeE 37b.
12. BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, <<Premiere Lettre sur Les Canons addressée a Amphiloque, Évêque d’Iconium>>, in PONTIFICIA COMMISSIONE PER LA REDAZIONE DEL CODICE DI DIRITTO CANONICO ORIENTALE, Fonti, fascicolo IX, t. 2 (Les canons des Pères Grecs), Grottaferrata 1963,125, can. 23.
13. <<[…] tant qu’elle n’aura pas renoncé à sa passion impure>>. BASILE DE CÉSARÉE, <<Premiere Lettre sur Les Canons>> (cf. nt. 12), 126, can. 24. Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, the English translation of texts in other languages is of the author.
14. PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS INTERPRETANDIS, Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium auctoritate loannis Pauli Pp. II promulgatus, Fontium annotatione auctus, Vatican City State 1995,259, can. 712.
15. <<[…] n’est pas responsable à cause de la foule et de son ignorance du fait>>. TIMOTHÉE D’ALEXANDRIE, <<Reponses canoniques aux questions qui lui furent posees par des évêques et des clercs>>, in PONTIFICIA COMMISSIONE PER LA REDAZIONE DEL CODICE DI DIRITTO CANONICO ORIENTALE, Fonti, fascicolo IX, t. 2 (Les canons des Pères Grecs), Grottaferrata 1963,256, can. 25.
16. <<Quid est indigne accipere? Irridenter accipere, contemptibiliter accipere. Non tibi videatur vile, quia vides. Quod vides, transit: sed quod significatur invisibile, non transit, sed permanet. Ecce accipitur, comeditur, consumitur: numquid corpus Christi consumitur? numquid Ecclesia Christi consumitur? numquid membra Christi consumuntur? Absit! Hic mundantur: ibi coronantur. Manebit ergo quod significatur aeternaliter, quanquam transire videatur. Sic ergo accipite, ut vos cogitetis, ut unitatem in corde habeatis, sursum cor semper figatis. Spes vestra non sit in terra, sed in coelo: fides vestra firma sit in Deum, acceptabilis sit Deo. Quia quod modo hic non videtis, et creditis; visuri estis illic, ubi sine fine gaudebitis>>. S. AUGUSTINI EPISCOPI, <<Sermo CCXXVII (a), In die Paschae, IV, Ad Infantes, de Sacramentis>>, in Opera Omnia, ed. Monachi Ordinis Sancti Benedicti e Congregatione S. Mauri, Paris 1865, t. V, col. 1101. English translation from AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, <<Sermon 227: Preached on the Holy Day of Easter to the Infantes, on the Sacraments>>, in Sermons, vol. III/6 (184-229Z), tr. Edmund Hill, 0.P., New Rochelle 1993, 255-256.
17. EdeE 36-37.
18. <<Et a multis in locis vilibus collocatur et relinquitur, miserabiliter portatur et indigne sumitur et indiscrete aliis ministratur>>. SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI, <<Epistola ad clericos (Recensio prior)>>, in Die Opuscula des Hl. Franziskus von Assisi, Neue textkritische Edition, ed. Kajetan Esser, O.F.M., Grottaferrata 1976, 163-164. English translation from: The Writings of St. Francis of Assisi, tr. Benen Fahy, O.F.M., Chicago 1964, 101.
19. <<Quod factum que pena debeat sequi, omnes, qui audiunt, sciunt>>. C. 24, D. LXXXVI.
20. <<Et quidem penae sententia in te fuerat iaculanda; sed quia simplicitatem tuam cum senectute cognovimus, interim tacemus. Eos vero, quorum consilio hoc egisti, in duobus mensibus excommunicatos esse decrevimus: ita ut, si quid eis intra duorum mensium spatium humanitas evenerit, benedictione viatici non priventur. Deinceps autem ab eorum consiliis cautus existe>>. C. 24, D. LXXXVI.
21. <<Placuit universo concilio, ut qui excommunicatus fuerit pro suo neglectu, sive episcopus quilibet sive clericus, et tempore suae excommunicationis ante audientiam communicare presumpserit, ipse in se damnationis iudicetur protulisse sententiam>>. c. 9, C. XI, q. 3.
22. <<Itaque censuimus homicidas et falsos testes a conmunione ecclesiastica submovendos, nisi penitenciae satisfactione crimina admissa diluerint>>. c. 20, C. XXIV, q. 3.
23. <<Pro dilectione tua consulendum me existimasti, frater karissime, quid michi videatur de ystrione et mago illo, qui apud vos constitutus adhuc in suae artis dedecore perseverat, et magister et doctor non erudiendorum, sed perdendorum puerorum, id, quod male didicit, ceteris quoque insinuat: an talibus debeat sacra communio cum ceteres Christianis dari aut debeat conmunicare vobiscum?>>. c. 95, D. II, de cons.
24. <<Puto nec maiestati divinae, nec evangelicae disciplinae congruere, ut pudor et honor ecclesiae tam turpi et infami contagione fedetur>>. c. 95, D. II, de cons.
25. <<Ideo constituimus, quod usurarii manifesti nec ad cornmunionem admittantur altaris, nec Christianam, si in hoc peccato decesserint, accipiant sepulturam, sed nec oblationes eorum quisquam accipiat. Qui autem acceperit, vel Christianae tradiderit sepulturae, et ea, quae acceperit, reddere compellatur, et, donec ad arbitrium episcopi sui satisfaciat, ab officii sui maneat exsecutione suspensus>>. c. 3, X, de usuris, V, 19.
26. <<Praecipuum, & maximum Dei donum, & ipsemet omnis gratiae, & sanctitatis fons, authorq. Christus Dominus>>. Rituale Romanum, Editio Princeps (1614), ed. Manlio Sodi, S.D.B., and Juan Javier Flores Arcas, O.S.B., Citta del Vaticano 2004,56.
27. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 56-57.
28. <<Fideles omnes ad sacram communionem admittendi sunt, exceptis iis, qui iusta ratione prohibentur. Arcendi autem sunt publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti, manifesteque infames, ut meretrices, concubinarii, foeneratores, magi, sortilegi, blasphemi, & alii eius generis publici peccatores: nisi de eorum poenitentia, & emendatione constet, & publico scandalo prius satisfecerint>>. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 49.
29. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 49.
30. <<Publici usuarii, concubinarii, notarii criminosi, nominatim excommunicati, aut denunciati; nisi sese prius sacra Confessione purgaverint, & publicae offensae, prout de iure, satisfecerint>>. Rituale Romanum (cf. nt. 26), 60-61.
31. DS 2400-2502; cf. Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. I, 539-542, n. 270.
32. <<Hinc porro consequitur, ut in ea, quae exorta est, controversia, utrum huiusmodi refractariis sanctissimum Corporis Christi Viaticum expetentibus denegari debeat, […]>>. BENEDICTUS XIV, Encylical Letter Ex omnibus, in Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. II, 536, n. 441 §3.
33. <<Quoties praedictae Constitutioni publice et notorie refractarii sint, denegandum eis esse; ex generali nimirum regula, quae vetat publicum atque notorium peccatorem ad Eucharisticae Communionis participationem admitti, sive eam publice, sive privatim requirat>>. BENEDICTUS XIV, Encylical Letter Ex omnibus (cf. nt. 32), 536.
34. <<Rogantes eum et obsecrantes, ut resipiscat, in eo saltem temporis articulo, a quo aeterna ipsius salutis sors pendet; eidemque praeterea demonstrantes, quod, quamvis ipsi parati sint sanctissimum Corporis Christi Viaticum ei ministrare, ac etiam reipsa illud ei ministrent, non ideo tamen tutus ipse erit ante tribunal Christi, sed potius novi et horrendi criminis reum se constituet, ex quo iudicium sibi manducavit et bibit; […]>>. Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. II, 537, n. 441 §9.
35. C. DE CLERCQ, Fontes luridici Ecclesiarum Orientalium: Studium Historicum, Romae 1967, 112-113.
36. <<Idcirco nec publicis peccatoribus hoc Sacramentum dare licet, quousque peccata reliquerint, ut sunt publici venefici, & meretrices, concubinarii publici, & qui publice odia sine reconciliatione profitentur>>. <<Diampertina Synodus in Malabria>>, in J.D.Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Graz 1961, vol. 35, col. 1238.
37. C. DE CLERCQ, Fontes luridici Ecclesiarum Orientalium: Studium Historicum, Romae 1967, 112-113.
38. <<Ne alicujus scandali, aut infamiae detur occasio, sacra Eucharistia deneganda non est peccatori indigno ob peccatum aliquod secretum, praesertim si eius notitiam sacerdos communicans ex confessione ipsius peccatoris Eucharistiam publice petentis habuerit. Haeretici autem, schismatici, excommunicati, interdicti, publice criminosi, manifeste infames, uti etiam meretrices, publici concubinarii, usuarii magni, sortilegi, & alii id generis publice facinorosi homines ad hujus Sacramenti perceptionem admittendi non sunt, juxta Christi praeceptum: Nolite dare Sanctum canibus>>. <<Synodus Provincialis Ruthenorum habita in Civitate Zamosciae>>, in J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Graz 1961, vol. 35, coll. 1492-1493.>
39. SACRA CONGREGAZIONE ORIENTALE, CODIFICAZIONE CANONICA ORIENTALE, Fonti, fascicolo XII (Discipline Antiochena: Maroniti), I (Ius Particulare Maronitarum), Vatican City State 1933, vii
40. <<Arcendi sunt autem publice indigni, quales sunt haeretici, schismatici, apostatae, excommunicati, interdicti, manifesteque infames, ut meretrices, concubinarii, foenatores, magi, sortilegi, blasphemi et alii eius generis publici peccatores; nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet, ct publico scandalo prius satisfecerint>>. Syn. Lib. II, XII, 12. Ibid., 245-246.
41. <<Ebriosi, foenatores, impuri, sacrilegi, pacis perturbatores, inconstantes in fide, hypocritae, qui filias nuptui tradunt gentilibus, scandalosi, aliique demum qui gravioribus flagitiis coinquinantur, a mensa Domini segregandi sunt, imo et repellendi iuxta regulam traditam in Rituali Romano, tit. De Eucharistia>>.Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol.VII, 143, n. 4598.
42. <<At vero si miseros ac coinquinatos istiusmodi homines suorum criminum vere et salubriter poeniteat, si ea remedia, quae a confessariis tradita sunt pro emendatione vitae, pro alienarum rerum restitutione ac scandali reparatione, iuxta superius traditas regulas adimpleverint, atque propterea dignos exhibuerint poenitentiae fructus, quibus eos et veniam a Deo sperare, et relaxationem suorum criminum a poenitentiario sacerdote impetrare nihil prohibet, cur, ad Eucharisticam Communionem non admittantur?>> Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol.VII, 144, n. 4598.
43. <<20. An possit Ss.ma Eucharistia notorie censura innodatis ministrari, quin prius fuerint, uti par est, cum Ecclesia reconciliati? R. Negative.>> Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. VIII, 456, n. 6426.
44. <<Utrum liceat sacramenta morientium ministrare fidelibus qui massonicae quidem sectae non adhaerent, nec eius ducti principiis, sed aliis rationibus moti, corpora sua post mortem cremanda mandarunt, si hoc mandatum retractare nolunt>>. Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. IV, 479, n. 1158.
45. <<R. Ad 1. Si moniti renuant, Negative. Ut vero fiat aut omittatur monitio, serventur regulae a probatis auctoribus traditae, habita praesertim ratione scandali vitandi.>> Codicis Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. IV, 479., n. 1158.
46. <<3. utrum christifideles, qui actus de quibus in nn. 1 et >2 scienter et libere posuerint, ad Sacramenta admitti possint.>> SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICII, <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>>,AAS 41 (1949) 334.
47. <<1. utrum licite sit partibus communistarum nomen dare vel eisdem favorem praestare; 2. utrum licitum sit edere, propagare vel legere libros, periodica, diaria vel folia, quae doctrinae vel actioni communistarum patrocinantur, vel in eis scribere.>> <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>> (cf. nt. 46), 334.
48. <<Ad 3. Negative, secundum ordinaria principia de Sacramentis denegandis iis qui non sunt dispositi.>> <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>> (cf. nt. 46), 334.
49. <<Communismus enim est materialisticus et antichristianus; communistarum autem duces, etsi verbis quandoque profitentur se Religionem non oppugnare, re tamen, sive doctrina sive actione, Deo veraeque Religioni et Ecclesiae Christi sese infensos esse ostendunt.>> <<II, Decretum 1 Iulii 1949>> (cf. nt. 46), 334.
50. <<Ad Sacram Communionern accedere non possunt.>> SACRA CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINE FIDEI, <<Declaratio de associationibus massonicis>>, AAS 76 (1984) 300.
51. <<Auctoritatibus ecclesiasticis localibus facultas non est proferendi iudicium circa naturam associationum massonicarum quod secumfert supradictae sententiae derogationem, ad mentem Declarationis Sacrae huius Congregationis, die 17 februarii 1981 factae.>> <<Declaratio de associationibus massoni>cis>> (cf. nt. 50), 300.
52. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 133.
53. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133.
54. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133.
55. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133-134.
56. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
57. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
58. <<Vatican U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
59. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
60. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 134.
61. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>> (cf. nt. 52), 133.
62. <<Can. 855 §1. Arcendi sunt ab Eucharistia publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti manifestoque infames, nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet et publico scandalo prius satisfecerint.§2. Occultos vcro peccatores, si occulte petant et eos non emendatos agnoverit, minister repellat; non autem, si publice petant et sine scandalo ipsos praeterire nequeat.>>
63. <<[…] iis nempe qui sunt equidem subiectum capax sacramenti, sed nequeunt eiusdem effectum percipere, cum in statu peccati mortalis versentur sine voluntate sese emendandi.>> F.M. CAPPELLO, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, Vol. I, 7^th ed., Turin 1962, 48, n. 58.
64. <<Id postulat ipsa sacramentorum dignitas et virtus religionis, ne sacra profanationi exponantur; postulat fidelitas ministri, qui prohibetur sanctum dare canibus et margaritas ante porcos proiicere; postulat caritatis lex, ne iis, qui indigne sacramenta recipere conantur et audent, minister cooperetur scandalumve praebeat (cf. can. 855).>> F.M. CAPPELLO, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis (cf nt.53), 48.
65. <<Ad Sanctissimae Eucharistiae celebrationem aut communionem ne admittantur qui graviter delinquerunt et in contumacia manifesto perseverant.>> PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Schema Documenti Pontificii quo Disciplina Canonica de Sacramentis Recognoscitur, Vatican City State 1975, can. 75.
66. Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981) 408-425.
67. Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981) 412.
68. Cf. Communicationes 13 (1981) 412-413.
69. Cf. Conununicationes 13 (1981) 413.
70. <<Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur qui graviter et publice deliquerunt et in contumacia manifesto perseverant.>> Codex Iuris Canonici: Schema Patribus Commissionis Reservatum, E Civitate Vaticana 1980, can. 867.
71. PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens svnthesim animadversionum ab Em.mis atque Exc.mis Patribus Commissionis ad novissimum schema Codicis Iuris Canonici exhibitarum, cum responsionibus a Secretaria et Consultoribus datis, E Civitate Vaticana 1981,214.
72. <<Can. 1135 §1. Exequiis ecclesiasticis privandi sunt, nisi ante mortem aliqua dederint paenitentiae signa:
    1. notorii apostatae, haeretici et schismatici;
    2. qui proprii corporis cremationem elegerint ob rationes fidei christianae adversas;
    3. alii peccatores manifesti quibus exequiae ecclesiasticae non sine publico fidelium scandalo concedi possunt.>>

    §2. Occurrente aliquo dubio consulatur loci Ordinarius, cuius iudicio standum est.>> Codex Iuris Canonici: Schema Patribus Commissionis Reservatum, E Civitate Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1980, can. 1135.

73. <<Tcxtus sufficit cum omnia requisita habeantur: actus gravitas, nempe, et publicitas actus necnon contumacia. Certocertius textus respicit etiam divortiatos et renuptiatos.>> PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI RECOGNOSCENDO, Relatio complectens (cf. nt. 71), 214.
74. <<Can. 913. Ad sacram communionem ne admittatur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.>> Codex Iuris Canonici: Schema Novissimum post consultationem S.R.E. Cardinalium, Episcoporum Conferentiaruin, Dicasteriorum Curiae Romanae, Universitatum Facultatumque ecclesiasticarum necnon Superiorum Institutorum vitae consecratae recognition, iuxta placita Patrum Commissionis deinde emendatum atque SUMMO PONTIFICI praesentatum, E Civitate Vaticana 1982,167.
75. The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, Dublin 1995,503.
76. J.P. BEAL. – J.A. CORIDEN – T.J. GREEN (edd.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, New York 2000, 1111.
77. <<Can. 47. Arcendi sunt a participatione in divina Eucharistic publice indigni, nisi constet de eorum paenitentia et >emendatione.>> Nuntia 11 (1980) 91.
78. Nuntia 15 (1982) 3.
79. <<II gruppo di studio omette l’ultima clausola perché non necessaria, e cambia la prima parte del canone redazionalmente come segue: arcendi sunt a receptione Divinae Eucharistiae publice indigni.>> Nuntia 15 (1982) 32.
80. <<Can. 708. Arcendi sunt a susceptione Divinae Eucharistiae publice indigni.>> Ntmtia 24-25 (1987) 131.
81. V.J.POSPISHIL, Eastern Catholic Church Law, 2nd ed., Staten Island (New York) 1996, 400.
82. V.J. POSPISHIL, Eastern Catholic Church Law (cf. nt. 81),400-401.
83. G. NEDUNGATT, A Companion to the Eastern Code, Rome 1994,182.
84. <<In effetti, ricevere il corpo di Cristo essendo pubblicamente indegno costituisce un danno oggettivo per la comunione ecclesiale; è un comportamento che attenta ai diritti della Chiesa e di tutti i fedeli a vivere in coerenza con le esigenze di quella comunione. Nel caso concreto dell’ammissione alla sacra Comunione dei fedeli divorziati risposati, lo scandolo, inteso quale azione che muove gli altri verso il male, riguarda nel contempo il sacramento dell’Eucaristia e l’indissolubilità del matrimonio. Tale scandalo sussiste anche se, purtroppo, siffatto comportamento non destasse più meraviglia: anzi è appunto dinanzi alla deformazione delle coscienze, che si rende più necessaria nei Pastori un’azione, paziente quanto ferma, a tutela della santità dei sacramenti, a difesa della moralità cristiana e per la retta formazione dei fedeli.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: Dichiarazione>>, Communicationes 32 (2000) 160. English translation from L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 12 July 2000, 3-4.
85. <<[…] ci sarebbe bisogno di tutte le condizioni, anche soggettive, richieste per l’esistenza di un peccato mortale, per cui it ministro della Comunione non potrebbe emettere ab externo un giudizio del genere, […] occorrerebbe riscontrare un atteggiamento di sfida del fedele, dopo una legittima ammonizione del Pastore.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione>> (cf. nt. 85), 159.
86. <<[…] rendendo la norma inapplicabile.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione>> (cf. nt. 85), 160.
87. Bishop D. WUERL, <<Faith, Personal Conviction and Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 40.
88. <<Abortus ergo et euthanasia crimina sunt quae nulla humana lex potest rata facere. Huiusmodi leges non modo conscientiam non devinciunt, verum graviter nominatimque compellunt ut iisdent per conscientiae repugnantiam officiatur.>> POPE JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “On the Inviolable Good of Human Life,” 25 March 1995, AAS 87 (1995) 486, n. 73a.
89. <<Vatican, U.S. Bishops: On Catholics in Political Life>>, Origins 34 (2004) 134.
90. <<[…] nessuna autorità ecclesiastica può dispensare in alcun caso da quest’obbligo del ministro della sacra Comunione, né emanare direttive the lo contraddicono.>> PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, <<Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione>>, Communicationes 32 (2000) 161; English translation from L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 12 July 2000, 4.
91. EdeE lb.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Bishop Morlino Misses the Mark and an Opportunity

September 8th, 2009   [http://memorpetri.com/]

Thy Kingdom Come!

REGNUM CHR I S T I

MOVEMENT

_______

TERRITORIAL DIRECTOR

September 1, 2009

To Regnum Christi Members and Friends

Atlanta and New York Territories

Dear friends in Christ,

In Atlanta, we recently enjoyed a visit from our General Director, Father Alvaro

Corcuera. He celebrated Mass for Regnum Christi members and friends at the Pinecrest

Academy chapel. During his homily he touched on important points in reference to the

difficulties we have all experienced during these past months, shedding light upon them from the

Gospel. He invited us to discover God’s mysterious design also within the realities we are living,

which we never would have expected to experience. It was an intense moment of prayer and

unity, gathered around Christ.

He has also traveled to Cheshire, Connecticut, to preside over the ceremony of the

profession of vows of a group of novices and religious on August 29. With this important step,

these brothers continue their path to the priesthood in the Legion of Christ, at the service of the

Church, by dedicating themselves to a mission that “is of fundamental importance and is worth

devoting oneself to with broadmindedness and an unsullied heart…” (Letter of Cardinal Tarcisio

Bertone to Father Alvaro Corcuera, March 10, 2009).

We are grateful to God for the gift of his leadership, full of Christian prudence and

charity. We are confident that the Lord assists him with his grace in the difficult task he has at

this time.

With this letter we would like to share with you some of the thoughts and

recommendations that he has been offering to members of the Legion of Christ and consecrated

members of Regnum Christi through his talks, homilies and letters over these past months. We

are sure they can also be of help to you.

We also hope to remedy some of our shortcomings in communication –for which we are

sorry–, so that together we can continue walking what will surely be a long path of healing and

reconciliation with those who have been hurt by the misdeeds of Father Maciel.

2

As priests, our hearts go out to all those who have been harmed or scandalized by his

actions. To all we extend a special apology on behalf of the Legion and our General Director,

Father Alvaro Corcuera, who has, in fact, begun to reach out personally and in private to those he

knows may have suffered most, offering his heartfelt apology and consolation, and will continue

to do so. As he wrote in his March 29 letter: “We are deeply saddened and sorry, and we

sincerely ask for forgiveness from God and from those who have been hurt through this.” We

also regret that our inability to detect, and thus accept and remedy, Father Maciel’s failings has

caused even more suffering.

In the recent past, after Father Marcial Maciel had retired, we came to know that he had

had a relationship with a woman and fathered a child. Even more recently, there have been

allegations of other relationships and other children. Given the partial nature of the information

available and the impossibility to evaluate immediately and in a definitive manner these complex

allegations, the Legion of Christ cannot, at this time, make a statement regarding them.

All this leads us to value even more the wisdom and pastoral approach of the Holy See

concerning the allegations of past sexual abuse against Father Maciel that had surfaced. As it was

stated in the communiqué published on May 19, 2006, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the

Faith investigated these issues and invited him to a reserved life of prayer and penance,

renouncing all public ministry.

As an institution, as a family and as individuals, this unexpected turn of events has been

traumatic. Being weak humans, even if reacting with Christian virtue, many of us have gone

through experiences of shock, anger, disbelief, denial and fear, both humanly and spiritually.

These emotions, the vast tangle of information, supposition, speculation and opinion, the

different cultural sensitivities, and the Christian duty not to publicize the sins of others, have

made it difficult to publish the sort of direct statement that many expected of us.

Added to this, is the fact that we did not know the whole truth, we may not know it yet,

and new information may well continue to come to light. What we do learn, we will address,

respecting the privacy of those who request it of us.

As Legionaries, consecrated members of Regnum Christi and Regnum Christi members of all

walks of life, we too have been experiencing a deep struggle. We are all wounded by this news,

and need the comfort and support of each other. We want to thank all those who have understood

the depth of our suffering, and offered their understanding and kindness. As we have just

mentioned, we wish to be close to anyone who has suffered in any way, and at the same time ask

them to live the Christian virtue of pardon from the depth of their hearts.

1. This brings us to a key point in relation to you, our friends. It is clear that all these facts lead

us to think about the past, the present and the future. Many of you have rightly asked if the

Legion has made or will make changes in its life. Yes…we have, we are and we will. Some

examples:

3

a. One of the questions that come to mind refers to the “safe environment and child

protection” measures in our communities and apostolates. Our Constitutions, other norms

and many elements of our discipline have always helped us to be particularly careful in

the dealing with minors. More recently we are in the process of accreditation by

Praesidium, a risk management organization now helping a great number of religious

institutions in North America. Praesidium is conducting a full review of our internal rules

and policies, as well as our training of all those who deal with minors. They will shortly

be conducting on-site visitation of several of our institutions to verify that what is on

paper is being applied. There are twenty-five accreditation standards to meet, covering

the areas of prevention, response and supervision. Here in the U.S. we have also set up an

external review board so that in the event of allegations of sexual abuse, we have the

advantage of “outside eyes” to weigh the evidence, issues and provide us with

recommendations. Praesidium accreditation is being promoted by the Conference of

Major Superiors of Men, which links all the male religious orders in this country.

We also fully comply with all diocesan standards, which vary from place to place.

b. On the financial side, for a long time now we have had yearly audits done by outside

accounting firms. We could not have acquired the loans we needed to purchase our

seminaries and found the many works of apostolate undertaken during these years

without systems in place of strict accountability and responsible financial management.

In recent years, due to the growth of our operations, we have put in place a still more

professional system of business management through the services of Integer Group.

Staffed by lay professionals, Integer has further improved our operating and management

processes to ensure the integrity of all our operations.

c. A further area of adjustment which has begun and continues in process is the way we

refer to Father Maciel in the Legion and Regnum Christi. While we cannot deny that

Father Maciel was our founder and did much good, neither can we deny the reality of

what has recently come to light and his grave human failings. We have taken progressive

steps to make sure that there is no inappropriate reference to Father Maciel (we have, for

example, removed pictures of him from our center; we have extensively edited our

websites; we are in the process of reviewing new editions of other writings, brochures,

etc.). All this has led us to what is most essential: to center our life, even more, in Jesus

Christ.

This is an ongoing and difficult process given the need to discern his person from the

solid Catholic doctrine that he transmitted and the legitimate institutional aspects of the

Legion of Christ and Regnum Christ. This discernment is not something that can be done

lightly or overnight. Father Alvaro has and will seek the advice and guidance of learned

4

and prudent men of the Church to enlighten this difficult question seeking not to lose

God’s gifts to the Legion and Regnum Christi.

2. We are also receiving enormous help from the Church, especially from the Holy Father, Pope

Benedict XVI, to whom we are truly grateful.

a. You know that he has mandated an Apostolic Visitation of the Legion. Archbishop

Charles Joseph Chaput of Denver has been appointed as Visitor for the Legion in the

United States and Canada. Archbishop Chaput will visit our seminaries and religious

houses, see our life up close and interview whomever he wants. His mandate will be to

question, probe and assess with depth and objectivity. Legionaries are free to speak and

write to him with all their comments and questions. He sets his own timetable and the

points he wishes to probe, and he will present his findings and recommendations directly

to the Holy See.

For the moment, the Legion cannot make any specific statements regarding the content or

development of the Visitation, since this would interfere with the work of the Visitors.

b. Questions and comments have also been raised regarding the “private vow of charity”

that was professed in the Legion. The rationale of this vow was to ensure that the

grievances one could have with his superior were brought to those who could resolve

them and thus avoid irresponsible criticism or internal factions that degrade unity. This

vow had been in place since 1957 and was approved by the Church. Pope Benedict XVI,

who has the power to bind and loose, asked the Legion to remove it, which we did two

years ago.

c. In the past two years, also following the indications we received from the Holy Father,

we changed our general practice of superiors being the spiritual directors of their

subjects. This practice was based on one of the century-old monastic traditions that view

the superior as Spiritual Father and Mentor of his community. We are seeing positive

fruits from this change of practice.

d. There also have been changes in the Legion regarding sacramental confession. In the

past, members were free to go to the Ordinary or Extraordinary confessors (assigned by

the General Director for each community). They were also free to go to any other

Catholic priest with faculties for confession. Members often asked to go to confession

with their own superiors.

Following the instructions of the Holy See, today superiors are no longer habitual

confessors for those under their authority.

5

e. We would finally like to mention that our general director is in frequent contact with our

superiors in the Holy See and also with the Apostolic Visitors to speak about these and

other complex issues.

These are some of the significant steps the Legion of Christ has taken. And as we said, we

expect more will come in time, with judgment and prudence.

Understandably, in the midst of the present circumstances there have been a few of our

members who have felt that they can serve God better by separating themselves from the Legion

and Regnum Christi; others have opted temporarily to step aside to see and evaluate, waiting also

to see the outcome of the Visitation. The vast majority has opted to continue doing as much good

as they can from where they are, knowing that our time here on earth is limited, and trusting that

with the guidance of the Church whatever needs to be corrected in time, and whatever is good

will be confirmed. Each one has made his or her choice before God, moved by their love for him

and their desire to serve him to the best of their ability, and for no other consideration. Let us

have great Christian understanding and respect for all. Each of us must presume the best and

purest intention in the other, pray for each other, and recognize that each one of us suffers and

recovers in different ways and at different times.

As Father Álvaro told us in his homily, in Cheshire, St. John Chrysostom teaches us fives

ways to reach reconciliation: asking for pardon, forgiving others, prayer, almsgiving and

humility (cf. ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies, PG 49, 263-264). Let us ask the Lord to grant us

the grace to walk this path, inasmuch as each one of us needs it, for his greater glory.

Loving, serving, and building together –that has been our life in the Legion and Regnum

Christi. As tragic as the failings of our founder are, they should not cause us to diminish our

efforts to bring souls to Christ, and to serve him and the Church selflessly in all our brothers and

sisters.

You have worked so hard to create apostolates, build schools, run youth clubs, form people

in the Catholic faith – and those efforts are good and real. Let nothing distract you from loving

and serving God in your neighbor. We enter now into a new chapter of our history which must

be focused on the pursuit of holiness and love for souls.

May we take inspiration from our Blessed Mother who “meditated all these things in her

heart” (cf. Lk 2:51). She will lead us along the path of God’s will and help us to respond as she

did: “May it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).

May Saint Paul’s letter to the Corinthians inspire us during these challenging times:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God

of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort

those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted

6

by God. For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share

abundantly in comfort too.” (2 Corinthians 1:3-5)

You remain in our prayers, and we depend on yours.

Yours in Christ our Lord,

Fr Scott Reilly, LC

Territorial director

Atlanta Territory

Fr Julio Martí, LC

Territorial director

New York Territory

http://www.medjugorje.org/framorth1.htm

In the light of the discrediting of Medjugorje, this 2002 interview serves to remind many how treacherous the “apparition business” can be.  The formal ecclesiastical approval is now more important than ever to guide the naive and unsuspecting faithful who are in search of the transcendent in a secularized world.

http://www.medjugorje.org/framorth1.htm

How many children did Maciel have?

http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/08/claim-legion-founder-maciel-had.html

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Claim: Legion founder Maciel had multiple children; other details emerging

For some time, I have refrained from reporting on the ongoing saga of the Legionaries of Christ out of deference for the canonical visitation which is taking place.

AmP was the first major blog to report the scandal of Maciel having a biological child, and became a hub for accurate reporting on the story in the tumultuous weeks that followed.

However, because the most recent round of news changes the situation dramatically, I will report on it as well. The conclusions of the apostolic visit cannot be expected for some time, but individuals who are still in the Legion or Regnum Christi deserve to know what is happening now.

Multiple stories from Mexico report that three additional individuals claiming to be children of Fr. Maciel are suing the Legion of Christ for inheritance rights. It appears the original daughter of Maciel, and her mother, were supported by Legion money (i.e. money contributed by Catholic faithful for supporting Fr. Maciel’s work).

The mother claims she was a minor when her relationship with Fr. Maciel began. And it appears that “highly placed officials” in the Legion knew of this situation and where complicit in it. Details beyond this are sketchy, but it appears probable now that there are even more children than the ones mentioned (the most frequent number I hear is six total).

If you are interested in the details, two ex-LC blogs provide them: Life-after-RC and Ex LC Blog.

These new allegations suggest several conclusions:

• Fr. Maciel was an extraordinary, calculating fraud and he ought to be acknowledged as such by the leaders of the Legion and Regnum Christi alike
• The breadth of Fr. Maciel’s crimes makes it nearly impossible that other members of the Legion did not know of them, and they ought to be brought to justice
• The serious financial infraction of misusing lay resources (money, property, etc) for the upkeep of Fr. Maciel’s mistress and his other escapades demands restitution
• The ongoing revelations about Fr. Maciel and his enablers requires an intense examination, person-by-person, of those still charged with the movement’s leadership

In the face of these conclusions, the choice made by increasing numbers of Legionary and Regnum Christi members – to simply leave the order and begin anew – to my mind, is the most prudent way to respond. Most of these individuals have left quietly, and I have no desire to point them out, but it is happening and I have not yet heard of anyone regretting that decision. Life in the Church, after all, can always be wonderful, even outside a movement.

For both those who decide to stay in the Legion/Regnum Christi and for those who have left, I would firmly admonish them to assist in every way possible with the ongoing apostolic visitation.

There have been some scattered reports of Legion/Regnum Christi members attempting to thwart the visitation (I do not necessarily give credence to these reports), but obviously the primary obedience of any faithful Catholic is to the Holy See and its elected representatives (Christ speaks through His vicar the pope, not Fr. Maciel). For LC/RC in the United States and Canada the representative of the Holy Father is Archbishop Charles Chaput.

To contact Abp. Chaput, send an email with the subject line “PRIVATE” to “shepherd [at] archden.org” (without the brackets and spaces). Emails ought to be VERY SHORT and to the point. Every email will be read eventually.

For those of us outside the Legion and Regnum Christi, let us continue to pray for all the members, and if we personally know anyone who has been or is a member, let us charitably reach out to them if they welcome it. Oremus pro invicem.

[photo credit: chamorros1976]

Labels: catholic controversy, legionaries of christ, prayer requests, scandal

posted by Thomas Peters at 12:00 AM

“The Liturgy Changes Us…”:  A Review of Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy,  by Laurence Paul Hemming |  Rev. Brian Van Hove, S.J., Ph.D. |  July 29, 2009

 Worship as a Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy
by Laurence Paul Hemming
Continuum, 2008 (paperback)
192 pages, including glossary, bibliography and index
ISBN: 9-780-8601-2460-3

Liturgy has shifted with the appearance of younger scholars and critics who write about the reform of forty years ago.  Generally, they see defects of the reform to be pronounced and the benefits of it to be dubious. Laurence Paul Hemming calls the present state of Catholic liturgy “chaos”.

Defenders of the official liturgical reform in the days of their euphoria were once able to dismiss negative assessment. Unable now to ignore this rising tide, they are at last compelled to address it. Examples of still-serious defenders are John Baldovin and Piero Marini. [1]

Of course the same official reform (with special reference to the Missal of 1970) is also criticized by those of another extreme who maintain that it did not go far enough. Ironically these, so opposed to authority, do not remember that it was authority itself which launched and supported liturgical reform.

Living with a failed reform is uncomfortable. Pastors who would set things right are afraid to disquiet the ordinary faithful who have already been so disturbed during the previous generation. One is reminded of a work proposing “national repentance” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, From Under the Rubble. [2] Where do we go from here? Can the Church correct what has gone awry? [3]

Hemming’s academic concentration in philosophy gives him analytical power to comprehend the liturgical situation, even though he does not propose a specific solution to our plight. “However, what historical study of the liturgy has all too often overlooked is the philosophical aspect – or it has substituted the most fundamental philosophical aspect for a metaphysics or rationalism. That missing aspect is what we might call the ’surrounding world’ – the place from out of which man emerges, needing to be redeemed.” A return to a “philosophy of being” was mandated by Pope John Paul II in Fides et Ratio at a juncture when the “turn to the subject” ended in rationalism and nihilism. The quagmire of subjectivism took the liturgy down with it!

Perhaps not since the publication of Jonathan Robinson’s The Mass and Modernity [4] have we had such adroit use of philosophy to help us understand liturgy. Hemming regards this book as a preparation for even greater depth along the same themes, either by him or from future writing of named allies and others who see things, especially the historical Liturgical Movement since Guéranger, in a similar way.

Our author asserts that the enemy of Catholic liturgy is rationalism – “the fact that a propensity towards philosophical rationalism was one of the motor forces of the post-conciliar liturgical reform”. Rationalism is defined as “the understanding that everything, all truth, arises on the basis of what can be foreseen by man, what is calculable and predictable for him in advance of its occurring.” Again, “the rational is the essentially calculable….”

The effect of rationalism and its inherent problematic as applied to the “adaptation of the liturgy” has an extensive history. Only gradually did it become as strong as it is now. Hemming agrees with Martin Heidegger that “God is not an object of philosophy” and he finds an ally in Aidan Nichols on the point – “… the impulses for liturgical reform have their origins in a commitment to rationalism that stems, certainly from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and even before.” [5]

Allies in addition to Nichols include Alcuin Reid and Lauren Pristas. Cited favorably are Klaus Gamber, Martin Mosebach, Uwe Michael Lang and László Dobszay. Hemming is no supporter of Catherine Pickstock who, for a time, was quite fashionable in some circles. Other contemporary figures whose thought he engages in various ways include Odo Casel, Romano Guardini, Cipriano Vagaggini, Berhard Blankenhorn, Margaret Barker and John McDade. This is not a taxative list, either.

When Hemming assesses the calendar reform of 1911, well before the calendar changes so familiar to us, he is only illustrating one example in the long saga of erosion which he sees before the Second Vatican Council. He mentions that the Eastern Church has preserved some liturgical understanding or “ancient practice” now lost in the West. Besides the loss of the “distributed body of Christ” is the loss of all sense of intertwinement between the cycles, sanctoral and temporal. The Christian East kept both insights.

The gravest misunderstanding today is the erroneous interpretation of “active participation” in the liturgy. In Hemming’s view, this misperception which grew in strength after Vatican II, “betrays an underlying rationalism in understanding what the liturgy itself is to do.”

The author traces its root to the “modern self” of Cartesian philosophy. “In his Meditations on First Philosophy, after having established the self as first in the order of things of which I can be certain, the second indubitable thing Descartes discovers is God.” However, the second indubitable thing Descartes discovered was not God, but the idea of God. After explaining the philosophy that reduces the external world to subjectivity, Hemming concludes: “Liturgical prayer works in exactly the opposite way.” We do not approach the liturgy as complete selves – we let our incomplete selves be filled and perfected by the liturgy.

Rather than beginning with the fixed Cartesian ego, approaching the liturgy must begin with an unfinished self “constituted through a pilgrimage of discovery.” Over a lifetime we slowly discover God in and through the liturgy. At least that is what should happen; or that was traditionally the perceived goal. Hemming asserts that the purpose of this book is to emphasize that we do not make or force God to become present in the liturgy. Rather, we listen and wait for God to act and to move us. “Prayer does not bring God or the divine presence to us.” Even esteemed friends seem not to understand this. [6]

Chapter 5 bears the title “Understanding Understanding”. This summarizes Worship as Revelation: The Past, Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy. Unless we come to understand what the liturgy is and how it works to draw us into the mysteries of God, it becomes something else, discontinuous and novel. Hemming identifies the philosophical ideas that affected the formal liturgical reform of our tradition. These ideas show their imprint upon Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Deepening our understanding of what happened over the last century or more can help us address the confusion introduced by the reform. If the old Liturgical Movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries influenced bishops, council and pope, then a New Liturgical Movement may do something similar for us.

Paraphrasing Hemming, we need to recover the wisdom that “the liturgy changes us – so who are we to change the liturgy?”

ENDNOTES:

[1] John F. Baldovin,  Reforming the Liturgy: A Response to the Critics.  Collegeville, MN:  Liturgical Press, 2008. pp. 188. $29.95, pb. ISBN 978-0-8144-6219-9.  Piero Marini;  John R. Page and Keith F. Pecklers (eds.), A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975.  Collegeville, MN:  Liturgical Press, 2007;  The Columba Press, 2008; 205 pages, $15.95, pb. ISBN: 9780814630358.  See also Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975), hardcover.  Liturgical Press, 1990. ISBN-10: 0814615716; ISBN-13: 978-0814615713.

[2] Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn,  From Under the Rubble.  Tr. from the Russian, A. M. Brock… [et al.] under the direction of Michael Scammell; introduction by Max Hayward. London: Collins/ Harvill Press, 1975.  ISBN: 0002622343; DDC: 947.085. Also Bantam Books, 1976; University Press of America, reprint 1989, pb. Out-of-print.

[3] Publication of Rembert G. Weakland’s memoirs tainted the reputation of the official reform’s inception since we know that after Vatican II Weakland was a “liturgy insider” consulted in Rome by Paul VI.  See Rembert G. Weakland,  A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop. Grand Rapids, MI:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009; 433 pages, $23.10 hardback, ISBN:0802863825.

[4] Jonathan Robinson, The Mass and Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backward. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005. ISBN-10: 1586170694; ISBN-13: 978-1586170691.

[5] Aidan Nichols, Looking at the Liturgy: A Critical View of its Contemporary Form. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996. ISBN-10: 0898705924; ISBN-13: 978-0898705928 Esp. p. 11-48.

[6] Robert Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence: A Study in the Theology of Disclosure. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1994. ISBN-10: 0813207894; ISBN-13: 978-0813207896.

Father Brian Van Hove,  S.J.,  resides at Jesuit Hall, St. Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri.