Down yonder, a reader writes:
a) Could my wife, who is Catholic (I’m not) "legally" take communion at a church where the minister is a former Catholic priest?
She couldn’t as a matter of course. The Code of Canon Law provides:
Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid (Canon 844 §2).
The first highlighted blue condition would prevent this from happening in most circumstances since your wife presumably has access to a Catholic minister on a regular basis most of the time.
What about the second blue condition, though? Would it allow your wife to do so if she didn’t have access to a Catholic minister (and there was spiritual advantage and there was no danger of error or indifferentism)?
It would not seem so, at least not the way the canon is drafted.
The canon seems to focus not just on the validity of the sacrament but on the church in which it is celebrated. The canon could have said "if the minister is validly ordained" (or something along these lines), but it doesn’t. It invokes the church of which the minister is a part. The minister having valid ordination by virtue of being a former Catholic priest, then, may not be enough. He may need to be part of a church that, as a general rule, has valid holy orders (like the Eastern Orthodox churches, the other eastern non-Catholic churches, or the Charismatic Episcopal Church).
If so, it may be because the legislator didn’t want to put the faithful in the position of having to decide the ordinational history of individual ministers and whether they are valid.
On the other hand, it might be that the legislator simply failed ot attend to this possibility and that, if Rome were to issue an authentic interpretation on this point (i.e., an official clarification of the law), it might say that as long as the sacraments will be valid then that’s enough.
There would seem to be at least one circumstance in which one likely could receive Communion from an ex-Catholic priest in a church which has not preserved holy orders. That circumstance would be danger of death. This circumstance is so grave that the Church’s law makes special provision for the faithful in danger of dying to be able to participate in the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession even if they ordinarily would not be able to otherwise. This suggests that, at least if someone is liable to die, they could receive these two sacraments from an ex-Catholic priest even if he could not normally give them to the person.
We’re in an area where the law is ambiguous and can be read different ways. However, if someone is about to die, I’m certainly not going to tell him, "Sorry, you can’t be absolved because this ex-Catholic priest isn’t part of a church that has valid holy orders as a matter of course." On the contrary, I’d encourage him to go to confession with all possible speed. The same would be true for his reception of Communion as Viaticum to prepare him to meet his Maker.
b) Since non-Catholics are barred (and rightfully so, I believe) from taking part in the Real Presence within a Catholic mass, should a non-Catholic trying to be respectful of Catholicism not take a Protestant communion when administered by a former Catholic priest?
Canon law doesn’t address this subject since it doesn’t pertain to non-Catholics except in certain circumstances. That means that the matter would need to be settled via moral theology. To make the matter simpler, let’s assume that the priest in question has the right intent and is using the right form and matter for the Eucharist so that his consecration of it will be valid.
The question then becomes what the Protestant’s own beliefs are regarding Communion: Does the he (the Protestant considering receiving Communion) believe in the Real Presence or not?
If he does not then for him to receive Communion administered by a former Catholic priest would result in a person who does not believe in the Real Presence receiving Our Lord in holy Communion.
That’s bad.
St. Paul specifically warned against that happening in 1 Corinthians 11:29-30. Unfortunately, those who need to refrain in this circumstance are unlikely to do so.
On the other hand, if the Protestant does believe in the Real Presence then the situation would result in a believer in the Real Presence receiving Our Lord in holy Communion.
In principle, that’s okay. If the Protestant is in a state of grace, is reverent, etc., then he would be a worthy recipient of Communion and so could receive.
If he wanted to refrain anyway, for example to avoid endorsing the fact that the priest had defected from the Catholic Church, then that would be amazingly decent of him, though it would be too much to ask or expect of a typical Protestant. I can only imagine someone already on well his way to becoming Catholic being likely to do that.
Hope this helps, and God bless!
A follow-up question on canon law: Are non-Catholics barred by canon law from reception or are Catholics barred from giving communion to non-Catholics? If it is the former, it seems to break the principle that canon law is binding only on Catholics.
“However, if someone is about to die, I’m certainly not going to tell him, ‘Sorry, you can’t be absolved because this ex-Catholic priest isn’t part of a church that has valid holy orders as a matter of course.'”
It would appear that in case of danger of death that Canon 844 §2 is not the passage most specifically relevant. Rather it seems that Canon 976 would apply:
“Quilibet sacerdos, licet ad confessiones excipiendas facultate careat, quoslibet
paenitentes in periculo mortis versantes valide et licite absolvit a quibusvis censuris et
peccatis, etiamsi praesens sit sacerdos approbatus.”
So you can indeed say to the moribund penitent, “Sure, go ahead, confess to John Geoghan if you like, it’s valid and licit, even though the Pope himself is standing right here ready to administer the last rites.” Of course, one can think of non-canonical reasons to prefer the Pope to a laicized child-molester, but it seems that if that’s what the dying person wants, that’s what he gets. An example, although admittedly a far-fetched one, of the solicitousness of the Church for the salvation of souls in danger of death. Salus animarum suprema lex.
Thanks for your lengthy response to my comment — very interesting.
I will say that part of the impetus for my second question comes from a surprising statement I heard from one of the priests at the Episcopal Church I attend (along with attending a Catholic Church with my wife most weekends) — he specifically said during one service that he believed in transubstantiation and the real presence, and since I’m a weak consubstantiationist at best, I felt and feel uncomfortable taking communion when he’s presiding. (It’s the same reason I wouldn’t take communion at a Catholic church, even if I were allowed.) This is, of course, a somewhat different situation than my second question — there’s no mandated belief in transubstantiation (or, um, much else) within Episcopalianism — but.
I visited your sight and it is quite interesting to go through! I have a question? An ex-priest wants to celebrate a mass! he is on the point of death and his last desire is to celebrate a mass, whom do we get the right permission? thank you!