SDG here with some non-expert thoughts on Canons 915 & 916 (for expert thoughts, see Ed Peters).
In the combox to my last post, a reader writes:
The problem with 915 and 916 is that the Church has (seemingly) allowed for a paradox, but canon law is supposed to clarify and not confuse. Hopefully future revisers of canon law will combine or rewrite those two canons.
I’m no student of canon law, but I don’t see any paradox. Or even tension.
Canon 916 says that those who are “conscious of grave sin” — whether obstinate, or not, manifest or not — are generally obliged (their responsibility) not to present themselves for Holy Communion.
Canon 915 says, in part, that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” — a set not identical to those identified in 916, but a subset thereof — are not to be admitted (the minister’s responsibility) to Holy Communion.
Canon 916 instructs certain people not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Canon 915 says that certain people are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Where is the paradox or the tension?
Suppose a mother tells a babysitter: “The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper. But if anyone gives you a really hard time and won’t listen, don’t let them join the others. Keep them inside.” Then suppose she tells the children: “Be good tonight or else don’t ask to play outside after supper. Anyone who is naughty or fights should just stay inside after supper.”
Is there any sort of difficulty here?
The mother’s initial instructions to the sitter — “The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper” — create a strong presumption that the children should be allowed to go out, even if, as per her instructions to the children, they don’t deserve to go out and ought to stay inside.
However, the mother’s other instructions to the sitter impose a specific obligation regarding certain very naughty children — those who give her a really hard time and won’t listen — not to permit them to play outside, even if they ask.
Let’s say that Joshua, Emily and Chris all fight during dinner. Joshua’s behavior, though, is really beyond the pale. He refuses to eat, won’t stop teasing Emily and throws food at Chris, even after the sitter has repeatedly warned him, given him time-outs, etc. At least Emily and Chris make an effort to listen to the sitter, even though Emily is sometimes whiny and petulant and Chris overreacts to everything Joshua does.
All three were naughty. Should they stay inside, or should they get to go outside?
In the case of Emily and Chris, it’s probably up to them to decide. The sitter may know that the children were naughty and ought to stay in, but she hasn’t been authorized to enforce staying inside on all naughty children.
However, it is clear that Joshua’s behavior is so egregious that the sitter is obliged, as per the mother’s instructions, to keep him inside even if he asks to go out.
What’s the problem?
In a word, I don’t see the issue as how to reconcile 915 and 916, let alone whether it can be done. To me the issue is simple: Both 915 and 916, or only 916 and not 915?
Good post that makes the law clear, something lawyers often have a hard time doing.
I’ve often wondered how the progressive Catholic community would interpret Canon 915. All they want to do is say it does not apply in this case or that but they are unclear on where it would positively apply.
Both are astonishingly horrible policies. Christ died for sinners and you would set up roadblocks between sinners and his table?
“while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8b
“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” Luke 5:31b
“…and you would set up roadblocks between sinners and his table?”
Actually, St. Paul did that. 1 Corinthians, either chapter 10 or 11.
AND — we have the sacrament of Confession — all ready to make you clean again!
I didn’t mean no roadblocks, I meant the specific roadblock of “being a sinner.”
Jeff G –
As bill912 mentions, St. Paul says:
“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.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)
It seems to me that the problem is not with the understanding of 915/6 but the generally lower standards that some follow.
The threshold for “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” has become so high that it I’m not sure anyone would be refused communion.
It does not help that we don’t _want_ to refuse communion to anyone – we want all to be perfect and united with our savior.
That is not a roadblock. If it were, no one could receive communion, ever.
Being outside of God’s friendship — outside the state of grace, in a state of unconfessed, unrepented grave sin — that is a roadblock, and the foundations for that principle are laid in the NT, as JoAnna noted. Jesus calls sinners to himself, but he also says “Repent” and “Go and sin no more.” We can’t take one without the other.
And obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin — sinning gravely, publicly, and persistently and obstinately refusing correction — that is an even more formidable roadblock, since now you are causing public scandal. Jesus has given the Church authority to bind and loose.
Is that really a heightened threshold, though? Or is it a failure to come to grips with the principle itself?
I’ve never seen the 915-squeamish come out and say, “Of course those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin should be denied communion, but we have to be very, very, very, very, very careful in determining who among us is truly guilty of obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”
Instead, AFAICT, the 915-squeamish simply want to put all the responsibility on the individual and zero on the minister or the pastor. From what I’ve seen, ignoring 915 altogether is more common than subjecting it to impossibly rarefied standards, although like I said I’m no expert.
Is Abp. Burke “915-squeamish” when he says “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.”?
What elected politician isn’t “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” of some sort or another? And even among the general population, who isn’t? For example, what of a man who’s told a serious lie about something at some time in the past but hasn’t made a public correction? Is he obstinately persevering?
Or must it be a hot topic like abortion and not simply any “grave sin”?
Exactly how public must it be before it’s considered “manifest”? If just 10 people are clued in, or maybe just two people, is that enough?
Or, given that all our knowledge of what others have done is knowledge of the past, how do we know who is “obstinately perserving”, which, as phrased, speaks to the present and not just the past?
For example, when I see someone standing in the communion line, is she “obstinately persevering” at that time? She doesn’t have an obstinate look on her face. She doesn’t even appear to be sinning. She’s just standing in line. Where is the obstinacy and where is the “persevering”? She cast her vote months ago, maybe years ago. She’s not still casting her vote today. There is no vote today. Six months from now she might vote like she did in the past, but she also might not, and at present she doesn’t look to be doing anything but standing in line.
The Vatican said Catholics must work to create “a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.” Is it a grave sin for a governor to say no to a bill or to not sign a bill because she believes the bill violates the system of law? Or if she doesn’t send the state police to shut down Planned Parenthood? Or if the police don’t take it upon themselves to carry out God’s law regardless of what the governor or the courts say? Or if the Justices don’t resort to their own judicial activism? Or if the public at large doesn’t amend the Constitution? Or foreign powers don’t sending their armies to stop the killing?
Is it a grave sin if the governor permits evil because she respects freedom of choice? After all, the Church teaches that God permits evil “because he respects the freedom of his creatures.”
These are some of the kinds of questions I’ve heard people ask about Canon 915.
Apples and oranges. Difficult to apply is one thing; difficult to grasp the principle is another.
I’ll let someone who has a clue about politics answer the former question. For the latter, are you serious? Do you really mean to propose, a fortiori, that no one in the world is in the state of grace, or can reasonably be thought to be in the state of grace?
“Hot-button” is a red herring, although I would think the gravity of the sin does matter, and the unique gravity of direct attacks on the right to life (cf. Evangelium Vitae) is certainly an issue.
I don’t see where “public correction” is necessary to escape a charge of “obstinately persisting,” though depending on circumstances it might be necessary to avoid scandal. A man who has committed a single grave act that is not an ongoing fact about his life, who may well have repented and confessed his sin to a priest, does not seem to me a good candidate for Canon 915. A man who persistently and publicly defends a serious public lie that is manifestly unjustified, who refuses correction and claims it is something of which to be proud rather than ashamed, might conceivably be a candidate.
A fuzzy boundary does not prevent anyone from arriving at reliable identifications of landmarks clearly to one side or the other of the boundary. A glass of water that is 1/100th of one percent arsenic is safe to drink; a glass of water that is fifty percent arsenic is not.
The category of “moral confidence” is applicable here. It is not necessary to achieve absolute certainty in order to have an actionable level of certitude.
Can we have absolute certainty that it is not the case that a particular Catholic politician approaching the altar rail for communion — a politician with a ten-year record of unbroken support for abortion rights, who advocated for abortion rights in Washington just this past Friday, and has pledged to continue to do so in spite of episcopal remonstration — has in fact only yesterday had a change of heart, made a full confession to a priest, received absolution, and now approaches the Blessed Sacrament fully disposed to receive the Lord?
Not absolutely certain, no.
Would we be morally justified, in the absence of some compelling piece of information suggesting that this unlikely scenario is in fact the case, in acting on the level of certitude that we can have that it is not the case? Yes.
I thought that someone persisting (obstinately) in a “public” sin, say support of the murder of children, would need to make a “public” repudiation of that sin as part of the penance or because NOT doing so would cause public scandal to the faithful.
When one takes it upon themselves to disregard that they are even involved in sin, because they have been told they are “justified” in their actions by priests, canonists and bishops, they may not be “conscious” of the grave sin they are actually in. When they have “convinced” themselves, through the advice of others “more learned” than themselves, even though they have ignored the reality of what they have done and its effects on others, because these same “learned people” have advised them that the harm they are doing is “justified” and that they should “pray” for those whom they harm in perpetuity, what is a person to do?
Are they, in fact, conscious of any grave sin? They have been told by qualified Churchmen that THEY ARE NOT guilty of any such sin. What are they to do when all the Churchmen are wrong? If they are all wrong?
But my question in regards to all of this is, what if they are being ill advised, even by every churchman who has been asked?
I know it is outside the scope but I think it is related to this and interplays with it.
Forgive me, SDG, if I am being a pest again. Let me know and I will cease on this thread.
Or must it be a hot topic like abortion and not simply any “grave sin”?
Killing children is simply a “hot topic?” You are joking, right?
President Obama’s choice of a dog might be a hot topic, or even his blind faith in socialist economic ideas.
The killing of children is always a grave mortal sin, as is its collaboration, facilitation, enabling, and promotion, whether it is the law of the land or not or whether one hides behind the sophistry of “freedom of choice.”
When it is public, ie. “manifest” it enters the realm of scandal and requires as has been noted, an equally public reversal. That is how the “manifest” part is removed.
Karl:
Not at all! They’re good questions.
Such a person would naturally adjudicate himself under Canon 916 not bound to refrain from communion. Depending on his degree of culpability for the ignorance in question, he might even lack sufficient reflection and thus not be in mortal sin.
What is which person to do? The person himself, or the bishop/minister of holy communion who has moral certitude of the person’s obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin?
W/r/t the latter question, Canon 915 does not stipulate that a person must be conscious of obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. That would be an impossible burden of proof! We cannot judge the conscience of another.
Thus, under Canon 915, it is entirely possible — and we hope it would be the case — that a person who is not to be admitted to communion might in fact be in a state of grace. We hope they aren’t culpable, but that, I suppose, is no longer the sole issue. The person’s obstinate, manifest perseverence in materially grave actions is harmful both to himself (even if the current harm to himself is not mortal) and to others, and out of concern for both the Church must take pastoral action.
W/r/t the sinner himself, he must do his best before God to inform his conscience as best he can and then follow it as best he can. If he does this without grave culpable failure, by God’s grace he will save his soul. Beyond that, it’s up to the pastors of the Church to do their best to help him inform his conscience and if necessary to take appropriate pastoral action if (in accordance with his conscience or not) his actions pose a threat of spiritual harm to himself and/or to others.
This goes to what is called the internal forum. I started to comment on this, but it got so long I think I’ll make it a post.
SDG,
Do you think Catholics that practice birth control, including those that use a condom, should present themselves before Communion?
Do you really mean to propose, a fortiori, that no one in the world is in the state of grace, or can reasonably be thought to be in the state of grace?
I didn’t propose that at all. According to Abp. Burke, Canon 915 involves an exercise of discretion that is not a judgment on the subjective state of the soul of the person approaching to receive Holy Communion. Rather Canon 915 is a judgment regarding the objective condition of serious sin by a person who, after due admonition from his pastor, persists. I see from your subsequent posts that you realize this.
I would think the gravity of the sin does matter, and the unique gravity of direct attacks on the right to life (cf. Evangelium Vitae) is certainly an issue.
The words of Canon 915 itself simply say “grave sin” as in any grave sin rather than particular grave sins. The distinction you speak of is not in the text.
A man who has committed a single grave act that is not an ongoing fact about his life, who may well have repented and confessed his sin to a priest, does not seem to me a good candidate for Canon 915. A man who persistently and publicly defends a serious public lie that is manifestly unjustified, who refuses correction and claims it is something of which to be proud rather than ashamed, might conceivably be a candidate.
The text of Canon 915 does not clarify “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” as necessarily involving multiple such sins over time. Hence my question about a man who committed a manifest grave sin and who has not demonstrated any public change of heart towards what he did but openly defends it though he’s received due admonition from his pastor. Per the text of Canon 915, he might seem to be a candidate. One might even say he’s a “good” candidate, as he might be said to fit the text.
But of course, how would I know, by sitting in the pew, if a man “refuses correction” from the pastor? How would I know he ever got any correction at all? (I know one can talk to someone all day long and he can seem to reject what one says, but it might not be so much obstinate persistence on his part as not communicating with him in his language or to his level of understanding.) How would I know if he’s gone to confession and been absolved? (For all anyone knows, the governor had a private confession with a priest. Who would know? She may be in a state of grace, but still denied under Canon 915.)
So let me discuss a bit about scandal. Can I be scandalized if I view what goes on between this man and the pastor as precisely that: between this man and the pastor? By that I don’t know he refuses correction any more than I know he’s not in a state of grace (he alone knows). I can only presume, or not presume at all. Why would I be scandalized if I don’t presume the worst about him? There could be scandal if I knew that what this man did was a grave sin and I was so stupid (and perhaps even arrogant) as to think that his admission to communion necessarily meant the Church doesn’t have a problem with what he did. That would mean I didn’t understand that he could have repented, been absolved, etc. without my knowledge and that I was thinking I knew better than the priest. That would seem a far easier stupidity to address than trying to keep the congregation informed about what’s going on with everybody. So this concern over scandal seems misplaced to me.
And let me mention the issue of trying to help protect this man from “drinking judgment” upon himself, if his conscience told him he was wrong. But then his conscience would already be telling him that, so his nonadmission to communion would not be telling him anything he didn’t already know. It would simply be an added safeguard to preclude him from making things worse for himself. In other words, trying to help someone who appears to have problems regulating his behavior in light of a conscience that is already talking to him. Given that his conscience is already talking to him, how much more value will there come from having his pastor tell him what he already knows?
And let me mention one other issue, the importance of protecting the sanctity of the sacrament, i.e. not handing what’s Holy to dogs. In that case, if 915 say “don’t admit” while 916 is “ok to receive”, then the person is not to be served but she may receive/eat. I understand it’s hard to receive/eat when you’re not handed anything, but nonetheless, perhaps if she was like the Canaanite woman who came asking for mercy and expressing her humility akin to a crumb eating dog, the answer would be, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.”
I don’t see where “public correction” is necessary to escape a charge of “obstinately persisting,” though depending on circumstances it might be necessary to avoid scandal.
Like you said, if scandal were truly an issue, private correction and private confession would not be sufficient. In that case, there would have to be a publicized correction/change of some kind.
A fuzzy boundary does not prevent anyone from arriving at reliable identifications of landmarks clearly to one side or the other of the boundary.
The issue I was addressing was not simply about arriving at reliable identifications but in how or if Canon 915 is applied to all identifiable persons. For example, is it intended to be applied when only 5 people in a church know the man in the red sweater is swinging with the church secretary? You suggested maybe a determination would be based on the gravity of the grave sin. But again, the text of Canon 915 does not make this clear.
has in fact only yesterday had a change of heart, made a full confession to a priest, received absolution, and now approaches the Blessed Sacrament fully disposed to receive the Lord? Would we be morally justified, in the absence of some compelling piece of information suggesting that this unlikely scenario is in fact the case, in acting on the level of certitude that we can have that it is not the case? Yes
Even if there’s no “compelling piece of information” to demonstrate that her change of heart is true, as “unlikely” as it might seem to someone else, if you were the priest who just heard this woman’s confession and gave her absolution, are you telling me you wouldn’t admit her to communion if there was no other congregation to be scandalized? Or are you just saying you’d be morally justified to not admit her if there was a congregation around who wasn’t privy to what you know? In the latter, I can understand, if scandal were truly an issue, about not admitting her.
But as I discussed earlier, I’m not convinced about the concern for scandal, at least when the other issues (i.e. her drinking judgment on herself, and keeping what’s Holy from the dogs) are not applicable. And in the case you cited, where the priest has given absolution, these other issues do not seem to be present.
“SDG
Do you think Catholics that practice birth control, including those that use a condom, should present themselves before(sic) Communion?” (I presume you meant “for” Communion).
It is irrelavant what SDG, or I, or anyone else thinks. The Church, teaching with the authority given her by Christ, has told us that artificial contraception is a grave evil. To knowingly and willingly engage in grave evil is to put oneself out of the state of grace. Anyone who is not in the state of grace should not present himself for Communion.
LJ, I never said abortion was “simply” a hot topic. Abortion is a hot topic, and there are many grave sins which are not generally considered hot topics.
The killing of children is always a grave mortal sin, as is its collaboration, facilitation, enabling, and promotion, whether it is the law of the land or not or whether one hides behind the sophistry of “freedom of choice.”
Somethings are always intrinsically evil, and may involve grave matter and thus be called grave sin or serious sin, but not every such sin is a mortal sin. Not even “the killing of children”. Mortal sin requires not only that it be of grave matter but also two other psychological conditions (dealing with knowledge and consent) that are between the person and God, and not your judgment call to make (unless perhaps you are the perpetrator). As the Church teaches, “although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.” Or as Bishop Martino put it, “[t]he state of each Catholic’s soul is known to him or her alone.”
RecoveringCatholic:
Certainly, right after going to confession [corrected!].
General Nuisance:
Okay, fair point. But still. I think I can say I’m not obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin. I’d like to think there have been no manifest grave sins in my life for some time.
True, which is why I bracketed my comment by saying “I would think.” I didn’t give my reasons for thinking it, and I’m not going to argue the point here. It’s not crucial to the larger issue.
Given the terms as you seem to be using them, my comments do not require “multiple sins over time.” Persisting in sin can also mean persisting in defending a sin, as our converging examples seem to agree.
You wouldn’t, of course, but then canon 915 isn’t addressed to you sitting in the pew. Though it may have your good implicitly in view.
“Presuming the worst” is not a helpful category here. “The world must construe according to its wits” is a more helpful way of putting it.
Even if we accept the manifestly silly standard that anyone seeing anyone — John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius — going to communion should presume that they have repented of their previous obstinant persistence in manifest grave sin, the scandal would still be renewed every Monday when everything goes back to business as usual and we see that they haven’t repented.
Who said scandal wasn’t an issue?
I am not proposing how to resolve Canon 915 in the case of the individual you mention. I am saying that whatever difficulty may obtain to applying Canon 915 to that and other individuals does not mean that similar difficulties always apply to all individuals.
No, I am not telling you that. If I knew that she no longer obstinately persisted in manifest grave sin, and scandal weren’t an issue, I would give her communion.
If I were the priest who heard her confession, I would ask her not to present herself for communion until she had set the record straight. But if she did present herself for communion, my thought is that I would administer the sacrament, trusting that whatever scandal individuals might suffer would be resolved the next day, or the next chance she got to set the record straight. Just like the former case above, scandal can be dissolved retroactively as well as kicking in retroactively. (However, I can imagine someone trying to make a case that if the priest knew she was penitent only from confession, he would not be able to act on that knowledge, since the priest is not allowed to act on knowledge received in confession. I’m not sure that works, though.)
I’d like to think there have been no manifest grave sins in my life for some time.
I might like to think that about you too. Or maybe I’d rather not clutter my head with thinking about that at all.
canon 915 isn’t addressed to you sitting in the pew. Though it may have your good implicitly in view.
Yes, and that might necessitate consideration of what I know or don’t know as I sit in the pew. Would I be scandalized if I thought someone who “refuses correction” is being admitted to communion? I can’t say it would, but there are these claims being asserted about scandal.
Even if we accept the manifestly silly standard that anyone seeing anyone — John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius — going to communion should presume that they have repented of their previous obstinant persistence in manifest grave sin, the scandal would still be renewed every Monday when everything goes back to business as usual and we see that they haven’t repented.
Actually I never said we should presume any such standard. What I was wondering was if say Nancy Pelosi were not turned away from communion, why would I or any reasonable person be scandalized by it? What is there about it that would lead me into wrong thoughts, actions or omissions? What I’d likely be led to think is that something happened and I don’t know exactly what or why. That’s not a wrong thought. Could be she made a change in her position and I just hadn’t heard about it. That would seem far fetched. More likely maybe the minister didn’t know who she was or didn’t recognize her, or maybe wasn’t following the same school of thought as Burke and others, or maybe he simply made a human administrative error on the spot not having much experience with handling such a situation, or maybe I never really understood what her position was to begin with, or who knows the reason. I certainly wouldn’t be convinced by the fact that she wasn’t turned away that the Church had changed its position on abortion. So I try to wonder how I or any reasonable person could be misled by such an event. I’ve never thought that just because someone was admitted to communion that it meant they were faithful followers of Church teaching who I could trust with my life. Such thinking is manifestly silly to me.
Who said scandal wasn’t an issue?
I didn’t. I’m just not convinced that scandal really is an issue, for me at least. Maybe someone can rationally explain how he/she would be scandalized, and I don’t mean someone simply not liking it. If I don’t take responsibility for how I react, what could I do that isn’t in some way a reaction, and thus what responsibility could I have for anything I do?
I am saying that whatever difficulty may obtain to applying Canon 915 to that and other individuals does not mean that similar difficulties always apply to all individuals.
That’s fine. I’m just saying I don’t believe a claim without proof.
If I were the priest who heard her confession, I would ask her not to present herself for communion until she had set the record straight.
Yes, I might do that too, or perhaps I’d give her communion separately (which sounds like an oxymoron), like is done with people with communicable diseases.
scandal can be dissolved retroactively
So whatever wrongful thoughts or actions I might have been led to suddenly never happened?
“Certainly, right after going to *communion*.”
Confession, perhaps?
D’oh! I wrote it right the first time but lost my work. There, fixed. Thanks for the catch!
“I’ve never thought that just because someone was admitted to communion that it meant they were faithful followers of Church teaching who I could trust with my life. Such thinking is manifestly silly to me.”
And yet, some people think that way. Perhaps many. Silly people deserve not to be scandalized, too. It would seem they are the ones who need the protection of the Church most.
Besides, the refusal of communion isn’t only about the people in the pews who might personally witness the events. Lots of people foolishly believe that Nancy Pelosi (or whoever) is a “devout” Catholic simply because she calls herself that, so they not unnaturally are encouraged to think, “Well, Nancy Pelosi is a good Catholic and she’s pro-choice, so there is apparently room for more than one opinion for Catholics and maybe abortion isn’t that big a deal”.
Refusing communion to a well-known Catholic dissenter at least remedies the confusion about whether or not he or she can reasonably claim to be a “devout” Catholic. Being turned away at communion is a pretty clear signal that the Church and the dissenter have very different ideas about what being a “devout Catholic” means, and the authority to make that call rests entirely with the Church.
So, in addition to Nancy Pelosi’s statement, “I am a devout Catholic”, the confused, silly, easily-led people can at least also weigh the statement of the Church… “No, she ain’t”.