Arriving Late & Communion

Fr. Edward McNamara, LC, regularly answers liturgical questions for the Zenit news service. Unfortunately, his answer this week is seriously flawed.

Here’s the question as it was posed to him:

Q: My parish priest made a regulation that anyone who arrives in Mass after the Gospel is not allowed to take Communion. According to him, the reason is that Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Therefore we must recognize Jesus in the Word before we recognize him in holy Communion. Another priest, who is a professor of liturgy, has another opinion. He said that people who arrive late in Mass with a valid reason (for example, an unusual traffic jam, attending sick children, etc.) should not be denied Communion. Could you please give a clarification on this matter? — B.E., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

His answer begins as follows:

A: We dealt with the question of late arrivals at Mass in one of our first columns, on Nov. 4 and Nov. 18, in 2003.

Then as now, I would agree more with the second priest: that someone who arrives late out of no fault of their own should not be denied Communion.

His answer goes wrong right there–not in stating that the person should not be denied Communion but by introducing the condition that the person was late through no fault of their own. The remainder of his column is seriously flawed as a result of this flawed point of departure.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Fr. McNamara’s thought on this point appears to go wrong because he conflates two separate issues: (1) what is required to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation and (2) what is required to receive Communion.

Fr. McNamara rightly points out that one is obliged to attend the whole of a Sunday Mass unless one has a valid excuse for missing all or part of it (e.g., arriving late through no fault of one’s own, needing to leave early because you’re in serious back pain, etc.). He also counsels against drawing arbitrary lines in the Mass about what’s "okay" to miss, which is prudent given the current state of liturgical law on this point. If, for whatever reason, you have missed the substance of the Mass without a legitimate excuse and you can attend another one then you should do so. All that’s fine.

But it has nothing to do with the question of whether you can receive Communion if you show up late.

The controlling legal document governing who can receive Communion and when is the Code of Canon Law. It provides the following:

Can.  843 ยง1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

This provision lists three criteria that, if they are fulfilled, prevent the sacred ministers from denying the sacraments–including Holy Communion–to the faithful.

The first condition is that the faithful "seek them at appropriate times." This is to prevent the faithful from seeking the sacraments at bizarre times without a sufficient reason. For example, the faithful do not have a right to demand the sacraments at any time of the day or night, irrespective of what the priest is doing, unless they have a counterbalancing reason. You cannot, for example, demand that a priest hear your confession right this minute if it’s 3 a.m. in the morning and he’s asleep and you’re not in danger of dying or about to ship out to Afghanistan and won’t have the opportunity of confession for months, for example.

But receiving Communion during Mass–when Communion is already being offered–is plainly an appropriate time to seek it within the meaning of this canon.

The second condition is that the faithul are properly disposed. This means things like they aren’t in an unconfessed state of mortal sin, they’ve observed the Eucharistic fast, etc. The Code doesn’t go the needed dispositions in detail, but the Catechism does, saying:

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: "Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "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." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

1386 Before so great a sacrament, the faithful can only echo humbly and with ardent faith the words of the Centurion: "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea" ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul will be healed."). and in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom the faithful pray in the same spirit:

O Son of God, bring me into communion today with your mystical supper. I shall not tell your enemies the secret, nor kiss you with Judas’ kiss. But like the good thief I cry, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

1387 To prepare for worthy reception of this sacrament, the faithful should observe the fast required in their Church. Bodily demeanor (gestures, clothing) ought to convey the respect, solemnity, and joy of this moment when Christ becomes our guest.

You’ll notice that there’s nothing in there about having to attend a certain portion of Mass–or even being in Mass at all (since one can receive Communion outside of Mass). So if someone has the proper dispositions (listed above), this condition is fulfilled.

The third condition is that the faithful not be prohibited by law from receiving Communion. If, therefore, one were to find a way to deny them Communion based on how late they arrived at Mass, it would have to be in this category.

But one can’t do that, because there simply is no legal prohibition on people receiving Communion if they have come to Mass late.

It is desirable, of course, that people have a substantial participation in the rite within which Communion is being distributed, but–and this is the point–it is not required.

Now, perhaps one would want to say that it is kinda crypto-required, that it’s understood but not stated expressly anywhere that you have to attend a certain part of Mass, or even all of it if you don’t have an excuse, to go to Communion. Perhaps we could fudge that in under the "appropriate times" or "properly disposed" requirements–contrary to the obvious purpose of these provisions in the canon.

Nope.

The Code further provides:

Can.  912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.

Even though the Code has already said that sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them under the above three conditions, just to make sure that we understand the point in the case of Holy Communion, it singles this sacrament out specially to stress that, if you’re baptized, you cannot be denied Communion unless you are prohibited by law.

And there’s no prohibition in the law regarding how much of a Mass (or Communion service) you must attend.

But what if we really, really want to shoehorn such a requirement into the law at this point? Is there any way to do that?

No, sorry.

The Code also provides:

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

And it provides:

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

If you want to restrict someone’s right to receive the sacraments then you’re going to have to have a law allowing you to do that and you’re going to have to subject it to strict interpretation.

This is particularly the case with Holy Communion, which uniquely among all the sacraments has its own canon singling out the fact that it can’t be denied unless there is a prohibition by law.

And there just is no law requiring the faithful to attend all or any of a Mass in order to receive Communion. You can be literally walking through a church at Communion time and, if you are properly disposed, you can receive.

Now, if you do that and it’s a Sunday or a holy day of obligation then you’ll need to attend a different Mass in order to fulfill your obligation to attend Mass, but that’s a separate question from whether you can receive Communion.

It is to be understood that Fr. McNamara is a liturgist and thus that his primary expertise would be in the Church’s liturgical documents, but as a liturgist he should be familiar with at least those parts of canon law touching on the liturgy and the faithful’s access to the sacraments–particularly the Eucharist.

His columns for Zenit regularly include an addendum clarifying confusion resulting from previous columns. Hopefully a future column will clarify this issue and properly separate the two subjects.

Dangerous Secret Societies?

The heroic efforts of the firemen in San Diego county are much appreciated by local residents. They have done an extraordinary job–and continue to do it–operating in dangerous, windy conditions with little sleep and often only the food and water they can carry on them.

Yet not everyone in history has held such a high opinion of fire departments. I was put in mind of the instructions that the second century emperor Trajan gave to Pliny the Younger about having fire departments.

From the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan:

Pliny to Trajan:

A desolating fire broke out in Nicomedia, and destroyed a number of private houses, and two public buildings — the almshouse and the temple of Isis — although a road ran between them. The fire was allowed to spread farther than it need, first owing to the violent wind; second, to the laziness of the citizens, it being generally agreed they stood idly by without moving, and simply watched the conflagration. Besides there was not a single public fire engine or bucket in the place, and not one solitary appliance for mastering a fire. However, these will be provided upon orders I have already given. But, Sire, I would have you consider whether you think a fire company of about 150 men ought not to be formed? I will take care that no one not a genuine fireman shall be admitted, and that the guild should not misapply the charter granted it. Again there would be no trouble in keeping an eye on so small a body.

Trajan to Pliny:

You have formed the idea of a possible fire company at Nicomedia on the model of various others already existing; but remember that the province of Bithynia, and especially city-states like Nicomedia, are the prey of factions. Give them the name we may, and however good be the reasons for organization, such associations will soon degenerate into dangerous secret societies. It is better policy to provide fire apparatus, and to encourage property holders to make use of them, and if need comes, press the crowd which collects into the same service.

SOURCE.

No fire departments? Having untrained people fighting a fire?

Sheesh!

Thank God we’ve got fire departments today!

Three cheers for the San Diego firefighters!

Update 2

2007firesday3bHere’s the latest fire and evacuation map.

I was finally able to get into the San Diego County emergency web site again. (They really do need more bandwidth or server capacity–and they need to give maps as nice, simple gifs instead of 1.7 meg PDFs).

This edition of the map has a grid with numbers on it–which, I believe, are the page numbers for the Thomas Brothers maps, which are ubiquitous in SoCal (or were, before GPS, anyway).

The mystery evacuation spot near Catholic Answers seems to have been a precautionary measure, as there were no fires there. My theory has been that it’s an area with poor roadways and they wanted to get it evacuated in advance in case the Harris Fire goes there. Now it’s been linked up with the other evacuation zones for the Harris Fire, so that seems to be its purpose.

Update

2007firesday3As expected, it’s worse today.

One of the big problems is the Santa Ana winds that are blowing and spreading the fires.

The winds were expected to let up last night, but they didn’t as much as expected.

It’s hoped that they will let up later today.

When I woke up this morning I saw there was an evacuation zone near Catholic Answers. I’m not sure what that is at this point, as the map is not showing fire in that area, and they haven’t mentioned it on TV.

BTW, I did a brief phone interview with Vatican Radio about the fires yesterday. MP3 here.

Keep SoCal in Your Prayers

2007firesday2The 2003 fires in the San Diego area left much of the county looking like Mordor.

Now, they’re saying that this year’s fires may be even worse by the time they’re done.

To the left is a map of the fire borders as of today (click to enlarge). The red zones are where the fire boundaries are. The purple areas are evacuation zones. The green dot is the approximate location of Catholic Answers.

Some staffers at Catholic Answers have either been evacuated from their homes or are unable to get to work due to road closures (or warnings that they may need to evacuate).

At Catholic Answers the sky is largely gray from smoke, and there is a burnt smell everywhere outside. Parked cars are covered with little bits of ash.

San Diego also needs to up the server capacity of a lot of their emergency web sites that serve up maps like this. Lots of them are slow as snailes or simply time out.

USEFUL SITES:

UNION-TRIBUNE FIRE BLOG.

WWW.SDCOUNTYEMERGENCY.COM

SANDIEGO.GOV FIRE ALERT

HOME-MADE ANNOTATED GOOGLE MAP

GEOLOGY PAGE AT SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY.

No Respect! No Respect?

CardinalfoleyA few years ago on a Catholic Answers cruise we were joined by Archbishop John P. Foley, head of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications.

He was a riot!

The guy has a very open demeanor and a terrific sense of humor. He talks always had the attendees in stitches.

As the head of a relatively minor dicastery in Rome, the Archbishop described himself atone point as "the Rodney Dangerfield of the Vatican," calling to mind the late commedian’s signature complaint "No respect! No respect!"

But now that’s changed.

B16 has just announced that Archbishop Foley will soon become Cardinal Foley.

John Allen comments:

Benedict XVI also showed his appreciation for loyalty today by at long last naming Archbishop John Foley to the College of Cardinals. Foley served as the President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications since 1984 until he resigned in June, and during those 23 years, Foley watched eight consistories in which 214 other men became cardinals. Each time he endured speculation about why he had not been inducted into the college with good humor and without complaint. One of the most universally popular figures in the Vatican, it’s not difficult to anticipate that his line of well-wishers during the receptions following the Nov. 24 consistory should be especially long.

MORE ON JOHN FOLEY.

LIST OF ALL THE NEW CARDINALS.

ANALYSIS OF THE PICKS.

MORE ANALYSIS.

The Kind of Story that Vatican TV Really Should Not Do

Popefire_2Okay, so they were having a bonfire in Poland on April 2 (which happens to be the anniversary of JP2’s death) and a guy snapped pictures of the flames and later, after looking at the pictures back home, decided that one looks like John Paul II and must be some kind of manifestation from beyond the grave and Vatican TV does a story on it, complete with an endorsement from a Polish priest saying that’s what it is.

This is the kind of story that Vatican TV really shouldn’t do.

Even if they ran the story with all kinds of disclaimers, those disclaimers won’t make it through into the popular media. The mere fact that Vatican News Service is carrying this story will be taken as indicating that the Vatican supports this interpretation of the bondfire image.

This is bad because it strains credulity enough to have saintly images appearing in tortillas an pieces of toast and on the sides of buildings. Finding one in an image of something as dynamic and as constantly-changing-in-shape as fire is completely beyond the bounds. If you take enough pictures of any bonfire, you’ll be able to find such images in it.

And then there is the fact that fire isn’t exactly the most . . . er . . . traditional symbol of what it’s like in heaven. I mean, if you want a message that JP2 is in heaven rather than . . . one of the hotter regions . . . is a bonfire the best place for such a message?

This is just superstition, and the Vatican News Service abetted it, wittingly or unwittingly.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

Rome Really Needs To Get Involved on This One

The U.S. bishops continue to hold diverse opinions about whether or not canon law requires one to withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians.

Many, out of an apparent desire not to alienate those who hold pro-abortion views–as part of a "woo them back gently" strategy–resist the idea that Communion should be withheld from such politicians.

The replies given by some bishops involve arguments that strike one variously as (a) dodges of the real issue, (b) subversive of canon 915, or (c) simply incoherent.

For the record, canon 915 states:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.

This is the Church’s law. Yet some quotes from bishops in the media give the appearance that the respective bishops have never heard of this canon, which is difficult to believe after the "Can John Kerry receive Communion?" controversy of the 2004 election.

Part of the problem we are encountering at present is that bishops do not like to be pitted against each other in the press and, since there is not a consensus among them about whether canon 915 should be applied to the case of pro-abortion politicians, many are engaging in diplomatic contortions to avoid bringing the disagreement among them into sharp public focus on the eve of an election season.

So we have a significant disagreement among Church leaders on how the Church’s law is to be applied.

Well, that’s why God created the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

We need an authentic interpretation on this point–one way or the other.

For myself, I am strongly of the opinion that both canon and moral law require the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it’s with an "I’m personally opposed, but" dodge).

But Rome needs to sort this out for the good of the Church–both here in American and wherever in the world abortion is being promoted, which includes Rome’s own back yard: Europe.

It’s time for the Church to take a stand on this, for as canonist Ed Peters writes:

We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of respect for Jesus in the Eucharist. Such a crisis compels all of us, I think, to examine our consciences for how our sins might have contributed to this disaster.

GET THE STORY.