Author: Jimmy Akin

A reader recently wrote me and asked about whether he might be in a state of excommunication. I’d reproduce text from his e-mails here, but they were rather detailed, so let me summarize:

The reader had worked as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion and had been taught to purify the chalice by pouring a small amount of water into it and then pouring the result down the sacrarium. He says that he would not have violated any Church laws that he had known about, but he learned that it is an offense incurring automatic excommunication to throw away the sacred species. Although he could not remember any times when he poured out the Precious Blood itself, he was concerned about whether he might be excommunicated.

He’s not.

I told him this by e-mail and promised a follow-up post to explain why, so here goes:

First, if sufficient water is added to what drops of the Precious Blood may remain in the chalice so that they no longer would appear to be wine in the common estimation of men then the Real Presence does not remain. Neither do the sacred species since what remains is not sacred (no Real Presence) and not the species of wine any more (does not appear to be wine in the common estimation of men).

Therefore, there are no sacred species to throw away in this circumstance and thus no possibility of triggering excommunication.

But suppose that there was a case in which no water was added to the sacred species and some of them were simply poured into the sacrarium. Would that trigger the excommunication?

Not under the circumstances the reader described by e-mail.

Although the Code of Canon Law provides automatic excommunication for a small number of offenses, it also provides an extensive list of exceptions in which penalties such as excommunication will not be triggered. According to the Code:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: . . .

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

That right there is going to block any excommunication from happening in the case of the reader. He had been trained to do his task a certain way and did what he was told. He was not a canon law expert who negligently failed to examine the law. He was an ordinary person who was simply doing what he had been trained to do.

We have NO EVIDENCE that the law against throwing away the sacred species was even violated, but since the reader was innocently unaware of the law against doing so, he would not be struck by the penalty of excommunication.

Note also that the canon provides that inadvertence or error are equivalent to error. This means that even if he did know about the law against throwing away the sacred species, excommunication still would not result if he had inadvertently failed to pour water, or enough water, into the chalice to remove the appearances of wine. Nor would a person be excommunicated who threw away the sacred species while erroneously thinking that they were unconsecrated or that they had ceased to have the Real Presence.

There is also another ground that occurs to me for why excommunication in his case would be blocked. The following canon provides:

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed: . . .

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept; . . .

§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae [automatic] penalty.

The automatic or latae sententiae excommunication that attaches to throwing away the sacred species does not apply, according to §3 of this canon, to people mentioned in §1. Among those mentioned in §1 are those who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law.

The reader did not know that there was an automatic excommunication attached to throwing away the sacred species (which–it should be reiterated–we have no evidence that he even did). He was not a canon law expert who be expected to have checked this out on his own, so there was no negligence. Therefore, he is not bound by the automatic excommunication.

We therefore have no evidence that the reader even did throw away the sacred species, and even if he had the excommunication would not have taken effect because he did not know about the law (can. 1323) or the penalty (can. 1324). Further, even if he had known about both he still would not be struck by the penalty if he had thrown away the sacred species inadvertently or through error.

All this goes to show how really HARD it is to get automatically excommunicated for something (and these are only a FEW of the conditions that block penalties from coming into effect). An ordinary person really has to know BOTH the law AND the penalty AND do it anyway, WITHOUT inadvertence OR error.

I mention this because a lot of people end up committing excommunicable offenses (e.g., abortion) and later learn of the penalty’s existence and get worried that they may be excommunicated. In the vast majority of such cases, they’re not.

For an ordinary person, you really have to know EXACTLY what you are doing, AND the penalty attached, and do it anyway.

There thus should not be any scruples on this point.

20