Category: Sacraments

Writer Andrew Santella, in a column slyly titled "The Sin Box," wants to know where all the sinners have gone. Why aren’t they lining up outside the confessional the way they did years ago, especially in a tell-all day-and-age when some people tell their sins to anyone who will listen.

"A generation ago, you’d see a lot of us lined up inside Catholic churches on Saturday afternoons, waiting to take our turn in one of the confessionals. We’d recite the familiar phrases (‘Bless me Father, for I have sinned’), list our transgressions and the number of times we’d committed them, maybe endure a priestly lecture, and emerge to recite a few Hail Marys as an act of penance. … Yet in most parishes, the lines for the confessionals have pretty much disappeared. Confession — or the sacrament of reconciliation, as it’s officially known — has become the one sacrament casual Catholics feel free to skip. We’ll get married in church, we’ll be buried from church, and we’ll take Communion at Mass. But regularly confessing one’s sins to God and the parish priest seems to be a part of fewer and fewer Catholic lives. Where have all the sinners gone?

[…]

"[I]t’s strange that so many lay Catholics should have abandoned the confessional even while secular culture is increasingly awash in confession, apology, and acts of contrition of every sort. Parents own up to pedophilia on Jerry Springer. Authors reveal their fetishes and infidelities in self-lacerating memoirs. On Web sites like Daily Confession and Not Proud, the anonymous poster can unburden his conscience electronically. The confessions on these sites are displayed in categories borrowed from Sunday school lessons: the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. At least one posting I read was framed in the language of the Catholic confessional. ‘Bless me, Father, for I have sinned,’ it began before going on to catalog a series of mostly mundane misdeeds. (Others are simply odd: ‘I eat ants but only the little red ones. They’re sweet as hell and I just can’t get enough.’)"

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to the reader who sent the link.)

The article is filled with confusions (e.g., "Dying with unconfessed mortal sin on your soul meant eternal torment"; uhm, no, that’s an unrepented mortal sin) and "witty" asides (e.g., "I know one [Catholic woman] who says she’ll go back to confession when she can confide in a female priest"), but the question asked is a serious one: Where have all the sinners gone?

They’re still around, of course, but as G. K. Chesterton once pointed out, they’ve traded the confessional for the psychoanalyst’s couch — or the talk show diva’s couch — and now have a form of "confession" far less satisfying and infinitely less healing. That’s because "the sin box" does not have as its purpose to wallow in sin but to dispense grace.

A reader writes:

Mr. Akin,

What’s the authority you had in mind when you said that the real presence ceases when the precious blood would "no longer would appear to be wine in the common estimation of men"? I’ve heard that before but can’t place it.

This is the standard test for whether Christ is really present or not. It’s common knowledge among theologians, though it is reflected in various authorities. To illustrate, though, I need to broaden the frame of reference a bit.

Christ willed that he would become present under the appearances of (wheat) bread and (grape) wine. Therefore you need wheat bread and grape wine in order to celebate the Eucharist and have valid matter for it.

Neither bread or wine, however, are natural categories (unlike, say, lamb flesh, grapes, or water, which all occur naturally). Bread and wine are prepared by human agency and thus are what one might say are "anthropological" categories rather than natural ones.

This makes us do a little more work in determining validity since anthropological kinds have (or can have) fuzzier boundaries than natural kinds, yet they are what Christ chose to employ in establishing this sacrament.

Since Christ spoke to men and instructed them to perform this sacrament, it follows that he expects men to be able to discern what falls into these categories–at least commonly. Some men might have bizarre expectations about what counts as bread and wine but one can’t rely on any bizarre opinions as a guide to what Christ intended. Therefore, a "common estimation of men" test has evolved. If something would be regarded as bread or wine in the common estimation of men then it will be valid. Otherwise, it won’t be. (Doubtful cases are doubtful matter.)

Because cultures vary, however, we have to throw in one extra qualifier: The common estimation of men has to be tied to the common estimation men in Jesus’ own day. The need for this qualifier is obvious when one considers the fact that to us–in 21st century America–"bread" tends to mean leavened bread while unleavened bread we refer to with a different term (e.g., "crackers"). That was not the case in first century Palestine, though, and to the apostles that Jesus was speaking to, "bread" (lekhem) could be either leavened or unleavened. We know that the latter was valid matter because it was the kind of bread that Jewish people were required to use during the Passover ceremony, which is when Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

So we have to adjust (make broader) what we in our culture would count as bread a little bit in order to take account of this fact.

Once we have the "Is it bread or wine in the common estimation of men?" test, two consequences fall out from that.

The first, which we have already mentioned, is that it isn’t (wheat) bread or (grape) wine then it can’t be used to confect the Eucharist. This is reflected, for example, in Redemptionis Sacramentum:

The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament [RS 48].

The second consequence gets to your question, which is what happens when the accidents no longer appear to be bread and wine. When that happens, standard Catholic theology holds, the Real Presence ceases because what Christ willed to be present under (the appearances of bread and wine) is no longer present.

Thus St. Thomas Aquinas notes:

[I]f the change [in the consecrated elements] be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would
have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under
this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when
the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so
altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or
else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be
reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops
that the species of bread or wine no longer remain [ST III:77:4].

The reader continues:

Is the real presence contingent on our subjective sensation, or on the reality of the sacred species themselves? For example, if you have bread or wine imperceptible to our senses, but chemically the same as a larger portion, does the real presence still remain?

Depending on what you mean, the answer may be neither. The Real Presence does not depend on anybody subjectively sensing the bread and wine. The consecrated elements could be reserved in the Tabernacle, with nobody sensing them. On the other hand, bread and wine are such that they can be sensed, and so the quantities do have to be sufficiently large that if someone were looking at them, they would say "That’s bread" or "That’s wine." It is not enough that a tiny particle be put under a microscope and have it be discovered to be chemically identical to bread or wine. We’re dealing with anthropological categories, and the elements have to be "anthropologically" bread and wine, not just chemically bread and wine.

Or is anything that no longer appears to us to be bread or wine necessarily chemically changed?

I couldn’t tell you for a fact with bread since I don’t know if the cell structure of the wheat typically remains in bread. However wine is not chemically changed by the mere fact of being reduced to such a small quantity that it no longer appears to be wine to the senses. I suspect that the same is true of bread as well, I just don’t know for a fact. The key, though, is not chemical composition but what they count as in the common estimation of men (with the needed cultural qualifier).

 

Or the crumbs on the paten, for instance. I wouldn’t call a crumb of crust "bread," but I still view that as having as much of the real presence as a larger host. Is that correct?

It depends on the size of the crumb. If it’s a particularly large crumb–something you would look at and think "That’s a piece of bread" then the Real Presence would remain. If it’s a particularly tiny crumb, something you would look at and think "That’s a speck of wheat dust" then the Real Presence does not remain. If it’s an ambiguously sized crumb then it is doubtful whether or not Christ is really present.

For safety’s sake, the Church tends to err ont the side of caution both before and after the consecration of the elements. Before the consecration if it is doubtful that the matter is valid then it cannot be used. After the consecration if it is doubtful whether the Real Presence remains then we are to assume that it does.

In obvious cases, though, (e.g., this is clearly cornbread or this clearly looks like a speck of wheat dust) then the Real Presence is not presumed and we are NOT TO SCRUPLE ABOUT THIS.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

I have a question about the Atkins Diet.  I sincerely am not trying to be sacrilegious when I ask this.  I believe in my heart and soul that what I receive in Communion is the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but do the accidents affect my blood sugar?  If I am on Atkins and am a daily communicant (which I am not, because we don’t have daily Mass here in the sticks), would there be a problem?  I can’t imagine a problem because Jesus is all Good and cannot hurt us.  I guess I am just asking about the accidents or maybe you could explain it better.

There is no sacrilege involved. You’re simply asking for knowledge.

It’s true that Jesus won’t hurt us, but that doesn’t mean that our bodies will respond the right way to the accidents of bread and wine.

When we receive Communion, our metabolism looks at the elements and responds the same way that our eyes do, saying, "That’s bread and wine!"

This is not a problem as long as you can handle bread and wine, but some folks can’t.

People with celiac disease, for example, may have a toxic reaction to the accidents of bread if they contain too much gluten (if I may put it that way).

People with alcoholism can be subjected to temptation from receiving the accidents of wine from the cup.

If a single minister is consuming what remains of the Precious Blood after Communion and he drinks enough then he will get tipsy.

This is because the physical properties (accidents) of the bread and wine remain. If I may put it this way, the change in the elements is metaphysical (a change of their inner substance), not physical (a change of their outward properties).

This means that your metabolism will treat them as if they contain carbohydrates. If your metabolism is such that you can handle the amount of carbohydrates that the unconsecrated elements contain then you’ll be able to handle the accidents of the consecrated elements.

On the other hand, your metabolism is sensitive enough that you’ll stop losing weight from receiving a certain quantity of the unconsecrated elements then the same thing will happen when receiving the accidents of an equivalent quantity.

So it really depends on your own metabolism and how many grams of carbohydrates you can ingest per day and still continuing to lose weight.

 

A reader writes:

I have been asked to sponser a young man for his confirmation. I am catholic, and he is attending a catholic school. However he was baptised in a Greek Orthodox church many years ago. The priest at our parish is saying that that was not valid and he can’t be confirmed and shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion. I thought as long as someone was Baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with water, that the Catholic church recognized it.

Does the Greek Orthodox church Baptise in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

It does, and Greek Orthodox baptisms are valid. I suspect that what is happening here is a miscommunication.

The priest is probably not saying that the boy’s baptism isn’t valid. He’s likely saying that he is not allowed to confirm the boy or even that it would be invalid if the priest attempted to confirm him.

Here’s the deal: Catholic priests are only allowed to give three sacraments to those baptized into an Orthodox Church: penance, the Eucharist, and holy anointing. They are not allowed to confirm them. Here’s the relevant passage of canon law:

Canon 844 §3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of
penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern
Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek
such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for
members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the
same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

In light of this, it makes all the sense in the world for the priest to say that he can’t confirm the boy (unless the boy is converting to the Catholic faith and the priest is empowered to receive him into the Church).

It is less clear why the priest would say that he should not be receiving Communion if he is seeking it on his own and is properly disposed. The priest may be thinking of the sacramental discipline of the church to which the boy belongs, though for its part the Catholic Church would not object to him receiving Communion under the noted conditions.

A reader writes:

I am currently serving in Iraq, and do not have anyone I feel confident enough about to ask my question. 

I was baptised in 2004 by a Methodist minister.  I grew up, however, in a church which believed strongly that the Holy Spirit WAS NOT a person.  I shared this opinion as I grew up.  Thankfully I was never baptised in this heterodox sect. 

In 2004, when I requested baptism from the Methodist minister, I do not know if I then believed the Holy Spirit was a person or not.  I am certain that I did not believe strongly that He is not a person by that time.   Around the time of my baptism I accepted the truth that the Holy Spirit is a person–but it may have been a week or two after my baptism.  I was baptised by immersion, with the formula "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

My question:  My baptism had the proper form, and the proper matter.  Is it possible that the intention was not proper, if at the time I did not believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit? 

When I was confirmed in March this issue never remotely occured to me.  Needless to say the priest never asked me.
I believe my question is very silly, but for whatever reason these doubts have assailed me from out of nowhere.  The catechism says that an imperfect faith is what is required for baptism, so I’m sure I’m fine. 

PLEASE, if you have the time, answer my question, so I know if I need a conditional baptism.

I have a lot of sympathy for the situation you find yourself in. I was in it myself! When I was first learning about the Christian faith, I was a non-Trinitarian (not because of any organization teaching me to deny the Trinity, just because I was still too green and independent-minded). I came to accept the doctrine, but in later years I was not sure if I had done so before or after my baptism, and it caused me no end of worry. I’m pretty sure that I was a Trinitarian at the time of my baptism, but just to make sure, I insisted on a conditional baptism at the time I was received into the Catholic Church.

Your own baptism is also likely valid. As you note, the Catechism states:

CCC 1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. the faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. the catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God’s Church?" the response is: "Faith!"

You very likely either believed in the Trinity or had the openness to Christian faith needed for sacramental validity, but to clear away any possibility otherwise, and for your own peace of mind, I would seek a conditional baptism.

I would go to the nearest Catholic chaplain, explain the situation, and ask for a conditional baptism, explaining that one is necessary for your peace of mind. If the chaplain refuses to perform one then, since you are in a situation in which your life may be in jeopardy, I would have one your military buddies (preferably a Catholic so as not to cause confusion for non-Catholics) perform one for you. (You cannot baptize yourself; it has to be done by someone else.)

Have him use the words "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Ideally, you would want to have a conditional confirmation as well, but this may not be possible. Fortunately, confirmation is not necessary to salvation in the way that baptism is.

You will not need to repeat your confessions. If the first baptism was valid then all subsequent confessions will be valid as well. If your first baptism was not valid then the new one will be and will wipe out any sins committed prior to it, making it unnecessary to repeat prior confessions.

I’d like to add a note for those who might otherwise worry about whether they might be in the same situation: This situation doesn’t arise because you didn’t understand the Trinity or had a shaky acceptance of it at the time of your baptism. It arises only because you had a history of prior, conscious rejection of the Trinity and are not sure if you were rejecting it at the time of your baptism. Not understanding the Trinity or having a shaky acceptance of it does not invalidate baptism.

Outright rejection of it may, however, and according to the Holy See this is why Mormon baptisms are invalid even though they use the Trinitarian formula. They supply the words of the Trinitarian formula with a fundamentally different meaning.

Whether your former religion’s understanding of the Trinity was so defective as to invalidate baptism is something I can’t answer, because the Holy See has not spelled out the subject in enough detail.

I therefore recommend that you pursue conditional baptism even though the odds are that your Methodist baptism was probably valid.

I hope this helps, and God bless you for your service to our country. I encourage all the blog readers to keep you and all of our men and women overseas in prayer.

20

demptionA reader writes:

Attached is a "bread recipe" a local parish uses to bake its own Eucharistic bread.  They’ve established a group of people within their Worship commission to bake this weekly and have it ready for weekend Masses.  I’ve attached the recipe for you to look at.  Is it legitimate?  Hopefully you can shed some light on the issue.  Thank you very much.

Bread Baking Recipe

Since the recipe calls for the use of salt, baking powder, honey, and oil, it is clearly illicit (not in conformity with the law). The Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 924 §2.

The bread must be only wheat and recently made
so that there is no danger of spoiling.

The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum further specifies:

[48.] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.

I would talk to the bishop about the problem if you can’t get it rectified on the parish level.

Down yonder, a reader writes:

Infants cannot make a moral choice while on earth, as they have yet to achieve the faculties of reason. Yet, can someone enter the eternal presence of God unless they make a free act of the will to do so? Aren’t all creatures, humans and angels, subject to a test? It seems possible (or even likely) that babies are given, upon death, the faculties of reason, and are presented with the choice of the Angels: a once in a lifetime decision, God or self.

Hence, it seems they could choose hell, even if they were baptised. So we can’t know (not with absolute certainty, anyway) that they are in Heaven. We should still offer them to the mercy of God.

Agree? Disagree?

The Church teaches that God has promised to give his grace through the sacraments as long as the recipient does not place a barrier in the way of this (for example, receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, going to confession when you have no intention of repenting of your sins). As long as one does not block the grace of the sacrament, one will receive it.

Consequently, infants receive God’s grace through baptism since they are incapable of rejecting it. This means that if they die in infancy, without having grown to the point that they can commit mortal sin, their salvation is assured.

It therefore follows that not all creatures must make a personal act of faith in God during life in order to be united with God in the afterlife. Only those who have the use of reason are required to do this. Since infants do not have the use of reason, this is not required of them.

Regarding infants who die without baptism, the Catechism states:

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Now here’s a Catholic horror story, all the more horrible because it really happened: A con man forges documents to allow him to pose as a validly ordained priest and, in that capacity, conducts Masses, baptisms, and weddings at parishes in Arizona:

"Fred Brito believes that his true calling is as a Catholic priest. But he also makes quite a good psychiatrist. Most recently he has been earning £55,000 as a university fund-raiser.

"The only problem is that Brito, 50, an accomplished con artist, held none of these positions legitimately, having spent nearly 30 years bluffing his way into a string of white-collar jobs.

[…]

"One of his most stunning deceptions was as Father Federico B. Gomez de Esparza, a Norbertine priest ordained in Mexico, at a number of parishes in Arizona.

"He forged the necessary documents and studied liturgy, conducted weddings and baptisms and held mass up to four times a day until he was exposed.

"’By pretending to be a priest, Fred Brito played with the souls of people who trusted him,’ said Father Thomas Zurcher, vicar for priests in the diocese of Phoenix.

"’In doing so he compounded their hurt and shrivelled their spirit. He fakes being nice when in fact he is a mean-spirited person who lives without regard for others.’

"Brito disagreed. ‘I do feel bad because I was not actually a priest, but on the other hand no priest had ever connected to the Latino community there as I did. Yes, it was a mistake, but I also changed lives. I loved that work.’"

GET THE (HORROR) STORY.

Note Fr. Flimflam’s emphasis on how he "connected" to the Latino community and claims that he "changed" lives. But, objectively speaking, by his "celebration" of the sacraments, he has left a huge sacramental mess behind for the Diocese of Phoenix to clean up.

Why is it, that in the realm of religion, "feelings" and "connectedness" are all that matter? Mr. Brito won’t be able to easily dismiss charges of posing as a medical doctor with claims that he "connected" with those who believed him a doctor and "changed lives." If he practiced medicine without a license, he could be in for stiff legal penalties. Given the sacramental havoc he’s wrought in Arizona, I almost wish similar legal penalties were in place for impersonating a priest.

A reader writes:

My wife and I are Catholic. We have been married for several years. As of late, we have been going through some rough times. So much so, that we feel we need to see a Marriage Counselor. Unfortunately, our parish has not been as helpful as I would like. I called the Rectory and asked for a referral to a Catholic Counselor but they did not have one. They could only refer me to a secular counselor. Is this standard practice? What would you do? My wife and I love each other and want to resolve our conflict and grow in God’s Grace and Peace.

I can’t really say whether this is standard practice. I don’t have the breadth of knowledge of what parishes do in this situation to speak to that. I can, however, try to offer some practical suggestions:

1. Ask if there are any psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, or other counsellors or mental health workers in the congregation. If so, call them and ask who they could recommend. (They might know who to call better than the parish staff.)
2. Call a neighboring parish and ask them.
3. Call the diocese and ask them.
4. Try seeing a priest for counselling. If there is a solid monastery nearby, one of the priests there might be able to help (and might be able to make his time more available than a parish priest).
5. Call some marital therapists and say, "My wife and I are both Catholics and think that we’d be more comfortable with a Catholic counsellor. Are you Catholic or could you recommend a Catholic marriage counsellor?"

If all else fails, brace up and go to a non-Catholic counsellor. Just be clear up front that you both care about your religion, which might prevent you from following certain kinds of advice (e.g., about sexual practices), and you want to make sure that the counsellor knows that.

Most counsellors will (or should) understand. It’s unprofessional not to respect the religious convictions of the patients.

Hope this helps, and good luck!

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!