Jimmy Akin

A reader writes:

I’ve never heard the term "presumption of faith" used before but in thinking about the issue of Bishops withholding Communion from wayward politicians, it strikes me that the Church applies almost universally this principle (expressed in other ways).

Like presumption of innocence in court, the Church presumes faith when one asks for any of the sacraments.  Because we cannot know another’s heart as God can, we have to take their word that they are able to receive the sacrament and believe what the sacrament does.

In the case of communion, it has been said many times that the confessional is empty and the communion lines are full.  Logic, knowledge of human concupiscence, and just the results of some of the most recent surveys of Catholics tells us that there is something wrong with the picture, but in the communion line the Church applies presumption of faith because she has to.

It is only where a person publically advertises their sin and just as publically seeks communion while demonstrating no purpose of amendment (a requisite for a good confession if that confession had indeed taken place privately), it is only in that kind a circumstance that a public response is required to avert scandal.

Others holding the same views privately and acting upon those views could receive communion in an unworthy manner and the priest or bishop may never know because they are acting on the presumption of faith.

And so on.

Does that make any sense as a concept?

It does, though I’d tweak it a bit.

There is indeed a presumption that the Church makes in admitting people to Communion, though it isn’t just a presumption that they have faith. It also presumes that they meet the other requirements for Communion, such as being in a state of grace, having the proper dispositions, having fasted for an hour before the moment of Communion, and so forth. These are summed up under the heading of "worthiness to receive Communion" (which is a bit paradoxical given that immediately before Communion we say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," but there we are). I’d therefore phrase the presumption as a presumption of worthiness rather than a presumption of faith.

This presumption holds except in very specific cases. A Catholic presenting himself for holy Communion is not to be denied except unless he is prohibited by law from receiving. The Code of Canon Law provides:

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

Now, there are people who are prohibited by law from receiving (e.g., because they’re in mortal sin, because they haven’t fasted, etc.), but in the practice of the Church the evaluation of these criteria is left to the individual communicant in the vast majority of cases. The only time in the Code that priest and other ministers of Communion are told not to give Communion to a person who presents himself is in the following canon:

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.

Since declared excommunications (as opposed to automatic excommunications) and declared interdicts are as rare as hen’s teeth, the most commonly triggered part of this canon is that concerning "others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." That means people who are publicly known to be involved in grave sin and who refuse to amend their ways.

As a practical matter, only those individuals are denied Communion (if even they are). Otherwise the presumption of worthiness to receive holy Communion operates.

A reader writes:

My husband and I converted to Catholicism 4 years ago.  We are currently expecting our 5th child, the 3rd to be born since our reception into the Church.  My question concerns the choosing of Godparents for this new child.  Is it ok for us to choose the same set of Godparents for this child as for one of the other children?  We have many devout Christian friends and family, but they are mainly Protestants and so unsuitable for Godparents.  There are very few Catholic couples that are we close enough to, and know their faith well enough to ask them to be Godparents.  The two couples that we have already asked are still the best candidates from our "pool" of friends and family.   I would like to know what is okay canonically, as well as what the tradition on this question is. 

Canonically there is no problem at all in having the same godparents for one child as for another. There is no canonical requirement that one child in a family must have a different set of godparents than another, as can be seen from our recent discussion of the requirements.

As far as what is traditional–well, that may vary significantly from culture to culture. In America it seems to me that most Catholics (at least the ones that I know) tend to have different godparents for different children–at least most of the time–but this is in no way binding.

Doing the best thing for the kid would take priority in my mind, and if that mean having the same ones for different kids because those are the best ones available, then that’s what I’d do.

Incidentally, thanks for giving me the occasion to tie up another couple of godparent questions that came up in our previous discussion.

There was some question about whether a person who is non-Christian could serve as a formal "witness" to the baptism. The answer is that, by my reading of the canon, the answer is no.

What the canon (CIC 874) says is:

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

Now, the phrase "baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community" has a technical meaning in canon law, and what it means is: Protestant.

Eastern Orthodox can be godparents, as we noted, as long as there is also a Catholic godparent (see sectoin 98b of this document) don’t fall under that designation because they have validly ordained bishops and so are members of churches rather than "ecclesial communities." Because Protestants don’t (in general) have validly ordained bishops they don’t have "churches" in the full sense and so Vatican II and canon law use the term "ecclesial community" to refer to their communions.

In the declartion Dominus Iesus, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[T]he ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church (no. 17).

Canon 874 §2 is thus making a specific exception for baptized Protestants to serve as designated witnesses, together with a Catholic godparent. It is not making an exception for non-Christians.

The rule is thus that there is always to be at least one Catholic godparent, who can be either male or female.

If there is an additional godparent then it must be of the opposite sex and can be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

There also can be a Catholic godparent and a baptized Protestant witness.

A non-Christian or a non-baptized Protestant (some Protestant groups do not mandate baptism) could not serve as a witness but would have to have a looser, less official relationship with the child, such as an unofficial "uncle" or mentor or something.