Correction to "MUST receive" thread

[Pro_Domina]

Just in response to Verbum, who has taken over this thread thank goodness, because non ce la faccio più!

English is my first language. In fact, one of two, because I grew up speaking both yet I studied up to high school in English.
I was an English AP student who actually passed the test.
But my religious life and studies are not in English at all.
It is too dry for me. Only technical stuff in English for me.

So when speaking about religious subjects, I am most probably translating terms from another language. Plus I don’t check my spelling.

Keep the thread going. I got tired of trying to say something without the buzz words reaction. I guess I came in to strong at the beggining and everyone has their claws out.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

You’re still wrong. You’re attatching way too much importance to this “right to a good reputation,” which I’ve never even heard about until you came on here. You have presented some Canon law, but it fails to back up your claims.

Exactly. No one has the “right” to a good reputation: you earn it by the way you live and the example you set to others, including your family. Stepping out of the Communion line for whatever reason is a pretty small thing, compared to, say being a good provider to your family or doing your job well even when others make it a challenge. Or failing to be either of those things. THAT might be a cause for scandal.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The most common reason for a person to receive communion in a state of mortal sin would be the case of natural disaster or war. In those cases a person clearly would not have an opportunity to go to confession and might have an opportunity to go to communion. In these exceptional conditions canon 916 could apply. I can think of no case where this would apply to a person at a normal Sunday Mass while standing in line (unless, of course, a natural disaster were to occur.

Deacon Ed,

Have you softened your position a bit? Post #8 and #24, seemed to me (especially #8) to indicate you believed that Canon 916 didn’t function to exempt the laity from confession for a grave reason.

Perhaps I just misread your post.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Just in response to Verbum, who has taken over this thread thank goodness, because non ce la faccio più!

Gee, thanks for the Christmas present Pro Domina! What are you going to get me for my birthday – a porcupine??

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Exactly. No one has the “right” to a good reputation: you earn it by the way you live and the example you set to others, including your family. Stepping out of the Communion line for whatever reason is a pretty small thing, compared to, say being a good provider to your family or doing your job well even when others make it a challenge. Or failing to be either of those things. THAT might be a cause for scandal.

Matrix,

Although I think I understand what you are getting at, I don’t think Pro Domina had in mind that everyone, by default, has a right to a good reputation.

A good reputation isn’t a natural right, but it is an acquired right. So, if one does have a good reputation, one has a right to protect it and others have a duty not to harm it unduly.

VC

 

[Pro_Domina]

**Can. 220 - Nemini licet bonam famam, qua quis gaudet, illegitime laedere, nec ius cuiusque **personae ad propriam intimitatem tuendam violare
Can. 220 No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy

You do have a right to a good reputation. If no one knows about your defects or sins, or even a small number of people, it cannot be revealed without the person’s consent.

That is why a priest even when concious of anothers sin, unless obstinate, they cannot deny Holy Communion.
Again I cannot repeat enough that you cannot take a verse of Scripture or anything and say that it is a square deal. Morality is complex!!!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon Ed,

Have you softened your position a bit? Post #8 and #24, seemed to me (especially #8) to indicate you believed that Canon 916 didn’t function to exempt the laity from confession for a grave reason.

Perhaps I just misread your post.

VC

I think I wasn’t complete in my first reply or that it was possible to interpret my statement as meaning the canon applied only to priests. That is not what I intended to say. There are conditions, albeit limited, in which canon 916 can apply to anyone receiving communion (even deacons!). However, those conditions are envisioned by the Church as being extremely limited. That was the point I was trying to make in post #8.

Deacon Ed

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Can. 220 - Nemini licet bonam famam, qua quis gaudet, illegitime laedere, nec ius cuiusque personae ad propriam intimitatem tuendam violare
Can. 220 No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy

You do have a right to a good reputation. If no one knows about your defects or sins, or even a small number of people, it cannot be revealed without the person’s consent.

This does not apply to a person who gets into line for communion then realizes that they can not lawfully received. No one is violating their privacy and no one is harming their good reputation. They have harmed their own reputation by 1) having unconfessed mortal sin or some other impediment to reception of the Eucharist and 2) gotten in line for communion.

Also, this canon does not say that a person has a right to a good reputation, it says that a person with a good reputation has a right to not have that good reputation damaged by someone else.

 

[Pro_Domina]

I think, though when speaking to N. Americans it is possible, since intuition is not a forte (not an insult, all peoples have different strengths and weaknesses) that by a right to a good reputation means that no one has the right to go and ruin it if they have it. And no one can force them into ruining it either.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think I wasn’t complete in my first reply or that it was possible to interpret my statement as meaning the canon applied only to priests. That is not what I intended to say. There are conditions, albeit limited, in which canon 916 can apply to anyone receiving communion (even deacons!). However, those conditions are envisioned by the Church as being extremely limited. That was the point I was trying to make in post #8.

Ok, thank you for the clarification Deacon Ed. I thought it might have been that.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

A priest saw a person looking at some immoral things and cursed before the mass and then he presents himself for communion at mass where there was not other priest so no confession. The priest knows the other is in mortal sin, but cannot deny him the communion because the right to a good reputation.

You do have a right to a good reputation. If no one knows about your defects or sins, or even a small number of people, it cannot be revealed without the person’s consent.

That is why a priest even when concious of anothers sin, unless obstinate, they cannot deny Holy Communion.

If a priest 100% knows a person in the Communion line is in a state of mortal sin he not only can but must refuse to distribute to that person. To say the priest must let that person receive is just a ridiculous statement to make. To receive in a state of mortal sin is sacrilege (another mortal sin) and the priest through cooperation would also be committing a mortal sin!

Thistle,

I wanted to point out this portion of the exchange, for your benefit and the benefit of others who may be following along. I think, again, that you may be overstating things. I also think that as we put all these pieces together you might come to see the overall picture, and why Canon 916 makes an exception for grave reasons and why one may go to communion without prior sacramental confession. (And, I hope, as a side note, you will also agree with me that perfect contrition, if it be truly obtained, results – or is coextensive with – the immediate forgiveness of sins and the restoration to a state of grace)

It was manifestly clear in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that a priest could not deny someone communion, even if the priest knew the person was in mortal sin, when the sin was not publicly known. Not new teaching, this! The 1917 law merely codified a position that took into account sound sacramental theology, solicitude for justice, and pastoral prudence.
Can.855 §1 . The publicly unworthy, who are the excommunicated, the interdicted and the manifestly infamous, unless their penance and conversion have been established and they will have first made up for the public scandal, are to be excluded from the Eucharist.
§2. The minister is also to refuse occult sinners, if they request secretly and he will not have recognized them as converted; not, however, if they publicly request and he is not able to pass over them without scandal.

I think a good case can be made that this canon from the old code has been translated into the current code to some extent. Surely, the *principles *which made it a sound law in 1917 would still apply today.

My hope in providing the old code is that all of us on this thread might take a step back and try, in good faith, to understand what Pro Domina is attempting to communicate and engage.
What do my fellow posters think? Deacon Ed? Others that took Pro Domina to task for mentioning scandal as possibly factoring into this discussion?

VC

P.S. – Pro Domina, I know it might seem like I am taking your side in this discussion, but I am trying to remain nopartisan. My concern is to protect the even-keel balance that the Church strives to maintain. I think it is easy to overstate or understate things, and by so doing deviate from the mind of the Church. You certainly overstated things in your first thread on this subject. So I’ve still got my eye on you too.

VC

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I personally don’t even see the difference between staying in your seat, and getting in line then leaving the line. Both of them make it pretty obvious that you’re not going to communion for some reason or other. Why does the second one hurt your reputation more than the first?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I personally don’t even see the difference between staying in your seat, and getting in line then leaving the line. Both of them make it pretty obvious that you’re not going to communion for some reason or other. Why does the second one hurt your reputation more than the first?

Neil,

That’s a good point. I’ve actually seen this issue raised in questioning the practice of the “orderly” communion line. Or, at least, questioning the practice of ushers who stand at each pew to signal communicants to come forward.

In other words, so the argument goes, a less mechanical procession for Holy Communion would be advisable in order not to put pressure on people to go up for communion when not properly disposed. I’m not sure the argument necessarily advocates for a return to altar rails, but my understanding is that altar rails and less organized communion lines did have the benefit of not drawing attention to any one person. (My sense, too, is that in the not too distant past it was more common for people not to approach communion, so it was also less noteworthy for that reason if someone stayed behind. Now, alas, our confession lines seem too short and our communion lines seem too long.)

VC

 

[Deacon_Ed]

My hope in providing the old code is that all of us on this thread might take a step back and try, in good faith, to understand what Pro Domina is attempting to communicate and engage.
What do my fellow posters think? Deacon Ed? Others that took Pro Domina to task for mentioning scandal as possibly factoring into this discussion?

VC, the difference here is whether the minister of communion refuses communion to someone as opposed to a person stepping out of line. Clearly the Church does not permit a minister of communion to refuse communion to anyone unless that person has been publically prohibited from receiving communion (excommunication or interdict). That would cause scandal and, therefore, is prohibited. A person stepping out of line would be an action by the individual and, therefore, would be acceptable under Church teaching.

Deacon Ed

 

[Pro_Domina]

No doubt Deacon Ed on your last statement. That was the point of this thread, to take back what I said that it was obligatory to stay in the line. All I say is that the Church permits the person to stay and receive with the other conditions stated. Now about that piece about a perfect act of contrition remits sins, fine, but sacramental absolution was commanded by the council of Trent because it is impossible for the supposed contrite person to know if it was perfect.

As for the people who worry about staying behind or getting line and leaving, the thing is that one manifests intent to receive and then return while the other manifests nothing.

That is as far as I argue. You could even be radical enough to look for a reason like straight up getting up in mortal sin consciously, as some mentioned a principal or getting married.

I just argue the latter, the rest is simply possible according to the canon itself.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve been in that exact situation, where I got in line then was reminded of a serious sin.

I don’t think mortal sin, the impediment to communion, works that way. Serious sins become mortal upon full reflection and consent and knowledge BEFORE they are committed. For someone, including your conscience, telling you it is a mortal sin ONLY AFTER the fact, doesn’t usually hold. Bottom line is this, a Catholic who takes his faith seriously, knows at all times when he is in the state where he needs to go to confession before he can receive.

 

[ProVobis]

Can you give us an example of a grave reason for a lay person to receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin?

The only one I can think of is when someone reminds you that this is the last day that you have to perform your Easter duty.

 

[ProVobis]

I personally don’t even see the difference between staying in your seat, and getting in line then leaving the line. Both of them make it pretty obvious that you’re not going to communion for some reason or other. Why does the second one hurt your reputation more than the first?

Maybe because it appears to be an insult to publicly manifest your refusal? It’s almost like refusing to take a cookie vs taking the cookie and throwing it away. More than a subtle difference, I would think.

 

[Pro_Domina]

It is a funny arguement, but if you’ll let I’ll expand.

It is like asking for a cookie and then not taking it.

But that is not so exact, because it is more like a lack of education than manifesting another thing.

On a side note, I found some more commentaries on scandal and canon 916. It is in Italian but I’ll translate.

It is an excerpt from Codice di Diritto Canonico e Leggi Complemntari - Comentato under the direction of Prof. Juan Ignacio Arrieta. First Italian edition page 619

"Questo c. si riferisce a chi consacra o riceve il sacramento. In realtà, un atto di contrizione perfetta perdona il peccato mortale; ma - come ricorda il secondo precetto della Chiesa- permane l’obbligo di confesarsi prima di ricevere l’Eucarestia, obbligo da cui si è dispensati *a jure *unicamente qando, supposta la contrizione perfetta, si verifichino entrambe le seguenti due condizioni : 1) una causa grave, quale il pericolo di morte o di scandalo, se non si celebra o NON CI SI COMUNICA 2) L’impossibilità di confessarsi prima, per mancanza di un confessore idoneo…"

"This canon refers to who consecrates or RECEIVES THE SACRAMENT. In reality, a perfect act of contrition forgives mortal sin; yet - as the second precept of the Church reminds us - the obligation to confess before remains, obligation that is dispensed a jure only when, assuming the perfect act of contrition, both of the following conditions are verified : 1) a grave cause, in which there is danger of death or SCANDAL, if the person does not celebrate or NOT RECEIVE COMMUNION 2) The imposiblity of confessing first, because of a lack of an ideal confessor…"

This means that SCANDAL IS A REASON FOR LAYS AS WELL…

Your not obligated, but you can. According to canon law.

Now by your moral obligation not to cause a scandal…

The

 

[ProVobis]

After reading all these posts, including my own, I’m beginning to wonder if there are any cost-benefits to receiving communion at all more than once a year during Easter time. There are so many more opportunities to sin, sacrilege, scandal, not fasting, and now leaving the line (what next?), going to communion just isn’t worth this added stress. After all, “whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood” doesn’t specify how often, so why should we go “often”?