Correction to "MUST receive" thread

[Pro_Domina]

Go ahead and read the
“New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” and tell me the samething,you just said.

I suggest it to Deacon Ed esspecially. These are basic canon’s that pertain to a very related funcion of the deacon, the distribution of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I did a bit of consulting on the “MUST receive” thread issue.

The canonists said that they do not know of a requirement based on the scandal probability, though they did said somethings are sort of common sense, but that canon 916 applies in the case of entering unconscious of an impediment in the line but then realizing one. Meaning that the person is not obligated to auto-denounce himself and may receive with the conditions stated.

I don’t know where I learned the scandalous thing, I never doubted it, since the logic is there, but anyhow the canon permits it, but not obliges. Since it does, I would argue that it prevents any weird situations, which in the end, may cause a scandal.
That is already another issue apart from the law.

Though get me clear, it requires that you did not realize when you got in. I am not trying to start a new theological standpoint.

I know other people have already corrected you, so this might not do any good, but let me give it a shot.

(1) what possible scandal is caused? You keep talking about protecting the priest and laity. From what, though? Knowing there are Catholics in Church who are sinners? Even if it were objectively possible to realize why the person was leaving the receiving line - that is, that everyone knew it was because of unconfessed mortal sin, rather than any other cause - this wouldn’t be scandal, any more than seeing a long line at the confessional would be scandal. If anything, I’d be proud to know that someone in my parish “got it,” that they realized the gravity of Who was up there, and not to pretend to be right with Him to impress others.

(2) Even if the person were to get up in front of the congregation after the close of Mass and say, “The reason I didn’t go up was because of (enter sin), which I forgot to confess” even that wouldn’t be scandal. Publicly acknowledging your sins to one another isn’t scandal, it’s Scriptural - James 5:16, to be precise.

(3) I think you need to separate scandal from pride, because I feel that’s where you’re going wrong. I don’t see how it scandalizes the Church if you sit back down - maybe you didn’t even sin, maybe you just realized you’re at your canonical limit on receiving.

St. Thomas in the the Summa speaks about it being a lesser sin, though obviously the canon, keeping in mind the Churches authority in the administration of the sacraments, declares such and such situations allow for it. .newadvent.org/summa/4080.htm#article4

What part are you referring to? I know he says it’s a lesser sin than throwing the Eucharist to the dogs in Article 5, but where in Article 4 (or anywhere) are you seeing anything about receiving in mortal sin being somehow a “lesser sin” than following the canon law? In addition to a link, could you maybe find the sentence that is causing you to come to this conclusion?

 

[Pro_Domina]

First of all, it is well known that the embarrasing things in life should be hidden as much as possible.
Scandal also involves depriving others of the assurance that others practice virtue. If everyone does it than why shouldn’t I?

But I am saying that is another thing appart from the law.

All I say is that cannon 916 allows for a person not to auto-denounce themselves by leaving the line if they entered innocently. Another thing is to straight up go in mortal sin.

Article 5 I believe atenuates the gravity of the sin if escaping infamy. That is another thing.

But anyhow the biggest point is that people here do not bulge on the fact that the Chuch does permit this situation to go along and that yes the Scriptures say what we all know, but it is absolutly foolish to not to realize that as clear as a thing might be in the Scriptures, it is not a square deal. Morality is not a square deal at all. I am not saying it is a lax deal, just a complex one. Then canon law is what St. Thomas called practical theology. It attempts to regularize things in the spiritual world, which are not easy because these rules are in the external forum and morality is in the internal. That is why there is the maxim of *ad intra nec ecclesia (*spelling could be off). The soul cannot be judged entirely, only the external manifestations. I know for most I sound like a hard headed progressivist. All the contrary, I am trying to correct an error, but there are somethings that are still right.

But one error that I will take the liberty of pointing out against most of you is that you…we, have lost a true sense of what is scandalous and our repugnance towards sin. Sin has so become the norm that we tend to look at serious things as inevitable and therefore to a certain degree acceptable.
Who practices chastity with all integrity? Most can’t even look at others’ sinful lives because they too are not innocent.

This world choked innocence out of society. And even those of us who have realize the battle at hand and the greatness of these times in all of history are still lukewarm. We still have a soft idea of a true life of piety. We still think that to save the world is to stop abortion and things of the sort. That is just a consequence of a world rotten in sin! We try to hide within our families and homeschooling, Latin mass or whatever. But we aren’t ardent for change, we aren’t ardent, burning for an intervention of God. We don’t change, we are satisfied with our “progress” in our spiritual lives. We are ashes and no longer embers ready for a wind to light a flame to engulf the world. So we see people in habitual sin, we sin and then go to confession, we slip here and there, we even let small defects continue without strangling them and then we don’t even react. Sure I voted against abortionists, I go to church, I even pray the Rosary. But I have my mentality, my little way of being and I like it. I do not strive for perfection because, well I’m ok already.

No. Sin is sin. A defect is a defect. For one venial sin St. Thomas says we are worthy of instant death. For every lack of seriousness (in the true sense of the word and not just frowning all day) God takes it really serious. For every grace we take and jump for joy but then settle in again into our mediocre lives, He sees. You aim for salvation, you might make purgatory.
We need to hate all defects terribly. This does not exclude mercy, but it makes it fruitful.

If you don’t feel repulse for sin then in the end deep inside, you pacted with it, because man is monolithic in thought. Everything deep inside reaches its ultimate consequences.

 

[marytk]

Wow So If I don’t stay in line to go to Communion someone thinks “everyone sins why not?” HUH maybe they see someone who they KNOW sinned last night a(perhaps they were together) so thinks. " WELL if So and So can receive after what we both did then I can too"

 It also seems like "preventing Scandal" is the most important thing? I am sorry but this is scary to me.  In my opinion thinking like this covers up sins SO not to prevent a scandal and sometimes this means leaving a sinner to keep on sinning. I am particularly thinking about the child abuse scandals.

I try to not notice what others are doing. IF I do happen to notice and my own curiosity has me wondering (what isn’t my business) I just say a quick prayer. Hey a prayer never hurts anyone so if they are just feeling sick or ate late it is just a blessing. To me it is nice to see that people take their faith seriously enough to not receive if they shouldn’t.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Go ahead and read the
“New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” and tell me the samething,you just said.

I suggest it to Deacon Ed esspecially. These are basic canon’s that pertain to a very related funcion of the deacon, the distribution of the Holy Eucharist.

As a point of interest, I was replying based upon what the commentary about canon 916 says. The commentary restates the prohibition against receiving communion if one is “certain” one has committed a mortal sin. There is an “exception” that says one may receive if one makes a perfect act of contrition, makes a firm intention to go to confession and it is impossible to go to confession at that time.

Since there is no moral imperative to receive communion at any given Mass the issue of necessity does not exist and, therefore, the impossiblity of confession at any given Mass is rendered moot. I have checked with several canonists who have all stated that this canon really only permits a priest to celebrate Mass (which requires his receiving communion) while in a state of mortal sin.

Both the moral imperative not to receive communion in a state of mortal sin and the requirement for a perfect act of contrition to use this canon as an exception make it unlikely that a person could justify communion under these circumstances.

As you’ve noted, scandal is not a sufficient reason (since, of course, the reason one steps out of line could be as innocent as not having fasted).

Having studied canon law prior to my ordination this was one of the canons that we addressed in more than just passing fashion.

Deacon Ed

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I have checked with several canonists who have all stated that this canon really only permits a priest to celebrate Mass (which requires his receiving communion) while in a state of mortal sin.

Deacon Ed,

I’m quite surprised. I’ve found not a few mentions of Canon 916 applying equally to lay persons. The very words of the Canon would seem to bear this out: it says a person conscious of grave sin where it could easily say a priest. Furthermore, since all priests who celebrate Mass are obligated to receive communion it would seem redundant to also state “or receive the Body of the Lord” after “celebrate Mass” – unless, of course, the canon contemplated a layperson approaching communion.

Even the USCCB Guidelines for the Reception of Holy Communion cite Canon 916, and the exception, and addresses it directly to the laity.
For Catholics
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.

The canonists you spoke of may be of the opinion that in practice there is no grave reason for the laity to have recourse to the exception, but that is quite a different thing than saying that the law only applies to priests, don’t you think?

It makes me wonder, however, why the law would be written for the laity if the laity would never have recourse to it, even practically?

Here’s one example of possible grave reason that I have seen put forth: the poor soul who somehow finds himself in mortal sin on his or her wedding day, at a nuptial mass, and who had no opportunity to confess before the liturgy. It’s no use to object “But they could have confessed, etc!” Perhaps the priest was late? Perhaps the hapless soul sinned as she walked down the isle?

Another example often put forth: Catholics in mission territories underserved by priests, and yet with the opportunity to receive communion in a communion service. An opportunity for sacramental confession may be months away.

Even though the laity do not have an obligation to receive Holy Communion at Mass, there are times when there may be a grave reason to receive. It seems to me this is what Canon 916 is addressing.

VC

 

[thistle]

Deacon Ed,

I’m quite surprised. I’ve found not a few mentions of Canon 916 applying equally to lay persons. The very words of the Canon would seem to bear this out: it says a person conscious of grave sin where it could easily say a priest. Furthermore, since all priests who celebrate Mass are obligated to receive communion it would seem redundant to also state “or receive the Body of the Lord” after “celebrate Mass” – unless, of course, the canon contemplated a layperson approaching communion.

Even the USCCB Guidelines for the Reception of Holy Communion cite Canon 916, and the exception, and addresses it directly to the laity.
For Catholics
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.

The canonists you spoke of may be of the opinion that in practice there is no grave reason for the laity to have recourse to the exception, but that is quite a different thing than saying that the law only applies to priests, don’t you think?

It makes me wonder, however, why the law would be written for the laity if the laity would never have recourse to it, even practically?

Here’s one example of possible grave reason that I have seen put forth: the poor soul who somehow finds himself in mortal sin on his or her wedding day, at a nuptial mass, and who had no opportunity to confess before the liturgy. It’s no use to object “But they could have confessed, etc!” Perhaps the priest was late? Perhaps the hapless soul sinned as she walked down the isle?

Another example often put forth: Catholics in mission territories underserved by priests, and yet with the opportunity to receive communion in a communion service. An opportunity for sacramental confession may be months away.

Even though the laity do not have an obligation to receive Holy Communion at Mass, there are times when there may be a grave reason to receive. It seems to me this is what Canon 916 is addressing.

VC

Can you give us an example of a grave reason for a lay person to receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin?
I think if someone is standing in a Communion line there can hardly be any reason (grave or otherwise) to commit sacrilege.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can you give us an example of a grave reason for a lay person to receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin?
I think if someone is standing in a Communion line there can hardly be any reason (grave or otherwise) to commit sacrilege.

Hi Thistle,

I haven’t commented on the “communion line” issue discussed above, but I can provide you with one example that I have seen which seems to be a situation contemplated by Canon 916.

Here is the Canon again:Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

As was noted (I think) somewhere in this thread Canon 916 gives two requirements which both must be met: 1)grave reason and 2)no opportunity to confess.

A possible example would be those members of the faithful who do not have access to sacramental confession for long periods of time, as sometimes happens in remote regions with few priests. They may have an opportunity (perhaps a fleeting one) to receive communion at a communion service. This may be an example of a grave reason, i.e. if they do not receive communion they won’t have an opportunity to do so for a protracted period of time. Confession, of course, would also be unavailable. So, it could be that both conditions are fulfilled.

They must make an act of perfect contrition, however, and resolve to confess at the earliest opportunity.

Any thoughts?
VC

 

[thistle]

Hi Thistle,

I haven’t commented on the “communion line” issue discussed above, but I can provide you with one example that I have seen which seems to be a situation contemplated by Canon 916.

Here is the Canon again:Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

As was noted (I think) somewhere in this thread Canon 916 gives two requirements which both must be met: 1)grave reason and 2)no opportunity to confess.

A possible example would be those members of the faithful who do not have access to sacramental confession for long periods of time, as sometimes happens in remote regions with few priests. They may have an opportunity (perhaps a fleeting one) to receive communion at a communion service. This may be an example of a grave reason, i.e. if they do not receive communion they won’t have an opportunity to do so for a protracted period of time. Confession, of course, would also be unavailable. So, it could be that both conditions are fulfilled.

They must make an act of perfect contrition, however, and resolve to confess at the earliest opportunity.

Any thoughts?
VC

Receiving Communion, though encouraged often, is not a requirement except for once a year during the Easter period so I don’t buy into the argument that they may not have had access to Confession for a protracted period. I’m sure they have access once a year and that’s sufficient to meet the obligation.
I would not, therefore, see your example as a grave reason. Neither you nor anyone else in the other threads in relation to Can 916 has been able to give an example of a grave reason for a lay person.

As in the other threads on the subject I do not believe anyone (lay people) making an act of perfect contrition can receive Communion before going to Confession.

 

[Aramis]

I can tell you one situation where canon 916 applies: prisons. Some prisons do not permit private confession, but do permit attending the mass. Especially with certain violent offenders. This would necessitate once per year reception…

I was told of this by a Mormon prison guard, annoyed by the fact that neither the mormon bishop nor the local catholic priest were permitted privacy with prisoners for confession. A few prisoners confessed in plain view; he noted that they were often targeted for interrogations and/or searches.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

A possible example would be those members of the faithful who do not have access to sacramental confession for long periods of time, as sometimes happens in remote regions with few priests. They may have an opportunity (perhaps a fleeting one) to receive communion at a communion service. This may be an example of a grave reason, i.e. if they do not receive communion they won’t have an opportunity to do so for a protracted period of time. Confession, of course, would also be unavailable. So, it could be that both conditions are fulfilled.

They must make an act of perfect contrition, however, and resolve to confess at the earliest opportunity.

Any thoughts?
VC

Another example I thought of is if you were about to die. During the Rwandan genocide a school run by the Church had become a refugee camp for Tutsis. When the UN was preparing to pull out, the group knew they would all soon be killed, and all options had been explored but nothing could be done. The priest quickly organized a mass so that they could all recieve communion before they died. There wouldn’t have been enough time to hear everyone’s confession.

That’s the kind of thing that comes to mind when I read the phrase “grave reason”.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is not a personal thing. I try not to be distracted when I am going to receive Our Lord, preparing before hand and then at least ten minutes of thanksgiving. I am not bragging, just trying to disassociate your claim and my arguement.

Canon 916 does not say to who the canon applies to. It says what situations. Though if you use common sense, you will reach the conclusion that only priests celebrate and they MUST receive if they celebrate, so the second part is obviously pertaining to a person NOT CELEBRATING, therefore your priest only arguement is not valid. I am not argueing that this is a free way to communion for people in mortal sin. Not at all. I am saying that this canon would permit a person to receive if they get into the line without realizing of an impediment. It does not incur another mortal sin, but it is still probably a sin because of lack of preparation. St. Thomas says that in the Summa, that not all situations are as grave as simply going up to receive knowing you are in sin.

I am not saying they can get off the pew when they know it.

And this canon is not only for mortal sin, but rather any impedement, like the fast.

Another thing is that I would like to remind you that if you get a doubt in the line, doubts that arrise from a previous idea of innocence do not suffice for considering yourself in sin.
In dubia pro reo. Doubts that arrise are usually scrupulous in nature, because it can’t be a mortal sin if you realize later on, because it misses the conditions.

Are you going to say that I need to show you my degree as well for this one?

I only asked about your training because I’m trying to understand whether to give you the benefit of the doubt. My gut instinct says you’re just joking around with your answers but I thought it would be better to get to know more about you first before judging.

You don’t have to share your background, but I’m curious.

 

[thistle]

Another example I thought of is if you were about to die. During the Rwandan genocide a school run by the Church had become a refugee camp for Tutsis. When the UN was preparing to pull out, the group knew they would all soon be killed, and all options had been explored but nothing could be done. The priest quickly organized a mass so that they could all recieve communion before they died. There wouldn’t have been enough time to hear everyone’s confession.

That’s the kind of thing that comes to mind when I read the phrase “grave reason”.

In such a situation the priest would give a General Absolution so in fact they would be in a state of grace when receiving.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I would not, therefore, see your example as a grave reason. Neither you nor anyone else in the other threads in relation to Can 916 has been able to give an example of a grave reason for a lay person.

Thistle,

I can understand that you don’t want to find grave reason, given your solicitude for the dignity of the sacrament. Obviously your thoughts on this matter are motivated by a great love for Christ, and His real presence in the Eucharist. You are concerned about anyone profaning the sacrament. I commend you for your consistent desire to honor Christ.

The Church herself as, custodian of the sacraments, also does everything in Her power to protect them from profanation, and protect the faithful from receiving unworthily.

The Church has indicated that there may be grave reasons for someone who cannot go to confession to nevertheless receive Holy Communion.

You seem to think that the Church wouldn’t allow if for any reason. I’m afraid you are** going beyond what the Church herself teaches**.

Perhaps my example of someone in a mission territory who doesn’t have regular access to communion or confession is unacceptable to you. How about the same situation but the person is in danger of death, sick or in elderly decline? Would that be grave enough, in your own opinion?

It doesn’t quite matter, though, because you seem to reject the principle itself. But, as I said above, you are going beyond what the Church teaches. The Canon applies to laypersons, so there must be circumstances where the exception obtains. Furthermore, this isn’t novel or new teaching. For instance see the Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11: . . lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves.

Now, please, I beg you, be careful here. Read this carefully. Don’t remain obstinate in your own view, if the Church may be teaching otherwise. Perhaps you might have gotten things a bit wrong? Is it possible?

The phrase “when a confessor may be had” isn’t simply a throw-away phrase. It means that if a confessor can’t be had that there might be reason to receive Holy Communion before sacramental confession. Canon 916 is based on this teaching from Trent.

thistle:

As in the other threads on the subject I do not believe anyone (lay people) making an act of perfect contrition can receive Communion before going to Confession.

I’m surprised, I thought in our other thread I’ve given convincing reasons to show you why this is the teaching of the Church. Maybe you can go back over there and check it out. Perhaps you can respond.

Thistle, I know you are sincere and desire only to think with the mind of the Church. I share the same desire – and so I patiently am trying to persuade you to take a fresh look at things, because I believe this is an area where you might be overstating the issue.

God bless,
VC

 

[thistle]

Thistle,

I can understand that you don’t want to find grave reason, given your solicitude for the dignity of the sacrament. Obviously your thoughts on this matter are motivated by a great love for Christ, and His real presence in the Eucharist. You are concerned about anyone profaning the sacrament. I commend you for your consistent desire to honor Christ.

The Church herself as, custodian of the sacraments, also does everything in Her power to protect them from profanation, and protect the faithful from receiving unworthily.

The Church has indicated that there may be grave reasons for someone who cannot go to confession to nevertheless receive Holy Communion.

You seem to think that the Church wouldn’t allow if for any reason. I’m afraid you are** going beyond what the Church herself teaches**.

Perhaps my example of someone in a mission territory who doesn’t have regular access to communion or confession is unacceptable to you. How about the same situation but the person is in danger of death, sick or in elderly decline? Would that be grave enough, in your own opinion?

It doesn’t quite matter, though, because you seem to reject the principle itself. But, as I said above, you are going beyond what the Church teaches. The Canon applies to laypersons, so there must be circumstances where the exception obtains. Furthermore, this isn’t novel or new teaching. For instance see the Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11: . . lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves.

Now, please, I beg you, be careful here. Read this carefully. Don’t remain obstinate in your own view, if the Church may be teaching otherwise. Perhaps you might have gotten things a bit wrong? Is it possible?

The phrase “when a confessor may be had” isn’t simply a throw-away phrase. It means that if a confessor can’t be had that there might be reason to receive Holy Communion before sacramental confession. Canon 916 is based on this teaching from Trent.

I’m surprised, I thought in our other thread I’ve given convincing reasons to show you why this is the teaching of the Church. Maybe you can go back over there and check it out. Perhaps you can respond.

Thistle, I know you are sincere and desire only to think with the mind of the Church. I share the same desire – and so I patiently am trying to persuade you to take a fresh look at things, because I believe this is an area where you might be overstating the issue.

God bless,
VC

Sorry but I forgot to mention this in my last post. While we are scrambling to find examples of grave reason we should remember that the OP is talking about fit healthy people standing in a Communion line. If such a person suddenly remembers that they have committed a mortal sin since their last confession (and so they are in a state of mortal sin), even if grave reason under certain circumstances would allow receiving without Confession (I’m not yet convinced but I’m persuadable on this), I firmly do not believe that would ever apply to the person standing in the Communion line.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

even if grave reason under certain circumstances would allow receiving without Confession (I’m not yet convinced but I’m persuadable on this)

Ok. But when you *do *become convinced (hopefully in this life, but surely in the next), will you remember to thank me for my efforts?

VC

 

[thistle]

Ok. But when you *do *become convinced (hopefully in this life, but surely in the next), will you remember to thank me for my efforts?

VC

I will readily do that.

By the way do you agree or disagree regarding the person standing in the Communion line?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Something to remember here is that sacrilige isn’t really the issue. If someone does an act of perfect contrition with intent to go to confession as soon as possible, their sins are forgiven and no sacrilige takes place.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I will readily do that.

By the way do you agree or disagree regarding the person standing in the Communion line?

Thistle,

I don’t feel that I have enough information to answer in the affirmative or negative. I’m not entirely sure what, exactly, the hypothetical situation entails. Frankly, I think there might be some communication issues on this and a prior thread of the same subject. (My sense is that English is not Pro Domina’s primary language).

I can’t rule it out in principle however (i.e. prescinding from Pro Domina’s scenario), since the Church allows one to receive communion without prior confession if there is a sufficiently grave reason.

VC

 

[Deacon_Ed]

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.

As I noted, this is more frequently applied to a priest who, while in the state of mortal sin, must offer Mass for the people under his pastoral care. In fact, this derives from the resolution to the Donatist Controversy which states that the moral state of the minister of a sacrament does not affect the validity of the sacrament.

Deacon Ed