Is denial of communion excommunication?

[Rosalinda]

A news report July 5 in the Canadian Press reported that a member of parliament and his wife were told by their parish priests that they could no longer take communion because of their stands on social issues. The wife once managed a Planned Parenthood office and the husband voted to support the federal government’s controversial same-sex marriage bill last week.

The journalist interviewed a theology professor for her opinion and she said it was rare for the church to deny communion ot someone “Because you’re labelling someone as heretical. You’re saying they do not hold the faith of the church and are therefore excluded from the sacramental life of the church.”

She continued how odd she found it that the priest encouraged the wife to come back to church as long as she didn’t receive communion. The question arose about excommunication.

The professor found it odd “to just withhold communion and say but you’re not really excommunicated… Withholding communion is excommunication… It means the person is not welcome to receive any of the sacraments… The way back for them is through the sacrament of reconciliation.”

My question is if someone has been invited to continue participating in the Divine Liturgy is the professor correct to say the person has been excommunicated because they are denied the reception of the Eucharist?

 

[puzzleannie]

the action taken by the individual which constituted his public repudiation of Catholic teaching and practice resulted in his automatic excommunication. denial of communion is merely a public recognition of the fact that this individual has willingly, publicly separated himself from union with the Church, the Body of Christ.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Technically the couple was placed under the “interdict.” Since excommunication of a lay person generally follows some formal canonical action with notification by the bishop of that status this is not an excommunication (even for latae sententiae or “automatic” excommunication). Both the interdict and excommunication are considered “medicinal penalties” with an eye toward getting the individual(s) to recognize their differences with the Church and seeking reconcilliation.

Deacon Ed

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

The wife once managed a Planned Parenthood office and the husband voted to support the federal government’s controversial same-sex marriage bill last week

That is a heresy! it is punishable by excommunication. The priest did the right thing.

 

[cameron_lansing]

“With the backing of Timmins Bishop Paul Marchand, Fr. Lemire repeatedly asked Angus to reconsider his position, noting that the Catholic politician was ‘scandalizing members of our faith community,’ and warning him that he was placing himself in a position where he would have to be denied communion.” —TIMMINS, July 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Denial as Penalty
To deny admission to Holy Communion to the excommunicated (canon 1331) or interdicted (canon 1332) canon 915 requires that the penalty be imposed or declared. It cannot have been simply incurred (latae sententiae).

Penalties can only be imposed by an ordinary (such as a diocesan bishop or a competent religious superior), or one with that delegated power or a judge. It would not seem that the parish priest could either impose or declare an interdict.
**
Another possibility**
But he could deny communion, and would have to, on the basis of another reason.

Here’s why. The denial of communion (canon 915) is a separate institute in canon law from either interdict or excommunication (canons 1331 and 1332 ) since it may be inflicted for other reasons, namely upon “others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” In fact, the Declaration by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (July 6, 2000) used this canon in explaining why the divorced and remarried (without a declaration of nullity or a privilege of the faith) were prohibited from the reception of Holy Communion, even though not excommunicated or interdicted.

So after looking at the news reports as a canon lawyer, I am uncertain whether or not an interdict, a medicinal censure intended for the reform of the erring Catholic as Deacon Ed notes correctly, had been actually imposed or declared by the Bishop of Timmins. The imposition or declaration of a censure is different from the case of it being automatically incurred by the commission of an offense. A warning, while generally required before the imposition of a censure, also seems required in the case of those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.”

Perhaps the parish priest may have acted on the basis of

• obstinate persistence (i.e., the politician got warned but continued in his ways)
• manifest (publicly known in the community)
• grave sin (see next paragraph).

Note that all three conditions are necessary to invoke the canon.

The determination of the gravity, I suspect, turned to the traditional notion as the Catechism expresses it: “2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. 2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. . . . “

We should also note that canon 915 is placed in Book IV of the code, Sanctifying Office, rather than in Book VI, Sanctions in the Church. It is directed to the ministers of the Church. Excommunication and interdict prevent the reception of all sacraments, including that of confession. The application of canon 915 under the title of perseverant, manifest and grave sin allows one to make a valid sacramental confession though.

Heresy
On the heresy part, I would only reference the salient part of canon 751, “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” The process of declaring heresy is a fairly slow process and tends to be done in a Roman Congregation, such as CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

Is it that these people deny obstinately or doubt obstinately a certain truth regarding matrimony which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith (a technical term). Or is it they have just ignored ? To give three extreme examples. Even adulterers can believe in marital fidelity. Even murderers can believe it is wrong to murder. Someone who believes in the real presence may still commit a sacrilege against it. Similarly, one may sin against a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.

My personal opinion though is that these kinds of politicians and the Planned Parenthood folks have left the Church in reality long ago, even though they cling to the labels, and assert the “right” to tell the Church what we should believe. At least, they have severed themselves from full communion (i.e., unity) in a rather serious manner, need a change of heart and reconciliation with the Body of Christ.

Well, God will judge us all, and we have to pray for the wayward. All of us depend on divine mercy.

(Deacon) John Cameron MA Theol, JCL
Lansing, Michigan

 

[TJD]

Deacon John,

Thanks for the info.

So a person can be denied communion and not be interdicted or excommunicated. I also understood that the priest does have the authority to deny communion, depending on the circumstances (persistent manifest grave sin).

Is the priest in such a case required to inform the bishop of his action in regard the denial of communion? Would that then necessitate an interdict or excommunication of the individual or censure of the priest? It would seem that a clear decision by an ordinary would put things to rest.

Christ’s Peace,

TJD

 

[wjohnson]

You can be denied Communion, but still recieve the Anointing of the Sick, it’s not the same as being formally excommunicated.

 

[Catholic2003]

Canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters wrote an article about denial of communion under canon 915.

 

[TJD]

Catholic2003,

Thanks for the link. It is very consistent with Deacon John’s post. I now understand that the denial of the Eucharist under Canon 915 is separate from the Church’s penal process. It is simply an enforcement of the requirement to be in a state of Grace to receive communion.

However, I am still not clear on the priest’s authority to invoke 915. Deacon John said the priest has that authority and I believe him. It just seems to me that the priest would need the bishop’s approval even if after the fact. Another priest may not interpret persistent, manifest grave sin the same. Additionally the notoriety may be local so a priest unfamiliar with the situation would be required to offer the Eucharist to the person in question.

Christ’s Peace,

TJD

 

[cameron_lansing]

TJD:

However, I am still not clear on the priest’s authority to invoke 915. Deacon John said the priest has that authority and I believe him. It just seems to me that the priest would need the bishop’s approval even if after the fact. Another priest may not interpret persistent, manifest grave sin the same. Additionally the notoriety may be local so a priest unfamiliar with the situation would be required to offer the Eucharist to the person in question.

Christ’s Peace,

TJD

Commentators understand the obligation of the canon to fall on the individual ministers of Holy Communion (CLSA New Commentary, pp 1111).

It would seem more than prudent for the individual priest to consult with the bishop either before or after the fact. It will undoubtedly have repercussions for the bishop.

However, for a bishop to ban all ministers of Holy Communion from giving communion to a particular individual would require a penal process, since depriving someone from a sacrament, who is otherwise qualified to received it, would be a penalty.

And it may be true that in a different locality, that the condition of person is not manifest (i.e., publicly known in a parish or large part of the community). If so, then the canon does not place such an obligation on the minister to refuse communion, even if he might know of it privately.

In that case, refusal might be injurious to the right to a good reputation (c. 220), which is presumably enjoyed there. So the canon does not seem to bar communion where the sin is known only to a few.

At least in the case of the divorce/remarried with no annulment, we read from the Declaration of the Congregation for Legislative Texts, "On Communion for Divorced and Remarried Persons, " 24 June 2000, n. 3:

“The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.”

From this I would form the opinion that the pastor (normally the one responsible for the community) is responsible for forming the judgment which a deacon or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion would follow. After all, it is duty to see that no abuse creeps into sacred liturgy under the authority of the diocesan bishop (canon 528, para. 2)

God bless.

(Deacon) John Cameron
Lansing, MI

 

[TJD]

This thread has been great. Thanks for the explanation Deacon John.

So the use of Canon 915 can be seen as an act of mercy by the Priest towards the sinner. The person is put on notice that he really needs to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The person can either listen to the Priest or reject his spiritual guidance. None-the-less, the grave sin remains and the sinner has absolutely no excuse for not knowing his state. Should the sinner receive Holy Communion in such a state, I imagine he is making the devil’s work much easier in separating man from his maker.

One more question in this regard; Since Deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, do they have the authority and responsibility to refuse the Eucharist to one they know is persisting in manifest grave sin?

Christ’s Peace,

TJD