The "Judgement"Call

[NightFisher]

Like many Catholics, I have heard lots and lots of different interpretations of the extraordinary synod on the family. For the most part that has slowed down. While I tried to stay informed, I was (am) probably not as knowledgeable as possible. But because there has been so much controversy, I have a related question.
Clergy are called to shepherd God’s flock and act not only in persona Christi, but also (inasmuch as we should all act) as Christ would as well. To love God and love others. However, there are a lot of debates about who should be receiving the Eucharist and other sacraments. The general consensus is this–if you are in a state of mortal sin, you should not receive the Eucharist (for your own well-being). Clergy are meant to protect the infinitely important souls of their flock, while also trying not to judge them. I am not a priest, deacon, etc., so I am curious, how do they decide whether or not they should administer the Eucharist to somebody that they are pretty sure is in mortal sin? On one hand, they do not truly know the heart of the person and whether they are contrite, so they should not judge. On the other hand, that person’s soul is so important, that they must try to protect the person as much as possible from eating/drinking judgement upon his or her self. I realize that this should, in fact, be largely up to the person who wants to receive, but it does not seem like this is the case during the discussions I have heard. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

[underacloud]

The Canon law that covers this issue states:

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.

how do they decide whether or not they should administer the Eucharist to somebody that they are pretty sure is in mortal sin?

From the above, communion should only be refused if the person is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”. So I would say that a priest being “pretty sure” someone is in mortal sin does not meet this criteria. The sin must be manifest - that is, known to many people. And serious of course. And obstinate, which is to say the priest must know that they are refusing to desist, in which case he would presumably need to discuss with them in order to assertain this element.

The remaining canon laws covering this issue generally place the responsibility on the person to self-exclude from receiving, rather than placing any onus on the priest. In fact, other than cases covered by Canon 915, I’d say a priest should not withhold eucharist:

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

Of course, as with all matter of canon law, I’m happy to be corrected by any experts who know the law better than I do.

 

[NightFisher]

That’s a very helpful answer actually. I’m not very familiar with Canon Law, although I hear it used quite often.
So how would this play out for those that are divorced/remarried, in an opposite-sex civil marriage, a same-sex union, or even someone that was seen (maybe by even just the priest) to be stealing money from the collection basket prior to Communion? (I didn’t want to single out just the hot-button issues…)

 

[Lamentation]

That’s a very helpful answer actually. I’m not very familiar with Canon Law, although I hear it used quite often.
So how would this play out for those that are divorced/remarried, in an opposite-sex civil marriage, a same-sex union, or even someone that was seen (maybe by even just the priest) to be stealing money from the collection basket prior to Communion? (I didn’t want to single out just the hot-button issues…)

Realistically, Canon 915 says that those who have been publicly excommunicated, given an interdict (which is an official declaration that a person is not in good standing) by the relevant authorities (generally a Bishop), or are quite obviously in a state of Mortal Sin are to be actively denied communion by a Eucharistic minister.

Otherwise, (as previously stated) it’s really up to the person receiving communion to self-exclude, as (for example) there are a few things (e.g. abortion) that incur automatic excommunication (which allows for situations where the priest may not know they are in a state of excommunication).

 

[underacloud]

So how would this play out for those that are divorced/remarried, in an opposite-sex civil marriage, a same-sex union, or even someone that was seen (maybe by even just the priest) to be stealing money from the collection basket prior to Communion? (I didn’t want to single out just the hot-button issues…)

For the divorced/remarried, it is difficult, which is (in part) why there are a couple of synods to address difficult family issues, but in general they should not be receveiving and their pastor may well refuse them (depending on specifics). There are some exceptions - if they are living in continence they may receive, but even then it is suggested they receive in a parish where they are not known, so that there is no potential scandal, which there may be in their own parish.

For people in same-sex unions, it would depend on how obvious (ie “manifest”) it is. In Australia a few years ago we had gay people attending mass at our Cathedral in Sydney wearing gay pride sashes and going up to receive communion. They were denied communion because they had chosen to make their sin manifest, by wearing their sashes. It was just a political stunt. But I personally know gay Catholics who do not make their personal lives know within their parish and they frequently receive. I’m not saying I support their receiving, but it is a case in which there is no clear reason for their priest to deny them.

As for someone stealing from the collection…I would hope someone deals with them well before they are approaching for communion.

 

[Vico]

That’s a very helpful answer actually. I’m not very familiar with Canon Law, although I hear it used quite often.
So how would this play out for those that are divorced/remarried, in an opposite-sex civil marriage, a same-sex union, or even someone that was seen (maybe by even just the priest) to be stealing money from the collection basket prior to Communion? (I didn’t want to single out just the hot-button issues…)

Scandal is also a sin. Giving a bad example leads others into sin.