Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!
I received a question from a reader this morning:
Without any regard for c. 915, which is the morally correct thing for a priest to do: give the Holy Eucharist to some he knows – who in fact has admitted to the priest right before Mass – that they are committing sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion and obey a policy laid down by his ordinary saying that he must not deny anyone Holy Communion, or deny them Holy Communion and disobey the policy of his ordinary?
It depends on how well known the person’s actions/thoughts/declarations are. Can. 915 says that a person must be persevering in manifest grave sin, that is to say, it must be manifest (apparent, disclosed, public, evident, unmistakable, observable, visible, ascertainable) that a person is doing gravely sinful things.
By coincidence, today the Canonical Defender, Prof. Peters has, on his exceptional blog In The Light Of The Law (go spike his stats), a manifestly useful post about the concept of “manifest”. My emphases, slight reformating, and comments.
A brief thought on the phrase ‘manifest sin’ in Canon 915
March 17, 2012
As I look through the continuing blogosphere commentary on the lesbian/Communion case, I see many people confusing the concept of “manifest sin” in Canon 915 with the notion of, I dunno, something like “manifestly sinful”. Those two phrases mean different things*, I suggest, and Canon 915 speaks only in terms of the former, not the latter.
In 2008 I published a CLSA advisory opinion on Canon 915 and two years later posted it on my Canon 915 resource page. I paraphrase part of that opinion for use today:
Manifest. The additional requirement that gravely sinful behavior be manifest prior to withholding the Eucharist helps distinguish Canon 915, which operates in realm of public order, from Canon 916, which informs one’s personal responsibility to receive the Eucharist worthily. [Get that? Can. 915 - public, can. 916 - private.]
Reception of Communion at Mass is a public action in service to rendering liturgical worship to God; it is not the place for the proclamation of another’s private behavior. [Which is why when you come up to Fr. Z for Communion wearing, I dunno, a "rainbow sash" on a day when a pro-homosexuality groups say they are going to churches wearing rainbow sashes, Fr. Z will deny you Communion. It is a manifest, public gesture during the public distribution of Communion.]
However sinful it might be, conduct that is not already widely known in the community is not manifest [NB:] as canon law understands that term in this context. In something of a parallel to Canon 1340 § 2 (which prohibits imposing public penances for occult transgressions) and Canon 1330 (which prohibits any penalties in cases where no one has perceived the offense) the public withholding of the Eucharist for little known sins, even though they might well be grave, is not permitted under canon law. [Get that?]
Some folks seem to get the canonical distinction between public and private conduct but think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin. They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here. Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard. + + +
* Example: I keep saying that a would-be Communion recipient’s brief disclosure to a minister a few minutes before Mass that she has a female “lover” does not suffice to verify, among other things, that the sin apparently being admitted to is canonically manifest in the community; others say, c’mon, lesbian sexual activity is manifestly sinful. See? [See?] I’m talking about what Canon 915 actually says, while they are talking about what they think Canon 915 says.
Thank you, Dr. Peters, for the manifestly useful distinctions.
Qui bene distinguit, bene docet.
Go buy can. 915 stuff now! Click HERE.