Replies

But unless the sin is manifest, i.e. a sin the priest knows, and one which is clearly known by most of the congregants, and unless he is sure they have not repented and received absolution prior to this Holy Communion, he ought not publicly deny the Sacrament.

It is true that a priest should deny communion to people who are in a state of grave sin that is manifest to the majority of people present, but the situation is much more complicated than the Monsignor makes it out to be here and canonists have been falling on both sides of the fence on this issue. The term in canon 915, "manifest, grave sin," does not necessarily mean that the sin has to be publicly known by "most people" present. It may also mean that a sin will soon be publicly known. I believe that the Latin of the canon may also be interpreted to mean that a priest may deny a person communion whom he knows to be in a state of "manifestly grave sin." This does not mean that most people have to know about the state of sin, only that the state of sin needs to be manifestly grave to the priest.

Also, historically in the Church certain sins have been considered public sins by their very nature. These public sins were thus presumed to be manifest, and grave regardless of how many people in the congregation are aware of them. For instance, if a person is married in the Church and then obtains a civil divorce, and then remarries, such a person may be denied communion, because the sin is in a "manifest state of grave sin." (marriage and divorce are public acts, after all, even if most people don't know about them.) Also, when a couple in a congregation presents themselves in public as homosexual lovers and then goes to communion, that constitutes a "manifest, grave sin."

IIRC, priests also, may refuse to give communion if they have cause to believe that a manifestly, grave sin will SOON become public knowledge, and cause scandal to the faithful.

For reference, I have provided the text of canon 915 below:

Can. 915 — Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

For it sometimes happens that, in current circumstances where most receive Holy Communion, that to abstain would raise difficult questions and possibly result in a person announcing publicly that they are in mortal sin. To avoid this, the Church does allow this act of perfect contrition, which obviously includes the intent to seek the Sacrament of Confession to be valid).

As far as I am aware, the above statement is misleading. A perfect act of contrition allows one to go to communion but only under a grave, condition. Everyone else looking down on me if I don't go to communion, almost certainly does not constitute a grave reason.

One of the few grave reasons that allow a person to receive communion without sacramental absolution applies only to priests who must say a scheduled mass and cannot get anyone else to do it. If this happens, then a priest must make a perfect act of contrition before receives communion and go to confession as soon as possible.

Also, not going to communion does not publicly announce one is in a state of mortal sin. A person who does not go to receive could have already received communion the maximum number of times allowed in a single day, or it may be that they have not fasted for an hour before reception, etc. If the bishops increased the length of the Eucharistic fast beyond the laughably short one hour, then perhaps people would stop assuming that everyone who doesn't go to communion must be in a state of mortal sin. Also, to assume people are in a state of mortal sin may also constitute the sin of rash judgement.

The conclusion is good but the etymology is suspect. It is more likely com+munis, where munis is the root of ammunition.

The monsignor’s etymology is a punning etymology, but it is still a good pun and relevant.

We need more public excommunications. I fear that things will get bad enough that our pastors will finally yield to this necessity. If Walker wins tonight, as I hope he does, I fear we will soon see violence.

Salvation, thank you for the thread.

Only consecrated hands should
touch the sacred host.

Maybe this has been shared, the images in this Youtube
are so touching. It’s a series, 11 or so Youtubes.
This is #2. To go with the video, it’s not a traditional hymn but I like this song about Mary, Our Lady.

Oh, the beauty of the faith....

The Passion of the Catholic Church.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m03bUsL02WU