- Thank you, Thomas J. McKenna. This is triumph for the life of the Church. Blessings upon you. You time and talent and treasure… thank you.
- Thank you, Raymond Cardinal Burke, for these your efforts to defend the Most Blessed Sacrament, back in the day when rebels were setting up the apostasy and mockery of Jesus we see rampant everywhere today.
- Thank you, Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado, who way back in the day headed up the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.
- Thank you, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who guided and protected Canon 915.
Just guessing at the timeline, but I think this is what happened back in the day:
- A certain parish in Australia, a most filthy liberal rotten dark parish, most anti-Catholic, had perhaps the highest number of public unrepentant grave sinners receiving Holy Communion in the world. This maelstrom of evil sucked many into its vortex, utterly destroying deacons, priests, bishops and Cardinals who all had to have a hand in the ongoing evil. The higher ups surely tried to defend themselves in written blather vomited out to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
- Surely in response to “some authors” and similar situations, but very much those involved in whatever way with this particular parish, the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, CDF, ghost-wrote an interpretation of Canon 915 for the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts.
- On 24 June 2000, Cardinal Herranz signed and published what the CDF had written as an authentic interpretation of Canon 915, which is about denying Holy Communion to public, that is, notorious unrepentant grave sinners.
- Who would’ve guessed, but not long afterwards yours truly was assigned to that parish. Canon 915 was put into effect and the shock waves of that nuclear explosion went around the world. 😎 The vindictive revenge against me was immediate and vicious, and threw me around the world into the depths of the caves of the library of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, where, for the next years, the thesis defending the Immaculate Conception in Genesis 3:15 was penned. Jesus is so good. 😎
- Not long after my removal from Down Under, the member Cardinals of the CDF congregated at the Feria quarta, that is, their regular Wednesday meeting, and were deciding on deleting Canon 915 from the Code of Canon Law. No surprise there. I’m sure there were unending phone calls from Australia that were frantic to make sure that our Lord would continue to be dishonored in the Most Blessed Sacrament. But there were two surprises: (1) The Cardinal members were reminded of that parish and what yours truly had done with Canon 915 and then of the subsequent revenge meted out to me. (2) They changed their minds and kept Canon 915 in the Code of Canon Law. 😎
I’m tempted to get a license plate for the Toyota which reads [CIC 915]. Is that bragging? Well, I suppose. That’s how weak I am. On the other hand, I do want to point out by way of experience to my fellow priests and bishops that our Lord does take care of those who are smacked down hard for His sake. Truly. Have no worries. Jesus is the Sovereign High Priest, the great King of the Heavens and the Earth.
And if there are those who, armed with this little volume penned by Cardinal Burke, deny Holy Communion to the powerful and public sinners of our day who seem to especially enjoy mocking our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, know that however much you are smacked down by your fellow priests and bishops, it is Jesus Christ who will support you. You honor Him. You protect Him. It is He who will introduce you to our Heavenly Father in Heaven, as His gift to our Heavenly Father.
For the sake of completeness, the authentic interpretation of Canon 915 is included here.
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS – DECLARATION –
CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED
The Code of Canon Law establishes that “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” (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of “grave sin”, it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who “obstinately” persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:
- The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.”
This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term “unworthy”: “Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist” (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
- Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance.
The phrase “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:
a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;
b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.
Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.
- Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.
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.
- Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
- The Church reaffirms her maternal solicitude for the faithful who find themselves in this or other analogous situations that impede them from being admitted to the Eucharistic table. What is presented in this Declaration is not in contradiction with the great desire to encourage the participation of these children in the life of the Church, in the many forms compatible with their situation that are already possible for them. Moreover, the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord, particularly during this Holy Year of the Great Jubilee.
Vatican City, June 24, 2000. Solemnity of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist
Julián Herranz
Titular Archbishop of Vertara
President
Bruno Bertagna
Titular Bishop of Drivasto
Secretary
By the way, and just to say, since this little volume was sent out to every single priest and bishop in these USA…
THE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS HAVE NO EXCUSE
Hah! As soon as you saw that title to this post, admit it, you thought I was referring to Pope Francis, whom I love to pieces. Instead, it seems there is a movement in the Church to elect a new Pontiff, for which action, I contend, the world and the Church is not now prepared, not until Pope Benedict clarifies what it is that his Archbishop Secretary said a while back about his sharing the Petrine Ministry. It would not do to have three Popes, two of whom are, you know…
There’s the Roman Curia which in its various dicasteries puts out all sorts of documents, some better than others, some worse than others. Is all of that the magisterium? In a way, yes. Is it papal magisterium if those documents are provided with an introductory speech given to, say, the Diplomatic Corps, as was the 1993 paper of the Biblical Commission on Interpretation of the Scriptures in the Church (with the caveat that Paul VI ripped the Commission away from the Holy Office so that it is only under its grouping but not part of its teaching authority)? Well, it is the Pope who provides that introductory speech, but even Cardinal Ratzinger at the time attacked the sycophantic ultramonist idea that this had to be given religious assent.
In summary: Yes, O.K., fine, Amoris laetitia is a document put our by the Roman Curia and the Holy Father and it does purport to do some teaching, but in a non-impositional, encouragement of dialogue manner. Call it magisterial all you want, but if it is non-authentic, you are not obliged to follow it. You can cherry pick good stuff, but really the good should be interpreted in view of the bad. You can attack the bad stuff despite whatever else good there is.
ARISE! LET US BE GOING! 