|
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:
1. 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.
2. 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
immutability;
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
(Official Translation)
|
Topics
Promulgation
