RS, '04: Grave Abuses, Continued

5/30/21

Duccio, "Annunciation of Death to the Virgin"

104: 1) The communicant intincting the Host himself or receiving the intincted host in the hand; 2) using non-consecrated bread or other matter for intinction; 3) attempting the consecration of hosts made of invalid matter;

106: 1) The pouring of the Blood of Christ from one vessel to another after the consecration; 2) containing the Blood of the Lord in flagons, bowls or other vessels not fully in accord with the established norms;

109: Celebrating Mass in a temple or sacred place of any non-Christian religion;

111: Failing to permit a priest—provided he presents commendatory letters—from celebrating or concelebrating the Eucharist;

115: Arbitrarily suspending the celebration of Mass for the sake of promoting a “fast from the Eucharist;”

117: Using common vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord made from ignoble material, or lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit, or which are merely containers, or made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that easily break, as well as metals that easily rust or deteriorate.

126: Celebrating Mass without any sacred vestments or with only a stole over the monastic cowl or religious habit or common clothes contrary to the liturgical books, even where there is only one minister participating;

131: Reserving the MBS in a place not subject in a secure way to the authority of the Bishop or where there is a danger of profanation;

132: Carrying the MBS to one’s home or to any other place contrary to the norm of Law;

133: 1) Conducting any profane business on the way to administer Holy Communion to the sick while carrying the MBS; 2) Administering Holy Communion to the sick contrary to the use of the prescribed Rite contained in the Roman Ritual;

Image: Duccio: "Annunciation of Death to the Virgin"

RS, '04: Grave Abuses

5/29/21

Duccio, "Appearance to Apostles"

92: 1) Failing to respect the choice of the participant to receive on the tongue or in the hand—unless giving in the hand risks profaning the MBS; 2) Failing to ensure Holy Communion given in the hand is consumed in the presence of the minister; 3) Giving Holy Communion in the hand when there is risk of profanation;

94: Participants administering Holy Communion to one another, even spouses at the Nuptial Mass;

96: Distributing things other than Holy Communion, such as unconsecrated hosts, in same the manner as the distribution of the Holy Communion, contrary to the prescriptions of the liturgical books;

101: Distributing Holy Communion using also the Chalice where even a small danger exists of the MBS being profaned;

102: Nevertheless ministering the Chalice even: 1) where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration; or 2) where there is difficulty arranging access to the chalice; or 3) where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty; or 4) where there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation; or 5) where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated;

[cont'd]

Image: Duccio, "Appearance to Apostles"

Delicts

5/28/21

Duccio, "Burial"

RS 172 regards the graviora delicta. The process for handling these delicts is reserved to the Apostolic See, specifically through the CDF. Four delicts are named: 1) throwing away the MBS or taking them away for sacrilegious ends, or 2) even attempting as much; 3) concelebrating Mass with ecclesial communions who don’t have validly ordained ministers; 4) consecration for sacrilegious ends in Mass of only one matter or of both matters outside of Mass.

RS 173 on grave matters refers reflexively to the earlier parts of this Instruction as well as to certain Canons in the CIC. The common teaching and established norms of the Church are integral to judging the gravity of the matter of specific abuses. Any putting at risk the validity & dignity of the MBS is objectively to be considered a grave matter. It, then, cites specifically twenty-eight of its own paragraphs which deal with matter that is objectively to be considered grave.

The twenty-eight paragraphs in RS are:

48-52: The matter of the Bread & Wine used for Mass;

56: The naming in the Canon of the Pope and local ordinary;

76: Uniting Penance & Mass in a single liturgical celebration;

77: Inserting the celebration of Mass into the setting of a common meal, or, without grave necessity, on a dinner table or in a dining hall;

79: Introducing into the Mass elements that are contrary to the prescriptions of liturgical books & taken from the rites of other religions;

91: Denying Holy Communion or any of the Sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed and are not prohibited by law;

(cont.)

Image: Duccio, "Burial"

RS, '04: Remedies

Duccio, "Christ, before Pilate"

5/27/2021

The Eighth and final chapter of Redemptionis Sacramentum is called “Remedies.” It deals with the means at the disposal of the Church to repair the injuries done though the abuse of the MBS. It describes three types of abuses: graviora delicta; grave matters; and other abuses. It reminds the bishop of those remedies for which he is responsible. It indicates when and how recourse must be had to the Apostolic See for remedies that are reserved to it. Lastly it describes the process for submitting complaints regarding the care of the MBS.

RS 169-171: These opening paragraphs of this chapter mention the falsehood that is committed whenever there is an abuse during the celebration of the sacred Liturgy. It cites Aquinas who identifies falsehood precisely in the contrariness of the manner of celebrating. The Church, by divine authority, establishes the manner for celebrating the sacred Liturgy in such a way that deserves observance. When its proper observance is directly withheld or immediately frustrated, a falsehood is perpetrated.

The biblical and liturgical formation of pastors and the faithful itself clarifies the understanding and presentation of the Liturgy and itself guards against the falsehood of abuses. The circumstance of persisting abuse demands that all legitimate means for safeguarding the rights and patrimony of the Church are undertaken in accord with the Church’s own procedures.

There are three varieties of abuses: 1) more grave; 2) grave; 3) others to be carefully avoided and corrected. Before proceeding to describe each of these, RS directs the reader to what it laid down earlier, in Chapter I, concerning the responsibility of each of the faithful to safeguard the liturgy from abuse.

Image: Duccio, "Christ, before Pilate"

Nullo, today, 83 years later.

5/26/2021

Duccio, "Appearance of Christ"

Today is the 83rd Anniversary of the SRC’s Instruction “Nullo Unquam Tempore” on the safeguarding of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Pius XI had ordered it to be published after confirming and ratifying it on the seventh of May, earlier the same month. The SRC had approved the Instruction in a plenary session on March 30th.

Nullo is a comprehensive review of the details of safeguarding the MBS. It is referred to explicitly by the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal as well as by the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum.” It regulates the way bishops and parish priests are to execute their responsibility to reserve the MBS in their dioceses and in their parishes. The Instruction aims at “the safest possible keeping of the Holy Eucharist and its entire preservation from injury of any kind.”

It proceeds principally interpreting the paragraphs of Canon 1269 of the 1917 Code. Its interpretation focuses on three main considerations: the tabernacle, its custody, and its key. It concludes by instructing bishops on how to regulate the observance of the prescriptions laid down.

Nullo is normative for reserving the MBS today. It’s relevance goes beyond a curious historical insight into late-modern preconciliar Church discipline. Rather, the Church has subsequently standardized its prescriptions in the current Missal and CIC.

Priests and bishops who take Nullo seriously will secure a central part of their responsibility to ensure that the Eucharist is kept at the heart of their flock.

"Nullo Unquam Tempore," English Translation published in the Australasian Catholic Record, 1938

Image: Duccio, “Appearance of Christ"

RS, 2004: EMHCs

5/24/2021

Duccio, "Christ Appearing to Mary"

RS 158 Describes the restriction of the conditions when the EMHC may exercise his function as limited only to these three:
sacred ministers are altogether lacking;
the sacred minister is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason;
the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged; a brief prolongation being not at all sufficient.

RS 159 EMHCs are never allowed to delegate to anyone the extraordinary function for which they have been specifically appointed.

RS 160 instructs bishops to consider the way recourse to EMHCs is had in his territory. He may issue special norms for the carrying out of this function when true necessity prompts the widespread appointment of EMHCs. His determinations are to be in accord with the law and considerate of the Church’s tradition.

RS 161-167 deal with preaching and celebrations carried out in the absence of a priest. We will pass over these as not particularly germane the purpose of this study.

RS 168 concerns priests who have left the clerical state. They are prohibited from exercising the power of order. Excepting for the case set forth in the law, it is not licit for them to celebrate the sacraments.

This section, Chapter Seven on Extraordinary Functions of the lay faithful, does not explicitly address laymen exposing or reposing the MBS for adoration. Can it be that the Eucharistic adoration of the MBS exposed has been so neglected by the sacred ministers that the great frequency with which it carried out almost exclusively by laymen is of such little concern as to merit hardly any mention?

Image: Duccio, “Christ appearing to Mary"

EMHCs

Duccio, "Descent of the Holy Spirit"

5/23/2021

RS, Chapter Seven, after its prefatory remarks turns first to the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Again, anything relating to the careful custody of the MBS concerns us here. So, those circumstances when this custody needs to be delegated to a laymen need to be well understood.

RS 154: This section opens with a reiteration of the prefatory remark that the sacred ministry of the priest in the liturgy is irreplaceable.

RS 155 Acknowledges the condition of “reasons of real necessity” which may prompt the appointment of EMHCs for an occasion or for a specified time.

RS 156 emphasizes the importance that name given to the role of the person specifically deputed in this instance expressly emphasizes the extraordinary nature of the function. Hence, “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” and not “special minister” or “Eucharistic minister,” etc. RS cautions again against the unnecessary and improper broadening of the name of the function.

RS 157 describes circumstances when EMHCs may not be appointed. Specifically, when the number of sacred ministers is sufficient for the distribution of Holy Communion, there is to be no such appointment of EMHCs. It then repeats this directive a second time. Where it first addressed the perspective of the priest, it reiterates the same point from the perspective of the appointed extraordinary minister instructing that an appointed minister is not to exercise his function when there are present sufficient sacred ministers. It then reprobates the contrary practice of sacred ministers abstaining from administering Holy Communion in order to hand over the function to laymen.

Urgent Prayers for More Vocations, etc.

Duccio, "Apostle Philip"

5/22/2021

RS 149, 150: These emphasize that the purpose of allowing for these extraordinary functions is to assist and not to replace the role of the sacred ministers.

RS 151: Emphasizes that true necessity is required for priests to seek recourse of the assistance of extraordinary ministers. It cites the 1997 interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiæ de Mysterio, “On Certain Questions Regarding Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest.” It restates the supplementary and provisional purpose of this recourse, explaining that “the fuller participation of the laity” is not what is intended. It adds that as often as necessity prompts such recourse to the supplemental and provisional assistance of extraordinary ministers that urgent prayers likewise be offered for more vocations to the priesthood. Here it cites JPII’s 2003, EE.

RS 152 cautions against use of this recourse as an occasion to disfigure the ministry of priests. Such disfiguration may involve priests themselves neglecting their liturgical and pastoral responsibilities in favor of the use of the purely provisional use of the extraordinary minister. Indiscriminate alteration of pastoral service between priests, deacons and laymen is a confusion of what responsibilities are proper to each and should thus altogether be avoided. RS 153 similarly adds that assuming the role or vesture of a priest or deacon by a layman is never licit.

Before proceeding to the first subsection of this chapter on EMHCs, let’s review what has been said so far on this topic of provisional assistance. The 1997 interdicasterial citation is helpful. The double understanding that recourse is only to be prompted out of true necessity and not for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity in the liturgy needs to be drilled into the minds of everybody, the contrary certainly having already too much taken hold. Urgent prayers for vocations, too, stands to be repeatedly emphasized.

Image: Duccio, "Apostle Philip"

Extraordinary Functions of the Lay faithful

Duccio, "Apostle Simon"

5/21/2021

RS 142-145 are concerned with Eucharistic Congresses and Eucharistic Processions for the purpose of promoting the adoration and Eucharistic piety of the faithful. The bishop is to lay down regulations governing how they are carried out. RS 143 recommends that Processions through the public streets be held wherever it is possible in the judgment of the bishop. It mentions these, especially in reference to the Feast of Corpus Christi. RS 144, acknowledging that procession cannot happen in all places, still cautions against the tradition being lost. It encourages seeking new ways of having them suited to the local conditions.

RS Chapter VII: Extraordinary Functions of the Lay faithful.

This chapter has prefatory paragraphs followed by four sections: 1) extraordinary ministers of holy communion (EMHC); 2) Preaching; 3) Particular Celebrations in the absence of a priest; 4) Those who have left the clerical state.

Before we dive into the specifics of this section it’s worth asking what it has to do with the security of the MBS. We’ve seen that the custody of the MBS is principally the responsibility of the priest. Nullo did indicate that a certain delegation was possible. But the priest remained ultimately responsible. Insofar, then, as a layman must handle or keep custody of the MBS, these paragraphs apply to him.

RS 146: This chapter’s opening paragraph emphasizes that there can be no substitute for the ministerial priesthood. It refers to the functioning of Christ within a community as its head as an exercize fulfilled sacramentally by the priest. It reminds that only the priest confects the sacrament of the Eucharist.

RS 147 speaks of the circumstances where the needs of the Church and the lack of ministers may require laymen to supply certain liturgical offices. This work is carried out according to the norm of the Church’s law. RS 148 mentions the important role of catechists in spreading the faith.

Perpetual

5/20/2021

Duccio, "Matthias"

RS 139 speaks of the right of the faithful at some point during the year to take part in the adoration of the MBS exposed. The local Ordinary has the duty to provide the available ministers so that the faithful can exercise this right.

RS 140 speaks of perpetual adoration. It sites the norms from EOM that we have already reviewed. It recommends this adoration to the care of the bishop. He should designate a church building for this purpose “at least in the cities and the larger towns.” It emphasizes the importance of Mass being celebrated in the church “frequently,” “rigorously” interrupting the period of the Exposition. The host for the Exposition, fittingly, should be consecrated at the Mass immediately preceding the time of Exposition.

It occurs to me that perpetual adoration requires man-power. In order for the Church, those in it, especially the MBS to be secure during an overnight period of prolonged exposition, able-bodied men are required as a deterrent to any who would do harm. If a local church lacks that man-power, such a prolonged time should be interrupted for the sake of the safeguarding of the sacrament.

RS 141 makes mention in an interesting way to guilds or associations for the Eucharist adoration. It entrusts these groups to the care of the Bishop. It speaks specifically of “even almost continuous adoration.” Deliberately to add these explicit modifiers, I think, is to emphasize that the focus is not on the group’s ability to muster its resources non-stop. Exactly not. It makes clear at the outset that the idea of “non-stop adoration” needs to be understood within the appropriate context, viz. what we are explaining, here.


Image: Duccio, "Matthias"

In and Outta Hell

5/19/2021

Duccio, "Apostle Jacob"

I’m concurrently starting both Milton’s PL and Dante’s DC. I’m three days in to Milton and on my canto 2 of the Inferno. So just as I’m on my way into hell with Virgil and Dante, I’m on my way out of hell with Satan. Good grief. Talk about Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I’m doing PL on tape. I’ll tell you the name of the reader, he’s excellent. I listened him do Gulag Archipelago. I’m doing Dante the old fashioned way.

This is just, perhaps a progress report, not a book report. I may offer a thing or two that strike me. With Dante, I read canto 1 out loud. Not bad. PL, I’m following the drama so far. I like the explanatory prefaces at the start of the chapters/books. Helps me know where we’re going.

Image: Duccio, "Apostle Jacob"

Arranging Exposition

5/19/2021

Duccio, "Andrew"

RS 136 speaks of the Ordinary’s duty to promote Eucharistic adoration with the people participating. It mentions two types of places: one where such devotion is already strong and another where there is almost a total lack of regard for the MBS.

RS 137 indicates the norms of the liturgical books as prescriptive of how Exposition is to be carried out. We have looked at these. It recommends the praying of the Holy Rosary before the MBS either reserved or exposed, indicating that it is “not to be excluded.” In further describing the prayer before the MBS it recommends contemplative prayer and that prayer which is aided by the reading of Scripture.

RS 138 speaks of the urgency of arranging at fixed times the presence always of at least some of the faithful. This is to avoid even for the briefest space of time the MBS exposed ever being left unattended. RS later indicates that any action to the contrary whereby the MBS exposed is left unattended constitutes a grave abuse.

This, I’ve found, is a problem where there are prolonged periods of exposition in parishes. It gives rise to the faithful reposing the MBS by themselves, contrary to the norms of the liturgical books, to say nothing of the devastating effect such abandonment of the safeguarding of the MBS has on pastor and the parish. It’s staggering to consider, when the MBS exposed is left unattended, what abuse it is subject to, entirely beneath the consideration of precisely the one who is entrusted with its safekeeping.

Image: Duccio, "Andrew"

Spiritual Communion, Visits

5/18/2021

Duccio, "Anunciation"

I commented that the English translation weakened the editio typica’s strong Latin phrase “etiam vitae suae testificatione” when it read “also by their personal witness.” I was not the only one who thought it was weak. The English translation of RS 134, citing verbatim JPII’s EE quotation preferred in its English translation to go with “even by the witness of their life.” Interesting.

There’s a difference between giving a personal witness and giving a witness with “your life.” The latter is stronger because it can easily imply witnessing with one’s life by laying it down. Saint Tarcisius comes to mind, the Third Century Roman Martyr who was killed by a mob while guarding the MBS.

I had noticed Google Translate algorithmically included “personal witness” as the preferred option for “suae testificatione.” But that’s Google and that’s an algorithm. Perhaps the algorithm is even preferring “personal” because of the existence of EE’s English. Whatever the case may be, just as I noticed RS also prefer the more direct “their lives,” I was rescued from thinking myself some stringent literalist.

Moving on.

RS 135 Oh, boy. This one’s on making visits to the MBS. Here we go. It describes the responsibility of the faithful to make visits during the day to the MBS. It indicates three purposes for these visits: 1) proof of gratitude; 2) pledge of love; 3) debt of adoration. Paul VI’s “Mysterium Fidei” is cited here which encourages visits to the MBS for the same reasons.

RS 135 indicates “communion of desire,” perhaps more commonly known as spiritual communion. Communion of desire more accurately describes it, however. It’s properly distinguished from Full Sacramental Communion which involved the direct consuming of the MBS. Communion of desire both anticipates and follows from Sacramental Communion and is a grace available to the faithful anytime, even apart from receiving Holy Communion. This communion is what is encouraged by visiting the MBS. It is why the law of the Church, which RS 135 mentions in conclusion, obliges pastors to leave open their churches where the MBS is reserved. We’ve discussed this law already.

Image: Duccio, "Anunciation"

Tangent: Order, Character

5/17/2021

Duccio,
"Annunciation"(Fragment)

Excursus on the Sacramental character of Order.

Does everything have to be juridical? Is it the priest’s personal ontological configuration that causes his ecclesiastical distinction. Or is it the mind of the lawgiver that causes ecclesiastical distinction?

The law certainly distinguishes between layman and cleric.

This may be related to whether there is a sacramental character of the diaconate. Deacons are clerics, ecclesiastics, churchmen. The question is debated (to my knowledge) whether their ordination into the diaconate causes in the man an ontological configuration.

Can a secular, diocesan priest consider himself a layman in all things save ontological configuration and church stuff?

There is one priest, Jesus Christ. Ministerial priesthood, baptismal priesthood, all priesthood is a participated priesthood in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is participated to a greater or lesser degree. Ministerial priesthood differs from the common priesthood in more than just degree. It also differs in essence. It’s still participated. But it’s a participation in the high priesthood of Christ the head of the Church. This headship, this standing at the front of the people has got to be where this essential difference resides, perhaps.

In what sense does the head differ from all other parts of the rest of the body? In this sense does the participation of those men in the ministerial priesthood differ from the participation of the rest of their brothers and sisters in the common priesthood.

In Mediator Dei, paragraph 20, Pius XII does number on this. Christ the priest. Worth a deeper dive, another time.

Image: Duccio, "Annunciation" (Fragment)

Back to RS, '04: Witnessing with Your Life

5/16/2021

Duccio, "Magi"

We spent most of this past week on a couple of different tangents. Let’s see if we can get back on track with working through these documents. We may next go to PCLT’s 2000 Declaration, but first let’s make sure we’re not leaving any loose ends lying around.

How did you get on the EM tangent to begin with? We were looking previously at EOM. When it began to describe Lengthy Exposition it referred to EM. EM refers several times to the number of the faithful who come together for lengthy exposition.

EOM’s section on exposition refers constantly to EM. EOM, in 1973, essentially converts the 1967 Instruction (EM) into the new, current, liturgical ritual for Eucharistic Worship Outside of Mass.

But before all of this we were working through RS which, after dealing with the reservation of the MBS moves to worship. Let’s go back there. That’s where the tangents began.

RS 134 begins by quoting JPII’s EE, paragraph 25, which speaks of the great value and of worshiping the MBS outside of Mass and its close link to the celebration of the Mass itself. RS 134 indicates that devotion, both public and private, to the MBS outside of Mass should be “vigorously promoted.” RS 134 concludes by reminding pastors of their duty to give their lives witnessing to the cult of the Eucharist, especially the MBS exposed.

I pause. I notice a weak English translation compared with the editio typica of JPII’s EE. I hope the consequence of this weakening isn’t a diminution of Eucharistic piety. For example, where EE’s Latin describes the sacred duty of pastors to sustain the Eucharistic cult “etiam vitae suae testificatione” that is “even with the witness of their lives,” the English reads, “also by their personal witness.” The Latin is stronger.

Image: Duccio, "Magi"

Do No Harm

5/15/2021

Duccio, "Agony"

Another common reason to refuse to administer Holy Communion to someone is that it may cause harm. Let’s set aside the real and serious spiritual harm caused by receiving unworthily and focus for the moment, rather, on physical harm. Two instances come to mind: NPO orders and quarantine.

Priests often arrive at the hospital or to the sick bed after a doctor has already given the order that the patient is to take nothing by mouth (NPO is short for the Latin nil per os). Attempting, repugnant as it is even to consider, force-feeding the host to a sick person who can hardly swallow is not only not advised, but will likely result in the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. Such a person is not in that moment to be admitted to Holy Communion, their most recent, previous Communion sufficing for their Viaticum.

Similarly, someone quarantined due to an infectious disease might be inaccessible to the priest. Or, likewise, the priest may find himself needing to quarantine thereby excluding everyone from Sacramental Communion.

Avoiding doing harm in these two instances is the perfectly reasonable and even necessary decision on the part of the minister. These are cases where the minister must refuse to give it due to the unhealthiness of the participants. No one would fault the minister for a second for his discernment in such a situation.

This past year, pastors all across the country made exactly this very discernment lasting for a period of months at a time, and in some places even longer. The minister of communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are physically unable to receive it.

Is it possible to consider that these pastors were using the administration of the sacraments to cudgel the faithful into behaving a certain way? While there were some pastors who were criticized for refusing access to confession for anyone not yet vaccinated, those pastors were corrected. Even so, it’s hard to imagine, as mistaken as those pastors were, that they were trying to weaponize or instrumentalize the sacrament for the sake of some other purpose. Rather, on the face of it, it’s simpler to understand that there are some practical circumstances involving the physical health of the faithful that call for the refusal of the administration of the sacrament.

By now it should be clear, there are times for the priest to administer the sacrament and times for him not to administer it. The timing and presentation of these circumstances is made clear by the circumstances themselves. The circumstances, while they are not intended by the minister of the sacraments, do affect whether or not he proceeds with their administration.

The choice to exclude millions of the faithful from Holy Communion through the order to suspend the celebration of Mass for the faithful was a serious one. It was done, obviously for the sake of protecting them from the harm caused by the spread of a deadly virus. But can those same pastors who so protect their faithful from harm by excluding them from Holy Communion also promise Holy Communion at the same time to the promoters of the slaughter of the innocent unborn?

Image: Duccio, "Agony"

To Administer or Not to Administer?

5/14/2021

Duccio, "Agony"

Pastors benefit from Ed Peters's work on hard Holy Communion cases

The matter of the administration of Holy Communion requires pastors to have their act together. The Canon Lawyer, Ed Peters, has done excellent work over many years explaining Canon 915 and its application. His 2019 post, “Canon 915’s moment has arrived” on his blog together with his 2011 essay called “The Cuomo-Communion Controversy” in CWR both investigate the supposed contrast between the Church’s law and her pastoral practice. They can be helpful to us.

Harsh Penalty or Good Practice?

One point Peters makes is the difference between sacramental discipline and penal sanctions. The norms which govern sacramental discipline are distinct from the norms establishing penalties. Rather than being norms that contrast with each other, they operate in altogether distinct ways. Sacramental Discipline governs the Church’s responsibility to administer the Sacraments, its norms being found in Book IV of the Code. Penal Sanctions govern the Church’s responsibility to use coercive power against its offending members, with its norms in Book VI. Sacramental Discipline requires the prudent execution of the minister’s sacramental responsibility according to a pre-determined set of commonly occurring circumstances, even those circumstances that may happen rather infrequently. Penalties require strict interpretation of carefully defined crimes and involve due process.

Peters also explains that excommunication is a penalty sanctioned by the Church in accord with the law. Required for its execution are laws prohibiting certain crimes, the procedure against an alleged perpetrator and the adjudication of the case by the competent authority. One of the most obvious effects of the penalty of excommunication is the exclusion from participation in Sacramental Communion.

Exclusion from Holy Communion

The effect of exclusion from Holy Communion, however, also has other causes which are themselves not penalties at all. Non-Catholics are excluded from Holy Communion as are young people who are not yet prepared. So too are the faithful who have not fasted from the previous hour or who know themselves first to require absolution before approaching. In short, anyone lacking proper preparation can find themselves indisposed and thus warranting exclusion from participating in Holy Communion at any given time. The Church’s sacramental discipline guides both the faithful and the Sacrament’s ministers in discerning individual cases.

While the effect, the exclusion from Holy Communion, is the same for someone obstinately persisting in manifest serious sin as it is for an excommunicate, it is an effect that is nevertheless arrived at from two very different paths. In the case of excommunication, exclusion is the result of the lengthy and carefully adjudicated penal process. In the case of someone publicly unworthy due to their obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin, exclusion is the spontaneous reaction of a discerning minister executing his responsibility simultaneously to safeguard the individual presenting himself, the surrounding community and most importantly, the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Pastors are ‘on it’

In the parish, the discernment of cases of exclusion from Holy Communion involving any of the faithful who are obstinately persisting in manifest serious sin is the responsibility of the pastor. The Church has clarified this with its 2000 Declaration concerning the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried (cf. paragraph no. 3). At any given Mass where, say, the pastor is not present, it would be the priest responsible for the community, that is, the priest celebrating the Mass.

A less serious, but no less real example of a minister spontaneously excluding someone from Holy Communion would be the case of an absentminded gum-chewing six year-old who somehow ends up at the altar rail at communion time. No one would accuse the minister of usurping to himself some sudden, unsanctioned authority of meting out the penalty of excommunication as he passed over the six year-old and moved on to the next person in line. Ministers are well-practiced at executing this momentary discernment, even if they get a couple difficult cases wrong due to a lack of clarity or the fog of the moment. The Sacramental Discipline guides ministers in the common cases, even the increasingly common case of the publicly unworthy.

There’s no need for pastor’s to feel in the dark on this question. Peters’s explanations, with characteristic frankness, favor the dispelling of ignorance that can often surround the Church’s norms. While difficult situations do require study, Peters encourages us that “none of this is canonical rocket science.” Christ’s desire for our participation in his Body and Blood favors our diligence in discerning how best to administer so great a mystery as effectively as possible. Our deeper understanding of the differences between the penalty of excommunication and the minister’s spontaneous reaction to an immediate set of circumstances will serve to build up the Communion of Saints.

[I posted this to "The Rectory" Substack, also.]

Image: Duccio "Last Supper"

Holy Communion: Must Refuse?

5/13/2021

Guariento, "Ascension"

“The minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy.” -Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried (24 June 2000).

“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.” -(Ibid.)

“No ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.” -(Ibid.)

“I shall follow what…those who govern the Church establish…So help me God, and God’s Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.” -Oath of Fidelity.

Bishop Strickland observed how current discussion related to Holy Communion for pro-abortion politicians seems to have lost reference to the principle of subsidiarity. I caught up with him a couple of nights ago at a local rectory before Confirmation and the topic came up of the pastor’s responsibility in the matter. He wondered how desirable it really is for national bishops conferences to be weighing in on how a priest should be exercising his role of determining whether or not to administer Holy Communion.

What can a national or regional bishop committees add to what the Church already provides? They cannot pronounce any binding regional policy that contradicts the universal law of the church to provide diligent protection for the Eucharist, as well as for the rights of the faithful to participate in the sacraments according to the norm of law. Are regional or national committees in a better position than pastors to respond to the circumstances surrounding individuals seeking to participate in the sacraments at any given moment?

Stay tuned for a slow read through PCLT’s 2000 Declaration on Holy Communion to the Divorced & Remarried (it’s not that long, only a few paragraphs). It’ll be healthy for us to take our time with it since we, as pastors can sometimes be left with the sense that the solution to our problems is out of our hands. PCLT makes it very clear that the case is really the opposite. The solution has been placed exactly in our anointed hands, entrusted to us as a sacred responsibility. Will we have the faith enough to “discern the Body”?

Image: Guariento, "Ascension"

Exposition of the MBS Ad Libitum for Private Devotion

5/12/2021

Duccio, "Triptych," c. 1308

On July 17, 1894 the SRC resolved Nine doubts that had been asked on various matters pertaining to the liturgical rites. The second of the nine dubita dealt with the private Eucharistic devotion of a priest: specifically, whether it is permissible that he should open the tabernacle for his private devotion and, once he’s done with his prayers as he sees fit, then to close it. The answer came back “negative.”

Looking back at this dubitum based on the mind of the Church expressed in the subsequent magisterium it’s possible to identify some reasons why the response was negative.

Too few people.

In one sense, the instructions have been clear about avoiding Exposition when there are too few people. A single person, even if he be a priest, does not constitute a “suitable” number of the faithful, let alone a “large” number or even “some.”

Public or private devotion.

The principle reason for reserving the MBS is the communion of the sick. Yet, the practice of worshiping the MBS reserved for this purpose gives rise immediately to both the public and private devotion of the faithful which the Church should also vigorously promote. There are liturgical books for the carrying out of exposition. The prescriptions laid down there for worshiping the MBS outside of Mass must always be followed. Obedience to such norms, far from taxing or burdening even one’s private devotion, strengthens and forms it correctly.

More reasons…?

Image: Duccio, "Triptych," c. 1308"

How Many Present for Exposition?

5/11/2021

Duccio, "The Crucifixion"

One of the main concerns that I currently see regarding exposition of the MBS has to do with the number of the faithful present at any given time. How frequently does it happen that the MBS is left entirely alone? How frequently does it happen that there are only one or two people present? It’s my impression that this happens so frequently, there being so few people present, that it has become the norm. And Father, who is in charge of safeguarding the MBS not only permits it but accommodates it by modifying his own expectations. As long as there’s a signup sheet with a couple of names on it at any given time, that seems to be sufficient for him. But is it? If the signup sheet had forty or fifty names on it for a given time, or twenty or thirty, or even ten or twelve, then perhaps the case could be made there there are sufficient people wishing to participate. But none or one or two? What if someone’s sick, or can’t make it, or running late? Or has to leave early? Or use the bathroom? Or is tired and falls asleep in the middle of their time before the MBS exposed? Should Father then further burden them with the responsibility of finding themselves a replacement at the last minute? All of these contingencies are obviated by Father following the prescriptions laid down and only exposing the MBS for public veneration when there is present a sufficiently adequate if not large number of the faithful.

This may mean that periods of exposition need to occur less frequently or to be abbreviated somewhat. But this is in order to avoid the abuse of public exposition before too few of the faithful.

I don’t want this to sound like I’m anti-Eucharistic Adoration. To the contrary. I’m Pro Exposition, as long as it’s done according to the mind of the Church. Healthy, robust promotion of the Lord’s Real Presence and our obligation to adore him there is the mark of a healthy local church. Anemic attendance, frequently very few people there on the other hand is a sign there is little honoring of the MBS going on in the place. This may already be evident, but is there really need to highlight it by turning out only too few people for the public veneration of the MBS. This is a responsibility that rests squarely on the shoulders of the pastors, promote Eucharistic piety or lose it.

We’ll next treat the question whether it’s permissible for Father to expose the MBS for his own private devotion. That’s been asked to the SRC and answered.

Image: Duccio, "The Crucifixion"