Much to Adam's Relief: The Resurrection

We can come across an idea or insight that completely changes the way we think about something.  We could be in a terrible place in our life and not even know it.  The Resurrection is a good place to find new meaning.

The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a vast and underdeveloped piece of real estate for gaining direction in our lives.  There is an unfortunate tendency in the Church today to think that the resurrection of one’s body is of little consequence for the way we ought to live.  Of course, seeing the world in a predominantly spiritual way is the right thing to do. We think of life on earth and eternal life through the eyes of the Spirit we might say.  Unfortunately, however, the complete elimination of the importance of the meaning of the human body from the concept of human salvation is not an authentic Catholic approach.  Practically, many of us make the mistake of thinking that it is enough to let Jesus Christ bear the cross on which He battles against evil, while we remain bystanders. 

Are we to expect the salvation of our souls without living righteously for Him while here in our mortal bodies?  Jesus manifests His wounded, side, hands and feet to the Apostles thus showing them and us that sin has a lasting effect.  Doesn’t He mean that we too must bear this fight in our own bodies? On a more positive note, when He eats fish in front of them, isn’t this action reinforcing the fact that the human body, with its affections, is important in the Resurrection, in Eternity?  Even if Grandma is experiencing perfect happiness in Heaven, her happiness will increase when she gets her body back.  Our bodies have meaning.  Everything about the human body has meaning. And the harm done to the human person, both body and soul, is something that must be healed by the power of the grace of Christ.  The Great Physician gives us the medicine of salvation, but in and through our bodies we must follow our Divine Doctor's orders: “You must deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow me.” (Mt 16:24)

Here is another point to ponder.  Isn’t it interesting, as the Acts of the Apostles says, that the Son of Man’s life was exchanged for the life of a murderer?  Peter said, “You denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you.” (Acts 3:14) What an indictment that is!  What does a murderer do?  He kills the body.  So the one who saved the human person through the Resurrection of the body, through restoring life to the body, is put to death instead of one whose true crime was killing the body.

It has been quite clear since the beginning of time that sin destroys the body.  This was always Satan’s intent.  He hates the human body.  Jesus was put to death in the body on account of sin and conquers Satan through this as He rises from the dead.  Sin enters into human history as a rejection of God at the same time as its bite injects its deadly poison into the human body.  The first sin is disobedience to God born out of distrust for His creation.  He created the human person, masculine and feminine, with all their differences and with each of their bodies being gifted for their proper roles on earth. 

Adam would have understood immediately the meaning of the wounded side of Christ.  We can surely imagine Adam gazing upon the Crucifixion as the lance opened Jesus’ side. The Old Adam would know and understand the importance of this because it is from his side that the first woman came.  From the side of Christ, the New Adam, flow the blood and water that give life to the bride of Christ, the Church.  He would know that this New Man does not run.  He does not shrink from the protection of His bride and He most certainly does not cause her to sin.  He helps her avoid sinning, all the time.  Even now, we can almost hear the sigh of relief as Adam witnesses, first hand, the undoing of his failure.

So Adam, where are you? Man of today, where are you?  Are you an old Adam or a new Adam?  Where are you, Adam, when your bride, your Eve, is subject to the threat of losing her soul through disobedience to God? Is she going to suffer anew on your account? Her body is at risk of suffering for all eternity because you would allow her to be used for an immoral purpose.  You Christian men, today, do you respect your wives, your beloved, your female friends and acquaintances? Are you like the old Adam or the new Adam, Jesus?  Do you distrust her body?  Do you seek to distort the feminine beauty of her body by pressure to do things below her human and feminine dignity? Do you distort the truth of love for the female body? Do you women distrust your own bodies? Do you fall prey to the domination that came from the fall so present in our culture?  You see, this is the root of the current crisis that the bishops are battling with the President.  That is why there is such a moral problem with contraception and sterilization.  They are sins against the body.  They are sins of distrust of God and his creation of the body.  These acts are choices for the life of the original murderer, the ancient serpent, over the life of the Savior whose body is given up to nourish the Church. They are sins against the Resurrection.

The power of the Resurrected Man, Christ, the New Adam, gives us, also, the model of the Church, the mother of those baptized into Christ.  When we approach Him at the altar, He gives us His body, consummating His love for His Bride, the Church.  Members of the Church must let this Lord lead them to a new respect for the body and human love.  Let Him be the model of relations between man and woman.  Science supports us in this. There have been many advances in the sciences in recent decades that fully support the way human beings were made, male and female, and are consistent with Christ’s teaching in the Church.  This new knowledge will allow you to live in accordance with God’s plan for your life.  This will help you faithfully and intelligently plan your family without offending God.  Please contact me if you want to learn more. 

This is your second chance, Adam.  Do not let the serpent bite you again.

For more information  check this website:  http://www.popepaulvi.com.

OK. So Here's My Question...

Will the Bishops' Conference deal with those of its own house before suing the U S Government?


In the USCCB Media Blog of Tuesday, January, 24, 2012, concerning the recent Obama Administration ruling that Catholic institutions have to cover sterilizations and contraceptives (including abortion-causing agents), we read:

This egregious violation of religious freedom marks the first time in our history that the federal government is forcing religious people and groups to ante up for services that violate their consciences. Some claim this is all about access to contraceptives—but everyone knows how and where to get them, and get them cheaply. And the mandate also forces coverage of sterilization and abortion-causing drugs. This is about forcing the church to pay for all these things through insurance coverage, to sponsor these “benefits” that it considers immoral. This is, in other words, about freedom of religion, which is a foundation stone of U.S. democracy.

The government allows other religions to live out their beliefs. The Amish and Christian Scientists have a conscientious objection to health insurance, and so the law exempts them from buying it. The government acknowledges the right of these religious groups to live out their religious convictions in U.S. society. Why are beliefs of Catholics and others dismissed? USCCB Media Blog: "Anybody but Catholics Has Religious Freedom.

The course seems clear. If the administration persists, this is going to court.  So, my question, from a priest, moral theologian, interested party, cheerleader for the bishops, and adherent to the authority of the magisterium, (the list goes on) is will the conference of bishops, or individual bishops, now correct individual Catholic legislators and administration officials who support these abridgments of the Church's freedom by pursuing the moral and canonical measures available?  As we know, the bishops' conference has chosen not to speak in favor of adherence to the Church's long-standing, well-established, and incontrovertible moral tradition regarding the refusal of admission of public sinners to Holy Communion in the case of formal cooperation in abortion (referring to those politicians who promote and vote for the so-called right to abortion)--and it should be clear that the administration of Holy Communion to such public sinners entails cooperation in sacrilege and the sin of scandal on the part of the minister of Holy Communion.

Will the bishops' conference find in these offenses, the offenses against conscience and religious freedom committed by Kathleen Sebelius and others involved, serious enough reason to say that these actions are scandalous enough public sin to require that the ministers of Holy Communion not cooperate in the scandal and ensuing sacrileges involved in the reception of Holy Communion by these public sinners?  If the bishops conference is willing to take the US Government to civil court to fight this on a legal basis, to have these offenses declared unconstitutional by government standards, has the time not come, as well, to say that the individuals involved in this should have to publicly repent from their moral and canonical offenses before being admitted to Holy Communion?

Morality and Liturgy; The Pope the Eucharist: "Enough with the Host on the Hand" (Il Giornale's title)

The relationship between the Holy Eucharist and Morality is a major concern of this blog. Previous posts, however, have looked at the question regarding public sinners and the responsibilities of the minister.

This was a story published today. As the title of the article indicates, one point is the question of communion in the hand. For those who are not Italian readers, it speaks of a plenary meeting (all the cardinals and bishops on the Congregation) of the Congregation for Divine Worship and this part seems to be the meat of the article (my translation follows). :

Quasi all’unanimità i cardinali e vescovi membri della Congregazione hanno votato in favore di una maggiore sacralità del rito, di un recupero del senso dell’adorazione eucaristica, di un recupero della lingua latina nella celebrazione e del rifacimento delle parti introduttive del messale per porre un freno ad abusi, sperimentazioni selvagge e inopportune creatività. Si sono anche detti favorevoli a ribadire che il modo usuale di ricevere la comunione secondo le norme non è sulla mano, ma in bocca. C’è, è vero, un indulto che permette, su richiesta degli episcopati, di distribuire l’ostia anche sul palmo della mano, ma questo deve rimanere un fatto straordinario. Il «ministro della liturgia» di Papa Ratzinger, Cañizares, sta anche facendo studiare la possibilità di recuperare l’orientamento verso Oriente del celebrante almeno al momento della consacrazione eucaristica, come accadeva di prassi prima della riforma, quando sia i fedeli che il prete guardavano verso la Croce e il sacerdote dava dunque le spalle all’assemblea.

My translation: "Almost unanimously, the cardinals and bishops members of the Congregation voted in favor of a greater sacredness of the rite, of a recovery of the sense of eucharistic adoration, of a recovery of the latin language in the celebration and of a reform (remaking) of the introductory parts of the mass to put the brakes on abuses, wild experimentation and inappropriate creatvity. They also favored reaffirming that the usual mode of receiving communion according to the norms is not in the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, an indult that allows, on the request of the episcopate, for distribution of the host also in the palm of the hand, but this must remain an exception (lit. an extraordinary deed or act; I am not sure what the precise meaning of this is, but I believe that it means that even with the indult communion on the hand is not to be generally done but is allowed in exceptional cases or for particular reasons). The 'minister of the liturgy' (the reference is to civil officials) of Pope Ratzinger, Canizares, is also causing to be studied the possibility of recovering the orientation toward the East of the celebrant, at least at the moment of eucharistic consecration, as it was practiced prior to the reform, when both the faithful and the priest looked toward the Cross and the priest, therefore, had his back toward the assembly."

The article goes on to say that there is a desire to return to the intention of the reform in the VII document on the liturgy before it was superceded by the post-conciliar reform, which the cardinals and bishops see as a rupture rather than an organic development. The use of latin seems to be much in the mind of the congregation, especially in solemn celebrations. Apparently, the propositions were approved by the Pope. However, the article gives no indication about what action is intended at this point. There is mention that the Pope is of the mind that the "reform of the reform" will take many years and that it will not suffice simply to issue directives. He prefers example.

Resuming Posts

I have been away for a while due to holidays and number or other pressing commitments at the seminary, but I am going to be returning to the blog. I noted recently Diocese of Scranton has posted Bishop Martino's instruction regarding the duty of the minister of Holy Communion. This is an edifying and proper (i.e., particular) application of the universal moral law. Given the treatment afforded the subject in other posts on this blog, this sentence was of particular note: "Those whose unworthiness to receive Holy Communion is known publicly to the Church must be refused Holy Communion in order to prevent sacrilege and to prevent the Catholic in question from committing further grave sin through unworthy reception." (attributed to Bishop Martino by the Chancellor, James B. Earley) It is difficult to understand why anyone having pastoral responsibility over the administration of the sacraments would disagree with this statement and not seek zealously to guard against the evils that the statement envisions. As I have stated before, as far as I can tell, no one has been able to articulate a moral or legal defense for allowing notoriously grave sinners to receive Holy Communion.

The Sin of the Politician or Public Official that Votes for Or Upholds the Validity of Permissive Abortion Laws

The last two installments of this series of post indicated that formal cooperation in abortion was a reason why pro-abortion politicians must be judged unworthy to receive Holy Communion and must, therefore, be denied the Sacrament by the minister. When Benedict XVI was prefect of the CDF he indicated that formal cooperation in abortion was a reason why the politician was unworthy. Indeed, that cooperation in the results of such immoral laws are the cause for serious concern among the Church’s ministers. In Evangelium vitae, no. 73, John Paul II raised the issue of these laws saying, “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.’” This quotation is from the Declaration on Procured Abortion, no. 22. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 letter referred directly to this idea insofar as it spoke of campaigning and voting for the immoral law. Here is the relevant statement from the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.”

The interesting point about these texts from Evangelium vitae and the Declaration on Procured Abortion is that the issue is not so much the cooperation in one or more procured abortions, but the cooperation in the creation of intrinsically immoral laws. In the next post, the blog will take a closer look at this issue.

Works cited:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.)

Campaigning and Voting for Permissive Abortion Laws Place the Politician in an Objective Situation of Grave Sin, i.e., Manifest Grave Sin

It is clear from the last post that the traditional moral teaching, presented in the earlier posts, prevails regarding the role of the minister in the administration of Holy Communion according to the 2004 letter of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In fact, the future pope’s statement is utterly congruent with and reaffirms traditional moral principles on the administration of Holy Communion and the minister’s responsibility. The statement includes the pastoral element of meeting with the offender and instructing him or her on the recipient’s duty not to approach reception of the sacrament until the objective situation of sin is remedied. The instruction given by Cardinal Ratzinger precisely outlines the steps which must be taken if when the politician is in an objective situation of grave sin. This is an instruction to the ministers of the sacrament and it is precisely the kind of action which must be taken if the minister, himself, is to avoid the sins of immoral cooperation and scandal. The conclusion that one must make, following upon the statement is unmistakable: In keeping with the minister’s moral duties regarding the administration of the sacraments, he must deny the Holy Eucharist to those who do not remedy the public situation of sin created by campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws.

When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that letter, he characterized the sin of the Catholic politician who campaigns and votes for abortion as formal cooperation in the grave sin of abortion. In this case, the cooperation of the politician in abortion is the issue. This is an important point. A formal cooperator is one who agrees with the immoral act, either in the intention (the motive for having an abortion) or the object (the abortion as a means to an end) or both, of the person or persons who are the principal agents of the grave sin of abortion. According to the principles of cooperation, the formal cooperator is equally guilty of the sin as the principal agent because the cooperator adopts the evil outcome of the principal agent’s actions as his or her own. Thus, the politician who formally cooperates by consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws is guilty of all the instances of the sin of abortion that he or she seeks to permit through the campaigning and voting for the permissive laws. The critical factor for the minister of Holy Communion is that these sins are "manifest" by virtue of the public nature of the activity in the political life of the state. The minister has the right and the responsibility to take cognizance of this manifest state of sin.

Cooperation and Scandal: Are Politicians Who Vote for Permissive Abortion Laws Manifest Grave Sinners and Unworthy to Receive Holy Communion?

In the discussions that surround the issue of Holy Communion and the public sinner who is, therefore, unworthy to receive the sacrament, no one, as far as this author is able to tell, has given an explanation as to why the traditional moral teaching in this matter does not prevail in the matter of politicians who support a so-called right to abortion. Concerning the canonical discipline, the Rev. John P. Beal argued in 2004 that c. 915 could not be used to exclude pro-abortion politicians from Holy Communion, asserting that politicians cannot be compared to prostitutes, magicians and others who are publicly unworthy. (Beal, 2004) Unfortunately, the author does not give an explanation of his opinion that could withstand serious scrutiny. Distinguishing the pro-abortion politicians from those who are divorced and remarried, in the same article he argues, “However loathsome some politicians’ views and votes on life issues may be, it is hard to see how it can be said that theirs is a state and condition of life in such objective contradiction to the Gospel that their grave sin should be judged ‘manifest.’” That claim, given the death of those innocents whom the politicians make no effort to protect, is illogical and untenable. His assertions are in no way consistent with the moral law of administration of the sacraments. In any case, as Archbishop Burke points out in his article in 2007, the moral issue was settled by Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter to the bishops of the United States. What the future pope said seems to remove any doubt about the politician’s responsibility for the grave sin of abortion: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.” (Ratzinger, 2004) That letter is widely available though it was a private letter sent to Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick as representatives of the bishops' conference in the United States.


Works cited:

Beal, John P. 2004. Holy Communion and Unholy Politics. America, (June 21), http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. 2004. Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles. L’espresso, (July 3), http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055?eng=y.

Cooperation and Scandal: The Differences between the Cases of the Public and "Private" Sinner

One could ask why we would need to consider cooperation in sacrilege when, morally speaking, the avoidance of scandal should be sufficient reason for the minister to refuse communion to a public sinner. The answer to that question lies in the fact that many ministers of the sacraments do not understand the seriousness of the matter. As a matter of fact, one must be dismayed by the general lack of awareness of sound moral principles regarding the administration of the sacraments. This is not to say that the Church’s ministers are intentionally failing in their responsibility, but the discussion that has taken place surrounding this matter of Holy Communion certainly points to a lack of knowledge about authentic moral principles which guide the administration of sacraments. Perhaps by considering the more basic question of the minister's moral culpability for cooperation in another’s sin, the importance of the issue of scandal involved in public sin can be better appreciated.

In their erudite treatment, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Dominican authors John McHugh, OP, and Charles Callan, OP, discuss the circumstances under which the minister must deny the sacraments to a potential recipient. They write, the minister “must deny them, as a rule, to those who to his knowledge are certainly unworthy (e.g., on account of lack of requisite instruction or moral disposition); otherwise he casts pearls before swine, cooperates in the sacrilege of others, and scandalizes the people.” (Mc Hugh and Callan 1958, 2: 663) They add, “Hence a public sinner—that is, one whose unworthiness is notorious…--should not be given the Sacraments publicly, until he has repaired the scandal he gave; and no unworthy person, even though he is a hidden sinner whose guilt is known only to the minister, should be given a Sacrament in private until he has shown signs of repentance.” (663) They indicate quite clearly that the minister must refuse to admit to Holy Communion persons who are known to be unworthy. “Those persons are denied communion who cannot receive without scandal.” (687) Among those who cannot receive under this circumstance they identify those who are infamous such as prostitutes or defamers and those who are intoxicated or “insufficiently dressed.” (687)

The authors make some points here which need to be clearly understood. First, the worthiness of the recipient is, in fact, an issue when administering sacraments. Thus, it is incumbent upon the minister to be aware of the potential for immoral cooperation and scandal. Secondly, the question of cooperation in sacrilege arises in the case of any sinner, not only the case of the public sinner. Thirdly, the minister’s response to the unworthy recipient differs depending upon whether the recipient’s unworthiness results from a public sin or a hidden (not public) sin. When the grave sin is not public, administering the sacrament to the unworthy recipient whose sin is known to the minister constitutes cooperation in the sin. In such a case, however, cooperation is permissible under some circumstances and scandal is not likely to become an issue. But, when the sin is public, the matter of scandal takes on paramount importance. And, since the moral law called for “repair of the scandal” as a matter of justice, essentially a public repentance, the unworthy recipient could not receive the sacraments publicly again even if he had confessed the sin and received absolution. The authors, however, in no way discount the need for absolution for the one whose sin is private but known to the minister.

The fact that scandal becomes the overriding moral issue in the case of the public sinner does not, however, eliminate the need to consider the duty of the minister not to cooperate in sacrilege.

Works cited:

McHugh, John A., OP, and Callan, Charles J., OP, 1958. Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and Best Modern Authors. Rev. and en., Edward P. Farrell, OP. New York: Joseph F. Wagner.

(Fourth post in a series on Communion and Pro-Abortion Politicians)

Cooperation and Scandal: Can the Minister of Holy Communion Ignore the Worthiness of the Recipient without Risk of Sin?

In the writings of the moral authors as well as canonists the issues of scandal and cooperation were discussed and analyzed proximately because both principles treat of involvement of one person in another’s sin. The noted canonist and moralist, Dominic Prummer, OP, distinguishes the two, saying, “Co-operation differs from scandal is so far as the latter causes the evil will of the sinner (by advice, command, or example), whereas co-operation presupposes the evil will of the sinner and is a means of bringing this evil will to completion in an external act.” (Dominic M. Prummer, OP, Handbook of Moral Theology, trans., Gerald W. Shelton [Cork: Mercier, 1956] 103). There are good reasons why commentaries on canon law (and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well) should emphasize scandal, in general. Scandal is a bit of a trump card in the moral arena. An otherwise moral action can become immoral if it causes scandal, or, in other words, leads another into sin. Scandal can be a particular concern for those in authority since a person in authority has a responsibility to lead and instruct. This analysis will turn to the issue of scandal later but cooperation will be addressed first.

Given the statement from Prummer it is easy to see why moral theology needs to look at the morality of cooperation of the minister in the administration of sacraments. In charity, after love of God, the first responsibility of the minister is to the good of his own soul. Immoral cooperation follows on the evil will of the person with whom he cooperates. If the participation in the other person’s sin is immoral, then, the cooperator commits sin which can be grave. Moreover, to act prudently and with a certain conscience, which is morally required, the cooperator must consider the moral meaning of his act of cooperation. If the cooperator is unsure about the moral goodness of the action or simply dismisses the involvement in the other person’s sin as unimportant, he can still be responsible for the sin of immoral cooperation. This is so because no one is permitted to act with a doubtful conscience and all reasonable efforts should be exhausted to resolve doubts. Ignorance is not necessarily a justification for acting in an evil fashion, either. For as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1791, teaches, “Ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is blinded through the habit of committing sin. [Gaudium et spes, 16] In such cases the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” This result flows out of the serious duty each of us has to avoid evil.

In the case of the minister of Holy Communion who allows a recipient to receive the sacrament even when that one is notoriously a serious sinner, according to moral principles, the morality of the minister’s cooperation in the sin of sacrilege must be analyzed. The minister's failure to consider this moral issue does not make, in the end, the minister’s action less subject to moral evaluation. This outcome ought be obvious to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of morality. In fact, failure to consider one’s potential cooperation in another’s sin may suggest a blindness to sin that the Catechism (1791) cautions against.

(Third post of series begun Nov. 13, 2008)

Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur: The Roman Ritual, the Pio-Benedictine Code, and Canon 915 of the Code of 1983

The first post on this subject referred to c. 855 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Pio-Benedictine). The language of c. 855 which requires that the minister refuse communion to public sinners was virtually identical to that of the Roman Ritual of 1614 published by Pope Paul V. (Rituale Romanum, Editio princeps (1614), ed. Manlio Sodi, SDB, and Juan Flores Arcas, OSB [Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Vatican City, 2004]).

Archbishop Burke traces the development of the Roman Ritual on the administration of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. He discusses the historical background of the canon from the origins in decretal law and the reforms of the Council of Trent. He then goes on to draw out the relationship of the ancient and traditional teaching to canon 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici [Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Vatican City, 1983]) which states: “The excommunicated and interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who remain obstinately in manifestly grievous sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Archbishop Burke presents the conditions for exclusion from the sacrament and demonstrates with decisive authority why the minister bears the burden for the proper administration of Holy Communion and why in some cases the minister must refuse to give the sacrament.

The canonical discipline and the canonist’s explanation of the law given by Archbishop Burke is persuasive. At the same time, moral theology can help clarify the moral meaning behind the law in a way that is perfectly consistent with Archbishop Burke's expert legal analysis. Indeed, in order to fully appreciate the law’s instruction to the minister of the Eucharist to refuse Holy Communion to those who persist in manifestly grave sin, one must consider the principle of material cooperation mentioned in the earlier post. As we shall see, the law of the Church not only seeks to bring back an errant sinner, it protects the moral integrity of the minister. The sacred minister, like all others, is morally required to avoid evil including the participation in another person's sin. Since one who is known manifestly to have commited grave sin also commits a sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion, under most circumstances the minister is bound to avoid participation in that sin.

The Manuals and Administration of the Sacraments: The Role of the Minister

The approved authors of the moral books had much to say about the administration of the sacraments and about the minister's moral responsibility regarding the duty to administer and refuse the sacraments to certain persons. They were concerned with a few different principles and precepts which helped to clarify the role of the minister as one who acts in the name of Christ. "The sacraments were instituted by Christ as so many channels or conduits by which he might convey to the souls of men the fruits of his passion and death. They are administered in his name and by his authority, and so Christ himself is the principal minister of the sacraments." (Thomas Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries, Vol. 2 [New York: Benziger, 1925] 61.) The concern for the proper administration of the sacraments was manifested clearly in the treatment of the responsibilities of the minister.

Recently, however, in any number of statements made by those who do not support withholding of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist from those Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion, the underlying assumption seems to be that the withholding of the sacrament from an unworthy recipient is no more than a matter of the minister's discretion, if such action is allowable at all. However, the teaching of the moralists was quite the opposite. Indeed, the moralists wrote with clarity on the duty of refusing the sacraments to the unworthy. In the twentieth century between 1917 and 1983, the commentary of moralists was often based upon Canon 855 of the 1917 (Pio-Benedictine) Code of Canon Law: “Those who are notoriously unworthy are to be refused, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and manifestly infamous, as are strumpets, those living in concubinage, usurers, wizards, sorcerers, blasphemers, and other public sinners of that kind, unless it is certain that they have repented and amended, and have made satisfaction for the public scandal which they have given.” From a moral point of view, administering the sacraments to those unworthy to receive represented, at least, material cooperation in another’s sin. In the case of public sinners, scandal imposes an additional moral problem.

Archbishop Raymond Burke has presented a very thorough explanation of the canonical aspects of the current text of the law found in canon 915 of the current Code of Canon Law. The article, "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Perservering in Manifest Grave Sin," may be found in Periodica de Re Canonica, vol. 96 (2007): 3-58. (A copy of the article can be found at http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm).