Catholic politicians should take note...
A Primer on Canon 915
by Barbara Kralis
Unquestionably, canon 915 is the
most discussed canon in the Codex Iuris Canonici, or Code of Canon Law, in
recent Church history. Many in the media have reported on the January 8,
2004 canonical actions of Archbishop Raymond Burke, then bishop of the La
Crosse, Wisconsin diocese. Because of some misinformation, speculation and
outright resentment, confusion reigns regarding the Archbishop's promulgation of
his 'canonical notification' based on canon 915, the official communication of
what the Church's discipline is.
I would like to make some
important clarifications, with appropriate documentation, in hopes that people
of all faiths will understand the Archbishop's actions, why it was appropriate
for him to discipline persistent, obstinate, manifest pro abortion Catholic
legislators, and why no other U.S. Bishop can refuse to immediately follow the
same procedures in their own dioceses. All Bishops must protect the
Eucharist from sacrilege.
As Bishop of the over 200,000 Catholics in the diocese of La Crosse, Wisc. for
the past nine years, Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.D., a canon lawyer, first
conducted private communications to three 'Catholic' legislators, imploring
them, "to make their consciences correct with Magisterial teachings."
After all three politicians refused to meet with him, saying they instead reject
the Church's infallible teachings, Bishop Burke, as 'Priest, Prophet and King,'
then took the necessary steps to issue the four paragraph 'canonical
notification' to address the scandal they were causing in his diocese by their
conduct 'which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm'
(EE n.37).
The notification declares: "...Catholic
legislators who are members of the faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse and who
continue to support procured abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves
to receive Holy Communion. They are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, should
they present themselves, until such time as they publicly renounce their support
of these most unjust practices" (canon 915).
Burke exhorted, "No good bishops could stand by and let this happen.
These public legislators are in grave sin."
However, no other bishop other than Burke, out of the 195 dioceses in the U.S.,
has issued canonical sanctions against their manifest politician sinners.
Unfortunately, many people are confused about some bishops' actions, falsely
thinking that Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston and Archbishop Alfred Hughes of
New Orleans have recently followed Burke's lead. This is not true.
Both O'Malley and Hughes have only publicly reaffirmed their policy of asking
the manifest sinners not to come up for Holy Communion, to stay away 'of their
own volition,' and that their diocesan policy is to refuse no one the Eucharist.
In fact, Archbishop Burke on February 2nd. boldly challenged Archbishop
O'Malley, stating that if leading Democratic presidential candidate, pro
abortion Catholic John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, came up to Burke for the
Eucharist, he (Burke) would deny him Communion. Archbishop O'Malley still held
to his false policy that Kerry would not be denied Communion in the Boston
diocese.
In the past several years, only three other U.S. Bishops have made half hearted
attempts to stop the sacrilegious Holy Communions and scandals caused by pro
abortion politicians in their dioceses; unfortunately, they all stopped short of
publicly promulgating a canonical notification of canon 915. These three are
Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D., Lincoln, NE; Bishop William K.
Weigand, D.D., Sacramento; and, Bishop Robert J. Carlson, Sioux Falls, S.D.
There is no easy way to find out if a politician in your diocese is Catholic
unless he advertised himself as such. La Crosse's Dr. Arthur Hippler,
Director of Office of Justice and Peace told me, "We have the so-called
'Blue Book' which lists politicians in the State of Wisconsin, but the book
doesn't list religious denomination. We have no exact count how many
Catholic politicians there are in the diocese. In the case of the
politicians with whom His Excellency corresponded, he had letters from the lay
faithful, asking him to address such-and-such politician, who was Catholic and
pro-abortion. The Bishop was responding to scandal among the
faithful."
This confirms just how imperative it is for the laity to write letters to their
Bishops in protest to these scandalous so-called Catholic pro abortion
legislators.
Most everyone in La Crosse is waiting to see how their new Bishop, still
unnamed, will uphold the notification. I spoke to La Crosse's Chancellor,
Mr. Benedict T. Nguyen about this.
"The new Bishop will understand the notification was given in response to
the specific scandalous situations that existed in the diocese. If a new
Bishop coming in says that these conditions have not been met, he would cause
great confusion," said Nguyen.
Archbishop Burke further clarified, "If there was a contradiction in this
'notification' with the next Bishop of La Crosse, the people certainly could go
to Rome for clarification."
The Code of Canon Law is not 'Puritanism.' The canonical laws are indeed
the Church's Sacred Discipline and is binding on Catholics who reject these laws
and know they are rejecting the Church.
All diocesan priests and deacons are ecclesiastically bound to obey the
canonical notification (c.915). Canon 915 places the responsibility on the
minister - 'ne admittantur' - who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished
according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with
the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. In
addition, canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who
causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.
The Code of Canon Law (CIC), or "Codex Iuris Canonici" has always been
in effect. It was codified in l917 and contained 2,414 canons. It was
revised in l983 by Pope John Paul II and contains 1,752 canons.
Canon 915 is promulgated within CIC, Book IV, "The Sanctifying Office of
the Church," within Title III, "The Blessed Eucharist," within
Chapter I, "The Celebration of the Eucharist," within Article 2,
"Participation in the Blessed Eucharist." Neither this canon 915
nor Bishop Burke's 'notification' applies to the reception of the other
Sacraments.
Cases considered in this canon 915 also include: 1] any interdict or
excommunication ferendę sententię (one inflicted by the superior); 2]
the same penalties latę sententię (inflicted by the perpetrator on
himself...by his very act); 3] grave manifest sin, obstinately maintained,
which could be the case of the estimated 500 Catholic pro abortion politicians
in the U.S.
Divorced and remarried Catholics also fall under this canon 915. As some
canonists point out, citing Pope John Paul II, regarding canon 915:
"In the case of the above 3], attention must be paid to the clear
discipline of the church in cases of Catholics who: a) prefer to contract a
merely civil marriage and who reject or at least defer the religious marriage;
b) divorced persons who have remarried. In the first case, the pastors of
the Church will, regrettably, not be able to admit them to the sacraments; and
in the second case, the Church reaffirms its practice of not admitting them to
Eucharistic communion from the fact that their state and condition of life
objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church, which
is signified and effected by the Eucharist" (JPII, Ap.Exhort. FC nos.
82, 84,; AAS nos. 74, l83, l85; TPS n. 27 [1982] § 71, 73).
The revised l997 CCC also addressed divorced and remarried Catholics, saying
they may receive the Eucharist if, 'they have repented for having violated the
sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living
in complete continence' ('frater soror' or as brother and sister) (CCC
¶ 1650).
Canon 915 is a 'sacramental law' that talks about the Eucharist and how not to
suffer scandal; it is not a penal law. There are four parts to canon 915
that must be satisfied: 1) The sin must be obstinate; 2) the person in
question must persist in the sin; 3) the person in question must be a 'manifest'
(that is 'public') sinner; and, 4) it must be a grave sin. When all
requirements are met, the Bishop, bound by canon 915 to protect the integrity of
the Eucharist, must give the public sanction to his priests and deacons not to
allow sacrilegious Communions, and to not cause scandal to the people. The
Bishop here is not putting 'sanction' on the persons in question; they have, in
fact, fallen under the canon 915 sacramental prohibition themselves.
Some say there are contradictions concerning the canonical notification (c.915)
and the application of justice of other 'human rights.' Let me explain.
On November ll, 2003, during
the USCCB's Fall plenary meeting of its 275 active bishop members, attempt was
made by several bishops to consider which Catholic politicians who dissent from
Magisterial teachings should be denied the Sacrament of Holy Communion,
including the abuse of such human rights as the death penalty, questions of war
and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the
best education for their children, the priority for the poor, welcome for
immigrants. These Bishops were trying to revive from the grave the late
Cd.Bernardin's false 'seamless garment theory.'
Archbishop Burke said on EWTN's interview, "The 'seamless garment' can be
interpreted incorrectly. Many fail to recognize the particular gravity of
abortion and euthanasia. These are the gravest matters. If we care
about abortion and euthanasia, all the other (human rights) will be therefore
cared for."
Some Catholics, both clergy and
laity, falsely say that the death penalty is on a par with abortion and
euthanasia, and therefore anyone who defends the death penalty should be
sanctioned under canon 915. Burke says they are wrong:
"Pope John Paul II's 'Gospel of Life' teaches clearly the death penalty is
not on a par with abortion and euthanasia. Abortion is the greatest evil
attack on innocent, defenseless life. John Paul II said it is difficult to
understand why a State would have to put someone to death (EV n.56), but it is
not a definite exclusion (CIC, c. 2267). To say the death penalty is on the same
level is not correct."
Chancellor Nguyen said, when asked if supporting the Iraq War, as some Bishops
have claimed, was a condition for imposing canon 915, "Pope John Paul II
certainly criticized the American invasion of Iraq, but he at no time
'condemned' the war, that is, issued a statement binding on the conscience of
the faithful."
Do the Bishops really believe that the above mentioned social issues constitute
mortal sin and grounds of excommunication in the same way that
abortion/euthanasia, cloning, IVF, sodomy, and contracepting do? Are these
other human rights to be classed in the same category as infallible teachings in
faith and morals? Or, are our U.S. Bishops just creating a diversion
against canon 915?
Do the Bishops now rescind what they stated back in 1998: "Indeed, the
failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect
any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the
poorest and least powerful of the human community" (LGL n.23).
Pope John Paul II teaches in his l988 Apostolic Exhortation, "Above
all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for
example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false
and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and
condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum
determination" (CL n.38).
Bishops are, as 'Priest, Prophet and King,' called to 'govern' and 'correct.'
An unworthy public or private Holy Communion, willfully chosen by an obstinate,
persistent, manifest sinner 'of his own volition,' is a grave, serious matter.
When a 'pro death' Catholic politician disregards a bishop's directive and comes
to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the bishop or priest does not deny
them as canon 915 directs them to do, the bishop or priest is doing evil (CIC,
n.1755), and what Pope Paul VI condemned when he said "one cannot do evil
so that good may follow therefrom" (HV n.14; Rom.3:8). According to
the principle of double effect, even in a moral dilemma the act in question must
be good or at least neutral. One may not do evil in order to accomplish good.
The end does not justify the means.
We next approach the erroneous understanding of separation of church and state
and canon 915. Archbishop Burke said, "There's an ongoing
scandal in our country with pro abortion politicians. If they want to
remain Catholic, they need to know how to act. They must publicly rescind
their support for abortion and euthanasia. 'What the majority wants' is an
erroneous argument if it is contrary to natural laws and God's laws. A few
decades of very weak catechesis manifested itself in confusion of what is truly
right and truly wrong. My priests (in La Crosse) have been grateful for
the clear direction of my Pastoral Letter. I've asked them to preach from
it on the Sunday of January 18th or Sunday of January 25th. I've told them
to give the people the document to study."
Regarding the proper understanding of separation of church and state, Chancellor
Nguyen said, "Archbishop Burke is not asking the legislators to impose
beliefs distinctive to the Catholic faith on an unwilling populace. It
would be a sad day for America when only Catholics believe in the protection of
innocent life. Rather, he is calling upon them to defend innocent human
life, which is a basic responsibility of all civil institutions.
Archbishop Burke is not trying to 'influence legislation.' Rather, as a
pastor of the faithful in the Diocese, Archbishop Burke is protecting the
dignity of the sacraments, and addressing the grave scandal of Catholic
legislators who fail to defend innocent life. It is the obligation of the
Bishop to follow canon law for the salvation of souls."
The CDF's 'Doctrinal Note' regarding the
participation of Catholics in politics (November 24, 2002): "John Paul II,
continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that
those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear
obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every
Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them [DN n.4; cf.
JPII, EV n.73].
Shortly after the CDF's issuance of
'Doctrinal Note,' in the CDW's December, 2002 Notitiae edition, we read from its
former Prefect, Cardinal Medina-Estevez: "Another fundamental right
of the faithful, as noted in Canon 213, is 'the right to receive assistance by
the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word
of God and the Sacraments'. In view of the law that 'sacred ministers may not
deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them if they are properly
disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them' (Canon 843 ¶1),
there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy
Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other
believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy
or schism, publicly professed or declared."
In January, 2003, two
months after the CDF's 'Doctrinal Note' was issued, both Massachusetts' Senators
Kennedy and Kerry cited church-state separation as their guiding principle.
Kerry, who is running for president, said: "As a Catholic, I have enormous
respect for the words and teachings of the Vatican, but as a public servant I've
never forgotten the lasting legacy of President Kennedy, who made clear that in
accordance with the separation of church and state no elected official should be
'limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation [sic].'
"
The Pope and diocesan bishops possess legislative power and they have a right to
enact laws for their dioceses, including penal laws which impose latę
sententię penalties (canon 1315, canon 1318). The Church has an innate and
proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal or sacramental
sanctions (canon 1311). The Code further instructs bishops: "A person is to
be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a
published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication,
utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred
of or contempt for religion or the Church" (canon 1369). Furthermore, the
Code states that "A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latę
sententię excommunication" (canon 1398), and "[those] who obstinately
persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion"
(canon 915).
Charles Wilson, President of St. Joseph Foundation said, "Dust has gathered
on the canon law books of bishops across the country. The bishops haven't used
the Church's penal system in years, despite obvious and serious canonical
infractions especially by Catholic politicians," he said.
Known courageous world bishops who did uphold canon 915 include Archbishop
George Pell of Sydney. And, San Diego's Bishop Leo Maher, in l989, informed
Catholic pro-abortion assembly woman Lucy Killea that she was banned from
receiving Holy Communion under canon 915. Yet, neighboring Bishop Quinn of
Sacramento criticized Maher and told Killea she could receive in his diocese,
anytime, any place. In 2001, the Archbishop of Lima and Primate of Peru, Juan
Luis Cardinal Cipriani and Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, 2003, both said they would
deny Communion according to canon 915. Mexican Cardinal Norberto Rivera in
l999 said pro abortion Catholics in his diocese were excommunicated.
The Catholic Church consistently teaches
that Catholics who are in the state of grave sin should not receive Holy
Communion, for this itself is a grave sin and a sign of grave contradiction.
St. Paul teaches this in 1 Cor. 11:27-29, as does the CCC (1385, 1415).
Even in the parish Missalettes throughout the U.S., Catholics who are in grave
sin are warned not to receive the Eucharist (11/29/99 NCCB).
St. Thomas Aquinas answers, "A
distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious,
either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers or from
being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore
Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it"
(STh, III:q 80: art 6).
Today, abortion is thriving. Abortion clinics supply the medical
establishment a virtually endless supply of human tissue that would otherwise be
unavailable had our Catholic Bishops enforced canon 915. Pharmaceutical
companies and research hospitals all pay top dollars for organs, limbs and
tissue from l.5 million 'recorded' aborted babies each year. How many
unborn children would have surely been saved from the death of abortion had the
195 Bishops, 30 years ago, spoken out on the canonical law canon 915?
One Bishop out of the 195 U.S dioceses had
the rectitude of intention to follow the clearly defined canonical disciplines
of the Catholic Church. Before Vatican II, clergy were vigilant to protect
the Eucharist from sacrilege. Today, most clergy are more likely to deny
the Eucharist to the faithful whose posture is one of reverent kneeling, rather
than standing.
Archbishop Burke said the most compelling
reason why he issued the canonical notification (c.915) was the many letters
written by his flock to press him to refuse the Eucharist to pro abortion
politicians. "It's a serious situation in our country; we need more
good statesmen...I did not excommunicate these politicians; however, if they
persist in their sin in a public way, there will be further sanctions against
the politicians."
There we have it, our marching orders!
Let's start lobbying (writing letters, making phone calls, sending emails) to
our Bishops today! Tell them you are scandalized by the sacrilegious
Communions by pro abortion politicians.
Abbreviations: AN =
Acerbo nimis; AAS = Acta Apostolicae Sedis; EE = Ecclesia
De Eucharistia; EV = Evangelium vitae; FC = Familiaris
consortio; CIC = Codex Iuris Canonici or Code of Canon Law;
CCC = Catechism of Catholic Church; NCCB = National Conference
of Catholic Bishops; USCCB = United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops; CL = Christifideles laici; CDF = Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith; CDW = Congregation of Divine Worship;
TPS = The Pope speaks; LGL = Living the Gospel of Life;
DN = Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of
Catholics in Political Life; c. = Canon; PG = Patrologia
Graeca; HV = Humanae vitae; JPII = Pope John Paul II;
STh = Summa Theologię; HI = Homilię in Isaiam.