Canon 915: a primer and list of resources

The recent posts around the blogosphere regarding Canon 915 [See: GLACC, In Light of the Law, DUIB] have had me thinking all day. But before I begin, I want to bring all readers up to speed on what Canon 915 is before I go on. I know 'they' say that bloggers should write what they care about and not write to their audience but I think this is an issue that all Catholics should know at least something about.

···•°···

Canon 915 – A primer

First off a disclaimer: I am not a Canon Lawyer, I am simply a lawyer of the regular type. I was educated at an authentic Catholic Law school, deeply rooted in the Natural Law and adherent to a strict and loyal interpretation of the Code of Canon Law as well as the Catechism. This still does not make me an expert. Therefore, anything I say should be taken with that in mind, as a lay lawyer with this sort of background, I am at best an amateur or novice Canon Law enthusiast; this is true in the sense that not only do I adhere to the force of the Code of Canon Law, but I read and study its implications from time to time. If you really want a good thourough understanding of ANY Canon Law issue, you should read Dr. Ed Peters' blog: In Light of the Law.

With that out of the way, I want to attempt to explain the issue(s) that generally surrounds the invocation of Canon 915 in discussion and debate. It would be impossible to fully explain how Canon Law works, how it is interpreted and the various ways that folks interpret the Code itself and how it should be applied. I know this sounds rather "wishy washy" for Catholic precepts, but I say it not as a truth that I assert but as an observation of what happens. 

For a great overview of Canon 915 - Dr. Peters has a much primer than I could ever create at his Canon Law Site - Resources for Understanding and Applying Canon 915. I will try to give a cliff notes version.

The text of the Canon is as follows:

1983 CIC 915. Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion. (See also CCEO 712)

It doesn't seem very hard to understand when given a plain reading, but where complexity ensues is at its application. For those not familiar with the law, let me point out the legally vexing: each set of terms creates wiggle room and are the things that make lawyers millions of dollars. Terms such as "obstinately persevering" are so easily disputed and debated that their specificity and precision actually end up creating ambiguity and confusion. They are the catalyst for why so many folks detest lawyers of all flavors. Now let me be clear – there is nothing intrinsically defective in these terms, their distortion is created by those with malicious and devious intent. So as you can now probably see, taking Canon 915's text, adding to it the politics and personalities of human persons, and one can see how the application of this Canon could be so difficult and confusing.

···°•···

application of the Canon

Without making this post more confusing, condescending, patronizing, or complex than it needs to be I will try and explain where the confusion and difficulty in applying this Canon exist. First, it is fair to say that when laws of any type are created, and especially when they are written down, they are meant to have some affect and with that some effects. Again, without getting into legal theory, I will try and explain this in as objective and broad of a way as possible. Knowing that Canon 915 was created at some point to prevent certain people, in this case those who are excommunicated, interdicted, or "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", from receiving Communion we know that our goal is to find out how we identify those classes of people.

For the sake of our discussion we will focus on the last of these using the shorter, "obstinately persevering" to describe them. The former two classes of people do enter this discussion occasionally, but it makes the whole thing more complex, and need not be addressed for our purposes.

Now the difficulty in application is obviously the difficulty of defining who is "obstinately persevering." The entire debate on this issue must come down to this, otherwise there is some other defect at play. What I mean is, if we could easily identify those that are in one of the three mentioned categories, but those people were still able to receive Communion while continuing to be in that class, there would be a break down in adherence to Canon Law and the issue would be about that generally and not about the specific application of Canon 915.

There is an issue relating to Canon 916, but I will discuss that later. Just know that there is a distinction between private actions and public actions. I will call this the 915/916 distinction.

Synopsis: The difficulty in applying this Canon is that there has been a confusion over whom is to be classified as "obstinately persevering." Because of human frailty and a breakdown in courage and understanding, Bishops have rarely categorized anyone as to belonging in this category and have essentially ignored Canon 915. 

···•°···

as it relates to "real-world" cases

Now, one can argue with some legitimacy that there is some difficulty in determining who is "obstinately persevering." So folks would have to be outwardly obstinate to be categorized in the excluded class. The most clear cut example of such a scenario would be a public figure, which in this country is usually an elected official. Because of their public "stance" and "support" for measures that touch on issues related to Catholic teachings and laws, it is usually these officials that can be determined to be "obstinately persevering."

This is clearest on the issue of Abortion. Because Catholic teaching and Natural Law are so clear cut on this issue, there shouldn't be any wiggle room. If a public official supports abortion then they are being "obstinately persevering." Now it is possible that a person votes for Bill 'X' and then goes and confesses their sin, that they would somehow be caught in some legalistic trap. There is a process that is to take place to apply this Canon. This is also the 915/916 distinction that needs to be understood.

So the application, as it relates to abortion and elected officials is whether their support of abortion thereby automatically, or by determination,  classifies them as "obstinately persevering." If so, then by Canon Law these folks should not be admitted to Holy Communion. Because there are Catholic Officials that attend Mass but also support Pro-Abortion, without being prevented Communion, it is obvious that there is a breakdown somewhere in the understanding of how to apply Canon 915.

As then Cardinal Ratzinger said:

When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

···°•···

the debate

Herein is where the debate centers: who and why should have Canon 915 applied to them. The most frequent issue is abortion and elected officials, but interestingly the current discussion in the world is centered around marital and cohabitation issues as they relate to an elected official.

The questions that make up this debate are:

• What qualifies as "obstinately persevering"?
• Does a persons "public" persona affect this determination?
• Should Canon 915 even be applied, should it be applied in a different way to public figures?
• How exactly should the process happen, if the Canon is applied?

Now I know this is no where near extensive enough to get everybody where they need to be. Hopefully though, this helps explain it to folks that needed a little background. Future posts dealing with this topic will hopefully be guided by this one. The best advice I can give you in regards to learning about this issue at a scholarly level is to go to Dr. Peters' site and read the information he has provided.

As this issue continues, I hope to write more about this issues, especially as it relates to the GLACC post regarding this topic. I will focus on exactly who and when should this Canon be applied to, and attempt to figure out why in cases that seem clear-cut there has been no effort made to uphold the Canon.

···•···

For those wanting or needing more info please see the following links:

• A Canon 915 Primer - Dr. Ed Peters - This contains a TON OF LINKS
• The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin - Cardinal Raymond Burke
• Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cdl. Ratzinger's Memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles" - Cong. Doc. Faith; Ratzinger Memo
• "The Political Obligations of Catholics: a conversation with the Most Rev. Charles Chaput" - Abp. Charles Chaput

###