The Code of Canon Law lays down that: «Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion» (can. 915). In recent years some authors have maintained, on the basis of various arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to the divorced and remarried faithful. It is acknowledged that the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio of 1981 had reaffirmed, in no. 84, this prohibition in unequivocal terms, and that it has been expressly restated on several occasions, in particular in 1992 by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1650, and in 1994 by the Letter Annus internationalis Familiae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Nevertheless, the aforesaid authors put forward various interpretations of the canon in question which agree in excluding from it, in practice, the situation of the divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of «grave sin», all the conditions — including the subjective ones — required for the existence of a mortal sin would have to be present, so that the minister of Communion could not make ab externo a judgement of that kind; furthermore, for someone to be said to persist «obstinately» in that sin, an attitude of defiance on the part of the member of the faithful would have to be observed, following a legitimate admonition by the Pastor.
Faced with this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teaching of the Church on this matter, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, declares the following:
- The prohibition contained in the canon cited derives, by its very nature, from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot bring about legislative changes that would be opposed to the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text to which ecclesial tradition has always referred is that of Saint Paul: «Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let everyone, then, examine himself, and so eat of this bread and drink of this cup; for whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks his own condemnation» (1 Cor 11, 27-29).
This text concerns first of all the member of the faithful himself and his moral conscience, and this is set out by the Code in the following canon 916. But being unworthy because one is in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: it is precisely to the term «unworthy» that the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches parallel to the Latin can. 915 refers: «Those who are publicly unworthy are to be kept from receiving the Divine Eucharist» (can. 712).
Indeed, to receive the body of Christ while being publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to ecclesial communion; it is a form of conduct that infringes the right of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accordance with the demands of that communion. In the specific case of the admission to Holy Communion of divorced and remarried faithful, the scandal — understood as an action that moves others towards evil — concerns at one and the same time the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. Such scandal exists even if, sadly, such conduct should no longer cause surprise: on the contrary, it is precisely in the face of the deformation of consciences that action by Pastors becomes all the more necessary — patient yet firm — to safeguard the holiness of the sacraments, to defend Christian morality and to ensure the right formation of the faithful.
- Any interpretation of can. 915 that is opposed to its substantial content, declared without interruption by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church down the centuries, is clearly misleading. Respect for the words of the law (cf. can. 17) must not be confused with the improper use of those same words as instruments for relativizing or emptying the substance of its precepts.
The formula «and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin» is clear and must be understood in a way that does not distort its meaning, rendering the norm inapplicable. The three conditions required are:
- a) grave sin, understood objectively, since the minister of Communion could not judge subjective imputability;
- b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures over time and to which the will of the member of the faithful does not put an end, no other requisites (an attitude of defiance, prior admonition, etc.) being necessary for the situation to exist in its fundamental ecclesial gravity;
- c) the manifest character of the situation of habitual grave sin.
By contrast, those divorced and remarried faithful are not in a situation of habitual grave sin who, being unable for serious reasons — such as, for example, the upbringing of the children — to «satisfy the obligation to separate, take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples» (Familiaris consortio, no. 84), and who on the basis of that resolve have received the sacrament of Penance. Since the fact that such faithful do not live more uxorio is in itself hidden, whereas their condition as divorced and remarried persons is in itself manifest, they will be able to approach Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.
- Naturally, pastoral prudence strongly urges that cases of public refusal of Holy Communion be avoided. Pastors must strive to explain to the faithful concerned the true ecclesial meaning of the norm, so that they may understand it or at least respect it. Where, however, situations arise in which those precautions have had no effect or have not been possible, the minister distributing Communion must refuse to give it to anyone who is publicly unworthy. He will do so with the utmost charity, and will seek to explain at the appropriate moment the reasons that obliged him to act in this way. He must, however, also do so with firmness, aware of the value that such signs of fortitude have for the good of the Church and of souls
The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the condition described are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion falls to the Priest responsible for the community. He will give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister as to how to act in concrete situations.
- Given the nature of the above-mentioned norm (cf. no. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may in any case dispense from this obligation of the minister of Holy Communion, nor issue directives that contradict it.
- The Church reaffirms her maternal solicitude for the faithful who find themselves in this situation or in others like it, which prevent them from being admitted to the Eucharistic table.
What is set out in this Declaration is not in contradiction with the deep desire to foster the participation of these children of hers in the life of the Church, which can already be expressed in many forms compatible with their situation. On the contrary, the duty to restate this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is a condition of true pastoral care, of authentic concern for the good of these faithful and of the whole Church, since it points to the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are constantly invited by the Lord, and in a particular way during this Holy Year of the Great Jubilee.
