Apologetics

---

On Withholding Communion

(I struggled with what I felt to be a leading to write this, out of concern that it made me a hypocrite in light of a previous writing. However, upon reflection I realized that I do have a small Catholic audience so that I am, as it were, “proselytizing at the doors” of this church. To that end, those of that faith tradition that agree with the sentiments below should feel free to repost this. Who knows where it could end up? I hear even the pope has begun to venture onto Facebook. Also, this should not be taken as an attack against this church. I have great respect and affection for the church of my fathers, but no church can fulfill its mission if it closes itself to those that would simply challenge its thinking occasionally)


Communion has always been a sacred moment for me. I have long considered it among the most special sacraments a body of believers can take together. I also hold to the doctrine of the real presence, or transubstantiation for all you lovers of fifty cent words. Consequently, I think it is a very serious thing to decide to withhold it from someone. I’d like to explore the basis of this, first on a legal level (utilizing both canon law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church), and then in the abstract.
I will explore this from the view point of divorce, because that is the most common cause for long-term, often permanent, withholding of communion. I will not be arguing whether or not divorce is a sin or when it is or is not a sin. For the purposes of this essay I will operate under the assumption that it is; not out of personal opinion, but rather out of simplicity. Nor will I be arguing the validity of categorizing sins as greater or lesser. I will, for simplicity, operate as if they are so categorized.
I have heard many Catholics say that they are unable to take communion because they are divorced. Interestingly, upon examining canon law as thoroughly as I am able, I have found nowhere that states that a divorced person is restricted from the sacrament. The restriction comes into play upon re-marriage. We piece this together from statutes from both the canon law and the Catechism. Catholic law groups sins into two categories: “Grave” or serious (things you wouldn’t want your mother to know), and “venial” or not so serious (your mother probably did them, too). Grave sins are generally the biggies: murder, adultery, apostasy.
Let’s take our first look at canon law. Can. 916 states:

“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to…receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession.”

So here we have the legal establishment for grave sin barring a person from communion. However, we also have the remedy, which is to confess that sin in the sacrament of confession. Because, as Can 959 later states:

“The faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves, obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed.”

Remember that phrase “intend to reform themselves”, it will be used later.


So we have established, legally that grave sin excludes a person from communion until they have confessed these sins to the priest and received absolution. Now let’s turn to the Catechism to connect this to re-marriage. The Catechism (or teachings of the church) states in paragraph 1650:

“In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – ‘whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ – the church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.”

So basically, re-marriage is adultery, and adultery is grave sin.
So you might think that all the re-married have to do is confess the sin. But you would be wrong. In order for the second marriage to be removed from the status of adultery, the person must seek a decree of annulment from the church concerning the first marriage. This is a long process and in no way guarantees that one will be granted, in which case you are prohibited from communion for life.
Let us now ask a question. If re-marriage is to be equated with adultery, what about the average adulterer? He or she may go confess their sin and then be allowed to take communion, so why not apply this to the re-married? Answer: it can be reasonably expected that this person “has reformed themselves” by ending the adulterous relationship, so that the sin is past. There is no reasonable expectation of abstinence from sexual union between two people still married. But this answer would fall flat. Paragraph 1650 of the Catechism, stated above, goes on to read:

“Reconciliation through the sacrament of penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.”

The part to pay attention to here is the part about living in continence. In other words, if the couple pledges to live celibate. Or, as the church phrases it for couples unable to have children, “live as brother and sister.” So the church does in fact consider it reasonable to expect a couple to live in abstinence or they wouldn’t have inserted this continence clause. Therefore, if both the regular adulterers, and the re-married, are considered to have committed the same sin, with same expectation to resist further temptations, then they should be given the same Eucharistic rights.
Here’s another challenge. Grave sin, according to the statute stated above, must be reconciled through confession with a priest. Because, as Catechism paragraph 1395 states the Eucharist “is not so ordered to take away grave sins”, although it apparently can take away venial (lesser) sins according to paragraph 1416. Considering all this, and that the church believes in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, can we really say that Christ cannot forgive more serious offenses, but that an earthly priest can? Is this not terribly backwards?
Lets step away from the legal angle now, and move to the abstract. I have two friends. One married a woman who sued him for divorce after 8 months. He committed no wrong against the marriage union, but she decided that domestic life wasn’t what she wanted after all. My friend was baptized in the Latin rite, but never went through the other two initiative rites, usually done in childhood, for full admittance to the church, those being a first communion at around age 7, and confirmation at around age 13. For an adult in his situation who wants to go back into the church, they have a process for adults to receive these rites. But because of his divorce (even without re-marriage, since the church takes it to that level despite the lack of canonical support) he can never go through those other two rites. At least not without an annulment, which he would never be granted because there was no “just-cause” for the divorce; never mind the fact that it was not him who wanted it. So because my friend made a mistake in his early adulthood, he can never be a full member of the Catholic Church. Because of a past mistake, he is permanently rejected from, what Catholics consider to be, Christ himself.
My other friend made a similar mistake at an even younger age, but this union produced a child. As her husband quickly showed himself abusive she divorced, and was given custody of the child. This was more to protect her baby than herself. She has never sought an annulment, and after decades gone by cares not for the idea of reopening those old wounds, which would be necessary. Shortly after this she married a man who gave her and their children a loving and stable home. For this act of altruism she is permanently banned from receiving Christ in his sacrament.
The church would argue with me that these people are still in their state of sin. Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t matter. The problem is that we are punishing them indefinitely for having made a mistake. In Matthew 11:20 Jesus begins to admonish the cities in which he did mighty works, because they did not repent after experiencing them. This tells me that Jesus ministered to them BEFORE there was repentance. This tells me that, while we are to admonish sinful living, and counsel the wayward, we are not to withhold the ministrations of Christ, in whatever form. The only time I recall that Jesus withheld himself from someone was the Canaanite woman, and that wasn’t because of her sin but because of his mission. The fact that she was Canaanite means she was probably pagan, and there is no reason to believe that she threw off her pagan beliefs after her daughter was healed. Most likely she just added the Israelite God to her pantheon. But Jesus relented to her request anyhow. Nor did he stand afar off from the Samaritan woman with five previous husbands and currently living with a man she was not married to.
What is a family that has no grace for the transgression of its members? Those unable to take communion remain sitting while the rest of the church approaches the altar. Or they approach as well, but with arms crossed in front of them like an ‘X’ to indicate to the priest that they may receive a blessing, but not the communion. Was this sacrament ever meant to be used as a scarlet letter? Let he is without sin cast the first stone.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE