Earlier this month the Rainbow-Sashers attempted to receive Communion in the cathedral in the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
Fortunately, they were denied Communion.
Unfortunately, some of them got it anyway.
GET THE STORY.
EXCERPT:
In an act that some witnesses called a "sacrilege" and others called a sign of "solidarity," a man who was not wearing a sash received a Communion wafer from a priest, broke it into pieces and handed it to some of the sash wearers, who consumed it on the spot.
Ushers threatened to call the police, and a church employee burst into tears when the unidentified man re-distributed the consecrated wafer, which Catholics consider the body of Christ. But the Mass was not interrupted, and the incident ended peacefully, said Dennis McGrath, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
"It was confrontational, but we decided not to try to arrest the guy," he said.
I’m not sure of all of the details of the incident, and I’m not sure on what grounds the guy could have been arrested, but this situation has potential canonical implications that go beyond civil law.
The man who took the host and then used it to give Communion to the Rainbow-Sashers may have excommunicated himself and incurred an excommunication that can only be lifted by the Holy See.
The Code of Canon Law provides:
Can. 1367
A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.
Now, the unnamed man in the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis clearly took the consecrated species, and on the face of the matter, he took them for purposes of distributing Communion to the Rainbow-Sashers, so the question becomes whether this was a sacrilegious purpose.
Normally, sacreligious purposes would be things like using the consecrated Host in a "black Mass" or similar act of overt and unambiguous desecration, but what the man did may count.
The Rainbow Sash movement is in open opposition to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, and wearing a raindbow sash at Mass signals this opposition. It is thus no surprise that the Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has intervened to prevent Communion from being distributed to them.
The Code would certainly back him up:
Can. 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.
To publicly oppose the Church’s teachings on homosexuality at the very moment Communion is being distributed is, by its nature, manifest grave sin, and since the Rainbow-Sashers persist in doing it, they also appear to be doing so obstinately.
This means that the man who gave them Communion was taking the sacred species for purposes of distributing Comunion to those who are canonically prohibited from receiving Communion on the grounds that they were obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.
That sounds like he had a sacrilegious purpose to me.
Further, his action has the appearance of itself being an act of public opposition to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality (or at least its pastoral practice in the distribution of the sacraments) and thus itself appears to be an act of manifest grave sin. The quality of obstinacy may not be present here, but the act of taking the sacred species in order to commit an act of manifest grave sin (publicly defying the Church’s teaching on homosexuality/publicly defying its law regarding the distribution of Communion) would itself seem to be a sacrilegious purpose.
So it sounds to me like this gentleman may have excommunicated himself, and done so in a way that will require the action of the Holy See to undo (since this offense is reserved to the Holy See).
If this is the case, then it happened automatically, without any intervention on the part of the Diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.
Wouldn’t he also have to be aware that there’s a canonical penalty associated with his action to receive a latae sententiae excommunication? I also note that you used the word “may” several times, so wouldn’t canon 18’s requirement of strict construction apply? Not that I’m defending what he did, of course, but as you know, it’s really not easy to trigger a latae sententiae excommunication.
Geoff, I would have to believe that the man knew that what he was doing in taking the sacred body of Christ with the intent of personally distributing it to those who have been denied it by the Church would incur a penalty. He thought he was being clever. Now, let’s pray the Holy Spirit grants him the grace to see the error of his ways and the humility to ask God’s forgiveness.
I wonder whether it’s wrong to hope that the pieces Christ can know will go to such persons, will not be transubstantiated? Or that he can reverse the transubstantiation? I know we don’t have to believe personal revelation, but St. Faustina wrote about a revelation wherein at least one person did not receive a transubstantiated host because Christ leapt out of it or something before the person ate it.
Then again, Christ did not decide to come down from the cross, so…
“…I’m not sure on what grounds the guy could have been arrested.”
It depends on how much disruption there was at the Mass. Most states have laws prohibiting the disruption of any public meeting. Some, like mine, make it a more serious offense to disrupt a religious service.
Assumining he was even Catholic to begin with, I somehow don’t think he cares whether, or not, he is excommunicated.
Jimmy’s post is great, as usual. What complicates this beyond the tolerable is the “latae sententiae” part of the law.
My favourite part of the story:
“The number of those wearing rainbow sashes has never been large, and it appears to be declining. The largest single gathering was last year in St. Paul, where about 125 people were turned away from Communion. In most cities, there have been only a few wearing sashes.”
Here’s hoping the trend continues. 🙂
“I wonder whether it’s wrong to hope that the pieces Christ can know will go to such persons, will not be transubstantiated?”
Well, we can’t count on that. One of the prayers I have read at Eucharistic adoration asks Jesus to accept our prayers as reparation for all the sacrileges He has had to endure through the profaning of the Blessed Sacrament.
The police could arrest the parishioner for disturbing the peace. definition: upsetting the quiet and good order particularly through loud noise, by fighting or other unsocial behavior which frightens or upsets people.
I think that their actions could be considered “unsocial behavior”.
This is sort of on the topic, and I figure Jimmy or some of his learned readers will be able to answer this question for me. A few months back at Sunday Mass, I happened to look down as I was entering the pew and saw a Communion Host on the floor (a weird side note: I almost never sit on this side of the Church and really don’t know why I decided to do so that Sunday. Maybe it wasn’t my decision?). I assumed that it was consecrated, and so I picked it up and cradled it between my hands, but then it occurred to me I really didn’t know what to do with it. I ended up finding one of the sacristans, who is also a Eucharistic Minister, and explained it to him. (Had he not been readily available, I would have sought out the priest or deacon). He said he knew what to do and would take care of it. It occurred to me later that I should have asked what the “what to do” is in this situation. Someone later told me that I should have consumed the Host. If that was the correct answer, and had I done so, would it have precluded my receiving Communion at that Mass? I sincerely hope that this situation does not come up again (all the more reason, if you ask me, that Communion in the hand should be banned) but would still like to know what is proper in that situation.
Gretchen,
Normal practice is to consume it immediately. Otherwise, there are other ways of disposing of a consecrated host, of which a sacristan would probably be aware. And no, to my knowledge there would be nothing to prevent you from receiving communion again, assuming the host was consecrated.
General Instruction of the Roman Missal
280. If a host or any particle should fall, it is to be picked up reverently. If any of the Precious Blood is spilled, the area where the spill occurred should be washed with water, and this water should then be poured into the sacrarium in the sacristy.
“The process of dissolving the host in water may be used in special conditions if a host had been seriously soiled. Once the host is dissolved, the water may be poured directly upon the earth or down the sacrarium — the special sacristy sink that leads to the earth, not to a drain.
It should not be poured down a common sink.”
Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Communion on the tongue.
That unfortunate parishioner thought he was helping those rainbow-sashers when in fact he brought a curse upon them by enabling them to commit a sacrilege.
But the enforcement of a Latae Sententiae excommunication is still going to fall to the Bishop, parish priests, and eucharistic ministers. What are the chances of that happening?
Forget the excommunication. I would have given him a beatdown on the spot.
Tempting. But a real PR loser.
So, Jason, would that mean we’d beat the be-jeezus out of him? 😉
Jason raises an interesting point — a great point, really.
I am fortunate to be able to attend daily Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. Regrettably, St. Pat’s seems to attract more than its fair share of nuts and malcontents.
Whenever I read of some protester abusing The Blessed Sacrament, I will invariably ask myself what I would have done had I been there. There is a part of me that hopes that I would act Christ-like in my response. At the end of the day, however, I fully expect that I’d be sitting right next to Jason in a holding cell on Riker’s Island while waiting on that bail bondsman to get us out.