SDG here with some non-expert thoughts on Canons 915 & 916 (for expert thoughts, see Ed Peters).
In the combox to my last post, a reader writes:
The problem with 915 and 916 is that the Church has (seemingly) allowed for a paradox, but canon law is supposed to clarify and not confuse. Hopefully future revisers of canon law will combine or rewrite those two canons.
I’m no student of canon law, but I don’t see any paradox. Or even tension.
Canon 916 says that those who are “conscious of grave sin” — whether obstinate, or not, manifest or not — are generally obliged (their responsibility) not to present themselves for Holy Communion.
Canon 915 says, in part, that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” — a set not identical to those identified in 916, but a subset thereof — are not to be admitted (the minister’s responsibility) to Holy Communion.
Canon 916 instructs certain people not to present themselves for Holy Communion. Canon 915 says that certain people are not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Where is the paradox or the tension?
Suppose a mother tells a babysitter: “The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper. But if anyone gives you a really hard time and won’t listen, don’t let them join the others. Keep them inside.” Then suppose she tells the children: “Be good tonight or else don’t ask to play outside after supper. Anyone who is naughty or fights should just stay inside after supper.”
Is there any sort of difficulty here?
The mother’s initial instructions to the sitter — “The kids are always allowed to play outside after supper” — create a strong presumption that the children should be allowed to go out, even if, as per her instructions to the children, they don’t deserve to go out and ought to stay inside.
However, the mother’s other instructions to the sitter impose a specific obligation regarding certain very naughty children — those who give her a really hard time and won’t listen — not to permit them to play outside, even if they ask.
Let’s say that Joshua, Emily and Chris all fight during dinner. Joshua’s behavior, though, is really beyond the pale. He refuses to eat, won’t stop teasing Emily and throws food at Chris, even after the sitter has repeatedly warned him, given him time-outs, etc. At least Emily and Chris make an effort to listen to the sitter, even though Emily is sometimes whiny and petulant and Chris overreacts to everything Joshua does.
All three were naughty. Should they stay inside, or should they get to go outside?
In the case of Emily and Chris, it’s probably up to them to decide. The sitter may know that the children were naughty and ought to stay in, but she hasn’t been authorized to enforce staying inside on all naughty children.
However, it is clear that Joshua’s behavior is so egregious that the sitter is obliged, as per the mother’s instructions, to keep him inside even if he asks to go out.
What’s the problem?
In a word, I don’t see the issue as how to reconcile 915 and 916, let alone whether it can be done. To me the issue is simple: Both 915 and 916, or only 916 and not 915?
