The last two weeks examined the two prohibitions in participation in religious rites according to the norm of canon 1381. Other prohibitions regarding the celebration of sacraments are divided into two: administering sacraments to those prohibited and unlawful exercise of the priestly office or sacred ministry. Today’s post focuses on the first.
Canon 1379 §4 states: “A person who deliberately administers a sacrament to those who are prohibited from receiving it is to be punished with suspension, to which other penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §§2-4 may be added.” This delict can only be committed by a minister in administering a sacrament. It excludes the administration of sacramentals such as ecclesiastical funerals and other blessings.
The juridical-pastoral criteria to ascertain this delict are deliberate action and the absence of the danger of death.
Deliberate action is the juridical dimension, which means that the minister knows that such action is prohibited but insists on doing it. Hence, the delict is malicious rather than negligent. The absence of the danger of death means that the pastoral dimension of relaxing the law does not exist. For instance, communion can be given to children below the age of reason (and therefore, have not received their first communion) in the danger of death, provided “they can distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion with reverence” (Can 913 §2).
The sacrament of baptism is validly administered only to an unbaptised person because baptism imprints an indelible mark on a person and can, therefore, not be received twice. A second baptism is merely an attempt. The law allows for conditional baptism, that is, administering baptism when, after a serious inquiry, there is doubt as to whether a person was baptised or whether the baptism was conferred validly (cf. Can. 869 §1). Moreover, canon 869 §2 states: “Those baptised in a non-catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptised conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of the matter or the form of words used in the baptism, or of the intention of the adult being baptised or of that of the baptising minister.”
This means conditional baptism is not granted to non-Catholic Christians whose baptisms are considered valid. Unfortunately, the Holy See does not provide an approved list of Churches with valid baptisms. This could be due to the continuous proliferation of Churches and the fluidity of their sacramental life. However, among others, the Church has ruled that baptisms conferred at the Church of Jesus of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) are invalid. Nevertheless, in Nigeria, we consider the Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists among those with valid baptism. Therefore, a priest who deliberately attempts a baptism on an already baptised person or one who grants conditional baptism on those expressly prohibited is guilty of the delict.
Canon 915 states, “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” The penalty of excommunication or interdict automatically prohibits one from receiving the sacraments (cf. Cann. 1331 §1, 2°; 1332 §1) but never the sacramentals such as ecclesiastical funerals (cf. Can. 1331 §1, 2°).
Three conditions are necessary to ascertain one who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin: (a) the sin is objectively grave, (b) the sinner obstinately perseveres in it, and (c) the sin is publicly known by a large part of the parish community. The commonest reference to manifest grave sin in Nigeria is couples living together without Church marriage and, increasingly now, divorced and remarried Catholics.
So much has been said about the status of these people and whether they meet the criteria for someone living in manifest grave sin. Regarding the first category, we assume that if two baptised people contract marriage without it being a sacrament, they should not receive communion because they are living in sin. Yet, natural law governs marriage, and people marry in various legal systems to ensure the validity of their marriage.
Therefore, marriages contracted under customary or civil law are as valid as marriages contracted under canon law. It only differs because the Catholic Church requires Catholics to contract their marriages according to the canonical form (cf. Can. 1108). The reason is for liceity and validity under canon law and not for liceity or validity under customary or civil law. Since Christianity is a new religion in Nigeria, it is absurd to say that marriages contracted before Christianity arrived were invalid or illicit. We could read more on church marriage and customary marriage in Nigeria from posts 76 (12 December 2022) to 85 (13 February 2023).
Regarding divorced and remarried Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI affirms:
“Finally, where the nullity of the marriage bond is not declared and objective circumstances make it impossible to cease cohabitation, the Church encourages these members of the faithful to commit themselves to living their relationship in fidelity to the demands of God’s law, as friends, as brother and sister; in this way they will be able to return to the table of the Eucharist, taking care to observe the Church’s established and approved practice in this regard. This path, if it is to be possible and fruitful, must be supported by pastors and by adequate ecclesial initiatives, nor can it ever involve the blessing of these relations, lest confusion arise among the faithful concerning the value of marriage” (Sacramentum Caritatis, 29).
Since Pope Benedict’s proviso was rife with challenges, Pope Francis, in the 2016 Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, attempted to find ways in which divorced and remarried Catholics could receive communion or at least be integrated into the Church. The recommendations raised serious concerns and even strong opposition from high-ranking Church members. I am not sure of the extent to which we implement the proposals today.
If sin is something intrinsically evil, would we, therefore, say that couples who married only according to customary law are living in sin? With the circumstances we observe that lead to the breakdown of marriages, would we describe people who divorced and remarried as living in sin? It is, therefore, unsurprising that the Church uses the term “irregular” unions or situations to describe all other marriage circumstances in which Catholics could find themselves. (Familiaris Consortio, 79 -84; Amoris Laetitia, 296-300).
Irrespective of the above, we are prohibited from giving communion to those in irregular matrimonial situations, except in the danger of death. As people move to various parishes or travel to other towns, we may have likely given communion to one living in manifest sin or in an irregular marriage. Since the delict is malicious and not negligent, the priest does not commit the delict if he does not know this, and the community does not raise a red flag about the person.
Another dimension of the delict is also present in the sacrament of matrimony. Although strictly speaking, the two spouses are the celebrants of their marriage, the priest who receives their consent in the name of the Church can commit the delict if he proceeds to receive the consent of spouses prohibited from canonical marriage. There are two broad categories. The first is when there is a prohibition to allow canonical marriage due to tribunal judgement or one established by the Ordinary (vetitum) (cf. Can. 1682 §1). The second prohibition is impediments to marriage. Until the prohibition is lifted or the impediment is dispensed, a priest who proceeds with such marriage commits the delict.
Regarding the sacrament of holy orders, the impediments and irregularities prohibit one from licitly receiving the sacrament (cf. Cann. 1040-1049). Hence, until the impediment or irregularity is dispensed, the bishop who knowingly proceeds with the ordination commits the delict. Canon 1015 provides that the proper bishop ordains his subjects to the diaconate or priesthood. He can only ordain other candidates with a lawful dimissorial letter that the candidate’s proper bishop grants. A bishop who ordains a candidate (not his subject) without a dimissorial letter has committed the delict for lack of jurisdiction. Since the delict is malicious, it is absent if there is an error or deceit in the dimissorial letter.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
