| |
||
In 1993 an Ecumenical Directory on the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism was issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Since then Interchurch Families has tried to collect information from different parts of the world on how the norms of that Directory are being implemented by Roman Catholic bishops and episcopal conferences, particularly in relation to eucharistic sharing for interchurch families. We have given a series of reports and studies over the past few years. The French bishops simply referred back to their Note on Eucharistic Hospitality of 1983 (Interchurch Families Jan.95, 3,1 p.1). The Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia issued Blessed and Broken: Pastoral Guidelines for Eucharistic Hospitality at Easter 1995 (IF Summer 96, 4,2 p.8). The German Bishops’ Conference issued guidelines through their Ecumenical Commission in February 1997 (IF Jan 98, 6,1 p.10), and the Archbishop of Vienna followed suit in June 1997 (ibid p.12). The Southern African Bishops’ Conference issued their norms on eucharistic sharing in the context of a Directory on Ecumenism for Southern Africa in January 1998 (IF Summer 1998, 6,2 p.6) and revised them in January 2000 (IF Summer 2000, 8,2 p.5). Meanwhile, in May 1998 the diocese of Rockhampton in Queensland, Australia, prepared its own guidelines (IF Summer 2000, 8,2). In October 1998 the Bishops’ Conferences of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland published One Bread One Body, a teaching document on the eucharist that included the norms for eucharistic sharing agreed by the three episcopal conferences; we printed an interchurch family response (IF Summer 1999, 7,2 p.10 ff.).
Eventually it may be possible to make a comparative study of these and other guidelines on eucharistic sharing. In the meantime, we will continue to report on those that appear, as we learn of their existence.
We give below the text of the Canadian Policy on sacramental sharing; this is reprinted from Studia Canonica, 34, 2000, pp.117-18. The Policy document was drawn up by the Canadian Episcopal Commission for Ecumenism, and approved by the Permanent Council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. In April 1999 it was sent to all the diocesan bishops, to be promulgated by them if they wished to do so. It was to be publicised as an interim policy; after a suitable period of time the Commission for Ecumenism will survey the dioceses which have participated and evaluate their experience. It is expected that after such evaluation the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops will be able to enact a common policy based on that experience. With the Policy text the Bishops received a model decree by which they could establish the policy for their own dioceses. They also received a Pastoral Commentary, Sacramental Sharing between Catholics and other Christians in Canada, intended to help priests, deacons and lay ministers to determine cases of serious need. In addition, they were sent a pamphlet, Conditions Permitting Non-Catholics to Receive Sacraments from a Catholic Minister: Notes for those who may benefit from the policy; this is intended for potential Anglican and Protestant recipients of the sacraments to help them to find out whether they would qualify. We give first the short text of the Policy itself.
It is important to read the Policy in the light of the Pastoral Commentary and the Notes for those who may benefit that accompany it. The Canonical Commentary that follows is also very helpful in drawing out some of its implications.
POLICY ON CASES OF SERIOUS NEED IN WHICH THE SACRAMENTS OF PENANCE, EUCHARIST, AND ANOINTING OF THE SICK MAY BE ADMINISTERED TO ANGLICANS AND BAPTISED PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS
The Eucharist is a profound mystery which is both a sign of unity and a source of grace. As a rule, Roman Catholic canon law restricts the reception of holy Communion and other sacraments to those who are full members of the Catholic Church. This rule preserves the notion of the Eucharist as a symbol of unity. On the other hand, the Catholic Church recognises that the participation of other Christians in the sacraments under certain circumstances is permissible because it is a source of grace for all the baptised.
Accordingly, the canon law admits separated Eastern Christians and members of like churches to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from a Catholic minister whenever they ask on their own for it and are properly disposed. Anglican and Protestant Christians may receive the same three sacraments in danger of death and in other cases of grave need as determined by the diocesan bishop or the conference of bishops in accord with canon 844, 4 of the Code of Canon Law. This policy specifies these cases of grave need.
1. In accord with canon 844, 4, Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to Anglican and Protestant Christians in danger of death or in any of the following cases of grave need:
2. An Anglican or Protestant party in a mixed marriage who has a serious spiritual need for the Eucharist may receive Communion on special occasions, such as principal anniversaries, funerals of family members, on Christmas and Easter if the family attends Mass together, and other occasions of ecclesial or familial significance.
3. The Anglican or Protestant faithful who receive a sacrament from a Catholic minister when they cannot approach their own minister must be validly baptised, ask for the sacrament on their own, manifest catholic faith in the sacrament, and be properly disposed.
4. Doubtful cases are to be referred to the diocesan bishop (or his delegate).
PASTORAL COMMENTARY ACCOMPANYING THE POLICY
The Pastoral Commentary that accompanies the Policy consists of two main parts: Theological Principles and Canonical Notes and Pastoral Implementation. We give here the sections that concern interchurch couples and families.
‘Theological Principles’ contains a section on ‘Spiritual Need’. This states:
More than simply a passing desire or a response to a feeling of being excluded, spiritual need implies both "a need for an increase in spiritual life and a need for a deeper involvement in the Church and its unity." (Instruction on Admitting other Christians to Communion in the Catholic Church, 1972, IV.2) Interchurch couples and families may experience spiritual need in certain circumstances. Being unable to share the Eucharist may lead to serious risk to the spiritual life and faith of one or both partners. It may endanger the integrity of the marriage bond or result in an indifference to the sacraments, a distancing from Sunday worship and so from the life of the Church.
(This section echoes that of the German bishops on the spiritual need of interchurch families, but does not include the pastoral questions that may help a minister to determine the need in particular cases. See parts 2 and 5 of the German guidelines.)
‘Canonical Notes and Pastoral Implementation’ contains two sections that refer to interchurch families; we give them both below.
Principles for the Application of the Policy
Two general principles should guide the application of this Policy: 1) the policy is to be interpreted broadly to favour sacramental reception by those eligible; and 2) the Church does not demand more of non-Catholics than it does of Catholic people.
1) Although canon law requires a "grave need" for an Anglican or Proestant Christian to receive penance, Eucharist, or anointing of the sick from a Catholic minister, this "grave need" must be broadly interpreted in keeping with the standard canonical principle, "favours are to be multiplied, burdens are to be restricted." This principle is clearly in evidence in the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism when it acknowledges that the non-Catholic party to a mixed marriage may be permitted to receive Communion at the wedding Mass and in exceptional cases afterward. Here the category of "grave need" was broadened by the Holy See to include the spiritual need of a Christian spouse who wants to participate fully in the Eucharist at his or her wedding Mass and other important occasions in the family’s life. All the terms of the Policy are subject to broad interpretation: "regular access to their own minister," "serious spiritual need," "manifest Catholic faith," "proper disposition," "occasions of ecclesial and familial significance".
2) The second principle to keep in mind is that the Church does not require non-Catholics to have more knowledge of the sacrament, or more faith and holiness, than the Catholic faithful have. This principle is particularly pertinent in applying terms of the law which speak of the non-Catholic Christian "manifesting catholic faith" in the sacrament and having the "proper disposition".
Mixed Marriage
A "mixed marriage" or interchurch marriage between a Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic normally should be celebrated at a liturgy of the Word. Since the sacraments of Eucharist and marriage are both signs of unity, this symbolism could be distorted when many people at a wedding cannot participate fully because they are not allowed by Catholic discipline to receive Communion. However, occasionally the non-Catholic party also wants a wedding Mass, not merely to please the Catholic party and family, but due to his or her own faith and eucharistic tradition. In such a case it may be appropriate to admit to Holy Communion at the wedding Mass the non-Catholic party who expresses a desire to receive it together with the Catholic party. The conditions for reception of the sacraments can be explained in advance of the wedding orally or by means of a pamphlet.
After the wedding, the policy permits the Anglican or Protestant party to a mixed marriage to receive Communion on "occasions of ecclesial or familial significance". This indicates that the reception of Communion is not to be habitual, but that it may be done on other special occasions besides the ones given as examples in the Policy. Ultimately, the non-Catholic spouses themselves will determine the occasions of ecclesial and familial significance when they have a serious spiritual need for the Eucharist, excluding habitual reception. Those who want to receive the sacraments habitually in the Catholic Church should be invited to become Catholic.
The Notes for those who may benefit from the Policy contains a similar paragraph, as follows:
The Anglican or Protestant parties in interchurch marriages may receive Communion on a Catholic Church when they experience a serious spiritual need for it on occasions of ecclesial or familial significance, such as principal anniversaries, funerals of family members, on Christmas and Easter if the family attends Mass together, and other similar occasions. Ultimately, the non-Catholic spouses themselves determine what are the occasions of ecclesial or familial significance when they have a strong spiritual desire to receive Holy Communion. However, there should be a special significance to the occasion; it is not meant to be a routine practice. Those who wish to receive the sacraments on a regular basis in the Catholic Church should inquire about becoming a Catholic.
A CANONICAL COMMENTARY ON THE POLICY
We are greatly indebted to the Revd John M.Huels, OSM, Professor in the Faculty of Canon Law, St Paul University, Ottawa, for his commentary on the Canadian policy text, ‘A Policy on Canon 844, 4 for Canadian Dioceses’, which appeared in Studia Canonica, 34, 2000, pp.91-118. He has also written two more popular articles, printed in the Canadian journal Celebrate! The first introduced the policy (May/June 2000) and the second is entitled ‘Sacramental Sharing in Mixed Marriages: the Policy for Canadian dioceses’ (July/August 2000).
In his canonical commentary, Fr Huels points to the advantages for bishops of establishing a general policy. First, the bishop will not have to respond to individual requests for permission, but only for exceptional cases of grave need not foreseen by it. Second, there will be less variation in practice than where each Catholic minister interprets the norms of the 1993 Ecumenical Directory for himself. Third, it is an opportunity for teaching, since many, even Catholic clergy, are confused, some thinking that other Christians may never receive sacraments from Catholic ministers, others thinking that all may decide for themselves when they can receive. Catechesis should therefore accompany the promulgation of the Policy in each diocese.
In an interesting note on language, Fr Huels points out that the Policy speaks of cases of "grave need", not of cases of "grave and pressing need", as in the English translation of the Code approved by a number of episcopal conferences. The Latin phrase in c.844, 4 is alia urgeat gravis necessitas. For grammatical precision, the phrase should be translated in English: "if … another grave need would urge it." He points out that "grave and pressing" sounds more restrictive than "grave". "English-speaking canonists and bishops need to be aware that, with this translation, they might be susceptible to understanding the gravis necessitas of c.844, 4 in a more restrictive way than is conveyed by the Latin."
But we will look particularly at the second part of the article, the section on mixed marriages. The first permission given is that for special occasions of either ecclesial or familial significance. Two examples are given of occasions of familial significance: principal anniversaries and funerals of family members. Two examples are given of occasions of ecclesial significance: Christmas and Easter. These are only examples of special occasions. He quotes the Pastoral Commentary: "Ultimately, the Christian spouses themselves determine the significant ecclesial or family occasions when they have a serious spiritual need for the Eucharist."
Spiritual need
Fr Huels points out that in speaking of "a serious spiritual need for the Eucharist", the Canadian document is consistent with previous documents of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Earlier the Secretariat had identified one kind of grave need for sacramental sharing as a "serious spiritual need", also called a "genuine spiritual need". He points out the difference here from other cases of need. We quote:
Unlike the other cases of necessity, the gravity of this case does not stem from the absolute inability of the non-Catholic parties to mixed marriages to approach their own minister; they could separate from their families and go to their own churches if they wished. Rather, the gravity of this case stems from the gravity of the spiritual need experienced by the non-Catholic’s inability to approach their minister on this special occasion when attending Mass with the Catholic spouse and children. The SPCU described this spiritual need as "the need of growth in the spiritual life and the need of a more profound insertion into the mystery of the Church and her unity." The recipient of communion would not likely describe his or her spiritual need using this kind of language, nor is any articulation of the need required. It suffices that they experience a serious spiritual need. Provided they are made aware of this requirement, they themselves may judge when they are in serious spiritual need for the Eucharist, in accord with the Policy.
"They themselves may judge" is a phrase that will delight many interchurch families. There is a problem here however, in that some would say they experience a serious spiritual need each time they are at Mass with their spouse. This judgement of their need seems to be excluded by reference to "special occasions". Indeed, Fr Huels quotes Familiaris Consortio, in which Pope John Paul II says the Eucharist is "the very source of Christian marriage" by which "the Christian family finds the foundation and the soul of its communion and its mission". "By partaking in the eucharistic bread, the different members of the Christian family become one body, which reveals and shares in the wider unity of the church." Ideally, comments Fr Huels, the Christian family should be able to participate fully in the Eucharist every Sunday, but in a mixed marriage that is not possible. However, with this new Policy for Canadian dioceses, the family will at least be able to receive Christ’s body and blood together on special occasions of familial or ecclesial significance.
However, Fr Huels does state in his second Celebrate article: This is not to say that it is impossible for the Anglican or Protestant spouse to receive holy communion every Sunday in a Catholic church, but only that it is not permitted under this second provision of the Policy. It could happen, however, that the baptised, non-Catholic, spouse has a grave reason, in accord with the first part of the policy, for receiving holy communion more often than special occasions, for example, if a minister of one’s own denomination were not accessible on a regular basis.
It would seem that the point here is that there are exceptions when the other Christian spouse might receive communion regularly: if they have no access to their own minister. One could argue that, if they regularly attend the Eucharist with their Catholic spouse, they do lack access to their own minister; it is not so much physical impossibility but moral impossibility, due to the need to attend Sunday eucharist together as a family. A case could be made for this, and then it would be up to the couple to "judge for themselves", if such were diocesan policy..
However that may be, we hope that the experienced need of some interchurch families to be together often at the eucharist will be examined during the interim period when the Canadian dioceses are applying the present Policy, in the light of the strong expression that "they themselves may judge". This examination could well be made in the light of Fr Huels’ reference to the gravity of the need. This does not stem from the absolute inability of the Anglican or Protestant partner to approach his or her own minister, but from the gravity of the spiritual need itself, in the context of a marriage relationship.
The Wedding Mass
Following the Pastoral Commentary on the distortion of the symbolism when many people at a wedding cannot participate fully because they are not allowed by Catholic discipline to receive communion, Fr Huels makes a strong case for celebrating the wedding outside mass. He points out that a priest will need to determine whether the non-Catholic truly wants the eucharist, and whether the non-Catholic guests will be comfortable at a Catholic eucharist at which they may not receive communion. Again we quote:
It will be necessary to educate priests in parishes on this point. Experience has shown that many priests celebrate the Eucharist routinely at mixed marriages while not giving communion to the non-Catholic party. It is now clear that the opposite ought to be the practice, that the Eucharist should only rarely be celebrated at a mixed marriage, but when it is done for a just cause there should be a greater openness to the non-Catholic’s reception of communion. The implicit presumption in the Policy is that, when there is sufficient reason to celebrate the Eucharist, there likely is also sufficient reason to give holy communion to the non-Catholic party.
Here Fr Huels quotes from a document of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity: "Eucharistic Communion in the celebration of Mass is really the most perfect manner of participating in the Eucharist since this is fulfilling the words of the Lord: ‘Take and eat’." He continues:
The reverse could also generally be held: if there is not sufficient reason to give holy communion to the non-Catholic party, then there is also not likely to be a sufficient reason to have the wedding at Mass. Undoubtedly this will require considerable change in pastoral practice on the part of priests and in the thinking of the Catholic people. The celebration of the rite of marriage outside Mass should not be viewed negatively as some kind of deprivation of a right of the Catholic party to a wedding Mass. Rather, the rite of marriage outside Mass should be presented positively as more ecumenically sensitive to the religious sentiments of the non-Catholic guests and the non-Catholic spouse.
In cases where the other Christian partner really wants a celebration of the eucharist, Fr Huels points out that there is already sacramental sharing occurring in virtue of the fact that any marriage between two baptised persons is a sacrament (c.1055, 2). "Thus, the admission of the baptised non-Catholic party to the Eucharist is, in effect, a strong symbol of the sacramental reality of the marriage."
Conditions for Admission
When Fr Huels comes to consider the conditions for admission to Catholic communion, there are some points of particular interest to interchurch families.
On the inability of Anglican or Protestant faithful to go to a minister of their own community, he says:
The 1993 Directory for Ecumenism employs a broad interpretation of the inability to go to a minister of one’s community in its provisions governing the reception of holy communion by the non-Catholic party of a mixed marriage at the wedding Mass and on exceptional occasions during the marriage. With a mixed marriage, the impossibility is not due to the habitual physical or moral impossibility to go to the non-Catholic minister, but rather the immediate impossibility to go to that minister when one is celebrating one’s marriage in a Catholic church or when one is participating in the Catholic Eucharist on another significant occasion during the marriage. Surely, it is physically impossible to go to the non-Catholic minister for communion at one’s wedding or other important occasion when one is participating at Mass in a Catholic church! This is a good example of the standard canonical rule requiring broad interpretation of favourable laws.
Again, we would hope there might be further consideration of the significance of other occasions when the married partners are together at the eucharist.
Fr Huels points out that the requirement that other Christians be unable to go to a minister of their own community is ecumenically sensitive. It avoids the impression of proselytism by the Catholic Church. It also takes seriously the fact that God’s grace operates through sacraments which the Catholic Church judges to be "invalid". To quote: If the Protestant sacraments were inefficacious, it would be immoral for the Catholic minister to refuse the request of a Protestant for a sacrament in danger of death when his or her minister is available. Yet … the requirement of c.844, 4 that the non-Catholic be unable to approach a minister of his or her own community, applies even if the person is in danger of death. On the basis of this requirement, one can only conclude that the Catholic Church implicitly considers the sacraments of ecclesial communities to be effective in preparing the dying person for eternal life, and thus not devoid of sanctifying grace.
Fr Huels points out that one of the conditions for admission is that the Anglican or Protestant faithful are to ask for communion on their own initiative. This does not mean, however, that they should not be informed of the possibility of admission; indeed the "Notes for those who may benefit from the Policy" have just this purpose. The Pastoral Commentary states that the Catholic minister may not invite other Christians to the sacraments at the time of their celebration, writes Fr Huels. Nevertheless, at an appropriate time apart from the liturgical celebration, the Catholic minister may inform non-Catholics about the pertinent universal and particular law of the Catholic Church on sacramental sharing so that, if they fulfil the various conditions, they may approach the Catholic minister on their own volition. A good way to do this would simply be to give the pamphlet containing the Notes to persons who might be eligible, so that they can determine if they fulfil the conditions of the law. Then, if they believe they are eligible, they can take the initiative in requesting the sacrament from the Catholic minister.
Another requirement for admission is that the Anglican or Protestant manifests Catholic faith in the sacrament. With regard to Catholics, says Fr Huels, canonical doctrine holds that sufficient faith can usually be considered implicit in the desire to receive the sacrament. However, something more is required from other Christians, who must manifest Catholic faith. He finds the way the Ecumenical Commission has handled this delicate matter in the Pastoral Commentary and The Notes admirable – "faithful to the law, pastorally workable, and ecumenically sensitive". The faith requirement is simply stated in the Notes so that potential non-Catholic recipients can easily understand it: believers "should acknowledge that the sacrament is the body and blood of Christ given under the form of bread and wine. The believing Christian manifests faith in the Eucharist by responding ‘Amen’ to the minister who presents the sacred bread and saving cup." The presumption of the Commentary, comments Fr Huels, is that, once the non-Catholic faithful have read the Notes and/or have been instructed by the Catholic minister on the meaning of the sacrament, they manifest their acceptance of this Catholic faith in the sacrament in the very act of approaching the Catholic minister to receive the sacrament. This manifestation of faith additionally is made explicit verbally by responding "Amen" after the ministers’ presentation of bread and cup with words, "the Body of Christ" and "the blood of Christ.
On the face of it, he adds, the manifestation of faith required of non-Catholic recipients is exactly what is required of Catholic recipients. In effect, however, the non-Catholic Christian who has been explicitly instructed by the Notes and/or the minister before receiving the sacrament is giving a more demonstrable manifestation. … If there is a doubt whether the non-Catholic truly shares Catholic faith in the sacrament, the minister should ask for a more explicit manifestation of faith. A suitable way would be to ask a question to which an affirmative response would be required, for example: "Do you accept the faith in the Eucharist as Christ instituted it and as the Catholic Church has handed it down?" A 1972 instruction of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity suggested this wording for a manifestation of faith.
A final requirement is that the Catholic or Anglican faithful are to be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. Fr Huels comments that to receive holy communion fruitfully, the faithful must be in the state of grace, that is, free of grave sin. This is a requirement of the divine law and binds non-Catholic Christians as well. However, non-Catholics are not required to confess their grave sins in individual confession before they receive holy communion because that is a requirement of merely ecclesiastical law (from which even Catholics can be exempt in certain circumstances). Unless they wish to confess to a Catholic minister, non-Catholic Christians who are conscious of unforgiven serious sin should make an act of perfect contrition, privately expressing their sorrow and confessing their sins to God.
Conclusion
Fr Huels reminds his readers that the Policy is "experimental", to be altered in the future as a result of pastoral experience, consultations, and further reflection. It is important that diocesan ecumenical officers and commissions should monitor the implementation of the Policy and solicit feedback. Due attention must be given to the norm of c.844, 5 requiring "consultation with at least the local competent authority" of the Anglican and Protestant Churches. This might mean just sending documentation and requesting feedback, or it might involve a symposium or dialogue involving specialists in ecumenism to which the local Christian leadership or their representatives would be invited. When publicising the Policy care must be taken to avoid misrepresentation in the press so far as possible; it should be made clear that the bishop cannot go beyond what is permitted in the canon law. He may determine cases of grave need, but has no authority to permit open communion or intercommunion.
Finally, says Fr Huels, the requirements for sacramental sharing of c.844, 4 are complicated. Perhaps that is why relatively few bishops and conferences of bishops have established a general policy on cases of grave need in which the sacraments can be administered to baptised members of ecclesial communities. In Canadian dioceses this lacuna in particular law and pastoral practice may now be filled thanks to the new Policy and its accompanying documentation.
In his Celebrate article, Fr Huels suggests that in dioceses where the Policy has not yet been implemented, views on its desirability need to be voiced "from below". They should come not only from the diocesan ecumenical officers and ecumenical commissions and other official bodies, but also from individual clergy and lay faithful concerned about ecumenism and the pastoral welfare of all Christians who may be in grave spiritual need of the sacraments.
No other guidelines on eucharistic sharing, to our knowledge, have made it so clear that they are "experimental". We shall look forward with great interest to seeing how the process of monitoring their implementation and assessing their pastoral value proceeds in Canada. We hope especially for developments that may recognise more explicitly the on-going need for eucharistic sharing in the case of some interchurch couples and families, and may try to see how this need can be met more fully.
Vol 9.1.11-15
If you find any broken links, are having problems with any page in this site, or would like to suggest a page to link to, please contact the |
Go to Top |