No communion for homosexual.

London - Cardinal Basil Hume refused to give Holy Communion to a homosexual man who challenged him at the altar on the feast of Corpus Christi. The man, Nicolas Holloway, had written the Cardinal an open letter in April, describing himself as an "openly, publicly, active homosexual person," and indicating he would appear to receive Holy Communion. In a letter of reply the Cardinal had pointed out that his decision about his sex life was "erroneous."

In a statement Cardinal Hume explained that he had not refused the sacrament because the man was homosexual, but because he was using the Mass to seek public endorsement of a private decision made in conscience. Said the Cardinal: "No one has the right to demand that the Church should publicly endorse their private decisions in conscience, when that decision is not in accord with the teaching of the Church." (Tablet, June 7, 97)

Commentary

The London Tablet added the following comment by Fr. Theodore Davey, OP, a canon lawyer working in the pastoral department of Heythrop College in the University of London:

Of all the rights that the faithful have as members of the Church, theologically and legally the most fundamental is the right to the sacraments, as canon 213 establishes. This places a corresponding obligation upon the ordained, particularly bishops, to respond, as canon 843 points out. This canon does not give carte blanche to the faithful, however, since it insists on three conditions being fulfilled before sacraments can be administered: that the faithful opportunely ask for a sacrament--in this case Communion; that they are properly disposed; and that they are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

What does seeking a sacrament opportunely mean? The general presumption of law must be that most requests from Christian people for a sacrament are opportune. But if there is an ulterior motive, or a "hidden agenda", would that destroy the presumption? With regard to the baptism of a child, for example, many priests are becoming suspicious of a request for this sacrament from non-practicing parents who have an eye to a place in a successful Catholic school, and judge such a request as inopportune.

When is a person properly disposed? Since being properly disposed for a sacrament is known only to God, to the individual concerned, and occasionally to the confessor, such a judgement is beyond the grasp of law and must be left to a person's conscience. This has the advantage of obviating some of the largely unanswerable questions about who is worthy to receive Communion.

Who is prohibited by law from receiving a sacrament? The Code is quite specific: those who are excommunicated or interdicted when this has been "declared" or, in other words, imposed publicly. The same canon 915, however, goes on to say "and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."

It is extremely rare to have excommunication or interdict "declared", so that a person is juridically no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. It is the second part of the canon, therefore, that deserves consideration.

This canon does not say or imply that practicing homosexuals are not to be admitted to Communion, nor indeed sinners in general. Canon 916 is relevant here and simply contains the common doctrine that anybody conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass nor receive the Body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession. Canon 915, however, is extremely nuanced: persons "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin." And since it treats of removing a person's right to Communion, each word is subject to a strict interpretation; strict interpretation being "the restriction of the proper meaning of the words of a law in a way that reduces its effect to that minimum beyond which the law would be rendered meaningless or absurd."

It is obvious that this canon is not addressing "ordinary" sinners - the whole people of God - but members of the Church who in a negative, rebellious and public fashion deride serious magisterial teaching by lifestyle and behaviour.

Three respectable commentaries on the Code mention the divorced and remarried as falling under canon 915, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says: "This norm is not at all a punishment or discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of Holy Communion" (October 1994). The same might be applied to the case of a practicing homosexual who in a most public manner uses "sacred space" and Communion to make a protest against Church doctrine. It is significant that Cardinal Hume decided not to quote canon 915 in the case of Mr. Holloway.

While conscience must be respected, so also must the mind of the Church, especially when expressed by her teachers, the college of bishops. It must be doubted if using the reception of Communion to make a "political" point is "opportune" in the meaning of the canon.