280. Denying Communion to public sinners
280. DENYING COMMUNION TO PUBLIC SINNERS
The priest administering Communion cannot know the state of soul of the person seeking to receive it. Is there any justification, then, for his ever denying Communion to any Catholic?
Whether the priest ought to deny the Body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?
A distinction must be made among sinners. Some are secret, others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. . . .
But if they are not open sinners but occult (hidden), the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord’s table, he may not be robbed of his right except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, If he who is called a brother among you, etc., Augustine’s gloss remarks: We cannot inhibit any person from Communion except he has openly confessed or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal.
Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord’s table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death (III,80,6).
It is true that priests cannot read souls; only God can. But some sins are open and public, like being a Mafia hit man or an abortionist or a drug dealer or a professional thief. Someone who is an open and public sinner in a grave matter, and continues to perform the public sin for all to see, can and should be denied Communion. It would be a scandal for the Church implicitly to approve such a person’s lifestyle by giving him the all—holy Body of Christ.
What constitutes a grave matter is to some extent a prudential judgment and up to the local priest or bishop. There are some “grey areas” that are matters of degree. Habitual drunkenness is often public and open, but it is not grave enough for the Church to deny Communion to alcoholics, if they are sober at the time. What about a famous person who is married but living openly with a mistress? This is a much more deliberate public sin, and the Church would give scandal (harm to souls) if she acted as if that was acceptable to Christ, by offering Christ in the Eucharist to such public adulterer. What of politicians who publicly support the slaughter of the unborn innocent by abortion? This might seem to be a borderline case, but canon law is quite clear that they should be denied Communion, for their own sakes as well as the sake of public witness, though few bishops dare to enforce this.
But when the sin is not open and public, then the Church does not deny Communion to the sinner even if the sin is grave and the individual is wrong in seeking Communion. Since the sin is not open and public, there is no scandal (harm to souls) in giving them Communion. But when a priest knows of this sin, he should privately warn the individual to repent and confess before receiving.
In fact, even public and grave sinners, if they repent and confess, must be given Communion. This is true even if the priest suspects that the repentance and confession are not genuine, because he cannot be sure, and they must be given the benefit of the doubt, like a suspect who is innocent until proven guilty. Like God, the Church prefers to err on the side of compassion rather than on the side of strictness when it comes to pastoral work. She judges actions strongly and clearly; people much less so.
Especially “at the hour of death”. Death has a great way of provoking repentance. Samuel Johnson says “I know no thought that more wonderfully clarifies a man’s mind than the thought that he must hang tomorrow morning.”