|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is always a mortal sin to hold
communion with an excommunicated person in other cases than those in
which it is allowed. Because a certain decretal (Cap. Sacris: De
his quae vi, metuve, etc.) declares that "not even through fear of
death should anyone hold communion with an excommunicated person, since
one ought to die rather than commit a mortal sin." But this would be
no reason unless it were always a mortal sin to hold communion with an
excommunicated person. Therefore, etc.
Objection 2: Further, it is a mortal sin to act against a
commandment of the Church. But the Church forbids anyone to hold
communion with an excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin
to hold communion with one who is excommunicated.
Objection 3: Further, no man is debarred from receiving the
Eucharist on account of a venial sin. But a man who holds communion
with an excommunicated person, outside those cases in which it is
allowed, is debarred from receiving the Eucharist, since he incurs a
minor excommunication. Therefore it is a mortal sin to hold communion
with an excommunicated person, save in those cases in which it is
allowed.
Objection 4: Further, no one should incur a major excommunication
save for a mortal sin. Now according to the law (Can. Praecipue,
seqq., caus. xi) a man may incur a major excommunication for holding
communion with an excommunicated person. Therefore it is a mortal sin
to hold communion with one who is excommunicated.
On the contrary, None can absolve a man from mortal sin unless he
have jurisdiction over him. But any priest can absolve a man for
holding communion with those who are excommunicated. Therefore it is
not a mortal sin.
Further, the measure of the penalty should be according to the measure
of the sin, as stated in Dt. 25:3. Now the punishment appointed
by common custom for holding communion with an excommunicated person is
not that which is inflicted for mortal sin, but rather that which is
due for venial sin. Therefore it is not a mortal sin.
I answer that, Some hold that it is always a mortal sin to hold
communion with an excommunicated person, by word or in any of the
forbidden ways mentioned above (Article 2), except in those cases
allowed by law (Cap. Quoniam). But since it seems very hard that
a man should be guilty of a mortal sin by uttering just a slight word to
an excommunicated person, and that by excommunicating a person one
would endanger the salvation of many, and lay a snare which might turn
to one's own hurt, it seems to others more probable that he is not
always guilty of a mortal sin, but only when he holds communion with
him in a criminal deed, or in an act of Divine worship, or through
contempt of the Church.
Reply to Objection 1: This decretal is speaking of holding
communion in Divine worship. It may also be replied that the same
reason applies both to mortal and venial sin, since just as one cannot
do well by committing a mortal sin, so neither can one by committing a
venial sin: so that just as it is a man's duty to suffer death rather
than commit a mortal sin, so is it his duty to do so sooner than commit
a venial sin, inasmuch as it is his duty to avoid venial sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The commandment of the Church regards
spiritual matters directly, and legitimate actions as a consequence:
hence by holding communion in Divine worship one acts against the
commandment, and commits a mortal sin; but by holding communion in
other matters, one acts beside the commandment, and sins venially.
Reply to Objection 3: Sometimes a man is debarred from the
Eucharist even without his own fault, as in the case of those who are
suspended or under an interdict, because these penalties are sometimes
inflicted on one person for the sin of another who is thus punished.
Reply to Objection 4: Although it is a venial sin to hold communion
with one who is excommunicated, yet to do so obstinately is a mortal
sin: and for this reason one may be excommunicated according to the
law.
|
|