[Question:]{.underline} Is it permissible to celebrate Vespers with non-Catholics?
[Answer:]{.underline} This question became of practical importance when Pope Benedict XVI assisted, on September 17, 2010, at the historic ecumenical Vespers in Westminster Abbey, together with Rowan Williams, the Anglican “Archbishop” of Canterbury. The accusation directed against the Pope is that to participate in religious ceremonies with non-Catholics is called communicatio in sacris, or the sharing in sacred things. Such a sharing in the sacred ceremonies of non-Catholics is forbidden by the traditional Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1258: “It is not at all permissible for the faithful to actively assist in any way or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics”. It is furthermore considered to be a crime against the faith and unity of the Church, so the person who does it is automatically suspect of heresy (Canon 2316). Others respond by saying that the Church has on occasion granted an exemption from this interdiction, and that the Pope, the supreme lawmaker in the Church, has the authority to do this.
CIVIL COMMUNICATION
In order to fully understand the question of communication with non-Catholics, and the Church’s law in its regard, it is important to distinguish between the different kinds of sharing or communication that can exist between Catholics and non-Catholics. The first kind is a purely civil communication, namely sharing with others the workplace, commerce, living arrangements. There was a time in the history of the Church when this purely civil sharing with heretics, excommunicated persons and Jews was forbidden, on account of the danger to the Faith. It was based upon the admonition of St. Paul: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.” (Tit 3:10). However, this is generally impossible in a modern pluralistic society, in which such civil contacts are unavoidable, and this ecclesiastical law has not existed for centuries. This does not for as much mean that indiscriminate contact with non-Catholics, even on civil matters, is always permissible. It can be forbidden by the natural and divine law (consequently a sin), when this contact becomes a cause of a real danger of loss of the Faith.
NEGATIVE COMMUNICATION IN SACRED THINGS
The second kind is a religious communication, or a sharing in sacred things, which includes everything that pertains to the practice of religion and divine worship. A further distinction has to be made. The negative religious communication is that which exists when a non-Catholic participates in Catholic religious ceremonies. Although this was forbidden in the early centuries of the Church, so that catechumens and public sinners were excluded from the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, this is now generally licit. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate in Masses and Catholic prayers, and it often produces many benefits for their souls to do so. There is no scandal involved, so long as they have the respect for sacred things, and so long as they do not receive the sacraments. This is a form of communicatio in sacris that has always been strictly forbidden, as is explicitly stated in Canon 731, § 2 of the 1917 Code, even when heretics or schismatics are in good faith and request it. Woywood & Smith in their Practical Commentary on the Code give the reason: “It is evident that the Church, cannot, as a rule, allow the administration of the sacraments to non-Catholics. She would thereby prove false to her trust and deny her very principles.” (p. 364).
However, some theologians have envisioned some exceptions, in the case of non-Catholics of good faith in danger of death. Likewise, non-Catholics cannot receive indulgences, and cannot publicly receive sacramentals, nor can they be admitted to any public participation in the sacred functions of the Church, such as a sponsor in baptism, or witness at a Catholic marriage, or as an acolyte or schola member. Yet, exceptions do exist to these laws, for example concerning the private reception of sacramentals, such as holy water and blessings. These may be given to non-Catholics, although it is a form of communication in sacred things, for in such cases there is no danger of scandal, and a potential great benefit for souls.
Of course, the principles contained in the 1983 Code are radically different, for Canon 844, §3 admits to the sacraments schismatics “who request it and are rightly disposed”, without any further conditions. There lies here the grave danger of indifference, namely that it does not matter if a person becomes Catholic or not.
POSITIVE COMMUNICATION IN SACRED THINGS
Positive communicatio in sacris, or sharing in sacred things, is the name given to the sharing by a Catholic in the sacred ceremonies of non-Catholics, whether they be schismatics, heretics or pagans. This is regarded even more seriously by the Church, and this is the meaning of the Canon 1258 quoted above. However, a further distinction must be made. The participation can be active or formal when the Catholic pretends to honor God by the worship of a false religion, heretical, schismatic or pagan. It is passive or material when the Catholic simply goes through the exterior motions for the sake of politeness, for civil reasons or to show respect for a person. It is such passive participation that takes place when a person assists at a non-Catholic funeral or wedding of a close relative. Canon 1258, §2 states that this can be tolerated for a grave reason, to be approved by the bishop in case of doubt, provided that there be no danger of perversion of Faith or scandal for the Catholic involved.
However, it is the active and formal sharing in the sacred ceremonies of non-Catholics that is most strictly forbidden — “not at all permissible… in any way” (Canon 1258, §1), “for such positive assistance is nothing other than the negation of the Catholic Faith by the internal and external profession of a false religion” (Prummer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, I, p. 371). Again the 1983 Code of Canon Law follows an entirely different principle, stating in Canon 844, §2, that it is permissible for Catholics to even receive the sacraments from non-Catholics, provided that they are valid, and some spiritual utility requires it. The same canon states that this is provided that there is no danger of perversion of the Faith or of indifferentism, but this danger is in fact contained in the permission imprudently granted.
Pope Benedict XVI’s participation at the Anglican Vespers at Westminster Abbey on September 17 is clearly a communication in sacred things, and a communication that is positive, given that the ceremony was a Protestant and Anglican ceremony. The question remains as to whether the communication was active or purely passive. It is hardly possible to call it passive, since the Pope assisted officially in choir, in his choir garments (surplice and stole), that he officially processed in with the Anglican ministers and that he gave an address during the ceremony, during which he stated that “that which we share… is greater than that which separates us”. It is hardly possible to defend the argument that he did not actively participate in the divine worship that was attempted during the ceremony. His actions were consequently directed opposed to the traditional law of the Church, but in conformity with the post-conciliar ecumenical laws.
What is to be thought of such actions? It is certainly true that the Church’s law has not been unchanging on this question, and that her refusal to allow such sharing is based upon the symbolism of such sharing, rather than on the act itself. Thus it is that negative communication can easily be tolerated, for it does not symbolize the denial of the Faith. Such is the case of mixed marriages, in which a non-Catholic baptized person receives a sacrament from a Catholic spouse during a Catholic ceremony, and which has been tolerated since the time of Benedict XIV, and is now, alas, common place. However, it is because of the symbolism of positive communication that it cannot be permitted, except in very extreme circumstances in which there is no danger of denial of the Faith. This includes the sharing of certain churches of historical importance, such as the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. But here the Catholic and orthodox ceremonies are not together, but separate and simultaneous. Other extraordinary cases can be found, such as a dying person who has no Catholic priest to administer the sacraments (and who can ask a priest excommunicated for heresy or schism to administer them), or in Czarist Russia for Catholics having no priests of their own.
Given that the Pope is the highest legislator in the Church, it cannot be said that by participating in these Vespers he broke ecclesiastical law. Nor can it be seriously maintained that he intentionally denied the Faith, as would have been the case of a Catholic performing such actions before the advent of ecumenism. The reason for this is that he firmly believes that there is no contradiction between this ecumenical gesture and the beliefs of the Catholic Church. However, even without an implicit denial of the Faith, such an action of its very nature promotes indifferentism and is forbidden by the divine law “for there is often a danger of perversion of the Faith, a scandal is easily caused for the faithful, for at least some approval of heretical worship is implicitly contained in such communication” (Prummer, Ib.).
Consequently, while it would be wrong to say that the Pope is suspect of heresy on this account, or that he has incurred any canonical penalty, the faithful have every right to express their shock and dismay that Anglican false worship by non-priests is placed effectively and practically on the same level as the worship of the true Church, and this by the supreme Pastor, the very Vicar of Christ Himself. It is a practical statement that Anglicans, who are heretics, and have no priesthood, no Mass, no sacraments other than baptism and matrimony, no unity of Faith, no devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints, no indulgences, no sacramentals, and whose religion was founded by the rebellion of a divorcee, can offer a good and pleasing worship, and that consequently they do not need to convert to the one, true religion.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.