Vatican sends instructions to Bishops on how to welcome back SSPX members who want to return to Catholic Church

 

Facade of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith 

Vatican

• catholic church
• dicastery
• faith

Lefebvrite priests and lay faithful: Procedure to return to Catholic communion

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has sent a communication to bishops around the world outlining what must be done to welcome back those who decide to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X following the schismatic act that led to excommunication.

Vatican News

Following the schismatic act of July 1, a return to Catholic communion will not require repeating the experience of special commissions, such as Ecclesia Dei in the past, because the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has already established a procedure for both priests and lay faithful, directly involving diocesan Ordinaries and the leaders of the fraternities that follow the ancient rite and are united with Rome.

The instructions are being transmitted in these days through Apostolic Nunciatures, as already announced in the Explanatory Note published by the Dicastery on July 2.

Reconciliation for priests

The procedure set out by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, beginning on July 1, 2026, provides that a priest who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X — and who is willing to accept the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Missae, while remaining attached to the ancient rite — must “find an Ordinary — a diocesan Bishop, a Major Superior of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right or of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, etc. — willing to receive him ad experimentum.”

The priest must then “write by hand a letter to the Holy Father in which he presents himself and asks for the remission of the censures incurred because of the ordination he received from an excommunicated or irregular Bishop, or because, having been validly and legitimately ordained, he subsequently became a member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.”

Read also

02/07/2026

The pain of a rupture

02/07/2026

Excommunication decreed for Lefebvrite episcopal ordinations

02/07/2026

Lefebvre's schism repeated 38 years later

Profession of faith and Formula of adherence

The priest must also attach his certificate of priestly ordination and enclose, signed and dated, “the Professio fidei and the Formula adhaesionis.”

These are the Profession of Faith, which summarizes the content of the Catholic faith, and the Formula of Adherence, by which the priest promises fidelity to the Pope and commits himself not to attack him or his magisterium publicly.

He must accept the teaching of number 25 of the conciliar Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium on adherence to the Church’s magisterium. He must also declared that he considers the celebration of Mass according to the rites promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II to be valid, and that he adheres to the norms of the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

The priest must have these documents — the letter with the certificate, the Profession, and the Formula of Adherence — sent by the Ordinary, “who will state in the accompanying letter his willingness to receive him ad experimentum in his Diocese or Institute.”

As soon as it receives the documents from the Ordinary, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith will draw up a Rescript remitting the censures and authorizing the Ordinary to receive the priest making the request “for a probationary period of at least one year and no more than three, at the end of which his incardination may proceed.”

Reconciliation for lay faithful

The procedure, the Dicastery explained, “concerns the question of imputability, or the degree of subjective responsibility, of lay faithful who have formally adhered to, or who attend, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and who ask to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.”

It notes that the imposition of a penalty on lay people belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, in fact, “cannot be presumed automatically, but must be assessed case by case.”

“Since imputability requires full awareness and deliberate consent,” the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith states, examples of proven imputability may include “lay people who belong to the Third Order of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X; lay people who habitually participate in celebrations of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and formally share its doctrinal positions.”

The procedure to be followed

The procedure to be followed for lay people belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X on whom a penalty has been imposed, and who ask to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, “implies a formal act of full adherence to Catholic doctrine and obedience to the Catholic hierarchy, under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, who is the guarantor of the unity of the particular Church.”

Therefore, a lay member of the faithful who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X must present to his or her bishop the Professio fidei and the Formula adhaesionis, dated and signed.

“Once the documentation has been obtained, the local Ordinary will see to welcoming the lay member of the faithful at the times and in the manner, he deems most appropriate.”

Lay faithful who are not imputable

The document specifies that the following “are not to be considered imputable: lay people who have attended the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X only for liturgical or spiritual reasons; lay people who, while aware of the tensions with the Holy See, do not reject the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”

As regards these latter cases, it will be sufficient for them to approach “a priest in full communion, with the decision not to attend the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future.”

What to expect Sunday for the inauguration Mass of Pope Leo XIV

 

A view of St Peter's Basilica and Square  (AFP or licensors)

Pope

• Pope Leo XIV
• church
• mass
• liturgy
• Vatican

The rite for the Inauguration of the Petrine Ministry of Leo XIV

The celebration marking the official beginning of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate on May 18 is a solemn liturgy. The rite highlights the bond with the Apostle Peter and his martyrdom, which nurtured the nascent Church of Rome, and the significance of the “Petrine” episcopal insignia conferred upon the Pope: the Pallium and the Ring of the Fisherman.

By Tiziana Campisi

With the Eucharistic celebration taking place on 18 May at 10:00 AM (CET) in St. Peter’s Basilica and Square, the Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV, solemnly begins his Petrine Ministry as the successor of the Apostle Peter and, therefore, as Pastor of the Catholic Church. As explained by the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff, the rite features several moments of profound symbolic meaning, including those regarding the ancient episcopal insignia associated with Peter: the Pallium and the Ring of the Fisherman.

The Pallium

The Pallium is a liturgical vestment made from the wool of lambs. It evokes the image of the Good Shepherd who lays the lost sheep on his shoulders, and recalls Peter’s threefold response to the Risen Lord’s call to tend His lambs and sheep. As Simeon of Thessalonica writes in De sacris ordinationibus, the Pallium “represents the Savior who, encountering us like the lost sheep, lifts us onto His shoulders; by assuming our human nature in the Incarnation, He divinized it, offered us to the Father through His death on the Cross, and exalted us through the Resurrection.” It is a narrow band worn over the chasuble, draped around the shoulders. It features two black pendants (front and back), six black silk crosses—one on each pendant and four on the circular band over the shoulders—and is adorned on the front and on the back with three pins (aciculae), symbolising the three nails of Christ’s crucifixion.

The Ring of the Fisherman

The Ring of the Fisherman has the specific significance of a signet ring, representing the seal of faith entrusted to Peter to strengthen his brethren. It is called the “Ring of the Fisherman” because Peter, having believed in Jesus' word, drew the nets ashore from the boat in the miraculous catch of fish.

At the tomb of Saint Peter

The liturgy begins inside St. Peter’s Basilica. Accompanied by the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, the new Roman Pontiff descends to the chapel of the Tomb of Saint Peter, where he pauses in prayer and then incenses the site. This moment underscores the deep connection between the Bishop of Rome and the Apostle Peter, who, together with many other Christians, bore witness to the faith with his blood close to that very place.

Two deacons then take the Pallium, the Ring of the Fisherman, and the Book of the Gospels and proceed in procession toward the altar set up on the area in front of St. Peter’s Basilica, in the Square.

On the parvis of St. Peter’s Basilica

Pope Leo XIV joins the procession while the Laudes Regiae—a litany hymn—are sung, invoking the intercession of holy Pontiffs, martyrs, and saints of the Roman Church. Hanging from the central gate of the Basilica is a tapestry depicting the miraculous catch of fish, portraying the dialogue between Jesus and Peter—a central theme in the Liturgy of the Word and throughout the celebration. It is a reproduction of the Flemish tapestry originally made for the Sistine Chapel based on a cartoon by Raphael, now housed in the Vatican Museums.

Near the altar is the image of Our Lady of Good Counsel from the Marian Shrine of Genazzano.

The rite continues with the blessing and sprinkling of holy water, as it is a Sunday in the Easter season. This is followed by the singing of the Gloria and the Collect, which recalls the Father’s plan to build His Church upon Peter.

Liturgy of the Word

The Liturgy of the Word then begins. The First Reading, proclaimed in Spanish, is from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 4:8–12), in which Peter proclaims Christ as “the stone rejected by the builders.” The Responsorial Psalm (Psalm 117 [118]), proclaimed in Italian, continues the imagery of the “stone”: “The stone rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone.”

The Second Reading, also in Spanish, from the First Letter of Peter (1 Pt 5:1–5, 10–11), underscores the connection between Peter, the Church of Rome, and the ministry of his Successor.

The Gospel, a passage from John (Jn 21:15–19), proclaimed in Latin and Greek, recounts Jesus’ threefold question to Peter to “feed My lambs” and “tend My sheep”—one of the foundational texts for Peter’s unique role among the Twelve Apostles.

Conferral of the Petrine Episcopal Insignia

Following the proclamation of the Gospel, three Cardinals from the three orders (deacons, priests, bishops), each representing a different continent, approach Leo XIV. The first places the Pallium upon him; the second offers a special prayer for the Lord’s presence and assistance upon the Pope.

The third likewise prays, invoking Christ, “Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,”—who built the Church upon the rock of Peter and was recognized by him as “the Son of the Living God,” —asking Him to bestow the Ring of the Fisherman upon the new Pope, before presenting Leo XIV with the ring.

The moment concludes with a prayer to the Holy Spirit, asking that He endow the new Pope with strength and gentleness in preserving Christ’s disciples in the unity of communion. The Pope then blesses the assembly with the Book of the Gospels as the acclamation “Ad multos annos!” (“Many years!”) is proclaimed in Greek.

The rite of Obedience

The symbolic rite of obedience follows, in which twelve representatives from all the different categories of the People of God, from all over the world, pledge their obedience to the Pope. The celebration continues with the homily of the Holy Father.

Afterwards, the “Creed” is sung, followed by the Universal Prayer or Prayer of the Faithful, with intercessions in Portuguese, French, Arabic, Polish, and Chinese. Prayers are offered for the universal Church, for the Roman Pontiff at the beginning of his ministry, for those in positions of civil authority, for all who suffer or are in distress, and for the gathered assembly.

Liturgy of the Eucharist

As the Offertory chant “Tu es pastor ovium” (“You are the Shepherd of the sheep”) is sung, the prayer over the offerings of bread and wine asks that, through the Church’s missionary ministry, the fruits of redemption may reach all the earth. Pope Leo XIV then prays the First Eucharistic Prayer (the Roman Canon), followed by the Communion Rite. At its conclusion, the Pope prays that God may confirm the Church in unity and charity and grant that he himself may be saved and protected, along with the flock entrusted to his care.

Concluding Rites

Before the celebration ends, the Pope offers a brief address. After the singing of the Regina Caeli, he imparts the solemn blessing imbued with the biblical imagery of the vine and vineyard applied to the Church. He prays that the Lord may “look upon” and “protect” the vine He has planted and asks that His face of salvation may “shine” upon all.

Parish Pastor and Parochial Vicar dismissed by Bishop for teaching the irrelevancy of the Novus Ordo Mass

 

Kentucky bishop dismisses priests who derided novus ordo Mass as ‘irrelevant’

By Daniel Payne

CNA Staff, Jan 25, 2024 / 11:30 am

A Kentucky bishop this month announced the dismissal of two priests who he said had repeatedly denigrated the modern form of the holy sacrifice of the Mass in their parish. 

Covington Bishop John Iffert said in a letter to members of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish in Park Hills, Kentucky, that he had requested the resignation of parish pastor Father Shannon Collins while ordering the removal of parochial vicar Father Sean Kopczynski.

Iffert said he removed the priests — both members of the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist — after developing “serious concerns” about their pastoral leadership. The parish on its website says it is “home to the Traditional Latin Mass Parish for the Diocese of Covington.”

Iffert wrote that he had ordered the dismissals “after becoming aware that Father Collins had preached in the parish that the holy sacrifice of the Mass, as celebrated in the current Roman Catholic liturgy, is ‘irrelevant,’ preserves ‘literally nothing of the old,’ and that the reform of the liturgy was motivated by hatred towards traditional Catholics and the ancient liturgies of Rome.”

Both priests “maintain these errors and refuse the opportunity to renounce them,” the bishop said. “This disqualifies them from being granted permission to publicly celebrate the sacraments using the 1962 Missale Romanum and from leading a personal parish like Our Lady of Lourdes.”

“I did not take this action lightly,” the bishop said. “I consulted with the vicar general, the deans, the judicial vicar, and brother bishops before determining the action I must take in this situation.”

Iffert wrote that he intends “to provide for the pastoral and liturgical care” of the parish, although he noted there were “obstacles” to that goal, including that the Missionaries of St. John the Baptist own the building and are “no longer willing to permit the diocese or Our Lady of Lourdes Parish to use the building.” 

The bishop said he was exploring other locations for the parish’s liturgies.

“You are in my constant prayer as I work to resolve these difficulties and provide faithful and true pastoral leadership for Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,” the bishop told the parish. 

On its website, the parish says that “at this time there will be no public Masses, confessions, or other sacramental rituals offered at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Park Hills for the foreseeable future per order of His Excellency Bishop John Iffert.” 

“Other arrangements are being made for a future location for the Latin Mass and for a priestly ministry to the flock of this personal parish,” the website says. 

The missionaries, meanwhile, said on their own website that they “seek to be teachers of truth” and “have never, to the best of their knowledge, promoted any errors in regard to the holy faith or taught anything contrary to the perennial Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

The dismissed priests, meanwhile, said they “accept the limitations placed on their ministry and pray that a swift resolution to this difficulty may be found.” 

Some perspective on Pavone and on Bishops whose credibility is "tattered"

 

The Vatican’s action against Frank Pavone: overdue yet unexplained

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 19, 2022

     

Yes, there are other priests—many others, really—whose conduct has been far more egregious, whose public statements have been far more injurious to the faith. Yes, it is painful to see a leading figure in the American pro-life movement disciplined, while others who undermine Church moral teaching are showered with Vatican honors. Yes, many thousands of loyal Catholics have lost confidence in their bishops, and they see a blatant double standard in the handling of disciplinary cases.

Nevertheless the laicization of Frank Pavone is not an injustice. In fact it should not be a surprise.

“What took so long?” Those are the words of Pavone himself, in his response to the announcement that he had been defrocked. His bishop had warned him, long ago, about the exactly that possibility. After nearly fifteen years of fighting against episcopal authority—years in which he refused to accept his bishop’s directives—Pavone could not have been surprised by this weekend’s news.

If it is true (and I have no reason to doubt it) that Pavone first heard the news from a CNA reporter a few days ago—although the Vatican order for his laicization was issued on November 9—that can only be because he had broken off communications with his bishop. “Father Pavone was given ample opportunity to defend himself in the canonical proceedings, and he was also given multiple opportunities to submit himself to the authority of his diocesan bishop,” wrote Archbishop Christophe Pierre, the apostolic nuncio to the US. By his own account Pavone had been very actively involved in canonical appeals for years. Finally the appeals ran out.

Father Pavone was certainly not the first priest to fall into an adversarial relationship with his diocesan bishop. But other unhappy clerics recognize that on the day of their ordination to the priesthood, when they promised obedience to the ordaining bishop and his successors, they gave away all the high cards in their hand. In a battle with his bishop, the diocesan priest inevitably loses.

And frankly, despite all the problems that are so sadly evident in the Catholic hierarchy today, that is as it should be. A Catholic priest must be subject to some hierarchical control; otherwise he is a loose cannon: a minister who represents the Church but does not accept the Church’s authority.

In defending himself against his bishop, Pavone has consistently taken the line that he has been persecuted for his pro-life advocacy. “They just don’t like the work I’m doing for these babies,” he told CNA. That argument is disingenuous at best. Many other priests have been outspoken in their defense of the unborn, without causing any such conflicts with their superiors. His conflicts with his bishops—first with Cardinal Edward Egan in New York, then with Bishops John Yanta and Patrick Zurek in Amarillo, Texas—have revolved around his role in the secular corporation that he founded: Priests for Life.

Full-time work for a secular corporation?

Priests for Life (PFL) is a large activist organization, with an annual budget of about $10 million—more than the budget for the Amarillo diocese where he served. The group has its own board of directors, its own professional staff, its own headquarters in Florida. Yet Pavone is the unquestioned leader, the figurehead, the public spokesman, the decision-maker for PFL. So a question naturally arises: can a diocesan priest devote his full-time attention to a secular organization? Can he set his policies for that organization, disregarding input from his bishop?

That question becomes more pressing when, as in this case, the priest refuses to open the organization’s financial books to his diocesan superiors. In September 2011—yes, more than a decade ago—Bishop Zurek intervened because of his “deep concerns regarding [Pavone’s] stewardship of the finances of the Priests for Life (PFL) organization.” As I reported at the time:

Father Pavone says that he has answered every question the bishop asked about the finances of PFL. Bishop Zurek disputes that point, charging that PFL has managed to “rebuff my every attempt at calling for financial transparency.”

Later, in an effort to mediate the disagreement, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York suggested an independent audit of PFL, and the appointment of a few representatives of the hierarchy to the group’s board. Again Pavone refused.

In 2005, Father Pavone had moved to establish a religious order, called the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, which he saw as an arm of Priests for Life. That plan posed a novel challenge to the normal working plan of the Catholic hierarchy: a religious order that would be controlled by a secular corporation. The nascent religious order was quietly disbanded a few years later, amid complaints that its young members were being used as fundraisers for PFL.

The blasphemy charge

In announcing Pavone’s laicization to the American bishops, Archbishop Pierre said that the priest was disciplined for his “blasphemous communications on social media” as well as his “persistent disobedience.” The charge of disobedience is easy to understand; Pavone had insisted that he could not accept Bishop Zurek’s order to work in the Amarillo diocese. He explained that the late Cardinal John O’Connor, who ordained him, had approved his work with PFL. But it seems highly unlikely that Cardinal O’Connor gave him carte blanche to define his own priestly mission. And in any case, at ordination a priest promised obedience to his bishop and that bishop’s successors. When Cardinal Egan sought to put some restraints on his PFL involvement, Father Pavone arranged to transfer to the Amarillo diocese. But the problems with obedience followed him to Texas.

But what about those “blasphemous communications”? The apostolic nuncio did not explain the charge, but Father Pavone had often pushed the boundaries of taste in his condemnations of the abortion industry and its supporters. During the 2020 presidential campaign he wrote on Twitter about “supporters of this goddam loser Biden and his morally corrupt, America-hating, God-hating Democratic party.” Can we agree that sort of language is inappropriate for a man of the cloth?

Pavone’s heavy involvement in partisan politics was a concern, certainly. (He made few friends among the American bishops when he took a high-profile stand in support of Donald Trump’s campaign.) But his willingness to use religious occasions for political purposes—even for purposes as worthy as the pro-life movement—also made bishops uneasy. Their concern reached new heights in 2016, when he put the body of an aborted fetus on an altar, and posted a video of it on social media. Critics saw this action as a desecration of both the altar and the unborn child’s remains.

(Pavone has said that the fetal remains were placed not on an altar, but on a table, which he sometimes used as an altar. The distinction is obscure. What do you call a table on which a priest sometimes celebrates Mass? An altar.)

The bishops’ tattered credibility

Why are so many Catholics upset by Pavone’s laicization? Three reasons.

First, because loyal Catholics—especially those of us who have been active in the pro-life movement—are tired of hearing bishops play lip service to the Gospel of Life, while tolerating the scandalous behavior of prominent Catholics who support the slaughter of the unborn. Why is Pavone disciplined, and not Biden or Pelosi?

Second, because the scandals that have ripped through the Church in the past few decades have shredded the credibility of the hierarchy. A generation ago, a bishop who reined in a rebellious cleric could assume that loyal Catholics would accept his disciplinary action in good faith. No longer.

Third, while Pavone has spoken out frequently in his own defense, the voice of the hierarchy has been virtually silent. Archbishop Pierre offered only a sketchy explanation for the laicization, with no specific charges. Bishop Zurek and the Amarillo diocese had no comment. We have heard Pavone’s defenses, but we have not heard the charges against him. If the purpose of disciplinary action is to protect the Catholic faithful from being misled, in this case the action has failed.

In Vermont a Catholic pastor goes head to head against his Bishop over vaccinations and mask mandates

 

Windsor County pastor fighting Vermont Catholic Diocese’s Covid precautions

By Kevin O'Connor

Jan 10 2022, 6:18 PM

A Windsor County pastor is fighting a Vermont Roman Catholic Diocese call for Covid-19 vaccinations, masks and other pandemic precautions for the state’s largest religious denomination.

“Being more of the ilk of a patriot,” the Rev. Peter Williams said in a recent YouTube video, “I balk at any incursion into my rights as a human being and certainly a U.S. citizen.”

Vermont Catholic Bishop Christopher Coyne has asked all clergy to get vaccinated or, if not, wear a mask and undergo regular testing to curb the transmission of the coronavirus.

“Because he made it a matter of honor and obedience, I quickly responded to him saying that I would not,” said Williams, who heads the combined Holy Family Parish of St. Mary’s in Springfield and St. Joseph’s in neighboring Chester. “He got back to me and said that I had 14 days to comply or he would suspend me.”

Williams, in turn, has hired a lawyer.

“I have no intention of resigning as pastor, because that is my job,” said the priest, who has led his parish since 2003.

Calls to the Holy Family Parish office went unanswered Monday. But Williams, in his video, said the diocese wasn’t the only entity he was defying.

“I learned that my family had joined with the bishop,” he said, “in advancing the case that I was seriously ill and my liver function was failing and that had severely impacted my mental capacities.”

Williams, age 61, disputed that.

“I am in very good health,” the priest said. “I’ve managed to lose some weight and to exercise more regularly, because I know that has tremendous effects on boosting our immune system.”

Organizations ranging from the World Health Organization to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have stressed the need for vaccinations, masks and physical distancing.

The Vermont diocese, for its part, released a statement Monday.

“The present pastoral situation in Springfield is a sad and difficult situation that Bishop Coyne is addressing with care for all concerned,” the release said. “In order to protect the good name and reputation of all involved, he does not choose to speak to the content of the video.”

“The No. 1 priority of the Diocese of Burlington,” its statement concluded, “is to offer the sacraments and the fullness of parish life to the Catholic community in a safe environment that protects the health and well-being of our priests and parishioners.”

The 10-minute “A Personal Message from Father Peter Williams” video has logged more than 1,800 views — almost five times the average 400 views for most Holy Family Mass broadcasts on its YouTube channel.

The resulting three dozen comments as of Monday reflected a divided response.

“Thank you for your honesty and sincerity,” wrote a commenter identified as wfs2email. “The bishop’s decree makes me wonder if eventually all parishioners will likewise be subject to the same edict or be excommunicated.”

“The truly vulnerable should stay home during the winter respiratory season,” wrote another named Dragonfly. “I take great joy in seeing the fresh, joyful faces of unmasked children and young families at weekly Mass.”

But others have expressed concern.

“In my upbringing, a patriot is someone who puts him or herself on the line for the safety and protection of his neighbors, country, and loved ones,” said a commenter identified as Linda M. “This is sad at best and will continue to divide the congregation that I so love because an individual doesn’t want to follow what is being asked for the good of the many. This is not about one person, but all of us.”

“I don’t want to speak for the diocese, but it appears they feel that there is a global pandemic where over 800,000 citizens in our country have perished in a two-year period,” added a writer named SMT1948. “It is conceivable that is the diocese’s way of helping all parishioners, not just the healthy and robust. Indeed, this is Jesus’ teachings, and yes, it takes sacrifice from everyone.”

Many Catholic families have similar situations; great advice from Msgr. Pope

 

My daughter isn’t living the Faith but receives Communion. What should I do?

Msgr. Charles Pope November 22, 2021

Shutterstock

Question: My daughter (divorced) lives with another divorced man part time, and thinks nothing of going to Communion. I am happy that she goes to Mass every Sunday and does daily prayers. A lovely person, I do not want to be the cause of her not going at all. I have spoken to her, not emphatically, that I was concerned with her going to Communion under these circumstances. Evidently, she does not think that it is a mortal sin, which I do. Should I inform the priest, and is it a sin for me not telling him? I don’t feel as if I should be the judge.

— Name withheld, via email

Answer: It is good that you have spoken to your daughter about your concerns, and it is understandable that you do not want to further alienate her from the Church. In matters such as these and in our current cultural malaise and poor catechesis, careful, persistent reminders seem to be a good approach.

There is, however, clear teaching to which we must point and ultimately insist upon — namely, that one should not receive holy Communion who is guilty of grave (mortal) sin. To live with a man outside of marriage involves not only a violation of the Sixth Commandment, but also gives rise to scandal by making light and “normalizing” such practices. Church law, in regard to receiving holy Communion says, “[those persons] obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion” (Canon 915). Further it states, “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible” (Canon 916).

These teachings and laws of the Church are not a mean-spirited rejection; they flow from scriptural teaching, wherein St. Paul warns: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11:27-29).

Hence, the Church teachings are rooted in a concern and care for souls. As Scripture teaches, those who receive the Eucharist unworthily do not receive a blessing, but rather, the judgment of condemnation. If a doctor were to prescribe penicillin to someone he knew was allergic to it, that would be malpractice. In the same way, the Church cannot prescribe or offer the Eucharist to someone not apt to receive it.

The bishops recently spoke to this matter in a document issued in their November meeting. In effect, they have acknowledged that teaching on this matter must be more vigorously done since many have not been adequately catechized.

As for you telling the priest about your daughter’s situation, that is a prudential matter. If you do, it must be on the record — namely, that you permit him to tell her that you are the source of the information. A priest cannot present hearsay from anonymous sources. He must be able to speak to her based on information whose source he can cite. And, before withholding Communion from her, he must make some attempts to discuss the matter with her. Part of your decision will be based on how you think the priest will likely handle the matter. Your primary duty is to speak to your daughter, which you have done. Continue to do so without nagging and use the opportunity of the bishops’ new document to further the discussion and her education.