1 June 1983

Your Excellency:

In our last letter to you (May 1983), we expressed our concern at the fact that the Holy See now permits Protestants to receive what is termed "Eucharistic hospitality" in Catholic churches. We explained to you that such a concession contradicts the nature of the Eucharist as the Sacrament of Unity, and repudiates a two-thousand-year-old tradition of the Church. We also demonstrated that the Secretariat for Christian Unity justified this innovation by referring to a statement in the Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II, when, in fact, no such statement appears in the Decree. We appealed to you to place our letter before the Holy Father in the hope that he will withdraw the concession immediately.

In this letter we wish to draw your attention to a matter that concerns you directly, the fact that the regulations of the Holy See governing this concession are being flouted cynically in some American dioceses. We are sure that you will agree that, if we can prove this to be the case, it is your evident duty to ensure that the bishops concerned either comply with the Vatican legislation or are removed from their sees.

As you may not be familiar with the relevant legislation we will outline it for you. The concession was first made in the 1967 Ecumenical Directory, promulgated by the Secretariat for the Promotion of Unity of Christians. This Directory caused such confusion and led to such widespread abuse that a statement clarifying its ambiguous nature was published in L'Osservatore Romano (English edition of 17 October 1968). This Statement subsequently appeared in a much amplified form in 1972 under the title In quibus rerum circumstantiis ("In what circumstances"). Sadly, this statement was so ambiguous that it had to be clarified by a Note entitled Dopo le publicazione ("After the publication"), dated 17 October 1973. Both documents were published by the Unity Secretariat and are available in the Flannery collection.¹ It must surely be unprecedented in the history of the Holy See for a Vatican Secretariat to use a falsehood to justify a breach with tradition, then have to issue a document clarifying the ambiguities involved in this concession, and then another document to clarify the clarification which was also ambiguous! Your Excellency, this is not the manner in which the authentic voice of Rome has been accustomed to address us in the past.

However, after the clarification of the clarification the conditions under which the Holy See permits a Protestant to receive Catholic Holy Communion are now clear. They are such that under no circumstances could they ever apply within the United States of America. Thus, whenever a Protestant is offered Eucharistic hospitality the authority of the Holy See is being cynically and publicly defied. The conditions, extracted from the Note Dopo le publicazione, are as follows:

1) Admission to Catholic Eucharistic Communion is confined to particular cases of Christians who:

a) have a faith in the Sacrament in conformity with that of the Church;
b) experience a very serious spiritual need for the Eucharistic sustenance;
c) for a prolonged period are unable to have recourse to a minister of their own community;
d) ask for the Sacrament of their own accord;
e) have the proper dispositions;
f) lead lives worthy of a Christian.

2) It is the local bishop's responsibility to examine cases and make decisions.

3) Such cases will be rare.

4) In deciding upon these rare cases the bishops can act only within the criteria laid down by the Instruction.

5) This criterion is observed if all the required conditions are verified. An objective, pastorally responsible examination does not allow any of the conditions to be ignored.

6) When particular cases present themselves fairly often in one region, following a recurrent pattern, episcopal conferences can issue some guiding principle for ascertaining that all the conditions are verified in particular cases.

7) A general regulation cannot be issued which makes a category out of an exceptional case.

8) Eucharistic hospitality cannot be regarded as a means to be used to lead to full ecclesial communion.

Your Excellency, it is clear that condition 1(c) above could never be met in the U.S.A. Under what circumstances could a Protestant be in a position where he would be unable to receive Holy Communion from a Protestant minister for "a prolonged period"? You will be aware that the practice of intercommunion is common within the major Protestant denominations. What is meant by a prolonged period? We would suggest a period of several months, but let us assume that it is a maximum of one month. How often is a Protestant in the U.S.A. in a situation where he is denied access to a minister of his own or some other Protestant denomination for a month? Let us go even further, let us assume that a week is a prolonged period, even then the position would not change.

We shall now show Your Excellency the manner in which these conditions are being ignored in the United States. The most notorious example is probably that of the Diocese of Syracuse (New York). The Bishop of this diocese, Frank J. Harrison, aided and abetted with great enthusiasm by his "Parish Life and Worship Vicar," Msgr. Joseph M. Champlin, has openly repudiated the authority of the Holy See and issued his own regulations. His message is clear: "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Diocese of Syracuse." This is particularly the case in view of the fact that, in his letter to the bishops of the world, Dominicae Cenae, of 24 February 1980, Pope John Paul II had stated that the rules laid down by the Holy See must be observed before admitting Protestants to Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church.

We would hope that Your Excellency agrees with us that rule 1 (c) quoted above, i.e., that a Protestant asking to receive Catholic Communion must be unable to have recourse to a minister of his own community for a prolonged period, clearly rules out the possibility of a legitimate request ever being made in the United States. How, then, does Bishop Harrison overcome this problem? The answer is simple. He has taken it upon himself to add the words "or reason" to rule 1 (c), which reads in the Syracuse version: "Find himself or herself unable to have recourse to a minister of his or her own community for a significant period of time or reason." The addition of these two words by Bishop Harrison, a repudiation of papal authority, indicating that the Bishop has set himself up as Pope, constitutes an invitation to Protestants to receive Catholic Holy Communion whenever the whim takes them. In fact, Bishop Harrison's guidelines even envisage a Protestant knowing that he will experience a "serious spiritual need" weeks in advance of the occasion! One might imagine that he might then make arrangements to receive Communion from a minister of his own denomination, but Bishop Harrison thinks otherwise. Furthermore, No. 7 of the Vatican regulations which we cited forbids the issuing of general regulations which make categories out of exceptional cases—Bishop Harrison does just this.

We will now cite a list of Bishop Harrison's general categories, and remind Your Excellency once more, that the Holy See, whose representative you are, and whose authority you have a duty to uphold, instructs that not one of its conditions must be ignored. Despite the fact that Bishop Harrison is clearly schismatic we must credit him with a wry sense of humor. He is evidently aware of the regulation that lists of "general categories" are prohibited, so, with his tongue very firmly in his cheek, he prefaces his list of general categories with the remark that they are not what they seem, they are, in fact, "typical situations." We can well imagine that Your Excellency might believe that even a prelate as openly schismatic as Bishop Harrison would not carry his contempt for the Holy See to quite such a degree of insolence, so here are his exact words:

There are no general categories during which these conditions will automatically be fulfilled and eucharistic hospitality permitted. However, here are some typical situations when, given the favorable ecumenical climate of our diocese, some individuals with the requisite background might very likely request reception of communion.

It would appear, then, Your Excellency, that if one asked: "When is a general category not a general category?" the answer, in the Diocese of Syracuse, is: "When it's a typical situation." Here is Bishop Harrison's list of "typical situations":

a) marriages between Protestants and Catholics;

b) when a Protestant is the parent of a child being baptized or

c) making his first communion, or

d) making his confirmation;

e) Protestants attending the funerals of relatives in a Catholic church, or

f) in a health care facility, or

g) some sort of institutional confinement.

Msgr. Champlin clearly considers the list of "typical situations" too brief, and added some more, evidently with the Bishop's approval:

h) Protestants in sparsely settled rural areas when their pastor is absent for a period of time;

i) wedding anniversaries;

j) retreats;

k) Marriage Encounters for interfaith couples;

l) unique family gatherings such as graduation;

m) tragedies;

n) holidays like Christmas or Thanksgiving.

Clearly anxious lest the list is not comprehensive enough, Msgr. Champlin adds: "There could, of course, be other instances not cited here."

Your Excellency, we have used the expression several times already in this letter, and at the risk of trying your patience we must do so again: This is schism, straight forward schism! Canon 1325 (2) of the Code of Canon Law states clearly that someone who rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic. Bishop Harrison and Msgr. Champlin have both rejected the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, therefore they are schismatic. The question we put to Your Excellency, is, as the Pope's representative, what do you intend doing about this situation—bearing in mind that both these men are making every possible effort to persuade the faithful of the diocese to follow them into schism? Impressive looking, expensively printed propaganda has been widely circulated, and Msgr. Champlin has been from parish to parish conducting brainwashing sessions for clergy and laity alike. Priests are urged to preach sermons endorsing their bishop's schismatic stance, and Msgr. Champlin is even propagating the concept condemned in No. 8 of the Vatican regulations which we have listed, i.e., that Eucharistic Communion is a means to be used to lead to full ecclesial communion. He has provided a "sample homily" for priests to use in which Eucharistic hospitality is compared to an engaged couple having meals in each other's homes:

Sitting down with the other's family helps their relationship grow, but does not automatically make him part of her family or she (sic) part of his. As time moves on eating with the other family becomes more frequent, more comfortable to the point that a remark is occasionally made: "He's practically part of the family." "She is almost one of us ..." Eating together thus expresses the oneness of a family, but also helps to build that closeness. It can draw others who are near or dear to us more and more into the family unit ... The Eucharist is a sign of unity, but likewise a source of grace, a builder of oneness with the Lord and each other.

Only someone prepared to do violence to the plain meaning of the English language could deny that Msgr. Champlin is advocating the use of Eucharistic hospitality as a means of leading to full ecclesial communion. It might help Your Excellency to appreciate the full extent of Msgr. Champlin's contempt for papal authority if we quote the relevant passage from Dopo le publicazione in full:

Eucharistic Communion practised by those who are not in full communion with each other cannot be the expression of that full unity which the Eucharist of its nature signifies, and which in this case does not exist; for this reason such Communion cannot be regarded as a means to be used to lead to full ecclesial communion. (Our emphasis.)

Your Excellency, this quotation not only proves that Msgr. Champlin is a schismatic, it also reinforces the principal argument of our last letter to you, i.e., that the Eucharist signifies full ecclesial unity, and that to give Catholic Holy Communion to someone who has made a conscious decision to remain outside the unity of the Church contradicts its very nature (see our letter for May 1983). Where Msgr. Champlin is concerned, we would add that he has been giving Holy Communion to Protestants since at least 1980. In his column in the Joliet Catholic Explorer for 1 February 1980, he boasted of the fact that he had given Holy Communion to a Protestant named Bill at a Mass celebrated in his home, and with the full approval of Bishop Frank J. Harrison. It appears that their decision to defy the Pope was justified by the fact that Bill "found that experience enormously moving." The fact that Bill was "enormously moved" no doubt made the Monsignor and the Bishop feel all warm and tingly, but such cynical defiance of the Holy Father's ruling can only be considered as scandalous by every faithful Catholic, and scandalous in the true theological sense of the term.

Your Excellency, the Diocese of Syracuse is by no means alone in repudiating papal authority in this matter. We hope that you will have noted that in our letters to you we have avoided generalized accusations and provided documented examples of the abuses which we have drawn to your attention. We realize the enormous correspondence which Your Excellency must receive, and hence try to keep our letters reasonably brief. Even one example of such an abuse should be more than adequate to impel you to take action. But in this case, as the matter is so serious, we feel bound to bring one more example to your attention.

This took place in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee whose Archbishop, Rembert Weakland, has long ceased to make any pretense at communion with the Holy See. Sadly, we have been shown a letter from Your Excellency stating that you have every confidence in him. Perhaps your confidence will be lessened when we show you that his contempt for papal authority equals that of Bishop Harrison. The 3 May 1982 issue of the Milwaukee Sentinel carried a report concerning a Protestant girl, age eight, in his diocese who went to a Catholic school. She had already made her Protestant (Episcopalian) First Communion, and was a regular communicating member of her Episcopalian parish. There was, therefore, no question whatsoever of her being unable to have recourse to a minister of her own community for a prolonged period. But the Catholic children in her class were due to make their First Communion and so it was decided that the poor little girl would feel left out if she wasn't allowed to join them, and make her second First Communion, but her first Catholic First Communion. Furthermore the little girl herself didn't experience a very serious spiritual need for Eucharistic sustenance, it was her parents who felt a need, and the need they felt had nothing whatsoever to do with Eucharistic sustenance. The reason given by her parents was that she "might be considered different by her classmates if she did not receive Communion." We thus have, Your Excellency, a case of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, a sign and cause of the Unity of the Mystical Body, being given to a Protestant who had not even requested It for reasons of sheer sentimentality. Alas, the story does not end here! It was decided that not only would the little girl feel left out if she were not permitted to make her second First Communion, but that her parents would feel left out if the parents of the Catholic children received Holy Communion and they did not—so they were also invited to receive, and did. Her father was very pleased and commented that the invitation to both child and parents was, "evidence of concern for a little girl ... to make her life a little more easy."

Your Excellency, we realize that in making our protest at this incident, and in the protests we have made to you in previous letters, we place ourselves in an ostensibly negative and invidious position. In the incident we have just described, it could appear to be a conflict between the kind and avuncular Archbishop Weakland, who wants little girls and their moms and pops to be happy, and the negative and uncharitable Editors of The Angelus who, for some unaccountable reason (perhaps a psychiatrist could explain it), hate little girls, and do not want to make their lives a little more easy. Your Excellency, let us assure you that if you came to our Queen of Angels parish here in Dickinson you would find it almost overrun with little girls and, believe it or not, they do not cringe and cower when an Editor passes by. Indeed, should you visit us, and you would be more than welcome, you would be likely to find one or more little girls hovering around whichever Editor had celebrated Mass that day! What we would suggest to Your Excellency, is that there is an order of priorities which a Catholic priest has a duty to observe, and that this order of priorities must be observed even at the risk of making a little girl feel "left out." Such an attitude manifests respect for the Eucharist, not dislike of children!

When we wrote our first letter on this subject to you in May we stated that the practice of giving Catholic Holy Communion to Protestants could hardly be more grave as it involved the worst of all forms of sacrilege—irreverence to the Holy Eucharist. Your Excellency would certainly agree that it is certainly gravely sinful for anyone conscious of mortal sin to receive Holy Communion. Catholics in this state know that they have a duty to go to Confession or abstain from receiving. This is not the case with Protestants. Given what amounts to the open invitation to Protestants to receive Holy Communion in the Diocese of Syracuse alone, we dread to think how many sacrilegious communions are taking place. If, for example, Protestant relatives at a mixed marriage in Syracuse decide, as Msgr. Champlin puts it, "to eat with the other family," are many, or any, of them likely to refrain from eating because they use contraceptives in their marriage, because they are divorced, because they are committing adultery, because they are homosexual, because they haven't been inside a church since their own marriage? Your Excellency, let us be realistic. We know this country very well and we know the American Protestant mentality, and we are sorry to say, such considerations would not trouble the average Protestant in the least. There are many fine and zealous Protestants whose commitment to Christianity could provide an example to all of us, but in general what they mean by Christianity is a general attitude of benevolence. Their God is the epitomization of warmness and tingliness. If a man decides that he would be happier with his secretary than his wife of thirty years standing, then which of us should cast the first stone (Protestants are very good on Biblical allusions)? If the son of one's neighbor enters into a homosexual "marriage," well, "God made him that way, what right have we to pass judgment!" Your Excellency, we realize that in many, probably most, cases these Protestants are in good faith. They have lived their lives outside the unity of the one true Church, and our merciful Lord will judge them according to the sincerity with which they have followed whatever convictions they might have. But Your Excellency, you must surely accept that there are some Protestants who have a concept of what is objectively moral and what is objectively immoral. Given that Your Excellency accepts this, we feel obliged to ask whether you can, in conscience, assure us that you do not think it likely that where Vatican directives on the subject of Eucharistic hospitality are ignored to the extent that they are ignored in the Diocese of Syracuse, sacrilegious Communions will not occur? And Your Excellency, we must believe that you will agree with us that one, just one, sacrilegious Communion resulting from the defiance of the Pope by such prelates as Bishop Harrison or Archbishop Weakland would be too many. We hope that, perhaps, Your Excellency will share the veneration we feel for Cardinal Newman. You may not be aware of the fact that he once wrote that the Catholic Church would prefer to see the entire world destroyed than a single human being commit a single venial sin—not a mortal sin, Your Excellency, a venial sin. No one, Your Excellency, was more aware than Newman of the majesty of God, or the horrendous nature of sin when the reality of that majesty is appreciated. What, then, Your Excellency, must be the magnitude, the horror, of even one sacrilegious Communion? This is why we are appealing to you, to the one man in the United States who has the power and authority to prevent such sacrileges, to use that authority at once!

We remain your obedient servants.

The Editors

The Most Reverend Pio Laghi
The Apostolic Delegation
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008