Understanding the nuances of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law and how it applies to the case of MP Coghlan and the denial of Holy Communion
Newsroom (04 July 2025, Gaudium Press ) In a recent controversy on June 30, 2025, a Catholic Member of Parliament, Mr. Coghlan, faced potential denial of Holy Communion due to his votes in favor of legislation permitting assisted suicide and euthanasia. The issue hinges on Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” This canon raises critical questions about the intersection of personal conscience, public action, and ecclesiastical discipline.
The Context of Canon 915
Canon 915 provides clear criteria for denying Holy Communion: excommunication, interdict, or obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin. In Mr. Coghlan’s case, excommunication does not apply, as voting for legislation allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia is not currently an excommunicable offense under Canon Law. The focus, therefore, shifts to whether Mr. Coghlan’s actions constitute “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.”
According to the Rev Pius Collins o.praem., JCL, Mr. Coghlan voted for the assisted suicide legislation at its Second Reading on November 29, 2024, and again at its Third Reading on June 20, 2025. Prior to the Third Reading, his parish priest, Fr. Vane, contacted him to warn that voting for the bill would preclude him from receiving Holy Communion. Despite this counsel, Mr. Coghlan proceeded with his vote, publicly stating he was acting according to his conscience. The public nature of his votes satisfies the “manifest” requirement, as they are recorded and accessible in the public domain.
Obstinacy and Grave Sin
The requirement of “obstinacy” is met when an individual persists in an action despite explicit correction from a pastor. Fr. Vane’s warning, issued between Mr. Coghlan’s first and second votes, demonstrates that the MP was informed of the Church’s teaching and the spiritual consequences of his actions. His decision to vote in favor of the legislation a second time suggests obstinacy under the terms of Canon 915.
Whether the act constitutes “grave sin” depends not on Mr. Coghlan’s subjective culpability—whether he personally believes his actions to be sinful—but on an objective moral standard. A 2004 memorandum from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XIV), addressed to American bishops, provides guidance: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
Fr. Vane’s actions align with this directive. By contacting Mr. Coghlan, he fulfilled his pastoral duty to instruct and warn, aiming to protect both the sanctity of the Eucharist and the spiritual welfare of the individual.
Was Denial of Communion Required?
Media reports indicate that Mr. Coghlan did not attend parish Masses on the day in question, meaning Fr. Vane did not face the immediate decision of denying him Communion. However, the evidence suggests that Canon 915 would obligate Fr. Vane—or any minister of Holy Communion—to deny Mr. Coghlan the sacrament if he presented himself. This obligation serves two purposes: preventing public scandal within the Church and safeguarding the individual from further sin by receiving the Eucharist unworthily.
Moreover, a priest who administers Holy Communion to someone in Mr. Coghlan’s position risks disciplinary action. In 2021, Pope Francis introduced a new delict in Canon 1379 §4 (§ 4. A person who deliberately administers a sacrament to those who are prohibited from receiving it is to be punished with suspension, to which other penalties mentioned ) , which could result in a priest’s suspension from office for knowingly violating Canon 915. This underscores the gravity with which the Church views such matters.
The Role of the Parish Priest
Canon Law places significant responsibilities on parish priests. Canon 521 §2 requires priests to be “outstanding in sound doctrine and endowed with zeal for souls.” Canon 528 §1 mandates promoting the Gospel’s spirit, particularly in matters of social justice, while Canon 529 §1 calls for prudent correction when the faithful err. Fr. Vane’s actions reflect these obligations, as he sought to guide Mr. Coghlan in accordance with Church teaching and to uphold the integrity of the Eucharist.
Broader Implications
Canon 915 serves as a reminder that public actions carry spiritual consequences, and the Church’s pastors are tasked with upholding doctrinal standards, even when doing so sparks controversy.
As debates over assisted suicide and euthanasia continue, the application of Canon 915 will likely remain a focal point for discussions on the role of faith in public life. For now, Fr. Vane’s response to Mr. Coghlan’s votes reflects a commitment to the Church’s teachings, balancing pastoral care with the demands of Canon Law.
- Raju Hasmukh with
Related Images:
