I Delicta graviora contro L’Eucaristia by Pierpaolo Dal Corso (review)

This extensive doctoral dissertation on more serious Eucharistic delicts (graviora delicta) was defended at the Faculty of Canon Law in Venice (Marcianum) and is published under its auspices. The author conducted his research under the direction of two noted canonists: Brian Ferme, the former dean of the Marcianum, and Bruno Pighin.

This rather useful work initially provides a detailed table of contents and a list of pertinent abbreviations used throughout the work. Subsequently, the author traces the main lines of his inquiry, which is designed to highlight fairly comprehensively the Church’s preeminent traditional interest in protecting the supreme ecclesial good of the Eucharist. A concluding chapter synthesizing the work’s key insights precedes a bibliography of primary and secondary sources useful for pursuing further the dissertation’s Eucharistic themes.

The main section of the work on more serious Eucharistic delicts is divided into four parts, which in turn are subdivided into various chapters. Most chapters contain a brief introduction orienting the reader and all chapters include a concluding synthesis of key points. These four parts consider such issues as the notion of more grave delicts and the Eucharist, the penal protection of the value of reverence for the Eucharist from the first codification up to the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church, the penal protection of this value in that code, and finally developments in the Church’s dealing with violations of the Eucharist since its promulgation, e.g., the 2001 motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (SST) and its 2010 revision.

Part One (chapters 1–2:23–126) first addresses the notion of a more serious delict and its reservation to the Holy See. It also discusses at some length the competency of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Apostolic Penitentiary. Subsequently, the author examines the Eucharist as an object of special ecclesial reverence, particularly in the Councils of Trent and Vatican II, and explores different aspects of Eucharistic discipline.

Part Two (chapters 3–4:129–188) examines the penal protection of the value of reverence for the Eucharist, especially highlighting the delicts of profanation and simulation of the Eucharist. The author examines the theological-juridical presuppositions underlying the Church’s penal system in this area. Subsequently, he thoughtfully considers such issues in the drafting of the current code.

Part Three (chapters 5–8:191–290) analyzes at some length various Eucharistic violations in the 1983 code: prohibited communicatio in sacris, profanation of the Eucharist, attempted celebration of the Eucharist and its simulation.

Part Four (chapters 9–11:293–354) focuses on post-1983 code developments in this area. Initially, the author briefly discusses Eucharistic violations in the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The text then addresses the significant motu proprio SST regarding Eucharistic delicts. Finally, the author addresses a Eucharistic delict mentioned in SST but not in the codes, i.e., the sacrilegious consecration of the Eucharistic species.

In conclusion, the author provides a real service to canonists and other interested parties by this thorough analysis of the broad theological-canonical implications of Eucharistic violations, for this is an area that has not been the subject of extensive canonical analysis in recent decades. This is especially true at a time when much of the canonical literature on substantive and procedural penal law understandably focuses its attention on the delict of clerical sexual abuse of minors.

Despite its procedural observations, this work seems geared primarily to academic canonists rather than tribunal practitioners, due to the latter’s understandable preoccupation with processing cases involving the sexual abuse of minors and, even more notably, marriage nullity petitions. Be that as it may, the reader of this volume will be enriched greatly by its theological, juridical, and historical reflections.