Canon 915

I've only had a chance to scan the interesting, recent posts raising questions about the role of the Catholic judge and of the Catholic politician, and asking what bearing "the communion" question might have on our understanding of those roles.  But as we get further into the discussion of these questions, we should be clear, I submit, that whether someone should be denied communion sheds little light on what his or her performance in a legislative or judicial role should be.  As many readers of this blog know, the Canon that governs this aspect of the life of the Church, Canon 915, reads, in relevant part, that they are "not to be admitted to holy communion" who, inter alia, "obstinately persever[e] in manifest grave sin."  This Canon occurs in that part of the Code that concerns the sacramental life of the Church; the Canon, as intended and as understood by the canonists and pastors, is meant to protect the ecclesial life of the whole Catholic communion.  The Canon is not intended to be used, and should not be the basis of action intened, to alter the political process.  An effect on the political process may be an unintended, but known, consequence of a proper application of the Canon, of course.  But whether the judge's or politician's behavior amounts to "persevering in manifest grave sin" is the principal question that needs to asked (and answered, according to the ususal interpretive principles that govern applicaiton of the Code) if the issue is whether a minister of communion should deny communion to the individual judge or politician.  (Other questions include whether the individual has been privately warned, etc.)  No doubt the legislative and judicial roles present very different opportunities for persevering in manifest grave sin, but from the angle of the Church, the issue remains the one of protecting and enriching the ecclesial communion -- in which (according to the Canon 1752, the last Canon of the Code) the "supreme law"  "must always be" "the salvation of souls."