Msgr. Charles Pope, Author at Community in Mission

June 10, 2012June 9, 2015

On Finding a Holistic Expression of the Church’s Moral Tradition

I just finished reading Ross Douthat’s (pronounced DOW-that) book, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics. As I have told you before, I highly recommend this to your reading attention. The book is an excellent summary of what has happened to the Christian faith in the last sixty years, especially in this country.

Mr Douthat especially emphasizes how the careful balance of classical Christian orthodoxy tipped and an unbalanced, pick and choose, heresy took its place for most Americans. Hence where things tipped left we got things like liberation theology, the “god-within movements and the syncretizing of Oprah, new age and other odd blends. Where things tipped right we got things like the prosperity gospel, and an odd blend of country worship generally termed, Americanism.

The level of detail and keen theological insight make the book an important resource for anyone who seeks answers, and a strategy out of the current difficulties.

The answer of course is orthodoxy, and orthodoxy seeks to hold the tension of somewhat competing biblical and theological teachings in balance, rather than to choose some and discard others.

In the final chapter Mr. Douthat offers some thoughts on what a recovered Christianity might include. I want to reflect on one of those thoughts in this post, namely that Christianity should be both moralistic and holistic (respecting of the whole). In other words, we must courageously proclaim the moral vision of the New Testament, but we must also be careful to proclaim the “whole counsel of God” (cf Acts 20:27). For it sometimes happens that we emphasize certain moral teachings which agree with our view, and neglect to preach others which challenge our view.

Orthodoxy must present the balanced and complete moral vision. Otherwise it too easily looks co-opted by other lesser agendas such as politics, economics, social science etc.

Let me have Mr. Douthat speak for himself. He begins by asserting the need to courageously proclaim our moral vision:

No aspect of Christian faith is less appealing to contemporary sensibilities in the faith’s long list of “thou shalt nots,” and no prohibition attracts more exasperation and contempt than the Christian view of chastity and sex. But, recurring efforts to downplay the faith’s moralistic side, to make his Commandments general rather than particular, to recontextualize Bible passages that offend contemporary sensibilities, to make the faith seem more hospitable to America’s many millions of divorced people, cohabiting couples, and (especially) gays and lesbians, have usually ended up redefining Christianity entirely. The traditional Christian view of sexuality is more essential to the faith as a whole than many modern believers want to acknowledge….[And] it doesn’t just rest on a literal reading of a few passages in the Scriptures which can easily be revised to reinterpreted. Rather, it’s the fruit of centuries worth of meditation and argument on the whole biblical narrative, from the creation of Adam and Eve, to Jesus’ prohibition on divorce
It seems easy enough to snip a single thread out of this pattern, but often the whole thing swiftly unravels once you do.

Yet many conservative Christians often make a similar mistake; they have emphasize the most hot-button (and easily politicized) moral issues, while losing sight of the tapestry as a whole. There are seven deadly sins not just one, and Christianity’s understanding of marriage and chastity is intimately bound to its views on gluttony and avarice and pride.

….It is rare to hear a rip roaring Sunday’s sermon about the temptations of the five course meal, and the all you can eat buffet, or to hear a high-profile pastor who addresses to sin of greed in the frank manner of, say, St. Basil the Great in the fourth century A.D.:

The extra bread you possess belongs to the hungry. The clothes that you store in boxes, belong to the naked. The shoes rotting by you, belong to the barefoot. The money that you hide belongs to anyone in need. You wrong as many people that you could help. (Basil, Homily on Avarice)

Note that Basil isn’t arguing for a slightly higher marginal tax rate to fund modest improvements in public services. He’s passing judgment on individual sins and calling for individual repentance. There are conservative Christians today who seemed terrified of even remotely criticizing Wall Street tycoons and high finance buccaneers, lest such criticism be interpreted as an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s political agenda.

Douthat goes on to warn that our partial outrage over certain things weakens our overall credibility before a skeptical world, since it seems that something, other than true and sincere Christian adherence to biblical norms, drives the concerns we express. And, since the world is particularly skeptical of the Church teaching on sexuality and beginning and end of life issues, our seeming silence on other biblical norms undermines our credibility. For indeed, considerable ink is spilled in the Biblical texts on issues related to greed, envy, jealously, anger, hatred, and God’s passion about how we care for the poor, as well as on sexual matters and concerns for the family and human life.

And even within the questions of sexual morality we need to be careful not simply to single out homosexuals and ignore many egregious examples of heterosexual misbehavior. Douthat writes:

…The Christian case for fidelity and chastity will inevitable seem partial and hypocritical if it trains most of its attention on the minority of cases – on homosexual wedlock and the slippery slope to polygamy beyond. It is the heterosexual divorce rate, the heterosexual retreat from marriage, the heterosexual out-of-wedlock birthrate that should command the most attention from Christian moralists……asking gays alone to conform their lives to a hard teaching will inevitably seem like a form of bigotry. [Kindle edition Loc 5771-90]

I have long held this same view and will almost never address the sin of homosexual acts without also cataloging and warning against heterosexual sins such as fornication, adultery, pornography, contraception, abortion, divorce and so forth. Frankly, it would seem the case can be made that, the emergence of more widespread homosexual tendencies, and homosexual demands, has come in the aftermath of over sixty years of widespread heterosexual misbehavior and our own redefinition of marriage.

We have insisted on easy divorce (biblically prohibited), and turned procreation and raising of children into an option (via contraception), and a way of accessorizing marriage, rather than one of its most central tasks (again, completely unbiblical). In effect, for most heterosexuals, marriage has little more meaning than two adults being happy.

We cannot prophetically stand against gay “marriage” with such a vague and unbiblical notion operative in the lives of most Christians. Only the true and orthodox stance that the Scriptures proclaim, can withstand the charge of duplicity by an increasing number of Americans. Namely, that marriage is a stable and lasting union intrinsically oriented to the procreation and rearing of children.

And, to disagree with Mr. Douthat a bit, I do not think that most Catholic priests would be found guilty of of preaching “rip-roaring” sermons on sex or even focusing much on it. Frankly, and I think most Catholics would agree, Catholic pulpits have been too silent on sexual matters, and to be honest, on most moral topics. Too many Catholic sermons of the past sixty years are a collection of generalities and abstractions. Not only would most Catholics not hear a sermon about sex, but they would not likely hear all that much about what Basil says either.

Our outrage at homosexual acts (which I fully think we should have) can seem very hollow when, for some sixty years we have tended to ignore heterosexual promiscuity on a wide and huge scale, and worked with, and largely facilitated, the divorce culture. And then, when the homosexual community steps forth with their sinful demands, we should not be surprised that our claims to oppose to them is only about protecting the sacredness of the family, falls on deaf ears. We have sown in the wind and now we are reaping the whirlwind.

To be fair, some of this is changing and, especially younger clergy, are more likely to address specific moral topics. And if that be the case, then we clergy ought to be willing to address a wide sampling of the Christian moral vision in a non-political bu clear way, as Douthat admonishes and exemplifies by quoting St. Basil.

And thus we are brought back to St. Paul’s insistence to the Church at Ephesus that he preached to them “the whole counsel of God” Acts 20:27. For the true and orthodox moral vision of the Church is wide, and embraces all issues and all people. And it is not so much a faith that prohibits, as it is one that points to freedom by Grace:

Freedom to be able to experience and show mercy, forgiveness,
Freedom and have authority over our anger and hatred,
Freedom over our greed and the capacity to be generous and caring of the poor,
Freedom and authority to love our spouse, and children and be faithful to the commitments we have made, even in tough times,
Freedom and authority over our sexuality and the capacity to live chastely and joyfully,
Freedom and the capacity to welcome immigrants, and be free of the fears related to bigotry, ignorance and prejudice.
Yes, freedom, grace, power and authority over every sinful drive
And the joyful openness to greater love, mercy, kindness, chastity, generosity, joy, serenity, justice, piety and growing love for God and neighbor.

This is orthodoxy: holistic (respecting the whole), wide reaching, comprehensive and transcending of political categories and boxes.

The whole counsel of God.

If you can tolerate looking at Bill Maher, Ross Douthat handles him pretty well:

June 9, 2012June 9, 2015

Unless! A Homily on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi

This Sunday in many places features the (moved) Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, Our Lord.

While you may puzzle over my title, allow me to explain it later. On a Solemn feast like this many things occur that might be preached and taught. Allow three areas for reflection: The Reality of the Eucharist, The Requirement of the Eucharist, the Remembrance of the Eucharist. We will look at each in order.

I. The Reality of the Eucharist – On this solemn feast we are called above all to faith in the fact, as revealed by the Lord himself, that the Eucharist, the Holy Communion we partake of, is in fact, a reception of the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, whole and entire, in his glorified state. We do not partake of a symbol, the Eucharist is not a metaphor, it is truly the Lord. Neither is it a “piece” of his flesh, but is Christ, whole and entire. Scripture attests to this in many places:

A. Luke 22:19-20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

B. 1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a partaking in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a partaking in the body of Christ?

C. Luke 24:35 They recognized him in the breaking of the bread.

D. 1 Cor 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

E. John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

This last quote is from our Gospel for today’s feast. The passage is a profound theology of the Eucharist from Jesus himself and he makes it clear that we are not permitted to think of the Eucharist in symbolic or metaphor.

As he speaks the words, the bread is my flesh, the Jewish people hearing him grumbled in protest. Jesus did not seek to reassure them or insist that we was speaking only symbolically when he said they must eat his flesh. Rather he becomes even more adamant by shifting his vocabulary from the polite form of eating, φάγητε (phagete – meaning simply “to eat”) to the impolite form, τρώγων (trogon – meaning to “munch, gnaw or chew”).

So insistent was he that they grasp this that he permitted the fact that most left him that day and would no longer follow in his company due to this teaching (cf Jn 6:66). Yes the Lord paid quite a price for his graphic and “hard” teaching (Jn 6:60).

Today, he asks us, Do you also want to leave me? (Jn 6:67). We must supply our answer each time we approach the altar and hear the word, The Body of Christ. It is here that we answer the Lord, Amen as if to say, Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the word of eternal life! (Jn 6:68).

Would that people grasped that the Lord himself was truly present in our Churches! Were that so, one could never empty our parishes of those seeking to pray with the Lord. As it is, only 27% come to Mass regularly. This is more evidence of the narrow road and how few there are who find it. As Jesus experienced that most left him, so too many continue to leave him or stand far away, either through indifference or false notions.

What father would not be severely alarmed if one of his children stopped eating. Consider too God’s alarm that many of us have stopped eating. This leads us to the next point.

II. The Requirement of the Eucharist – And here is where the title “Unless!” comes in. When I was a kid I just thought of Church and Communion as something my mom made me do, it was just rituals and stuff. I never thought of it as essential for my survival. But Jesus teaches something very profound in John’s Gospel today when he was teaching about Holy Communion (the Eucharist). In effect he says that without Holy Communion we will starve and die spiritually.

Here is what Jesus says, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53)

As a kid and even a young adult I never thought of Holy Communion as essential for my life, as something that, if I didn’t receive it regularly, I would die spiritually. But it makes sense doesn’t it? If we don’t eat food in our physical lives we grow weak and eventually die. It is the same with Holy Communion.

Remember in the Book of Exodus: the people were without food in the desert and they feared for their lives. So God gave them bread from heaven called “manna” that they collected each morning. Without eating that bread from heaven they would never have made it to the Promised Land, they would have died in the desert.

It is the same with us. Without receiving Jesus, our Living Manna from heaven in Holy Communion we will not make it to our Promised Land of Heaven! I guess it’s not just merely a ritual after all. It is essential for our survival.

Don’t miss Holy Communion! Jesus urges you to eat.

A mother and father in my parish recently noticed their daughter wasn’t eating. Within a very short time they took her to the doctor who discovered the problem and now the young girl is able to eat again. Those parents would have moved heaven and earth to make sure their daughter was able to eat.

It is the same with God. Jesus urges us to eat, to receive the Holy Communion every Sunday without fail. Jesus urges us with this word: “Unless!” Holy Communion is our required food.

III. The Remembrance of the Eucharist. The word remembrance comes up a lot in reference to Holy Communion and today’s readings. Consider the following

A. Remember how for forty years now the LORD, your God, has directed all your journeying in the desert…and then fed you with manna (Deut 8).

B. Do not forget the LORD, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt (Deut 8:24)

C. Do this in remembrance of me….(1 Cor 11:24 inter al).

What is remembrance and why is it important? In effect, to “remember” is to have present in your mind what God has done for you so that you’re grateful, to have it so present to you, so that you are different. God has saved us, made us his children, and opened heaven for us. Yet, our minds are very weak and we too easily let this slip from our conscious thoughts. Thus, the summons to an ἀνάμνησιν (anamnesin) or “remembrance” that is so common in the Eucharistic liturgy, is a summons to our minds to be open to, and powerfully aware of what the Lord has done for us, “Don’t just stand or kneel there, forgetting, let this be present to you as a living and conscious reality, that changes you!”

Are you a mouse or a man? Back in seminary days we were all given the example of a mouse who runs across the altar and takes a consecrated host and runs off and eats it. And we were asked, “Does he eat the body of Christ?” Yes! For the Eucharist has a reality unto itself. “But does he receive a sacrament?” No! A mouse has no mind. It eats the very Body of Christ but to no avail for it has no conscious awareness or appreciation of of what (whom) it eats. And so here comes the question – Are you a mouse or a man?

How do you receive Holy Communion? Do you go up mindlessly, shuffling along in the Communion line in a mechanistic way? Or do you go up powerfully aware of He, whom you are bout to receive? Do you remember, do you have vividly present to your mind what the Lord has done for you? Are you grateful and amazed at what he has done and what he offers? Or are you just like a mouse having something mindlessly put into your mouth?

Some people put more faith in Tylenol than they do the Eucharist. Why? Because when they take Tylenol they actually expect something to happen, for the pain to go away, and for there to be relief and healing. But when it comes to Holy Communion, they expect next to nothing. To them, it’s just a ritual, time to go up and get the wafer, (pardon the expression).

Really?! Nothing? How can this be? Poor catechesis? Sure. Little faith? Sure. Boredom? Yes indeed. At some level it can be no better than a mouse eating a host. We are receiving the Lord of all creation, yet most expect little.

To this the Church says, “Remember!” “Have present to your mind all that the Lord has done for you and what he is about to do. Let this reality of the Lord’s presence be alive in your mind so that it changes you and makes you profoundly grateful and joyful. Become the One you receive!”

Jesus is more powerful than Tylenol and we are men (and women) not mice.

On this Solemnity of the Body of Christ we are summoned to deepen our faith in the Lord, present in the Eucharist, and acting through his Sacraments. Routine may have dulling effects, but it cannot be so that we receive the Lord of glory each Sunday in any way that would be called mindless.

Ask the Lord to anoint your mind so that you remember and never forget.

June 8, 2012June 9, 2015

When the Best is the Enemy of the Good

There are different ways to look at life. One saying goes: “The good is the enemy of the best.” Meaning, that we sometimes settle for second best when we should aim higher. This statement is not without its place, for excellence is something for which to strive.

And yet, there is another saying that goes: “The Best is the enemy of the good.” For it sometimes happens that, in striving for the perfect thing, we miss the truly good in other things. Frankly this world is in a fallen state, and less the fully perfect. Likewise you and I are incomplete, unfinished, imperfect. Yet this does not mean that we lack anything good, or that this imperfect world has nothing to offer.

I suppose that, being more than midway through my expected life, I have moved from the perfectionist world of the first saying to the contented world of the second saying, though both have their place. But I have come to learn that contentedness is a very great gift, and that true perfection waits till heaven.

There is yet another saying that goes: “Unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.” For it frequently happens that many, having an insistence that life should be a peach, are resentful to discover that, even a peach has a pit. And expecting everything to be just peachy is a sure-fire recipe for resentment, discouragement and depression.

I think this is one problem with marriage today. Despite our current tendency to be cynical regarding just about everything, I have noticed that many still have very high ideals about marriage: that it will be romantic, joyful, fulfilling, and that love will solve every problem.

But this not realistic. Marriage is life. And life has ups and downs, things we like, and things we wish were different. There is no perfect spouse, and there is no perfect marriage. There are many good marriages that are far from perfect. Many decent spouses who do not live or act perfectly.

And when one enters a marriage with high expectations, they may be tempted to seize on the negative things, and magnify them, because they are not perfect, and resentments begin to build. And its sad really, but the marriage may not actually be that bad, and the less than ideal spouse not really so awful.

But the best becomes the enemy of the good, and decent things are trampled underfoot in an illusive search for the perfect, the best, the ideal.

Indeed, there is yet another saying that goes: “Many people want their marriage to be ideal, and if there is any ordeal, they want a new deal.”

We do a lot of this, discarding the good in an illusive search for the best or the perfect. There is always a better parish, a better Church, a better job, a better boss, a better house, a better car, a better neighborhood, a better deal.

But there is something about being able to accept the good, even the imperfect, and to be content with it. There’s something freeing and serene about not letting the best become the enemy of the good. The perfect will come, but probably not before heaven. In the meantime the good will suffice. And sometimes we don’t see it as good until we accept that the best and the perfect will have to wait.

And all this occurred to me as I watched this video about a “man” who creates a work of art. And he loves it. But then notices an imperfection and goes on a reckless errand to make it perfect. In the end he learns to love what is. To some extent this has been my journey, and I pray yours too.

June 7, 2012June 9, 2015

The Priest as Soldier in the Army of the Lord

Back in the early 1980s I was in college, majoring in computer science, and dating a beautiful young woman. An older priest, Msgr. Curlin told me that he thought I was called to be a priest. I was puzzled as to how to react. No one had ever said this to me before. So I asked him if he’d like to meet my girlfriend. He was unfazed and told me stories of other men, now priests, who had said the same. In some ways he spoke like a military recruiter: “The Church needs good men, Chuck. God needs good, strong men.”

I was surprised to hear a priest speak this way. I was born in 1961 but came of age in the Church of the 1970s. It was a time of crossless Christianity. Crosses had literally been removed from my parish church and replaced by a “resurrection Jesus.” Notions of sacrifice and fighting against sin had largely been replaced by a kind of “God is Love, self-acceptance” emphasis. Not wrong, but wholly emphasized. It was a time of “beige Catholicism” which demanded little and saw its main task to be as non-offensive as possible.

As a young man, none of this appealed much to me. I think most young men are “up for a battle.” They want to change the world, or at least make a key difference. Now suddenly a priest was summoning me to manhood and to something sacrificial, something that would take a “strong” man. And my services were needed, God and the Church depended on men like me saying yes. Imagine that!

I didn’t say yes that day. I continued to date and worked toward finishing my Computer Science Degree. But I had heard a summons to a great battle, the ancient battle between Christ and our adversary the Devil. And the call grew. For various reasons my steady girl and I broke up. Saddened though I was, I saw an opened door before me and the call quickened. I walked through and began a process of discernment with the Archdiocese that led to my Ordination to the Priesthood in 1989.

I suppose there are many ways of seeing my priesthood. But one powerful way is that I see myself as a soldier in the army of the Lord. The battle today is fierce. We live in a world increasingly hostile to our holy faith and the teachings of the Church. And the call must go out as never before: The Church needs good men to be priests, strong and courageous. Men who will speak the truth in love, clearly and without compromise and celebrate the sacraments with devotion and faith. Men who know that the eternal salvation of many is dependent on them being zealous priests after God’s own heart. Men who by the grace of God are willing to fight for souls in the battle that matters most.

So there it is men. The Lord is looking for good men to engage the great battle for souls. And there’s an old saying, “If you find a good fight…get in it!”

Vocations for Men: Fr. Carter Griffin 301-853-4580

Here’s a video I stitched together with scenes from Fishers of Men and set to Lyle Lovett’s “I’m A Soldier in the Army of the Lord”

June 6, 2012June 9, 2015

Six Principles of Discernment

As a priest and pastor I am often called to spend time with people discerning the voice and the will of God in their life. I have about twenty lay people in spiritual direction. There are also times in other people’s lives, where careful guidance is necessary, either due to a crisis, or simply to a moment of decision about career, about vocations, or some other significant event.

And thank God many of the faithful are actually trying to learn what God would have them do. For, too many people run off and make big decisions about things like marriage or major career moves without asking God. It is always refreshing when someone says, “What would God have me do?”

How to discern in moments like these? Are there any rules, or at least a structure to follow in being reasonably certain of what course of action to take? Are there any ways to learn to how to recognize the voice of God and distinguish it from my own voice, the voices of others, or even the voice of the devil? There are of course.

And while many great spiritual masters have written far more eloquently than I of the art of discernment, I would like to offer a few things I have learned in my own discernment, and in walking with others on their own journey. What I offer here is by no means complete, and others will add, distinguish and write more profoundly on these than I. But these principles I have collected based on my study and experience as a parish priest dealing with ordinary members of the lay faithful. Take what you like and leave the rest. For a far richer treatment of the topic of discernment I recommend Fr. Thomas Dubay’s Authenticity: A Biblical Theology of Discernment.

Let’s just begin with a definition of the word discernment. Many people just use discernment as a synonym for “decide.” But discernment is a richer and deeper concept that, while related and antecedent to “deciding” is distinct from it. The goal of discernment is to see beyond the mere external dimensions of something, and to probe to its deeper significance.

The word discern comes from the Latin dis- “off, or away” + cernere – “to distinguish, separate, sift, set apart, divide, or distinguish. Thus, to discern is to distinguish or sort out what is of God, and what is of the flesh, the world or even the devil. As such, discernment, in its root meaning is something that ought to precede decision and aid it.

Thus as we discern, either a course of action or simply whether what we think or “hear” is of God or not, we must often admit that, while some things are purely from God, it is also the case that there may be other things admixed, things not of God, which must be sifted or separated out. Discernment regards these sorts of things.

And so we come to some basic norms or principles that I offer, humbly, and not as a spiritual master, just as a simple parish priest. These principles are most often applicable to discern about a course of action, but many of them can also apply to discerning the promptings and urges that the faithful often sense in their walk with God, and which cause them to wonder, is this of God or just me?

Disclaimers. – None of these principles should be read in an absolute sense. They all admit of limits and distinctions. They are merely principles that guide further reflection. In a brief blog, not everything can be said about them, and you may wish to use the comments to elaborate some of your own thoughts and distinctions. Secondly, while not every principle applies to every situation, as a general rule, these principles ought to be used together and in tandem. It would be wrong merely to use one principle, and think discernment is complete. Generally these are all part of a process and their evidence should be considered collectively.

Principle 1 – State of life. There are many different states in life, some permanent, some long-lasting, some only temporary. We may be single, married, a priest, a religious, young, old, healthy, or fragile in health. We may be a student, a parent, rich or poor. Being clear about our state in life can help us discern if a call is from God or not.

For example, a young woman may sense a call to spend extended hours before the Blessed Sacrament. Of itself this is surely a good and fine thing. But what if she is the mother of four young children? Would God ask this of her? Probably not. Perhaps one hour will be more in keeping with her state in life. On the other hand a single woman, may be free to do this, and it may even be a part of her learning of her vocation to the religious life. Other things being equal it is more likely we can be open to this call being of God in her case.

State in life helps to do a lot of sorting out. A priest is not going to hear from God to leave the priesthood and marry the pretty woman in the front pew. An elderly and feeble man is not going to hear a call to go to walk the Camino in Spain, etc. We can be pretty clear that such notions are not of God. Yet other calls that seem to be in keeping with one’s state in life are something to remain open to, and apply other principles that follow.

Principle 2 – Gifts and talents – It is a clear fact that people have different combinations of virtues and talents, gifts and skills. In discerning the will of God, regarding a course of action, or of accepting an offer or opportunity, we ought to carefully ponder if it will make good sense based on our skills and talents.

God has surely equipped us for some things and not others. I am a reasonably good teacher of adults, I am not a good teacher of young children. Thus, in being offered opportunities to teach or preach, I am much more open to the possibility that God wants it, if it is for adults. If I am asked to address young children for more than 5 minutes, I am quite clear God is not asking.

Hence we do well to ask at this stage of discernment to ask, “Is what I am being asked to do, or what I want to do, a good match to the gifts and talents God has given me? Does it make sense based on what I am equipped to do?” And while it is a true fact that God does sometimes want us to try new things, and discover new abilities, it more usually the case that God will ask of us things that are at least somewhat in the range of the possible, based on our gifts.

Age is something of a factor here too. Young people are often still in a process of discovery as to their gifts and talents, and should try more new and challenging things. Older adults are more likely to discern God’s will a little closer to their current skill set.

Principle 3 – Desire – Desire as a principle of discernment surprises some people. We are often suspicious of our desires, and not without reason. When it comes to most things regarding the Moral Law and Doctrine, our feelings and desires are largely irrelevant, and should not be determinative of understanding God’s will. For example that we should not commit adultery remains the clear will of God, no matter how we feel about. That Jesus is God is true, no matter our feelings.

But when it comes to discerning between various courses of action that are both good (e.g. marriage and priesthood), feelings and desires do matter and may help indicate the will of God for us. For when God wants us to move in a direction of something good, he most often inspires some level of desire for it. He leads us to appreciate that it is good, attractive and desirable.

Learning to listen to our heart therefore is an important way of discernment. There may, for example, be a good thing proposed for us to do, yet we feel no joy or desire to do it. Such feelings should not be wholly dismissed as mere selfishness or laziness. It is possible that our lack of desire is a sign of a “no” from God. On the other hand, we may experience a joy and zeal to do, even things that are challenging, and these desires too may help us to discern that God has prepared and wills for us to do that very thing. Hence desire is an important indicator, among others, in deciding between courses of action that are both, or all, good. Ultimately God’s will for us gives joy.

Principle 4 – Organic development – This principle simply articulates that God most often moves us in stages rather than in sudden and dramatic ways. While it is true, in most lives, there are times of dramatic change, loss, and gain, it is more usual for God to lead us gently and in stages toward what he wills for us.

Hence, in discernment, it is valuable to ask, “Does this change…, does this course of action, seem to build on what God has generally been doing in my life? Is there some continuity at work if I move in this direction? Does moving into the future in this particular way make sense based on how and where God has led me thus far?”

It is generally a good idea to exercise great caution about “biggie-wow” projects and “out of the blue” rapid changes. It is better to ask, “What is the next best step in my life?”

While it sometimes happens that “life comes at you fast,” God more often works with slow, steady, incremental growth, and asks us to be open to changes that make sense for us as the “next best step.” Discernment will respect this as a general principle, though not an absolute law.

Principle 5 – Serenity – When God leads us, the usual result is serenity (peace) and joy. In my own priestly life I have at times, been asked to move from one assignment to another. At such moments there is great sadness, since I had to say goodbye to people I greatly love. And yet, when it is God’s will that the time has come for moving on, in spite of the sadness, I also feel an inner peace, a serenity.

Serenity should not be underestimated as a tool for discernment. For it often happens that to ponder change is stressful, even fearful. But beneath the turmoil of difficult decisions, we must listen carefully for a deeper serenity that signals God’s will.

If serenity is wholly lacking, if there are no consolations, but only desolation, we should carefully consider the possibility that the proposed course of action is not God’s will. To be sure, in the stress that decisions often bring, being able to sense serenity is more difficult, and hence we ought not quickly conclude it is lacking.

Sometimes we must wait a while to sense serenity’s still, small voice. And when it is present we have an important indicator that this is God’s will.

Principle 6 – Conformity to Scripture and Tradition. – Some may think that this principle should be at the top of the list, and you are free to put it there. But I prefer to say that the Word of God and the teachings of the Church has the last word in any decision.

For it may well be that one goes through principles like these and feels quite certain of a course of action or of an insight. But the final and most important step is to be sure that our insight or conclusion squares with the Lord’s stated revelation in Scripture and Church Teaching.

If a person were to strangely think God was telling her of a fourth person in the Godhead, and that she should build an altar, and spread devotion to this fourth person, we will rightly and surely conclude she is dead wrong.

God’s Revelation trumps every discernment in the end. Were a wayward priest to think God had summoned him to found a new Church featuring more ‘up-to-date’ teachings, it does not matter that he thinks it comports with his state in life, matches his skills, is an organic development for him, and gives him serenity. Sorry Father, you’re overruled. God is saying no such thing.

On the other hand, it may be one hears a call from God to be more faithful in prayer, and more generous to the poor and has gone through the discernments above. And, while Scripture and Church teaching may have little to say on the exact way of prayer, or the precise amount of money, surely, as a general principle, such notions are in keeping with God’s revelation and would not be overruled by it. One can confidently proceed to discern how, and when to pray, or what amount and to whom alms should best be directed.

Just a few principles for discernment. Remember the disclaimers above. They are to be considered together and held in balance. They are also not understood in an absolute sense, (except perhaps the last one) and may admit of exceptions and distinctions. Take what you like and leave the rest. Add to them if you like. Comments are open.

Here is a sermon excerpt in which I developed the last principle in a context wider than this article. For the context of the sermon was not discerning between various good options, but rather the discernment that distinguishes God from the idols and errors of this world.

June 5, 2012June 9, 2015

The Gift of the Tenth Commandment

The Tenth Commandment is, You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet. your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Ex 20:17). It is one of more rarely quoted commandments in conversation, and frankly is often confessed than most of the other Commandments. Yet in a way it may be one of the most commonly breached of the commandments since it directly addresses our desire to possess things unreasonably. This is a very deep and disordered drive that gives way to many other sins as well.

Fundamentally to covet means to be possessed of a strong and unreasonable and inordinate desire to possess the things of another. It’s Latin root is cupere, meaning simply “to desire.” But in the Biblical usage, coveting is more than mere desire. It is a nurtured desire that is excessive, unreasonable and thus sinful.

Let’s begin with a little background on desire itself. There exists within each of us a whole range of appetites or desires. We desire everything from food, security, and temporal goods, to affection, friendship, sexual union, and a sense of being loved and respected. In themselves these desires are good and they help protect and foster important aspects of ourselves. However, since the human race labors under the effects of original sin, our desires tend also to have an unruly dimension. Frequently we desire things beyond what we know is reasonable or just. And this is where coveting enters. Coveting does not include momentary desires that occur to us and which we dismiss as being unreasonable or inappropriate. Rather, coveting involves the willful entertaining or eliciting of inappropriate or excessive desires.

Thus, the Tenth Commandment points to the gift that God can give us, the gift of self control. For, a significant truth about our desires and passions is that if we overindulge them they become more and more demanding and powerful in their influences over our conduct. Self control becomes increasingly difficult to those who are self indulgent. The Catechism teaches,

If we do not learn to temper our desires we quickly become dominated by them. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy..Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice…and not by blind impulses in himself…Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself from all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good…. (Catechism 2339).

The Tenth Commandment reminds us of our freedom and dignity and solemnly instructs us in the importance of self control in terms of our desires. The significance of this issue for our well-being and happiness is emphasized by the fact that two commandments the 9th and 10th) are devoted to matters of covetousness.

Self control may seem difficult since our desires do not usually change in an instant. Just because we know that our heart desires things or persons in ways that are excessive or inappropriate, does not make these desires disappear. Yet through consistent self discipline, custody of the eyes and the other senses, recourse to prayer and sacraments, all with the help of God’s grace, the desires of our heart change. We begin to love what God loves. What is sinful becomes less tempting and the thought of sin eventually becomes even abhorrent to us. By God’s grace our hearts change.

The command not to covet is not merely a rule to follow, it is a gift to be sought.

The Tenth Commandment itself: Since it is the last of the Ten Commandments, it is fitting that the tenth commandment flow from and complete many of the other commandments.

It forbids coveting the goods of another, which is at the root of theft, robbery, and fraud, which the seventh commandment forbids.
Coveting, or “lust of the eyes” as scripture calls it (1 Jn 2:16), many times leads to the violence and injustice forbidden by the Fifth and Seventh Commandments.
Likewise, covetousness tends to originate in the idolatry prohibited by the first three commandments. This is because of the way that covetousness frequently leads to a kind of worship of material goods.
The tenth commandment also completes the ninth since coveting involves far more than sexual matters.

The scriptures specify the wide scope of coveting: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet. your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s. (Ex 20:17).

A Distinction – We should recall that coveting by definition involves the willful entertaining of excessive or inappropriate desires. Thus, it is not wrong to desire the things we reasonably need. Clearly it is essential for our survival that we desire food, water, warmth and shelter. Love, affection, family, and work are also essential for us and it is proper that we desire and seek fulfillment in these areas.

Even seemingly non-essential things like recreation and entertainment are in fact necessary ingredients in life and our desire for such things is an important aspect of every healthy person.

So long as our desires for any of these things is not unreasonable and we do not seek to fulfill them in inappropriate ways we can say that they are good, even holy aspects of the human person.

The Catechism goes on to elaborate on coveting:

The tenth commandment forbids greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It forbids avarice arising from a passion for riches and their attendant power. It also forbids the desire to commit injustice by harming our neighbor in his temporal goods (Catechism 2536).

Greed is the insatiable desire for more and, as we have already noted, excessive desires once indulged grow very insatiable and become increasingly difficult to control. The Book of Ecclesiastes says, The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccl 1:8). And Again, Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income (Eccl 5:10). St Augustine says, For my will was perverse and lust had grown from it, and when I gave in to lust, habit was born, and when I did not resist the habit, it became a necessity (Conf., Book 10). Thus, again we see the Tenth Commandment’s summons to freedom from lusts, excessive desires and many bad habits and addictive or compulsive behaviors.

The Catechism also connects the Tenth Commandment to Envy:

The tenth commandment requires that envy be banished from the human heart…Envy refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s good…When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin. St. Augustine saw envy as “the diabolical sin: “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.” (Catechism 2538-2539).

What then are some antidotes to Covetousness?

Gratitude – In the first place there must be gratitude for what we do have, an abiding and deep gratitude for the things and people in my life.
Contentment and Satisfaction – Another gift to be sought is contentment and an abiding sense of satisfaction. Satisfaction is the ability to say to God, “It is enough O Lord!” Contentment is the capacity to hold gratefully to what one has, rather than to constantly reach for more.
Appreciation – Yet another related gift is appreciation which is the gift to regard as precious what one has received.
Moderation should be sought also from God. Moderation is the capacity to observe the “mode” or middle range of something so that we do it neither to excess or defect. Since severe asceticism is rare in our culture, most of us know that moderation will mean recognizing our tendency to excess and the need by God’s grace to curb it.
Trust – Another gift to be sought is trust. For is often happens that we excessively desire, grasp at, and hoard out of fear that we will not have enough. But if we trust that God can provide for our basic needs, fear diminishes and inordinate desires diminish too.
Generosity is still another gift to seek. Once our basic needs are met we are essentially dealing with surplus. Generosity is a freedom that recognizes surplus and gladly shares.

Thus as we see, the Tenth Commandment points to gifts and calls us higher. It calls us to recognize the freedom and the healing which God offers us through his grace. For in terms of our passions and desires we can easily become enslaved. How easily we become inebriated with the things of this world and become trapped by the seemingly insatiable desire for more.

One look at the credit card balances of many Americans reveals that we live beyond our means and have difficulty controlling our desires. In some cases individuals are unable or unwilling to delay gratifications. Others consider as essential, things which they could do without.

The tenth commandment calls us away from the illusions of necessity and immediacy. We are summoned to a freedom which recognizes that we can discipline our desires and master our passions so that we make sound, wise, and just decisions in acquiring and using the goods of this world.

Finally, the Tenth Commandment calls us to remember something very important about our desires. As we master our passions and desires we also learn more clearly what they are truly saying to us. Fundamentally every desire represents a deeper longing for God who is the giver of every good gift. In the deepest part of our heart there is a song, I’d rather have Jesus, than silver or gold.

The tragedy is that many become lost searching for happiness in the things of this world. This ends in frustration and emptiness for our deepest longings are infinite. The finite things of the world cannot fulfill the infinite longings of our heart. The Catechism concludes,

Jesus enjoins his disciples to prefer him to everything and everyone, and bids them “renounce all that [they have]” for his sake and that of the Gospel [Lk 14:33]. The precept of detachment from riches is obligatory for entrance into the Kingdom of heaven…The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods.[Lk 6:24] But blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.”[Mat 5:2] (Catechism 2544, 2547).

This song says, You may have all this world. Just give me Jesus.’

June 4, 2012June 9, 2015

Getting Free from the Hermeneutic of Suspicion

I apologize for using one of those rather haughty theological words: Hermeneutic! I also know that many DO in fact know what the word means. But just in case you don’t let’s define it. Fundamentally a “hermeneutic” is an interpretive key, a way of seeing and understanding the world.

So what do I mean when I speak of a “hermeneutic of suspicion?” Well, consider the times in which we live. Most people are suspicious of just about everything and everyone! It is a common and usual worldview that politicians lie, the Government is lying, big business is lying, advertisers are lying, the Church is lying.

It is presumed, even if there is not outright lying most people and organizations are just acting out of selfish motives and self-serving agendas. Everyone is simply dismissed because they have an ”agenda” and this agenda is somehow less than pure, fair or neutral.

In pondering this all-pervasive “hermeneutic of suspicion” I wonder if there do not have to be some limits to its application and conclusions:

Is “everyone” really lying or just acting out of a less than pure agenda?
Is it always wrong to have an agenda?
Is self interest always a bad thing?
Is it always wrong for groups to seek to influence the national discussion even if that influence serves their interest and worldview?
Clearly lying is wrong and there is such a thing as lying but is everything I call lying really lying?

I do not ask these questions as a moral relativist who is simply asking for everything to be murky and gray. But I do suspect that our culture is really overheated at the moment with suspicion.

There is a pervasive presumption of the worst in terms of motives, sincerity and the like. It is getting harder and harder to have any kind of a conversation at all about issues without the names and the labels sallying forth and the impugning of motives. This is true even among Catholics with each other.

I don’t have a simple formula to come up with the right balance between a healthy skepticism and pathological suspicion but I would like to propose a few benchmarks toward a better balance.

1. Everyone DOES have an agenda and that is OK. It’s not wrong to have a worldview and to seek to influence others to that way of thinking. The very word “agenda” is intended as pejorative but it need not be. The problem seems to come up when everyone is defensive about having and “agenda.”

Since “having an agenda” is somehow supposed to be “wrong,” we start to do unhealthy things. We often try to hide our truest agenda, and paper it over with less than sincere descriptions of what we think, and what we want. We start to talk in code and engage in political correctness, jargon and other circumlocutions that are not always true or frank. We become less transparent and this fuels suspicion.

If we can just accept that we all have agendas and that’s fine, then we become more frank and honest, and suspicion recedes. Being frank does not mean being uncharitable, it simply means that we sincerely discuss our concerns and vision.

In terms of full disclosure let me share my agenda: I am a Roman Catholic Christian and I believe everything that the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals. I believe Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church. It is my desire that everyone on this planet become Roman Catholic and thus embrace the fullness of the faith given by Jesus Christ and revealed through the Apostles. Clear enough? That’s my agenda.

2. Self interest is not always bad– A key principle in motivating people is to help them identify their interests and then act upon them. Well ordered self-love, and well ordered self interest can be a powerful motivator toward great ends.

Instead of being suspicious and cynical that people have self interest in mind, what if we just accepted that this is the universal human condition and used it to engage people for good ends? It’s not wrong to care about myself. I really ought to get my needs met and that also helps others because I am less of a burden on them.

If ALL we care about is our self that is a problem. But most people instinctively understand that their self interest is linked to the good of others too. My life is more secure and stable if there is a healthy, strong and vibrant neighborhood and culture and if other people are generally able to get their needs met. So I can be engaged around my own interests to work for a just and healthy world.

The fact that I “get something out it” does make my motives somehow impure. But the hermeneutic of suspicion demands “pure” motives and unrealistically defines pure as completely selfless. What if we just stopped all that and accepted that people act on what interests them and that it isn’t always bad. Accepting this makes us less suspicious and cynical.

3. Faith and Trust in the Church are an essential balance to the hermeneutic of suspicion– While it is true that we have to be sober that live in a world where lies are told and where motives are not always pure, it is also true that we have to refuse radical suspicion and cynicism. There IS truth, and there are those who do speak and teach the truth.

We must find and seek those harbors of the truth and lower our anchor there. For Catholics, the harbor of the truth is the Church. Scripture describes the Church as the Pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

One of the great tragedies of the hermeneutic of suspicion is that many Catholics have adopted this attitude toward the Church. Yes, there is sin, and even corruption in the Church, but despite that, the Church has never failed to hand on the authentic truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ does speak through his Church. Jesus dined with sinners among others and was crucified between two thieves. But that is where Jesus is and even surrounded by questionable company he still speaks his truth.

I emphatically trust that fact. I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to have been revealed by God. I can do no other. This is my faith. I trust God and believe that he speaks through the Catholic Church despite whatever human weakness is evident in the Church. God can write straight with crooked lines and he can teach infallibly even despite human weakness in the Church.

Without a harbor of truth the hermeneutic of suspicion can and will overwhelm us. We will mistrust everyone and everything and have no real way to sort out all the conflicting claims and counterclaims. Without faith and trust both in God and in the Church I am lost, adrift on a sea of suspicion and cynicism, and the hermeneutic of suspicion overwhelms me.

This is sadly true today of so many who are cut off from the truth thinking they can trust no one. In them the hermeneutic of suspicion has its most devastating effect. The lack of trust locks them into a tiny world, dominated by suspicion and doubt. Only the gift of faith and trust can diminish such deep suspicion. With faith we can measure all things by God’s truth and know what is true from what is false. We have a measuring rod to judge what is true and thus we need not flee to suspicion.

This video fits with my agenda! 😉

June 3, 2012June 9, 2015

On the Giving and Receiving of Holy Communion: Some norms to recall.

Recently here in the Archdiocese of Washington there was an issue regarding the denial of Holy Communion to a certain individual, which caused no little debate among the faithful. I am NOT going to reopen that case here, and ask all readers to please recall that, no matter what you may think, you do not have all the facts, and I do not wish to rehearse the (partial) specifics of the whole affair.

That said, a number of us priests asked for a review of the norms of the policies of the Church and the Archdiocese in these sorts of situations, and the Archdiocese responded at a convocation of the all the priests, which discussed many matters, this one among it. (At the same convocation we also discussed the specifics of the lawsuit initiated by the Archdiocese and other Catholic groups and diocese against the Administration).

I am grateful that the Cardinal and his senior staff responded in a concise and clear manner. For, it is a fact that these sorts of situations, wherein, Communion must be withheld, are both delicate and complicated. It is always helpful to know the norms, and review them frequently since there are times when a priest must deal quickly with situations that arise, and having command of the norms is immensely helpful.

Frankly, we do not always get every situation right. Being human, our judgment is sometimes flawed. But to the degree that we have reviewed and pondered the collected wisdom of the Church, and have a grasp of the basic policies, we stand the chance of avoiding mistakes either of excess or defect.

All that said, here are some norms and policies that were presented to us from a variety of sources.

From the Sacramental Norms of the Archdiocese (promulgated 1/25/2010; 6.41.1-6.41.6) (I have included a few remarks of my own in red) :

Any baptized person, not prohibited by law, can and must be admitted to Holy Communion (cf Canon # 912).
Full participation in the Eucharist takes place when the faithful receive Holy Communion. Yet care must be taken, lest they conclude that the mere fact of being present during the liturgy gives them a right or obligation to receive Communion. Even when it is not possible to receive Communion, participation at Mass remains necessary, important, meaningful and fruitful. (cf Pope Benedict Sacramentum Caritatis # 55)
A person who is to receive Holy Eucharist, is to abstain for at least one hour before Holy Communion from any food and drink, except for only water and medicine (cf Canon 919.1)

From the USCCB Guidelines (also referenced in ADW Liturgical norms and policies):

Those who receive Holy Communion should not be conscious of grave sin.
Should have fasted for one hour.
And, if there is no reasonable opportunity for confession, the person should make and act of perfect contrition, which thereby includes the intention of confessing to the priest as soon as possible. (For it sometimes happens that, in current circumstances where most receive Holy Communion, that to abstain would raise difficult questions and possibly result in a person announcing publicly that they are in mortal sin. To avoid this, the Church does allow this act of perfect contrition, which obviously includes the intent to seek the Sacrament of Confession to be valid).

The recipient of Holy Communion also makes declarations by presenting himself for Holy Communion:

That he or she is a Catholic.
That he or she accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church in toto and is not consciously or intentional dissenting from known doctrines or dogmas, from whatever the Church professes and believes to be revealed by God. (For Communion means cum (with) + unio (union), and thereby is more than a “me and Jesus” thing, it involves a union with the Church his Body and Bride. Dissenters and those in schism who cannot make this declaration of union, thus should not claim communion when there is a significant lack of union either by dissent or schism).
That he or she is not conscious or gave or serious sin.

Therefore a strong responsibility falls on the one coming forward to receive Holy Communion. Since priests and deacons cannot know the state of each person in most circumstances, the fundamental responsibility is on the one who comes forward to receive. For, as St Paul says, Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. (1 Cor 11:27-29). Note that Paul and Scripture place the responsibility primarily on the communicant, rather than an (non-omniscient) clergy.

Therefore, the minister of Holy Communion is to:

Presume the integrity of the persons presenting themselves for Holy Communion.
Trust in this fact is to be presumed unless proven clearly, otherwise.
It may be the case that one, whom the Minister (priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister), sees come forward has in fact been to confession, and/or renounced previous sinful practices. I was once told of a situation wherein a person who had been in an invalid marriage, in fact, had the marriage validated. Yet, on coming forward was told by the priest to stand aside. Though the couple was reconciled to the Church, the minister of Communion presumed their incapacity and dismissed them. This caused embarrassment and anger. When in doubtful situations, however, the priest ought to give Communion and perhaps seek counsel, and to counsel the person later.

On the prohibition of Holy Communion to Public Sinners.

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted, after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion (Canon # 915).
Thus, if a person has been publicly excommunicated (rare today!) They are to be denied Holy Communion if they come forward. There are other forms of excommunication (often called Latae Sententiae (or automatic) excommunications) that are more secret and unknown to the general public. For example, if one procures abortion they are automatically excommunicated. But such an excommunication is usually not publicly known and the Minister who may know of this, third hand or simply in a counseling situation, ought not deny Communion only based on that. For confidentiality is to be preserved even if it is outside the Seal of Confession (which can never be violated). In cases such as this, where an excommunication is not publicly declared, the Minster of Communion, ought not publicly deny Communion, but speak privately to the person to ensure that the Latae Sententiae excommunication is, or has been, lifted in the Confessional setting.
But if one is clearly and publicly been excommunicated they should be publicly refused Holy Communion. (Rare today!)
Further, if a person publicly attempts to use Holy Communion for purposes beyond the Spiritual intent, they can be denied. (For example, a troublesome group known as “Act-up” has sometimes disrupted Catholic Masses, coming forward in public ways, often wearing symbolic insignia or “stoles” and demanded Holy Communion. They are rightly refused Holy Communion for they deny its significance by their action, and politicize the reception of Communion, calling it a right rather than a privilege, and a confession of the true faith. Thereby they publicly forfeit the presumption that they approach communion worthily or with proper disposition of faith).

Canon 915:

Prohibits the reception of Holy Communion to those who are excommunicated.
Permits the public denial of Holy Communion to those whose sin is grave, and manifest, and in which they are obstinately persevering in the sinful state.
Therefore note, as others have, three criteria must be met. For a person may be in grave sin, and the priest must know this outside the confessional. But unless the sin is manifest, i.e. a sin the priest knows, and one which is clearly known by most of the congregants, and unless he is sure they have not repented and received absolution prior to this Holy Communion, he ought not publicly deny the Sacrament. He may wish to confer with the person discretely and confidentially later to give further counsel, but he ought not otherwise deny the Sacrament unless he is sure their sin is grave, manifest and unrepented.

As I hope you can see, the primary burden of discernment in these matters falls in the recipient of Holy Communion. As Scripture says, Let a man examine himself…..

Those looking for showdowns at the altar rail or communion station ought to realize that Church law and policies, as well as prudential judgments, frown on such things. Priests and other ministers of Holy Communion need to remember they are not omniscient, and may authentically be mistaken in their assessment of those who approach the Sacrament.

Hence, doubts are to be resolved in favor of the communicant. Where there are concerns on the part of the minister of Holy Communion (i.e. a priest or deacon), he ought to approach the communicant privately and discretely and either give counsel, or clarify the facts. If an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion has doubts they should consult with the priest or pastor. Confrontations and showdowns at the moment of Communion should be avoided, and should be very rare, if the norms are proclaimed and followed.

There are some who may wish to applaud if Communion is denied to certain people in a public way. But confrontations “at the rail” usually flow from a failure of catechesis, and/or a failure to follow policy in more remote and discrete settings such as the confessional, the pulpit and the catechetical setting . Denials and showdowns are to be lamented not celebrated. And thought they do rarely happen, the goal is to avoid them altogether.

These norms along with a wider appreciation of their purpose may help in avoiding errors either by the clergy or by the faithful. Ultimately the norms for the worthy reception of Holy Communion and all the Sacraments , flow from a reverence that God is Holy, that He and his Sacraments are neither to be mocked, nor to be necessarily withheld from the faithful who desperately need them.

Perhaps it is well to end with a passage from St. Paul about Holy Communion:

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions (1 Cor 11:27-35)

OK, comments are open. But let me be clear, we are not going to rehash the whole affair of a certain priest here in the Archdiocese who was in the news two months back. Let me clear that comments are not open to bishop-bashing and to pontificating about an event wherein not all the facts are even public. If you choose to mention the case too specifically I reserve my right to edit, or to refuse the comment altogether. This post is about catechesis, especially as we move forward toward the Feast of Corpus Christi. Let’s look ahead, not back.