Community in Mission

In yesterday’s post we examined some fundamental principles related to Holy  Communion: that it is not akin to the “table fellowship” Jesus had with sinners but is rooted in the “family meal” of the Passover Celebration, and that it must be received worthily and authentically based on what Scripture and Tradition have set forth. Our “Amen” is more than an affirmation of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, it is an “Amen” to all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.

Today I would like to discuss some related issues.

• What is mortal sin?
• Why are the divorced and remarried asked to refrain from Communion?
• What should be done about Catholics who prominently and publicly dissent from the faith?
• Is there a way forward in restoring proper discipline in the reception of the Holy Eucharist?

I. What is mortal sin? – It is one thing to hear that we must confess all serious or mortal sins prior to receiving Holy Communion. As we saw in yesterday’s post, Scripture teaches that those who receive the Eucharist in an unworthy state (i.e., while in serious sin) do not obtain a blessing, but rather a condemnation.

But is there a simple list to be consulted to determine what serious or mortal sin is? No. But surely there is some guidance to be found. Common sense also tells us that certain acts are more or less serious depending on circumstances, not simply by declaration. For example, lying can range from being a very serious matter to a lighter one: there are serious lies that can ruin reputations and gravely mislead people, and then there are little polite lies (“white lies”) meant to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Other sins such as lust can range from rape to impure thoughts.  Anger can range from physical assault to angry thoughts.

Thus a simple “list” approach to mortal sin will not suffice. However, we usually know that there are more serious sins in our life and less serious ones. With some degree of certainty we can also know what is more serious from what is less serious. We are asked to counsel with our own conscience, to allow it to be properly formed based on God’s teaching and to make honest judgments regarding ourselves.

Here are some parameters for mortal sin from the Catechism and Scripture:

1. When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object … whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. … But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial. … If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back (Catechism of the Catholic Church #s 1856, 1861).

 2. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent” (Catechism # 1857).

3. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger (Catechism # 1858).

4. One area, because it causes frequent trouble for many, especially younger men, receives special mention in the Catechism in terms of assessing culpability:  By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (Catechism 2352). However, since no one is a judge in his own case, if this area is a struggle one ought to confer with a confessor in order to set forth a regular schedule for confession that is reasonable and assists the penitent in staying faithful also to Holy Communion.

5.  By extension, there are other scriptural lists of sins that can exclude one from the Kingdom of Heaven:

1 Cor 6:9-10 – Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.

Gal 5:19-2:1 – The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:3-6 – But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No sexually immoral, impure, or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them.

Rev. 22:12-16 – Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Matt 25:41-46 – Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.” They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?” He will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

And therefore we do well to examine ourselves and discern any serious sins we have committed and should confess them. And while we should avoid overly scrupulous fears, we also must not casually dismiss our sins with empty excuses. If we are faithful, God the Holy Spirit will bestow on us a Godly sorrow for sins, rather than a “worldly sorrow” that is deadly and discouraging (cf 2 Cor 7:10).

II. Why are the divorce and remarried asked to refrain from communion? – This matter became quite prominent at the extraordinary Synod in Rome last year. The odd thing is that there are already very generous possibilities offered in the Church to accommodate those in such situations. Some are so generous in fact that many wonder if we grant too many annulments for less-than-clear reasons (that is not a matter for this post, however).

But why is there an obstacle to such individuals receiving Holy Communion? Is this “another example” of an overly strict Church? No! The issue was set forth by Jesus himself, who was quite “restrictive” in offering divorce and remarriage to His disciples. He was asked if such a practice was to be allowed, as Moses had allowed it. The answer from Jesus was a strong “no,” with very little exception. Consider for example this rather typical answer of Jesus to the question of divorce:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt 19:3-9).

There are numerous other places in Scripture where Jesus and the Apostles make similar pronuncements and set strict limits against divorce and remarriage.

Now the Lord uses the word “adultery” to describe divorcing one and marrying another. This is His word. And He teaches in many places using this word. So we cannot simply say he had a “bad day” or that this is just an unusual saying of the Lord. It was His consistent teaching. The teaching was unpopular and considered irksome even when the Lord gave it. (See Matthew 19:10.)

As an Apostle of the Lord, St. Paul echoed the same stance:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife (1 Cor 7:10-11).

Thus one in the state of being divorced and married to another is in an ongoing situation of what the Lord calls adultery, and cannot present himself for Holy Communion unless and until the objective conditions are changed. To those who consider this unkind or too strict we can only refer them to the Lord Himself, who unambiguously asserted it. In today’s “divorce culture,” we do well to ask ourselves who is wrong. Clearly, it is the culture that is wrong, not Jesus.

There are options and possible solutions. We can investigate prior bonds for the possibility of annulment and then grant annulments when possible and appropriate. In the meantime (or if an annulment cannot be reasonably obtained), the couple in the second marriage can live as “brother and sister.” Some scoff at this as being unrealistic. But some of the same scoffers see the denial of Holy Communion as so odious as to deny them essential graces. If they see Holy Communion as so essential (a good thing), then why are they not willing to make this sacrifice? Sex is not the only thing in life.

If they cannot obtain an annulment, and cannot live as brother and sister (for the reason of not wishing to deny their current spouse jus in corporis, (i.e., the expected recourse to marital intimacy)), then they must refrain from Holy Communion until the death of the current or former spouse or until they cease sexual intimacy with the current spouse.

Otherwise, we are dealing with a case of ongoing adultery (Jesus’ description, not mine). Adultery is objectively a serious violation of the 6th Commandment, even if there are subjective factors involved that some or all parties think mitigate the situation. No one is a judge in his own case and even the Church cannot blithely set aside the teaching of Jesus.

People in this situation who cannot reasonably attain an annulment (and that is rare today) or live as brother and sister should continue attending Mass for the other blessings available, such as the prayers, blessings, the proclaimed Word, the fellowship, the praise, and so forth. God, too, may be able to understand and offer them blessings that the Church, given our limits, cannot.

The fact is that many good people are caught in situations that often stretch back years before a conversion. Some of these situations are bound to occur in a culture as broken and dysfunctional as ours. But the Church can only do so much. God knows the heart, and the faithful in these situations should be taught to reach out to God and allow Him to care for them in other ways, unless and until the Church, which has some necessary  limits, can readmit them to Holy Communion.

The Church cannot simply regard the needs of the individual but must also concern herself with the common good, the need to heed Jesus’ words and insist on the permanence of marriage. But God’s mercies are not exhausted and His compassion is not spent.

III. What should be done about Catholics who prominently and publicly dissent from the faith?– More and more Catholics in the public eye today dissent from the faith. Some of those even support things like abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex unions.

Canon 915 speaks rather explicitly to this situation:

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.

Cardinal Ratizinger, in a 2004 Memo to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, applied Canon 915 rather insistently. Here are some excerpts:

The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin  … there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it … Christians have a grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …

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. …

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. [***]

And thus there is a clear teaching regarding what is to be done in such cases. That many bishops have declined to enforce Canon 915 and apply the norm as set forth by the congregation is irksome to many. Refraining from judging them or claiming to know their motives, it seems likely that a way forward needs to include a broad teaching by all the bishops to all of God’s people about the need to receive Communion worthily and in a way wherein their “Amen” includes not only a recognition of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, but also a union with his whole body, the Church (as we saw in yesterday’s post). This would avoid, to some degree, the charge that politicians of a certain party were being singled out. Fair or not, the charge would surely come in the current political environment in this country, in which popularity and power are more important than right and wrong. In such an environment, moral teaching and instruction is often misconstrued as mere politics. It is not a fair charge, but realistically there is little chance that a focused teaching of this sort will be heard through the static of the political filter.

IV. Is there a way forward in restoring proper discipline in the reception of the Holy Eucharist? – A broad initiative by all the bishops that includes all Catholics may be the best approach. On any given Sunday, there are many Catholics who should not approach Holy Communion for any number of reasons. Many of these reasons can be dealt with through the Sacrament of Confession. Other situations are more ongoing such as with those in invalid marriages and must be addressed in greater detail. Those who are in significant, obstinate, and often public dissent from one or many Church teachings need to work through their doubts and decide more clearly for the faith. Some who merely struggle to understand Church teaching might not need to stay away from Holy Communion. But we need to be clearer for all Catholics that our “Amen” confesses both the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and our belief in all the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and professes to be revealed by God.

Collectively speaking, it is clear that we in the Church, especially bishops and pastors, have not had proper balance in teaching on the worthy reception of the Eucharist. We have rightly sought to encourage frequent reception of Holy Communion, but often have not balanced that encouragement with instruction on the need for worthy reception. It is a Church-wide problem that affects far more than just Catholic politicians. Clear but charitable instruction must be more ardently offered in parishes and from the bishops to all the faithful. This post is my own humble attempt to do so.

It should go without saying that Confession must be more readily available, both prior to Masses and at other times, to assist those who can to confess and thus receive Communion frequently.

I indicated yesterday an intention to expand on the need for the reverent and worthy reception of Holy Communion, to develop an apologetic for the Church’s practice of what some call “closed communion.”  Not everyone who uses this terminology means it pejoratively, though some do. But to some extent it is fair to say that we do have “closed communion.” For the Catholic Church, Holy Communion is not a “come one, come all” event. It is reserved for those who, by grace, preserve union with the Church through adherence to all the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. Our response of “Amen” at Holy Communion signifies our communion with these realities along with our faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

But many today have reduced Holy Communion to a mere sign of hospitality, such that if the Church does not extend Holy Communion to all, we are considered unkind. There is often a mistaken notion about the nature of the Last Supper (and the Eucharist that proceeds from it) that lurks behind this misconception. Many years ago, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger articulated the misunderstanding well. I summarize the description here from his Collected Works, Vol 11, Ignatius Press pp 273-274:

Nowadays [some] New Testament scholars … say that the Eucharist … is the continuation of the meals with sinners that Jesus had held … a notion with far-reaching consequences. It would mean that the Eucharist is the sinners’ banquet, where Jesus sits at the table; [that] the Eucharist is the public gesture by which we invite everyone without exception. The logic of this is expressed in a far-reaching criticism of the Church’s Eucharist, since it implies that the Eucharist cannot be conditional on anything, not depending on denomination or even on baptism. It is necessarily an open table to which all may come to encounter the universal God …

However tempting the idea may be, it contradicts what we find in the Bible. Jesus’ Last Supper was not one of those meals he held with “publicans and sinners”. He made it subject to the basic form of the Passover, which implies that the meal was held in a family setting. Thus he kept it with his new family, with the Twelve; with those whose feet he washed, whom he had prepared by his Word and by this cleansing of absolution (John 13:10) to receive a blood relationship with him, to become one body with him.

The Eucharist is not itself the sacrament of reconciliation, but in fact it presupposes that sacrament. It is the sacrament of the reconciled, to which the Lord invites all those who have become one with him; who certainly still remain weak sinners, but yet have given their hand to him and have become part of his family.

That is why, from the beginning, the Eucharist has been preceded by a discernment … (I Corinthians 11:27 ff). The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache] is one of the oldest writings outside the New Testament, from the beginning of the Second Century, it takes up this apostolic tradition and has the priest, just before distributing the sacrament saying:”Whoever is holy, let him approach, whoever is not, let him do penance” (Didache 10).

Thanks to Pope Benedict’s writing prior to his papacy, we can see the root of the problem: the failure to see the Eucharist for what it truly is—a sacred banquet wherein those who enjoy communion with the Lord (by His grace) partake of the sign and sacrament of that communion. Holy Communion serves to celebrate and deepen the communion already operative through the other sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Confession.

If you want to call this communion “closed,” fine, but at its heart it is more positively called a “sacrum convivium,” a  sacred meal of those who share a life together (con = with or together + vivium = life).  This is not a “come one, come all” meal; it is a Holy Banquet for those who wear the wedding garment. The garment is righteousness and those who refuse to wear it are cast out (cf: Matt 22:11-12 & Rev 19:8).

Many moderns surely would prefer a “no questions asked” invitation to all who wish to come. We moderns love this notion of unity. But to a large degree it is a contrived unity that overlooks truth (the opposite of which is falsehood, not just a different viewpoint). Yes, it overlooks the truth necessary for honest, real, and substantive unity. Such a notion of communion is shallow at best and a lie at worst. How can people approach the Eucharist, the sacrament of Holy Communion and unity, and say “Amen” when they differ with the Church over essentials such as that Baptism is necessary; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth; that homosexual acts, fornication, and adultery are gravely sinful; that women cannot be admitted to Holy Orders; that there is in fact a priesthood; that Scripture must be read in the light of the Magisterium; and on and on? Saying that there is communion in such a case is either a contrivance or a lie, but in either case, it does not suffice for the “Amen” that is required at the moment of reception of Holy Communion.

Such divisions do not make for a family meal or a “sacrum convivium.” Hence, to share Holy Communion with Protestants, dissenters, and others who do not live in communion with the Church is incoherent. To paraphrase Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), the Eucharist is not a table fellowship with publicans and other “sinners”; it is a family meal that presupposes grace and shared faith.

This, then, leads us to a second point: the need to approach the Sacrament of Holy Communion free from serious and unrepentant sin. Let’s consider some texts to show that the Church’s desire that her sons and daughters receive Holy Communion in a state free from serious sin is not only a proper requirement but a loving one. Each quote is followed by some of my own commentary in plain red text.

So then, 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. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world (1 Cor 11:27-32).

St. Paul teaches that examining oneself is a prerequisite for worthy reception of the Eucharist. If not, Holy Communion has the opposite of the desired effect of union with our Lord, bringing condemnation rather than blessing. So, out of respect for Christ and for our own good, the Church requires us to be in a state of grace when we receive. We are required to abstain only when there is mortal sin. Confessions of devotion, however, are highly recommended.

[At the Last Supper the disciples asked]: “Lord, who is it [who will betray you]?” Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I will give this morsel of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.” Now no one at the table knew why he said this to him. Some thought that, because Judas had the moneybag, Jesus was telling him, “Buy what we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor. So, after receiving the morsel of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night (Jn 13:21-30).

It is unclear and debatable if the “morsel” taken by Judas was Holy Communion (why would Jesus have dipped it?). But still, there is something of a picture of what unworthy (sacrilegious) reception of Holy Communion might cause in an extreme case.

So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny (Mat 5:21-26).

Note the use of the simple word “first.” Jesus teaches that we cannot approach the altar if we are filled with hate or injustice toward our brethren. Reconciliation and the restoration of unity are required prior to approaching the Sacrament of Holy Communion, lest our “Amen” be incoherent or a lie.

A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (Code of Canon Law # 916).

Note that the use of the Act of Contrition mentioned here is an exception requiring moral or physical impossibility to go to Confession beforehand and the necessity of receiving Communion immediately (such as a priest who MUST celebrate Mass). There are some pastoral notes that can be added here later for those who struggle with certain habitual sins that are possibly grave such as masturbation. The Catechism has some notes to review that a confessor can apply to a penitent in such cases. But no Catholic should simply take it upon himself to use the exception described in Canon 916. A confessor must be consulted.

To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion (Catechism # 1385).

If any one is holy, let him approach; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. … But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs” (Didache 10,  9).

Note that the Didache was written sometime between 90 and 110 AD. Hence very early on there was an understanding that the Eucharist was not a mere “table fellowship with sinners” but rather a sacral meal that presupposed grace and communion with the Church.

Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g., excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (Ratzinger Memo to Cardinal McCarrick, # 1). Clear enough!

In all these quotes we see a tradition that is Scriptural, ancient, and clear: the Eucharist is a sacred meal that requires of us something more than just “showing up.” Indeed, there are warnings against irreverent reception, in which the Eucharist as regarded as ordinary or is treated casually.

Is the Church merely being “fussy” about Holy Communion? No more so than were St. Paul and the Holy Spirit, who inspired him to write and warn us against unworthy reception of the Eucharist. As such, the Church is charitably exhorting us to receive the Eucharist, but also charitably warning those who are unprepared to refrain from reception. Indeed, Scripture warns that the unworthy reception of Holy Communion brings not a blessing but a condemnation. This is God’s teaching, not mine.

Perhaps an analogy can be found by noting that some people are allergic to penicillin. For them, a drug that has saved many lives can threaten their own. They are simply not able to receive it, though it is good in itself. Sinners, too, not by accident or birth or genetics, but by choice will also find the Eucharist, though it gives life to many, to be problematic for them. In charity, the Church teaches that those individuals unprepared to receive Communion refrain from doing so until the problem can be resolved. This is charity, not cruelty or a lack of hospitality.

In tomorrow’s post I will develop some of these principles further and present some pastoral issues and solutions related to the Church’s stance. For indeed, questions arise as to what we mean by mortal sin and how to handle the current problem of dissenters, those in serious sin, and those in invalid marriages or other irregular situations.  Such questions and issues must be handled charitably and equitably by the Church, but not in a way that violates the principles given by Scripture and Tradition as to the need for worthy reception of Holy Communion. The clear instruction by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 deserves to be reiterated and needs to be better taught and applied with clarity and charity:

The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004).

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

While you may be puzzling over the title of today’s post, allow me to delay a bit before explaining. On a solemn feast like this many things occur that might be preached and taught. Here are three areas for reflection: the reality of the Eucharist, the requirement of the Eucharist, and the reverence for the Eucharist. We will look at each in turn.

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 of which we partake, 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; it 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 a profound theology of the Eucharist from Jesus Himself. He makes it clear that we are not to think of the Eucharist as symbolic or metaphorical.

As Jesus spoke the words saying that the bread was His flesh, the Jewish people grumbled in protest. But Jesus did not seek to reassure them or to say that He was speaking only symbolically when saying that they must eat His flesh. Rather, He became even more adamant, shifting His choice of words 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 most of them to leave, no longer following 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 words, “The Body of Christ.” It is at this time that we answer the Lord, “Amen,” as if to say, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life! (Jn 6:68)

Would that people grasped that the Lord Himself is truly present in our Churches! Were that so, one would never be able to empty our parishes of those seeking to pray with the Lord. As it is, though, only 25% of Catholics attend Mass regularly. This is more evidence of the “narrow road” and of how few there are who find it. Jesus experienced that most left him 2000 years ago, and many today continue to leave Him (or stand far away), either through indifference or false notions.

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

II. The Requirement of the Eucharist – This is where the “Unless!” in my title comes in. When I was young I thought of Church and Communion as just something my mother made me do; it was just a bunch of rituals and stuff. I never thought of it as essential for my survival. But Jesus teaches something very profound in John’s Gospel today. In effect, He says that without Holy Communion (the Eucharist) 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 child and even as a young adult I never thought of Holy Communion as essential for my life, as something that, if not received regularly, would cause me to 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 with respect to our spiritual lives.

Remember in the Book of Exodus that the people in the desert were without food and 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 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 that their daughter wasn’t eating. Within a very short time they took her to a doctor, who diagnosed the problem; 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 Reverence for the Eucharist – One of the mistaken notions about the Eucharist is confusing this sacred meal with the table fellowship Jesus had with sinners. He was known to “welcome sinners and eat with them.” But Holy Mass is not one of those sorts of meals. The Last Supper, wherein the essential reality of the Mass was first set forth, was held in the context of the Passover. This was a sacred meal shared within the family. And thus Jesus celebrated that Last Supper with the twelve Apostles.

The confusion by many today about the difference between the sacred meal of the Eucharist and common table fellowship leads many to misconstrue the Eucharist; it also helps to explain the Church’s stance.

Those who think of the Mass as the mere table fellowship Jesus had with sinners, think of the Eucharist as a “Come one, come all” sort of meal. And many also add, “Come as you are.” In their view, there are no requirements; all that matters is that Jesus is offering. “Don’t worry,” they say, “about ‘membership’ or the need to be reconciled from sin. After all, Jesus ate with sinners and didn’t worry about that stuff.”

But again, this is not what the Last Supper was. Jesus celebrated the Mass in the context of the Passover. Such meals presupposed that the people gathered together were family. This was an intimate meal celebrated in the context of faith, however weak or strong, but a faith that was presupposed. Jesus said to them, “You are the men who have stood by me in my trials” (Lk 22:28).

This is one reason that the Church has always limited the Eucharist to those who are initiated, who are “members of Christ’s Body” through faith, and who keep communion with His Body the Church through assent to her teachings, remaining members of His Body by being in a state of grace.

It further explains the need to receive the Eucharist worthily by first confessing our serious sins through the Sacrament of Confession. St Paul teaches,

Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died (1 Cor 11:28-30).

So here, too, we see that the Mass is not akin to the table fellowship that Jesus at times kept with sinners. Rather, it is a sacred meal that presupposes membership in Christ’s Body through faith and the forgiveness of all serious sins that might have severed that communion. Holy Communion is meant to strengthen a communion that already exists. And thus our “Amen” upon receiving Holy Communion is not a lie, but is consonant with the reality of existing communion.

I will write more on this in the coming week. But for now, simply note that our reverence for Holy Communion requires us to receive worthily, in a state of grace that has preserved the communion we celebrate. Further, to receive worthily also requires that we have the faith of the Church, the Body of Christ, and keep communion by a belief in conformity and communion with it.

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 somewhat of a dulling effect, but it cannot be so much so that we receive the Lord of glory in any way that could be called mindless or lacking in the reverence we ought to have for Him.

Ask the Lord to anoint your mind so that you never forget your need for the Eucharist. Unless! Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you (cf Jn 6:53). But receive this great gift worthily and with a communion that befits the Holy Communion to which we are summoned.

On one particular morning, just two weeks after His resurrection, Jesus stood on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Seeing the Apostles in a boat just off the shore, he said, Little Children, Have you caught anything? (John 21:5)

It is a rather strange way to speak to grown men: “Little Children” (παιδία = paidia = little ones, children, infants, the diminutive of pais (child), hence “little ones”). And yet how deeply affectionate it is.

We often think of ourselves in grander terms, terms that bespeak power, wisdom, age, and strength. But I suspect that, to God, we must always seem like little children.

When I do infant Baptisms I normally use a passage from the Gospel of Mark in which the Lord says (among other things), Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child (παιδίον) shall not enter it (Mark 10:15). And thus we must finally come to realize that however rich, powerful, capable, or mature we my think ourselves to be, we depend radically on Abba for everything—even the next beat of our heart. The infants I baptize are already preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom simply by their littleness. They summon us who think we are strong and independent to know who and what we really are: little children, so needful of Abba for everything.

I am often moved as I walk the halls of nursing homes and see many once powerful “adults” now reflecting their truest state. Like little children, they have become dependent. Some can no longer talk. Others just sing and hold dolls. Still others wear diapers, need to be fed, and cry out for help and comfort. It has always been so for them (and for us); it is just now more evident.

This Sunday’s gospel begins with the Lord calling us his “little flock.” And so we are—little and yet loved.

And somewhere, standing on the seashore of your life, the Lord is calling out, “Little One … have you anything to eat?”

I though of all this when I saw the video below. I wondered as I viewed it if it doesn’t depict all of us as God really sees us. The folks in this video think they are “big and bad.” But for a moment we them as God does. Enjoy this.

The Nicene Creed fittingly noted four marks of the True Church: one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic. These marks identify four essential qualities and characteristics of the Church that distinguish the True Church from any false claimants. Now my surname may be “Pope,” but I surely cannot add authoritatively to this venerable list. Nevertheless, permit me a couple of “prayerful additions” to the four marks of the Church. These cannot join the official list but I humbly submit  these “marks” for your consideration to serve in a similar way in distinguishing the True Church from false claimants and giving insight into the Church’s truest identity.

The 5th Mark of the Church: She is Hated by the World. Jesus consistently taught us to expect the hatred of the world if we are true disciples.

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also (John 15:18-20).

All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub,how much more the members of his household! (Matt 10:22-24)

Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets (Luke 6:26).

One of the more painful aspects of Church life, yet one of those of which I am the most “proud,” is that we are hated very specially by the world. While it is true that some of the Evangelicals are ridiculed, few can deny that there is a very special and intense hatred for the Catholic Church, and it is widely on display. It’s never OK (nor should it be) to scorn Jews or Muslims, or to mock or attack their faith traditions. Most of the other Christian denominations (with the exception of the Evangelicals) escape the bulk of the hatred. But the Catholic Church—ah, the Catholic Church—on her it seems to be open season. We are scorned and portrayed unsympathetically in movies. Our history is misrepresented; our sins (and we do have them) are exaggerated; our teachings are called bigoted, backward, unrealistic, and out-of-date. And no matter how ugly, bigoted, and inaccurate the world’s hatred is, very few express any outrage at how we are treated and misrepresented. Try any of this on Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. and the outrage and claims of bigotry are echoed by the media (as they should be). Meanwhile, Dan Brown, et al. get to go on and on about “evil” priests and bishops; a crucifix can be submerged in urine or the Blessed Mother smeared with dung and this is praised as “art” and funded by government grants.

Now I am not complaining (though these things are certainly wrong). I am actually quite hopeful that this means we are doing something right. We are a sign of contradiction to the world and we are hated for it. We speak the truth to a world gone mad; we hold on to that “old time religion.” That we are hated puts us in good company with Jesus and the prophets and martyrs who stood with Him. If we are really doing what we should, the Church ought to experience significant hatred from the world. Being hated by the world is an essential mark of the Church, if you ask me. We do not look to be hated, nor do we seek out conflict. But in preaching Christ crucified, in preaching the whole counsel of God and not some watered-down version of it, we surely do find that hatred and conflict come to us. Some people and some denominations try to fit in with the world. They accept its ways and compromise the clear teaching of Christ. But the True Church speaks the whole truth of God in love and does not cave in to the world’s demands. The true Church, by Christ’s promise, is hated by the world and by those allied with and wedded to it. But there’s no need to fear … the sixth “mark” is here!

The Sixth Mark of the Church: She is Perduring. To perdure means to permanently endure. Here, too, Christ firmly established this principle and promise to the true Church:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).

There are no governments or nations that have lasted 2000 years. Very little else in this world can claim such antiquity and even if it tries, can it claim to have remained essentially unchanged in its dogma or teaching? The Catholic Church is one, even after 2000 years. We have an unbroken line of popes going back to Peter and an unbroken line of succession for all the bishops back to the Apostles through the laying on of hands. Not bad. Now consider that this is a miracle! If the Church were dependent upon human beings in order to exist and stay unified, how long do think she would have lasted? Probably about twenty minutes, tops! Our history is not without some pretty questionable moments in terms of the human elements. That the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church certainly suggests that they would try again and again. But here we are, a miracle, still standing after all these years. Christ is true to his promise to remain with us all days unto the consummation of the world. We, the human elements of the Church, may not live Christ’s teachings perfectly, but the Church has never failed to teach what Christ taught even (as now) when the world hated us for it. At times we are tepid and struggle to find our voice, but Christ still speaks and ministers even in our weakness. Yes, the Catholic Church is a miracle, the Work of Jesus Christ. And thus the sixth mark of the Church is that she perdures. By God’s grace we exhibit this sixth mark. Nations have come and gone, empires risen and fallen, eras opened and closed, but through it all we have perdured.

So there it is. I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic, (and, if you don’t mind my adding) hated, and perduring Church.

Here’s a very interesting hip-hop song by the rapper Akalyte on these two additional “marks” of the Church.

None of us who commit to prayer and the spiritual life enjoy those periods during which prayer, liturgy, or spiritual reading seem dry or dull. But such moments are necessary—or so it would seem—for God permits them. If something were always pleasant, we would not be sure if we loved God or merely the pleasantries. An old saying asks if we love the consolations of God or the God of all consolation. It is the dry and difficult times that help us to determine the answer.

There are other reasons for dryness or “aridity” and they are well stated by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange:

We must allow ourselves to be led by the path which our Lord has chosen for us. There is, to be sure, the common and indispensable way, that of humility and conformity to the divine will.

But on this common road, one part is shaded, the other has nothing to protect it from the burning rays of the sun; one section is flat, followed by long steep hills that lead to high plateaus where we may enjoy a marvelous view. The good shepherd leads his sheep as he judges best.

He leaves certain souls for a rather long time in difficulties in order to inure them to the struggle … [But] if aridity is prolonged we should [determine] that it does not spring from lukewarmness, provided that we have no taste for the things of the world but rather concern for our spiritual progress.

Aridity [in this case] … is very useful, like fire that must dry out the wood before setting it ablaze. Aridity is needed precisely to dry up our too lively, too impetuous, exuberant, and tumultuous sensibility, so that finally, the sensible appetites may be quieted and may become submissive to the spirit (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, The Three Ages of the Interior Life, Vol. 1, Tan Publications, pp. 459-60).

Yes, indeed, in overstimulated times like these, our passions and senses are “off the chain” if something does not help to moderate them and limit their ever-growing demands for something newer, brighter, glitzier, and more exciting. In this case, “aridity” can help us to slow down to the pace of life that God has intended for us. A little silence, a little waiting, and little experience of the passing quality of earthly thrills is good for the soul. It is the parched soul that best appreciates water.