As the American bishops draft their document, which we're assured will not be targeted at the president, I hope that they spend a lot of time contemplating and discussing the unitive aspect of the Eucharist.
I suppose unity is so intrinsic to the Eucharist that we don't reflect on it much - it's just a given. The Eucharist happens when we come together as a community. It's distributed as communion, which very name suggests intimate union with God and, through him, with one another. It is a great sign (one might be tempted to say, the "preeminent" sign) of our unity.
When we gather, all our differences - race, nationality, ethnicity, gender, class, language, education, wealth, etc. etc. etc - are to be subordinated to our unity.
These all strike me as powerful reasons not to exclude Catholic pro-choice politicians from communion.
Still, it must be acknowledged that some people are, in fact, excluded (if that is the right term). We are not fully in communion with everyone else, even some of those whom we marry or to whom we've given birth. Many people with whom we share a common baptism are nevertheless not sufficiently united with us to be admitted to receive communion. Some (the Orthodox) would be welcomed by us (Catholics) but themselves believe us not to be sufficiently united with them. And even within the borders of formal Catholicism, a person may exclude her/himself (as many Catholics think the president should do) by reason of committing sins which separate him/herself from communion with God and the community.
There also is what I've termed, in my own head, "the problem of unity". The problem is this: does one seek to preserve formal unity despite substantive disunity of belief and practice; or does one acknowledge the substantive disunity and permit formal separation to occur?
I don't know the answer to that question. I suppose the best answer is, "Neither; the right thing is to work to address the substantive disunity of belief and practice." The Holy Father has a program for that: it falls under the rubric of accompaniment, and involves much sincere dialogue and open-hearted and sympathetic listening.
I think formal separation would be a tragedy.
ReplyDeleteI liked what the Bishop-elect William Koenig of Wilmington (Joe Biden's hometown) said when asked if he would have a problem with giving Biden Communion. He didn't say yes or no, but said he would be happy to talk with him about it. Presumably the conversation would be private, and Biden would have the chance to discuss why his politics seem in conflict with his personal beliefs.
If it were up to me, Communion would be open to all baptized believers. But nobody asked me.
I will have more to say about this in the coming days and weeks.
ReplyDeleteThe theme of the ND conference is Eucharistic affiliation. Obviously as you will see in coming posts pastoral ministers are very concerned that people will not return to the pews either because they have decided Mass is not a important part of their lives, or that they are very happy in pajamas having breakfast and coffee while watching Mass on screen.
The theme of the conference emphasizes Eucharistic Affiliation in terms of both communion and personal relationships in worship.
Unfortunately the bishops plan to deal with the issue of worthiness for communion could throw a monkey wrench into this approach. Do you really want to raise all sorts of barriers to returning to communion?
That really will not work if the basic problem is that people may have already decided that communion is not worth a trip to the church, or even that Mass is not worth getting out of bed.
From that viewpoint Eucharist consistency is very out of touch issue only of concern to the religious right. It could cost parishes highly in terms of losing people in the pews. My impression from the ND conference is that many pastoral ministers are scared stiff about getting caught in the cross fire of the culture wars.