When Not To Receive Communion
Sitting in my pew for a few minutes as the Priest gives out Communion to the 137 extraordinary ministers, readers in shorts and sandals, and altar girls I often have some time to reflect before the priest gets around giving out Communion to the rest of us.
Sometimes I even reflect upon the concept of "the rest of us." It really means all of us, every last dang one of us. Occasionally, the thought has popped into my head, I wonder if ALL these people have gone to confession? I mean when I go to confession, held once a week for 45 minutes, the lines are just not that long. How is it that all these people are prepared to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist?
Well, as we all know, many of them are not but they go anyway. A good deal of the fault with this lays squarely on the offending receiver, but I can't help wonder if we are all collectively guilty to some degree. These days, there is almost a culturally enforced mandate to go up and receive, prepared or not. I have written before (See The Case for Chaos) that I think that usher enforced orderly communion is partly to blame. However catechesis, personal responsibility, a mind your own business mentality (namely don't give the person next to you the once over if they choose not to receive) and a well formed conscience are also critical elements.
With all this as the background, I was moved by a story relayed by Fr. Ray Blake pastor of St. Mary Magdalen in Brighton UK. Fr. tells us of a man, who is in an unfortunate irregular situation, who attends the TLM because as he says "...because I don't feel forced to come to Holy Communion." Out of respect for the Eucharist, he will not receive unless properly prepared. Fr. Ray relays some details followed by some comments.
"I come to Mass every Sunday," he said, "I am living with "M", she is divorced. Most Lents we have determined to live as brother and sister, sometimes it works and I go off to Confession, receive absolution and receive Communion, normally a few weeks after Easter our resolution breaks down. The last couple of years we haven't got very far, so I haven't been to Holy Communion for three years. I want to come, of course I do, but I know I know what Jesus said about the permanence of marriage and marriage to divorcee. It would be hypocritical to receive Him and not live by His teaching."For certain, the man and the woman should do what is right and at least attempt to fix the situation if it possible and refrain from any further sin. But it does my heart good to see a man honest enough with himself and respectful enough of the Eucharist not to receive. Thanks for Father Blake for sharing this.
I of course suggested looking at an annulment, he said he had tried that but "M" just couldn't bring herself to go through the procedure.I was so impressed by this man, so impressed by his extraordinary love for the Blessed Sacrament, impressed by his honesty and the heroism of his Christian life.
There was a time in my life many years ago in my early twenties when I was not properly prepared for communion. Unfortunately, I would just avoid mass altogether so as to avoid the embarrassment of not receiving. I cringe now when I think of it. I think that this fear of embarrassment kept me away a lot longer than I otherwise would have.
The culture of "everyone goes" is detrimental to the faith, especially to those in most need of reconciliation. We should do what we can to eliminate this phenomenon. Again, I say let's start with dumping orderly communion.
25 comments:
Here's another thing. I once read an article by a Salesian priest in India that suggested that the priest receive communion last of all, to emphasise the idea of service. People first, priest last. In light of this, your post suggested to me ordinary people first, people in the shorts and sash second, priest last.
Sadly, I believe that most folks in the pews have forgotten where they "need to be" spiritually in order to receive. Most of them have forgotten that they shouldn't eat an hour before Communion, much less those sins committed, oh, days ago. Our clergy need to remind all of us, frequently, that our sins should be forgiven before we partake in the Eucharist.
The roommate of "M" is not far from the kingdom of heaven.
I think that we have gotten to the point where it is practically scandal NOT to go up and receive. If I ate a cracker 10 minutes before mass (for example), the scene that ensues: the usher gesturing for me to get up, the other people in my aisle awkwardly stepping over me, the concerned look from my wife, all the people returning to their seats seeing my lone head in a sea of empty pews... Part of me would rather let the people think that I am a saintly Catholic than that I must've done something horrible to not get up and receive with 99% of the parish.
I hope someday that that person and his companion can one day be fully reunited-- but until then, I commend them, as beautiful examples of sinners (like all of us!) striving to do what is right.
I think everyone here does feel like they just go up and receive Communion, almost like if you go to Mass and don't receive, you didn't get your money's worth (or time's worth, as this case may be). But this attitude doesn't exist everywhere. I observed Masses in Russia, Poland, and Bolivia where a lot of people stayed in the pews. One young woman I met in St. Petersburg made her way every day to one of only two Catholic churches in the city, and she did not live close, but she didn't receive every time. It was very moving and interesting.
~Nzie
What is the head of MI-6 doing living with some Catholic in America?
My mind is blown.
All joking aside, it seems to me, that this man is putting his love for a woman above his love of God. He constantly is putting himself in the near occasion of sin by living with this woman. Sure, he is honest enough with himself to not receive, but that just means that he acknowledges his faith as being subordinate to other desires. The honesty is refreshing, but otherwise I must say that the story is rather depressing. I am not sure that he is a good example for anything, because he corollary behavior undermines any moral point.
That being said, I get your point and agree.
I commend that man. There are so many times when I know I shouldn't receive Communion that day and I do anyway because of the social pressure.
I'm with Patrick. No more orderly Communion. I want the European free-for-all. There is no concept of lines, people just rush to Communion. I went to an Easter Vigil mass in Krakow, Poland where I couldn't even get to Communion because of the mobs and several old ladies pushing me and glaring at me (this added to the fact that I had fairly severe claustrophobia at the time).
But about that man living in sin and putting his love for that woman above his love of God. That may be true, but how many times in one day do I do the same thing? How many times do I place my love of other things above my love for God? Just this Monday I decided to stay home and watch all three hours of Heroes on NBC instead of praying a Holy Hour. The difference is that that man's sin can be seen publicly and I have the ability to hide mine. He values the faith enough to stand up for its precepts and not give in to social pressures, and that has to be gaining him many graces. I don't find his story depressing, I find it as a wake-up call for me to get my act together.
"But about that man living in sin and putting his love for that woman above his love of God. That may be true, but how many times in one day do I do the same thing?"
I'm not so sure it's as simple as this man putting his love for the woman above that of God. Yes, he is living with her. But it is clear that he does NOT see this arrangement as a convenience for the benefits of the marital state. Yet he endures the challenges of living with that woman, most of the time (for all we know) without its rewards. Walking away from it may not be as easy as it looks to us, and those reasons may be more out of consideration to the other party than to himself. I'm not nominating him for sainthood. Nor am I excusing the OBJECTIVE nature of his situation. But a man who knows his sinfulness, and who bows his head begging for the Divine Mercy, will surely enter heaven before the respectable Catholic husband and father who got a vasectomy without telling the world about it, occasionally cheats on his wife, and still gets honored by the Knights of Columbus as "Family Man of the Year."
It could happen. In one of the parables, it did.
I'd agree- give ushers the pink slip. A friend of mine studied abroad in Mexico and noted that less than half the congregation came forward to receive. It made her really think about whether she was going to receive Jesus because she was prepared or because it was a habit.
I'm not sure when the usher practice started, but it seems like an attempt to make everything nice and orderly- very American, yes? Like suburbia, but during Mass. Somehow it doesn't quite fit.
Another pet peeve: people who sit (rather than kneel) after receiving, and while the alter is still home to the Body and Blood of our Lord. Gah.
Maggie: "Another pet peeve: people who sit (rather than kneel) after receiving, and while the alter is still home to the Body and Blood of our Lord. Gah."
The rubrics call for either kneeling or sitting (at least in the USA). You'll find many parishes have a custom of waiting for a certain point, but this doesn't matter a whit. Rubrics trump custom always.
I've seen guides in the past (for extraordinary form mass) state that it's only proper to sit after the second ablution. These days, many of the churches that have a pious custom of everyone sitting back at the same time do so at the close of the tabernacle -- well before our Lord is completely corporeally removed from the altar (at the end of the sacred vessel cleansing).
That, and some people don't kneel because they have bad knees. One shouldn't assume irreverence in matters such as these, is all I'm saying.
I guess I'm really taken aback by all the talk of receiving communion under "peer pressure". This should be one of the most holy and intimate moment in our spiritual existence. If we are going to be swayed by "peer pressure" on THIS of all issues, what does that say about our ability to be swayed on lesser ones? Honestly, I found this a little disturbing.
Regarding the article, I found it odd that one of the characters in question states ""M" just couldn't bring herself to go through the procedure" regarding annulment. I haven't personally gone through one (thank God) but I know MANY people who have. In the worst of cases, the bishop in questionn rubber stamps it like a fast-track line moving through customs at an airport. In the best of cases, it makes the petitioner examine why he/she came to this conclusion (i.e. that the marriage never really existed) and is thus asking the church to acknowledge this. I have never met or known ANYONE who was either a) rejected during the procedure or b) emotionally damaged or scarred after having gone through it. So, if this article is based on a real life example, it doesn't seem at all accurate.
As someone who frequently finds himself in a state that makes me unable to receive Communion, I can say that once you have the courage to stay in the pew once it gets easier after that. Wherever I've gone to Mass, if I don't receive Communion I always see others scattered around the church who also don't. In a way it kind of makes me feel good because I see that there are other people who take the Eucharist seriously.
P.S. I find the easiest thing to do when not receiving communion is to stake out a spot at the end of a pew so you can just step out and let everyone by instead of having them climb over you.
I grew up in what I believe (now) was a liberal parish and had very poor catechism and my one parent who was Catholic didn't teach me much (relying as she did on the CCD class where we learned little about the Catholic faith but certainly learned to sing folk songs - and CCD ended after 8th grade - with no high school religious class at all - and at the time the Catholic high school didn't require Religion as a class). No criticism of my Mother intended. We did go to confession once a month throughout my childhood years so perhaps it wasn't thought to be an issue from her perspective - if we were going to confession frequently then we were in a proper state to receive. Then the parish went to the "Lent" and "Advent" reconciliation services - and got rid of the "box" and instituted face to face confession at limited times and so that's what my Mom then felt was what we were supposed to do - the parish reconciliateion services. It frankly is only in reading various Catholic blogs that I had any real idea about the state of mind needed to receive communion - and the Church's teaching on this. So, I suspect that many of the Catholics who receive every week may really not be aware of their responsibilities in being properly prepared to receive. That is probably not an adequate excuse, but is probably the fact with many.
The priest is supposed to receive first according to the rubrics of the Mass..but that's not the point of my comment
According to what I was reading at Fr. Blake's blog the woman doesn't want to through the annulment process
It's refreshing to see someone following the Canon Law on this situation. I know of many that don't.
There's probably much more to this situation than was written.
"I haven't personally gone through [an annulment] but I know MANY people who have..."
Not THAT many.
You suggest that in some cases they are automatic. That is simply absurd. Nothing that takes six to eighteen months could possibly be considered "automatic," regardless of the outcome. You claim never to have known anyone rejected by a tribunal. That is because a pastor or canonist will generally discourage a case from going through if there is no apparent merit in advance. The reaction of people to the process runs the gambit. Some find it relatively painless, while others find it very humiliating. Often it depends on the diocese, or the people hearing the case.
As a practicing Catholic who is himself divorced, through no choice of his own, I can assure you that the story of "M" is believable. I could tell you many stories of lives of quiet desperation. You have no idea what it is to try to get on with your life, when your life is taken from you.
"There's probably much more to this situation than was written."
You can count on it.
Brian Walden is right - the first time you stay in your pew is difficult, but it gets much easier after that. Sometimes I go from work to noon Mass. Mostly I remember to stop drinking my coffee an hour ahead of time, but sometimes I forget. Used to be I wouldn't go to Mass when I forgot. But then it occurred to me that there might be spiritual benefits to 'hearing Mass' (as they said in the old days) even if I didn't receive. By gosh & by golly there certainly were/are spiritual benefits. Sure a few people looked at me as an oddity (or so I imagined), but I offered it up, especially for others in difficult situations where they cannot receive. JSouth
While some priests frown on the recent custom of allowing people to come forth for a blessing at Communion, my current pastor announces at every Mass that anyone who is not receiving communion is welcome to do so, and should simply fold his arms across his chest to indicate that he is not receiving. I think this is a good pastoral response (though I don't know about its official status) to the problem of people feeling pressured to come forth. No one behind you can tell if you are receiving Communion or a blessing, so the "peer pressure" factor is completely removed.
That said, I just wanted to address the notion of "properly disposed." What is required is simply that the person be in the state of grace, that is, not aware of having committed any mortal sins since their last good confession, and should have the intention of receiving Jesus in Communion. I say this only because some scrupulous souls will sometimes absent themselves from Holy Communion for such minor sins as raising their voices to their children in anger or frustration or failing to say some of their daily prayers during the week--but as far as I know the Church doesn't generally recommend that we stay away from Communion because of venial sins, and discourages scrupulosity in this as in other areas.
I'm happy to see a post about this. I think priests are often guilty of not properly teaching the faithful. A few months ago, I committed a mortal sin. Out of anger, I intentionally missed confession for a month---another whammy. When I finally made it to confession, I wasn't surprised to be 1 of 3 people waiting in line. What did surprise me was Father's response to my confession of why I didn't recieve the Eucharist for a month. He actually told me not to stress over these things too much, remember that Jesus loves me, and not to avoid the Eucharist. I know the difference between venial and mortal sin--I wasn't there to confess eating my son's Snicker bar. I left, honestly, not knowing if I was actually absolved or not. I can only pray that my confession was worthy.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I actually cry when I recieve the Eucharist. I can't even explain it, the awe of it all.
But here's what I don't get---last Sunday, Father ran out of Hosts and there were 40 people left standing in line. NOT ONE PERSON stopped to recieve Christ in His Precious Blood. We took the opportunity to remind our children that Christ is fully present in both species. I honestly believe that many Catholics, both young and old, just get in the Communion line because it's the "thing to do" and they don't even know what they are actually doing. Sad and poor catechesis on the parishes part....
Of course, this is all the other side of the the Liturgical Movement and the reforms of St. Pius X. Many resourcement theologians saw that people who went to Mass only to view the Host at elevation and do their own things were somehow participating in an inferior way. They viewed the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ as a far more superior way to participate in the Mass, to the point that they saw going to Mass without receiving Communion was almost without point. This slowly evolved in the Catholic Church in the twentieth century in the developed world to everyone present receiving Communion. It became a social rite rather than a supernatural right: the communion of the People of God with each other.
While it is pretty clear in many Patristic writings that frequent Communion was always to be encouraged, we are making the assumption that the Patristic church is exactly the same as the one today. If that were so, we would still have canonical penances of seven years for fornication. That particular bete noire, Jansenism, made this type of thinking verboten in the Western Church. I always thought the Jansenists had a point. It also doesn't help that sacramental scholastic theology in the West has become so pervasive that it has become distorted; the sacrament may be confected ex opere operato, but the benefits of the sacrament do not come that way.
Still in many parts of Latin America, and in churches of Latin Americans in the diaspora here, many don't go to Communion if they know that they aren't "living right". Even in the most liberal Greek Orthodox churches, only about half go to Communion. In Russian churches, the only ones who seem to go to Communion with any frequency are the infants. Most modern American Catholics would be scandalized by how few even devout Orthodox go to Communion on any given Sunday.
I think pastors do their congregations a great disservice by not preaching worthy reception of Holy Communion from the pulpit. Sacrilege is the frightening name of crime of receiving Holy Communion unworthily, and it is on par with murder, abortion, and other atrocities of humanity. It takes the eyes of Faith to see that. And St. Paul is very explicit that it is a matter of life and death.
Corrigenda: It should above read, "supernatural rite". Sorry.
"Most modern American Catholics would be scandalized by how few even devout Orthodox go to Communion on any given Sunday."
Not if they knew what happens first. The Russian church is especially strict. Basically, Orthodox Christians are known personally by their pastor, who can then vouch for their having attended confession and Vespers the evening before. They must also observe fasting from midnight. If they visit a parish in another town, they must introduce themselves to the parish priest first, who determines their worthiness.
I don't think Pius X realized how he was setting the stage for this. Were it left to me, confirmation would be conferred at the age of reason (seven years old), and first communion would be conferred at puberty (about twelve years old). Confession would be an occasional event, say during penitential seasons, until one was old enough or first communion, when monthly confession "of devotion" would be encouraged. The traditional order of sacraments of initiation would be restored, and the eucharist would be less likely to be received lightly.
David L Alexander said...
"I haven't personally gone through [an annulment] but I know MANY people who have..."
Not THAT many.
Well, I guess "many" is a relative term. I would say I know about 30 people who have gone through annulments, and it is quite circumstantial: I used to go to a parish where they had a ministry/ support group for divorced people, whose aim was actually to pair up these divorced people and marry them off again to each other (after an annulment). It was the church's way of keeping divorced people in the fold. I met most of these couples in the late 80's, but their divorces/annulments/remarriages happened for the most part in the 70's and early 80's. They were all very open and talkative about the process they went through. And in that particular diocese, it was pretty "automatic", in that if you went through the process, you were guaranteed an annulment (it generally took about a year).
Like I said, I can't say first hand (thanks be to God) and I don't know if times have changed/become more difficult to get one. But I rather doubt it.
So, yes, there is definitely more to any story. But I can't think of one reason why a divorced Catholic man or woman would not go through the process of an annulment if a) they realised there was no way they would ever be able to remarry their former spouse (i.e. if the marriage never sacramentally existed) and b) they want to "move on" as you say.
I'd be interested to understand why it is you find her story "believable" as you put it. What are the barriers, hinderances or other reasons one WOULDN'T go through the process? You don't have to cite your own, but I would be interested in any cases you know of, simply because I have never heard of any (note: following a and b above).
"I'd be interested to understand why it is you find her story "believable" as you put it. What are the barriers, hinderances or other reasons one WOULDN'T go through the process? You don't have to cite your own, but I would be interested in any cases you know of, simply because I have never heard of any (note: following a and b above)."
In the first place, there is more to "moving on" than getting an annulment. Whether you get one or not, at the very least, something resembling a marriage happened (the term describing it is "putative.")
Most "separated and divorced ministry" at the diocesan level is a joke. Mine was run by people who were under-qualified, many of them not even Catholic. The local church (in my case, the Excruciatingly Orthodox Diocese of Arlington) assumed no responsibility for their conduct, even after I was tossed out of one program for "not being ready." You are basically left to process the whole thing on your own. Maybe you can find a priest who is capable of helping you through the process. But people whose spouses have left them are the most difficult to work with, their emotions having been rubbed raw by the heartbreak of a deserting or unfaithful spouse.
Then you are asked to relive how you got into this mess. If you wait until you can stomach the experience (and for some, that is what it means), essential witnesses may or may not want to speak on your behalf. Sometimes a misunderstanding of the process ("we don't want to take sides here") makes them not want to co-operate.
Sometimes members of a tribunal can be jerks. Who is going to tell them not to be? Is there a 1-800 number in Rome you can call when a chancery bureaucrat is too full of himself? Not likely.
My point (and I do have one) is that a) anyone who says annulments are "automatic" [is an idiot who] doesn't know anything except what others want to hear, b) most divorced Catholics don't need to be told what they need to do to remarry in the Church, and c) "the heart has its reasons, that reason knows not."
That's the short explanation. For the long one, you'll have to wait for my book to come out, like everybody else. Or read my blog.
Post a Comment