BODY
I spent some time this morning reviwing the Catechism entries on the Eucharist, and while I don’t feel nearly equal to the complexity and history of the argument, I’ll take a stab at it anyway.
I was raised Unitarian, and while I feel Catholic through and through, there’s a spark of contrariness and inclusiveness that’s been pulled along with me. A Jewish friend who converted to Catholicism struggles with the trinity. A Baptist friend who converted to Catholicism explores the complex and sometimes contradictory relationship between the Church and science. My personal bugbear has always been, and probably always will be, access to eucharist.
I still remember a moment of high emotion at my fiancèe’s parish. We’d been going out for just a few months, and I’d recently met her family. I wore a red shirt, which already commanded a startling amount of attention in a room full of white turtlenecks and gray sweaters. I remember during communion, the entire pew emptied out, and I sat there, alone, feeling isolated and condemmed. On the way out, the deacon (who had delivered a homily on the evils of popular music) commented to me, “How about that red shirt? You sure stuck out!”
For the record, I don’t believe I warranted communion that day… after all, my emotions were a response to the social atmosphere, not divine condescension. Nor did I once take communion during the three years I prepared for baptism and the eight years prior during which I explored different faiths. This includes a Romanian Orthodox priest in Sighisoara who practically jammed the bread into my hand, and appeared heartbroken when I declined.
Still, nothing has mystified, upset, or struck me as hypocritical more than the denial of communion to groups within the Catholic church.
Sometimes, these groups are identified by the Catechism itself… divorcees who have remarried without having their marriages anulled.
Sometimes, they are identified by the Church heirarchy… parishioners who wore rainbow scarves in support of gay rights were denied communion by Cardinal George.
And sometimes, they are self-denied… a Catholic who feels unclean, unworthy, or unready to receive communion may abstain at any point.
I respectfully dissent from the Church in this matter. I only think the third ground is justifiable. And in my (limited) perusal of the Catechism and Bible, I can’t find anything compelling to refute my claim.
* * * * *
In 1650 the Catechism states that remarried divorcees: “find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.”
This statement is outrageous to me. It is not outrageous that the catechism teaches that remarriage is adultery and “contravenes God’s law.” But we are also taught that Christ and Mary alone in human history were sinless, and that it is only grace and mercy that saves us from our own sins.
· We witness that before taking communion, we all echo the centurion: “Lord I am not worthy, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”
· We witness that Paul, that old stickler himself, commands “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.”
· And most importantly, we witness that Christ himself commanded “Take this and eat it, all of you.”
An insincere communion taker, then, who fools the priests, ministers, and parishioners has not hurt anyone other than themselves, because they have not fooled God. The taking of communion is a transaction between an individual and God.
Moreover, if we know that the communion is an opportunity for God to impart grace, it is reasonable for us to argue that God will somehow be duped by insincere supplicants?
Any Christian would have to answer “no” to that.
Traditional Catholics might counter that, as God’s authority on Earth, the Church does have authority to interpret the Word according to God’s decree, and act accordingly. The prohibitions mentioned in the Catechism, in fact, are based wholly on this authority. But there is it. Even if we can accept the moral authority of the Church, there is no reason to accept its infallibility.
Accepting the infallibility of God, and acknowledging the fallibility of the Church, it seems self-evident to me that only harm can result from the denial of grace. The allowance of communion can never impart any harm upon God… to partake is, as Paul so eloquently harangues us, a grave responsibility, but a personal responsibility. The denial of communion can only risk the denial of grace to those who deserve it.
And would we set ourselves as above Christ, who understood and forgave all, by denying understanding and forgiveness ourselves?
And what, I venture, is the sin of those who come between God and those with whom God would share grace?
~ Connor