Homily Notes based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Ecclesia de Eucharistia and Documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

How does the Church, the Body of Christ grow and continue to survive? The Second Vatican Council in its document the Light of the Peoples (Lumen Gentium) recalls “as often as the sacrifice of the Cross is celebrated on the altar, the work of redemption is carried out. At the same time in the sacrament of the Eucharistic bread, the unity of the faithful, who form one body in Christ, is expressed and brought about”.

The Apostles by accepting in the upper room Jesus’ invitation to “Take eat, Drink of it all of you” entered for the first time into sacramental communion with him. From that time forward the Church continues to be built up through sacramental communion with the Son of God. Incorporation, becoming a member of Christ’s body in this world begins with Baptism. This sacrament is the doorway to all the other sacraments and the life of the Church. Our incorporation into Him is constantly renewed and strengthened by celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice and more completely by sharing in sacramental communion. The Eucharist continues to build up the Church creating a community, local and universal.

There is a profound relationship between the Church and the celebration of the Eucharist. We profess in the creed to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”. The Eucharist too is “one and catholic” it is the supreme expression of unity, it is the supreme expression of the universality of faith as opposed to an expression of individual personal belief only. The Eucharist is holy, we refer to it as the “most holy sacrament” of the Altar. The Eucharist is also “apostolic”. The Eucharist, was entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles, “Do this in remembrance of me” he commanded them. It is in continuity with the practice of the Apostles, in obedience to the Lord’s command, that the Church has celebrated the Eucharist down through the centuries. It is celebrated in conformity with the faith of the Apostles and down through the centuries the Church has made more precise her teaching and understanding of the Eucharist, it has done so precisely to protect and safeguard the integrity of what has been passed on to it from the Apostles. This faith remains unchanged and it is essential for the Church that it remain unchanged and protected. Essential to the integrity of the Eucharist is the integrity of the other sacraments of the Church; the sacrament of Holy Orders which ensures and confirms not just apostolic succession but the very existence of the Church itself in a full sense. The Church’s teaching on the relationship between priestly ministry and the Eucharist has helped to crystalize and clarify matters of interest and concern in the area of ecumenical dialogue. These discussions continue as various denominations of the Church attempt to nurture greater understanding and fellowship which, though it falls short of the unity we all desire, acknowledges our common desire for a life in communion with Christ, however imperfect now, which will be completed with the coming of Christ at the end of time.

This has practical implications for us as Catholics. While respecting the religious convictions of our separated brethren we refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations. It is clear even to us in our own personal experiences that as Churches, Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, evangelical etc., we do not share the same belief in what happens when we gather for the “breaking of bread” or its significance for us in other areas of life. By refraining from receiving communion in other churches and ecclesial communities we avoid confusion or ambiguity about our understanding of the nature of the Eucharist. It is also respectful of the clear differences that remain between us otherwise we run the very real risk of being equivocal and ambiguous about our belief and reducing the Eucharist to an expression of simple fraternity when we believe it to be much more. It also emphasises our belief that taking and receiving communion is not to be used as a means to an end (i.e. unity) but the goal the arrival point of our search and sometime painful journey for unity. Individuals who are not Catholic are therefore kindly asked not to approach the sacrament of the Eucharist for these reasons.

Let me turn to a subject about which many of us may have opinions and hopes, not all of which however can be accommodated by the understanding of the Eucharist expressed and held by the Church which I have tried to highlight in this and previous considerations of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is closely linked to the Sacrament of penance or reconciliation because anyone who is conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to communion. Because the Eucharist makes present the sacrifice of Calvary, perpetuating it sacramentally, it gives rise to our continuous need for conversion, for a personal response to that appeal St Paul made to the Corinthians: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5: 20). If a person’s conscience is then burdened by serious sin than the path of penance through the sacrament of reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharist through the reception of Holy Communion. The judgement of one’s own state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved since it is a question of examining one conscience. However, rather than delude or dilute our sense of sin we should recall St Paul’s stern warning not to approach the table of the Lord if we know we are not worthy otherwise we risk eating and drinking our condemnation. Even the prayer of the celebrant at Mass prior to his own reception of the Lord’s body reminds him, indeed reminds me, of the awesome sanctity of what I and we do, “Lord Jesus Christ, with faith in your love and mercy, I eat your body and drink your blood, let it not bring me condemnation but health in mind and body”.

Interest in the question of those who can receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church and those who cannot has been the focus of some attention in some sections of the media within the past year since the beginning of the Year of the Eucharist. Again media coverage has been impassioned but rarely well researched. The mystery of the Eucharist does not lend itself to sound-bites on the radio or news-bites in newspaper articles. In this Year of the Eucharist we are encouraged to know and hopefully understand, however painful it may be, the position of the Church. I must try and put this in context. In the past the Church fostered unintentionally a scrupulosity about the reception of Holy Communion. If a person could not go to Communion because of serious sin or “having broken the fast” he or she found consolation and inner strength in “spiritual communion”. Before we went to communion we often went to confession whether we had serious sin to confess or not. As a result an unhealthy scrupulosity developed.

Fr Vincent Twomey, a Professor of Moral Theology at Maynooth, in his book “The End of Irish Catholicism” identified two things which have encouraged this change; (a) our lack of serious reflection on the faith and (b) our tendency to conform…our tendency to do what everyone else does. Even though nothing essential has changed in the teaching and discipline of the Church we appear to conform when it comes to receiving communion. Going to confession is rare and yet almost everyone goes to communion if they happen to be present at a wedding or a funeral or at Christmas. Some go more awkwardly than others and not a few living together outside a valid sacramental marriage present themselves perhaps unaware of clash between what we celebrate in the Eucharist and the irregularity of their situation. This clash between the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Marriage, which mirrors Christ’s public committed unconditional love and union with his Church exists

(1) where couples, who are free to marry, live in a private uncommitted conditional union, (what are euphemistically called “trial-marriages”),

(2) where couples, who are free to marry, live in a private but committed unconditional union but have postponed making that public sacramental commitment to each other for personal reasons (not infrequently dictated by financial concerns etc).

(3) This clash also exists in those unions where there is clearly a committed unconditional love between individuals where one or both are divorced and either living together or remarried in accordance with civil law but are not free to marry since the Church’s understanding of marriage must presume the irreversible commitment, validity, sanctity and integrity of the first union until and unless it is proven otherwise.

No one wants to hurt anyone’s feelings and a priest must always assume good faith. Most priests know that especially in the latter circumstances, things may not be entirely black or white. But I and all priests must also recognise that good faith must yield to the honest integrity of Church teaching and practice rather than allow a dilution or confusion about the sanctity and wholeness of either the Sacrament of the Eucharist or the Sacrament of Marriage which duplicates in a husband and wife’s self giving Christ’s own sacrificial love for his Church on the cross. A benign tolerance of a situation where confusion or blameless ignorance of the Church’s teaching prevails only empties the Eucharist of its very meaning as the sacrament of unity that requires a unity of faith and truth already there before it can express and confirm it.

This relatively new experience in the life of the Church involves us all. It is not just something restricted to a couple and a priest. It is a matter which involves us all. It is painful for us all and we should try to do something about it. If you are in an irregular union you are encouraged to attend Mass, to participate as much as you can, to enter into spiritual communion with Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist but you should not present yourself for communion until your irregular circumstances have been regularised. This may be easy for those who are free to marry but have postponed the event but it may be more difficult, and in some cases, impossible for those who are divorced and living together in a conjugal union or remarried civilly. The difficulties involved in trying to resolve the circumstances of a divorced and remarried person should not however dissuade anyone from approaching the Diocesan office of the Marriage Tribunal (The Good Shepherd Centre, 511 Ormeau Road, Belfast BT7 3GS. Tel 028 9049 1990).

It is impossible for a priest to know of everyone’s circumstances and no priest is called to be a covert ecclesiastical sleuth in his Parish but I would earnestly invite any parishioner affected by what is said above to speak to me or any other priest about their situation. Some, I know, see this discipline as a kind of unmerited punishment by the Church especially in those situations where a blameless spouse has been abandoned by their partner. Divorce has undermined the permanence and indissolubility of marriage. If a divorcee lives a single life he or she can has exactly the same access to the sacraments as any other Catholic. That access is, nevertheless, severely restricted even in those circumstances where a blameless and abandoned spouse gets married again in the civil forum or lives in a conjugal union with a second partner. The decisions we make in life often have unexpected consequences but an adult sense of our own destiny also requires us to accept the responsibility of decisions and actions.

The Eucharist is a counter-sign in today’s prevailing culture where we get what we want or can afford. Sometimes we insist on having what we cannot afford with devastating results. The Church in Ireland too, i.e. bishops, priests and people, has a responsibility to question the false idea that it is right for us to do what we like and think it is alright, specifically to chose our own moral principles by which we live and by which we act if we think our situation justifies it. This is to reduce the notion of conscience to no more than an excuse mechanism…..it may also encourage an attitude of indifference. Doing nothing, however, is not the answer to this most relevant and pressing of contemporary pastoral challenges.