Author: Edward Richard
Catholic Priest, Moral Theologian
The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life: Part IV
Part IV: The Eucharist, Interior Union with Christ, and the Perfection of Charity
Some years ago, when I was living in Rome, I was a chaplain for a group in the LaSalette Parish there. It was the group a parish group associated with the national movement called Rinnovamento nello Spiritu Santo (The Renewal in the Holy Spirit). The Cardinal Vicar of the Diocese of Rome, Cardinal Ruini came to the parish for his visitation. I was asked to attend. There were a number of groups in the parish such as scouts, a group for the elderly, probably peace and justice, and more to the point, greeters, lectors, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and I cannot recall what else. A representative from each of the many groups made a brief presentation on their numbers and activities and I will never forget the Cardinal’s response when he stood up to address those assembled there with the Pastor. It was essentially this, Father, I have enjoyed hearing about all the activities in your parish. Now, I would like to ask what you are doing in respect to the spiritual lives of your parishioners. In my experience, up until that time, I suppose I had been given to think that these things, because they were centered around the parish, were indeed directed to the spiritual development of the faithful of the parish. Have we allowed our people in our parishes to think that these things are what the Christian life is essentially about? Perhaps. That is due to what many of us in leadership have come to accept as the way to lead a parish. And that is due, in part, to a misunderstanding of what the concept of active or, more accurately, actual participation means.
In a 2009 article on the subject, Dr. Jeff Mirus states, “Over the past generation, there has been considerable confusion over what it means to fully participate in the Mass as called for in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The Council Fathers emphasized the need for the laity to participate in the Sacred Liturgy in a manner which is “plenam, consciam, atque actuosam” (“full, conscious and active”). For years this mandate has prompted an insistence on vigorous responses, community singing, and a multiplication of lay roles in the liturgy, but very little has been said about the need to unite ourselves fully to the essential action of the Mass.” https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/actual-participation-in-mass/.
Before the Second Vatican Council, that exhortation for actual participation was present in the Church, undeniably. After the Council, however, its meaning took on different characteristics to the point that it has, to a significant degree become a liturgical issue with important moral implications. In the documents the word actuosam is translated as active. There is dispute about that and any number of people insist that it should be translated as actual. My interest is not the argument over translation. The moral issue is clear no matter if the translation is not.
The Decree on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, establishes that participation at Mass is first and foremost interior. Having heard the moral teaching on the virtue of religion and worship, you can say with me, of course it is. It is expressed outwardly in the responses, singing, etc., but the wording in the council document was not meant to express liturgical hyperactivity on the part of those assembled for Mass. It was meant to express what “Pope Pius XI had already said decades earlier, namely, that the faithful should not be inert spectators at Mass, but should enter into it with mind, heart, and body.” https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/03/a-note-on-participation-what-can-we.html
Now, in order to avoid getting myself in more trouble with the liturgical experts, I am going to stop trying to interpret liturgical documents. I wish only to emphasize, morally speaking, that participation at Mass is first of all an interior act. This corresponds precisely to the moral dimensions of the virtue of religion. It begins with genuine devotion.
In the case of the Holy Eucharist this devotion is closely identified with the principle fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion, an intimate union with Christ. One’s understanding of the power of the Eucharist grows in line with the devotion with which it is received. The receipt of Holy Communion achieves in the spiritual life everything and more what material food does for the bodily life. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1391-1392. This is bread for the pilgrimage until the moment of death. As our religious virtue grows and the reception of the faith expands, the intimacy of the union does as well, leading us closer to the true goal of human existence.
The Eucharist is a support to us because it strengthens charity which is the perfection of all the virtues. On a daily basis, our charity, which is the perfecting quality of the new man in Christ, tends to weaken. Reception of the Eucharist, which is living charity, wipes away venial sins, revives love, and enables one to break from away from disordered attachments to creatures and root ourselves in God. CCC 1394. It also strengthens us against future mortal sins on account of this same charity.
Those who receive Holy Communion are to be conscious of the effect of being united ever more closely to Christ. Through this interior union, Christ unites the faithful in one, mystical body. Again, we are looking at a moral dimension of the Eucharist that reaches its ultimate fulfilment in the communion of the saints, a completion of one of the basic human inclinations and the natural law of the social order.
Conclusion: John 17
The Priestly Prayer of Jesus. 1When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, so that your son may glorify you…
The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life: Part III
Part III: The Virtue of Religion and Sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist
Let us turn now to a more in-depth discussion of the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. I do this with all humility and I ask you to turn away from any tendency toward severe thoughts of others or yourself in this regard. We stand before a loving God and we do so with the utmost submission of our wills to His. God can make saints of the worst sinners who strive to live in His Grace with Hope for salvation.
The unworthy reception of Holy Communion and the sinful administration of Holy Communion are examples of the sin of sacrilege. Sacrilege involves using a holy thing in an unworthy or profane manner. Sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist is a violation of the 1st Commandment which reassures of the supreme majesty of God and warns us about false Gods.
We have spoken of sins opposed to the virtue of faith, particularly unbelief. Faith, as we have said is a supernatural, theological virtue. Obviously, the sin of unbelief in the Holy Eucharist is gravely serious. It is a rejection of the authority of God and His Holy Word. Objectively, it places one outside the Catholic faith. Sacrilege, though, is a vice opposed to the virtue of religion. The Theological Virtue of Faith operates on the intellect. The virtue of religion is a moral virtue, focusing on action, and is connected to the virtue of justice and is one of the chief potential parts of justice explained by St. Thomas Aquinas.
In order to understand the nature of the sin, let us give a brief definition of justice. First, we recall that justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, the others being Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. A virtue is defined in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church as a habitual and firm disposition to do the good. We can see how this definition accords with the description of the moral life. A virtue helps us use our freedom most efficiently to choose the good that is part of the life of the new man. This is particularly applicable to the moral virtues, though it does apply to all virtues because even faith, hope and charity, require that certain good actions be done.
The Virtue of Justice concerns rendering to another his due. Therefore, the definition of justice is a habitual and firm disposition to render unto another what is due to him. To be more specific, regarding the virtue of religion, we are now speaking of the giving to God honor and veneration. Since, however, with all man’s efforts he cannot ever pay to God a worship that is equal to the debt that is owed, the virtue of religion cannot be classified fully only by the definition of justice because justice comprehends the satisfaction of the debt. This explains, in no small degree, how penances of a few prayers can be assigned in confession. With respect to offenses against God, we cannot give Him what is due, so we offer sacrifices and penances as prescribed by the Church’s minister as a means of expressing our desire to repay the debt that cannot be paid.
Adoration, sacrifice, devotion, prayer and other such acts of religion flow from the activity of the soul, they proceed directly from the soul and are directed immediately toward God. Works of mercy, such as visiting the sick, can also be acts of religion when committed to the glory of God. This is why the precept of the Church, which tells us how we are to keep Holy the Lord’s Day by attending Mass and avoiding unnecessary physical labor, permits of and even, according to tradition, encourages works of charity on Sundays. Acts of religion offer to God a tribute of worship. We mean by this that there is some internal or external work done in acknowledgment of God’s Majesty and with the purpose of impressing the worshiper or others with the sense of His greatness. It is clear that religion is the greatest of the moral virtues since the person in whose favor it is exercised is God Himself. Religion is the supreme moral virtue, so we can conclude that irreligion is the chief offense against the moral virtues. Blasphemy is the worst of injustices.
[It will come as a surprise to many of us today that religion is considered to be superior to mercy. Why? Because religion is offered to God directly for his glory and our benefit. Mercy, is offered to God to be used by Him. Of course, acts of mercy please God when they are done with the right intention.]
Devotion and prayer, adoration, sacrifice and praise are the principal acts of religion.
All genuine acts of religion begin with internal devotion. So, while I speak at times of the external acts of religion in this context, we must remember that external acts of religion should proceed from internal devotion of the heart.
[There are three groups of outward religious acts: 1) adoration, by offering one’s body to the veneration of God; 2) Sacrifices, tithes, offerings, by offering one’s goods (or promised, vows); and 3) Using divine things to honor God, such as in the case of Sacraments, oaths, praises ]
The form of sacrilege referred in moral thought as Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed, deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is the worst of all sacrileges and has constantly been understood as such by the Church. (See, Farrell, Companion.)
I would like to turn again to Fr Farrell’s words on the question of administration of holy communion to a public sinner. Mind you, this goes back to the late 1940’s and early 50’s. “A Catholic recoils in horror at the idea of an unworthy communion. Nor is this revulsion explained fully by the fact that this is the gravest of all sacrileges, that, next to the sins against divinity itself and the humanity of Christ, it is the gravest of all sins….There can be no doubt about it. Even when it does so happen it is often due in no small degree to human respect, shame, a bit of cowardice….
Still, if these uninvited guests approach the divine banquet table publicly, Christ is not the one to cover them with confusion by refusing to give them the Bread they dare ask; Judas, too, drank of the sacred cup. If the individual is a public sinner, one who by an unreformed life that is public knowledge has already gone well beyond the reach of confusion, then it is different matter. If the priest knows there has been no repentance, he can and should refuse Communion.331-332. (but that knowledge is so extremely hard to come by as to be almost impossible. The priest must know, know beyond all chance of doubt; for the arms of Christ have ever been wide enough to embrace any and all sinners on the one condition of repentance.)” I must add to this, however, that this is not 1950, about the time of the writing of this treatise. Now, many serious sins such as abortion are publicly encouraged and celebrated in the modern means of communication. Fr. Farrell is correct but the scandal today is far greater when a notorious public sinner, such as a high-level politician is involved. It would seem that some degree of public acknowledgment of sin is necessary.
The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life: Part II
Part II: The Holy Eucharist, the Virtue of Faith and the Sin of Unbelief
The worthiness to receive Holy Communion is the subject of much discussion these days, especially in regard to public sinners, and particularly in the case of politicians who support and promote gravely immoral, intrinsically evil actions, such as the promotion of legalized abortion and the many variations which depart from the sanctity of marriage. The Church’s authentic teaching states explicitly that these notorious sinners are not to present themselves for Holy Communion. It is inconsistent with the very nature of God to suggest that Christ, and therefore those remade in his image, could choose such actions. By being known publicly for supporting such sins or engaging in them, one becomes a source of public scandal. Hopefully, what I have said so far about the moral life opens us to a new dimension in this discussion. The Eucharist is the food of the new Man, recreated in Christ’s image, not the old man corrupted by illusory desires. The fruits of the Eucharist include deepening our incorporation into Christ and commits us to the poorest among us, including the spiritual impoverished. We must recognize that there is such a thing as spiritual suicide and it is very easy for those of us with some responsibility to fall into the trap of committing spiritual euthanasia.
Unfortunately, the efforts made to address abuses regarding Holy Communion, while worthy, are likely to yield very little fruit without a rekindling of faith, the foundation of the Christian moral life. In the Church we are conditioned by the apparent lack of faith and loss of the virtue of religion. Indeed, I suggest that what we are doing here and across the diocese in the context of this entire event is an opportunity for God to enlighten our minds and liven our spirits. The truth of the Holy Eucharist is so austere and beautifully compelling that those who speak for the Church should have a deep concern for their own souls should they not attempt to present, explain and defend it, insuring that its power is being manifested in a lively expression of faith among the members of the parishes of the diocese. I do not wish to delve into that subject too deeply. However, I do hope that what I have to say here will encourage you hold to and express the truth of faith regarding this mystery.
Given the circumstance of a basic belief in the truth of the Holy Eucharist, that the Lord is truly present and that the Eucharist is to be worshiped with the adoration due to God, then, it is easy to accept and hold that serious sinners should not present themselves for Holy Communion and that those who are notorious public sinners should not be given Holy Communion by any minister of the sacrament as the law of the Church directs. The divine economy in that regard is this: God has created us to know the truth and the heart, at times, needs to be treated with an external remedy to recognize the interior injury. The illusions of false belief in the interior will not easily fall if the external acts of religion continue unhindered.
Faith in the Eucharist – Divine and Catholic Faith
The matter of the moral question with respect to the Holy Eucharist begins with the virtue of Faith itself. First of all, as we have seen, it is because divine faith engenders the new man and, by its power we are to put to death the old man who lives according to the way of death. Widespread reports indicate that a sizeable number of those who identify themselves as Catholics do not hold the faith of the Church in respect to the Holy Eucharist. We need to believe in the Holy Eucharist. And, the widespread lack of belief in the Eucharist may well be the most damaging development in the entire history of the Church.
Given the characteristics of some of the problems that plague the Church, it is not surprising that notable clerics have suggested that it is up to the laity to rise up and rescue the faith, and we can only pray this will be so. This recovery, however, cannot happen without faith in the Holy Eucharist. It must be recognized as a moral imperative that each one of us must do everything within our means to bolster faith in the Eucharist of Christ. This is as basic and essential as the proclamation of the Kingdom itself. “Teach them everything I have commanded you.”
A 2019 EWTN/RealClear Opinion Research poll found that only 49% of Catholics believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. A Pew Research Center poll the same year placed the number even lower, reporting that “just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that ‘during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus.’”
Perhaps even more disturbingly, 43% of the Catholics polled by Pew believed that the position of the Church itself is that the bread and wine the faithful receive at Holy Communion is merely symbolic. Michael Warsaw, https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/eucharistic-coherence, Nov. 6, 2021.
Michael Warsaw’s comments emphasize the point I made earlier about belief and practice regarding politicians and other public sinners. “This pervasive misunderstanding of the nature of Catholicism’s central sacrament might make the actions of pro-abortion Catholic politicians who present themselves for reception of Communion somewhat more comprehensible, if no less disturbing. After all, a Catholic who thinks the sacrament is nothing more than a symbol, not Jesus himself, is far more likely to be unconcerned about receiving Communion while breaking with Church teachings on moral evils like abortion.” Warsaw, “Eucharistic Coherence.”
As I have been saying the morality of the matter depends upon the virtue of faith and its grasp of the truth of the Holy Eucharist.
The virtue of faith is a supernatural gift that brings with it the gifts of knowledge and understanding of the heavenly mysteries. By the virtue of faith we are habitually enabled to accept everything that is revealed by God. To have faith is to think with assent or internal acceptance of the truths of faith. Faith contains specific articles and the assent to those articles is given on account of God Himself. He is the cause of faith. He gives the believer a sure knowledge of the divine mysteries. One cannot be said, both to have true faith, and to persist in doubt about the Holy Eucharist. One believes on account of God.
The Church understands and teaches, therefore, that there are identifiable truths revealed by God and, by God’s command, identified and defined by the authentic magisterium to be believed as a teaching of faith divinely revealed. These are such teachings as that of the One and Triune God, that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, and the Divine Foundation of the Church. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is one such teaching that must be believed with theological or divine and Catholic faith. To refuse to do so sets one in opposition to the teaching of the Church, but once one has been taught this truth, having received the faith, it constitutes a grave sin of unbelief and separates one from the Catholic Church. An obstinate denial of this truth or an obstinate doubt concerning the Holy Eucharist is called the sin of heresy. One’s profession of the Faith carries with it the moral responsibility of enlightening the mind and is expressed in the command of the will that the intellect assent to this truth. A person who does not believe the truth of the Holy Eucharist should not receive Holy Communion until doubt is resolved and assent to the truth can be given. Here we should be mindful predominantly of the immense truth and beauty of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist and less so on the alleged bad will of the sinner who cannot resolve the doubt.
Fr. Walter Farrell, the great Dominican Theologian from the last century, speaks of the great gift saying, following the words of Christ, “They tasted and lived, lived as men had never dared hope to live; lived by the life of God.” Companion to the Summa, Vol. IV, 301. He continues,” For eleven hundred years, it never occurred to men to challenge it directly; it was too close to dreams, too wholly reality, too vibrant with life to leave room for a doubt.” However, there appeared Berengarius who denied the real presence of Christ, suggesting that man created his own heavenly food moved by the symbol of the sacrament. Before he died, he came to know “the emptiness he had introduced into his own life, admitted it and received again the Bread of Life.” 301 As Fr. Farrell observes, it was five centuries before the Eucharist was challenged again. Among the three most prominent challengers, only the Swedish Reformer Ulrich Zwingli “dared to step as far off the path of life as Berengarius had.” But the effect grew and men “steadily lost the taste for this divine food…. [As men] forgot Calvary, what meaning had the living memento of that great gesture of friendship?….To eat this Bread, a man must approach humbly to a food that is his Master, falling down in adoration; he must be stripped of the fundamental selfishness that puts himself before God, or he eats it to his damnation…This is too much to ask of a world whose prescription for life is rather pride in self-sufficiency, satisfaction at whatever cost, and escape from life rather than a challenge to it.” Farrell, 301.
Farrell goes on to teach us that he Holy Eucharist is not something that we consider a mere nicety added to the divine perfection of our humanity. Humanity needs the Bread of Life. Man cannot live without it. It would suffice to have the Eucharist in desire to lead to the life of union with God. All of the other sacraments, including Baptism, are ordered to the Eucharist. And all of the sacraments including the Eucharist are given to the Church as causes, under the power of the Holy Spirit, to bring about the completion of man’s journey to happiness. And with the intention supplied by the Church, even an infant in baptism already receives the Eucharist by desire, implicitly. Farrell, 304.
The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life: Part I
At the LC Diocesan Eucharistic Congress I indicated that I would post my presentation on my blog. This is the first part of four.
The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life
It is a privilege to be able to speak today at the First Eucharistic Congress of the Diocese of Lake Charles. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Holy Eucharist and Morality.
My talk today will be divided in to 4 parts.
Part I will lay the foundation for a discussion of the Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life. The Eucharist is food for the New Man, Remade in the Image of Christ.
Part II will consider the Impact of the Loss of Faith in the Dogma of the Real Presence.
Part III is a presentation of the Virtue of Religion and the sin of Sacrilege.
Part IV Will Consider the Necessity of Interior Union with Christ for Fruitful Participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Part I: The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Life
Let us begin with this verse from the Book of James, Chapter 1. It is verse 25:
“But the one who peers into the perfect law[a] of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does.”
The Holy Eucharist and the Moral Law go hand-in-hand. That is obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of the practice of the Church with regard to the Holy Eucharist. All those prepared to receive First Holy Communion know that this preparation requires a basic knowledge of the commandments, of the differences between mortal and venial sins, of the duty to repent from sin, and the practice of self-examination and, if necessary, seeking the sacrament of penance before receiving Holy Communion.
Let us consider for a moment what Catholic morality is and what it is not. I can demonstrate this very clearly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III, Life in Christ. That, you can review for yourself just to keep me honest. So, I ask you to consider this: The concept of morality in the Church is not what most Catholics think it is. Most people think that Catholic morality is defined by rules that limit their behavior. They tend to think only of the negative side of the commandments, “Thou shalt not,” as the essence of the moral teaching of the Church. This is a mistake, however, for it is like saying that traveling to a desirable destination is only a matter of obeying traffic laws, speed limits, stop lights, etc. That is an impoverished concept that many people hold, including many clerics all the way up to the top. Sadly, this situation is the result of many mistaken steps that took place over a number of decades. Anytime the focus of topic of conversation is on the moral “rule,” most often this mistaken concept of morality is at work. There are many articles in the Catechism that one could use to demonstrate the proper concept of morality. Indeed, the true and Catholic concept of morality is found in all parts of the Catechism. It is summed up in article 1696. “The way of Christ ‘leads to life’; a contrary way ‘leads to destruction.’… There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference.” (From the Didache 1,1)
This tells us that the whole of the moral life is not defined by a set of rules like traffic laws, but it is journey that one pursues like following a map with all of its symbols and advisories and, most importantly, marking out the path. There is a beginning and an end. And there is a “way” to go from one to the other. That way is Christ and he has revealed to us the fullness of what it means to be a human person, created in the image and likeness of the Creator. Christ, Redeemer and Savior, restores the divine image, disfigured in man by sin. This re-creation is accomplished by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The restoration brings the image to its original beauty and elevates it by God’s grace, so that man can live in the presence of God and see God face to face.
This restored image is the standard of good and evil. That image is the “map” so to speak. And it is in that way that we can speak about the moral law. It is not an arbitrary rule established by God, but the moral law is a path of development of the image. By choosing what is good for the “image” and avoiding what damages it or, according to our “map,” avoiding the mistaken paths that lead away from life we come to the fullness of life. What some think of only as moral rules are actually characteristics of the new Man, re-created by the power of the Savior. The obligations, however, as we have suggested are not the principal elements of morality.
Faith in Christ, given in baptism, transforms the believer giving him or her the ability to follow the example of Christ. “It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good.” CCC 1709.
Our ability to choose the good and avoid evil characterizes freedom. God has given us that nature so that we can choose the good out of love for Him and for our neighbor. And, He has even given us a desire to do it, which the Church calls a natural desire for happiness.
St Paul’s teaching is very clear, that by Baptism, we are given a new personality, in Christ, in order to live in newness of life, a life according to the Spirit of Christ. He presents a description of how that transformation looks in various ways. Consider Eph 4:22-24. “You must give up your old way of life; you must put aside your old self, which gets corrupted by following illusory desires. Your mind must be renewed by a spiritual revolution so that you can put on the new self that has been created in God’s way, in the goodness and holiness of Truth.” A properly formed conscience is a witness to all I have been saying.
Enlightened by such knowledge we are now eager to fulfill the exhortation of St. Paul that we must examine our conscience before the act of receiving Holy Communion. Since the Holy Eucharist, the Bread of Angels, is our spiritual food for the new life of the resurrection, St. Paul is able to give direction about its meaning even by his telling us how to receive it. “Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink the of the cup.” “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. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds, “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to communion.” (1385)
OSHA Suspends Enforcement of Biden’s Vaccine Mandate
OSHA has suspended implementation and enforcement of the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers after a federal court blocked the measure.
— Read on news.yahoo.com/osha-suspends-enforcement-biden-vaccine-171701465.html
Front Line Moral 