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.
Front Line Moral 