In a scandal that has Catholics from Canada (and everywhere else) scratching their heads, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a non-Catholic, received Holy Communion at a funeral Mass and, allegedly, pocketed the Host. He received the Host from Archbishop Andre Richard. His handlers insist he consumed the Host, but no one seems to know for sure.
Archbishop Richard has gone on the record to say, "In the context, it's obvious that no disrespect was meant, I'm quite sure." The archbishop added that a Communion is sacrilegious only when a non-believer takes part out of disrespect.
Huh?
• When non-believers know that they are not supposed to receive Holy Communion and they do it anyway, is that not disrespect?
• In a country as large as Canada, with such a large Catholic population, are we to seriously believe that a man as worldly and sophisticated as its prime minister would not know that non-Catholics are not supposed to receive Holy Communion?
• Are we to actually believe that the metropolitan bishop of a Canadian archdiocese would not know that his prime minister was not Catholic?
• Why did the archbishop not refuse him Holy Communion?
There was a time when ANY priest or bishop in good conscience would have to refuse Holy Communion to a non-Catholic out of a sense of faithfulness to Jesus Christ and the need to protect His Body and Blood from sacrilege. This seems to reflect our weak-kneed age of preferring human respect and "just getting along" rather than faithfulness to the truth.
Perhaps we can help. Here is a statement that is found in the first two or three pages of every missalette:
FOR OUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS:
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21).
Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).
Of course embarrassments and scandals like these could easily be avoided (and likely will be soon) by revoking the indult or special permission that currently permits Catholics to receive Holy Communion in the hand, since receiving on the tongue is still the worldwide norm for receiving Holy Communion.
Some select Catholics reading this in Valdosta might be a bit confused by some of these terms, since they might be too "preconciliar" for them, so let me help with this definition:
sac⋅ri⋅lege [sak-ruh-lij]
–noun
1. the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred.
2. an instance of this.
3. the stealing of anything consecrated to the service of God.
Of course, the need for such explanations will no longer be necessary when every parish and diocese stops placing the "personal authority" and preferences of priests and bishops above the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Be patient. The day is coming.
3 comments:
Let us start an online petition to stop this sacriligeous act! I was planning to do one but you write very well, Robert. I will support this effort and post it on my blog http://thepinoycatholic.blogspot.com. May the Lord in the Eucharist be honored, glorified and worshipped!
I don't place much blame on Harper for going up to receive Communion, only because regardless of what he may have thought he knew about Catholics and Communion, apparently the presiding priest, Fr. Bourgeois, actually invited non-Catholics to come up and receive. Why Harper would choose to receive the way that he did is beyond me.
That said, to me the real fault lies with the Archbishop. One, he had to know that Harper is non-Catholic, and he outranks the presiding priest and so should have refused him. Two, the way that Harper held out his hand was reason enough to at least watch to make sure he consumed it. That is his responsibility.
To me, both Harper and the Archbishop owe Catholics an apology.
I remember when then-President Clinton and Hillary were on a state visit somewhere in Africa and attended a Mass there. They both received Holy Communion. It was an apalling exhibition of ignorance. Protocol dictates that visiting heads of state be instructed in appropriate behavior in foreign countries, and one would expect that the president and his wife were so informed about such things. (The question then arises: Is the Catholic Church foreign? To them, yes.)
In this case:
When non-believers know that they are not supposed to receive Holy Communion and they do it anyway, is that not disrespect?
I'm afraid this begs the question of whether the man knew he was not to receive Communion.
Are we to actually believe that the metropolitan bishop of a Canadian archdiocese would not know that his prime minister was not Catholic?
Why did the archbishop not refuse him Holy Communion?
That's the real problem. The Archbishop's explanation is worse than a lame one. ("No disrespect was intended, I'm sure" and "Communion is sacrilegious only when a non-believer takes part out of disrespect.") The Archbishop knew, certainly. The Canadian prime minister is not culpable--likely the victim of Clintonian ignorance--but the Archbishop is culpable. He knew. And worse, he attempts to avoid his own responsibility by constructing an "excuse" for the prime minister. It's not the prime minister who owes an explanation for his behavior--it's the Archbishop. What's painful to recognize here is that the Archbishop's reflex in the situation was not consideration for the sacredness of the Host, nor even consideration for the prime minister, but a concern for himself alone--not wishing to risk the possibility of public embarrassment for himself by refusing the p.m. That's much worse. It's yet another answer to the question of why Catholics no longer feel any obligation to obey their bishops. No one is ever obligated to obey disobedience. That commandment is from Christ himself. An apple tree does not yield oranges; it can yield only apples. And just so, the disobedience of bishops can only yield disobedience. What is surprising is that bishops themselves should be surprised.
Post a Comment