Worthy to receive? (#2)

In yesterday’s blog (Worthy to receive? #1) I touched on the matter of worthiness to receive Holy Communion at least in the Roman Catholic church. As is well known, there are many rules and guidelines governing who may or may not be in a position to receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church. There are, for example, restrictions concerning those who are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, although clearly defined exceptions do exist. In particular circumstances, it is possible for Christians belonging to communities of the Reformation (referred to in more recent times in Roman Catholic terminology as “ecclesial communities”) to receive Holy Communion, but only under specific and exceptional conditions.

In cases of grave (mortal) sin, those intending to receive Holy Communion are required to confess their sins and receive absolution in the Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation beforehand. At the same time, people in various situations and states of life may find themselves at odds with official Church teaching. This may arise, for example, in relation to remarriage following divorce, cohabitation (whether heterosexual or homosexual), or the case of persons who have publicly and obstinately supported positions contrary to the teaching of the Gospel or of the Roman Catholic Church in matters of grave moral importance, such as abortion.

All of these issues have been extensively debated and examined over many years. In principle, canon law provides clear norms, including the prohibition of admitting to Holy Communion those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. In practice, however, it appears relatively uncommon—at least in some regions—for Holy Communion to be publicly denied. When this has happened in Ireland, for example in the case of a politician who supported abortion legislation, it has tended to generate significant media attention and public debate. At the same time, it is widely observed that a number of public figures continue to present themselves as regular communicants without controversy. Such appears to be the pastoral landscape at present.

By contrast, the application of these norms varies in other parts of the Catholic world. Much depends on local circumstances, episcopal guidance, pastoral discernment, and the formation and judgement of individual conscience. The Church also recognises an important distinction between “private” sin—known only to the individual (and God)—and “public” or “manifest” sin, which is externally visible and therefore subject to ecclesial discipline. Nevertheless, actual pastoral practice on the ground frequently reflects a reluctance to inquire into the personal moral state of individuals. This appears to be particularly characteristic of the situation in Ireland at present. In other contexts, such as the United States, differing diocesan approaches have led to a more visibly varied application of Eucharistic discipline, especially in relation to public figures.

It also seems that, in contemporary Ireland, regular participation in Mass and public adherence to the Catholic faith is not without its challenges, particularly among younger people. Criticism of the Church—and, at times, indifference or hostility toward it—has become, one might say, de rigueur in certain sectors of media, academia, and public life. It is therefore understandable that some practising Catholics experience a sense of cultural marginalisation. At the same time, some criticisms of the Church are not without foundation, particularly the perception that it has focused disproportionately on issues relating to sexuality and reproduction. While these matters are indeed of serious moral importance in Catholic teaching, issues of social justice, care for the environment, and the promotion of human dignity “from womb to tomb” are also central to the Church’s mission.

It is also difficult to ignore the tendency toward moral and political polarisation in contemporary society. Those strongly committed to defending the life of the unborn may, at times, appear less attentive to the rights and dignity of migrants, the poor, or members of marginalised groups such as members of the LBGTQ+ communities. Conversely, those who advocate strongly for social justice and inclusion may be less attentive to the rights of the unborn. In this context, a more integrated and consistent ethical vision is needed. Pope Francis has repeatedly called the Church to such an integral approach, emphasising the need for coherence in our moral lives and in our relationships with others, with creation, and with God.

If the full rigour of canon law were to be applied uniformly in all cases, it is conceivable that participation in Holy Communion might decrease significantly in communities already affected by declining Mass attendance and demographic change. Moreover, for some, it may appear inconsistent or unjust that certain public figures might be denied Holy Communion while others - whose actions are also publicly known but fall into different categories - are not subjected to similar scrutiny. This tension reflects, at least in part, the Church’s distinction between public and private sin, as well as the practical limits of pastoral oversight.  It happens, especially in the USA, that politicians elected on a pro-life ticket are  very much complicit in illegal and devastating wars as well as withdrawal of funding from overseas aid that leads directly to the loss of life of huge numbers of people.

On the complex question of political responsibility, further difficulties arise. If a Catholic politician who supports legislation permitting abortion or euthanasia presents for Holy Communion, questions naturally arise regarding consistency. At the same time, one may ask how to assess the responsibility of the wider electorate, including those who have supported such policies through referenda or voting patterns. While it is clearly not the case that all forms of moral responsibility are equivalent, such questions nonetheless highlight the broader moral and social context in which these issues arise.

These are important and difficult questions that do not lend themselves to easy or definitive answers. I am grateful not to be tasked with adjudicating individual cases or establishing broad pastoral norms. There is, after all, much to attend to in one’s own journey of discipleship, conversion, and fidelity.