As a priest serving in his diocese, I welcome the recent article by Dr Desmond Connell in The Irish Times and the debate surrounding the matter of inter-communion. It is indeed remarkable and encouraging to find such a lively public debate on this question.
May I, through the courtesy of the same pages of The Irish Times, offer some reflections on Dr Connell's article to further the debate? (Numbers in brackets refer to paragraphs of Dr Connell's article.) "When a unity of faith and understanding is not there, the Eucharist cannot be a true expression of unity and community" (1). When a congregation gathers in any Christian church for the Eucharist, is there ever a "unity of faith and understanding"? There will usually be a variety of views on faith and understanding represented, not just on peripheral matters like the choice of music, but also on matters of faith (not to mention morals).
People will have different ways and levels of understanding of what they are doing there, what God's love can mean for them, what the priest or minister is doing, even what the Eucharist itself is. And yet, the celebration can still be a true expression of unity and community: unity and community not yet fully achieved, it must be.
"Receiving Communion in a church whose faith I do not fully share has an inherent contradiction" (2). Yes, we already have that inherent contradiction, I am sure, with some of the congregation in almost every Catholic parish every Sunday.
Yet we come and take part in faith so that the differences there need not be a cause of division, in faith that what God does for us in Jesus is yet more powerful, because of God's very gentleness in welcoming us.
"At stake is the future of ecumenism" (4). This seems to be too strong a statement. Jesus does not pray impossible prayers, and his prayer for the unity of his followers will never be in vain. The future of ecumenism is not at stake. Rather, at stake is the future of the seriousness of our commitment to being a part of the answer to that prayer.
"Real ecumenism is about each church renewing itself, finding the depths of its own spiritual heritage and contribution, and from that richness, reaching across and building bridges . . ." (4). Yes, and no. This is part of real ecumenism, but not the first part.
The first part is letting Jesus renew us, letting him draw us closer to himself, and recognising that he also draws other people closer to himself, people with whom we might not recognise much of a unity, and yet who are true disciples, people with whom we must accept fellowship because of what the Lord has done.
As Peter was astonished at what the Lord did for the pagan Cornelius (Acts 10.44-48), perhaps we too need to be so astonished that we say, "Can anyone refuse the table of the Lord to these people, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?". Jesus did say that one who refuses to listen to the community (of disciples) should be treated like a gentile or a tax-collector (Matthew 18.17); but remember the reputation Jesus had for how he treated such outcasts.
"As a Catholic, when I receive Communion I am saying Yes to my membership of my church as well as to my God incarnate in Jesus and present in the Eucharist" (6). True. And I have come to faith in my God incarnate in Jesus and present in the Eucharist through my church, and I thank God for my church. And my membership of Christ's church is constituted by my Yes to that gift of God; the church itself is the community of people who are united in that faith. And I am united also in faith with others who belong to other churches or ecclesial communions, despite difference which we may not yet have overcome.
If another Christian accepts the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but does not describe as "transubstantiation" the mode by which that presence comes about, does this have to preclude us from sharing in Communion?
"Disunity still exists between the churches on core differences in belief and these differences create a fundamental barrier to inter-communion" (9). Yes, disunity exists, including "core differences."
But is it necessary that these differences have to create a fundamental barrier? Or could it be that Christians have decided, historically, that we must make them into a fundamental barrier, and that we have not yet seen our way to unmake that decision? If we really wanted to, if we really felt the pain, could we overcome those barriers?
"Disunity between the Christian churches is always difficult and a scandal. And not being able to share at the table of the Lord is painful. But this pain can stimulate us to search for unity" (13). But does it in fact stimulate us to that search for unity? If that pain were truly felt, would not the search for unity be far more prominently seen in the every- day lives of our churches? Is that search yet evident in each diocese, each parish? What percentage of our people are really aware of that pain?
WHAT percentage of our priests and ministers are really aware of that pain? What percentage of our bishops, moderators, etc. are really aware of that pain? How does it show?
We may show that pain by coming together at celebrations of the Eucharist, and there refraining from partaking. This can truly be painful, and it may be argued that this is the best way to go. Simply sharing in the Eucharist certainly must not be used as a way of papering over the cracks.
As Dr Connell says, there could be a blurring of the boundaries about what we believe about the Eucharist and about who we are (4). But perhaps we need also to listen to those who, genuinely feeling the pain, and who, aware of the discipline of their own church, decide (not lightly) that what the Lord wants of them in a particular situation is to share at the Lord's table in a different church. Whether they are few or many, what is the Spirit saying to the churches through those disciples? How will the churches listen?
Father Padraig McCarthy is a curate in the parish of Rathdrum, Co Wicklow
:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/irishtimes/SJQTLMCMMRC2PLALXUKEWWS6HU.png)