A brouhaha has erupted in Canada over the Prime Minister, who is an Evangelical Christian, receiving a consecrated host at a Catholic Mass, then appearing to walk away without consuming it (see the video here). Later, the Prime Minister’s office stated that he did consume it after returning to his seat, but for a Catholic, the real scandal is the fact that the presiding bishop:

1. gave communion to a known non-Catholic.
2. didn’t confirm that the host was consumed immediately after reception.

Regarding the second issue, I am reminded of an incident that occurred in my parish just a week ago. A young boy, who appeared to be mentally disabled, went up for communion. Our associate pastor first looked to the mom to confirm that he could receive communion, and when she nodded her assent, he gave the boy communion. However, the boy started to walk away without consuming the host. Our associate pastor stopped distributing communion and (gently) told the boy to consume the host immediately. He did not resume the distribution of communion until he was sure that the youngster did in fact consume the host. This is what a minister of the Blessed Sacrament is supposed to do: ensure that it is treated with the great respect that is should have.

Regarding the first issue (giving communion to a non-Catholic), this of course brings up the whole issue of “closed communion” vs. “open communion.” In the Catholic Church (as in the Orthodox Churches) we practice closed communion, meaning only a member of our church in good standing should receive communion. This causes no end of confusion and problems in America (and apparently Canada as well) as just about every other Christian group practices some form of open communion.

But what it reflects is radically different understandings of what communion is. In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, communion – the Eucharist – is the central act of worship and the means by which we are united in one Body, the Church. As Henri de Lubac said, “The Eucharist makes the Church.” It is the central mystery of our faith. This is not merely a symbolic reenactment of the Last Supper, but a participation in the Paschal mysteries.

Partaking of the Eucharist intimately unites a person to Christ, as well as to everyone else who partakes worthily of the sacrament. In many ways, it is analogous to marital relations – it both represents an existing union as well as strengthens that union. So to partake of that union when one has not been initiated into the relationship – by the sacramental wedding ceremony for marital relations and reception into the Church for the Eucharist – is to betray at a very fundamental level that intimate union.

Of course, the Canadian Prime Minister most likely didn’t realize that he was doing something that would offend Catholic sensibilities. But that is why the presiding priest (or, as in this case, bishop) should be vigilant, especially in cases in which it is know that many non-Catholics are in attendance. A priest casually handing out communion to anyone and everyone is like a father who allows boys to come and go into his daughter’s room without supervision.

There is an interesting commentary at the CNN website by the former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court who is calling for the end to “disposable marriage.” She tells a heartbreaking story about the damage caused to her own family by divorce, and she (correctly) sees the ease in which a divorce can be obtained as extremely detrimental to our society:

No-fault divorce’s broad acceptance as an unquestioned social good helped usher in an era that fundamentally altered the seriousness with which marriage is viewed. It effectively ended marriage as a legal contract since either party can terminate it, with or without cause. This leaves many people struggling to remake their lives after painful divorces that they do not want. It also left many parents cut off from, or sidelined in, the lives of the children they love….

This may sound like heresy, but I believe the United States and a host of Western democracies are engaged in an unintended campaign to diminish the importance of marriage and fatherhood. By refusing to do everything we can to stem the rising rate of divorce and unwed childbearing, our country often isolates fathers (and sometimes mothers) from their children and their families.

There is a lot of controversy today about homosexual “marriage” and its possible harmful effects on marriage in our society. But my personal opinion is that the institution of marriage in our culture has already been fatally wounded by the unholy trinity of contraception, pornography and easy divorce.

The desire to normalize homosexual “marriages” is only the consequence of these other, previous, attacks on marriage. Contraception within marriage broke the inherent connection between marriage and child-bearing. Easy access to pornography lead to the objectification of other people for our own personal sexual desires. And easy divorce turned marriage into a contract instead of a covenant between a man and a woman. All of these factors radically changed what marriage is, so that the idea of a “marriage” between two men or two women is no longer seen as an abnormality, but instead as a matter of justice.

Blessed Louis and Zélie Martin, pray for us!

This week we celebrate the feast days of two men who were martyred – both beheaded – for defending the sanctity of marriage.

Monday the 22nd was the feast day of St. Thomas More, who refused to support the invalid marriage between King Henry and Anne Boleyn.

Today, the 24th, is the feast day of St. John the Baptist, who denounced the invalid marriage between the ruler Herod and Herod’s sister-in-law Herodias.

Both of these saints are great examples for our times. We live in an age in which destructive forces – primarily contraception, pornography and easy divorce – have been unleashed against the institution of marriage. It is now considered an accomplishment if a married couple makes it to their 10th anniversary. Yet both St. Thomas More and St. John the Baptist realized how important marriage is to our salvation. It is not an accessory in our path to heaven – it is a vital component on that path. Even those who forsake marriage for a higher calling in their own lives are to be raised within the confines of a loving, stable marriage.

Marriage has been with us since the creation of man and woman, but Christ elevated this natural institution to supernatural levels by making marriage a sacrament. He has infused it with untold graces so that we are given divine assistance in our own marriages. Please pray for all married couples today.

St. Thomas More and St. John the Baptist, pray for us and all marriages!

Last Saturday, my parish hosted a wonderful event: Andy Davy, a Marian brother, was ordained a priest. Having an ordination at a local parish is exceptional enough, but Fr. Davy’s ordination was especially touching: it was the fifth sacrament he has received at St. John Neumann. He was baptized, made his first confession, received first communion, and confirmed at our parish. Furthermore, his parents are founding members of the parish and his father is a permanent deacon here! Fr. Davy is a holy and faithful priest, and it was an honor for the parish to be part of such a special occasion.

You can read a very nice article about this event in our diocesan paper.

Pray for Fr. Davy and all the Marians as they spread the message of Divine Mercy to the world.

What a beautiful story:

The world-record-breaking oldest primary school student, a Kenyan great-grandfather, was baptized after he learned to read the Bible.

Kimani Ng’ang’a Maruge, the Guinness World Record holder for being the oldest person to enter primary school at age 84, was baptized Sunday at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Kariobangi, east of Nairobi, Ecumenical News International reported Monday.

Now 90 years old, Maruge chose the baptismal name “Stephen” as he stated, “I commit my life to God, from now until the end.”

“I decided to be baptized after reading the Bible,” he explained.

In a wheelchair due to stomach cancer, the new Catholic added: “I read the Bible and came across the name Stephen. This is a name for those who have endured hardships like me.”

Read the whole story.

President Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was recently baptized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons).

She’s been dead for 14 years.

This is an example of the bizarre practice of the Mormon church called “baptism for the dead,” in which Mormons posthumously baptize people by proxy. (Many people don’t realize that this is a primary impetus for their famed genealogy work; as they discover their ancestors they perform these proxy baptisms for them.)

I had some discussions with Mormon missionaries recently, and when this topic came up their sole source for this belief is 1 Corinthians 15:28-29:

When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will (also) be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

There are many problems with the Mormon exegesis of this passage (for one, nowhere does Paul actually condone the practice, he just mentions it in the context of another discussion), but I think the bigger problem is that this is an extreme example of sola scriptura (which is ironic, since Mormons claim to reject sola scriptura). Nowhere is there any evidence that the Christian Church practiced a “baptism for the dead” at any time in its history. Furthermore, the Church’s practice of baptism has never allowed for a “proxy” in the place of the recipient, especially in a situation in which the recipient doesn’t even know about it! This would run counter to the underlying reason for baptism, i.e. one’s personal inclusion into the family of God. And baptizing a dead person is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that baptism brings new life to the believer. Yet in spite of all this the Mormon church yanks this verse out of context and develops an entire doctrine out of it (this is similar to the fundamentalist invention of the “rapture”).

The Catholic understanding of Divine Revelation is more holistic: we believe that there are two means by which revelation has come to us – Scripture and Tradition – and we believe that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church is the authoritative teacher of that revelation. This three-pronged approach helps to prevent such egregious cases of ripping verses out of the context of the life of the Church. Read Dei Verbum for a beautiful exposition of the Church’s understanding of Divine Revelation.

For a more detailed explanation of the problems with “baptism for the dead,” see this page from Catholic Answers.

The rise of the Swine Flu has started the inevitable debates about which is more sanitary – receiving communion on the hand or the tongue? I’m not a doctor, so I don’t really know the answer to that question – and I’ve heard convincing arguments for both practices. My own opinion is that you can’t avoid contact with other people, so you just have to accept that living involves a bit of risk.

I have always received on the tongue and I have taught my own children to do the same (the picture on the right is my daughter receiving her First Communion this past Saturday – isn’t it beautiful?). I accept the legitimacy of receiving in the hand – if the Church approves a practice, then it is fine by me. I also don’t think one is more “traditional” than the other. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century taught his catechumens to “make their hands a throne to receive the king.”

Yet my own personal preference is to receive on the tongue. I have two main reasons for doing so. The first is that it is a special sign of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. By treating this food differently than all other foods, I am reminding myself of the unique nature of the Bread of Life. It is not just another meal in which I feed myself, but instead it is the food which brings eternal life.

Another reason is that by receiving on the tongue I am acknowledging that my reception of the Eucharist is completely an act of God. When I receive on the tongue, all I do is open my mouth to receive the host – I am completely dependent upon the priest (or Eucharistic minister) to put the Eucharist in my mouth. Likewise, without God’s grace, I would not even be at Mass receiving His Son – I am completely dependent upon Him to be there.

I have heard some say that receiving in the hand is more “adult-like,” in that you actively participate in taking the host and consuming it. But I prefer to receive on the tongue for exactly the opposite reason: I am acknowledging that I am a child of God and I need to be fed by Him. When I receive communion, I need to be completely submissive and receptive, just like a little child.

This past Saturday was my youngest daughter’s First Communion. It was a beautiful day, and it was such a joy to see her receive Jesus for the first time.

(Related story: last night we were putting away her First Communion dress, and she was very sad: “I don’t want to put it away, I’m never going to wear it again.” My oldest daughter, always the pragmatist, then responded, “Well, you’ll be able to wear one like it on your wedding day.”)

One of the things we try to impress upon our children is the intrinsic connection between communion and confession. Our daughter’s first confession was back in January, and we have made sure to take her to confession each month since then, including the week before her First Communion. The Church encourages us to live a “sacramental life,” and in practice this primarily means frequent reception of both communion and confession. Most spiritual directors suggest going to confession once a month, although many saints went even more frequently. So each month we make sure our entire family goes to confession; fortunately for my family, confession is regularly available at my parish as well as some surrounding parishes.

With the Easter Octave over, the Gospel readings will now come from the Gospel of John for the rest of the Easter season. The readings start with chapters 3 and 6 of John’s Gospel. Chapter 3 is Christ’s discussion of baptism with Nicodemus, and chapter 6 is the Eucharistic discourse after the multiplication of the loaves.

The Church places these readings here to remind us of our response to the resurrection of Christ. This is not just an event that occurred 2,000 years ago and we recall fondly as an interesting historical occurrence. It is something that we participate in; we too can be transformed by Christ’s death and resurrection. And it is the sacraments that make this participation possible. St. Paul tells us that “we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death…We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4).

What a gift are the sacraments! Through them we become intimately united with the saving works of our Lord and thus can become more like him every day.

A common misconception about St. Paul is that he did not have a sacramental view of salvation. Many today, including more than a few Catholics, believe that Paul taught a sort of “proto-Protestantism” in which faith is the only necessary component of salvation, and things like the sacraments are at best “extras” which are not an integral part of the Gospel. I’d like to recommend two resources to show the fallacy in that assumption.

In St. Paul: A Bible Study for Catholics, Fr. Mitch Pacwa details Paul’s teaching on six of the seven sacraments (Paul doesn’t mention the anointing of the sick in any of his surviving letters). It is a short, readable book that quickly dismisses the idea that Paul didn’t accept the importance of the sacraments in the Christian life.

Also, I wrote an article last year titled Paul and the Sacraments in which I examine Paul’s teaching on the role of the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist in his concept of salvation. An excerpt:

The sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist did not originate with Paul, but instead were already established within the Christian Church of his day. Paul himself was baptized (Acts 9:18), and he assumes it as a common experience of Christians (Rom 6:1-4, Gal 3:26-28). Likewise, when speaking of the Eucharist, Paul states clearly that it is something he “received” (1 Cor 11:23), not something he invented. While it is true that in the Pauline corpus, there is little detailed discussion of these two sacraments, this is due to the nature of his letters, which were written to address specific topics and controversies of the communities to whom they were addressed. One can deduce from the content of Paul’s letters that he did not feel the need to address controversies regarding a “sacramental theology.” When Paul does address Baptism and the Eucharist, it is almost always in an ethical context.

However, it would be a mistake to assume from this that these two sacraments are unimportant to Paul, or not an integral part of his theology. When it suits his argument, Paul does not hesitate to use the realities of these sacraments to further his view. Some point towards Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 as evidence that he denigrated Baptism. However, this passage is not a statement on the essential role of Baptism in the Christian life, but instead simply a reminder from Paul that his specific mission from Christ is to “preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17), not to administer Baptism. Furthermore, one must understand the context in which these letters were received and read. Paul’s letters are typically intended for a specific ecclesia (1 Cor 1:2, 2 Cor 1:1, Gal 1:2, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Thess 1:1, Philem 1:2). Meeks and especially Zizioulas show that, for Paul, an ecclesia is specifically the Eucharistic gathering of the community of believers. Thus, the context of the reading of Paul’s letters is within the Eucharistic liturgy. Thus Paul does not build a true “sacramental theology;” nevertheless these two sacraments are fundamental parts of his overall theology of salvation.

For Paul, both Baptism and the Eucharist are a participation in the saving works of Christ which bring about an incorporation and union with Christ and a corporate union with all other believers. These effects have ethical implications for the believer, and ultimately point towards the parousia, when Christ will come again and bring all his followers into his kingdom.

In this year of St. Paul, it is good to try to set the record straight about what he really taught!

Here is something to contemplate today:

Without the Cross, the Eucharist would remain mere ritual; without the Eucharist, the Cross would be merely a horrible profane event.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, p. 98

My daughter recently received the sacrament of confession for the first time, and it reminded me of the beauty of this gift given to us by Jesus. I am very fortunate to belong to a parish which emphasizes the importance of confession; the sacrament is available here every day and twice on Saturday, and our pastor never tires of emphasizing the value of this great means of repentance and reconciliation.

Yesterday, the Pope urged us all to frequent this sacrament, noting how our sins separate us from God like leprosy separated one from his community in Jesus’ time. And as yesterday’s readings showed, it just took the touch of Jesus to heal this man and restore him to fellowship with others.