Coming this summer (July 17-21) is the USCCB’s $28 million project seeking to reinvigorate belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  The National Eucharistic Congress, which individuals can attend for $360 per person ($299 for parents and $250 per teen), states that its mission is “to restore understanding and devotion to this great mystery here in the United States by helping us renew our worship of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.”  But one thing that is certain to be omitted from the discussion is the very grave matter of providing Holy Communion to those obstinately persevering in grave, manifest sin, such as the divorced and “re-married,” same-sex “couples,” and pro-abortion politicians.  This, of course, is codified in Canon Law, specifically 915.

There are quite a few common arguments that tend to come from those who are either indifferent to the unworthy reception of Holy Communion, or who virulently support the provision of sacrilegious Communions, as was once promoted by the now deceased bishop Thomas Gumbleton.  Bp. Gumbleton once told supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ to continue receiving Holy Communion.  In this blog, we’ll look at some of the common statements found among those who try to make excuses for the unworthy reception of Holy Communion and compare those statements with firmly established Church teaching.

Statement 1: “Jesus, of course, cannot be defiled; nothing we do can defile Jesus, and He, naturally, can never ever be a source of defilement. Our hearts and minds—what we entertain within them and emit from them—are what pollute our souls.”

This statement suggests that Jesus is not defiled by those receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. This is exactly what St. Thomas Aquinas identified as objection 1 to the question, “Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ’s body sacramentally?” Here is how St. Thomas answers it:

“Reply to Objection 1. When Christ appeared under His proper species, He did not give Himself to be touched by men as a sign of spiritual union with Himself, as He gives Himself to be received in this sacrament. And therefore sinners in touching Him under His proper species did not incur the sin of lying to Godlike things, as sinners do in receiving this sacrament.

Furthermore, Christ still bore the likeness of the body of sin; consequently He fittingly allowed Himself to be touched by sinners. But as soon as the body of sin was taken away by the glory of the Resurrection, he forbade the woman to touch Him, for her faith in Him was defective, according to John 20:17: “Do not touch Me, for I am not yet ascended to My Father,” i.e. “in your heart,” as Augustine explains (Tract. cxxi in Joan.). And therefore sinners, who lack living faith regarding Christ are not allowed to touch this sacrament.”

Statement 2: “The Eucharist, although it is the fullness of sacramental life, is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.”

The fact of the matter is that medicine is for the sick, not the dead. The sacrament of reconciliation is the sacrament that raises the dead to life, which then makes the living capable of receiving Holy Communion.  St. Thomas Aquinas also addressed this suggestion:

“Reply to Objection 2. Every medicine does not suit every stage of sickness; because the tonic given to those who are recovering from fever would be hurtful to them if given while yet in their feverish condition. So likewise Baptism and Penance are as purgative medicines, given to take away the fever of sin; whereas this sacrament is a medicine given to strengthen, and it ought not to be given except to them who are quit of sin.”

Some will question what St. Paul meant about receiving the Eucharist unworthily while suggesting how an ignorant unbeliever may have been converted by receiving Communion before conversion with a statement like:

Statement 3: What did Saint Paul mean when he warned about “unworthy” reception of communion? Did it have more to do with confessing real belief, or a sinless state? I once knew an atheist who kept receiving Holy Communion because she felt drawn to it; now she is a nun.”

St. Thomas Aquinas has the answer:

“I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (Question 73, Article 6): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ’s mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.”

Some will suggest that Our Blessed Lord is indifferent to the possibility of sacrilege as if the question of whether Communion should be denied to public, unrepentant sinners is open-ended.

Statement 4: I think Jesus is happy that sinners are coming to Him in Holy Communion.  Don’t you think that grace will work on those who need the graces He supplies through Holy Communion?  If you deny certain people Holy Communion, aren’t you limiting God?”

Once again, St. Thomas Aquinas has already answered this question seven and a half centuries ago in “Article 6. Whether the priest ought to deny the body of Christ to the sinner seeking it?” St. Thomas Aquinas says:

“I answer that, a distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it. Hence Cyprian writes to someone (Ep. lxi): “You were so kind as to consider that I ought to be consulted regarding actors, end that magician who continues to practice his disgraceful arts among you; as to whether I thought that Holy Communion ought to be given to such with the other Christians. I think that it is beseeming neither the Divine majesty, nor Christian discipline, for the Church’s modesty and honor to be defiled by such shameful and infamous contagion.” 

If there is to be a true revival of belief of Christ’s True Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, then it must begin with repentance.  The very first word spoken in Our Lord’s public ministry is “Repent,” and He spent three years preaching on the importance of repentance, on avoiding sin, and on doing penance before He instituted the Holy Eucharist.  Consider the sublime words of Fr. Michael Muller (1825-1899), who in his book, “The Blessed Eucharist” wrote a chapter titled, On Unworthy Communion. (page 170-171):

“Herod concealed a wicked and cruel design. He was determined to destroy the new-born King of the Jews, and when he found that he had been disappointed, he slew, in his fury, all the children of Bethlehem and the neighborhood thereof. He did not, however, succeed in destroying the Divine Infant. St. Joseph, in obedience to the command of God, carried Him into Egypt. There he remained until the Angel of the Lord appeared again to St. Joseph and said: “Take the Child and His Mother, and return to thy country, for those that sought the life of the Child are dead.”

O Angel of God! What dost thou say? They are dead who sought the life of the Child? Ah! Would that it were true! Are not those wicked Christians who outrage their Saviour in the true Bethlehem, the house of bread, that is to say, at the very foot of the Sacred Altar, are they not so many Herods? They present themselves at the table of the Lord in the attitude of adoration; they strike their breasts as if in sorrow for their sins; they fold their hands as if in deep devotion, and they open those lips defiled by sin; they receive the innocent Lamb of God and make Him a prisoner in a sinful and polluted heart. Mortal sin is so opposed to God that, if He could die, sin would destroy Him. To receive our Lord into a heart that is defiled by mortal sin is to bring Him into the power of His greatest enemy – it is to treat Him with even greater cruelty than Herod. Herod was an unbelieving Jew; but those who receive Him unworthily are Christians and Catholics. They know whom they maltreat; Herod did not know Him. Our Lord does not work a miracle to deliver Himself out of their hands as He did to free Himself from the hands of Herod; He does not send an Angel to inform the priest who, among the throng that presses to the altar, are in the state of mortal sin; and even if He were to do so, the priest is not at liberty to make use of this knowledge, at least not unless the criminal should be a notorious sinner, so tender is Jesus of the reputation of those very men who are heaping outrages upon Him.”

It is a tragic scandal that the ongoing issues of Holy Communion being provided to notorious, unrepentant sinners isn’t even a topic of discussion at this National Eucharistic Congress.  How can anyone possibly believe that the bishops of the United States believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist if, like Judas, they are willing to present Our Lord to those who crucify Him in their hearts?  And do they really think that spending $28 million on a massive event that Catholics will have to pay hundreds of dollars to attend will do anything to instill greater belief in the True Presence?
 
Here’s an idea: Consider what the saints have done in the past to convert sinners and renew the faith?  Preach the Gospel.  Admonish the grave sins of the day.  Hold Eucharistic processions.  Do penance – REAL penance!  Return to the TRADITIONS of the Church.  If this is done, souls will be converted and the pews will begin to fill.  And the best part?  No one has to spend $28 million to do it.

About the Author

MICHAEL HICHBORN, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF LEPANTO INSTITUTE

Michael Hichborn, founder and president of the Lepanto Institute, is a well known public figure in the pro-life movement. Michael spent seven and a half years as American Life League’s Director of the Defend the Faith project. In this capacity, Michael has researched and produced an annual report on organizations receiving grant money from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. This annual report, exposing dozens of grantees that are promoting abortion, birth control, homosexuality and Marxism, has led to a nation-wide review of the CCHD and a tightening of its guidelines. Michael has also conducted research on Catholic hospital systems that are involved in the performance of abortions and sterilizations; he wrote a detailed report on abortion and contraception-providing organizations receiving money from Catholic Relief Services; and produced a detailed report on Obamacare and its danger to women, preborn babies and the elderly.

Michael holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Christendom College in Political Science and Economics and a Master’s degree in Education from American Intercontinental University.

In 2017, Michael became a member of the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family.  Michael lives in Virginia with his wife, Alyssa, and their seven children.