"It is strange that bars and restaurants can open but churches are limited to just ten people", said Fr Pete Roe the Parish Administrator of St Francis of Assisi parish of Ohariu, Wellington.

Roe says the thriving parish normally has over 1,000 attendees and was already struggling with how to cater for congregations of what it thought would be one hundred.

"But now it's just ten, and it's the limit the Government has put on one table in a restaurant", Roe said.

He observed that Churches generally have more space than restaurants.

With no projection on when Churches might be allowed even one hundred Roe says that Churches are left in limbo.

"Do we have to wait for Level One?" he asked.

Roe is sensitive to those who at this point may feel uncomfortable about coming out of lockup straight back to church but says it is ultimately about people's choice.

He admits that some parish procedures will need to change. For example, contact tracing would be a little strange for parishioners but said that it is not an impossibility.

"We know it's not business as usual and there's an element of new wine and new wineskins in these times", Roe said, referring to Matthew 9:17.

Last evening the New Zealand Catholic Bishops also expressed surprise at Jacinda Ardern's decision.

"Many people will be disappointed in this news of more restricted gatherings than expected but others will be grateful for more time to prepare safely," the bishops commented on Facebook.

The bishops are inviting on the faithful to reflect on Romans 12:12, "Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer".

They say they are looking at the details of the announcement with urgency.

Little churches

The decision to limit church congregations to ten means the Wellington Ohariu parish will further its investigation into a concept it is calling Little Churches.

"Normally Churches are the opposite of little; they are for all-comers, yet we're being limited to in effect minister to the few," said Roe.

Roe acknowledges that not everyone will be comfortable with the Little Churches concept.

Little churches is an alternative way of gathering for worship based on the practice of the early Christians as recorded in The Acts of Apostles.

As part of a parish survey, the leadership team in St Francis of Assisi parish of Ohariu, Wellington is asking for parishioners for feedback on a proposal to establish little churches.

The little churches concept is a limited assembly of up to 10 of parishioners gathering in a home for worship that includes prayer and possibly to receive the Eucharist.

In support of the idea the parish notes The Acts of Apostles records:

• "Every day, they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people". (Acts 2:46 -47).
• "Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah". (Acts 5:42)

"The model of Little Churches can be considered as being akin to a parish ecclesia (assembly) in which the gathering happens in many different rooms," the parish says in its newsletter.

The parish has identified several practical issues that need to be resolved, including:

• Identification of leaders
• Identification of participants
• Protocols around people meeting safely in homes
• Protocols around the safe distribution of the communion hosts
• Preparation of a worship outline that will give facilitators some direction and
  confidence in running such a group.

The St Francis of Assisi leaderships hopes that in facilitating the establishment of Little Churches, they will become like living cells, both nurturing and being sustained by the body as a whole.

The team say they realise that the implementation of the concept of Little Churches will need to develop.

They also acknowledge there are some whom it may pose too high a risk, and there will be some to whom the idea will not appeal.

Source

• Supplied; St Francis of Assisi Ohariu Parish
• Facebook
• Image: tuimotu.org

A myriad of health conditions resulting in his being tube-fed since he was three months old have prevented him from consuming the Eucharist.

Nonetheless, Gannucci has always wanted to be able to receive the Body of Christ.

And so he did - on 3 June this year, just before he turned 21. It is the only solid food he has ever consumed.

Practice and prayer

For Gannucci, to swallow the Eucharist required a year's practice and a lot of prayer each day with his family.

Father Richard Kunst has known Gannucci all his life.  He prepared him for his first Reconciliation two years ago and recognises Gannucci's faith.

Gannucci, who also has a learning disability, impressed Kunst with his longing to receive the Eucharist.

His grasp of the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host was impressive, Kunst told the National Catholic Register.

His hunger for Jesus in the Eucharist continued to grow. His first reconciliation and his niece's first Communion saw him arguing his case harder.

Supportive family

"Paul has a very simple faith" his father told the Register.

"He has great trust. We had been wanting Paul to receive all the sacraments for years, and we put it in God's hands to determine when that time would come. Our whole family trusted that Jesus would make this happen."

Night after night for months, his father gave him a little water and a fragment of unconsecrated wafer Kunst had provided.

Initially he would gag and retch even over that tiny piece, his father said.

Eventually he was reliably able to swallow an entire host.

An inspiration

Gannucci also wanted to be confirmed. After checking with his bishop, Kunst was permitted to administer this sacrament.

He chose a patron saint - "Padre Pio" - St Pio of Pietrelcina.

He celebrated his first Communion and confirmation with his immediate family, many extended family members and about 45 weekday Mass attendees.

When Kunst explained the unfolding events to the weekday congregants they were delighted. Some wept when Gannucci received the sacraments.

Later, several spoke of relatives unable to receive the Eucharist because of physical limitations.

"This gives them hope that maybe this can happen for their family member as well" his mother said.

His father hopes his son's story will impact other Catholics.

"The biggest thing is that it is truly Jesus that we are receiving" he said.

"So many Catholics nowadays don't even believe in that — when they have such a great treasure! We know how important it is to receive Jesus. Other people maybe will rethink it if they don't believe in the True Presence."

Kunst hopes "Paul's story and his earnest desire for this will inspire people, including those of us who might take it for granted because we receive it all the time. God's timing is perfect".

Gannucci now receives the Eucharist whenever possible. It remains the only solid food he consumes.

Source

• National Catholic Register

Parishes and other Catholic institutions around the country sponsored adult education programmes to promote this final stage of a three-year eucharistic revival launched by the U.S. bishops.

The revival itself has been subject to what I see as fair criticism, yet LGBTQ Catholics who remain in the church because of their devotion to the sacrament offer a witness to the longing of the faithful to be present with Jesus.

A major focus of the revival is on the Real Presence and on eucharistic adoration in particular. Photos of monstrances abound.

Unfortunately, this overemphasis on the presence of the Lord in the eucharistic elements overshadows the fact that the Eucharist is primarily an event, an action.

An action word

The Eucharist is better thought of as a verb than as a noun. To be fair, the revival campaign has included other aspects of the Eucharist, but adoration seems to have predominated.

Speakers at the Congress were generally those who favored a pre-Vatican II theology instead of the Liturgy Constitution's affirmation of multiple aspects of Christ's true presence in the eucharistic celebration: the proclamation of the Word, the minister, the assembly and the consecrated body and blood of the Lord.

It seems to me that the millions of dollars spent on the revival — and especially on the Congress — would have been far better spent on programmes improving liturgical preaching, music and formation in general.

The Mystery of the Eucharist

In 2021, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued the pastoral letter, "The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church."

This document was inspired by two factors.

The first was a concern to urge Catholics to return to Mass in person as the Covid pandemic waned.

The second was a 2019 poll that found only one-third of U.S. Catholics knew the church's teaching on transubstantiation, the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated eucharistic elements.

(One caution: The survey results show a much higher correlation between frequent Mass attendance and belief in the true presence.)

Much of the buzz around the bishops' document concerned rumors that some bishops might use it to recommend witholding holy Communion from politicians supporting abortion access or same-sex marriage.

In fact, the final version of the document only reiterated canon law's restriction on denying communion to those who publicly persist in manifest grave sin (Canon 915).

Christ is the true source of our life, and we experience him in our celebration of the Eucharist so that we might become his embodied presence in a world which so desperately needs it.

Individual bishops are at liberty to apply that canon as they wish, as Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco did with regard to then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in 2022.

The document did not really break any new ground.

The bishops were apparently satisfied that the sharply critical analysis of Monsignor Kevin W. Irwin, a theologian and professor at the Catholic University of America, could have been written before Vatican II. Read more

• John F Baldovin SJ teaches liturgy and sacraments at the Boston College Clough School of Theology and Ministry.

Instead, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops put its time, effort and money into a national programme called the Eucharistic Revival.

It was not impossible to do both programmes, but as any pastor will tell you, doing two major programmes at once in a parish is very difficult.

It is hard enough to do just one programme while keeping all the other parish activities rolling along.

With a little bit of effort, the two programmes could have complemented each other instead of being in conflict. After all, synodality makes for a better Eucharist, and the Eucharist creates and nourishes synodality.

Both are about communion, participation and mission.

"In its broadest sense," according to the synthesis report from the October 2023 meeting of the synod, "synodality can be understood as Christians walking in communion with Christ toward the Kingdom along with the whole of humanity."

"Its orientation is towards mission," says the report, "and its practice involves gathering in assembly at each level of ecclesial life.

"It involves reciprocal listening, dialogue, community discernment, and creation of consensus as an expression that renders Christ present in the Holy Spirit, each taking decisions in accordance with their responsibilities."

A central part of the parish and diocesan phase of the synodal process is "conversation in the Spirit," in which participants in groups of 10 listen to each other about issues facing the Church.

The process builds communion and encourages participation in the mission of Jesus.

It is easy to see how this process could translate into participation in the Eucharist, the sacrament of Communion that empowers the Christian community to participate in the mission of Jesus of spreading the good news of the Father's love and our responsibility to love all our brothers and sisters.

But the Eucharistic Revival has a completely different focus.

It is more about Benediction, where the consecrated bread is worshipped, than the Eucharist, where the community is fed.

The impetus for the Eucharistic Revival came from the bishops' fear that the faithful no longer believe in the real presence in the Eucharist.

In fact, many Catholics do not even understand what the Church teaches about it.

Pew Research

According to the Pew Research Center, "More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45 percent) do not know that their Church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolise but actually become the body and blood of Christ."

Pew found that Catholics believed that the bread and wine were only symbols of Christ's presence.

"Nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69 percent) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion ‘are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ,'" according to Pew.

"Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31 percent) say they believe that ‘during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.'"

Others, including the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, have challenged Pew's research, but Pew's findings caused a panic among the bishops that resulted in them budgeting $28 million for the Eucharistic Revival, although the budget was later reduced to $14 million.

Benediction vs Eucharist

From its inception, the Eucharistic Revival was about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

The revival included Eucharistic processions and Benediction in parishes and dioceses and culminates with a National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis from July 17-21, where thousands from all over the country are expected to attend.

But, I repeat, the revival is more about Benediction than the Eucharist.

Benediction is all about worshipping Jesus.

The Eucharist is about worshipping the Father and transforming the community into the Body of Christ.

Christ is not made present on the altar table so that we can worship him. He is present so that we can eat him and become what we eat.

The revival focuses on individual rather than community.

• It focuses on me and Jesus rather than the communion of Christians.
• It focuses on what happens to bread and wine rather than what happens to the community.
• It focuses on personal experience rather than mission.

Let me make clear. There is nothing wrong with Benediction, but it is not the Eucharist.

Jesus did not institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper so that we could worship him.

His focus was always on the Father, not himself.

If we listen to the Eucharistic prayer as recited by the priest for the community, we give praise and thanks to the Father for all he has done for us, especially for sending Jesus with the good news of the Father's love and compassion for us.

We pray not to Jesus but "through him, with him and in him in the unity of the Holy Spirit" to the Father.

We remember Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

During the Eucharistic prayer we ask for the Spirit to transform us into the body of Christ so that we can continue his mission of bringing justice, peace and love to the world.

Synodality is about communion, participation and mission; so, too, is the Eucharist.

Too bad the Eucharistic Revival is not.

• First published in RNS
• Thomas J. Reese, SJ is an American Catholic Jesuit priest, author, and journalist. He is a senior analyst at Religion News Service

For example, a 2019 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center claimed that many Catholics had lost a spiritual connection with the Eucharist at Mass.

While more recent polls suggest that Catholics may understand eucharistic theology better than the prior poll found, there still seems to be a general lack of awareness about what the Church teaches about the sacrament.

This summer will see the conclusion of the Eucharistic Revival movement in the United States.

This three-year programme began on June 19, 2022, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, and it will conclude with the Tenth National Eucharistic Congress this Saturday in Indianapolis.

Changing perspective

One suggestion for reviving the meaning of the Eucharist, which I would like to propose here, is to shift our perspective on the sacrament.

Much of the current discussion concerns what we receive in holy Communion, focusing upon the host and consuming the body of Christ. Of course, this is necessary for a discussion of the Eucharist.

However, we hear less discussion about what happens to those of us who partake of the Lord's Supper, namely, the expectation that we should be transformed by this celebration.

The Eucharist involves a receiving and a sending forth.

Indeed, in one promotional notice for the Revival, we read a statement from Pope Francis in which he describes the Eucharist as "a summons to go forth, as missionaries to bring the message of the Father's tenderness, forgiveness and mercy to every man, woman and child."

This statement seems to follow an earlier declaration by Pope St. John Paul II, in his 1980 encyclical "Dominicae Cenae" ("The Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist"). Here John Paul II explained:

"The authentic sense of the Eucharist becomes of itself the school of active love for neighbor . . .

"Let us learn to discover with respect the truth about the inner self that becomes the dwelling-place of God present in the Eucharist . . . (and) how the image of each and every one changes when we become aware of this reality . . .

"The sense of the Eucharistic mystery leads us to love for our neighbor, to love for every human being" (6)

Celebrating the Eucharist should transform Christians into compassionate missionaries for Christ who practice active love for their neighbour.

With this in mind, perhaps the U.S. church could gain a greater appreciation for the Eucharist from the perspective of the LGBTQ community, that is to say, from those who have been marginalised in society.

Jesus is for everyone

Jesus promised to gather everyone.

Upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem — on Palm Sunday — Jesus announced to a crowd of people, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself."

In his Gospel, St. John explains, "He said this indicating the kind of death he would die" (Jn. 12:32-33). He would be lifted up on a cross.

Earlier in the Gospel, John records Jesus making another reference to being lifted up. He said, "And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life" (Jn. 3:14-15).

Moses saved the Israelites by lifting up a serpent.

At one point in their long exodus through the desert, they were attacked by seraphs, poisonous snakes with a burning bite.

Moses pleaded to God for help. God instructed him to wrap a snake around a pole, hold it up high for all to see and those who look upon it will be saved.

Moses followed the Lord's instruction. He wrapped a bronze replica of a seraph around a pole and lifted it up. Those who looked upon it were saved (Num. 21:8-9).

Jesus remembers the story of Moses as he imagines himself being lifted up for execution.

Those who see him and believe will be saved. There is a great irony here: the very thing that threatened people became the sign of their salvation.

When Christians gather to celebrate the Eucharist, Sunday after Sunday, we remember the body of the Lord lifted up for our salvation, and we remember his promise that he will draw everyone to himself.

For the Jewish disciples of Jesus, they would have remembered the Passover lamb, whose blood was painted on their ancestors' doorposts, signaling their fidelity to the covenant with God and saving their first-born child from death. Jesus of Nazareth became the Passover lamb which saved his followers.

Re-membering

As we pray in the liturgy, "This is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me."

By this memory we are not merely recalling an event of more than 2,000 years ago. Rather, it is more like a "re-membering" in which we are made members once again with Jesus Christ and with one another.

In light of this re-membering, we recall the many people Jesus welcomed into his company who were shunned by the greater society.

For example, recall the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4:7-30), and the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk. 10:29-37).

Remember Zacchaeus, the short tax collector who was desperate to see Jesus (Lk. 19:1-10), and the weeping woman who crashed a dinner party so she could wash Jesus' feet (Lk. 7:36-50), as well as that most ungrateful young man, the Prodigal Son, whose father welcomed him home with a feast (Luke 15:11-32).

Either by law or by custom these individuals were considered offensive or outcast, yet Jesus shows us how God draws them into the eternal embrace and how they were transformed. Jesus moved beyond the barriers of social standards.

This movement illustrates what Pope Francis called going out to the peripheria.

The periphery of society is where we find those who have been marginalised, lacking a voice or any social status.

Jesus reached out to the people on the periphery. Those who accept him are transformed. So much of Christian discipleship is about being transformed by Christ.

• Thomas J. Scirghi, S.J.is an associate professor of theology at Fordham, where he specialises in the theology of sacraments and liturgy, as well as the theory and practice of preaching.

US Bishops hope it will be a culminating moment in the Church in the country's three-year revival to inspire people to encounter Jesus in the Eucharist.

It will be the United States' first National Eucharistic Congress since World War II.

Waning belief in the real presence

US bishops launched the multiyear National Eucharistic Revival in 2022.

They did so because they were concerned about American Catholics' waning belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

They aim to "renew the Church by enkindling a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ in the holy Eucharist".

Eucharistic pilgrimages

Organisers say by last week 51,000 people had bought tickets for the Eucharistic Congress.

"There is a lot of energy and excitement to finally be on the precipice of this moment that we've been building up to for so long" they say.

The event is the climax of four Eucharistic pilgrimages in the US during the past two months.

Traversing the country, the pilgrims have been carrying the Blessed Sacrament across the United States.

Over 100,000 people have taken part in those pilgrimages which will join together in Indianapolis.

Once there they will process into the Lucas Oil Stadium during the Eucharist Congress opening ceremony next Wednesday, 24 July.

Congress plans

Keynote speakers at the opening ceremony will include US nuncio Cardinal Christophe Pierre, Sister Bethany Madonna of the Sisters of Life, and Bishop Andrew Cozzens of Crookston, Minnesota.

During the opening ceremony, Cozzens will carry the Blessed Sacrament in a massive monstrance created specifically for the congress, while the thousands present will pray together in Eucharistic adoration.

Liturgies, service opportunities, Eucharistic adoration, reconciliation and impact sessions aimed at fostering deep spiritual renewal and unity among attendees are among the plans for the congress.

Breakout sessions each morning of the five-day event will enable clergy, families, young people and ministry leaders to meet among themselves to develop formation tailored to their state in life and mission.

They will also be able to pray with relics from several saints including the soon-to-be-canonised Blessed Carlo Acutis and "the Veil of Our Lady" at a specially designated reliquary chapel within the Convention Center.

Papal envoy attending

Cardinal Luis Tagle from the Vatican's Dicastery for Evangelisation will attend the Eucharistic Congress on the Pope's behalf.

He will offer the closing Mass for the congress on July 21.

Pope Francis has extended a special blessing to all those attending the National Eucharistic Congress.

In a letter published by the Vatican in Latin earlier this month Francis expressed his hopes for the event and those attending it.

He said he hopes "all participants ...will be encouraged so that, united with Jesus in the Most Sacred Sacrament of our redemption, they are fully aware of the universal gifts they receive from heavenly food and can impart them to others".

Source

• CNA

Father Casey Cole, dressed in liturgical vestments, pretended to say the words of consecration, raising a host in a short video that garnered 9.7 million views on Instagram and 1.1 million on TikTok.

The video, which quickly went viral, left many viewers confused. Cole had digitally inserted himself into an old talent show episode, a fact not immediately clear to many.

Some viewers thought the performance was real, prompting Cole to release a follow-up video explaining the joke and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

"I inserted myself into an old episode of 'America's Got Talent'" Cole said.

He had thought that this was obvious. For many, however, it wasn't. "But it was meant as a joke".

In his clarification, Cole explained that he had intended to highlight the significance of the Eucharist, not mock it.

"But what we should praise is what the Lord does for us: He comes to us to save us."

He emphasised that the Eucharist is a profound sacrament, transforming bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Mixed reactions

Despite his explanation, reactions to the video were mixed.

Some viewers appreciated Cole's message and humour.

"Father, I fully understand your intention in producing this video. We should be so excited and in awe every Sunday at Mass" one Instagram comment reads.

"I love your message and I love your humour!" another wrote: "It made me want to go to mass! I love Jesus!!!" was another comment.

However, many others expressed disapproval.

"No Catholic priest would ever disregard the Eucharist and break bread just for entertainment. It's sacrilege" writes one user on Instagram.

Another commented "This is not funny at all. I see the good intention here but please DO NOT do this, don't mock the sacrifice of our Lord just to get a few likes. That's not right".

Cole defended his approach, stating that he intended to evangelise and promote faith through modern means.

The Franciscan friar runs a blog called "Breaking In The Habit" which aims to spread the Franciscan spirit and encourage spiritual vocations. He gave his assurance that the host in the video was not actually consecrated.

Sources

Katholisch

A video experience of the Eucharist might have value if it makes people hunger for the real thing, but as an alternative for showing up to church, it is the ecclesial equivalent of substituting a cooking channel for a dinner with family or friends.

It is time for the church to tell priests to stop broadcasting the Eucharist.

A pastoral need

Prior to the pandemic, watching the Mass on television was a rarity, limited to EWTN customers and the occasional major papal ceremony.

Regular broadcasts were principally aimed at shut-ins and the sick.

I support continuing limited broadcasting to such parishioners as long as they are brought Communion from the parish Mass they had watched online.

During the pandemic, it was difficult, if not impossible, to celebrate the Eucharist in parishes because of the fear of contagion.

In many places public health officials told people, especially the elderly, to stay home rather than risk the possibility of infection.

One pastoral response to the pandemic was to make the Eucharist available for watching online.

A new normal

We have become so accustomed to online Eucharists that they are viewed as normal and appropriate.

Many parishes continue to stream the Eucharist live even though the pandemic has passed.

With the streaming equipment already installed, the cost is minimal. Pastors, meanwhile, don't want to give up the online donations.

And the momentum is likely to continue.

If not banned, remotely observed Eucharists may become even more common as the church's way of dealing with a shortage of priests.

Taking online Eucharists to their logical conclusion, people could try to receive Communion from the comfort of home.

Bread and wine could be put in front of the screen, and the priest could consecrate them from afar.

If God is powerful enough to change the bread and wine when it is on the altar a short distance from the priest, isn't God powerful enough to do it at a distance of thousands of miles?

Miracles don't require proximity.

The communal meal

A fully remote Eucharist would be counter to the church's communal view of the Eucharist. It would see the Eucharist not as a communal meal but as individualistic nourishment.

An online Eucharist puts us in our own bubble and separates us from community and place.

It turns the church from a community of the disciples of Christ into an online delivery service, like Domino's Pizza.

The church has a history of doing stupid things with the Eucharist.

For centuries, the Eucharist was celebrated in a language the people did not understand.

For centuries, people were told to adore the consecrated bread but not to eat it.

Streaming the Eucharist online continues a pattern of not understanding the true meaning of the Eucharist.

A liturgical option

While watching the Eucharist online is nonsensical, however, broadcasting the Liturgy of the Word makes eminent sense.

The Word can be shared in many forms: spoken, written, in churches, in homes, televised and online. A meal can only be shared in person.

Curtailing the broadcasting of the Eucharist may cause pastoral pain for some, pain equivalent to putting the Mass into the vernacular.

The change should be preceded by appropriate catechesis that would prepare people for the change.

The change will not deny the Eucharist to people; they don't have the Eucharist now. They only have an illusion of the Eucharist.

• First published in Religion News Service
• The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at Religion News Service (RNS).

Sadly, in many parts of the world there is a Eucharistic famine, precisely because there are no priests to celebrate the Eucharist. This problem has been going on for decades and is only getting worse.

Last year, the Vatican reported that while the number of Catholics worldwide increased by 16.2 million in 2021, the number of priests decreased by 2,347.

As a result, on average there were 3,373 Catholics for every priest in the world (including retired priests), a rise of 59 people per priest.

The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reports that in 1965 there were 59,426 priests in the United States. In 2022, there were only 34,344 .

Over much the same period, the number of Catholics has increased to 72.5 million in 2022, from 54 million in 1970.

Priests are also getting older. In 2012, a CARA study found that the average age of priests rose to 63 in 2009, from 35 in 1970.

When a Jesuit provincial, the regional director of the order, told Jesuits at a retirement home not long ago that there was a waiting list to get in, a resident wag responded, "We are dying as fast as we can."

In many rural areas of the United States, priests no longer staff parishes but simply visit parishes once a month or less frequently. In 1965, there were only 530 parishes without priests. By 2022, there were 3,215 according to CARA.

All of these numbers are only going to get worse.

In the early 1980s, the archbishop of Portland came to a rural parish to tell them they would no longer have a priest and that most Sundays they would have a Scripture service, not a Mass.

A parishioner responded, "Before the Second Vatican Council, you told us that if we did not go to Mass on Sunday, we would go to hell.

After the Council, you told us that the Eucharist was central to the life of the Church. Now you are telling us that we will be just like every other Bible church in our valley."

Many American bishops have tried to deal with the shortage by importing foreign priests to staff parishes, but Vatican statistics show that the number of priests worldwide is also decreasing.

New U.S. immigration rules are also going to make it more difficult to employ foreign priests in the United States.

The Catholic hierarchy has simply ignored the obvious solution to this problem for decades.

Under Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the discussion of married priests was forbidden. Leaders in the hierarchy tended to live in large cities where the shortage had less of an impact than in rural areas.

Even Pope Francis, who expressed his respect for married clergy in Eastern Catholic churches, did not respond positively when the bishops meeting at the Synod for the Pan-Amazon Region voted 128-41 to allow married deacons to become priests.

At the recent meeting of the Synod on Synodality, the issue of married priests was hardly mentioned.

The decline in the number of vocations has many explanations depending on whom you ask. Conservatives blame the reforms coming out of the Second Vatican Council.

Certainly, the council did emphasise the holiness of marriage and the vocation of the laity. Priests seemed less special after the council.

Prior to the council, only a priest could touch the consecrated host. Today, lay ministers of Communion do so at nearly every Mass.

However, sociologists note that vocations decline when families have fewer children and when children have greater educational and employment opportunities.

Thus, in a family with only one or two children, the parents prefer grandchildren to a son who is a priest.

And, in the past, priests were the most educated person in the community and therefore had great status. Today, parishes can have many lawyers, doctors and other professionals, and becoming a priest does not confer the status it used to.

Those who point to the continued increases in vocations in Africa and Asia need to listen to the sociologists.

Already, there are fewer vocations in urban areas of India where families have fewer children and more opportunities for education are available.

Africa and Asia are not the future of the church. They are simply slower in catching up with modernity.

Anti-clericalism has also impacted vocations, first in Europe and now in America. Priests are no longer universally respected. They are often treated with ridicule and contempt. Being a priest is counter-cultural.

Despite this, there are still many Catholics who are willing to take up this vocation. People are being called to priesthood, but the hierarchy is saying no because those who feel called are married, gay or women.

A 2006 survey by Dean Hoge found that nearly half of the young men involved in Catholic campus ministry had "seriously considered" ministry as a priest, but most also want to be married and raise a family.

Having a married clergy will not solve all the church's problems, as we can see in Protestant churches.

Married ministers are involved in sex abuse, have addictions and can have the same clerical affectations as any celibate priest. But every employer will tell you that if you increase the number of candidates for a job, the quality of the hire goes up.

Nor is allowing priests to marry simply about making them happier. For the Catholic Church it is a question of whether we are going to have the Eucharist or not.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me." He did not say, "Be celibate."

• First published by Religion News Service
• Thomas J. Reese is a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at Religion News Service. Previously he was a columnist at the National Catholic Reporter (2015-17) and an associate editor (1978-85) and editor in chief (1998-2005) at America magazine.

That is certainly true of the picture above - it is worth many thousands of words as we approach the synod in October.

Dare I say it, it is worth a thousand of the numbered statements in Denzinger!

Please study the picture closely.

It is typical of the signs one sees on the outskirts of villages and towns in Germany. The image of a building in yellow tells the viewer that the only church/chapel in the town is Catholic.

The letters and numbers tell the days and times when Catholics there gather to celebrate the Eucharist. 'Sa' is an abbreviation for Saturday, and 'So' for Sunday; the numbers are self-explanatory.

Now look more closely!

There used to be - in the time since the sign was put up - three celebrations: one on Saturday evening, and two on Sunday morning.

Now part of the sign has been painted over: there is now only one eucharistic assembly!

Why is this?

It could be that the population has dropped by 66 percent. But that cannot explain it since there is a big new housing estate nearby: the town is growing in population.

It could be that there are fewer people 'going to church.'

That is almost certainly the case. Rejection of the church has been increasing in recent years with more and more people formally renouncing their membership of the Catholic Church; and there has been a decrease in religious practice across the churches generally.

But would that explain why there is now only one Mass over a weekend instead of three? Of course not!

The real problem

The reason is not hard to find: it is due to there being not enough presbyters to preside over the assemblies - what is incorrectly referred to as either 'the priest shortage' or 'the vocations' crisis.'

It is the same story across diocese after diocese and country after country.

Fewer presbyters, older presbyters, and empty seminaries mean that the few men there are available being spread thinner and thinner. That is why the white paint has been applied to this sign to alter it.

We can engage in platitudes. I see one diocese claims that it is not 'closing parishes' but 'restructuring.' Such statements belong to the deceitful world of spin doctors rather than to those who claim to be successors of the apostles.

Many other dioceses try to avoid facing the issue by importing young presbyters from the developing world.

Are they not needed there?

Is there no need for them to help their own communities? Is this not a form of neo-colonialism - stripping the developing world of its assets for the sake of the rich countries?

Should not a presbyter emerge from out of the community: a basic sign of an inculturated liturgy?

Older and more tired

What has happened in this town is that where there used to be three presbyters in three towns, now there is one man travelling between them. You probably know a place near you where this is happening.

But the presbyters are old and often tired.

The assemblies are often too big - one cannot genuinely relate to a community of hundreds!

To imagine one can just 'scale up' the size of a congregation from one hundred to two hundred - or even more - without detriment to the level of participation in the liturgy is a failure to understand both how humans relate and the nature of a eucharistic celebration.

It is a gathering of family (we call each other 'brothers and sisters') and friends ('I call you friends' - Jesus) not a 'service provision event.'

Moreover, the presbyter has to pretend that each celebration is the centre and summit of his day - yet his demeanour may reveal his exhaustion.

Please do remember that is it less than a 100 years ago since celebrating two Masses on one day (except in an emergency) needed a special permission from the bishop - 'bination' was seen as most exceptional.

Most of the Orthodox churches still do not permit it.

Face the problem

Meet any group of presbyters and they will openly talk about the problem. Often as soon as a bishop enters the room, the discussion falls silent!

But if this problem is not addressed openly at the synod, then much of what it will discuss will have an air of unreality.

That sign is truly a sign for the times.

• Thomas O'Loughlin is a presbyter of the Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and professor-emeritus of historical theology at the University of Nottingham (UK).
• First published in La Croix. Republished with permission.
• His latest book is "Shaping the Assembly: How Our Buildings form us in Worship".

Several months later, while giving a talk for my diocese about Scripture and the Eucharist and discussing these tables, the same thing happened.

I choked up, fought back tears, and eventually had to apologise and take a quick break before I could continue talking. What is wrong with me?

I think I've figured it out. I was moved to tears because the ancient polytheists, those whom we often call "pagans," saw God everywhere.

God was in every nook and cranny of their lives. God was at the entrance to their homes, in the marketplace, around their hearth, at the gymnasium and at their tables.

These were polytheists, of course, but these are the very people whose conversion made Christianity's growth and success possible.

While we might look back on their lives and see them as superstitious or weird, there is a profound beauty and power in their piety.

The doctrine of the real presence in the Eucharist developed in a world where God was everywhere.

My Thessaloniki tears flowed at the realisation that today, we don't see God anywhere.

The headline-making statistics about Catholics not believing in the real presence are a symptom, not a root cause. The root cause is a diminished sacramental worldview, a broad malaise in which God increasingly finds no foothold in anything we do.

The most common response in the church in the United States to the perceived lack of belief in the real presence has been to focus on adoration and catechesis.

The thinking goes that we can pray and teach our way back to the right path, so people will believe and understand the real presence.

Such activities, obviously, are well and good. But I can't help wondering if they are misguided as an attempt to solve the problem.

I suspect that many of the reasons Catholics today don't see God's real presence in the Eucharist is because they don't see God's presence anywhere.

All the adoration and catechesis in the world will not help the problem if, deep down, individual believers do not have a vibrant sacramental worldview in which God's is active everywhere.

Rather than focus only on adoration and catechesis, the Church would do well to work to inculcate a sacramental worldview, to seek out ways to experience God in all parts of our lives.

With this in hand, we will have a better foundation for the special presence of God in the Eucharist.

One way to breathe life into our sacramental worldview would be to think about how to experience God in other people, particularly the poor.

The Eucharist is not simply a moment for personal piety and reflection. It should never be only about "me and God." The Eucharist is also about other people.

Jesus's own self giving offers a pattern of life and self-denial that the Eucharist should create in our lives. Continue reading

• Micah D. Kiel is a professor in the theology department at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa. He is the author of Apocalyptic Ecology and Reading the Bible in the Age of Francis.

The controversy erupted after images circulated on social media depicting plastic containers placed on tables inside a white tent, with young individuals kneeling in front of them.

These containers were reported to house the Blessed Sacrament, prompting outrage and discussions about whether this was an appropriate manner to handle such a revered element of Catholic faith.

This follows from an instance earlier in the week when photographs of ciboria full of consecrated hosts and covered in cellophane began to circulate online.

According to some, these were "Ikea potato chip bowls" that had been purchased at the last minute to distribute Communion.

However, the Ikea ciboria were used during a Mass organised by the very large Spanish contingent — not in a Mass organised by World Youth Day itself.

Fr Nuno Coelho, a pastor in Cascais, who was a World Youth Day liaison to the Spanish pilgrims, told The Pillar that the group brought their own ciboria to Portugal.

"From what we gathered, these are the ciboria that the Spanish [bishops' conference] youth apostolate generally use for large outdoor Masses. They look a little like breakfast bowls," he said.

"The official WYD ciboria were designed by artisans, they are made of silver plate and they have a sliding articulated lid, to protect the consecrated hosts from the wind during distribution. The Spanish ones had no covering, but there was a very strong wind in the park, so they had them covered in plastic film to protect the hosts."

Protection from dust and wind

The second controversy surrounded the overnight storage of the Blessed Sacrament in plastic containers.

One participant, who wished to remain anonymous, shed light on the situation. According to the volunteer, consecrated hosts were initially placed in metal ciboriums, which were then encased in plastic containers.

These measures were undertaken to facilitate safe transportation and protect the Eucharist from outdoor elements like wind and dust. The crates, situated within various tents across the campsite, were intended solely for safeguarding purposes, not for adoration.

The situation escalated when curiosity among attendees led to inquiries about the plastic boxes' contents. Upon learning of the presence of the Eucharist, pilgrims began to engage in adoration. This likely marked the moment when photographs capturing young individuals kneeling before the containers went viral.

The controversy has led to debates about the organisation and communication surrounding the event.

While smaller tents housing the ciboria were scattered throughout Campo da Graça, their contents remained largely unknown without inside information or direct investigation. The official WYD app listed the papal vigil as the sole scheduled Eucharistic adoration session.

Sources

The Pillar

Where Peter Is

Indeed, programs like ChatGPT, that can produce a sermon in seconds, might seem attractive to busy clergy.

But several religious leaders, including rabbis serving Jewish congregations as well as Christian Protestant pastors, have conflicting feelings about utilising chatbots in preparing sermons.

There may be several reasons for being cautious.

From my perspective, as a specialist in Catholic liturgy and ritual, the most important critique has to do with true intent of preaching - to offer insight and inspiration on the human experience of faith.

Historical practice

In the early centuries of Christianity, preaching was largely reserved for bishops, considered to be the successors to Jesus' apostles.

During the Middle Ages, priests were also allowed to preach, although their chief responsibility was to say the Mass - ritually consecrating the offerings of bread and wine - especially on Sundays.

In some religious orders, priests became famous traveling preachers, although much of the time they were preaching in other settings, not during Mass.

The Franciscan and Dominican orders, for example, would send priests to preach on the streets and in city centers, traveling from town to town in fulfillment of this ministry.

During the next few centuries, preaching brief sermons or homilies became increasingly important during the celebration of Sunday Mass.

The Second Vatican Council, convened in 1962, took a fresh look at all the Church's rituals and stressed the role of preaching at worship, especially at Mass.

These principles have been reaffirmed in more recent documents that guide Catholic preachers when writing a sermon. In essence, preaching was always believed to be a human activity grounded in faith.

Insight and inspiration

Preaching as a human activity has a special meaning for Catholics - and most Christians.

This is because they believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God, who came into human life to save all of humanity from their sins and gave his apostles the commandment to preach the Gospel about this "good news" to people of all nations.

In the decades since Vatican II ended in 1965, preaching in the Catholic tradition has been emphasised as a "primary duty" of all priests.

The sermon is meant to inspire people in their ordinary lives of faith.

The preacher must spend time in preparing the sermon, but this does not just mean compiling theological quotes or doing research on the history of the Bible.

A good sermon is not just a classroom lecture. In fact, several contemporary popes have stressed that the language of sermons should avoid technical or obscure terminology.

In 1975, Pope Paul VI wrote that the language of preaching should be "simple, clear, direct, well-adapted" for the congregation in the pews.

And in 2013, Pope Francis echoed these same words in his observation that "simplicity has to do with the language we use."

But preaching is not just about offering pious mottoes or generic religious formulas. The preacher's experience, insights and emotions all come into play when composing the homiletic text.

The preacher is not simply offering good advice, but speaking out of personal reflection in a way that will inspire the members of the congregation, not just please them.

It must also be shaped by an awareness of the needs and lived experience of the worshipping community in the pews.

Use with caution

In practice, chatbots might help clergy save time by finding sources and compiling relevant facts, but the results would need to be checked for errors.

Chatbots have been known to make some factual blunders or invent sources completely.

Above all, I believe chatbots, as of now, are not capable of preparing a text suitable for being offered as a sermon. From what we know about chatbots, they cannot know what it means to be human, to experience love or be inspired by a sacred text.

Perhaps Baptist pastor Hershael York, Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has put it best.

He has noted that the ultimate failure of a chatbot's sermon lies in the fact that it "lacks a soul."

Without that empathetic consciousness, a chatbot-composed sermon cannot include genuine insights based on personal spiritual experience. And without that essential element of embodied human awareness, true preaching is simply not possible.

• Joanne M. Pierce is a Professor Emerita of Religious Studies, College of the Holy Cross
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

A little girl had run back to her parents, shouting, "I just ate Jesus!"

Later, the child asked her mother, "How does Jesus get from our stomach to our heart?"

The mother replied, "Jesus can do anything."

That is simple truth.

Our memory tends to become a library of special events, and mine has kept the details of that day.

Jesus was in the radiant face of the priest.

Jesus was also in the warm laughter of the congregation.

He was in the child's statement, her question and the mother's answer.

Age brings us back to the simplicity of childhood, we look at the hills and valleys of life, and say Amen to everything that has happened to us.

We know that we grew with Jesus.

His birthday was the biggest event of the year. As wise men brought gifts to baby Jesus, so are his birthday gifts given to us.

We learned that Jesus loved children. He told his grumpy disciples that children were like the angels in Heaven.

Then, through Holy Communion, we knew that Jesus was within us, even though we didn't understand how that worked.

We felt different.

Growing up was difficult at times.

It was difficult for Jesus, too.

Did he die for our sins?

Well, that's how they thought in those days - sacrifice for atonement.

But with Jesus, something much bigger was going on.

Resurrection was bigger than crucifixion.

The holy man of Galilee died to be available to the world.

That's what the little girl in Singapore was celebrating.

That was the truth spoken by the mother.

It is also the truth of our lives with Jesus Christ.

Growth comes through our own crucifixions and resurrections, and Jesus is always with us.

The beauty of this relationship is expressed in the writing of Simeon the New Theologian (9099-1022). The following is translated from the original Greek by Stephen Mitchell.

We waken in Christ's body as Christ wakens our bodies, and my poor hand is Christ's.

He enters my foot and is infinitely me.

I move my hand, and wonderfully, my hand becomes Christ's, becomes all of Him ( for God is invisibly whole, seamless in His Godhead.)

I move my foot, and at once, He appears like a flash of lightning.

Do my words seem blasphemous?

Then open your heart to them and let yourself receive the One who is opening to you so deeply. For if we genuinely love Him, we wake up inside Christ's body, where our body, all over, every most hidden part of him, is realised in joy as Him, and He makes us utterly real.

And everything that is hurt, everything that seemed to us dark, harsh, ugly, irreparably damaged, is in Him transformed and realised as whole, lovely and radiant in His light, He wakens as the beloved in every last part of our body.

• Joy Cowley is a wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and retreat facilitator. Joy Cowley is a wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and retreat facilitator.

Auxiliary Bishop Guerino Di Tora of Rome, vicar for the basilica's chapter, has acknowledged and apologised for the communication problem, which led to an Anglican bishop and 50 priests celebrating the Anglican service on the main altar.

The service was part of a conference in Rome for Anglo-Catholic clergy.

Benedictine Father Martin Browne, an official at the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, noted the apology.

"I also think that everyone acted in good faith and without any intent to cause offence or embarrassment to anyone else.

"That the celebration has caused comment is perhaps, above all else, a reminder of the need to pray continually for the Lord's gift of unity, so that all may one day celebrate at the same altar the saving mysteries of the one Lord."

Ecumenical reciprocity

The Vatican "Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism" says Catholic churches are "generally reserved for Catholic worship."

However, Browne says "it does not rule out celebrations by communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church."

Rather, such hospitality can be offered when other Christians "do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies.

"One presumes that the request was granted in that spirit of reciprocity, welcoming what was clearly an Anglican pilgrim group."

While the visiting Anglicans could have celebrated at the Anglican parish in the centre of Rome, Browne says the directory also encourages "a certain ‘reciprocity'.

"Sharing in spiritual activities and resources, even with defined limits, is a contribution in a spirit of mutual good will and charity, to the growth of harmony among Christians."

Browne says many of the great historical cathedrals of the Church of England occasionally welcome groups from other churches, including the Catholic Church, to celebrate the Eucharist.

"Such hospitable gestures are always appreciated," he says.

Just the same, "it would have been more appropriate if this dicastery and other relevant entities of the Holy See had been involved in considering the request."

Private celebration

The Anglican celebration took place in the apse, which was clearly roped off, with staff on duty throughout.

No members of the public nor anybody else was present or nearby, so there was no chance that a pilgrim or tourist could have attended and thought it was a Catholic Mass, Browne says.

A statement from the office of the archpriest of the basilica expressed "profound regret".

The Anglican celebration violated canonical norms. As the seat of the pope in his capacity of bishop of Rome, St John Lateran ranks highest among the four Vatican basilicas in Rome.

Source

• America Magazine
• AP News

Some assume that I am one of those academic types that enjoy asking irrelevant questions; others simply say that they haven't got a clue about what I am talking about.

We had better face an awkward truth: while theologians and clergy are agog about synodality - some eager, some disdainful - for a very large proportion of the People of God, it is just some complicated new idea that makes little sense.

I had better clarify what I mean by ordinary Catholics.

By ordinary Catholics, I mean someone who

• is not a cleric
• nor a member of some special group within the Church (such as a prayer group, or the choir, or the parish council), and
• who probably does not subscribe to any special religious news service whether it is CathNews or The Tablet -
• and who probably just passes by the various leaflets, magazines, and diocesan papers that are at the back of church buildings.

So, the question arises: what will reach this large group of sisters and brothers? How will their experience of being disciples be touched and enhanced by our turn towards synodality?

Experiencing synodality

If this whole movement is to be more than just words, it must give disciples a richer liturgical experience. This is because it is at the liturgy that most ordinary Catholics have their experience of what it means to be Church.

That experience must, somehow, to do three things:

• It must engage them as individuals within a community.
• It must, to be true to the fundamental insight of synodality, involve a deeper listening to the word of God and to one another.
• It must lead to a greater sense of their own dignity as brothers and sisters in baptism who are called as a people to offer praise and thanksgiving to the Father.

If synodality is about renewal in the Spirit, a renewal of liturgy is one of the forms it must take.

What will it look like?

In this arrangement, the Word of God is being shared among the gathering in the University Parish in Leuven, Belgium.

The assembly is arranged so that it is a community-event of listening. They are not consuming a message being dispensed from the front of a lecture hall.

We are the people of memory. Only when we recall "the mighty acts of God" can we recognize our identity as disciples of the Christ.

Listening is not just hearing words; it is giving the words a chance to seep into us. Yet most ordinary Catholics are arranged in row after row like children in an old-fashioned classroom.

We now know that the lecture hall only works as a communication venue for those already highly involved, but (60 years after the liturgy reform) this much better format is strange to most Catholics.

It is worth noting that in this church-building they did no elaborate re-building work - they just put the chairs in a rough circle because this allows people to feel they are a community and it helps focus people in their listening.

We are all celebrants

The great shift in liturgy at Vatican II was a move from the notion of a presbyter who celebrates on behalf of the baptized to the recognition that we, as God's sons and daughters, are all celebrating God's goodness. We are all celebrants.

But how does the ordinary Catholic get an experience of this?

We are not consumers at the Eucharist. We are guests.

This photograph allows us to recall the words of the First Eucharistic Prayer:

Remember, Lord, your men-servants (famuli) and your women-servants (famulae), indeed all who are standing around (omnes circumstantes) …

We are a celebrating community.

If synodality is to take root, it will require an experience of solidarity in discipleship.

In an arrangement like this, that solidarity can become a weekly experience.

• Thomas O'Loughlin is a presbyter of the Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and professor-emeritus of historical theology at the University of Nottingham (UK). His latest book is Discipleship and Society in the Early Churches.

We might remember putting sounds to the letters of the alphabet and then trying to make those sounds into words.

We struggled.

We made mistakes.

Then what happened?

One day it all came together.

We could read, but we didn't know how it happened.

Those words held hands with each other to give us information.

Reading was like talking without noise.

I've spoken with many people about the way words seemed to suddenly come together to make meaning None of us knows how this happens.

We share the same childhood experience: we were struggling to understand words, and then suddenly, we could read books.

Maybe that's a good analogy or spiritual awareness.

For some of us, there is a time when we participate in the Mass, like children reciting the alphabet.

We know what to say.

We know what to do.

In between, we smile at the people around us, note that dear old Alf has shaved off his beard, and see that the family in the third pew have another child.

These observations happen while we recite words that are as familiar as our phone number and address.

However, Holy Communion is different.

That's the time when everything goes still.

Bread and wine come alive within us.

Somehow, they turn to light and that light is like a steady candle flame.

Then that moment is over.

There is movement. Announcements. The last hymn. Conversations on the way to the door. Hello and goodbye.

We go home with a collection of experiences, some big, some small. They rattle around in the mind.

One day it happens.

It all comes together.

We sit between prayer-soaked walls, hearing the words of the Mass with our hearts.

There is a sense of Oneness.

Our priest, our people, our children, our prayers and hymns, are all inside us.

They too, are all part of Holy Communion.

Everything has come together and the feeling of Oneness is so big, we don't want to name it.

But it feels like the 'Is-ness'of Jesus the Word made Flesh.

We take the feeling home with us, knowing it is gift.

And the gift will happen again.

We have learned to read the Mass.

• Joy Cowley is a wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and retreat facilitator. Joy Cowley is a wife, mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and retreat facilitator.

Since that time, the positions I presented have received both substantial support and significant opposition.

The majority of those criticizing my article focused on its treatment of the exclusion of those who are divorced and remarried and members of the L.G.B.T. communities from the Eucharist.

Criticisms included the assertion that my article challenged an ancient teaching of the church, failed to give due attention to the call to holiness, abandoned any sense of sin in the sexual realm and failed to highlight the essential nature of conversion.

Perhaps most consistently, the criticism stated that exclusion from the Eucharist is essentially a doctrinal rather than a pastoral question.

I seek in this article to wrestle with some of these criticisms so that I might contribute to the ongoing dialogue on this sensitive question—which will no doubt continue to be discussed throughout the synodal process.

Specifically, I seek here to develop more fully than I did in my initial article some important related questions, namely on the nature of conversion in the moral life of the disciple, the call to holiness, the role of sin, the sacrament of penance, the history of the categorical doctrine of exclusion for sexual sins and the relationship between moral doctrine and pastoral theology.

The report of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on the synodal dialogues held in our nation last year pointed to the profound sadness of many, if not most of the people of God about the broad exclusion from the Eucharist of so many striving Catholics who are barred from Communion because they are divorced and remarried or L.G.B.T.

In January, I proposed that three foundational principles of Catholic teaching invited a re-examination of the church's practice in this area.

The first is Pope Francis' image of the church as a field hospital, which points to the reality that we are all wounded by sin and all equally in need of God's grace and healing.

The second is the role of conscience in Catholic thought.

For every member of the church, it is conscience to which we have the ultimate responsibility and by which we will be judged.

For that reason, while Catholic teaching has an essential role in moral decision-making, it is conscience that has the privileged place.

As Pope Francis has stated, the church's role is to form consciences, not replace them. Categorical exclusions of the divorced and remarried and L.G.B.T. persons from the Eucharist do not give due respect to the inner conversations of conscience that people have with their God in discerning moral choice in complex circumstances.

Finally, I proposed that the Eucharist is given to us as a profound grace in our conversion to discipleship.

As Pope Francis reminds us, the Eucharist is "not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak."

To bar disciples from that grace blocks one of the principal pathways Christ has given to them to reform their lives and accept the Gospel ever more fully.

For all of these reasons, I proposed that divorced and remarried or L.G.B.T. Catholics who are ardently seeking the grace of God in their lives should not be categorically barred from the Eucharist.

In the weeks since my article was published, some readers have objected that the church cannot accept such a notion of inclusion because the exclusion of remarried women and men or L.G.B.T. persons from the Eucharist flows from the moral tradition in the church that all sexual sins are grave matter.

This means that all sexual sins are so gravely evil that they constitute objectively an action that can sever a believer's relationship with God.

I have attempted to face this objection head-on by drawing attention to both the history and the unique reasoning of the principle that all sexual sins are objectively mortal sins.

For most of the history of the church, various gradations of objective wrong in the evaluation of sexual sins were present in the life of the church.

But in the 17th century, with the inclusion in Catholic teaching of the declaration that for all sexual sins there is no parvity of matter (i.e., no circumstances can mitigate the grave evil of a sexual sin), we relegated the sins of sexuality to an ambit in which no other broad type of sin is so absolutely categorized.

In principle, all sexual sins are objective mortal sins within the Catholic moral tradition.

This means that all sins that violate the sixth and the ninth commandments are categorically objective mortal sins.

There is no such comprehensive classification of mortal sin for any of the other commandments.

In understanding the application of this principle to the reception of Communion, it is vital to recognize that it is the level of objective sinfulness that forms the foundation for the present categorical exclusion of sexually active divorced and remarried or L.G.B.T. Catholics from the Eucharist.

So, it is precisely this change in Catholic doctrine—made in the 17th century—that is the foundation for categorically barring L.G.B.T. and divorced/remarried Catholics from the Eucharist.

• Does the tradition that all sexual sins are objectively mortal make sense within the universe of Catholic moral teaching?
• It is automatically an objective mortal sin for a husband and wife to engage in a single act of sexual intercourse utilizing artificial contraception. This means the level of evil present in such an act is objectively sufficient to sever one's relationship with God.
• It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to physically or psychologically abuse your spouse.
• It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to exploit your employees.
• It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to discriminate against a person because of her gender or ethnicity or religion.
• It is not automatically an objective mortal sin to abandon your children.

The moral tradition that all sexual sins are grave matter springs from an abstract, deductivist and truncated notion of the Christian moral life that yields a definition of sin jarringly inconsistent with the larger universe of Catholic moral teaching.

This is because it proceeds from the intellect alone.

The great French philosopher Henri Bergson pointed to the inadequacy of any such approach to the richness of Catholic faith: "We see that the intellect, so skilful in dealing with the inert, is awkward the moment it touches the living.

Whether it wants to treat the life of the body or the life of the mind, it proceeds with the rigour, the stiffness and the brutality of an instrument not designed for such use…. Intuition, on the contrary, is moulded on the very form of life."

The call to holiness requires both a conceptual and an intuitive approach leading to an understanding of what discipleship in Jesus Christ means.

Discipleship means striving to deepen our faith and our relationship to God, to enflesh the Beatitudes, to build up the kingdom in God's grace, to be the good Samaritan.

The call to holiness is all-encompassing in our lives, embracing our efforts to come closer to God, our sexual lives, our familial lives and our societal lives.

It also entails recognising sin where it lurks in our lives and seeking to root it out.

And it means recognizing that each of us in our lives commits profound sins of omission or commission.

At such moments we should seek the grace of the sacrament of penance. But such failures should not be the basis for categorical ongoing exclusion from the Eucharist.

It is important to note that the criticisms of my article did not seek to demonstrate that the tradition classifying all sexual sins as objective mortal sin is in fact correct, or that it yields a moral teaching that is consonant with the wider universe of Catholic moral teaching.

Instead, critics focused upon the repeated assertion that the exclusion of divorced/remarried and L.G.B.T. Catholics from the Eucharist is a doctrinal, not a pastoral question.

I would answer that Pope Francis is precisely calling us to appreciate the vital interplay between the pastoral and doctrinal aspects of church teaching on questions just such as these. Continue reading

This, along with declining belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, has caused great concern among Catholic bishops, who have launched a Eucharistic revival effort.

During the first half of the 20th century, church attendance by Catholics was very high, higher than that of Protestants.

Catholics then believed that it was a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, and unless you went to confession, you could die and go to hell.

This filled Catholic churches despite boring homilies and a Mass in Latin that the people did not understand.

During the same period, American Catholics were taught in the Baltimore Catechism that the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ, a teaching that was explained using terms like transubstantiation.

For true believers, this was an opportunity to adore Christ and be sanctified in Communion.

For nominal Catholics, it was a meaningless ritual to be endured.

Today church attendance is down, and few priests threaten those who sleep in on Sunday with hellfire.

Polls show that belief in the real presence is also down as well.

The language of transubstantiation, dependent on Aristotelian metaphysics, is meaningless to Americans who do not learn Greek philosophy in school.

Catholic liberals had hoped that the liturgical reforms after the Second Vatican Council would produce beautiful and meaningful liturgies that would keep the faithful coming to church.

Catholics overwhelmingly approved putting the liturgy into English, but liturgical renewal petered out under the papacy of John Paul II.

English translations became stilted, creativity was discouraged and experimentation was forbidden. Seminary training stressed observing the rubrics rather than understanding liturgical reform.

Liturgical music did experience an explosion of creativity, much of it good but some of it awful.

Unlike evangelical Christian megachurches, Catholic parishes tried to do music on the cheap with volunteers and underpaid professionals.

The multicultural nature of American Catholicism made it difficult to find music that was acceptable to the variety of age and ethnic groups that make up a parish community.

Granted this history, what would an effective Eucharistic revival look like?

First, the revival must begin with the hierarchy and the clergy, who must listen to the concerns of the laity and not just those who want the old Latin Mass back.

Second, the bishops need to consult with experts who understand liturgical and theological thinking that has developed since the Second Vatican Council.

Any attempt to return to the piety of the 1950s is bound to fail. In fact, some of the old piety that focused solely on the real presence was based on bad theology.

Since my critics often accuse me of heresy, before I go further, let me affirm that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don't believe in transubstantiation because I don't believe in prime matter, substantial forms and accidents that are part of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelianism, the avant-garde philosophy of his time, to explain the Eucharist to his generation.

What worked in the 13th century will not work today.

If he were alive today, he would not use Aristotelianism because nobody grasps it in the 21st century.

So, first, forget transubstantiation.

Better to admit that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery that our little minds cannot comprehend.

Second, remember the purpose of the Eucharist is not to worship Jesus.

The Eucharistic prayer is directed to the Father through Christ, with Christ and in Christ.

The emphasis on the consecration in old sacramental theology overshadowed what the Eucharist is about.

In the ancient church, people received Communion at every Eucharist they attended.

After the fourth century, the practice of receiving declined.

People felt unworthy to approach such an awesome presence.

Also, spouses were expected to abstain from sex before receiving.

Beginning in the early Middle Ages, people were told to go to confession before Communion.

An emphasis on worshipping Jesus in the sacrament further discouraged reception. The priest was seen as receiving for the whole community.

With the laity commonly abstaining from Communion, the elevation of the consecrated host became the high point of the Mass.

Today, that is still true for many Catholics in parishes where bells are rung and the priest holds up the host as high as he can for an extended period of time so that the people can adore Jesus.

It was only in the 20th century that regularly receiving Communion was again encouraged among Catholics.

If you want to adore Christ in the Eucharist, go to Benediction, not to Mass.

Confusing these two church practices is a big mistake.

The Eucharist, based on the Jewish Passover, was instituted by Christ; Benediction was instituted by the church at a time when few people went to Communion.

We should remember that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus tell his disciples to adore him.

Rather, he directs our attention to his Father.

Adoring Jesus in Benediction is OK, but it is not what the Mass is about.

Third, the Eucharist is not about me and Jesus; it is about us in the Christian community, about us being transformed into the body of Christ, about us joining in the mission of Jesus in the world.

When I was in high school in the late 1950s and early '60s, I went to the daily 6:30 a.m. Mass, where Communion was given before Mass for those who had to go to work right away.

Some, including myself, would receive at the beginning of Mass and then stay for the rest of the Mass.

For us, this seemed better because we had Jesus inside us for the entire Mass.

We had no understanding of the true meaning of the Eucharist.

I fear that if this option were offered today, many Catholics would choose it.

So, what should we think about the Eucharist?

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

In his 'First Things' magazine article, conservative prelate and canon lawyer Thomas Paprocki (pictured) cites an unnamed cardinal's views on how the Church should minister to LGBTQ people and divorced and remarried Catholics.

While he doesn't name Cardinal Robert McElroy, Paprocki quotes directly from a 24 January article the cardinal wrote for America magazine.

In it, McElroy called for a Church that favours "radical inclusion" of everyone, regardless of circumstances and conformance with Church doctrine.

To back his views, Paprocki's essay cites several passages in the Code of Canon Law and draws on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and St Pope John Paul II's Ad Tuendam Fidem ("To Protect the Faith").

Pointing to these, he said anyone who denies "settled Catholic teaching" on issues like homosexuality and "embraces heresy" is automatically excommunicated from the Church.

The pope has the authority and the obligation to remove a heretical cardinal from office, or dismiss outright from the clerical state, Paprocki wrote.

Referencing McElroy's critique of "a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist," Paprocki claimed: "Unfortunately, it is not uncommon today to hear Catholic leaders affirm unorthodox views that, not too long ago, would have been espoused only by heretics."

Although McElroy and Paprocki were both available for comment, in a 28 February interview Paprocki said he did not intend to single out a particular cardinal for criticism. Rather, he "intended the discussion to be more rhetorical.

"I think the reason I did this is because this debate has become so public at this point that it seems to have passed beyond the point of just some private conversations between bishops."

The bishop's explanation struck some observers as disingenuous.

Jesuit Fr Tom Reese, a journalist who has covered the US bishops for decades, says Paprocki's essay reflects deep divisions in the US Catholic hierarchy, plus a level of public animosity, open disagreement and strident rhetoric among bishops.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI would not have tolerated it, he says.

"On the other hand, there wouldn't have been this kind of discussion under John Paul II because the Vatican would have shut it down.

"Francis has opened the Church up for discussion again and [conservative bishops] just don't like it. They're trying to shut it down by using this kind of inflammatory rhetoric, even against cardinals," Reese said.

Cathleen Kaveny, a law and theology professor, says Paprocki "should know better as a canon lawyer" than to accuse someone of heresy - which is a formal charge.

Paprocki is running together statements and teachings of different levels of authority in the Church and claiming any disagreement amounts to heresy. "And that's just false," Kaveny says.

"The underlying question ... is whether development in church doctrine can take place.

"I would recommend people read John Henry Newman on that, and look at the history of the church's teaching on usury while they're at it."

Source

• NCR Online