Homily for the 19th Sunday in Ordinary Time

 

1 Kings 19:4-8

Ephesians 4:30-5:2

John 6:41-51

For the third consecutive week, Holy Mother Church places us in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St John, in what many Catholic scholars consider John's Eucharistic passage.  John's Eucharistic detail comes in the 6th Chapter of his Gospel, because it is here that Jesus recounts what the Eucharist really is and what it really means.

The Gospel of John, like the other three Gospels, contains an account of what happened at the Last Supper. In the other three Gospels, however, there is an account of the institution of the Eucharist, and Saint Paul reaffirms that account in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. Interestingly, John's account of the Last Supper doesn't contain an account of the institution of the Eucharist itself on the first Holy Thursday, but instead it contains this lengthy exposition from Jesus in what we know today as the Sixth chapter of John. It's known as the Bread of Life discourse, and we've just heard in this passage why it's called that. Many Catholic biblical scholars believe that this is John's Eucharistic account, his passing along to us one of the most doctrinally important passages in the entire New Testament.

Jesus makes very clear what he means, and his listeners understood it also, which is why we will hear in a couple of weeks time in the Gospel at Sunday Mass the end of this chapter when so many of the people who are listening to Jesus here say "Lord, this saying is hard and who can hear it." (cf. John 6:60-71) Jesus said it very clearly in the Gospel today in our own hearing. "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, and if any one eats of this bread he shall live forever, and the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Many of our separated brothers and sisters will take this entire passage of Scripture, indeed the entire 6th chapter of John to mean something purely symbolic. I won't spend time today giving the cliche arguments against that position, I'm going to presume you're familiar with them. If you are not, I will say that even though those arguments are very true, I don't think they're the most effective to prove the point that Jesus wasn't speaking symbolically. The reason that we can tell that Jesus was speaking literally was the reaction of the crowd, many of whom, the larger chapter tells us, had been disciples of Jesus before that day, they understood exactly what he meant, and many of them walked away. 

The reality of the Eucharist is so central to our faith that when he was teaching about it, Jesus was more than willing to lose followers over it, people who probably otherwise would have been fine disciples of the Lord. But the teaching of the Eucharist was too much for them, it was that serious for Jesus. At the end of the chapter we even get a hint that maybe the remaining 12 didn't entirely understand what Jesus meant, because he asked them if they would also go away, and you have to love Peter's response when he said "Lord, where shall we go, you have the words of eternal life." Considering the situation in the Church today, there have been many many times in recent years when I have had to remind myself of Peter's words, I would say that many of us probably have.

Our Lord took the teaching of the Eucharist so seriously that when we look at it in the Sacred Scripture today it takes up an entire chapter of the Bible with him explaining it and explaining it again. If it was serious enough to Jesus to spend that much time on one particular teaching of our faith, if we are going to live the way we are called to live and be like Christ then we need to take the Eucharist as seriously as Jesus did and does.

Some three weeks ago on July 16th, there were two Church documents released on the same day. One of those documents received a whole lot of attention in the Catholic media and it's continuing to receive attention. The other one should have gotten much more attention, because the contents of the second document are far more immediately important for the welfare of our immortal souls. The document that should have gotten far more attention and didn't was a pastoral letter by our own Bishop Richard Stika on the matter of sin and the worthy reception of Holy Communion. The Bishop released it to everyone, and you can find it on our diocesan website, but it didn't get a whole lot of coverage in the media. Because of that, you can be forgiven for not knowing about it, but if you want to see everything the bishop had to say, you can look on the website or you can email me. 

The topic of worthiness to receive Holy Communion is sometimes called Eucharistic cohesion. Those words have been in the Catholic news in recent months because the US Bishops are working on a document about it, but our own Bishop's pastoral letter highlights a number of things about worthiness to receive the Eucharist that Catholics ought to know and about which there should be no argument. The Bishop reminds us that of course no one is truly worthy, but that when we approach the altar of God to receive Holy Communion we should be in a state of grace. Unless we are exceptionally saintly, that means availing ourselves of sacramental confession as often as possible. I often remind myself that among humanity, only the Blessed Mother was immaculately conceived. (In his letter, the bishop recommended confession at least once a month or more).

His Excellency also spoke to the controversial issue of public figures who give grave scandal by making a very public profession of their Catholic faith before the world while supporting, promoting, and even publicly funding the terrible Holocaust of abortion. Bishop Stika very rightly says that those who use their public position to promote abortion "cannot be admitted to Holy Communion." (Pastoral 17)

The Church does not tell us these things in order to be unwelcoming or uncaring. It is for the good and the salvation of our own souls that the Church reminds us of the conditions whereby we can and should receive Holy Communion. St. Paul put it perhaps most bluntly of all when he said that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily "will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord." (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27).

Jesus tells us that He is the living bread who comes down from Heaven, and that if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever, and the bread that Jesus will give is his flesh. Many of us might have heard of the consistent surveys which tell us that only about 30% of Catholics claim to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I have always prayed that those numbers are untrue. It is not unreasonable, however, to say that many more people would believe in the truth of Christ's real presence in the Eucharist if more of the world could see us treating the Eucharist as if the Eucharist is the Second Person of the Trinity, God who is Holy. The Blood shed for us and the Body given up for us. For if we behave in such a way that shows the world that the Eucharist is Christ, we will understand what it means to receive Jesus worthily, and we will all want to do so.

Have You No Fear of God?

Because of the nature of the material in this particular post, it is likely that I need to begin the post by reminding my readers and what is posted on this blog is my view on what is happening in the Church today, although this opinion is firmly rooted in the established teaching of the Catholic Church, and I'm about to restate that teaching as part of this post.

This past Thursday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted by an overwhelming margin to draft a document on what is called Eucharistic cohesion, basically it will be a document reminding Catholics about the Church's teaching on what is required in order to receive the Holy Eucharist. It is widely expected that as part of that document there will be a reminder that public figures who openly support and promote abortion should not receive the Eucharist, since the Church teaches very clearly that abortion is murder, and that if a public figure is going to openly promote abortion and pass laws which not only keep it legal, but actually encourage the practice, to receive the Eucharist under the circumstances is to endanger their soul.

In response, more than sixty Democrats who also claim to be practicing Catholics signed a letter demanding that the Bishops not interfere with their "right" to receive Holy Communion, and they said that the Bishops should not "weaponize the Eucharist." Every one of these people are also public supporters of abortion on demand. In drafting such a letter, these individuals have shown us that no one is threatening to weaponize the Eucharist but them. 

Among the many responsibilities of Bishops, the most important is to be a teacher of the Catholic faith and to hand on the deposit of faith as it was handed on to them. The bishops are the successors of the apostles, and thus have a duty to uphold Catholic teaching. Furthermore, a bishop is the Supreme liturgist in his diocese, and he is ultimately the one in charge of the conferral of the sacraments. He determines who receives the sacraments and who does not. Signing a letter to bishops attempting to tell them not to deny you the sacraments while you tell them that you are going to obstinately remain in opposition to Church teaching in a public way is not a good idea. It is, in fact, an invitation to be denied the Sacraments. 

These people believe that they should be able to receive the Eucharist while acting in public opposition to the Church on a moral issue of such gravity that if a Catholic woman receives an abortion with full knowledge and consent of the will, she is excommunicated laetae sententiae, that is by the very commission of the act. (CIC 1398) Now yes, if the same woman comes to the Church repentant, and, as are many women are in that situation, confused and frightened, the Church has made a way to easily lift that penalty for the good of souls, because the mercy of Christ is truly boundless. Nevertheless, excommunication is still the highest penalty that the Church can levy on any Catholic, and that is the penalty for knowingly procuring an abortion or assisting in one. Yet the "Catholics" who signed this letter somehow believe that they are above that, that those who procure or assist in abortions can be excommunicated while they ought to be able to receive the Eucharist with impunity while they not only tolerate legal abortion, many of them are promoting legislation, funding schemes, and organizations which promote and even encourage abortion. The executive actions of our current President have done more to promote abortion than any President in my lifetime (even the one under which he served as Vice President, and Obama's promotion of abortion was bad enough), but he can go to Mass next weekend and receive the Eucharist and not face any ecclesiastical sanction, while the young woman who takes advantage of the abortion funding that Mr Biden has promoted could face laetae sententiae excommunication if she willingly receives an abortion.

It is not weaponizing the Eucharist to demand accountability in one's faith and sacramental life. If you are a public figure, you cannot promote the taking of the most innocent human life as a matter of public policy and not expect to be called on the carpet by your co-religionists, and ideally by your religious leaders. 

Since the First Century the Church has condemned abortion. The Didache, which is the earliest manual of Church order that we know of, gives the instruction to the earliest Christians (Didache Chapter 2):

"[Y]ou shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill that which is begotten."

The Church's teaching is clear, yet these public officials persist in their opposition to that teaching and at the same time believe that despite their public promotion of abortion, they should simply be able to receive the Eucharist as if they've done nothing wrong.

Then there is this piece of work from California Congressman Ted Lieu:

Congressman Lieu appears to be in dire need of a corrective session on Catholic teaching from his bishop, who just happens to be the current President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles. Obviously, I can't make Archbishop Gomez have a little teaching conference with Congressman Lieu, that's up to the Archbishop to do... However, I am in a perfectly good position to explain to the Congressman that it is possible that he could be denied Communion, and because of the posture he is taking, Archbishop Gomez would be perfectly justified in denying it to him. He is not merely engaging in personal sin, he has chosen with his statement to publicly engage in obstinate defiance of Church teaching and authority. That is perfectly good justification to deny someone the Eucharist unless and until they repent of such obstinate defiance.

Sanctioning Congressman Lieu for this behavior is entirely up to his bishop, that would be the case even if the USCCB drafted a very specific document on the subject that was extremely clear about this problem... It is still a matter for the local bishop to handle. However, it is most important to be reminded of just why many of our bishops feel the need to have a discussion about this issue and draft a document about it that explains the circumstances under which a person should and should not receive Holy Communion, and which could make it clear that those who publicly promote abortion should not receive Holy Communion.

We have come to this discussion and this place because these supposedly "good Catholics" are refusing to be honest with us or with themselves. If you proclaim yourself a Catholic, one of the things you are supposed to profess as a matter of dogmatic Truth is that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) continues to have the outward appearance of bread and wine, but that when the elements are consecrated they become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Lord gives us His flesh to eat (cf. John 6:32-58). Secondly, to receive Holy Communion is both Communion with God and with the Body of Christ, the Church. In addition to receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Communion is an outward and visible sign not only of that belief, but of unity of faith. If you receive Holy Communion you are saying with your amen that you believe what the Church teaches, that you are in Communion with the Church. If you are not in a state of grace, you should not receive Holy Communion. If you are persistently, publicly, and obstinately opposed to a fundamental aspect of the Church's teaching such as the sanctity of human life at all stages, you most definitely should not be receiving Holy Communion, because in the most literal sense of the word you are not in communion with the Church or what she fundamentally holds to be true. If you are receiving Holy Communion under those circumstances, you are not being honest with yourself and you're certainly not being honest with those around you. When you receive Holy Communion, with your "Amen" you are saying "so be it," or "I believe," while you are literally telling the world in public statements that you don't believe.

This is not a partisan critique. I can think of two cases, one Republican (former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge) and one Democrat (former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius) who each got "the talk" from their local bishop about this issue during their political careers. To my knowledge, both of them respected the bishop's judgment that they should not receive Holy Communion until they had reconciled with the Church on this issue of abortion.

Of course that would be the right thing to do, to be honest with yourselves, with your fellow Catholics, and with your constituents. If you are so persistently and obstinately opposed to the Church on an issue upon which the Church has not changed since the first century, why on Earth would you receive Holy Communion if you really believe what we are supposed to believe about what- about Who - the Eucharist actually is? Respect for your own beliefs would demand that you did not receive Holy Communion, unless you are using that belief system or the Eucharist (or both) as a political prop, and if that is the case, may God have mercy on your souls...

Considering the poor state of catechesis in many places in our country today, it is always possible that some of the people on that list of signatories to the "letter to the bishops" were not aware of the Church's teaching regarding the Eucharist, or what constitutes worthy reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Let us all be reminded of the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

It should be noted here that the majority of the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians is devoted to correcting those who have disrespected the Eucharist.

Holy Communion is not a right, it is a gift. Specifically, it is a gift from Christ to the Church, not from the Church to individual members. If you are doing things which willfully promote grave or mortal sin (and certainly something which can excommunicate your brothers and sisters in the faith), this is also grave, and that would include not merely upholding existing law, but promulgating new laws which encourage, fund, and even promote abortion and other manifest public and apparent sin. 

If you publicly and willfully believe in things which are utterly contrary to the most basic teachings of the Catholic faith, the best thing you can do for yourself and the good of your own soul, as well as the good of your brothers and sisters in the faith, is to abstain from receiving Holy Communion unless and until you can reconcile your beliefs with what the Church teaches. 

Note that I am not telling you that you aren't Catholic or that you should not come to Mass and worship with us. I am saying that if you are not in Communion with the Church, you should not receive Holy Communion.

If someone knows that their beliefs are not in Communion with the Church, and they persist in receiving the Eucharist anyway under those circumstances, then it is fair to ask: Have you no fear of God? Do you have no belief in the Judgment of God? Do you have no respect for Jesus who died for you? This debate persists in the Church because some people persist in this public display of dishonesty about what they believe.

It doesn't have to be that way. As an act of love and charity, I beg of those who persist in these public errors: If you don't believe, don't receive.

Parish Bulletin Column On Spiritual Communion 7/5/2020

As we continue our spiritual journey together during what some have termed- not inappropriately - "coronatide," the most frustrating aspect of our shared experience for so many of us has been the limited nature of public worship, the Mass, and the regular availability of the Holy Eucharist. We have been compelled to limit the number of people who can come to Mass, as well as to wear facemasks when we come to Sacred Worship. Entire rows of pews in our nave must be roped off to keep people from sitting in them as we “social distance.”  It has been most difficult for deacons and priests, because bringing Christ to others in tangible ways is a big part of the ministry of Catholic clergy.

If there is one benefit to what our community is going through, it may be that perhaps this experience will help us not to take the frequent reception of Holy Communion for granted. I was reminded by a recent article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review that the practice of "Spiritual Communion," of not receiving the Eucharist physically for a period of time, but inviting Our Eucharistic Lord to dwell in our hearts and change our lives is not only an ancient devotional practice, at one time it was a far more frequent one. 

It was the great Pope St. Pius X who restored and encouraged the practice of very frequent Holy Communion among the laity, even encouraging people to receive the Eucharist daily if they were properly disposed. While the renewal of the Blessed Sacrament in this way has been a great blessing for the Church, in more recent times we have become so accustomed to receiving Holy Communion with such frequency that the regular practice of Spiritual Communion seemed to be non-existent among many Catholics, with the notable exception of those homebound who have not had regular access to the Holy Eucharist. 

Prior to the great reforms of Saint Pius, there were many Catholics who only received Holy Communion a few times a year, and yet were still obligated to come to Mass at least on Sunday under the pain of mortal sin. If someone wasn't receiving the Holy Eucharist, they were encouraged to make a Spiritual Communion, to unite themselves completely to Jesus in the Eucharist through prayer, and to do so in such a way that they longed for the Eucharist, understanding that it is really Our Lord - body, blood, soul, and divinity.

The lengthy period of time which we have recently passed in which we had no regular access to the Mass, but were asked to watch Mass on the internet or television, or listen on the radio, caused many of us to feel as though we were spiritually starving without the Eucharist. In many of these "virtual Mass" situations, the celebrant of the Liturgy will invite those watching to make a Spiritual Communion. There are many very good reasons why someone might not receive Holy Communion on any given Sunday. Perhaps you didn't get a chance to go to Confession before Mass. Perhaps you had to leave the church because of illness, or to tend to a sick child or spouse, or perhaps illness or quarantine is keeping you away from Holy Mass.

The practice of uniting ourselves in perfect prayer with the Eucharist when we cannot receive Our Lord is a way of reminding ourselves how much we long for the Lord Jesus, and how much we hope to be with Him in the heavenly liturgy for all eternity.

Act of Spiritual Communion:

My Jesus, 

I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament. 

I love You above all things, 

and I desire to receive You into my soul. 

Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally, 

come at least spiritually into my heart. 

I embrace You as if You were already there 

and unite myself wholly to You. 

Never permit me to be separated from You.

Amen.