In a post at his Substack entitled “Nobody is talking about this in the Catholic world,” Patrick Giroux has the courage and good sense to raise the issue of the indiscriminate reception of the Lord at weddings and funerals where many attendees are not Catholics, or, if Catholics, not practicing, not in accord with Church teaching, or not in a state of grace (or all of the above)—all of whom go up and receive anyway, with priests, deacons, and lay “ministers” handing out the Body of Christ as if it meant, and was, nothing more than a potato chip (we can’t even say it’s a sign, because if it were a sign, it would be a sign of membership in the Church, and, by definition, the foregoing categories are not actually members). Giroux suggests a fairly radical solution: do not distribute Communion at weddings and funerals.
It is hard not to sympathize with this suggestion. It is wrong for anyone who is not properly disposed for receiving the Lord to receive Him: objectively sinful and displeasing to God, wreaking havoc on souls and on the Church. Giroux implies that the current sick and dying condition of the Church is in part caused by an epidemic of sinful communions. This, after all, is the view of the Apostle: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep” (1 Cor 11:29).
I posted this article on social media with the following caveat:
Dear Friend,
I haven’t written further about this but I have written in defense of frequent communion in a number of articles, against neo-Jansenists. I’m not at all friendly to Jansenism, as my articles on dancing indicated.
Generally, I would agree with you about not discouraging reception of communion for those who are well-disposed. Giroux did not say Catholics should be habitually denied opportunity for Communion, and I am not sure many people hold that view. Rather, he said on occasions when there will be a lot of non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics, and this can be known relatively easily ahead of time.
What I think you are not taking into account is that most weddings and funerals are, sadly, not like the ones where Thomas Aquinas College or Christendom College or Wyoming Catholic College alumni get married and their devout friends and families come, most of them in a state of grace (indeed, probably having been to Confession in the recent past). Rather, according to priests I know, these are the occasions when the highest number of fallen-away Catholics, Catholics living in states of sin, and clueless unbelievers attend. Moreover, it is in fact not at all common for clear announcements to be made; once again, this tends to be done at more conservative or traditional events, where, ironically, the announcement is less needed. Giroux’s proposal was not to abolish communion tout court so that no sacrilegious communions are ever made, but rather, to consider doing so for weddings and funerals of that sort.
The weakness in his article is that he does not make any distinction between different kinds of congregations and the discernment a priest would have to make. He also errs in depriving (at least by implication) the wedding couple itself of Communion. Instead, they should be shriven shortly before the wedding, and then receive the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist, after all, is, like Christian marriage itself, sign of the nuptial union between Christ and His Church, and effects that union in us, so it would be perfectly absurd not to have the couple receive.
More generally, I would say that your comments may reveal an insufficient appreciation of the gravity of sacrilegious communions, as we find this highlighted in saints from St. John Chrysostom to St. John Vianney. Our Lord does tolerate this evil, as He does many another evil, from the Holocaust to the dire plague of abortion; but as John Paul II and Benedict XVI acknowledged, the indiscriminate reception of the Lord without due preparation and even in a state of sin—which is, as you know, an additional sin for the one receiving, at least objectively speaking, something displeasing to God and worthy of damnation—is practically an epidemic at this point.
We need, in fact, to reinstall some “barriers,” both physical and moral, to make sure that people do not stupidly eat and drink their own condemnation. We need communion rails to be put up again, and even rood screens; we need to abolish Communion in the hand and standing, replacing it with Communion kneeling and on the tongue, assisted by a server with a paten; we need to abolish “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” altogether; and have Confessions going on during Masses whenever possible. (On these matters, see my book Holy Bread of Eternal Life.)
I appreciate your concerns, but I wanted to push back just a bit in defense of Giroux, while also agreeing that orthodoxy and Jansenism have to be separated (they seem to share a razor-sharp border).
Yours in Christ,
Peter
It is hard not to sympathize with this suggestion. It is wrong for anyone who is not properly disposed for receiving the Lord to receive Him: objectively sinful and displeasing to God, wreaking havoc on souls and on the Church. Giroux implies that the current sick and dying condition of the Church is in part caused by an epidemic of sinful communions. This, after all, is the view of the Apostle: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep” (1 Cor 11:29).
I posted this article on social media with the following caveat:
The “solution” proposed here—to discontinue Communion at weddings and funerals—is too radical. However, his “second best” idea is perfectly right: a clear announcement should be made from the pulpit about who should and who should not receive. This is not only owed in justice to Our Lord but is also an act of charity to the attendees. I have found that something like this is done universally at TLM locations.A long-time friend of mine, seeing the article I shared, was obviously not in sympathy with the author’s suggestion, writing to me as follows.
Dear Peter,My response:
I hope you’re doing well. I want to ask you to consider writing an article about the problem with suggesting that the answer to sacrilegious communions is to straight across reduce the number of communions. The “solution” in Giroux article you shared just after Christmas was profoundly disturbing, and the comments perhaps more so. I saw you agreed it was too radical, and had hoped you might post more fully about this. The idea that we should categorically reduce Communions by forbidding them at, e.g., weddings and funerals so as to counteract the grave problem of sacrilegious Communions misses the whole problem. Sacrilegious communions are a spiritual problem. The most effective weapon against them is good Communions. We go from the altar “like lions breathing forth fire.” Christ was willing to risk having a whole twelfth of His first congregation make a sacrilegious Communion in order to give the gift of that first Communion of the Apostles to them, and to the Church forever.
There is a whiff of sulfur (unintentional, I’m sure, but nonetheless there) in the suggestion that we should be so focused on sacrilegious Communions that we be willing to give up good Communions. I certainly understand people being concerned and grieved over bad Communions. Still, aside from other considerations, it’s myopic to think that all weddings or funerals lack the needed announcements about fitting reception. But besides acknowledging that fact, it’s more important for people to realize that to categorically reduce the Mystical Body of Christ’s access to the Eucharistic Body of Christ directly vitiates our power to fight the darkness. It’s very Jansenistic; and Jansenism is finally not only a prideful reliance on one’s own powers, but a total lack of appreciation of God’s power. It’s Jansenistic to think that God is so weak in the Eucharist that we need habitually to take Communion away from good communicants in a desperate attempt to stop bad communicants.
When Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, He foresaw untold numbers of sacrilegious Communions. Yet He still said, “Take and eat” to us. For sure, He didn’t say, “Take and eat, and don’t bother telling anyone that they should be believing Catholics in a state of grace.” But He also didn’t say, “Don’t take and eat, because someone might choose wrongly and receive me sacrilegiously.” If that was His greatest concern, He wouldn’t have bothered instituting the Sacrament. Setting up excessive barriers between the faithful and Christ in the Eucharist is a Jansenistic attempt at hyper-control. In both cases, the effect is alienation from the desperately needed good God is offering us. I’d note, too, that removing Communion from weddings would habitually deprive all married couples of the huge graces which come from the good Communions made at their wedding. I remember at our wedding, as I marveled a bit over how long Communion went on, thinking that one of the great things about having many good guests at one’s wedding was having so many good Communions made at this pivotal time.
Dear Friend,
I haven’t written further about this but I have written in defense of frequent communion in a number of articles, against neo-Jansenists. I’m not at all friendly to Jansenism, as my articles on dancing indicated.
Generally, I would agree with you about not discouraging reception of communion for those who are well-disposed. Giroux did not say Catholics should be habitually denied opportunity for Communion, and I am not sure many people hold that view. Rather, he said on occasions when there will be a lot of non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics, and this can be known relatively easily ahead of time.
What I think you are not taking into account is that most weddings and funerals are, sadly, not like the ones where Thomas Aquinas College or Christendom College or Wyoming Catholic College alumni get married and their devout friends and families come, most of them in a state of grace (indeed, probably having been to Confession in the recent past). Rather, according to priests I know, these are the occasions when the highest number of fallen-away Catholics, Catholics living in states of sin, and clueless unbelievers attend. Moreover, it is in fact not at all common for clear announcements to be made; once again, this tends to be done at more conservative or traditional events, where, ironically, the announcement is less needed. Giroux’s proposal was not to abolish communion tout court so that no sacrilegious communions are ever made, but rather, to consider doing so for weddings and funerals of that sort.
The weakness in his article is that he does not make any distinction between different kinds of congregations and the discernment a priest would have to make. He also errs in depriving (at least by implication) the wedding couple itself of Communion. Instead, they should be shriven shortly before the wedding, and then receive the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist, after all, is, like Christian marriage itself, sign of the nuptial union between Christ and His Church, and effects that union in us, so it would be perfectly absurd not to have the couple receive.
More generally, I would say that your comments may reveal an insufficient appreciation of the gravity of sacrilegious communions, as we find this highlighted in saints from St. John Chrysostom to St. John Vianney. Our Lord does tolerate this evil, as He does many another evil, from the Holocaust to the dire plague of abortion; but as John Paul II and Benedict XVI acknowledged, the indiscriminate reception of the Lord without due preparation and even in a state of sin—which is, as you know, an additional sin for the one receiving, at least objectively speaking, something displeasing to God and worthy of damnation—is practically an epidemic at this point.
We need, in fact, to reinstall some “barriers,” both physical and moral, to make sure that people do not stupidly eat and drink their own condemnation. We need communion rails to be put up again, and even rood screens; we need to abolish Communion in the hand and standing, replacing it with Communion kneeling and on the tongue, assisted by a server with a paten; we need to abolish “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” altogether; and have Confessions going on during Masses whenever possible. (On these matters, see my book Holy Bread of Eternal Life.)
I appreciate your concerns, but I wanted to push back just a bit in defense of Giroux, while also agreeing that orthodoxy and Jansenism have to be separated (they seem to share a razor-sharp border).
Yours in Christ,
Peter
