cormacburke.me.ke

           What are the serious arguments in favor of holy communion in the hand? I say 'serious', because at times one hears arguments which can scarcely be termed serious; for example, the argument that this way of communicating is more in accordance with the adult Christianity which is supposed to characterize our having 'come-of-age'. Adult Christianity? Christians come of age?...: these may be useful catch-phrases. But I have yet to come across any theology-based explanation of what they are supposed to mean. In particular I have yet to see anyone successfully attempt the task of squaring them with our Lord's insistence on his followers becoming like children.

            But, it is argued, the practice has been introduced elsewhere. True. Nevertheless, this, in itself, is in fact no argument. The question is not, is it done elsewhere? but is it done successfully elsewhere? And successfully implies that it be a practice from which certain clear and important benefits are expected and obtained. It is much too early to say whether these benefits have or have not been forthcoming in the countries where the practice has been permitted. This obviously suggests a practical line of investigation which we will pursue later.

The practice of the early Christians

            The serious argument in favor of holy communion in the hand is of course that it was the practice of the early Church. It seems legitimate to assume that the apostles received the consecrated Bread - the Lord's Body - in their own hands at the Last Supper. And it is certain that this is how the Christians communicated during the first centuries. In this sense holy communion in the hand is put forward not so much as an innovation, but as a return to the sources. Now here we would indeed seem to have an argument with substance, for a return to the spirit of the early Christians would surely constitute a key factor in producing that deep renewal of the Church which we have been seeking for so long but which still seems to elude us.

            It is true that the argument rests on a hope, no more: the hope that a return to the spirit behind an ancient liturgical practice should facilitate a return to the early Christian spirit in other even more important fields: a return to their burning faith, to their fraternal charity, to their ecclesial unity, to their apostolic zeal. If we were to achieve that, we would really have achieved something! So even if the argument rests only on a hope, it is a hope that may be well founded, and therefore well worth pursuing.

            But it is fundamental to keep to grips with the substance of the argument and not let ourselves be taken for a ride over its surface - which is what would happen if we were to use the terms practice and spirit as if they were interchangeable and synonymous, without realizing that they are very different things which by no means always necessarily go together.

            What is being advocated, as I understand it, is something which, hopefully, will bring us back to a renewed and renewing spirit. This is a serious approach and deserves serious consideration. If what is being advocated were a mere return to a practice, with no concern for the spirit, then we could dismiss the argument offhand, as totally superficial. Is anyone going seriously to suggest that something important would have been achieved simply because the faithful nowadays are to be permitted to imitate the external gestures of the early disciples ? That would be practice-for-practice's sake, mere empty formalism, reducing the evangelizing effect or catechetical value of Christian worship (to take just these aspects) to a simple matter of external imitation. It seems crystal-clear that if we were to return to the early practice without returning to its spirit, we would have achieved nothing positive at all and might well end up with extremely negative results.

            So, if the appeal to the practice of the early Christians has any force, it must surely lie in the persuasion that to follow their practice will make it easier to follow their spirit; that imitation of their external mode of worship or liturgical praxis will help the faithful understand (and make it easier for their pastors to explain to them) and so imitate, the interior sentiments and dispositions of those first brothers of ours in the faith.

            Therefore, we are not in a position to enunciate the early Christian argument seriously - nor can we set forth the real possible advantages or the real practical difficulties attaching to the introduction of the new practice - unless we can form some accurate data of the spirit with which the first Christians communicated in the hand. Can we in fact form any such idea? I think so.

The spirit of the early Christians

            As regards the apostles themselves, one can easily imagine with what faith they must have received Christ's body — from the hands of our Lord himself! And with what reverence they must have then consumed it! Jesus had put them to an anticipated test of eucharistic faith at Capharnaum (Jn 6) and they had survived it, accepting the fact that they were to eat his body, even though they could not understand in what way this was to be possible. How indeed could they then understand it? It was enough for them that he had said so: 'You have the words of eternal life' (Jn 6:68). Now, at the Last Supper, our Lord reveals to them, and institutes, the way by which it will be possible to receive this divine food. And he gives it to them at the same time as he ordains them ministers to perpetuate the Eucharistic Sacrifice and to continue administering that same nourishment to others. With what faith they must have communicated! And with what awe and reverence they must have later distributed the Bread of Life! And what concern to instruct the disciples so that they would always communicate with similar faith and reverence.

            Now it may be objected that this is all very fine but, though no doubt well-founded in the case of the apostles, has no more claim on us than that of pious supposition. This objection — were it to be made — would be deeply disturbing, not because it has any validity but precisely because it would be a sign of the superficiality we warned about earlier and which seems to express itself particularly in a readiness to invoke the practice of the early Christians without apparently being aware of (and therefore without being in a position to make the faithful aware of) the spirit animating that practice. The fact, of course, is that the nature and quality of that spirit are matters not of supposition to us, but of well documented historical record and fact.

            There is no lack of qualified witnesses, both to the vivid faith with which the early Christians communicated in the hand, as well as to the intense catechesis with which their pastors instructed them in this respect. Tertullian (+ 240) tells us: "They fear and tremble lest any part of the chalice or of the bread should fall to the ground" (De corona, 3; PL 2, 99). Origen (+254) addresses himself to his fellow Christians: "When you receive the Lord's body, with what precaution and veneration you preserve it, so that no part of the consecrated gift falls or is lost. You would rightly regard yourselves as guilty if some particle fell to the ground due to your carelessness" {In Exod. horn. XIII, 3; PG 13, 391). And St. Cyril of Jerusalem (+386): "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive his King ... Then receive him, taking every care that nothing is lost. If you let any part fall, it would be as if you had lost a part of your own members" (Cat. Myst. V,, 21-22; PG 33, 1, 124-5).

            These texts reflect a deep reverential fear (fear of profanation) undoubtedly present in the great mass of the early Christians. They equally reflect a deep evangelizing concern, on the part of their pastors, lest that faith and reverence dwindle. Such was the spirit of the early Church, in living the liturgical practice of holy communion in the hand.

The present practice in other countries

            By digging a bit deeper into the past, we have been able to clarify what exactly was the spirit which animated the early Christian practice (and which, I repeat, is presumably what is really being aimed at by those who wish to revive the practice). By digging a bit deeper into the present, we can, I would suggest, get a clearer idea of what in fact is the likely result of a generalized introduction of the practice into our own country. For the Church in Ireland, is, in this matter, in the lucky position of not having to take a plunge in the dark. The practice has been sufficiently long established in some other countries to make a certain evaluation of results possible. More than a year's close observation of the practice in several of these countries, notably England and Spain, leads me to offer the considerations which follow.

            First of all, let us look at the positive side. Back in the 60's I knew certain liturgical groups, mainly French, who vanguarded the initial stages of the campaign for the new practice. [ well remember their enthusiasm about it — an undoubtedly religious enthusiasm. "Touching our Lord with my own hands!", meant a new and moving experience for them. I have since met some — few — people in England and Spain who have professed a similar enthusiasm. There is no doubt something of value here. Nevertheless, it can scarcely be classified as more than essentially emotional reaction with little depth to it. It even runs the danger of an important anti-catechetical effect. The hand-to-body contact is not only not more significant than the tongue-to-body contact, it is less significant; for the latter contact emphasizes much more that we receive the Eucharist as a food. The reason we are given to the Lord's body is not mainly to touch it (as a curiosity?), but to eat it (as a necessity)! To get more excited about how we eat than about what we eat, in communicating, means that our priorities, and probably our faith, are becoming very fuzzed up indeed.

            Nevertheless, however superficial this emotional reaction may be, it is still admittedly a reaction with roots in a conscious faith. In this sense we could almost wish it were more frequent, for the main reaction we meet is — after a certain initial surprise — one of blank routine acceptance; and, little by little, much worse. To check up on this, it is enough to visit a normal parish church in a European country where the practice has been in authorized operation for, say, a year or more (where, therefore, the attractions not only of clandestinity or illegality, but also those of simple novelty have now worn away), and to observe: simply to watch a group of people communicating in the hand and try to judge from their attitudes or gestures. Do they give an impression of faith? Do they receive our Lord's body with reverence? Do they look on it and handle it as if they were aware of having, in the words of Vatican II, "the Church's entire spiritual wealth" in their hands (words which the Council applies precisely to the Eucharist; Decree on Priestly Ministry, no. 5)? ... It seems to me that, in at least 90% of the cases, the only honest answer to these questions is No.

            The evident routine ..., the generalized attitude of carelessness in taking and handling the Sacred Host ..., the unconcern about the particles that inevitably get detached from it ... Should all of this not be avoided? Obviously. But the question is, can it? The Holy See has clearly warned that it must be avoided. But the fact remains that almost everywhere the practice has been introduced, it has not.

The Holy See's directives

            The Holy See, in a 1969 letter from the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, emphasized, in the first place, the need for an adequate catechesis on the practice, so that its introduction should "exclude even the appearance of a weakening in the Church's consciousness of faith in the Eucharistic Presence and also any danger or simply the appearance of danger of profanation" (AAS 61 (1969), pp. 564-7) My experience is not only that this catechesis has been carried out in far too few places, but - above all - that even when it is conscientiously and perseveringly carried out, it is not sufficient to preclude the dangers that so concern the Holy See. Actions (or omissions) speak louder than words and have a greater impact. The fact of the matter is, I fear, that the actions and gestures that overwhelmingly tend to prevail in the holy communion-in-the-hand rite, have a sort of powerful and progressive anti-catechetical effect, that not even the most painstaking oral catechesis seems able to offset. Since I am fully aware that these are strong affirmations, let me try to substantiate them.

            It is true that, in the same letter referred to, the Holy See gave a series of directives - concerning gestures and attitudes, etc. — whose evident aim is to avoid or at least diminish the dangers referred to of weakening the people's faith and causing irreverence to the body of Christ. The trouble with these undoubtedly important indications - the first trouble - is that they are given in very general terms, with no suggestions as to methods of overcoming the practical difficulties in the way of their fulfilment. The second trouble is that in the vast majority of churches where the new practice is followed, we seldom see these directives observed, least of all the most important one of them to which I will shortly refer. The third trouble is that, in my own experience and that of all the priests I have consulted, even when these directives are observed in the most practical manner, they are insufficient to prevent the counter-catechetical effect of the practice. Let us take a brief look at these directives.

            A first indication is that the communicant must consume the Host 'on the spot', i.e. when and where he receives it. This is obviously meant to preclude conscious or unconscious profanation of which we can imagine all sorts of cases ranging from the youngster who brings the Host back to his seat to show it to his curious baby brother to the possibility (which it would be naive to discard) of someone retiring from the place of communion without having consumed the Host and go managing to take it away with him on leaving the Church. The proper observance of this grave indication must necessarily introduce an element of deliberate slowness into the distribution of Holy Communion (another time-consuming factor, when many people are already complaining about long drawn-out ceremonies!).

            Another directive insists upon 'adequate cleanliness' of hand in those who communicate in this way. It is logical. If a guest — with dirty hands — at a human banquet would be considered to be lacking in a sense of the occasion, the lack would be much more obvious in the case of the Eucharistic banquet. If the priest himself washes his hands at least twice (sacristy and Lavabo) before touching the Sacred Species, should less be expected of the people? It is evidently no argument to say that these washings are simply symbolic and therefore mere dispensable ritual, since any such "empty formalism" argument could immediately be turned against holy communion in the hand itself. Neither cleansing one's hands nor communicating in the hand has any value in themselves. They are indeed mere rituals. Their value is, or should be, that they are indicative or provocative of faith. In this case, the two external forms are closely inter-dependent. Communicating in dirty hands is certainly indicative of little faith and, if allowed, tends logically to diminish faith still further. Yet, once more, it is not easy to ask people to hold out their hands for inspection or to send Tommy packing to the sacristy to get the dirt out from under his fingernails. So? It's a safe bet to say that 20% of the people communicate with frankly dirty hands. And most of the others with hands that are probably far less clean than if they were sitting down to a meal in their own home.

The main problem

            But the main problem is undoubtedly that of the particles which get detached from the Hosts and which can easily fall to the ground, or else simply stick to the communicants' fingers and end up in pockets or bags mixed with cigarettes, bubble-gum or lipstick. It will hardly be denied that, without (or perhaps even with) maximum precautions, this is bound to happen. And, I imagine, no one is likely to say that if it does happen, it doesn't matter. This is the practical point where most pastors really begin to worry. And no wonder.

            It is a matter of faith that Christ is really present in the Host and in each of its particles however minute. Therefore there is only one logical and theological answer to the at times heard comment, "Phooey! How can a tiny, practically invisible, particle matter? Who really believes that Christ is present there?" If one does not really believe he is present there, one has no basis for believing that he is present in the Host, of which the particle is but a part, and one will surely end up disbelieving his presence in the whole Host too. What has the size of a Host or particle got to do with the matter? It is not a question of size but of faith. The Host is also ridiculously small compared to Christ's physical body. Where faith is present, the size of the Host is of no importance. And where size is let be important, faith is being ushered out.

            Now the fact is that the faithful are being led to believe that size is important; that Christ is not present in small particles of the Host. This is utterly destructive of Eucharistic faith; and the main means, by which this disastrous effect of the holy communion in the hand rite is being produced, is carelessness on the part of so many ministers about the particles: carelessness which is not only contrary to both the spirit and practice of the early Christians, but contravenes the liturgical norms that have expressed the sensus fidei and the sensus fidelium of all the centuries and have been taken up once more by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani of 1970 which (no. 120) insists that the priests, 'distributione Communionis expleta ... colligit fragmenta'. Colligit fragmenta; the indication, in its very wording, clearly expresses its Gospel origin.

            If our Lord, on the occasion of the miracle of the loaves (an evident figure of the Eucharist) specifically told his apostles to collect the left-over particles - 'colligite fragmenta' (Jn 6:12) - does he expect less of his ministers when they are dealing with what is no mere figure or foreshadowing but the very reality itself? If this norm obliges all ministers, in the usual rites of holy communion, it logically obliges much more when the danger of dispersal of the particles and of profanation is much greater, as in the case of holy communion in the hand. No wonder that the 1969 Vatican Letter, in its par. 5, singles out this point.

            When holy communion in the hand was permitted in Spain early in 1975, I was asked by the Spanish clergy magazine Palabra to contribute an article with suggestions as to practical means of ensuring the reverence which the Holy See asks for (cf. Palabra, May 1975). The more I pondered the particles question, the larger I saw its difficulties. But in the end, trying to make the best of the job, I put forward a few fairly obvious suggestions: use of a special communion plate, inviting the faithful to carefully brush on to it any particles they detect on their fingers or hands; use of special purificators, along with the piscis, or of a combination of two large purificator-towels (one moist, one dry), so that the faithful can purify their fingers and hands after touching our Lord's body ... Anticipating certain possible objections, I made a point of recalling the catechetical effect (inculcating reverence) which the sight of the celebrant so purifying his fingers has always had on the people and asked whether we should think our people less capable of reverence or less capable of appreciating practical details aimed at ensuring reverence.

            Today I am more convinced than ever that some clear measures along these lines are essential (and morally obligatory) if there is to be any hope of avoiding grave loss of faith and grave abuse, as a result of this practice. Yet, from what I have seen, these (or any equivalent measures) are practised in very few places indeed.

            The Palabra editor asked me specifically for a forward-looking, practical and positive article. That is how I tried to write it - in a spirit of 'let's see what is the best that can be hoped for and made of this new practice'. After a year's experience I can no longer maintain that positive attitude, for I am now quite convinced that, a few isolated cases apart, the best that can be made of the practice is something pretty bad indeed. Not only has holy communion in the hand not contributed to any generalized benefit, it is almost everywhere producing highly negative effects: as regards the faithful, an intensely deevangelizing effect - which I would sum up as the trivialization of their most intimate contact with their God -; and, as regards our Lord himself, an effect of clear and at times appalling irreverence (however routine and unconscious) toward his sacred body.

Toward the lowest common denominator?

            Despite the grace of his vocation, the priest is as subject as anyone to routine and interior distractions in his eucharistic faith and ministry. The rubrics are there, essentially to ensure that his external comportment is such as befits the Lord's service; so also as not to disedify the faithful . In this latter sense, the rubrics are aimed at defending the people's faith against the idiosyncracies as well as the possible weakness of faith of their ministers.

            We priests are no more than human and therefore we have all no doubt some time been sloppy in our rubrics (though, unless we deliberately chose to ignore them, we can scarcely have been downright slovenly). Nevertheless, even in the case of a sloppy celebrant, one normally saw faith and reverence in the people's attitudes, at least in the moment of receiving Holy Communion. They too of course might be distracted inside, but their general external comportment served as a ready, common and constant reminder to them all, to recall the solemn greatness of their action in receiving our Lord.

            The danger for the people, in the new suggested practice, is that of generalizing eucharistic slovenliness, of leaving people defenseless not just against an individual's (the priest's) possible carelessness, but against an inevitable communal tendency toward the lowest common denominator in terms of mutual example. It is the danger of allowing a situation where people's interior distractions or lack of actualized faith, are allowed to be externalized in gestures of common routine carelessness.

            To call for exterior signs of respect and reverence - even knowing that they may not necessarily correspond to actual interior willed dispositions - is not hypocrisy. It is what in human society is called common courtesy or good manners (one doesn't put one's feet up on a banquet table or yawn during one's host's speech). In liturgical parlance, it is called reverence.

Reverence

            Let us end on this point. Since the proponents of holy communion-in-the-hand claim that it is a practice beneficial to the Christian life of the faithful, I have tried to express my conviction that in practice it tends to be the opposite. We cannot however forget that the value of any liturgical practice must be judged in function of its contribution to the several aims of the liturgy itself, and among these aims some are more important than others. The liturgy should indeed procure the sanctification and instruction of the faithful. But this is not its main function or aim. As Vatican II reminds us (Decree on the Liturgy no. 38), "the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty". Worship implies reverence. Whatever hinders reverence hinders worship. And this is surely the conclusive argument against holy communion in the hand (considered in practice and not just in theory): it undermines reverence; it fosters irreverence. It therefore undermines the essential aim and function of Christian liturgical worship.

            We priests are indeed ministers to oar people. But we are ministers to God first. We have many obligations toward the members of the Mystical Body of Christ. But we would not be true priests if we did not cherish even more deeply our obligations toward his real body; and among these obligations, adoration, veneration and reverence are surely paramount.

            We are quite certain that our Lord instituted the Eucharist because he wants to go to people's hearts and souls. We are also certain that he wants — and has a right — to find those souls clean; otherwise (and it is the gentlest way to describe a sacrilegious communion), he would not be 'at home' there. We are not quite so sure that he wants to go to people's hands before he goes to their souls. But we can be certain that he is not likely to feel 'at home' in hands that mishandle him. And if he is so mishandled, is there not an element of sacrilege in such ill-treatment (unconscious and all as it may well be)? If this is pressed on us, in the name of liturgical progress, how are we priests to feel?

            The priest with a strong faith in the Holy Eucharist will always personally be able to live that faith of his, whatever the rite in which he administers holy communion. But how can he do anything but suffer (his faith becomes active atonement) when the new rite is legitimized and he finds himself obliged to deposit Christ's body in the hands of an ever-growing number of people whose attitudes in receiving the Lord (despite all precautionary measures) bespeak faith weakened and trivialized? He suffers for them, his people, whose faith he is supposed to care for, strengthen and defend. And he suffers for him, his Lord, the Holy of Holies, whose custodian he also in some ways is, and with regard to whose body he had once learned that sancta sancte tractanda (what is holy is to be dealt with in a holy manner). And yet he now sees the Eucharist indiscriminately handled by many who no longer seem to know whom it is they touch.

            These are the problems that so profoundly disturb so many priests in countries where holy communion in the hand is permitted. Please God, they are problems that will not have to disturb priests in this country.

            If things change and clear and widespread evidence ever comes from other countries that the essential problems of de-evangelization and of irreverence have been overcome, then the moment could have arrived to consider its introduction into Ireland. But surely not now.