From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I have taken your advice from almost a decade ago in a previous «Quæritur» to heart; I want to help the church where I live and be a diocesan priest.
The issue I am struggling with is not the liturgy itself, but with a pain in my conscience over the idea of giving communion in the hand […].
Being a veteran diocesan priest yourself I have no doubt you had to navigate this and I’m hoping you can help me.
Not an easy topic. I’m sure that priests reading this will have helpful insights. I hope they will chime in. I can anonymize anything.
With a measure of trepidation, I shall put on my waders and sally forth.
On the one hand, we have a responsibility regarding reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. On the other hand, we have a responsibility regarding the legitimate ordering of the Church and authority.
We can feel caught in the middle.
As a matter of fact, what you ask about is an issue of potential moral injury for a priest.
Moral injury results from a situation when a person cannot take an action that he feels to be morally right, or is forced to do something morally wrong, by the order of a superior. For example, COVID Theatre saw bishops forcing priests to do repugnant things.
We have to keep in mind that it was not our personal choice to give Communion in the hand, which while suboptimal is not in itself intrinsically evil. If it were intrinsically evil, then a lay person would not be able to pick up a Host found in a parking lot after Mass. The weight of responsibility and judgement for allowing Communion on the hand (CotH) is on those who made the choice to allow it to be done by law, an indult. Once the indult for CotH was given (Communion on the tongue is really still the norm!) then people had a right to receive that way. The right is not absolute, of course, but under normal circumstances at Mass in the Novus Ordo Communion on the hand shouldn’t be denied.
Popes and the local bishops will have to answer to God for this, not the priest in the trenches.
Analogies limp, but here is something that is illustrative if not conclusive.
Consider the Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo like two different cities or countries which have some similarities but which are dramatically different. You feel like a foreigner in going from one to the other and determining how to behave can be a challenge.
To this we can apply something that the North African St. Augustine relates about his mother Monnica (yes, that is a legitimate ancient spelling based on her Punic heritage) when they were in Milan.
When Monnica was with Augustine in Milan, she carried on with her North African custom of refrigeria meals (called laetitia in Confessions 6.2.2) in cemeteries by the tombs of the dead. This raised many Milanese eyebrows, to put it mildly, including those of bishop Ambrose.
Augustine says that Ambrose instructed Monnica not to do this in Milan, for it was not their local custom. Ambrose said that when he was in Rome, he followed the Roman laws concerning fasting, which were different from those of Milan:
“When I am here I do not fast on Saturday, but when I am at Rome I do; whatever Church you may come to, conform to its custom” (cf. Augustine ep 36.14.32 and ep 54.2.3).
In other words, when in Rome you do as the Romans do.
We follow the local rules of the place where we are, according to our Church.
For example, Latin Church members follow Latin Church rules of the local Latin diocese even if they go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church for Divine Liturgy that day. But they receive Communion in the manner of the Easterners when in their church.
Putting aside the risible claims to the contrary, the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo are different rites and each have their own laws that govern how Communion is distributed.
If we consider that the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo are places with their laws and customs, we priests can – not without a measure of repugnance – recognize the quasi-right that the CotH indult gives in the Novus Ordo and, holding our proverbial (but not literal) nose distribute CotH and hope for better days based on our subsequent ars celebrandi and teaching from the pulpit over time.
I write that knowing full well that there are bishops out there who have nearly unhinged notions about how people MUST be FORCED to receive. In their tin-pot dictatorial jihad to impose uniformity they violate the consciences of both their flocks and their priests and justify it because it’s important for… you know… everyone doing the same thing because… reasons and …. because… unity and other … ’cause… it’s really meaningful and all that.
Finally, I know a couple of priests who have gone to the mattresses with their bishops over Communion on the hand (and other things) and who… well… “lost”. They are now in the eyes of their bishops “unassignable”. Hence, they are stuck on the sidelines without a way to influence much of anything in a parish or anywhere else. I do not judge these priests. They stood up for what they believed. On the other hand, it is too bad that they now must sit on their hands. God will sort this out. In the meantime, people in the pews can thank their bishops for hamstringing a valuable asset when there is a shortage of active priests. I may be wrong, but I suspect that 85% of bishops would rather hammer a priest into the ground and then kick him to the gutter than paternally work something out with him.
Cue the moral injury music, which has an echo of a certain kind of marching quality that often employs the Glockenspiel.
“If your priests or bishops will not be a saint then be a saint for them.” Communion in the hand will not go away until all the lay faithful stop receiving in the hand.
In our parish we lead by example. We require all of our altar server to receive kneeling on the tongue, This informs the faithful in the pews. As we work through the restoration of the communion rails, we have a kneeler. Ask for server patens to be returned. Make a big deal of protecting the Eucharist and cleaning the area when a host drops, because it is a big deal! Inch by inch.
If your parish doesn’t have a kneeler, kneel anyway, if you are able. Sooner or later the priest will feel stupid not having one and your bishop look like an idiot for forbidding one. If you are not able to kneel, file an ADA complaint :-) every Catholic everywhere in the world has the right to receive kneeling and on the tongue, if you have a welcoming, inclusive parish they will need to accommodate.
It is long slow arduous work, it will involve slow and steady pressure and faithful that will back their priests as they try to make even small adjustments. You would not believe how loud one 80 year old church lady can be when you try to preach truth or use a word of latin. Our support for our faithful priests needs to be louder than even her.
@Dan,
My Novus Ordo parish is working along similar lines. Our (all-male, for now, thank the Lord) servers all receive kneeling and OTT. We recently put in a Communion rail (after the original was, horrifyingly, torn out and sold to a local restaurant) and, without any prompting, I’d guess 95% of the faithful receive kneeling and OTT, too.
Regarding welcoming and inclusivity, it now feels incredibly inhospitable any time I go to a parish that doesn’t at least provide a kneeler at Communion time.
Brick by brick, and all that…
I was recently discussing this with a young, newishly ordained priest at my NO parish. He said he makes an act of reparation to the Blessed Sacrament every single time he has to deliver Him to a hand instead of a tongue. The conversation actually began with my request for there to be at least one priest or deacon at the head of a particular side aisle, where I am obliged to sit as a musician, so that I may receive, on the tongue, from consecrated hands and not from an EM. He, having no power, acknowledged my right to receive from a priest and we spent a few minutes commiserating the ways Our Lord is disrespected in the sacrament. Nothing whatever was resolved, except that I have hope for the future of the priesthood.
A priest( of a religious order) I knew who was opposed to Communion in the hand would get around this by distributing Holy Communion by intinction.
It might not be much but I spend 2 hours per week praying for two priests at my parish.
The mere idea that “85% of bishops would rather hammer a priest into the ground and then kick him to the gutter than paternally work something out with him” is soul crushing to me. It truly hurts my heart. Our Lady of Sorrows – pray for us.
We need legions devoting holy hours in prayer for all priests.
it always gladdens my heart to see the story of St. Ambrose’s admonition to St. Monica, though i strongly prefer the more common spelling of the latter’s name
As a catechist (for adults) I have to thread a line between one “right” and the other “right” on this. With a pastor who is mainly excellent, but whose view on this matter appears to be that it’s far down the list of important things to worry about – though he does communion by intinction when under both species, which is great.
If the Vatican were serious about the admitted “abuses in the Novus Ordo”, it would tee up on bishops that wrongly demand CotH, not kneeling, etc, and smack them down. This is such an easy area to address that there’s no really good explanation for them NOT to address it, other than that they just don’t care when bishops abuse their power to push an agenda contrary to explicit law and teaching (as well as contrary to piety). So, Lefebvre was smacked down for wanting reverent masses, and (back in the 1970s) the bishops that went before the Vatican and said “our priests are giving out CotH, can we get permission to allow that?” , instead of the Vatican taking names and who must be removed or at least never promoted, rewarded their disobedience? (Same all over again – different pope – with girl altar boys, years later.) Bishop Strickland gets deposed for minor stuff that isn’t even a delict, but the German bishops are left in place when they defy Rome publicly on major things?
As an acolyte at a Novus Ordo parish, when I help distribute Holy Communion I slowly and very carefully/softly place Jesus onto the communicant’s hands (when the person puts their hands out) as a means to convey reverence and great respect for Our Lord under the guise of bread. Oftentimes I sense a pause in the communicant as I think it helps break their routine-ness in receiving… at least for a second or two.
Our old PP, who also gives or gave the TLM (not sure in this current era of Traditores restrictions), got around this by giving the Eucharist by intinction, as Elf-lover describes.
Weeeellll, we took mom to a very conservative parish for Christmas Mass once……on the way up to the front I whispered to her that they don’t do “in the hand” here. She whispered back “I do!” I know it’s the communicant’s choice but I was amused when as she struggled to juggle her cane and get her hands in front of her he simply held the host close up to her and she instinctively took by mouth!
At Novus Ordo I have always received standing but on the tongue, but ponder whether this fence-sitting option is actually improper. A negative experience during Holy Communion many years ago where I was forced to receive in the hand (while our Bishop Emeritus gave Holy Communion to an individual who kneeled to receive on the tongue right beside the Priest that told me off!) was very disruptive to my faith on top of everything else going on in the Church besides that which the pandemic impacted.
The 1st Step: Stop using laity to distribute Holy Communion. The extra time it takes for the clergy to distribute the Eucharist will give recipients time to contemplate what they have received.
Since coming back to the Vetus Ordo, I have seen two priests handle Communion without taking excessive time for Communion overall. Does this mean more work for the priests? Yes, it does, but what is that extra work when measured against the protection of and reverence for the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Father, does the same concept apply for the laity who are opposed to receiving Communion from a lay person? I try to only receive from the priest but there is a very elderly priest who sometimes does daily Mass. He will not administer Communion. He sits down and lets the EMHCs do it. I do not receive when that happens but am not sure I’m doing the right thing. I know the Church allows EMHCs, even though they’re overused, but I also know I’m not obligated to receive. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this, Father, as I want to be sure I’m doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Orual says: I want to be sure I’m doing the right thing
It seems to me that, by the way you explained yourself, you have your head screwed on in the right direction. The clear cut answer would be not to receive in that situation. However, if there are times when you think that reception of the Eucharist would be particularly helpful, you can in good conscience receive since it is an approved practice, hopefully legitimately implemented at that parish.
Optimal? No. However, we must be wary of making the perfect be the enemy of the good.
One thing my Novus Ordo parish started doing years ago was NOT having excessive announcements after communion. Why? We had a new pastor arrive circa 2010 and he wanted more parishioners to read the bulletin. Another reason (yes really) was he wanted to give parishioners time to pray and reflect on the Eucharist after receiving. Now, announcements are before Mass and the current pastor has continued this practice.
@jhogan,
I’ve heard the theory that a fair few of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes were because the clergy simply didn’t want to do so much. Sooo much easier to fob off things the readings and administering Holy Communion to lay people. After all, we’re all priests due to baptism, right? Maybe I picked up that theory from this blog—I honestly can’t remember.
@hwriggles4,
Imo, one of the sillier, detached-from-parochial-realities changes in the Novus Ordo is the insistence that announcements be placed after the Postcommunion Prayer. My parish recently made the change you described for much the same reasons. It was a pretty wide consensus that the normal announcements (plus the unusually-frequent “special” announcements, kinda like the routine use of “extraordinary” MHCs) were not best-placed right after most of the congregation has received the King of the Universe in their bodies and souls. Now, announcements are usually before Mass, and also usually tell people to get a bulletin if they’re really worried about missing all of the parish news. It’s been a very good change—no more collective groaning, especially from parents juggling young kids, when Father says “please be seated for a special announcement” several weeks in a row. Again… not the best disposition right after Communion!