No priests–no Eucharist?
Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Center on Long Island released a pastoral letter today [beware: PDF file] ending the fairly common practice of communion services in the absence of a priest–an “extraordinary” form that came into being because of the priest shortage. According to this Newsday story the pastoral letter seems to have been pegged to a too-common recourse to these services at some diocesan schools. But barring them altogther will also mean more work for already overburdened priests, as well as fewer masses for Catholics who the pope wants to be nourished by the Eucharist. So no priest, no eucharist. No eucharist–no church? There seems to be an effort to “tighten up” on liturgical practices in keeping with Vatican wishes. And this does cause us to reflect deeply on the meaning of the eucharist–a significance Bishop Murphy clearly thinks is being diluted (his language about the eucharist is almost identical to Benedict’s). But there is also no discussion of the larger problem behind this pastoral provision–the decline in vocations. I haven’t heard of other instances of this rollback–has anyone else? Is this a one-off for Long Island, or part of a trend?
I’ve read Murphy’s statement and whatever his over-all motives (which, given his reputation, most people probably suspect), he does describe practices that tilt a bit toward magical thinking about the Eucharist.
How much liturgy of the word can be included in a 15-minute Communion service at the High Schools? So students and faculty pop in for a wafer before going to lunch? Hmmmm! Sounds a bit like the 15-minute speedy Latin Mass once offered in downtown parishes at lunch time.
Murphy says that some pastors instituted the practice so that his day off would not deprive people of Communion on a week day; the letter points out that the Liturgy of the Hours (morning or evening prayer) could be offered instead. People could also go to a neighboring parish. Is missing Mass one day a week such a burden to the faithful? I wonder?
Maybe we should ask (and Julia Upton quoted in the Newsday story might know) if there wasn’t simply a lot of free-lance Communion services? Maybe the Newsday reporter should have investigated a little more. Given the loopy liturgy featured in a post below, maybe further thought is in order on “extraordinary” forms of the Eucharist.
David, what do you mean when you say “fewer masses”? Because these were communion services and not masses, halting them would not lessen the number of masses said. It would limit access to the Eucharist outside of mass, but I’m wondering if there’s something in this limitation that you are seeing but I’m not, i.e. priests would have to work harder at something and thus not be able to say mass as often as they are now.
Paul, I probably should not have said “fewer masses,” as perhaps priests will be able to find ways to celebrate mass rather than allow for the distribution of communion. I do think the upshot will be fewer masses, as there are only so many priests to go around. It seems the spur for this pastoral letter (which is an unusual vehicle for what seems like an essentially administrative action) was the “quickie” communion distribution at schools. But the fallout will hit parishes where there are not enough priests to cover daily masses, which will by necessity become fewer. The larger fallout is not at the schools, but in the churches. Peggy Steinfels raises some good points about the efficacy of daily masses. But that goes to the whole issue of whether it is important to have a Catholic presence “on the street,” whether churches should be open or locked, etc. Parish and school closings and the priest shortages and the reduced availability of the eucharist seem to be gradually constricting the Catholic “footprint,” which I think changes the geography of evangelization.
Two of the most vibrant manifestations of Italian Catholicism place the Liturgy of the Hours at the center of their spiritual lives. I refer to the Community of Sant’Egidio (of which I wrote in Commonweal some years back) and the Monastery of Bose (about which Joseph Komonchak wrote on this blog).
In both cases the Eucharistic celebration is not minimized, it is rather enhanced by a profound schooling in the Word.
Despite Dei Verbum of Vatican II and the enhanced Sunday lectionary Catholics’ biblical literacy still leaves much to be desired. Yet the Council insists on a real presence of Christ when the Word of scripture is proclaimed and prayed.
It will be interesting to see the pastoral conclusions of this Fall’s Synod of Bishops on the Word of God.
Is there a priest shortage in the Rockville Center Diocese?
Bose, like Taize, holds a great fascination for me–well, as does most any monastic tradition. Unfortunately I’d be one of those perpetual dabblers like Kathleen Norris. More of a spiritual tourist than she. But I thought Bose was ecumenical, if not to the degree of Taize? Does that necessitate a non-eucharistic centered spirituality? Also, I think the idea of a broader devotional life beyond the eucharist is vital. Scripture reading, the rosary (which grew out of a similar connection, I believe, between the monastic and the outside world), the liturgy of the hours, which has seen a pop cultural revival. But…Peggy talked about the “magical thinking” behind some of these communion-distribution services. No doubt true. But is emphasizing the eucharist at daily mass to such a degree also contributing to that. I recall sitting in the same pew with a CCD kid, really cute, with her notebook, at Mass. After receiving she came back to the pew, and out of the corner of my ostensibly praying eye I saw her diligently write: “10:43 am. Got body of Christ.” Homework done.
Seems to be an ever-shifting balance between devotional life and the eucharist, no? I also tought it was V2 that spoke of Christ’s presence in the priest and the congregation and the Word as wel as the eucharist. Has that four-fold understanding been realized? And what would it mean to mass attendance with the kind of attention that Bishop Murphy would liek?
With due respect David, I think that your suggestion that this is about “tightening up” on liturgical practices is reductive and misses the real care that Bishop Murphy has brought to this letter. While I realize that Bishop Murphy’s practice of repeatedly citing the GIRM can make it appear that this is primarily a disciplinary issue, I think it’s important to pay attention to what he is quoting and why. There are some important theological issues here. I can assure you that some of the things that Murphy could make certain types of liturgical “traditionalists” uncomfortable.
One of the things I enjoyed about the bishop’s letter is that he makes clear that the celebration of the Eucharist is not solely about the consecration (and consumption) of the elements. This has been an issue with Catholic liturgical piety going back several centuries (it’s one of the reasons for the tradition of ringing bells during the consecration) and it is one of the things that the liturgical movement of the 20th century was trying to change. I think this also relates to the Bishop’s effort to reaffirm the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (often not observed, alas) that the faithful should generally receive communion from the hosts consecrated at the Eucharist rather than those that have been reserved in the tabernacle.
I also think it’s important to note the focus on the importance of the Eucharistic Prayer and the involvement of the entire assembly in its action. During the 20th century, one of the debated issues in Eucharistic theology was the extent to which the assembly could be said to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice together with the priest. Critics of this view argued that it compromised the Church’s understanding of holy orders. In the encyclical Mediator Dei (90-94), Pius XII—while reiterating that the act of consecration is performed by the priest alone as a representative of Christ—nevertheless affirmed that there was a sense in which the assembly and the priest come together as the mystical Body of Christ to offer the sacrifice. This teaching was reaffirmed and deepened at Vatican II in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (c.f. Article 48).
Bishop Murphy’s reflections on the nature of the sacrifice of the Eucharist are also worth reading closely. To be honest, even I’m a bit concerned that the bishop’s suggestion that true sacrifice is “ethical” rather than “cultic” could be misunderstood in a way that minimizes the centrality of worship in living a life of self-offering to God. I certainly don’t think that is what the bishop means, but the term “ethical” tends to be understood in a reductive way these days. In any case, Murphy’s understanding is certainly deeper than one that would see the “sacrifice of the Mass” as solely pertaining to Christ’s shedding of blood on Calvary.
I think that all of these issues need to be taken into account when we think about the purpose of Communion Services. The point is not simply to give people an opportunity to consume the Blessed Sacrament. It is to bring people who cannot be present at the celebration of the Eucharist into its reach. This is, of course, particularly important on Sunday, the Lord’s Day. It is also important for those –such as the men I minister to at the county jail—who cannot physically be present at their parish celebrations for a prolonged period of time.
The text that I use out at the jail is called Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest and I think that Bishop Murphy is right that the intention in authorizing this rite was not for it to be used as a substitute for daily masses during the week. It was certainly not aimed at creating the kind of “drive through” Communion Services that are described in the Newsday article. I think that the bishop is right to be concerned about the impact that a proliferation of such services has on our understanding of the Eucharist.
I also applaud Bishop Murphy’s suggestion that an alternative to Communion Services would be expanded use of the Liturgy of the Hours, which continues to be underutilized in most parishes, partly because it competes (practically not theologically) with daily mass. I realize that my own views on this are probably on the extreme end, as I would cheerfully eliminate Saturday and Sunday evening masses in favor of sung Vespers.
The irony in all this is that the bishop’s action is likely to be criticized as “conservative” when it is really in deep continuity with the core principles of 20th century liturgical reform.
I believe it appropriate for Bishop Murphy to issue such a pastoral letter in what may appear to be an administrative action. Throughout the Church’s history there has been much confusion between the celebration of Eucharist and the reception of Holy Communion. The shortage of priests has brought this theological confusion to the surface for closer inspection. In this society it is all too easy to fall into a consumerist spirituality as opposed to a truly Catholic liturgical spirituality. As Ed Foley, Capuchin has pointed out, “When we allow the tabernacle to displace the table as the sending point of communion, we weaken the linkage between communion and the sacrifice of Christ which is so central to the celebration of the Eucharist. By consequence, we can often turn communion into a private act of reception, rather than a public act of missioning to become the body of Christ in the world.”
I believe that Bishop Murphy is correctly employing his role as chief liturgist in his diocese by using this administrative action of curtailing the proliferation of Communion services as a catechetical moment. I also think it appropriate that this pastoral letter be distributed during the Novena of Pentecost insofar as it seems likely that those participating in these weekday communion services have forgotten the role of the Holy Spirit in the celebration of Eucharist.
I only wish that Bishop Murphy had spent time catechizing on the forgotten liturgy of the Church, the Liturgy of the Hours, which could nourish and sustain those throughout the week until they are able to fully celebrate the Paschal Mystery in their Sunday celebration of Eucharist. It is my understanding that the Diocese of Rockville shortage of priests has not affected parishes to the extent that they would need to resort to Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest.
No priests – no eucharist. No eucharist – no Church? The answer is yes, but why are people settling for communion services when so much is at stake?!
David, are you ever on the cutting edge. On a Friday no less. (Now if one of the other contributors could get the Steinfels article on Taylor in play we will really be rolling)
First of all the best thing about the dilemma of fewer “Presiders” of the Eucharist is that it will eventually eliminate the daily mass which is theologically unsound anyway. Sunday is the Lord’s day for the Eucharist. The private masses proliferated as money makers rather than real celebrations of the Lord’s supper. Private Masses is one of the biggest heresies of the official church.
As an aside I am truly sorry to see that Peggy joined others in calling the CTA mass loopy. What we cringe at is not necessarily wrong or bad for the church.
The leadership of the church is frozen and has its head in the sand about this problem which is accelerating every year. Most importantly, if we want to ridicule we should ridicule the absolute insanity in which the leadership of the church has handled the shortage of priests. That inane behavior has always been present in mission lands but is now truly coming home to roost. Nobody can assert that the church of Jesus cannot celebrate the Eucharist when there are believers of Jesus Christ present. If we want to say heresy that has been long time heresy.
Jesus is present where his people are. That includes the Lord’s Supper. And truly the people are working out the details. If you get the point.
I understand this is a bit jolting for many of us. But if we allow ourselves to use our reason in conjunction with our faith we will do a lot better.
John Allen’s weekly NCR post talks about the excellent reception BXVI got here and raises the questions of, in the aftermath, how well the media cover religion and how well do religious leaders present to the media.
I guess the bishop’s pastoral is the first big Catholic media event since BXVI went home, and I’m less than clear how this was the first priority, post Benedict, and what folk will make of the newsday report.
Lots of questions: it’s surely true that the Eucharist should be generally tied to the Mass, but what if you don’t have enough priests? Time? Both?
What effect wil this have on the students, who, say, have been taugh that reception is the best thing they can do that day? Now we substitute (a worthY) form of prayer. Will that confuse or weaken their faith?
Will strict adherence to rulkes (GIRM) – no matter how rational one might find as a basis – be perceived as more top down and less concern for people’s needs?
How Bishops follow uop on the warm aura of BXVI’s visit Allen speaks of carries some weight. it seems to me.
A stark contrast is perhaps in Palm Beach. Fl where the Bishop met with VOTF for several hours to discuss the former horrors in that diocese and moving ahead.
For all the careful preparation and stage managemen tof BXVI’s visit, I think it was his own positiveness that reached folk.
I’m not sure this approach,even with clearly some ratiuonale behind it, will do the same however.
It used to be the case (and I believe it is still true) that the Diocese of Rockville Centre had one of the lowest priests-to-people ratios in the country, but because the population is so geographically concentrated it led to ever-larger Masses rather than Sunday celebrations without a priest, as it would in rural dioceses.
A note of thanks–these are good comments, on what is (to me) a fascinating and absolutely central topic (summit and source, one might even say) for the church. As to being “reductive,” Peter, I’m not sure what our argument might be, except that my terminology, not for the first time, is too colloquial. I do think what I was saying reflects the obvious reality of what the bishop is doing, even if I did not give it the theological nuance and extended disquisition that you and others can do so well. Just to clarify again to everyone: I mean no disrespect to the church, to the hierarchy, or to the eucharist, most especially. I simply think this topic one that bears discussion for both theological reasons and practical reasons of church life.
Sure, there is obviously a good chance that Bishop Murphy himself was being political in the commonly-understood sense of the word, and he is a man of the church as much as conservative or liberal. But “political” or not I think he is also reflecting–as he said and as is clear from the letter–that the eucharist is a vital teaching of the church and one that he wants to reiterate and one that is central to Benedict’s eucharistic theology. He may have more prosaic motives as well, and that’s fine. I’d give it the ex opere operato apporach (or is it operante? I can never remember) and examine the letter for what it is: an attempt to address a problem of eucahristic understanding, and also one due in large measure to the absence of enough priests. (Again, the Newsday piece noted one priest who said this would cause him to work on what had been his only day off. Some may say tough for him, he’s a priest, but I think one has to empathize with pastors who are stretched thin.)
I actually agree that less may be more in terms of receiving communion; I never like the idea of communion separated from the mass, and I think Lisa and Peter make good points about the practice (allegedly a favorite of conservatives) of separating out the eucharistic in talismanic devotions. I also think this points up the interesting development of the surge in the reception of communion; like many here I really respect those who eect not to receive. I assume, rightly or wrongly, that they’re probably taking the sacrament more seriously than I am.
My principal concern about Murphy’s letter is that it does not explore many of the issues raised here by those more versed in these things than I am. The bishop does make reference to the liturgy of the hours (I believe) but otherwise it strikes me as simply reinforcing the standard way of “doing” mass, rather than thinking more broadly about how we are to “do” mass without priests, or how we are to order our devotional lives without mass, or, as Bill Mazzella noted, whether daily mass should go the way of fish on Fridays. We are in a transitional moment, historically. Benedict put such stress on the role of receiving the eucharist to build up the church, and the indispensibility of the priest. But what are we to think, what are we to do, when those two elements are increasingly restricted? And we’re in better shape here than elsewher. Perhaps we become like the Japanese after the explusion of missionaries, reciting a barely-remembered Rosary for a few centuries until the priests return…
As a hospice chaplain, I sometimes bring the Eucharist to patients and run into all the ambiguities of family constellations and dynamics of faith and faith-less postions that one can easily imagine. No one is ever refused to take part. Is this poor theology or WWJD? I get to think about what the “Body of Christ” means in those settings — as the object and subject, as a participant within and a communicator of, and a means, end, and and always as a mystery. The apparent practice at Chaminade of the daily “Eucharitic pill” seems reminiscent of the 18 minute Masses that I served some times three in a row at side altars in those pre-Vatican days. What was that all about anyway? Is the present state of increasingly “priest-less” parishes going to prompt a renewal of thought about what is the Eucharistic celebration really about and what “”communion and Communion” mean? Or is this just a Friday afternoon where I shuld just go home and have a simple Friday night dinner with my family?
Excellent discussion. Thank you, Peter and Lisa for highlighting some of the important issues. A couple of other thoughts:
* I love Liturgy of the Hours, but I fear that substituting it for daily mass (or some “communion service” approximation thereof) will be seen as more of the same top-down imposition that characterized a good deal of the early days of the liturgical reform. The fact is, so many parishes and schools offer daily “communion services” because the hearts of the faithful are rooted in daily mass, and if daily mass isn’t available, they’ve searched for something that approximates it. There are very few parishes that have a living, organic tradition of Liturgy of the Hours. If LotH is to be the future of daily communal worship for daily mass-goers, perhaps now is the time for pastors and other parish leaders to begin to plant seeds of communal participation, even in places where there is no priest shortage.
* There really is no “official” order of service for a daily communion service. The church does have a rite called Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest (SCAP) which, as the name suggests, is to be used as a pastoral provision for Sundays when no priest is available. I believe most parishes that offer daily “communion services” have adapted SCAP to a daily format. But “adapt” can be an ambiguous and dangerous word, particularly in the eyes of the church that guards its liturgical forms so jealously that it hesitates to cede much autonomy even to bishops and national conferences. And regardless of how well they celebrate these services, these parishes are free-lancing; there is no official liturgical book to guide these parishes in what is, in the true sense of the word, liturgy.
* It’s worth reflecting that the bishop is in a sense protecting the identity of priests by issuing these guidelines (or is it particular law?). One common feature of daily communion services, in my observation, is that they are mostly led by laypersons. Not a bad thing – in fact, frequently a good thing – in and of itself. But if it’s done every day? With a layperson leading the prayers, preaching, and distributing communion? Again, nothing intrinsically wrong with tihs, but the fact is, these are all things that touch very closely upon the priesthood. This is a priest’s job, not merely legally, but also because of the nature of the priesthood itself.
* These daily communion services go to the heart of parish identity. In many areas, particularly urban and inner suburban, parishes without a resident priest are near other parishes that do have resident priests. If daily communion is important (and I believe it is, particularly for the elderly and ill) then perhaps it’s better for parishes to cluster in order to provide a sustainable daily mass schedule, than it is for each individual parish to offer something that sorta looks and feels but isn’t quite mass.
Liturgist Todd Flowerday offers some thoughts:
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/long-island-communion-services-to-end/
I agree with Robert Imbelli — a huge part of our liturgical crisis has to do with the way our Eucharist is stripped of its proper biblical context. Whenever I suggest that we have much to learn about scriptural literacy and the liturgical use of Scripture from the other Christian churches I meet a sectarian reaction. But five centuries of Reformation wrestling with Scripture cannot count for nothing in the counsels of Providence.
The forthcoming issue of The Japan Mission Journal has a fascinating set of essays — Paul Surlis on lay celebration of the Eucharist, in response to the Dutch Dominicans; Andrew Cameron-Mowat’s well-documented critique of the Motu Proprio; Massimo Faggioli’s erudite account of the New Catholic Movements and the dangers they pose to the liberty of the Church. See http://www.oriens.or.jp
Ms. Steinfels –
Can you clarify what you meant by “magical thinking about the Eucharist” in regards to Bishop Murphy’s letter?
Just curious – thanks.
This is a wonderful discussion, and I believe it is worth noting that in the renewal of the Liturgy begun (and by no means finished/implemented) by Vatican II, the priest is referred to as the one who “presides in the person of Christ” at the Eucharist and the people of God gathered for worship “celebrate” the Eucharist. The Eucharistic Prayer is prayed in the name of the whole community: “WE come to you, Father….” There is shift here to a much more ancient (pre-Trent) understanding of the role of the “presbyter” as one who leads, and prays in the name of, the People of God. (There are still too many “other Christs” walking around who think that they “confect” the Eucharist.)
I most heartily agree, as one who prays the Liturgy of the Hours, that there needs to be a lot more catechesis about the “real presence of Christ” in the Word proclaimed and celebrated. Many of our people hunger for a deeper understanding of the Word.
We could learn, I believe, from the practice of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, where the Eucharist is only celebrated on Sundays and Major Feastdays. They do not celebrate the Eucharist every day. (We could also learn from them the value of giving Laity a real voice in the governance of the Church and allowing a married clergy.)
I am more concerned about the many Catholic communities in this nation who do not have a SUNDAY Eucharist because of the shortage of presbyters. If our leaders believe that the Eucharist is the center/source of our life as a Community of Believers…how can this be tolerated…still???
R.M. Lender: Many years ago the child psychologist Selma Friedberg wrote a book called “Magical Thinking” about the ways in which young children in their “pre-rational” (age of reason, I guess) make sense of their world. The idea of course can apply to people of all ages, or so I think.
Though the bishop has probably never read the book nor necessarily heard of the idea, I thought or that phrase when reading the description of the communion services to which he was objecting. These are not Masses; all of the rituals entailed: from the prayer for forgiveness, to the homily, to the prayer of the people, to the Eucharistic prayer, to the consecration, Our Father, etc are either not carried out or randomly included–and yet people believe they have participated in a Eucharistic celebration.
The priest shortage is a serious problem in many, many places in the world, including parts of the U.S., but not I suspect Rockville Center. Rather than do something about the priest shortage in those places, such as allow deacons, religious or other sacerdotals to say Mass, Vatican authorities have chosen a kind of “condensed version” of the Mass, which is theologically illiterate in itself (or so I think) and which makes everyone who indulges in them theologically illiterate as well. If Benedict thinks the Eucharist is central to the Catholic tradition, he ought to take measure that would allow all Catholics to celebrate wherever they happen to live. Is Benedict himself indulging in a kind of “magical thinking.”
Again, thanks for the comments. I like Todd Flowerday’s reflections, but I would actually agree with the priests quoted in the story. To me the Eucharist should have a communal aspect, embodied in the celebration of Mass. Again, what isn’t addressed (by the church governors, it seems) is the alternative. Liturgy of the Hours is great. But that runs directly counter to the focus on the daily mass and receiving the eucharist frequently. It seems that something has to give here. No?
Also, couple of additional thoughts: How much is de-emphasizing the daily mass and shifting the focus to Sunday a way of putting off a discussion of the vocations crisis? If the church, in the US at least, goes that route, it could make the vocations crisis seem less acute.
And that gets to another point regarding the “magical” understanding of the eucharist and the indispensibility of the presbyter: namely, how much does shifting the focus from “getting the wafer” at a brief communion service to receiving only at mass with a priest simply shift the focus to the priest as the indispensible element? Of course the priest is indispensible in many respects. (Though I’d like to engage, perhaps elsewhere, a discussion of the Dutch Dominicans’ proposal for priest-less eucharists–yes, maybe way out there, but provocative, and sure to land any commenter here on a digital pyre.) But is there not a risk of turnin the priest into a “sacramental machine,” as some have suggested? When 15 percent of parishes already have no resident priest, and circuit riders, even in urban areas, just “pop in” to confect the eucharist, a fuller relationship between the presider and the people seems impossible. And that would seem to put all the weight on the eucharist itself and the mechanisms of it, rather than the Word and the People of God.
Peter, thanks for the link. On Catholic Sensibility, we examined these Communion services recently, but without touching on the discussion here.
In the Archdiocese of Dubuque, Communion services were examined about a decade ago. We looked at many issues: the expectation of daily Mass, the importance of Sunday gatherings, the sudden illness of a priest, forming people for the alternatives (including Liturgy of the Hours). Essentially, it’s been left for parish pastors to determine, and many accept the status quo rather than shoulder a task of education, diplomacy, and spirituality.
The Rites of Holy Communion and the Worship of the Eucharist Outside of Mass (HCWEOM) provides for different options for a Communion Service. Before it gets into the rite for Eucharistic devotion, it provides several options for the parish, for the sick, and adaptations for various needs.
HCWEOM 26 describes the “long rite,” what passes for a Communion service in parishes:
“26. This rite is to be used chiefly when Mass is not celebrated or when communion is not distributed at scheduled times. The purpose is that the people should be nourished by the word of God. By hearing it they learn that the marvels it proclaims reach their climax in the paschal mystery of which the Mass is a sacramental memorial and in which they share by communion. Nourished by God’s word, they are led on to grateful and fruitful participation in the saving mysteries.”
A few observations:
The rite doesn’t make a distinction between Sunday or weekday scheduled Masses. It presumes a regular Mass schedule for a parish or religious community, but it doesn’t presume a regular Communion service schedule.
The purpose is explicit: being nourished by the Word of God.
David:
Just a quick (hopefully) post to clarify why I found the phrase “tightening up” to be–in my admittedly vague term–”reductive.”
As readers, we tend to carry around narratives in our heads that can be brought to the surface by the use of certain words. When it comes to the activities of authorities in the Church, one of the recurring narratives is disciplinary, i.e. that Church authorities are “tightening up,” “cracking down,” and otherwise restricting the freedom of the faithful. This obviously fits in with a broader narrative in American culture that tends to idealize the struggle of the “little guy” against various larger powers (e.g. big business, big government, church authorities, etc.).
So when you use a phrase like “tightening up,” it evokes that broader narrative and encourages the reader to see it in that context. It suggests to the American Catholic reader that this is one more example of bishops enforcing Vatican discipline at the expense of the pastoral needs of the U.S. church.
The point of my overly long (and perhaps excessively pedantic) post was that a close analysis of the bishop’s text unsettles this reading. While the bishop is certain exercising his governing role, he is doing so for reasons that don’t fall neatly into the “tightening up” narrative. In fact, what surprised and interested me about the bishop’s document was his defense of certain ways of thinking about the Eucharist–particularly the importance of the assembly in the celebration– that have been criticized by some liturgical traditionalists. One of the reasons for the length of my post was that I was trying to cite specific examples of this.
I realize that you and I have had disagreements in the past about how precise one has to be with language in these cases, particularly on a weblog. I certainly have my own sins to count when it comes to off-the-cuff remarks. But as people who are, in various ways, craftsmen of words, we need to be attentive to their impact. Particularly at a time when almost every utterance of ecclesiastical authorities is viewed through a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” we should do our best to encourage more charitable and discerning readings when they are warranted.
Ah, in the end, not so short after all. I should stop making promises I can’t keep…:-)
Yesterday, Peggy asked whether there is a priest shortage in the Diocese of Rockville Centre. As a parishioner there, let me quote some statistics from catholic-hierarchy.org
—-
Rockville Centre: 2,640 Catholics per priest.
Chicago: 1,395 Catholics per priest.
State of New York (ecclesiastical province): 1,614 Catholics per priest.
Ecclesiastical province of Onitsha, Nigeria, from which we receive a priest each summer: 4,594 Catholics per priest.
Archdiocese of Munich-Freising: 1,357 Catholics per priest.
—-
Unlike the diocese of Brooklyn, the churches of Rockville Centre were not built within sight of each other. A severe gasoline shortage will make trips to food stores and churches difficult, because too many homes were built away from our railroad. The 130 or so parishes vary wildly in registration. From a manager’s viewpoint, larger parishes are attractive because the cash floods in, but their size brings a problem of community and communion. Some large parishes have one priest, some three or four. There seems to be a correlation that the greater the weekly collection, the greater number of priests assigned there. However, given reticence about disclosing finances and charting comparative figures, one can only observe and guess.
——
Perhaps 200 attend weekday morning Masses in our parish, forty say the rosary together. Six or seven praise the Lord with psalms and Benedictus at morning prayer after the first Mass.
Joe McMahon, thanks for the stats. How do you interpret them? Too few priests for RocCtr? or just right.
Last summer we went to St. Andrew’s in Sag Harbor in RocCtr for Sunday Mass; very well attended, even crowded. summer crowd perhaps, but I had the impression it was an active parish year round. Last summer an Indian priest said the Masses we attended (don’t know where the pastor was); he was delightful (hope not part of the brain drain from India) and even managed the American inflections for his excellent English. I don’t think he and his confreres are the answer to the problem, but maybe Bishop Murphy does.
I think the emphasis on frequent Communion certainlly represented a healthy reaction to the days long ago when folk hardly went at all.
Folk today, I think, tend to appreciate the communal aspect of Eucharist post reception more than when I was young.
I also think there’s been some pretty good teaching concerning this is our sacrifice, presided over by the priest, and that this is the best way to enter into God’s presence to go forth to love and serve the Lord and each other.
The Word proclaimed in Scripture and the homily thereupon strike me as not having even quality in what I’ve seen.All of that, I guess, means to me that we need to have frequent Communion continue but better catechesis and practice, which gets at David’s question on priest shortage and alternatives.
I see here as in the CTA discussion a tension between the academic and the pastoral and it’s rooted in how real day to day problems are dealt with. As I said elesewhere, I feel this problem is exacerbated by the tendency to restoration post Vatican II and the “botom line” issues Joe just mentioned.
There are many persuasive responses here that support Bishop Murphy’s decision, and at this point I’m inclined to agree. But I can understand the nagging feeling that this is part of an attempt to “tighten up” on liturgical practice. The growing role of lay people (and even deacons) in worship seems to be causing alarm; there has been an attempt to crack down on what is regarded as excessive use of eucharistic ministers (or is the term now supposed to be extraordinary ministers of communion?) , for example. Consider this posting from Monsignor Harry Byrne’s blog on the preparations for Pope Benedict’s Mass in Yankee Stadium:
The pope’s advance people have indicated that no lay eucharistic ministers will be in service. What is more startling is that ordained deacons have not been invited to participate. Only priests will distribute Holy Communion. Appeals have gone out to enlist 500 priests for this purpose. This may prove unrealistic, given that the Mass is on a Sunday. Priests, already in short supply, as the Vatican would be expected to know, will be needed in their own parishes for Sunday Masses. More than a little discomfort has been reported among deacons because they have not been invited to participate in one of the ways for which they have been trained and ordained. (http://harryjbyrne.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html)
As I recall, Bishop Murphy created a stir some time back when he replaced all the Catholic chaplains on Long Island’s college campuses – I believe they were mostly sisters – with seminarians. He says it worked out great. But some may suspect him of pushing for increased clericalization. That’s in the background here.
Thank you for this blogspace. I come from an Archdiocese in Australia which has both urban and rural parishes. I have noted that in my own, and other dioceses, the urban trend tends to be more towards twinning neighbouring parishes and eventually amalgamating them. In rural centres, where the parish is also the whole town, we try to leave them intact as parishes and they receive Mass when they can. The custom of using the Liturgy of the Hours has a long way to go here. We are trying to encourage our people to see celebrations as Liturgy of the Word with or without Holy Communion not as a “Communion Service”. This affirms that Communion more idealy belongs in the Mass and that Christ is also present in the Word proclaimed and in the people assembled. Practically speaking we mainly appear to be doing this because of a shortage of ordained priests. Without rambling too much I might add that this reality takes its toll on priests. At times we seem to be seen as ordained chesspieces being frantically placed in gaps on the chessboard. At some point the chessboard model will break and we will need another model. May the Holy Spirit lead us all to where we need to be.
“As I recall, Bishop Murphy created a stir some time back when he replaced all the Catholic chaplains on Long Island’s college campuses – I believe they were mostly sisters – with seminarians.”
This was a monarchical act. Murphy, otherwise, has gotten a bit wiser as per public relations.
Equally, outrageous is the fact that the Vatican wanted no deacons at the papal mass. Look for that group to join the protest lines.
The irony is that the best hope for reform is in less priests. Where lay persons have taken over parishes they have become more active. Part of the reason might be because they are women. Nuns were always the heart of the church and these women might be following in that traditions.
The decline of priests is a tremendous aid to renewal, paradoxically.
I briefly return to the John Allen story. The aftermath of BXVI’s visit and the press,
As noted Bishop Murphy, once mocked as “Mansion” Murphy in the NY press appears to be a martinet.
But the problem is …
on the front page of the santa Fe paper today is the Washington Post article about expectations about what should be done with Bishops who screwed up the sex abuse crisis. It looks to the author, after having comments from Sr.Walsh that Bishops here can onl yfraternally correct each other, that folks want the vatican to act.
We need recall Bishop Murphy was part of the Cardinal Law esteblishment along with McCormack, Lennon et al.
Now the first post Benedict news re the Bishop by Mewsday (happily reported not being purchased by Murdoch) is this pastoral.
We can continue to debate the merits of what’s put forward, but there may be an additional question of whether , after BXVI, it’s just business as usual.
Peter, thanks for your note. I can see how my remarks might be read that way, though I hoped to take care to note that Murphy’s meditation was thoughtful and interesting and useful. I think there can be a “hermenuetic of suspicion” that runs both ways, and perhaps that is a sign of the times. I really wanted the story to initiate a discussion here, and I think there was a lot here that helped me, including your blessedly non-reductive post. I think there are two aspects (at least) of the story, namely the theology of the eucharist, and how that may need to develop today, and the institutional but no less mundane problem of not having enough priests to celebrate mass. “Tightenining up” is not necessarily a bad thing–I rather liked Murphy’s recalling us (or his priests, actually, who were the audience) to the meaning of the eucharist. Mabe that makes me a conservative. Then again I think there is undoubtedly a reaffirming of the primacy of the clerical role, which may be going on here, I don’t know. Certainly the recent Vatican reaffirmation that the homily is a sacrament and can only be performed by the ordained, and the restriction on lay people touching sacred vessels on the altar, as well as the language of the pope and the bishops in many cases, shows pretty firmly that this trend is underway. Much of that I would take issue with, which makes me a liberal, I guess. (Though not as liberal as Russell Shaw!)
Much thinking and educating needs to be done, it seems, to reconcile these differing streams or trends with the reality of a priest shortage that is leading inevitably to a different view of the eucharist. Mutatis mutandi, we move on. But to what? 15 percent of US parishes have no resident priest, and lay men and women are pastoring churches (as are married priests, who aren’t supposed to!). “Extraordianry” has come to mean ordinary on the ground. Except at papal masses.
I want to thank Father Simon Falk for weighing in–the reach of the internet is remarkable, and your input is enlightening. If you are an “ordained chesspiece,” I’d consider you a knight!
“Certainly the recent Vatican reaffirmation that the homily is a sacrament and can only be performed by the ordained, ”
David –
The “homily” is a sacrament? A new one? This is entirely new to me.
Thanks to Joe M for this expose:
“Rockville Centre: 2,640 Catholics per priest.
Chicago: 1,395 Catholics per priest.
State of New York (ecclesiastical province): 1,614 Catholics per priest.
Ecclesiastical province of Onitsha, Nigeria, from which we receive a priest each summer: 4,594 Catholics per priest.”
Now tell me that this is not outrageous and suspect. Nigeria has 2 or 3 times less priests per Catholic than Rockville and NY diocese, yet they are sending priests here. Money and only money is the reason with education as the ruse.
And most of the Nigerians speak poorly, are hard to understand and give lousy sermons.
Ann: I wrote in haste and sloppily…I’ll look for the precise wording of the statement, but if I recall the rationale was, in effect, that the homily is an intergral part of the proclamation of the Word, which is an integral part of the eucharistic celebration, and hence it should be reserved to those in holy orders. I actually thought that was standard teaching (if not practice) before, so Im not sure why the reiteration, except that perhaps there were too many reports of lay people preaching. I’ll try to find it so as to be more informative. Thanks.
A small point–David, you mention the decline in “vocations” a couple times in this thread. From my position at a seminary training both men and women for ministry in the Catholic Church, there are a lot of vocations. Indeed, the Holy Spirit continues to speak to the hearts of men and women, some called to celibacy, though most are not. They respond with joy, devotion, and an impressive array of intellectual and spiritual gifts. If the decline in the number of priests were a matter of a real decline in vocations to presbyteral service, then we’d be in dire straits. In fact, the problem is principally one of (bad) theology and (obsolete)discipline, and far less one of vocation.
A small nuance to my small point–the mainstream Protestant denominations are experiencing a shortage of clergy, though for some groups, the issue is less one of numbers than distribution. However, those same denominations are also experiencing a slight decline in membership, while the RC Church continues to grow as the number of priests plummets. The other churches have a problem, but we have a crisis that in a short time is likely to threaten the sacramental character of Catholic worship. But the problem isn’t so much one of vocations, but of policy.
Lisa–Thanks for that comment. I am in complete agreement with you, and I was just falling into the shorthand of much of the church in equating “vocations” with priestly vocations solely. You make a spot on analysis of the challenge and the opportunity. Thanks.
Vatican 2: “The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God’s word and of Christ’s body.” DV 21
Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent..
Benedict XVI: “in the Church, the Lord always remains our contemporary. Scripture is not something of the past. The Lord does not speak in the past but speaks in the present, he speaks to us today, he enlightens us, he shows us the way through life, he gives us communion and thus he prepares us and opens us to peace.” 29 March 2006 audience
Jim McK: Thanks for the citations. I believe the recent Vatican document reiterated those as well, but I can’t recall what it said beyond that, or if indeed it was simply a reiteration. I think it is a teaching that could use some “development,” or at least leeway, but that’s for another thread. “Extraordinary ministers of the Word”?
The “sacrament” of the Word is the opportunity offered in Bishop Murphy’s decision. Rather than rely on clerical functioning, by handing out communion, the communities have an opportunity to offer the Word, through the Liturgy of the Hours or another format.
The issue of preaching comes up here, since any kind of ‘homily’ will be compared to a eucharistic homily that can only be offered by the ordained. But canon law is clear that lay people are to particiapte in the ministry of the Word. Will the more clerically inclined allow laity to reflect on the Word in these services?
Hopefully more will come from this year’s synod on the Word.
Amen, and thanks for this. I think this synod could be a very important one. Of course, I must put that in the conditional, knowing the recent history of synods.
“The issue of preaching comes up here, since any kind of ‘homily’ will be compared to a eucharistic homily that can only be offered by the ordained. But canon law is clear that lay people are to particiapte in the ministry of the Word. Will the more clerically inclined allow laity to reflect on the Word in these services?”
May I make a simplistic distinction here?
Inside the doors of the church, responsibility for preaching the Good News belongs to the clergy.
Outside the doors of the church, responsibility for preaching the Good News belongs to the laity. (Fulfilled, among a million other ways, by publishing magazines!)
Obviously, this distinction is oversimplified. There are times when it’s good and right for laypersons to preach inside a church, and times when the clergy gives witness outside the building.
But by and large, the distinction is a good one.
It’s an ideal; and a shortage of priests makes it more difficult to achieve the ideal.
But if reasonable steps can be taken to maintain the distinction, I believe they should be taken.
“The pope’s advance people have indicated that no lay eucharistic ministers will be in service. What is more startling is that ordained deacons have not been invited to participate. Only priests will distribute Holy Communion. Appeals have gone out to enlist 500 priests for this purpose. This may prove unrealistic, given that the Mass is on a Sunday. Priests, already in short supply, as the Vatican would be expected to know, will be needed in their own parishes for Sunday Masses. More than a little discomfort has been reported among deacons because they have not been invited to participate in one of the ways for which they have been trained and ordained. (http://harryjbyrne.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html)”
This is a shame. Deacons are ordinary ministers of communion. There is no reason I can think of to exclude them. To do so seems a bit of a distortion.
Otoh, individual deacons need to get over it. Distributing communion at a papal mass is not something to which anyone has a right.
“Also, couple of additional thoughts: How much is de-emphasizing the daily mass and shifting the focus to Sunday a way of putting off a discussion of the vocations crisis? If the church, in the US at least, goes that route, it could make the vocations crisis seem less acute.”
Hi, David, I think the opposite is likely to happen: if daily communion is no longer made available to the faithful in Rockville Centre, then daily mass-goers will experience the vocations crisis much more acutely than they have otherwise.
These communion services are an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the vocations crisis.
I think Jim’s last post is a piece of apologetic sophistry.
Folks who desire the eucharist think the Bishops are “out of touch” and not dealin grealistically with the priest shortage (as per today’s Washingtom Post poll.) If this was oone to “ameliorate” the vocatio ncrisi, Murphyand his cohort are out of touch!
While deacons (and liaty for that matter) have no RIGHt to distribute Comunio nat a papal Mas, that doesn’t mean it sends the right message – another case of clericalist apologetics?
Finally as to preaching, if there’s no resident priest, who speaks the good news to the community INSIDE thje Church?
Isn’t this still one more clericalist canard?
Sophistry aside (I cannot be considered an innocent in that vice), I think Jim’s argument about communion services as a band-aid is well taken. You could argue it both ways, I think. But the crisis will be inevitable. Even here in Brooklyn, where compact geography lessens evidence of the crisis, pastors are busting to cover three parishes just on a Sunday. The schedule my pastor has to keep would drive me around the bend. Five masses a day, sometimes, between burying and marrying. Mostly burying.
As for deacons, Jim, I wish they had been represented. It was a very priest-centered visit, and deacons (as you know) are a remarkable reality in this country. I was surprised when I learned that the diaconate was (I was led to believe) reinstituetd in part with developing countries in mind, where deacons could perform the life cycle saraments when priests are few and far between. But it has taken off in the US, and I believe to a lesser extent Europe. (Please correct my if I err.)
As for preaching, I think we need to be more felxible. Homilies are really important. And homilies ain’t great.
Hi, Bob,
No attempt at sophistry intended.
Would you mind posting a link to the Washington Post poll? I’ve seen you refer to it a couple of times, but not being a Post reader, I’m not familiar with it.
I suppose it does seem as though bishops are out of touch about the vocations crisis. After all, wouldn’t we have more priests if they weren’t? I can only say, that there are few if any dioceses in the US that aren’t already feeling the shortage painfully (some extremely painfully), and I’m pretty confident that most bishops are doing everything they can do to attract vocations, and have been for a number of years. Please note: “everything they can do”; some things of course they can’t do, regardless of their personal opinions or preferences.
I confess I don’t understand your point about Murphy and his cohort being out of touch. But regardless, I do think that, if he shuts down daily communion services, one result will be that some daily communicants will no longer be able to receive daily communion. Perhaps the ones least able to travel a greater distance to find a daily mass, because of old age and/or illness, are the ones who need communion the most. Just so we’re clear: I don’t think it’s a good thing if people who need the sacrament aren’t able to get it. So in that sense, these new rules/guidelines will make the vocations crisis concrete and “real” for some people in a new, painful way.
Perhaps the solution for such folks, one in line with existing church guidelines, would be to bring communion into homes. Liturgically, I believe this would be the preferred/ideal solution.
As for clericalist: if drawing boundaries appropriately between laity and clergy makes one a clericalist, then I plead guilty. Laity and clergy have different – complementary, yet *different* – roles in the economy of proclaiming the Good News. One needn’t countenance abuse of authority to accept the truth in that statement. Nor need one countenance a different type of abuse, the type that happens when the lines blur unnecessarily between clergy and laity.
I agree with you about priests and deacons distributing communion. Portraying to a national television audience that this is solely a “priest’s job” is, as I said, a distortion of reality.
Hi, David,
Regarding the genesis of the renewed “permanent” diaconate: you’re right that mission activity was one of the factors that convinced the powers that be to give it a go. You’re also right that deacons are far more numerous in the US than anywhere else – I believe they account for nearly half of all the deacons worldwide. Why is that? I don’t claim expertise in this – although I can point you to some experts if you’re interested in, say, a Commonweal feature on the topic :-) – but I believe the simplest answer is, the diaconate flourishes wherever and whenever the bishop allows it to flourish. In the third world especially, bishops have been slow to embrace the restored diaconate. Undoubtedly there are as many reasons as there are bishops.
At the risk of tarnishing my clericalist credentials :-), I will say this about the diaconate: I’m convinced that a good part of its successs is that it allows married men to enter into clerical service at a later stage in life. If your image of a parish deacon is a kindly, grandfatherly type, there is good reason for that – many/most men pursue the diaconate at the “empty nester” stage of life, when their health and energy are still relatively intact, and they have more space in their life to give to the wider community.
“Inside the doors of the church, responsibility for preaching the Good News belongs to the clergy.”
Jim, I am having a hard time applying this “simple distinction”. According David’s original post, the too-frequent use of these communion services in diocesan schools prompted the action we are discussing. Is this “inside the doors of the church”? Is it inappropriate for non-clergy to offer reflections or otherwise comment at any service of the Word? How about at the Liturgy of the Hours?
Even without reflections/homily, I think offering the LOTH in our schools is a good idea, probably better than a communion service. It offers a glimpse of the clerical ideal, while introducing the ordinary means for the “sanctification of the day.” It is liturgy as a part of life, rather than as its source or summit.
David and Jim McK,
Thanks for the clarifications about the liturgy of the Word. I do wonder whether the original priests were the only ones who talked about Scripture at the early Masses.
“Jim, I am having a hard time applying this “simple distinction”. According David’s original post, the too-frequent use of these communion services in diocesan schools prompted the action we are discussing. Is this “inside the doors of the church”? Is it inappropriate for non-clergy to offer reflections or otherwise comment at any service of the Word? How about at the Liturgy of the Hours?”
Hi, Jim McK,
Good points – it is a simplistic distinction (not exactly a simple one :-)).
Yes, communion services in diocesan schools are “inside the doors of the church”. And you’ve just touched a nerve with me :-) (Not anything you said – just the topic of worship in Catholic schools). Here’s how it is “inside the doors”: don’t know if you attended a Catholic grammar school, but around here (Chicago/Midwest) the common tradition/experience/expectation is that the schoolchildren go to mass at some regular interval – in my dad’s day, it was daily; in my day, it was weekly; for my children, it is/was more or less weekly.
Communion services in Catholic schools are pretty much the same phenomenon as daily communion services in parishes: a replacement for weekday mass because the parish priest(s) can’t / won’t offer mass for them.
Regarding laypersons offering reflections / sharing their faith / preaching in LotH or services of the Word – absolutely appropriate, frequently done, and I have no objection to it. FWIW, I believe the General Instruction for LotH states that a clerical type gets first dibs at presiding at LotH (which is part of the church’s official prayer life), but even that doesn’t mean that he must preach.
I do think there is a concern – at least I have it – when lay preaching becomes regular and frequent, e.g. when there is a regular rota of lay presiders/preachers at a parish’s daily communion services. To put it in secular terms: Are they trained? Are they certified? Are they licensed? Are there any repercussions if they preach things contrary to the faith? Who manages them? I can see that questions like this would make a bishop’s eyebrows rise upward a couple of inches.
Regarding LotH in schools – yes, I agree. And if we’re going to dream, why not set the bar high? Start school 20 minutes earlier and have the school gather for LotH first thing in the morning. Or do it in each homeroom. I think that would be wonderful. (My children experienced the same morning prayer that I did in Catholic school: a student prays an Our Father or some such over the loudspeaker, preceded by a recording of the Star Spangled Banner. We can do better than that :-)). No reason/need to have clergy around for it, although, given that they’re bound to pray it anyway, it would be good for them to do it in community once in a while, too.
[...] earlier post on Bishop Murphy’s pastoral letter ending services with the distribution of communion (to [...]
A couple of things:-Wahington Post poll (see April 15 article by Jon Cohen.
I saw it at the Voice in the Desert Blog, though commingled with some commentary by the blogger.
-In the current NCR, Mary Gail Frawlley in discusing the aftermath of BXVI and the sex abuse crisi – an article, by the way, I consider quite excellen tfrom the point of vistimology, scores Bjshop Murphy for his poo=ppoing the Bishoip’s role and she then cites the <assachusett’s Attorney General deep criticism of Murphy’s handling of the matter.
My poin twas two-fold:1)post BXVI, the Bishops and Murphy in particular in this case have done nothing to move their “mishandling” of the sex abuse crisis (see also the Washington Post article on May 10 that made national headlines as well.)
2)Perception – instead the Bishop goes blithely along isuing top down decrees as business as usual. Did he consult with anyone about this – consider the pastoral needs by listening to those directly involved?Won’t folks just see this as SOS?