A reader writes:
I’ve never heard the term "presumption of faith" used before but in thinking about the issue of Bishops withholding Communion from wayward politicians, it strikes me that the Church applies almost universally this principle (expressed in other ways).
Like presumption of innocence in court, the Church presumes faith when one asks for any of the sacraments. Because we cannot know another’s heart as God can, we have to take their word that they are able to receive the sacrament and believe what the sacrament does.
In the case of communion, it has been said many times that the confessional is empty and the communion lines are full. Logic, knowledge of human concupiscence, and just the results of some of the most recent surveys of Catholics tells us that there is something wrong with the picture, but in the communion line the Church applies presumption of faith because she has to.
It is only where a person publically advertises their sin and just as publically seeks communion while demonstrating no purpose of amendment (a requisite for a good confession if that confession had indeed taken place privately), it is only in that kind a circumstance that a public response is required to avert scandal.
Others holding the same views privately and acting upon those views could receive communion in an unworthy manner and the priest or bishop may never know because they are acting on the presumption of faith.
And so on.
Does that make any sense as a concept?
It does, though I’d tweak it a bit.
There is indeed a presumption that the Church makes in admitting people to Communion, though it isn’t just a presumption that they have faith. It also presumes that they meet the other requirements for Communion, such as being in a state of grace, having the proper dispositions, having fasted for an hour before the moment of Communion, and so forth. These are summed up under the heading of "worthiness to receive Communion" (which is a bit paradoxical given that immediately before Communion we say "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," but there we are). I’d therefore phrase the presumption as a presumption of worthiness rather than a presumption of faith.
This presumption holds except in very specific cases. A Catholic presenting himself for holy Communion is not to be denied except unless he is prohibited by law from receiving. The Code of Canon Law provides:
Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Now, there are people who are prohibited by law from receiving (e.g., because they’re in mortal sin, because they haven’t fasted, etc.), but in the practice of the Church the evaluation of these criteria is left to the individual communicant in the vast majority of cases. The only time in the Code that priest and other ministers of Communion are told not to give Communion to a person who presents himself is in the following canon:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Since declared excommunications (as opposed to automatic excommunications) and declared interdicts are as rare as hen’s teeth, the most commonly triggered part of this canon is that concerning "others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." That means people who are publicly known to be involved in grave sin and who refuse to amend their ways.
As a practical matter, only those individuals are denied Communion (if even they are). Otherwise the presumption of worthiness to receive holy Communion operates.
I saw our priest refuse a lady once at daily mass – there were only about twenty people there or so. She stood in front of him for a while, so he stepped around her to give to the person next in line and simply ignored her. She spoke very loudly (almost screaming) about how we are all children of God, that this had been her parish all her life etc.. etc.. Then she went and stood in front of the Divine Mercy picture (we have it next to the altar in the sanctuary)while the Priest cleared the altar. One of the older CWL ladies, obviously feeling great discomfort at this “public” argument, went up to her, I guess, to offer consolation, and touched her on her upper arm in a gesture of affection to signal her intention to begin the conversation, and to ask her if she could help in some way. At this gesture the woman in question screamed out loud, “Don’t touch me!! Don’t you dare touch me!!” and stormed out of the church.
So you see – it does happen sometimes!
An Orthodox priest will refuse communion to anyone he does not recognize. If an Orthodox person is travelling, he will bring proper documentation that he is an Orthodox member in good standing. And, that person will usually confess before Divine Liturgy so the priest knows that he is able to receive communion. Maybe we should adopt this practice.
(I marvel that I managed to miss such interesting discussions for so long, here.)
Had Christ not healed the semi-reluctant man of whom He asked, “Do you want to be healed?” it would be easier to say “maybe so” to Eric (and of course the early Church and Orders received confessions publicly, if I’m not mistaken). But, no. Christ presumed faith in the Magdalen woman, and she gave Him her entire heart. Christ presumed faith unto martyrdom in Peter, who meanwhile had a very human moment of fear and confusion, and look what Presumption of faith did for Peter.
Boat Guy, it’s a sticky wicket, because the priest has to protect the Sacraments, yet moments like that can turn someone away from the Sacraments for life. I worked with a woman who was furious, furious! even 9 years later that her infant daughter had been refused baptism. The priest had asked at that time if she and her husband planned to raise the child as a Christian, to bring her to Mass, to instruct her in the Faith. They said “no”. What could he do?
Honora,
The Orthodox have private confessions as we do. They don’t have “confessionals” per say, they usually have an out of the way area where confessions are performed inside the church.
Perhaps some of the confrontation could be avoided if the priests and bishops did not practice presumption of faith, or presumption of knowledge in the one area where they are not required to do so. That is the homily.
In fact, it would be refreshing if they all assumed none of us had ever been evangelized or had received any catechism at all and preached the teachings of the Church from the very basics on up, with special attention to mortal sin and reconciliation. Sort of like a parish mission every Sunday.
Les,
That presumption, of everybody needing the basics of the faith was one of the major causes for me to leave the Baptists to become Catholic. The food is all milk, and no steak.
Perhaps we should take into consideration which is worse, to deny a “worthy” person communion or to give an “unworthy” person communion. I’m not sure what the answer is. On the one hand I can’t imagin God actually minding anything disrespectfull that happens to him (sacrilege), but he would care greatly about the person, so would it be worse for someone to be communion with him in the Eucharist? On the other hand sacrelege is so bad for the person commiting it that maybe it is the overwhelming concern.
Also to be considered is whether sacrilege is an objective reality like stealing or sodomy or a subjective reality dependant on the soul’s disposition. If the latter is the case, I don’t think anyone can know for sure whether a person is “worthy” to receive communion since we do not know their heart, no matter what their actions. If the former is the case I doubt it could ever be permissible for a priest to give communion to one he knows is “unworthy” whether the issue is public or not. In either case I think cannon law does not square up with the situation in some cases, so what does a priest do when the Church commands one thing and his conscience and reason command another?
No easy answers here.
I find it suprising that the Church and Jimmy use the word “worthy.” How can any of us say we are worthy of recieving Jesus in this extreme, shocking, incredibly intimate way? I thought that was the point of our saying we were not worthy in the liturgy.
Or does sanctifying grace really and truely make us worth of it, by the gift of God but no less really because of that? In that case though, why have us say we are not worthy in the liturgy? That would seem more like an inaccuracy than a paradox if it is the case.
“O Lord I am not worthy… but only say the word, and I shall be healed.”
We pray this immediately before the priest receives, and very shortly before we receive, Holy Communion. We do believe that God does heal us.
However, we can speak of two kinds of worthiness, relative and absolute. Absolutely, we are not worthy of so sublime and excellent a Gift. But since God has deigned to make this Gift available to us, we can then speak of our relative worthiness to receive It.
The Church usually uses the phrase “properly disposed” to describe this situation.
Boat Guy,
That’s a really bizarre story! Do you have any idea why the priest refused to give her communion?
Boat Guy, it’s a sticky wicket, because the priest has to protect the Sacraments, yet moments like that can turn someone away from the Sacraments for life. I worked with a woman who was furious, furious! even 9 years later that her infant daughter had been refused baptism. The priest had asked at that time if she and her husband planned to raise the child as a Christian, to bring her to Mass, to instruct her in the Faith. They said “no”.
In which case, she had already turned away from the Sacraments, and the refusal was not the trigger.
I find it suprising that the Church and Jimmy use the word “worthy.” How can any of us say we are worthy of recieving Jesus in this extreme, shocking, incredibly intimate way?
We are told to.
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”
Therefore, since we are to receive, some of us must do it worthily.
That’s the sweet part about Sacramental grace being a “we” thing. Most of us don’t want to risk profaning His Body and Blood because indeed, it is the most Precious gift in all of human life; so if we haven’t received absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation first and feel for some reason we should’ve (can all my sins for weeks or months be only venial?), we by sharing in the grace of His sacrament, sacrifice, Mass which is received by the Mystical Body of whom we are a part, can make a spiritual Communion in the meanwhile (as do those in the RCIA journey awaiting fullness). That requires humility, but that too, is a win-win thing. We will long for our greater communion with Him, which will please both Him and us.
And a note to Mary: Yes, I guess you’re right! I’d never seen it that way – it might be that I think everyone has or desires a Eucharistic life, but her rage suggests that she was hoping for a re-entry to the Church..
AJP
I have absolutely no idea at all. No-one said anything after except to feel sorry for her and that we should pray for her. The daily mass crowd hardly ever seems to gossip much. It was between the priest and the lady as far as I’m concerned. The priest in question is very orthodox and Spirit filled, and not like some of them who have dancers instead of homilies, so I trust his judgement. If he did it, then there was a good reason, end of story.