‘Lukewarm’ Is the Wrong Temperature

In the wake of a recent reiteration of Catholic teaching with regard to abuses of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, there has been a flurry of commentary from bishops. Not all of it, in case you haven’t noticed, is encouraging.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., has made no bones about what he would do if a rabid pro-abortion Catholic approached him for Holy Eucharist – he would give the body of Christ to this individual. No question about it. In fact, he has recently stated, “I have not gotten to the stage where I am comfortable in denying the Eucharist.”

Comfortable? What kind of a notion is that? What do you mean, comfortable? Don’t we all remember how Catholics got the miracle of Holy Eucharist in the first place? It had little to do with comfort. It had everything to do with Christ suffering undeniable pain as he hung on the cross for three hours before He died. Comfortable?

Christians are called by Christ to follow Him, to imitate Him; and that can mean being very uncomfortable – particularly in the midst of a godless, secular culture.

And if you're still missing the point, there is the statement Pope John Paul II made just last year, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

“The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law [915] refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic Communion.”

Commentary by Judie Brown here.