ARTICLES

NEWS

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC

Contents © 1998
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

Chat with the Cardinal

MAHONY CARRIES ON E-MAIL DIALOGUE

By Monica Seeley

Cardinal Roger Mahony interacted with dozens of "cyber-Catholics" February 20, as he participated in a live America Online chat session. Speaking from Rome, where he was staying in preparation for the Consistory of Cardinals, February 21, Cardinal Mahony fielded questions on a variety of issues from birth control to liturgical norms.

Cardinal Mahony emphasized that "there is only one guiding principle for the Church's involvement in public policy issues: how do we apply the Gospels to this situation affecting people?" Mahony called abortion "an obvious moral evil in our society." He spoke of the Church's "special duty" to speak out publicly in defense of life and take "whatever steps are needed" to overcome abortion.

Cardinal Mahony reiterated the Church's ban on contraception, and praised Natural Family Planning. "By calling people to a great sense of respect for each other, their God-given bodies, and a deeper communication between spouses," he said, "sexual relations become far more spiritual and helpful to couples."

His Eminence praised the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a fantastic gift for the Church" he said, adding "everyone should have a copy!" However, the cardinal expressed sadness that many Catholics remain ignorant of their faith and spoke of the need for evangelization and catechesis, particularly with regard to the Eucharist. Divisions within the Church are also regrettable, he said, noting, "We must model love and charity in our ranks or we are not authentic disciples of the Lord. We become more like members of some societal club."

Although archdiocesan spokesman Father Gregory Coiro told reporters in January that Mahony was consulting canonists about Mother Angelica and stated that the canonical penalty of interdict against EWTN could not be ruled out [See "I Thought They Would Faint," February 1998 Mission], the cardinal stated, "I have never asked that EWTN be placed 'under interdict.' On the contrary, that network is a powerful force for good on the airwaves and for the Church." Regarding a Los Angeles Times article in which he described conservative critics as "simple people who have no influence," Mahony said he was referring to "people with little faith background, but who challenge noted Scripture scholars and theologians." He added, "Such challengers assume an air of pride and superiority, sadly, believing themselves to be the orthodox keepers of the gate for the Church. In fact, many are poorly educated in theology."

Asked about the widespread use of extraordinary eucharistic ministers in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, and whether this practice will halt in obedience to recent Vatican directives, Mahony explained that the Church allows the use of extraordinary Ministers when there are not sufficient priests or deacons available. However, he added, "There are no parishes in our Archdiocese that would have the 30 to 80 ministers--and even more--needed for each Sunday. Yes, we will continue to use our terrific extraordinary ministers since we do not have, nor will we ever have, enough ordinary ministers. Recall that the Church calls us to offer both the Body and the Blood of Christ under the two forms, calling for a greater number of ministers. I am very proud of ours, and pleased with their special ministry."

Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S., a theologian at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico, who was influential in the founding of Adoremus, an organization promoting liturgical reform, expressed surprise at Mahony's statement. "If Cardinal Mahony says they need 30 to 80 eucharistic ministers in any parish, I can only assume that he is talking ironically or he is talking tongue-in-cheek, because he cannot be serious," he said. "In no parish do you need a vast number of ministers to distribute Holy Communion, so I'm not sure what he's really driving at there."

Even when Communion is distributed under both species, Harrison said, a large number of ministers are not needed. Father Harrison questioned the statement that the Church requests Communion to be distributed under both species. "This is not the universal Church's decision," he said. "The norms are that the Bishops in any particular region can establish particular circumstances under which the faithful can receive under both kinds. But in any case, it doesn't require anything like this enormous number of Eucharistic Ministers."

Speaking from pastoral experience, Father Dudley Day, former pastor of St. Rita's parish in Chicago, confirmed Father Harrison's statement. At no time during his eleven years at St. Rita's, one of the largest parishes in Chicago, were extraordinary eucharistic ministers necessary, he said. Father Day, an Augustinian, is now Associate Director of the Institute for Religious Life. He quoted the 1980 Vatican document Inestimabile Donum, which states, "The Faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic, can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon, or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long."

"This is the rule of the Church, and it hasn't changed," Father Day said. He also cited the November, 1997 Vatican document entitled "Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-ordained Faithful," which prohibits "the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of 'a great number of the faithful.'" "I'm not giving you my own opinion here," he said. "I'm just giving you the documents of the Church."

The Church has important reasons to limit the use of extraordinary eucharistic ministers, Father Harrison noted. Having lay ministers habitually distribute Holy Communion runs the risk of confusing the special roles of priest and laity. Father Harrison described "a sort of egalitarian tendency to reduce the differences between priests and lay people as much as possible, so you have a sort of clericalization of the laity and a secularization of the clergy. The whole idea is to arrest that tendency and leave clear the different roles of the different people in the Church."

Likewise, there are significant concerns behind the Roman Catholic Church's centuries old tradition of limiting distribution of Communion under both species. "The Protestant Reformers are the ones who insisted on Communion under both kinds," Father Harrison said. Because the Protestants did not believe Christ was really present in the Eucharist, "the sign value was everything." The Church's limitations were a form of catechesis, teaching that "you were receiving the whole Jesus Christ if you receive just under the one form, of bread."

If too much emphasis is placed on the outward appearance of the Eucharistic bread and wine, Harrison said, "The danger is that people are going to think, 'Well, we're not really receiving the Sacrament completely unless we receive it under both species,' which is false, you know. It was condemned by the Council of Trent. This is one reason why the Church has always been cautious about too much emphasis on Communion under both signs, precisely because people might get the idea that the important thing is receiving under both visible species; [that] it's not complete unless you do."

While the sign--the outward appearance--is more complete when Communion is distributed under both species, a point emphasized in Cardinal Mahony's pastoral on the liturgy, Harrison noted that "You're not losing any grace, you're not losing any benefit by receiving under one species alone, because the whole of Our Lord in His Sacramental Presence in His Body and Blood is there under the bread alone."

TOP