Sir, - There are many who are far more competent than I to comment on President McAleese's reception of communion at Christ Church Cathedral. I am a humble curate working in a city parish. But I find some of the language used in the debate to be intemperate and offensive to my Christian sensibility. The debate has been confined to Canon Law, but there is a much wider context in which it should be conducted.
To begin with, it needs to be situated in the context of one of the greatest scandals in the Church today, the division of Christians. We profess the same Lord, we preach his message of unity, yet for 400 years we cannot sit at the Lord's table together. That is sinful.
The sin is compounded by the very slow progress of ecumenical talks. Surely there should be a great urgency about such dialogue in our deeply divided society on this island.
The context of evaluation must include the agreed statement on the Eucharist produced by ARCIC (Anglo Roman Catholic International Commission), an officially appointed body. There is substantial agreement on "the real presence", while there is not yet consensus on the how of "Real Presence", (i.e. transubstatiation). There is a clear agreement on the ecclesial significance of the Eucharist. Through our inter-church dialogue, we have rediscovered and agreed on the notion of Eucharist as memorial or anamnesis. In remembering together, the salvific nature of Jesus's passion and resurrection is again present to us. It is also mutually accepted that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, even though there is more work yet to be done before there is full agreement. But as Catholics we have gained a deeper appreciation of the uniqueness of Jesus's sacrifice and of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist through dialogue. Our popular thinking prior to Vatican II seemed to suggest that the sacrifice of Jesus was repeated at every Mass.
The Decree on Ecumenism of Vatican II states: "The fact that the Eucharist should signify unity generally rules out common worship. Yet the gaining of a needed grace sometimes commends it. The practical course to be adopted is left to the prudent decision of the local episcopal authority." There are a number of documents issued by bishops and bishops' conferences that designate situations in which a Catholic could conscientiously decide to receive the Eucharist at a Protestant service. The Bishop of Strasbourg (1972), the Bishop of Metz (1973), the French Bishops' Committee for Christian Unity, The Swiss Episcopal Conference (1975) have all issued decrees accepting the possibility of limited intercommunion with Protestants. The conditions for intercommunion usually include: (1) that Catholics must not have to renounce anything of their own faith or membership in their Church; (2) that the Protestant minister should be duty ordained to dispense the word and sacrament in fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles; (3) that the Catholic should have real bonds of life and faith with those in whose Eucharist he or she desires to participate.
The Swiss Bishops add that if a Catholic in an exceptional situation arrives at the conviction that his/her conscience authorises him/ her to receive the Eucharist in a Protestant Church, this should not be interpreted as implying at rupture with his/her own Church.
As official consultations between Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches have not yet agreed on what is minimally required before there can be full ecclesial communion and sacramental sharing, the widespread practice of intercommunion would be anomalous. But the action of our President, evaluated against this much wider context, while breaking canon law, may in the future be seen as a prophetic action that proved an incentive to christian unity. - Yours, etc.
Convent Hill, Waterford.