| |
||
A plenary meeting of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) was held in Rome in November 2001. Some of its reports and papers are given in the PCPCU Information Service 100, 2002/I-II. One is entitled ‘Theological considerations on the question of eucharistic sharing’. It is not a completed document of the PCPCU, but represents a resource used at the meeting, and illustrates some of the issues before the plenary. Here we can only pick out the references to eucharistic sharing in interchurch families.
Introduction: status quaestionis
The text began by saying that eucharistic hospitality must be set in the context
of the Catholic view that ecclesial and eucharistic communion belong inseparably
together. It continued:
A different question is the one concerning cases of urgent needs, in which the eucharist, according to the 1993 Ecumenical Directory, can be received under certain clear conditions by baptised, non-Catholic Christians. The question is whether it is possible to extend the cases allowed so far.
Furthermore, thought should be given to situations which concern all of the life circumstances of Christians, e.g. the cases of confessionally mixed marriages.
Tasks for the plenary
It would be helpful to further clarify the situation of grave need as described
in the Code of Canon Law and in the Ecumenical Directory, in regard to special
situations in the life and faith of Christians (e.g. confessionally mixed marriages
who live an ecumenical vocation) with special consideration of the salus animarum
(salvation of souls). Concerning the question, whether the regulations in the
Directory are sufficient, or whether an additional amendment ought to be considered,
a change of the Directory itself does not seem to be appropriate. Except for
‘danger of death’ (n.130), the Directory has not indicated any other
case of urgent need in a more specific way, because the Code of Canon Law has
left the task to verify all other cases of urgent need to the judgement of the
bishop or the Bishops’ Conference… Bishops should be encouraged
to make full use of the space for decision making that is given to them in the
Ecumenical Directory.
Points for further discussion
The question of the admission of non-Catholics to Catholic Eucharist is a sensitive,
complex and delicate issue in ecumenical relations. On the one side, it concerns
individuals asking for admission in specific cases (for example during mixed
marriages); on the other; it pertains to communities or even confessions that
see a possibility of inter-confessional relations evolving towards a eucharistic
communion.
From the list of suggestions made during the discussion:
- Better information about the pastoral practice of the local churches that
have already established some directives. The PCPCU was asked to prepare a synopsis
of the practices adopted by the Bishops’ Conferences in the field of eucharistic
sharing.
- Taking ecumenical progress into account, apply the Directory in a more benevolent way: this possibility is foreseen, for example, for bishops in cases of grave necessity for the salus animarum. It is important to understand and apply the norms of Canon Law and of the Directory on the basis of the Decree on Ecumenism (UR) and all conciliar documents.
- The admission of non-Catholics to the eucharist under specific circumstances, foreseen by Vatican Council II, eastern and western canon law, and the Ecumenical Directory, should not be based on a continuing legislation of ‘exceptions’. Exception presupposes a justification and an a priori theological possibility.
- What is needed is a new catechesis of eucharist rather than casuistry. This requires a theology of the eucharist and of the church which would take into account theological, pastoral and spiritual aspects, which ought to be dealt with together.
Editorial note
There are some positive points for interchurch families to note.
What seems to be at issue here, so far as interchurch families are concerned, is on-going eucharistic sharing in some cases (‘all of the life’; ‘during mixed marriages’). Following the Directory’s reference to those ‘who share the sacraments of baptism and marriage’ (159, 160), bishops and Episcopal Conferences who have made their own applications of the Code do not seem in doubt that they can, even should, apply the possibility of admission to communion to spouses in interchurch marriages, at least on an occasional basis. It is clear that they are able to make further applications if they wish to do so (as some have done, both in relation to interchurch families and to others in need of admission). The PCPCU does not wish for further legislation giving lists of possibilities. It is enough to make it clear that the existing legislation is there to be applied. It is suggested that it be applied ‘in a more benevolent way’ than has in general so far occurred. Exceptions to the general rule are already theologically justified; what has to be done now is to identify serious need. Bishops are encouraged to do this. The reference to interpretation of canon law and the Directory on the basis of the Decree on Ecumenism and all the Second Vatican Council documents can be understood as taking seriously the fact that sacramental sharing is sometimes to be commended (UR 8); the corporate stress of the Constitution on the Liturgy; what Gaudium et Spes says about marriage as a communion of life and love (48); and Lumen Gentium’s use of the term ‘domestic church’ (11).
Moving on from exceptional cases of (individual) need to a new catechesis of eucharist in which theological, pastoral and spiritual aspects are dealt with together, is to be warmly welcomed. Here interchurch families can justly feel they have a contribution to make.
Return to Journal index
Vol 11 # 1, January 2003
If you find any broken links, are having problems with any page in this site, or would like to suggest a page to link to, please contact the |
Go to Top |