It is a strange feature of our times that when a priest fulfills his sacred duty it becomes news. Such is the case with Fr. Ian Vane, who rightly refused Holy Communion to British MP Chris Coghlan after Coghlan’s public support for assisted suicide. Such an action by a priest should be common—as common as “Catholics” who promote evils while maintaining a public platform are today.
Receiving the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin is a sacrilege because it profanes the sacredness of the sacrament by placing Him in a marred vessel. Instead of receiving the graces normally associated with reception of the Eucharist, one who receives Communion in a state of mortal sin causes further spiritual harm and compounds the sin. This teaching is not ambiguous, and it never has been. It can be found in Scripture itself: “And therefore, if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood” (1 Corinthians 11:27, Knox). Thus, a priest who denies Communion in such cases is attempting both to assist the parishioner and prevent an act of sacrilege.
There is a profound injustice in the all-too-common cases wherein pastors remain silent when a parishioner ignores the teachings of the Church, publicly encourages serious sins, and then presents himself for Communion. Such is the case with so many nominally Catholic members of Congress who have voted in favor of abortion or even against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In these scenarios, there are really only two possibilities:
- The priest does not care enough about the soul of the communicant to act.
- The priest does not believe that the teachings of the Church have merit, or that they matter in any transcendent way.
That’s all there is. The complex interplay of Church politics, the onslaught of media criticism, and irate or offended parishioners all fall under the umbrella of the first option. The priest must choose if he cares more about the soul of the parishioner than the trial that he will have to endure for doing what he was called to do. Fr. Ian Vane said yes, which is refreshing to the point of being remarkable.
When priests continue to offer Holy Communion in these cases, we might consider how that affects other members of the Church. The decision communicates (excuse the pun) an indifference toward their souls and a flippancy about their spiritual battles. After all, everyone is engaged in a spiritual war—our souls are being fought for. The decisions that we make bear consequences in this life and the next. Good priests acknowledge that reality.
There is a corresponding horror and romance in recognizing the degree to which our own decisions matter. It’s why the modern insistence of hoping Hell is empty can seem aspirational until it reduces our decisions and our humanity to nought.
Fr. James Schall, S.J., reminds us:
But if the doctrine of hell is true, if it is a real possibility for each person as a result of his choices, of his putting disorder into his soul and into the world, it means that our ordinary affairs are shot through with unimaginable significance.
This is even more true with the decisions that relate to the sacred, or that relate directly to Him who Is.
Fr. Vane told the BBC, “As priests, we are custodians of the sacraments,” which is confirmed by Canon Law. Yet, to a people who have grown dim to the graces offered therein, the idea of a need for a custodian is anathematic, or at least incomprehensible. An indifference to acts of scandal quickly translates into an indifference toward Divine Law—and an indifference toward God Himself, who is profaned.
This disregard is then taught to parishioners, including the next generation, who watch how we act. That is so often how banal and irreverent liturgies result in younger generations leaving their parishes when they mature—because a demonstrated indifference is tantamount to a lived apostasy. If they have only ever seen Catholics acting as if the sacraments do not matter, they may reach an age wherein they believe the actions of their elders.
A priest himself causes scandal when he willfully contributes to the ignorance of his parishioners with regard to the moral law. He asserts, via his indifference, that those sins aren’t a “big deal” and don’t require us to change ourselves.
As a devout Catholic, if I were to err unknowingly, and especially if I was doing so in a public way, I would want to know. If I was jeopardizing my relationship with Christ and placing my soul at risk, I would want to know. Moreover, the faithful have a right to know, and priests have a duty to inform them. Those who take the Faith seriously desire to know when they are placing their souls in peril. Those who do not practice the Faith have no reason to approach the Eucharist, for reception of Communion is not a token of affiliation but an intimate encounter with Christ and His Church.
We are called to die to ourselves, to change who we are to become anew in Christ. Too often it is insinuated, with rolled eyes, that we are instructed to follow a system of frivolous rules without cause, as if the Church hierarchy invented a penal code in their boredom. Instead, Christ left us a Church to guide us in properly following Him. Moreover, our lives become better when we do so because they are then properly ordered.
