Appendix F: The Catholic Church

Throughout the first half of the 20^th century, many new ideas were being developed by Catholic theologians, largely unnoticed by lay Catholics and by most clergy and bishops, until the Second Vatican Council (‘Vatican II’, 1962-1965) – the most important general meeting of the Roman Catholic Church in the last 150 years, attended by bishops from all over the world. The constitutions and decrees of this council proposed major developments (and in some cases reversals) of theology and practices, most notably in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), which declared that the whole Church, as ‘the People of God’, should be outward-looking and fully engaged with the rest of humanity.

In particular, CST and Vatican II explicitly or implicitly recognized

• the fundamental equality and dignity of all people as children of God created in his image, irrespective of race, gender, social position or beliefs[1];
• their inviolable right to find God and profess their religion freely according to their conscience, so that neither civil authorities nor the Church may coerce a person into or out of a particular faith or expression of that faith, provided they respect the rights of other people[2];
• the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ – that decisions should be taken at the lowest level of organization that is competent to take them[3]
• the value of democracy as the political system that most nearly meets the requirements of Christ’s teaching[4];
• that the Holy Spirit (the spirit of God and of Christ, which I have described in the essay as the motivating power of goodness) is not confined to practising Catholics or even baptized Christians, but is found in, and inspires, a much wider range of people, who may thereby achieve the same eternal salvation as Catholics[5].

The members of the Council managed to reconcile fairly successfully two apparently conflicting themes, which shaped much of the theology of the Council’s declarations:

• Pope John XXIII’s declared purpose in convening the Council, Aggiornamento – ‘bringing the Church up to date’ so as to be relevant to a world that had changed dramatically in the previous 90 years and was still changing rapidly; and
• Ressourcement – ‘returning to the sources’, that is, seeking a way forward in the scriptures and the writings of the early Church Fathers – part of the ‘nouvelle théologie’ of a group of very influential theologians, including Balthasar, Chenu, Congar, de Lubac, Küng, Schillebeeckx, Rahner and Ratzinger.

Unfortunately, their recommendations are even now far from fully implemented, having met continual resistance from a conservative elite. Pope Francis has been a strong champion of Vatican II as well as tackling issues that have come into prominence since then – increasing the outward-looking attitude of Church members, addressing environmental issues, and adopting a Change Management approach to structural reform and decentralization (that is, seeking to win the minds and hearts of Church members, including his opponents, rather than merely imposing his authority on them). But the conservative opposition is strong and not readily converted to his reforms.

To some extent Vatican II addressed many of the problems summarized above, but the failure to implement (much less, build on) its recommendations means that they persist, are increasingly recognized by people inside and outside the Church, and have resulted in a serious reduction in the Church’s influence even over those who identify themselves as Catholics.

From the start of his papacy, Pope Francis has emphasized that a correct understanding of Christ’s message requires the members of the Church, laity as well as clergy, to look outwards, caring particularly for the poor and people on the margins of society and spreading the Christian message and values to all mankind, rather than being preoccupied with their personal salvation and with protecting a pious elite from the contamination of non-Catholic and non-Christian influences. Many of the Church’s existing institutions and traditional practices are not well designed and its clergy and key workers are not trained to support such a change in attitudes. If the institutional Church cannot be changed within a reasonable time to support such a new role, the People of God may have to create new forms of community to remain united and strong as Christ’s body on earth and to build his kingdom. Attempts by other Christian denominations, House Churches and sects to do this have not been very successful. Despite its failings, the Catholic Church has a rich patrimony to draw on, of doctrines, of role models of sanctity, of successful institutions including many religious orders, as well as spiritual, artistic and charitable contributions to Western and international culture.

Partly as a result of the Church’s activity in the past, there is, I believe, a vast resource available to the Church in the widespread acceptance of Christian values – trust, positive thinking, love and kindness (or Faith, Hope and Charity), based on honesty, truthfulness, unselfishness, and other virtues which are the fruits of the Holy Spirit working in people who may not recognize themselves as Christians. The overriding and urgent challenge for the Roman Catholic Church today is, I suggest, to connect with this resource, recognizing that the boundaries of the People of God are porous, being prepared to learn from those outside the Church who share many of our values and to make available to them all that we have found valuable within the Church. This requires our institutions to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

There are many areas of the institutional Church that could undoubtedly be improved, such as the education and training of its clerical and lay members, aspects of its financial organization and practices, and communications (though much of this essay addresses one aspect of communications – using language and symbolism appropriate to those to whom the Church is communicating). But in this appendix I concentrate on two broad areas – governance and worship.

There is a general principle that is relevant to both of these areas: there can be no a priori reason (and there is nothing in the fundamental Christian message) to justify discrimination between members of the People of God on grounds of race, gender, social or economic status, or physical ability or disability, in serving the Church. Of course, some individuals may not have the skills or physical strength for specific tasks in particular circumstances (though often steps could be taken to change these circumstances, for example by making buildings more accessible to those with disabilities). But, to take an obvious example, refusal to allow a person to preside at the Eucharist, oversee a diocese or become pope, purely because she is female remains a gross affront to her equality through baptism whatever the historical tradition may be, as well as missing an evident opportunity to choose the best person to do God’s work in a particular set of circumstances.

The principle of subsidiarity must be applied much more fully throughout the Church:

• by devolving teaching authority to the College of Bishops meeting in regular (or extraordinary) synods – this has been taking place progressively since Vatican II and particularly under Pope Francis, who has encouraged the synods to express their views freely without waiting for the pope to tell them what they should think;
• by decentralizing doctrinal and other authority to national and regional bishops conferences as strongly encouraged by Vatican II but blocked by (among other things) a decree of Pope John Paul II criticised by Pope Francis;
• by relaxing the Vatican’s detailed oversight and direction of diocesan bishops, each of whom in theory ‘has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which a law or decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme or some other ecclesiastical authority’ – in practice, over the years such decrees drafted by the Curia have greatly delimited their powers;
• by empowering to some degree advisory bodies within dioceses and parishes, required by canon law or other decrees existing or future, such as pastoral boards, finance committees, councils of priests, parish councils, safeguarding authorities, etc., to ensure that their advice receives due consideration.

The Church was not founded by Jesus as an imperial hierarchy or as a monarchy: these are forms it acquired following Constantine’s takeover and as the Roman Empire dissolved into barbarian kingdoms. Whilst there may not be any perfect form for a world-wide human organization, the Church has recognized that governance in the secular world is most likely to reflect Christian values if it is based on democratic principles: this may be seen as the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church in the 21^st century. The Roman Catholic Church itself, therefore, should incorporate those principles as far as possible and move to become a truly democratic organization. Among other things, this means:

• inviting, listening to and taking seriously the views of all members of the People of God, including (some would say, above all) those marginalized by the institutional Church, who are generally not to be found regularly attending their parish church (because of disability, sickness, exclusion, dissatisfaction with the ministry provided or other reasons);
• empowering lay members of the faithful with suitable skills and training to participate in managing and governing church organizations and assets to a much greater extent than occurs at present, and to a large extent separating the role of ordained or ministerial priesthood from the exercise of power and authority[7];
• even where oversight powers are reserved to ordained priests or bishops, returning to the early church principle that bishops (and other office holders) should be elected by their local communities over whom they exercise authority;
• by actively promoting codes of ecclesial professional ethics applicable to all office holders in the Church, supervised by independent panels with a degree of public accountability[8].

There are practical issues to address and resolve in achieving these changes, for example determining the boundaries of the ‘People of God’ when weighing[9] their responses to consultation or their votes in elections. Some would seem prima facie to be better qualified to influence decisions by having a more extensive knowledge of official doctrine and existing practices, while others might seem to lie on or just outside the margins of the Christian community. Democracy undoubtedly works most efficiently in well-educated societies with well-defined borders. However, Pope Francis has repeatedly drawn attention to Jesus’ practice of prioritizing those on the margins – the dispossessed, the uneducated and the wayward.

These changes cannot happen overnight, but the Roman Catholic Church (at least in the Western world) does not have much time to lose if it is not to drive its existing members further away and continue to alienate those whom it would wish to guide towards Christianity. A clear resolve to move in this direction and evidence that change has started to take place would do much to restore its credibility.

Official sacramental theology is one of the weakest areas of theological development since Vatican II, and much liturgical practice in many ways remains mediaeval, unchanged since the Council of Trent (or earlier): its inadequacies in the 21^st century have been perceived, if only dimly, by many Catholics who have abandoned liturgical practice, perhaps reflecting the wider sensus fidelium.

The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was the first major document of Vatican II to be completed. It called for extensive reform of the liturgy: ‘both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n.21). It laid down a list of principles (‘norms’ and ‘decrees’) for revising the liturgy, but left the details of the revision to others. Over the following ten years the Sacred Congregation for Rites and its successor, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, issued hundreds of instructions for both provisional and permanent changes to the liturgy, and, of course, more instructions have been issued since then, but it is highly debatable how many of them have followed the spirit and principles of this and other Vatican II constitutions and decrees.

In 1966 Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro in his Foreword to The Liturgy of Vatican II (ed. W Baraúna, English edition ed. Jovian Lang, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, 1966) wrote ‘While this study … is opportune at the present time, it will be such even more tomorrow, when the seeds sown by the Constitution [on the Sacred Liturgy] will have blossomed’. The theologian Kenan B Osborne OFM comments in 2015, ‘For the most part I think that the leaders have done much to change the pre-Vatican II theological understanding of sacrament to the newly expressed theological understanding of sacramental life. However, it is also true to say that major conservative elements in the Church have not allowed the seeds established by the conciliar bishops to blossom. Cardinal Lercaro would consider this negative situation a rejection of the Second Vatican Council’ (Sacramental Theology 50 Years after Vatican II, Lectio Publishing, Hobe Sound Fla., 2015, p. 53).

Osborne also notes, ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers two different approaches to sacramental theology: the first theology of the sacraments is based on the Trinity and Christus totus; the second theology of the sacraments is based on the traditional pre-Vatican II teaching on the sacraments’ (ibid, p.53). (This comment contrasts Catechism Part Two Section One ‘The Sacramental Economy’, paras. 1076-1209, with Part Two Section Two ‘The Seven Sacraments of the Church’, paras. 1210-1690, which follows the form and largely the theology of a pre-Vatican II Neo-Scholastic manual.) He also concludes that, contrary to the Catechism, ‘the scholarly history of the seven sacraments, which has been thoroughly investigated since 1896, challenges the view that Jesus, in his lifetime, instituted all seven sacraments’ (ibid. p. 54)

Consequently, I suggest that there is a need for

• a radical review by Church liturgists and theologians of the objectives of major liturgical events and of the liturgical forms that will most effectively achieve those objectives, taking account of the sacramental theology of Vatican II.

However, an additional level of obscurity (and hence exclusion of ordinary people) has been introduced to these prayers in the 21^st century. When they were first translated from the Latin of the Roman Missal after Vatican II, the English translators attempted to eliminate some of the grandiloquent verbosity of the original which merely obscured the meaning, for example by responding to ‘The Lord be with you’ with ‘And also with you’, for ‘Et cum spiritu tuo’ (instead of the extremely literal translation ‘And with your spirit’). This approach was followed also in the revised translation into English of the Roman Missal completed in 1998 and approved by all the English-speaking conferences of bishops. However, in 2001, before the introduction of the new translation had been finally authorized by the Vatican, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued an Instruction ‘Liturgiam Authenticam – Vernacular Languages in the Books of the Roman Liturgy’, vetoed the introduction of the 1998 translation and required a new English translation to be prepared following the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam, which was widely reviled by both priests and laity when it was introduced in English-speaking territories. Liturgiam Authenticam (which seems to me entirely pernicious to the principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium) specified, for example:

‘If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities. Indeed it will be seen that the observance of the principles set forth in this Instruction will contribute to the gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context. In translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is likewise to be avoided. (LA 27)’

‘Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission. (LA 29)’[11]

This is worth comparing with the following passages of Pope Francis’ 2013 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

‘At the same time, today’s vast and rapid cultural changes demand that we constantly seek ways of expressing unchanging truths in a language which brings out their abiding newness. “The deposit of the faith is one thing … the way it is expressed is another.” [John XXIII, 1962] There are times when the faithful, in listening to completely orthodox language, take away something alien to the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, because that language is alien to their own way of speaking to and understanding one another. With the holy intent of communicating the truth about God and humanity, we sometimes give them a false god or a human ideal which is not really Christian. In this way we hold fast to a formulation while failing to convey its substance. This is the greatest danger. Let us never forget that “the expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning.” [John Paul II, 1995]’ (EG 41)

‘In her ongoing discernment, the Church can also come to see that certain customs not directly connected to the heart of the Gospel, even some which have deep historical roots, are no longer properly understood and appreciated. Some of these customs may be beautiful, but they no longer serve as a means of communicating the Gospel. We should not be afraid to re-examine them.’ (EG 43)

Unfortunately, there seems currently a risk that the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, without any consultation of the clergy or laity, are about to make a decision which will further exclude would-be worshippers from their churches, by replacing the current Lectionary (which contains all the scripture passages to be read at masses) by a less easily comprehensible one. The present Lectionary uses the Jerusalem Bible translation of scripture, a ‘dynamic equivalence’ translation, which seeks to express the meaning of the ancient texts in modern terminology, that is, in the words and phrases we use today. The alternative favoured by the bishops, the English Standard Version, is a new ‘essentially literal’ translation, which translates each Hebrew or Greek word by the corresponding English word. Dynamic equivalence is the principle underlying every translation of a modern book (whether of history, narrative story, verse, guidance or other content) from one language to another: no publisher would accept or could sell a word-for-word translation, as making unreasonable demands on the reader.

The bishops are supported in their choice of the ESV by a form of ‘academic elitism’: a biblical scholar noted that the Jerusalem Bible relates that a leper asked Jesus ‘to be cured’, but the scholar argued that in fact he asked to be ‘made clean’ and Jesus ‘cleansed’ him.

‘The “curing” translation avoids the duty of reading Leviticus 13, of exploring the theology of clean/unclean. Why, in the Jewish understanding of such matters, does God refuse to listen to a leper’s prayer? Why were such people banned from the synagogue of prayer? Why are we deprived of the invitation to plumb the Christological depths of the one who cleanses? … Functional or dynamic translation is theologically lazy and catechetically irresponsible. It demands nothing of pastors and parishioners by way of grappling with God’s holy words. It destroys the biblical injunction of all the prophets to visit the past to understand the pain of the present and thereby to be empowered to create a new future. … Jesus does not cure people. As both the ESV and the NRJB correctly have it, he heals them.’[12]

Leaving aside the objection that ‘heal’ does not mean ‘cleanse’ but ‘make healthy or whole’, which is much closer to the meaning of ‘cure’ in the English dictionary, the implication of this argument is that Christians in the pews who are too ‘lazy-minded’ to learn biblical Hebrew and study the vexed questions of the Levitical purity laws before coming to church do not deserve to hear the gospel in language they understand. It is in the same vein as saying the gospel should be read in Latin as non-Latin scholars do not deserve access to it. The literal word-for-word translation may be useful as a study bible, but not, in my view, for liturgical use.

Secondly, the ‘narrative story’ of the Mass as well as the symbolic actions performed by the presiding minister are confused and confusing to modern participants who may not have a sufficient appreciation of (or interest in) the historical background: it is filled and overloaded with symbols. The following are the main examples, though other difficult references could be cited also.

1             The Eucharist is the direct successor of the Sunday ‘agape’ meals celebrated by the first Christian communities based on the normal Sabbath meals of observant Jewish families, including a prayer of thanksgiving to God for the food about to be eaten. They were social occasions serving to unite the members of each community, as well as being the main meal of the day for those attending. In this interpretation of the mass, the focus is effectively a dining table.

2             Like the ‘agape’ meals, the mass is also a memorial of Jesus’ Last Supper, containing the breaking and blessing of bread with the words ‘This is my body’, and the blessing of a cup of wine (from which all present drank at the Last Supper and probably in the ‘agape’ meals), with the words ‘This is the cup of my blood – do this in memory of me’.

3             In three of the four main Eucharistic Prayers (referred in the following examples as ‘EP1’, ‘EP2’, etc.) the mass is an explicit memorial of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension: ‘as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection’ (EP2), ‘as we celebrate the memorial of the saving Passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming’ (EP3), ‘as we now celebrate the memorial of our redemption, we remember Christ’s Death and his descent to the realm of the dead, we proclaim his Resurrection and Ascension to your right hand, and as we await his coming in glory’ (EP4).

4             The Penitential Rite, the readings from Scripture and homily on them, the recitation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (or the Apostles’ Creed), and the Prayers of the Faithful, are all elements added to the above with no inherent connection to them or to one another.

5             The mass is also presented as a sacrifice offered to God the Father by those celebrating the mass, and it is likened to the sacrificial offerings made by Abel, Isaac and Melchizedech (EP1), and implicitly by the High Priests of the Jerusalem Temple of animals satisfying the Levitical purity laws (‘unblemished sacrifices’, ‘a spotless victim’ – EP1). (In this interpretation of the mass the ‘dining table’ becomes a sacrificial altar.)  What exactly is being offered in sacrifice seems to vary slightly: ‘these gifts, these offerings’ before God has blessed, acknowledged and approved them and made them spiritual and acceptable (EP1); more obviously, ‘we offer you his Body and Blood, the sacrifice acceptable to you which brings salvation to the whole world … the sacrifice which you yourself have provided for your Church’ (EP4); but also ‘grant in your loving kindness to all who partake of this one Bread and one Chalice that, gathered into one body by the Holy Spirit, they may truly become a living sacrifice in Christ’ (EP4 – my emphasis added). Although Jesus’ acceptance of his own suffering and death was a sacrifice in the modern sense of that word, and despite the elaborate parallel drawn in the Letter to the Hebrews between Christ and the High Priests of the Old Testament, there is nothing in the gospels to suggest that either Jesus or the disciples saw the Last Supper in that light, nor that Jesus would have endorsed Temple worship in that way (cf Mt 12: 6-7; Jn 4: 21).

6             The role of the Holy Spirit in transforming the gifts of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is recognised by a specific epiclesis in EP2 (‘sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall’) and EP4 (‘may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings’). This is an element that is not found in the gospel (or in Paul’s) accounts of the Last Supper.

7             Many of the Prefaces refer to the various orders of angels praising God, e.g., ‘through him the Angels praise your majesty, Dominions adore and Powers tremble before you. Heaven and the Virtues of heaven and the blessed Seraphim worship together with exultation’ (Preface 1 of the Blessed Virgin Mary). There are other apocalyptic or visionary references, e.g., ‘you are the one God … dwelling in unapproachable light … And so, in your presence are countless hosts of Angels, who serve you day and night and, gazing on the glory of your face, glorify you without ceasing’ (EP4). The ancient works of Jewish Apocalyptic and of Jewish and Christian angelology on which these references are based are quite unknown to most Christians, and (in my view) not worth studying for any real help they could give in their spiritual development.

8             The vestments worn by the priest or bishop presiding at mass and by other ordained ministers assisting him are reproductions of everyday clothes in the Western Roman Empire between the third and sixth centuries CE, and each garment has its own symbolism. It is questionable whether this does anything to connect the mass to Jesus or to provide any useful theological lessons.

9             Incense has been used in services by a variety of religions (including Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity from the earliest times), initially probably as an air purifier (for which there are more efficient modern methods) but later symbolising by its smoke the prayers of the faithful rising to God (cf Ps 141: 2; Rev 5: 8, and Rev 8: 3).

10           No doubt there are symbolic reasons why the General Instruction of the Roman Missal insists that wax candles may not be replaced by similar electrical lights.

My contention in regard to all the above is not that any of the individual elements is wholly inappropriate, nor even that an occasional mass containing all of them (together with Latin hymns and additional rites not mentioned above) could not be of spiritual benefit to a few liturgically educated mass-goers. It is that the requirement to include them all (possibly excluding the incense) in every celebration of the Eucharist, and to impose a canonical obligation on every Catholic to attend such a mass every Sunday, is an unnecessary deterrent to parish worship for faithful Christians wanting to belong to and to contribute to a Christian community.

Thirdly, in addition to overloading the mass with disconnected and often obscure symbols, the prescribedliturgy attenuates some of those symbols to the point where the meaning and hence value of the symbol is likely to be lost, and misses obvious opportunities for emphasizing the symbols.

For example, the theme of a communal meal, which some theologians see as primary (see T O’Loughlin, The Eucharist: Origins and Contemporary Understandings, Bloomsbury, London, 2015; and Eating Together, Becoming One, Liturgical Press, Collegeville Minn., 2019), is poorly represented by a long line of people queuing to be handed a host and to be offered a sip of wine. The idea that bread offered by the congregation is being repurposed (consecrated) to become the body of Christ and is then eaten is not evident in the blessing and distribution of a very small tasteless disc, bearing almost no resemblance to the loaves of bread we all eat, manufactured by nuns specifically for this purpose. Jesus’ intention of uniting and so strengthening his embryonic church by his institution of the Eucharist was accomplished in part by the disciples’ sharing a single loaf and drinking from the same cup: the use of separately manufactured discs and multiple chalices at communion obscures this intention. No doubt there are practical (even economic) reasons for such weakening of the symbolism, but they are at the cost of undermining the meaning and hence the efficacy of the sacrament. When the priest says the words ‘he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it’, this would seem to be the ideal moment at which to break the host to portray more vividly Christ’s action at the Last Supper rather than breaking it later, without comment, while the people are reciting the Agnus Dei. I have been told that the official objection to breaking the host earlier was ‘a fear of synchronicity’, to avoid a popular association of the moment of transubstantiation with a particular action of the priest – but I was often told when young that the moment of consecration occurred at the words ‘This is my body’, which was therefore the most solemn part of the mass. Whatever the explanation, it seems that the symbolism could have been reinforced by matching the action to the words. There is no point in symbolism if those to whom it is addressed do not catch the references and understand it.

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, because virtually all the prayers and actions of the mass have been prescribed in detail by the Vatican and given to the priest presiding at the celebration to say or perform, there is very little opportunity for the members participating to express their own wishes or beliefs in their own words, and (unlike the original ‘agape meals’) almost no opportunity for them to communicate or interact with each other. It is extremely rare for the mass to be followed by and integrally linked to a social event for the participants (such as a parish meal) designed to share their Christian experience, hopes and understanding.

All present are celebrating the Eucharist in a liturgy presided over by the priest; together they are participating in a communal meal with Christ Jesus, who is present because two or more are gathered in his name. By eating and drinking together as he commanded his disciples at the Last Supper, they are actively asserting their communion, that is, their membership of his body on earth. Described as the ‘sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being’[13], the Eucharist provides few if any visible and practical contributions to that unity. It often seems to those present to be above all a ‘spectator event’. One of the very few opportunities for the celebrants to help build that unity is by personally consuming the consecrated bread and wine. But instead of recognizing this as a positive act of celebrating communion, it is always represented in everyday speech and Church documents as passively ‘receiving communion’ from the presiding priest for the private spiritual nourishment of the individual’s soul.

Since the Eucharist is seen by the Church as ‘the source and summit of the Christian life’, I am bound to offer some suggestions on how to preserve the essential purpose and nature of the sacrament, while recasting its form so that it attracts rather than repels both existing Catholics and others who might be drawn into unity with Roman Catholic Christianity. The changes needed are not easy to discern, and the following list is far from comprehensive.

• First, the pernicious Liturgiam Authenticam instruction must be withdrawn, and liturgists must be allowed and encouraged to express prayers and standard readings in the language and idiom of those speaking and hearing them.
• Second, participation in the liturgy (including consuming the consecrated bread and wine) should be opened out to non-Catholics including all baptized Christians (by right)[14] and to others invited by practising members of the Church.
• Third, the Church should permit more accessible liturgies alongside the forms currently prescribed, for example communal meals containing some elements of the mass[15] and a much wider range of prayers.

There is no need for a single form of Eucharist[16]: the essential elements are a gathering in Jesus’ name, a communal meal including thanksgiving to God for food and his other gifts; and a commemoration of Jesus’ Last Supper at which he gave thanks for a loaf of bread and distributed it with the words ‘This is my body’ and gave thanks for a cup of wine which he shared with all present with the words ‘This is my blood’. It is desirable to include instruction in the faith based on scriptural readings, and other prayers and songs, selected by whoever is presiding

Undoubtedly, some people are spiritually uplifted by a carefully choreographed performance in special costume, or by the use of ancient formal prayers and chants, which may be in Latin or Greek. As a classical scholar I find great beauty in some ancient texts, as well as later musical settings of the Latin mass, whether as concert performances or as liturgy in church buildings. But my aesthetic pleasures must take second place to the primary objective of making the Eucharist accessible to the widest possible range of celebrants and of making all welcome to join in.

Another Catholic ritual which the Church officially requires all its members to practise at least once a year, and until quite recently recommended that they perform every week, but which has come in for much criticism and has been abandoned by many otherwise loyal Catholics, is Reconciliation (or Confession). This ritual, which first appeared in in its present form in the 13^th century, firstly requires the Christian to confess all her serious failings secretly to a priest and to submit to his judgement on whether the confession has been true and complete and shows genuine repentance, on the degree of wickedness of those failings, and in particular on whether the penitent should be excluded from full participation in the Christian community or should make some form of reparation; and secondly provides an opportunity for counselling and advice on the penitent’s spiritual development. Many Catholics have found the first part either uncomfortable (when they have recognized the gravity of a failure) or pointless (when they feel themselves relatively free from serious fault). Feeling uncomfortable when one has done a serious wrong may not be a bad thing, but many have felt, and some theologians have argued, that the assessments of wickedness that priests have been trained to make are quite inappropriate and distorted, and that the guilt and fears they have engendered have hindered rather than helped the members of the community live the Christian life to the full. The ability of penitents to benefit from the counselling opportunity depends on the talents and training of the individual priest, and on the time available, which in normal parish practice is much too short. This form of counselling (or ‘spiritual direction’) is much better provided by a spiritual director (priest or lay person with the requisite skills) outside the ritual of Reconciliation.

Monika K Hellwig takes issue with the statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1424) that ‘by the priest’s sacramental absolution God grants the penitent “pardon and peace”’, which cites the formula of absolution as the source of this claim. She notes: ‘The formula of absolution contains the prayer “through the ministry of the church may God give you pardon and peace”. The change of the verb into the indicative in the Catechism makes the larger claim with no qualification, that pardon and peace are brought about by the priest’s absolution. However, we know from Scripture and from our theological tradition that repentance and forgiveness are two aspects of the same moment, and that peace in any experiential sense of the term may or may not result for any particular individual. … The Church, after all, no matter how solemn its declarations or how elaborate its canon law, cannot legislate what God may or may not do, nor require God to act only through official church channels, and therefore we are not entitled in our catechesis to give the impression that God’s forgiveness and grace are contingent upon the judgement or action of any church functionary.’[17]   This opinion seems to be in direct contradiction to the Catechism which says ‘Only God forgives sins’, but also that Jesus, in the words ‘For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn 20: 23), ‘by virtue of his divine authority gives this power to men to exercise in God’s name’ (Catechism paragraph 1441).

Perhaps an even more fundamental problem with this sacrament arises from Joseph A Selling’s book Reframing Catholic Theological Ethics (Oxford University Press, UK, 2016), which argues that a radical change in the basis of theological ethics is implied by Vatican II, and specifically by the concepts of the dignity of the human person and the dignity of moral conscience in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes. Selling contrasts the Neo-Scholastic emphasis on the morality of individual acts, derived very largely from manuals written to guide priests in their judgement of sins when exercising the sacrament of penance, with a moral criterion drawn from the official record of the process of drafting Gaudium et Spes, ‘the human person integrally and adequately considered’ (Expensio Modorum 104, Acta Synodalia iv/7, 502). The traditional process of moral evaluation starts with the intrinsic morality of the act, followed by a consideration of the circumstances of its performance, and finally takes account of the person’s motives in performing it. His recommended reversal of it is to start from a consideration of the whole human individual in his or her multi-faceted relationships with the world, with other people and with God, before examining particular habits or actions; this would render the current ritual of the sacrament of reconciliation wholly inappropriate and require its complete redesign. In its present form it perpetuates a distorted and stultifying understanding of sin and forgiveness, which has been an unnecessary burden on generations of Catholics.

John Cornwell (The Dark Box – A Secret History of Confession, Profile Books Ltd., London, 2014) has collected many first-hand accounts of the feelings of unjustified guilt and fear the sacrament has caused particularly in young people. He also cites evidence that, since the sacrament took its present form in the 13^th century, it has frequently offered opportunities for sexual abuse of penitents by confessors, and in particular since 1905, when Pope St Pius X lowered the age for first receiving the sacrament to seven and recommended weekly confession, it has been a major contributor to the widespread sexual abuse of children by priests.

In view of the chequered history and many weaknesses of the sacrament of Reconciliation in its present form, together with a widespread lack of confidence in the role of priests mediating between the penitent and God, either as a channel of the divine mercy or in a judicial capacity[18]:

• private confession to a priest should neither be required nor encouraged until a thorough review of the implications of Vatican II theological ethics, as indicated by Selling, has been completed (including the doctrines of original sin, purgatory and indulgences), and an appropriate liturgical response found;
• until then, the liturgy of general absolution referred to in Canon 961 of the code of Canon Law, without the restrictions imposed by that canon should be permitted, as it has been widely welcomed whenever it has been used;
• the practice of seeking spiritual direction from either a priest or a lay spiritual director should be encouraged, and possibly, on rare occasions, if the penitent sees it as appropriate, public confession of an offence against the community should be permitted in church.

[1] Gaudium et Spes 29: ‘Since all men possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny, the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.

‘True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored. Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.’

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1934: ‘Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.’

[2] Dignitatis Humanae (throughout)

[3] Quadragesimo anno 79. ‘ … that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: … it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.’

80. … Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.

[4] Centesimus annus 46: ‘The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate. Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends.

‘Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility.’…

‘47: … The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional or constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its fullness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.’

[5] Lumen Gentium 15: The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. … They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. … 16: Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. 

Dei Verbum 3: ‘God … gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). … 5:  “The obedience of faith” (Rom. 16:26; see 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) “is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals,” and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving “joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it.” (5) To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts.Gaudium et Spes 38: ‘To those, therefore, who believe in divine love, He gives assurance that the way of love lies open to men and that the effort to establish a universal brotherhood is not a hopeless one. … Appointed Lord by His resurrection and given plenary power in heaven and on earth,(13) Christ is now at work in the hearts of men through the energy of His Holy Spirit, arousing not only a desire for the age to come, but by that very fact animating, purifying and strengthening those noble longings too by which the human family makes its life more human and strives to render the whole earth submissive to this goal.’

[6] see Denzinger-Hünermann introduction to 4590-4606 (AAS 69 (1977) 98-116)

[7] For a powerfully argued case for abolishing the ordained priesthood in its present form and allocating the various ministries currently reserved to it to different (suitably trained) lay people within a local church community, see T O’Loughlin, Facing a Liturgy-Starved Church Do We Need to Think Afresh about the Basics of Ministry?, New Blackfriars Vol 100, Issue 1086 (March 2019), pp. 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12441.

[8] Considerable academic work has been undertaken on this subject since a conference in February 2004 in Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, the main papers of which were published in Church Ethics and Its Organizational Context, edited by Jean M Bartunek, Mary Ann Hinsdale and James F Keenan, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, MD, 2006. Such research continues at, for example, the Centre for Ecclesial Ethics at the Margaret Beaufort Institute, University of Cambridge, UK. When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was about to vote in November 2018 on a proposed code of standards for episcopal conduct and the formation of a special commission for review of complaints against bishops for the violations of the standards, the Vatican Congregation for Bishops blocked the vote (see The Catholic News Service of the USCCB on November 12, 2018, and Crux on Jan 1, 2019). It would appear still to be blocked.

[9] A somewhat similar issue was addressed by the International Theological Commission in its 2014 report ‘Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church’. Members of the People of God have an infallible instinct by which they judge whether a teaching is consistent with the whole of Christian revelation, and the question arises who should be counted as having this instinct. The answer the Commission gives seems, in my view, much too narrow at least in deciding whose views on the governance structures of the Church truly reflect the Holy Spirit: ‘1. Dispositions needed for authentic participation in the sensus fidei. There is not one simple disposition, but rather a set of dispositions, influenced by ecclesial, spiritual and ethical factors. No single one can be discussed in an isolated manner; its relationship to each and all of the others has to be taken into account. … The first and most fundamental disposition is active participation in the life of the Church. Formal membership of the Church is not enough. Participation in the life of the Church means constant prayer, active participation in the liturgy, especially the Eucharist, regular reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, discernment and exercise of gifts and charisms received from the Holy Spirit, and active engagement in the Church’s mission and diakonia. It presumes an acceptance of the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals, a willingness to follow the commands of God, and courage both to correct one’s brothers and sisters, and also to accept correction oneself.’ (Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church, paragraphs 88-89)

[10] Brian Pointer, Are We Being Honest to God? ukbookpublishing.com, 2018, pp. 38-9

[11] One small consequence is that the current translation of the Missal contains grammatical solecisms which, if understood in standard English, would imply doctrinal nonsense, e.g., the coloured future use of ‘shall’ in ‘my soul shall be healed’ where the reference to the centurion’s act of faith (Mt 8: 8) absolutely requires the plain future ‘will’.

[12] Joseph O’Hanlon, From the Mouth 0f God, in The Tablet, 8 May 2021, p 10.

[13] Catechism of the Catholic Church para 1325, quoting the (1967) Congregation of Rites Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium 6.

[14] The case for treating all baptized Christians as entitled by right of their baptism to full participation in the Eucharist, including receiving communion, is made in T O’Loughlin, Eating Together, Becoming One, Liturgical Press, Collegeville Minn., 2019. In canon law, ‘Those baptized are in full communion with the Catholic Church here on earth who are joined with Christ in his visible body, through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance’ (Code of Canon Law, , canon 205); ‘Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except [various special circumstances in which someone other than a catholic minister can administer them]’ (canon 844 s.1); the exclusion of non-Catholic Christians would seem to depend on a decision of ‘ecclesiastical governance’ rather than a theological basis.

[15] In my lifetime there were (notably in the Netherlands) Eucharistic celebrations presided over by a priest, held round a dinner table, in which normal (leavened) bread and wine were consecrated and consumed, in imitation of the agape-meals of the early church: they were roundly condemned by the Vatican and the priests involved disciplined. However, it is not clear that any contravention of canon law would be involved in holding small communal meals including prayers of thanksgiving (‘grace before meals’), scriptural readings (including passages about the Last Supper), and the sharing of a loaf of bread and a cup of fellowship with invited guests who are not Catholics, provided that they are not represented as the Sacrament of the Eucharist prescribed by the Church. Since two or more are meeting in Jesus’ name (Mt 18: 10), Christ will be present in those participating.

[16] Recently Pope Francis issued an instruction (motu proprio) Traditionis custodes, which clarified that the (relatively inclusive) form of mass developed since Vatican II and celebrated in the language of those present should be the normal form of mass, and that bishops should not allow it to be displaced in parishes by the (more exclusive) pre-Vatican II (‘Tridentine’) mass celebrated in Latin, which has become associated with a movement to dismiss or overturn the theological and liturgical principles established by Vatican II. In arguing for greater freedom of worship, I am not criticizing this temporary measure to quash a rebellion within the Church: in the longer term I believe congregations should be permitted a wider range of options for worship.

[17] Monika K Hellwig, Penance and Reconciliation, in Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ed. Michael J Walsh, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1994, p.279

[18] The Code of Canon Law, Collins, London, 1983, p. 177: ‘Can.978 §1   In hearing confessions a priest is to remember he is at once both judge and healer, and that he is constituted by God as a minister of both divine justice and divine mercy, so that he may contribute to the honour of God and the salvation of souls’.