BEND — Last week I indicated that perhaps it would be good to pursue further the question of why even the suggestion of a change in the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be the cause or source of outrage and rebellion in the Church. It is certainly possible that such a proposal would be accepted with calm and grace but in my estimation such a response would not be highly probable. Such a proposal would much more likely be met with fierce opposition and anger. It needs to be made clear that I am neither offering nor encouraging such a proposal but an examination of our response to such a speculative proposal may be fruitful.
There are some, perhaps even a majority of active communicants, who would find no difficulty in making a transition back to Holy Communion on the tongue. It would be suitable and necessary to offer to the faithful a rationale for the change and, whether that rationale is convincing or not, many active communicants would accept it. Others, however, if this rationale was not completely convincing to them would simply reject both the proposal and the rationale for it. I could envision protest, anger, rejection and even boycott. If my suspicion is correct then I think we need to ask a very simple question: Why?

Having received negative responses to other proposals which suggest or ask for changes, one of the most frequent reasons given goes something like this. “It is not the fact that the changes were made or proposed, but rather how it was done.” The sequel to this is the assertion that: “If only there had been a process to discern this change and if the change were explained more thoroughly no one would have objected so strenuously.” I do acknowledge and understand that being given an explanation can be helpful in allaying some very natural and human concerns. When, however, the proposed change stimulates an emotional reaction, as proposed changes to ecclesial practices have a propensity to do, I have found that no level of explanation or preparation will be deemed adequate. Sometimes there is need for consultation and this may or may not always be done with the degree of thoroughness we would like. Again my experience is that either the level of consultation will be judged inadequate or those consulting will be condemned because they did not “obey” the majority opinion. One of the greatest examples of this was when Pope Paul VI established a commission to study the issue of artificial contraception. This was consultation. Thus when Paul VI issued his prophetic encyclical, Humanae Vitae, one of the “reasons” given for Catholic rejection of it was that he failed to heed the advice of his commission. Inherent in the rejection is a failure to understand that there is a great difference between consultation and consent. Those who believe that the consensus of the faithful implies some degree of infallibility which must be heeded by the hierarchy fail to recognize that the consensus of the faithful includes all priests, bishops and the Holy Father himself. Without the Holy Father there is no true consensus.

This misunderstanding of the meaning of a consensus of the faithful gives rise to a sense of autonomy, independence and “authority” of one’s personal opinions which the Second Vatican Council never intended. Someone steeped in the belief that their opinion is somehow guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be clear, truthful and accurate and must therefore be not only listened to and heard but acted upon by the Diocesan or Universal Church, is a bit misguided. Such individuals are sincere but misguided nonetheless. This does not mean that ecclesial authority may run roughshod over those who come forward with opinions and thoughts. Such presentations must be listened to and heard and taken into account, as Paul VI did, but after this a decision needs to be made. At this point a new challenge is presented and it has to do with obedience.

Recently the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life issued an instruction titled, “The Service of Authority and Obedience.” While the instruction is written for those in religious consecrated life the principles have universal application.

In paragraph nine of the Instruction we find: “Mediations that exteriorly communicate the will of God must be recognized in the events of life and in the specific requirements of a particular vocation, but they are expressed as well in the laws that give order to the life of groups of people and in the dispositions of those who are called to lead such groupings. In the ecclesial context, laws and dispositions, legitimately given, provide an insight into the will of God, becoming the concrete and ordered realization of the demands of the gospel from which they are formulated and perceived.” The Instruction continues: “It is evident that all this will be experienced coherently and fruitfully only if they desire to know and to do the will of God, the awareness of one’s own fragility and the acceptance of the validity of the specific mediations remain alive, even when the reasons presented are not fully grasped.”

In our increasingly autonomous world it is practically deemed to be heresy to suggest that the will of God is expressed in the laws that give order to the life of groups of people. While the context for this statement is a document for religious communities there is a applicability for parish and diocesan churches as well. The same spirit of obedience which seeks actively and humbly the will of God must reign both within and outside of religious communities. This flies completely in the face of our secular culture with its overemphasis on personal autonomy.

For many in the Church the very word obedience itself generates a visceral response. There does not seem to be any difficulty with demanding that Pope Paul VI “obey” the consensus of the birth control commission but the suggestion that Catholics need to read and heed the teachings of Humanae Vitae is practically anathema. Suggesting that the will of God is not, in any way, mediated through the legitimate teaching of religious authorities is, in fact, the rejected position. Overcoming self will and bending more and more to the will of God is very difficult for all of us in our autonomy leaning society.