Michael Paulson's Quiet Revolution

Michael Paulson, the poor lamb, contends in today's Globe that there's a "quiet revolution" to open up the Sacraments to non-believers, hardened sinners and those outside the Catholic Church.

Needless to say, there are some substantial errors in his theology.

Communion, the central ritual of most Christian worship services and long a members-only sacrament, is increasingly being opened to any willing participant, including the nonbaptized, the nonbeliever, and the non-Christian.

The change is most dramatic in the Episcopal Church, particularly in liberal dioceses like Massachusetts.

Drama aside, the Episcopal Church does not have the Sacrament of Communion. Episcopal priests do not and in fact, cannot turn bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Their communion is not an affirmation of the Presence of Christ within the Eucharist and a deposit of faith - the practice is a social one, as Catholics would have dinner with friends or donuts in the basement of the Church with other Catholics after the Sacrifice.

Supporters of open Communion argue that Jesus would not have turned anyone away; defenders of closed Communion say that's a misreading of biblical history and that Communion is meant to be a sign not only of one's faith but of one's membership in the church.

This does not comport with Scripture. Christ excluded many and in fact an entire race of gentiles whom He referred to as swine and dogs. Christ sat with sinners to teach & preach to them because they were spiritually sick and in need of a call to conversion but His miracles were reserved for those who expressed faith and belief.

For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. 20 These are the things that defile a man. But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man.

21 And Jesus went from thence, and retired into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil. 23 Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us: 24 And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. 25 But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me. 26 Who answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs. 27 But she said: Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. 28 Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour.

2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Many moons ago, with all the seeds of confusion sewn by the priests in the Archdiocese of Boston that conflicted with the Catechism I had been taught as a child, I conducted my own journey to confirm or dispel the Catechism. The most compelling analysis is in one of the Chapters of Bishop Sheen's Life of Christ. He describes the scene where Christ was surrounded by a large crowd of people and as He walked along, He suddenly stops and asks who touched Him.

Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the multitudes throng and press thee, and dost thou say, Who touched me?

46 And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me.

Bishop Sheen also points to the Mystical--the many soldiers who held Him down, stretched His Limbs to nail Him to the Cross. In particular, one who five minutes before denied the Divinity of Christ realized Whom they were executing during the three hours Christ hung from the Cross. But when this soldier was spattered with Christ's Blood, he had quite a different experience when he came into physical contact with Christ because he surrendered his beliefs to the obvious superiority of Christ's.


Paulson continues:

"Both sides will appeal to Scripture - those for open Communion will appeal to Jesus' practice of having meals with tax collectors and sinners, while those who want to maintain the traditional practice appeal to the Last Supper, where Jesus was eating with his disciples," said the Rev. Matthew Stewart, priest in charge at the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit in Fall River. Stewart led a study of Communion practices in the Diocese of Massachusetts.

Setting aside that the Last Supper was the first Mystical Transubstantiation of the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ and was not and is not the same as eating dinner with friends, Paulson leaves a lot to be desired in his reporting.

But even within the Catholic Church, there has clearly been change in practice, but coming from the pews, not the pulpit.

Actually, that's not a new phenomenon but rather a 2000+ year old practice initiated by Judas.

At the Last Supper, Christ points out the betrayer, the sinner. If we're going to use Paulson's thesis on protocol, it would carry that the priest would identify the sinners around the table prior to reception in front of everyone else.

Finally, Paulson gets to the focus of his revolution, the Catholic Church's teachings about the sexuality he practices in the privacy of his boudoir.

Church officials and scholars say the percentage of people attendingMass who receive Communion has risen dramatically over the last several decades. This suggests that the number of people who see themselves as excluded by sin has dropped.

Many Catholics have clearly decided to make their own rules, from public figures, like the twice-divorced and abortion rights supporting Rudolph Giuliani, who took Communion at a papal Mass in New York, to nonfamous persons who take Communion despite having been remarried outside the church, or engaging in premarital or gay sex, or other practices the Church defines as sinful.

It's true that one may deem themselves to be worthy of reception without the faith, but Scripture demonstrates that he/she receives worse than nothing. Of course, Judas hardened in the belief that what he was doing and about to do was not a sin, the call to conversion fell on deaf ears and received the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily. Far from spiritual enlightenment, he didn't have the tools for proper repentance. Oh, he was sorry all right, but the torment of his mind was a selfish one: he was being judged as having done something wrong when he didn't believe he had - he committed suicide.

At the same time, Peter, having denied Christ, recognized his sins as sins and his repentence was directed at seeking forgiveness from His Beloved.

The fraternity of priests in Boston who have bartered affirmation of their practicing sinful sexuality, desire for popularity, et al, for the price of an unprecedented abandonment of the teachings of the Church since Athinasius, will be pleased with Paulson's article. But deep down in the catacombs where the faith survives, as it always has and always will, many of us are grateful for the sacrificial love of priests, nuns, friends, leaders, Popes, Bishops, Cardinals who privately and publicly reminded us that the things we were doing were sinful and called us to repentance and the worthy reception of the Sacraments that drains the virtues from Christ.