RonRolheiser,OMI

Unfinished Business and the Communion of Saints

A A A

When I was growing up, as part of our family prayer we used to pray for a happy death. In my young mind, I had a certain conception of what that might look like. A happy death would be to die inside of grace, warmly cradled in the loving arms of family and church, fully at peace with God and others, having had time to speak some final words of love and gratitude.

Unfortunately, not everyone gets to die that way.

Accidents, unfortunate circumstances, and the complexity of human relationships sometimes conspire in nefarious ways so that people die in less-than-ideal situations: angry, compromised, unforgiving, bitter, immature, unreconciled.

Sometimes too the very cause of death speaks of a less-than-happy parting: drunkenness, an overdose of drugs, depression, recklessness, suicide. Death often catches people before they have had the chance to say and do things that make for a peaceful farewell. Invariably there’s unfinished business.

We all know examples of this: A man dead in an accident whose last words to his family were ones of anger; a woman dead of an overdose who hasn’t talked to her family in years; a colleague dead by his own hand; a friend who dies bitter, unable to forgive; or even simply the loved one who’s taken away by a sudden heart attack before he or she has had the chance to speak some last words of love and farewell. Rarely do people die without any unfinished business.

The pain of this can linger for a long time. I remember once counselling a man in his fifties who still carried pain and guilt from his mother’s death more than forty years previous. He had been taken to his mother’s bedside in the hospital; but was unaware that she was dying. She had asked him to give her a hug and he, a child, frightened and reticent in this tense situation, had backed away. The next day she died so his last memory of his mother was his refusal to hug her. Forty years later and he still hadn’t made peace with that.

Many of us have had people close to us die with whom we had unfinished business, a hurt never reconciled, an injustice never rectified, a bitterness that never softened. Death has now separated us, and the unfinished business remains precisely unfinished and we are left saying: “If only there was another chance!”

Well, there is another chance. One of our most consoling (albeit neglected) Christian doctrines is our belief in the Communion of the Saints. It’s a doctrine enshrined in the Apostle’s Creed itself and it asks us to believe that we are still in vital communication with those who have died. Moreover, it tells us that the communication we now have with them is free from many of the tensions that colored our relationship with them while they were alive.

Hence, to believe in the Communion of Saints is to believe that we can still tend to unfinished business in our relationships, even after death. Simply put, we can still talk to those who have died, and we can, even now, say the words of love, forgiveness, gratitude, and regret that ideally should have been spoken earlier. Indeed, inside the Communion of Saints the reconciliation that eluded us while that person was alive can now more easily take place. Why?

Because inside the Communion of Saints our communication with the one deceased is privileged. Death washes clean. It clarifies perspective and takes away a lot of relational tensions. Why do I say this? Because both faith and experience teach us this.

For example, all of us have experienced situations where, inside of a family, a friendship circle, a community, or a group of colleagues, a bitter tension with an individual can arise and fester so that eventually there’s an unresolvable rift. Things have happened that can no longer be undone. Then the one who has been at the source of the tenson dies and his or her death changes everything. In a strange way the death brings with it a peace, a clarity, and an understanding which, prior to it, were not possible.

Why is this? It’s not simply because the death has changed the chemistry of the group or because, as we may simplistically conclude, the source of the tension or bitterness has died. It happens because, as Luke teaches in his Passion narrative, death can wash things clean and release forgiveness in the same way as Jesus forgave the good thief upon the cross as he died.

This should be an immense consolation. If we are attentive to the Communion of Saints, what we can’t bring to wholeness and peace in this life can be completed afterwards. We still have communication, privileged communication, with our loved ones after death.

Among the marvels of that is the fact that we still have a chance to fix the things, after death, that we were powerless to mend before death took a loved one away.

Our Sometimes Stingy Hearts

A A A

John Muir once asked, “Why are Christians so reluctant to let animals into their stingy heaven?”

The same might be said of us as churches: why are we so reluctant sometimes to welcome others into God’s mercy and to our communion tables?

We certainly can’t use Jesus as our model in doing this. Looking at the Gospels, there is never a recorded incident where Jesus laid down some moral or religious condition to sit down at table with him.

Our model is rather the well-meaning disciples of Jesus, who, like us, tried to protect Jesus by sheltering him from various groups, including little children. But always in the face of this we hear Jesus saying clearly: Let them come me! Small wonder he sent his disciples away so he could have a meeting with the Samaritan woman who had been married five times.

What I am about to suggest is a risk since, admittedly, the issue of intercommunion is more complex than can be resolved simply by saying Jesus welcomed everyone (even as we may never ignore that).

Regarding the question of intercommunion: There is wide agreement theologically that baptism gives you access to the communion table. As Christian denominations, we recognize the validity each other’s baptisms. So why can’t any Christian go to any Christian church and be welcome at the communion table?

Because each denomination is its own family – and normally families eat at their own tables. Normally you go to your own denominational family for communion. But this is a pastoral consideration not a theological one.

However, occasionally we do eat at someone else’s home and table. Most mainline theologies of the Eucharist draw on this distinction and distinguish between “Occasional” intercommunion (funerals, weddings, faith gatherings) and “Regular” intercommunion. The former makes sense pastorally, the latter doesn’t. You only eat regularly at someone else’s table if you are a member of the family or household.

Given that pastoral concern, churches have had varied norms, ranging from wide welcome to strict exclusion, depending on how their leadership accesses the situation. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church, throughout the nineteen sixties and seventies, Roman Catholics generally welcomed others to receive communion on special occasions. Then, during the nineteen eighties and nineties, more and more, those presiding the Eucharist on those occasions were asked not to publicly invite those from other churches to receive communion. Further, after the year 2000, those presiding the Eucharist were asked to publicly disinvite those from other churches from receiving communion. More recently, there has been a growing shift back to a more welcoming stance.

What’s to be said about this shift back and forth? First, that this is a pastoral rather than a theological issue, and pastorally it can be argued legitimately in different ways. Where there is common agreement is that everyone wants the various Christian Churches to someday be one family with one communion table for all. The disagreement is on how to get there.

Some believe and argue that having to “fast” from intercommunion will make us hungrier to become one Church and will help motivate us to work more proactively for ecumenism. Others disagree and argue that being more welcoming about intercommunion will motivate us to work proactively for ecumenism. Who’s right?

There’s a logic in both arguments, but I confess that my heart lies with the latter group. In my experience, excluding each other from the Eucharist table tends to harden rather than soften our divisions, just as welcoming each other at the Eucharist table tends to soften the suspicions of each other we have nursed for the last five hundred years since the Reformation.

As well, I disagree with the belief and argument that any one church (in my case the Roman Catholic Church) is the only fully authentic expression of Church and that other denominations somehow lack authentic discipleship and therefore we would in some way cheapen the Eucharist and the real presence by allowing non-Roman Catholics to receive it at our communion table.

Here, like the well-meaning but mistaken disciples of Jesus, we are trying to protect Jesus from persons we feel are somehow not ready to have this encounter and intimacy with him. We need to remember that Jesus always met this with the words: Let them come to me! Jesus doesn’t need nor want our protection.

Moreover, the love, mercy, and embrace of God which Jesus incarnated and preached, was the antithesis of stingy. It was wide, inviting, and embracing of everyone universally. God has no favorites, except that everyone of us is God’s particular favorite. God is not a private or tribal deity, owned and controlled by any one faith, religion, denomination, or Church.

This is not to say that all faiths, religions, and Churches are equal and all the boundaries that separate them should be erased. No. But it is to say that we must not be so reluctant to incorporate others in our stingy understanding of Jesus’ universal embrace.

A Naivete of the Heart

A A A

Darkness is only bad because there is light. Sin can only happen if first there is love.

Karl Rahner makes a very insightful comment about the text in the Gospels where Jesus is being crucified and says of his executioners: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!”

Rahner suggests that they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew they were putting an innocent man to death, that they were shedding innocent blood. So why does Jesus say what he said?

What was their innocence? What was their naivete?

Rahner’s answer: They didn’t know what they were doing because they didn’t know how much they were loved. And that can make for a naivete of the heart. How so?

There’s a place inside us, a place of which we are rarely consciously aware, where each of us is being held unconditionally in love by God. The people who crucified Jesus didn’t know what they were doing because they weren’t aware of that. That was their blindness, their ignorance. Despite what it looks like on the surface, they didn’t know what they were doing.

This is also true for us. Far too often we crucify others and ourselves because of this ignorance: we don’t know how much we are loved. Consequently, we’re sometimes cruel in our judgments and prone to do things which compromise our dignity. We struggle not to be one of the executioners at the crucifixion because, at the end of the day, we are acting out of ignorance. We don’t know any better, like the naivete of the child who hurts herself in ignorance.

But this isn’t a new insight.

Theology has classically drawn a distinction between culpable and inculpable ignorance. The latter, also called invincible ignorance, was seen to excuse one from sin and responsibility. Hence, there was the teaching that you could do things that were wrong but not sinful because you were acting in ignorance. This was predicated on the belief that you could act morally and responsibly only if you actually knew what you were doing. To sin, you had to act “knowingly”. Granted, that’s a tricky caveat.

However, looking at our world today, I would risk saying that in a number of important moral matters, we are acting in invincible ignorance. Simply put, we don’t know any better. Only the type of ignorance that allowed sincere people to crucify Jesus can explain why we, good and sincere people, can be so massively blind, communally and individually, to the poor, to the economic and social demands made by our faith. The real reason we can live so comfortably as the gap between the rich and the poor widens is not because we are bad and without conscience, but rather, as Rahner says, we don’t know how much we are loved.

The same holds true for our attitude towards sex. We have been able to trivialize sex, split it off from the sacredness of marriage, and turn it into an extension of dating (or simply recreational sex) only because of a certain invincible ignorance. We don’t know any better, not because we lack conscience, but because we lack any real sense of the deep love of God and the dignity it gives us.

Like Jesus’ executioners, we have an astounding capacity to rationalize, trivialize, and compensate precisely because we don’t know what we’re doing. We don’t have a conscious sense of God’s love for us. Hence, it’s easy to lose perspective, feel excluded, and do things that we would never do if we were more aware of our full dignity.

Small wonder we settle for second-best or for most anything that promises comfort and security. Jesus, no doubt, is looking at us and saying: “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!”

But is that true? Can we really plead ignorance and innocence and say that we don’t know any better?

I say yes, though it’s not that we’re stupid or lack intelligence. This is a naivete of the heart. We are inculpably unaware of how much God loves us.

Too few of us, at any existential level, have ever heard God say to us: “I love you!” Too few of us have ever heard felt what Jesus must have felt at his baptism when he heard his Father say: “You are my beloved child; in you I take delight!” Indeed, too few of us have ever heard another person, soul to soul, say to us, I love you unconditionally! In you I take delight! Is it a surprise then that, like Jesus’ executioners, we have an amazing capacity, in good conscience, to sometimes be blind and not true to ourselves?

Darkness is only bad because there is light. Sin can only happen if first there is love. Betrayal is only possible if first one has heard the words: “I love you.” Jesus’ executioners acted in a darkness that came from never having heard that. The same, I suspect, is true for many of us.