A Catholic theologian has described the church's strictures on inter-communion as "rules which were imposed unilaterally". They also sought to bind people in conscience, offending many on whom they were imposed.
Writing in the current issue of the Furrow magazine, Father Donal Dorr, a priest with St Patrick's Missionary Society in Kiltegan, Co Wicklow, called for "a more lenient and flexible interpretation" of those rules.
"In the present strained situation [between the churches], some gesture of reconciliation would be helpful," he said. He suggested the Catholic Church leadership might "foster a respectful dialogue and increase our hope of a genuine consensus".
The fact that the two churches [Anglican and Roman Catholic] were not yet in full institutional communion was "not necessary to proclaim in such a divisive way . . .
"Catholics could be present at a reformed communion service without needing to make any judgment as to whether the Eucharist was `valid' in their church's terms, so why then should a question arise if they received?" he asked.
And reformed church members receiving in a Catholic Church did not "necessarily erode or dishonour the meaning of our Catholic Eucharist" provided Catholics do not allow it dilute their beliefs. The linking of Christian unity and a sharing of the Eucharist was not strictly a logical one; it belonged "to the symbolic sphere".
"If the lack of perfect unity in faith and in love between us Catholics does not prevent us sharing together in the Eucharist, it is hard to see why the lack of perfect institutional (his emphasis) unity between, say, an Anglican and a Roman Catholic should do so," he said.
He took exception to Catholic Church leaders "taking on the onus of trying to weigh up the authenticity of the faith or goodwill of those who come as `visitors' to share our Eucharist". The parable of the wedding feast suggested "that we may invite all and sundry to come and share the feast and then leave it to God to judge whose wedding garment is adequate," he said.
It was also important to state that "any rule laid down by official leaders which is not in line with the conscientious convictions of members of their churches, does not actually bind the members in conscience". A church leader "may intend (his emphasis) to bind people in conscience but cannot in fact do so; so the rule is then merely imposed from the outside under pain of penalty".
Whenever this happened it damaged the credibility of the church, he said, but it also did great damage to church members' consciences. Some were likely to be pushed towards moral conformism, with others likely to move to moral individualism.
This put a heavy onus on church leaders "to ensure, as far as possible, that any rules they propose do not put a burden on the consciences of their people. We recall the strong condemnation by Jesus of religious leaders who lay heavy burdens on those subject to their authority," he said.
