Atheists taking Communion

[Not David]

I've known many Catholics who are basically "Sunday Christians".

Yeah, and instead of helping them it will condemn them

 

[RDKirk]

Shouldn't it then be up to the person then to self-examine and make the choice vs. someone else making a judgment on their worthiness?

You keep talking about "worthiness."

The issue is confession, first. "Worthiness" by self-examination to take communion that day comes into play only for those who have made a commitment to be part of the communal body.

How can someone who doesn't want to be part of the communal Body take communion with it?

Why would someone who says up front and publicly, "I don't believe in that stuff" want to take part in it?

 

[zippy2006]

This thread is potentially relevant to a number of subforums, but for the moment I think the Ethics & Morality forum suits just fine. What do you think about atheists who partake in the Most Blessed Sacrament?

For context, the Eucharist is often considered the holiest of sacraments in the Catholic tradition—it is the "source and summit of the Christian life." However, there are various circumstances where a nonbeliever, including an atheist, may feel compelled to partake in holy communion even though they do not subscribe to the Eucharistic doctrine. Is doing so wrong, and if so, why?

Here is my attempt an answer (or at clarifying the question?): For an atheist to partake in this ritual is disingenuous; she shares none of the theological commitments that underlie its fundamental purpose and thus her participation can only be interpreted as a pretence, which itself could cause offence amongst those who genuinely believe and cherish the sacrament. On the other hand, the atheist may feel subject to implicit coercion; that is, she may belong to a community where being true to her beliefs—and hence not partaking in the Eucharist—would result in condemnation, and even scorn. And so she feels that she must do so, if only to avoid such ramifications, even if it means concealing her own beliefs regarding the Eucharist.

Given the variety of circumstances in which one may be presented with the opportunity to receive communion, what should an atheist, or a non-Catholic, do?

The best option would be to get in the communion line and receive a discreet blessing rather than receiving communion (usually crossing the arms over the chest indicates the desire for a blessing rather than communion).

In general I think the Church needs to move towards a system where the decision to receive is more private and can therefore be more conscientious, because this stuff also happens amongst practicing Catholics on a regular basis.

But at the end of the day you have a conflict between truth and comfort. Even if the atheist decides to push it off once or twice, at some point they ought to come clean about their beliefs rather than hide behind a kind of duplicity.

 

[bekkilyn]

You keep talking about "worthiness."

The issue is confession, first. "Worthiness" by self-examination to take communion that day comes into play only for those who have made a commitment to be part of the communal body.

How can someone who doesn't want to be part of the communal Body take communion with it?

Why would someone who says up front and publicly, "I don't believe in that stuff" want to take part in it?

I don't know, but the question is that if for whatever reason they did want to take part, who decides if they are unworthy?

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

How do we determine who is a true follower of Christ? If we must turn away all the atheists, then must we not also turn away all the nominal Christians?

Only God knows with absolute certainty who is a true follower, which is why I shared that Communion should be given only to those who have a reputation for being true followers.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know, but the question is that if for whatever reason they did want to take part, who decides if they are unworthy?

Are you just "caping" for hypothetical atheists who want to take communion but feel left out because they have to become Christians first, or do you actually know some atheists like that?

 

[bekkilyn]

Only God knows with absolute certainty who is a true follower, which is why I shared that Communion should be given only to those who have a reputation for being true followers.

Where is the cut-off point? What qualifications do they need to demonstrate and to whom? What about visitors?

Are you just "caping" for hypothetical atheists who want to take communion but feel left out because they have to become Christians first, or do you actually know some atheists like that?

I don't know any "out of closet" atheists who even attend church, but there are plenty of nominal Christians who are atheists in everything but the label.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Where is the cut-off point? What qualifications do they need to demonstrate and to whom? What about visitors?

The cut-off point is to be determined by those who have the responsibility of making it. Those in church leadership should know about the reputation of others in their church. As for visitors, I've already shared my view earlier in this thread.

 

[Kaon]

This thread is potentially relevant to a number of subforums, but for the moment I think the Ethics & Morality forum suits just fine. What do you think about atheists who partake in the Most Blessed Sacrament?

For context, the Eucharist is often considered the holiest of sacraments in the Catholic tradition—it is the "source and summit of the Christian life." However, there are various circumstances where a nonbeliever, including an atheist, may feel compelled to partake in holy communion even though they do not subscribe to the Eucharistic doctrine. Is doing so wrong, and if so, why?

Here is my attempt an answer (or at clarifying the question?): For an atheist to partake in this ritual is disingenuous; she shares none of the theological commitments that underlie its fundamental purpose and thus her participation can only be interpreted as a pretence, which itself could cause offence amongst those who genuinely believe and cherish the sacrament. On the other hand, the atheist may feel subject to implicit coercion; that is, she may belong to a community where being true to her beliefs—and hence not partaking in the Eucharist—would result in condemnation, and even scorn. And so she feels that she must do so, if only to avoid such ramifications, even if it means concealing her own beliefs regarding the Eucharist.

Given the variety of circumstances in which one may be presented with the opportunity to receive communion, what should an atheist, or a non-Catholic, do?

Yes, it is wrong and spiritually confusing - lukewarm. If you want to be atheist, then be atheist.

Plenty of people don't believe in magic; that doesn't stop them from participating in magical spells and incantations (whether they know it or not). Atheists taking communion need to know the responsibilities of the practice; it isn't empty even if they don't believe in what they are doing. If they renege, they are in spiritual danger even if they don't believe in a spirit.

When one dabbles in what one thinks is a tangential or extraneous part of a spiritual faith (like Yoga), you are exposing yourself to those conditions and responsibilities. At the very least, the followers/believers of the spiritual faith need to let them know. If they choose to do something after they are informed, then that is on them.

But, technically allowing someone to do something that could be harmful to to them is being complicit; Church leaders need to educate atheists on the faith rituals, and allow them to make a completely informed decision.

 

[bekkilyn]

The cut-off point is to be determined by those who have the responsibility of making it. Those in church leadership should know about the reputation of others in their church. As for visitors, I've already shared my view earlier in this thread.

But how do those in church leadership truly know the hearts of all the others in the church in order to be able to fairly make all of these judgments on all of these people? Plenty of people have good reputations and do and say all the right things...they go to church regularly, they may even study the bible, they avoid excess...all sorts of outward forms of "being a Christian" and yet the heart remains untouched by all of these practices.

So if a human being is to make all of these heart judgments on other human beings, they are going to be prone to making judgments based on the outward appearance as to who to invite to the Lord's table and who to cast aside as unworthy of coming to Christ. They will choose the oldest son of Jesse who has the fine appearance of a king and then turn away the insignificant youngest son out tending the sheep because that is the way of human judgment, whether that person be lay or clergy.

I don't know what you said about visitors, but I would guess they are turned away as well since their reputations are unknown.

I have to wonder what sort of Christian message is being communicated to those who are not elite enough to have received an invitation from the gatekeepers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, it is wrong and spiritually confusing - lukewarm. If you want to be atheist, then be atheist.

Plenty of people don't believe in magic; that doesn't stop them from participating in magical spells and incantations (whether they know it or not). Atheists taking communion need to know the responsibilities of the practice; it isn't empty even if they don't believe in what they are doing. If they renege, they are in spiritual danger even if they don't believe in a spirit.

When one dabbles in what one thinks is a tangential or extraneous part of a spiritual faith (like Yoga), you are exposing yourself to those conditions and responsibilities. At the very least, the followers/believers of the spiritual faith need to let them know. If they choose to do something after they are informed, then that is on them.

But, technically allowing someone to do something that could be harmful to to them is being complicit; Church leaders need to educate atheists on the faith rituals, and allow them to make a completely informed decision.

I agree that, in principle, if one is going to be an atheist, then they should be an atheist, and not partake. And I understand that believers hold certain responsibilities, which in my mind include (1) providing education regarding the Eucharist and its importance in sacramental life, and (2) safeguarding the Sacrament and ensuring that its practice continues to be cherished.

The difficulty, as I see it, comes from "being an atheist" in a community where one is likely to face, not just warnings about the supernatural or spiritual consequences, but tangible social consequences as well. I'm not talking about myself here, by the way. But I can imagine a nonbeliever findings themselves embedded in a deeply religious community where the very public act of not taking communion could open one up to some undesirable social consequences. So there is implicit coercion—one feels forced to participate, even if one's own beliefs are contrary to the doctrines behind the Sacrament.

You might then argue that, well, the atheist should not be so concerned by how others might respond to her act of non-participation and that duplicity on her part is worse than whatever negative social repercussions might follow from her honest act of abstaining from communion. This is tricky though because in some settings one can imagine that those repercussions would indeed be quite bad, to the point of limiting her ability to meaningfully participate in her community. The potential severing of social ties is a painful prospect—so painful in fact that she may seek to avoid it by keeping up appearances, which means partaking in communion.

The Church may then have an additional responsibility, beyond educating people and safeguarding the Eucharist: (3) Ensuring that the social conditions surrounding the Sacrament are entirely voluntary and that there is no implicit coercion.

But achieving (3) seems fairly difficult, I think, because it requires the Church to take an active role in reducing prejudices against nonbelievers, reducing the stigma associated with leaving the Church and, to some extent, tolerating or even embracing a more secular approach. This would bring about social conditions in which the Eucharist could be celebrated voluntarily and in a way that respects its importance as a sacrament—I believe Chesterton gives an example of how this could work.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But how do those in church leadership truly know the hearts of all the others in the church in order to be able to fairly make all of these judgments on all of these people? Plenty of people have good reputations and do and say all the right things...they go to church regularly, they may even study the bible, they avoid excess...all sorts of outward forms of "being a Christian" and yet the heart remains untouched by all of these practices.

There is presumably an element of trust involved—you trust that all actors are acting in good faith. But, as I've pointed out, in some social conditions that can be difficult because of implicit coercion and the need to keep up appearances so as to avoid negative consequences. What I'm suggesting is that the best solution—for everyone—is openness: being open about one's religious beliefs without having to fear that doing so will bring condemnation, animosity, or shunning from one's believing family, friends, and associates. This is the only way, as far as I can tell, that those in church leadership would be truly able to "know the hearts" of those gathered. And since knowing their hearts seems crucial to knowing whether their sacramental participation is sincere, then it seems that openness is the only way of achieving this, and thereby ensuring that the Eucharist is safeguarded and celebrated by those who would genuinely cherish it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think part of the problem is that Christians have different notions of just what the Church is, how the sacraments function in the Christian life, how faith works, and so on.

I'm not sure what you are expecting Christians to do about reducing stigma, realistically. While I don't think churches should be demonizing any group, at the same time it would be hard to imagine Christians being completely indifferent to unbelief. While I am one of the least hostile to secularism here, at the same time, it's not the Church's job to facilitate unbelief and apostasy.

It seems to me many large churches like Catholicism actually have softened their views about atheism, and especially atheists as persons, judging by what the current Pope has said on the subject. I know my own pastor would find the prospect of people not believing in God or leaving the church to be sad, but our religious community is not the type to actively punish people for doing so. At the same time, it's simply not realistic to see that as free of all potential consequences. People tend to lose social contacts when they leave a religious group or when they distance themselves from what that group actually believes, that's just the way religions work.

There is presumably an element of trust involved—you trust that all actors are acting in good faith. But, as I've pointed out, in some social conditions that can be difficult because of implicit coercion and the need to keep up appearances so as to avoid negative consequences. What I'm suggesting is that the best solution—for everyone—is openness: being open about one's religious beliefs without having to fear that doing so will bring condemnation, animosity, or shunning from one's believing family, friends, and associates. This is the only way, as far as I can tell, that those in church leadership would be truly able to "know the hearts" of those gathered. And since knowing their hearts seems crucial to knowing whether their sacramental participation is sincere, then it seems that openness is the only way of achieving this, and thereby ensuring that the Eucharist is safeguarded and celebrated by those who would genuinely cherish it.

I'm Augustinian so I think the human condition is, by default, one of bad faith. I see life as inherently tragic in that way.

Christians do bring their unbelief and doubts to church with them, that's why we have confession and absolution at the beginning of every service to remind us of that. We own our bad faith and confess it. The thing that separates the Christians from the non-Christian, at least in this case, is simply that the Christian has not rejected the grace offered to them. It is not the absence of doubt.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This thread is potentially relevant to a number of subforums, but for the moment I think the Ethics & Morality forum suits just fine. What do you think about atheists who partake in the Most Blessed Sacrament?

For context, the Eucharist is often considered the holiest of sacraments in the Catholic tradition—it is the "source and summit of the Christian life." However, there are various circumstances where a nonbeliever, including an atheist, may feel compelled to partake in holy communion even though they do not subscribe to the Eucharistic doctrine. Is doing so wrong, and if so, why?

Here is my attempt an answer (or at clarifying the question?): For an atheist to partake in this ritual is disingenuous; she shares none of the theological commitments that underlie its fundamental purpose and thus her participation can only be interpreted as a pretence, which itself could cause offence amongst those who genuinely believe and cherish the sacrament. On the other hand, the atheist may feel subject to implicit coercion; that is, she may belong to a community where being true to her beliefs—and hence not partaking in the Eucharist—would result in condemnation, and even scorn. And so she feels that she must do so, if only to avoid such ramifications, even if it means concealing her own beliefs regarding the Eucharist.

Given the variety of circumstances in which one may be presented with the opportunity to receive communion, what should an atheist, or a non-Catholic, do?

Like Catholics we Lutherans hold the Holy Eucharist in the greatest esteem, as being the very body and blood of Jesus Christ shed for us.

At the end of the day I would rather someone receive the Eucharist who maybe shouldn't have, then someone be so utterly terrified of some religious faux pas that they distress themselves. In Catholic and Orthodox practice abstaining from the Eucharist is probably more common, to prepare for receiving the Eucharist through dutiful prayer and fasting, one who has not confessed their sins should also abstain until they have, etc. For Lutherans I think we'd say that these are certainly good practices, but we emphasize that the Eucharist is God's offering of Himself to us, so it's not about us doing X, Y, and Z, but simply God's own goodness and kindness toward us sinners. To quote Martin Luther,

"Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins." - Martin Luther, The Small Catechism

If one were to abstain from receiving, or to choose instead to receive a blessing (which is always an option), there's hardly any harm in this. There should also be no judgement, it's simply not anyone's business but one's own why they might be abstaining from Communing. And if there is some judgmentalism going on, well that's frankly on the ones doing the judging.

So short version: An atheist probably should politely decline, if they did receive and there was no malicious intent, then no harm no foul. And if there is malicious intent, well God forgives them anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

While it might not have the same meaning for an atheist are we not constantly told that God's grace is for all? Why would a lack of belief be a barrier to communion. Perhaps the individual grew up in the church before losing their faith so the ritual contains a more personal meaning?

One can generally find two sentiments; and that's because the Eucharist has layers of meaning and significance. One of those is as an expression of unity of faith, a communion, if you will. As the Eucharist is the meeting place of Christ and His Church in a kind of mystical way. So from that vantage point it's a really big deal for us because this is an intimate expression of our unity together in our common faith. And that is a very valid sentiment--the Eucharist is these things. But the Eucharist is also God's own offering of Himself, Christ Himself, His body and blood given to us for us, and so it can be valid to ask why anyone should be barred.

In my previous response I wanted to emphasize a bit of both--that if one doesn't believe they should abstain, but I don't think the Eucharist should be used as a cudgel against "those people" (regardless of who "those people" might be in whatever context), because the Eucharist is about God's gracious love for the world in Christ and our sinful human's inclusion into Christ by the grace of God. As such outrage is not the appropriate response to someone receiving who shouldn't have. God is not nearly as concerned with our religious faux pas as we are, if He were then we'd all be in trouble. As such it's more about etiquette here than it is about profaning the sacred.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Like Catholics we Lutherans hold the Holy Eucharist in the greatest esteem, as being the very body and blood of Jesus Christ shed for us.

At the end of the day I would rather someone receive the Eucharist who maybe shouldn't have, then someone be so utterly terrified of some religious faux pas that they distress themselves. In Catholic and Orthodox practice abstaining from the Eucharist is probably more common, to prepare for receiving the Eucharist through dutiful prayer and fasting, one who has not confessed their sins should also abstain until they have, etc. For Lutherans I think we'd say that these are certainly good practices, but we emphasize that the Eucharist is God's offering of Himself to us, so it's not about us doing X, Y, and Z, but simply God's own goodness and kindness toward us sinners. To quote Martin Luther,

"Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins." - Martin Luther, The Small Catechism

If one were to abstain from receiving, or to choose instead to receive a blessing (which is always an option), there's hardly any harm in this. There should also be no judgement, it's simply not anyone's business but one's own why they might be abstaining from Communing. And if there is some judgmentalism going on, well that's frankly on the ones doing the judging.

So short version: An atheist probably should politely decline, if they did receive and there was no malicious intent, then no harm no foul. And if there is malicious intent, well God forgives them anyway.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank-you for your response. That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. My impression from the responses so far is that there are two main views on the issue: According to one, the Sacrament must be safeguarded, with the priest exercising judgment about whether the prospective recipient of Communion is eligible to receive it. This presumably requires that the priest have sufficient knowledge of the individual to make such a judgment, as well as setting up clear boundaries regarding who can partake. According to the alternative view, which you've summarised very well in the above post, the priest may not be in a position to make such a judgment—"Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthy?"—and although there are certain practices that are useful in preparation for receiving Eucharist, satisfying the "eligibility requirements" is not the most important part. (Would it be accurate to say that, in your view, the Sacrament is more about the goodness of the one doing the giving and not the worthiness, or lack there of, of the individual on the receiving end?)

 

[Kaon]

In order to keep things in context, I will have to answer each part.

I agree that, in principle, if one is going to be an atheist, then they should be an atheist, and not partake. And I understand that believers hold certain responsibilities, which in my mind include (1) providing education regarding the Eucharist and its importance in sacramental life, and (2) safeguarding the Sacrament and ensuring that its practice continues to be cherished.

The highest priority of any believer is to 1) love the Most High God with all of one's heart, and to maintain that love connection by a submission to the will of the Most High God (obedience/righteousness), belief in the Redeemer and His sacrifice for us, and an active lifestyle that prepares the people for the Truth.

Everything else is man-made practice. The Passover Supper celebration is a tradition, not a commandment or law of the Most High God. The PASSOVER itself, however, is a high holy day.

The difficulty, as I see it, comes from "being an atheist" in a community where one is likely to face, not just warnings about the supernatural or spiritual consequences, but tangible social consequences as well. I'm not talking about myself here, by the way. But I can imagine a nonbeliever findings themselves embedded in a deeply religious community where the very public act of not taking communion could open one up to some undesirable social consequences. So there is implicit coercion—one feels forced to participate, even if one's own beliefs are contrary to the doctrines behind the Sacrament.

That is a social matter; none of it is part of the spiritual relationship with the Most High God. This is an example of traditions being used as a barometer for spiritual justification. No human should have the power to coerce you to compromise your spiritual beliefs - even if you have none. You alone are responsible for the trajectory of your essence after your body expires.

You might then argue that, well, the atheist should not be so concerned by how others might respond to her act of non-participation and that duplicity on her part is worse than whatever negative social repercussions might follow from her honest act of abstaining from communion. This is tricky though because in some settings one can imagine that those repercussions would indeed be quite bad, to the point of limiting her ability to meaningfully participate in her community. The potential severing of social ties is a painful prospect—so painful in fact that she may seek to avoid it by keeping up appearances, which means partaking in communion.

This is the problem with making spirituality a social thing. It is not; it is a spiritual thing. I am a believer in the Redeemer, and I still get called all but a demon for the things in which I believe. Your relationship (or lack thereof) with your Father should stand alone - even if it means death - because they are your principles.

The Church may then have an additional responsibility, beyond educating people and safeguarding the Eucharist: (3) Ensuring that the social conditions surrounding the Sacrament are entirely voluntary and that there is no implicit coercion.

But achieving (3) seems fairly difficult, I think, because it requires the Church to take an active role in reducing prejudices against nonbelievers, reducing the stigma associated with leaving the Church and, to some extent, tolerating or even embracing a more secular approach. This would bring about social conditions in which the Eucharist could be celebrated voluntarily and in a way that respects its importance as a sacrament—I believe Chesterton gives an example of how this could work.

Most all of everything you have described is a social issue - not a spiritual one. The "Church", as it were, is an organization/institution set up to regulate and distribute religion. It is supposed to be a body of people (Israel) that spread the good news of salvation as well as exhibiting obedience and love (or love and obedience) to the Most High God - thereby convicting others to come to the Truth.

It is not the job of the believer to bring someone else to the Truth. If an adult is vehemently against such discourse and convictions, then that is the choice of the thinking adult. The job of the Christian is not to coerce, or force anyone to any side. However, when one chooses a side, one cannot be lukewarm.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank-you for your response. That's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. My impression from the responses so far is that there are two main views on the issue: According to one, the Sacrament must be safeguarded, with the priest exercising judgment about whether the prospective recipient of Communion is eligible to receive it. This presumably requires that the priest have sufficient knowledge of the individual to make such a judgment, as well as setting up clear boundaries regarding who can partake. According to the alternative view, which you've summarised very well in the above post, the priest may not be in a position to make such a judgment—"Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthy?"—and although there are certain practices that are useful in preparation for receiving Eucharist, satisfying the "eligibility requirements" is not the most important part. (Would it be accurate to say that, in your view, the Sacrament is more about the goodness of the one doing the giving and not the worthiness, or lack there of, of the individual on the receiving end?)

In Lutheranism we make a fundamental distinction between Law and Gospel, the Law is command, what we are supposed to do--and on account of sin what we fail to do, hence our sin problem--while the Gospel is what God promises, what He has done for us already.

Wherever God acts to work His grace in our lives is Gospel, which is why we speak of "Word and Sacrament" as "Means of Grace". The Eucharist is just that, a divine work through which God offers Himself and His gifts to us, in this case that work and gift is nothing other than Jesus Christ, His body and blood, all of Himself. As we receive His broken body in and under the bread, and we receive His shed blood in and under the wine. Hence "The body of Christ broken for you", "The blood of Christ shed for you". It is pure gift, for us, out of God's loving-kindness. As a matter of personal righteousness or moral worthiness that is impossible--all who come to the Table are unworthy sinners, like beggars having nothing to give ourselves.

So it can only ever be about the goodness of the One doing the giving, and never about some inherent goodness in ourselves. In the Eucharist we aren't going up to meet God, God is coming down to meet us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

In order to keep things in context, I will have to answer each part.

The highest priority of any believer is to 1) love the Most High God with all of one's heart, and to maintain that love connection by a submission to the will of the Most High God (obedience/righteousness), belief in the Redeemer and His sacrifice for us, and an active lifestyle that prepares the people for the Truth.

Everything else is man-made practice. The Passover Supper celebration is a tradition, not a commandment or law of the Most High God. The PASSOVER itself, however, is a high holy day.

The Lord's Supper is not a manmade practice, at the very least that is a sub-Christian thing to say.

 

[Jon Osterman]

In my (independent) church we say before communion that anyone who feels called by God to take it may take it with us. This stops most atheists from taking it I think, but means that they must judge their own hearts themselves. I don't feel it is our place to judge the hearts of others.