I took a look at the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation “Sacramentum Caritatis” (Sacrament of Charity) on the Eucharist and the press that surrounded the release of the document. Wow – how can so many have their facts so confused.

I read through one press account that was so far removed from the actuality of the document as to be a basic lie. What was worse however were the public comments attached to the article. People argued over points in the press report, proclaiming the Pope good or evil, depending on perspective, and arguing over things that existed only within the article.

On issues of religion the press scores 100% on the you can fool most of the people all of the time.

Now I have my own perspective, and would proffer the following:

• Was this meant for the Latin Church only? I understand that the general points address the entire Church, but I saw nothing that spoke to the Eastern Churches in any particular way – addressing their Tradition or tradition. Did I miss something or was there nothing there.
• I know the term ‘reform of the reform’ is popular, and I guess it fits that need. That being said, I do not see the needs of traditionalist Roman Catholics addressed anywhere in the document. The much vaulted Motu Proprio, coming any day, still lies in the dust of adherence to V-II norms. Whoever is at the core of the Motu Proprio leaks is really yanking peoples chains – and is without charity.
• The discussion of proper architecture is long overdue, but the document leaves design in the hands of folks like Bishop Tod Brown, Donald Trautman, and Cardinal Mahoney. The Eucharist will continue to be relegated to the broom closet in diocese like those.
• The Eucharist is indeed a sacrament of charity and of the graces necessary for men and women. I’ve addressed this point in this blog before. The continued exclusions and prohibitions outlined in the Exhortation fall short of attaching Eucharistic reality to practice. The R.C. model continues to be prescriptive. As such, it limits and restricts the healing grace, present in the gift of the Eucharist.
• The discussion of the celibacy issue continues to mix metaphors. Tying a man made rule to a Divine mandate, and demanding of the Lord a grace that only the Lord can give, is not working for the building up of the Church. As God’s grace must flow freely into the hearts of men and women from Eucharistic reception, with those men and women, and thus Church, reaping its benefits, so too must the Church be trusting of the graces given to men for presbyteral service – whether married or not.
• The Latin issue is a non-issue. As far as I’m concerned everyone should learn a little. For folks in the U.S., it will provide some insight into the origins of parts of the English (and a lot of the Spanish) language. It is also part and parcel of a vast repertoire of fantastic Church — and secular — music. Expand the mind and be open. All the complaining over Latin being restrictive is ironic coming from those whose minds are shut to learning anything of their heritage and history.

Of course the PNCC has a different take on reception of the Eucharist, celibacy, architecture, T/tradition, and language. We were ahead of the curve by about 60 years on all the truly positive aspects of V-II without loosing proper praxis. As I’ve noted before, the damage done in the 10 years following V-II will take 3-4 right thinking Popes about 100 years to fix.

In all, this is a good first step, giving a slight nudge to the people of the Roman Church, turning them ever so slightly onto the right road. I hope it continues.