Is Genuflecting at Communion Disruptive?
by Karl Keating
Fr. Joseph D. Creedon, a priest of the Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, was distributing Communion one Sunday and thought he saw, in his peripheral vision, someone tripping. Searching the faces of the next few people to approach him, he saw no one blushing and concluded his eyes had deceived him. The next week he noticed the same motion. Looking more closely, he realized that someone was genuflecting before reaching the head of the line. "To put it mildly, I found the behavior odd," he explained in a July 29, 1999, column in The Providence Visitor, the diocesan newspaper.
Later, at another parish, Fr. Creedon saw the same thing. "I was disappointed to see that there were several genuflectors present. There were also a few profound bowers. . . . I still found the behavior odd, but now I was troubled because it seemed to be multiplying." What bothered him was that "these people call undue attention to themselves and are disruptive to the true spirit of public worship."
He began to notice a parallel problem at his daily Masses. "We usually invite people to stand around the altar for the Eucharist Prayer [an action not permitted by the rubrics]. Our numbers and our sanctuary allow for this practice, and it creates a powerful symbol of 'being gathered around the table of the Lord.' Obviously, not everyone agrees because we have a small but permanent group who choose to stay in the pews and kneel. A very high percentage of the kneelers are also bowers and genuflectors at Communion time." The two practices—kneeling in the pews and genuflecting in the Communion line—seemed to go together.
"I think we need to educate the believing community on the distinction between public worship and private prayer," concluded Fr. Creedon. "There is a difference between what is proper behavior at the altar of reservation (tabernacle) and what is proper at the Eucharistic table (altar). Genuflection belongs to the tabernacle; it is prescribed as a reminder lest we forget that the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the church. . . . When we receive Communion at Mass, a genuflection is superfluous as a reminder and disruptive as a sign of respect. One thing is certain. We need to update our theology of the Eucharist before it is too late. There are just too many abuses."
I am not one who easily criticizes priests or laymen who are concerned about liturgical abuses. So many people aren't concerned at all that it is refreshing to find someone who is. A desire to root out liturgical abuses is a sign that one has a lively sense of what the liturgy is and an awareness, especially, that the Mass not only is communal prayer par excellence but is the highest form of prayer we have. Still, I am reminded of Plato's plaintive cry: "Who shall guard the guardians?" When it comes to the liturgy, one might ask, "Who shall check up on the checkers?" Fr. Creedon's sensitivity to proper rubrics is welcome; the problem comes in its application. The fact is that he has some things topsy-turvy.
"As far as I know," he wrote, "there are only two options with regard to the proper reception of Communion: The Church invites us to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. The nice thing about these options is that they are not disruptive to the spirit of public worship." But genuflecting is, so we shouldn't genuflect.
It is true, of course, that there are two permissible ways to receive Communion. The standard, regular, or normative way is on the tongue. This is the way the Holy Father prefers, and it has been the traditional mode of reception. Some national episcopal conferences, including the American, have asked the Vatican for permission to give Communion in the hand. In 1977 this permission was granted to the U.S. bishops, and since then Communion in the hand has been an option.
The method of reception is entirely up to the individual communicant. "The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion," says the Appendix to the General Instruction [of the Roman Missal] for the Dioceses of the United States. It is improper for a priest or extraordinary minister of the Eucharist to insist that communicants receive in the hand— options are just that, optional.
That said, the discussion about the methods of receiving Communion, while interesting, is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether genuflection is proper. Whether one receives on the tongue or in the hand has nothing to do with whether one should or should not genuflect when in the Communion line. The rubrics for reception are not limited to the tongue-versus-hand question.
The Ceremonial of Bishops notes that "a genuflection, made by bending only the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration and is therefore reserved for the Blessed Sacrament, whether exposed or reserved in the tabernacle" (69). According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, during Mass the priest is to genuflect at certain times: "after the showing of the Eucharistic bread, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion" (233). Immediately after his genuflection at Communion time, the priest self-communicates.
A few things can be said about these points. Genuflections are to be made whether the Eucharist is reserved in the tabernacle—a point that Fr. Creedon makes—or is exposed. It is exposed any time it is visible, exposition not being limited to the case of exposition in a monstrance during a holy hour or benediction. If the consecrated species are on the altar, a genuflection is called for. The next point is that the priest himself genuflects just before he receives Communion. He genuflects as a sign of adoration. Does this "call undue attention" to himself, to use Fr, Creedon's complaint about lay genuflectors? Hardly, since the action is mandated in the rubrics. Is the priest's genuflection "disruptive to the true spirit of public worship"? No. It is a part of that true spirit and so can't be disruptive to it.
You see what's coming: If a genuflection is proper for the priest as he receives Communion, on what grounds could it be improper for lay people, given that nothing in the rubrics suggests that genuflection is a posture reserved for the clergy? Hold that thought a moment as we consider what the Church has taught about what lay people are to do as they receive Communion.
In Inaestimabile Donum, the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship noted that, "when the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling itself is a sign of adoration." But a sign of reverence should be made when the people receive Communion standing, which is the most common way in American parishes. "When they receive Communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to and from Communion is not disrupted" (11).
To summarize: If you receive Communion standing, you should make a sign of reverence just before you receive. What should that sign be? Inaestimabile Donum doesn't specify, but one could argue that the priest and people should make the same sign, to show unity among themselves. What sign does the priest make? He genuflects. This suggests that genuflection, then, is the most proper sign for the people to make. But it is not the only sign they may give. They may give some other sign of reverence, such as a deep how or even the sign of the cross. What is required is some sign of reverence, and the choice is up to the communicant.
Let's look at the final clause of the instruction in Inaestimabile Donum: "so that the order of people going to and from Communion is not disrupted." Does this eliminate genuflection? Some might say it should. After all, if the person in front of you suddenly drops his knee to the ground, you might trip over him; it's been known to happen.
A little direction from the pulpit, though, can eliminate such hazards. All a priest need say is that someone going up for Communion should leave a little space ahead of himself as he gets near the front of the line—say, in second or third place. If he lets the person just ahead of him advance an extra pace or so, he can move forward into the empty space (thus putting the empty space between him and the person behind him) and genuflect. He may want to steady himself with the end of the neighboring pew for support. With the empty space behind the genuflector, there won't be any danger of anyone tripping over him. Besides, if most of the parishioners follow this arrangement, even newcomers to the parish will be able to see what is happening and will be able to adjust their own actions as they get to the front of the line. If a communicant chooses not to genuflect but to make some other sign of reverence, such as a deep bow, nothing is lost; he has plenty of room ahead and behind.
Most Catholics don't know that a sign of reverence is required of them because they haven't been told. They haven't been instructed by their pastors, who themselves may not know the rules. So it is that in many parishes genuflecting in the Communion line might strike some, including Fr. Creedon, as "odd." It is "odd" only in that it is uncommon, and it is uncommon only because the people have not been told what they are to do. The rarity of the act is no argument against genuflecting. It is an argument, instead, for proper and thorough instruction of the congregation.
Fr. Creedon writes that "when we receive Communion at Mass, a genuflection is superfluous as a reminder and disruptive as a sign of respect." While it is right to say that a genuflection would be superfluous if the congregation knelt for Communion (a practice apparently not engaged in at Fr. Creedon's parish), he is wrong in saying that it otherwise is superfluous. Quite the opposite. It—or another sign of reverence—is "strongly recommended" on the part of the laity, and it is required for priests.
What about the "disruptive" aspect? A genuflection is "disruptive" only of incorrect or improper procedures. It a pastor has instructed his flock not to genuflect, thus instituting a private rubric, then a genuflection made in obedience to official rubrics must seem "disruptive." In that kind of case, I think a "disruption" is precisely what is called for. Sometimes it takes a "disruption" to awaken people to their duties.
What about Fr. Creedon's complaint that genuflectors "call undue attention to themselves"? Similar answer: If everyone genuflected or made another sign of reverence when receiving Communion, no one would stand out—and everyone, especially visitors to the parish, would be edified.
Fr. Creedon thinks genuflection is an intrusion of "private prayer" into "public worship," but genuflection can seem "private" only if it is done by a few—a situation not supported by the rubrics, by liturgical tradition, or by psychology. Catholics need to adore their Lord, and at no time are they closer to him than when they receive him in Communion. That is the very best time for their bodies to mirror the love that should be in their hearts.
Karl Keating is president of Catholic Answers and editor-at-large of This Rock.
This item 1336 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
