Many people have seen this piece by Richard McBrien over at National Catholic Reporter.  After an introductory defense of a reporter who did a hack job of reporting on Catholicism and the Eucharist, and a brief foray into Eucharistic theology, Fr. McBrien closes with a bombshell conclusion that Eucharistic Adoration is a step backward.

This is the comment that I left over at their website.

"Eucharistic adoration, perpetual or not, is a doctrinal, theological, and spiritual step backward, not forward."

It seems to me that this is a pretty big logical leap from superstitions about making the host bleed or needing to "put Jesus to bed."

I'd start with contending that the catechetical value of Eucharistic Adoration is still quite needed in the present time and place.  While most people are literate, I'm not so convinced that most people are well educated .. even in a general sense.  And in the Catholic sense, I think it is even less true.  It might be better than it has been in past times, but I think it is still a tough argument to make that *most* Catholics are literate or well-educated about their faith.  What was that percentage of American Catholics that attend mass weekly?  25% of so?  That is hardly a demonstration of most people being literate or well-educated about their faith. 

When we consider the number of Christians and even Catholics who deny or doubt the Real Presence, and the number of Catholics who have a poor understanding of the Real Presence and the role of the Eucharist in the Catholic faith, I think that the catechetical and evangelical need for Adoration is just as great now as it was in the 12th c. 

And even if we were to accept that there were no catechetical need in regard to the Real Presence, that does mean that there is no need for the practice.  Adoration is a Christocentric devotion, utterly and totally focused on Christ, Christ truly and physically present for adoration, Christ present in the Sacrament of Communion, Christ present in every tabernacle in every Catholic Church around the world, Christ present in the Communion of the faithful, Christ present in the individual Communicant, Christ present in the world.  In an utterly "self"-focused world, this is a stark and defining contrast.  It is a valuable tool for the faithful who must live in that world, who must daily redirect themselves against the current of self-centrism and be God-centric.

And even if there were no need for it to serve as a Christo-centric oasis in a desert of self-centrism, there is no reason to eliminate Adoration.  "In essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, and in all things Charity!"  There are countless people who simply enjoy the devotion.  It works for them.  It adds to their devotional life.  It may not fill a universal need like the mass does, but for many people it fills a personal need .. or even just a personal preference.  And that is reason enough.  As a people of faith, we need to spend more time in prayer than just what time we spend in Mass.  We should therefore cultivate, as a Church, as rich and diverse of a devotional portfolio as we can .. including Adoration.


And as a final "And," I think that Adoration proves its own value.  My own utterly anecdotal and non-statistical experience has been that parishes that have Adoration, especially Perpetual Adoration, are simply healthier, and substantially so.  They are more vibrant, have higher mass attendance, have more families, have fewer financial problems, have more marriages and fewer cohabitations, have more people entering the Church and coming back to the Church, have more substantial ministries of charity - and often with less self-congratulatory attention seeking - and perhaps most telling of all:  they have more vocations. 

Could this be simply correlative and not causative?  Of course.  But the fact that they so often go together should be thought-provoking and should lead us to at least give Adoration a go.

With more time to think this over, I've had a couple of additional thoughts.

My next "And" would be more in response to the commentors over at NCR rather than the original essay.  While most people strenuously disagreed with Fr. McBrien, some agreed.  The foremost point was that Jesus would rather we go out into the world and encounter Him there, encounter Him among our brothers and sisters.  But ultimately, these fall into the fallacy of the false dilemma .. incidently, I think the fallacy of the false dilemma is perhaps the most pervasive fallacy in theological and religious discussions, I almost named my blog "The Fallacy of the False Dilemma."  It is not that either we go to Adoration or we go serve the needy.  There is no reason to choose.  If our lives are such that we feel that we must choose between acts of devotion and acts of charity, then there is something already very wrong.  Rather, we need to choose a life that has enough room for both .. because our faith lives *need* both.  (And we should also not forget that praying for others, such as before the Blessed Sacrament, is also an act of charity.)  And there is a good argument to be made that adoring Jesus in an unfiltered way in the Eucharist will only help us adore Christ in others.

But foremost and lastmost among my "Ands" is that Fr. McBrien's exposition on Eucharistic theology is rather wanting.  He makes a point of talking about the "Sacramental" presence in teh Eucharist.  He mentions transubstantiation, but chooses the less precise "transformation" with the attachment "Sacramental."  And that is where he puts his emphasis, on the "sacramental" presence, the "sacramental" change .. all while denying that the change is literal, or physical.

It is true that English, with its imprecise vocabulary, is a very poor vehicle for elucidating the theology of the Real Presence, but Fr. McBrien's wording is poor even for English and can easily mislead.  Considering how literate he claims that contemporary Catholics are, I find it surprizing that he would not use the more precise language of Thomine theology.  But even if we don't use the more precise language, we can do much better than Fr. McBrien.  In the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus - body, soul, and divinity - is truly present .. ontologically, substantially, sacramentally, really, literally, physically present.  And in the Consecration, though to say that it changes physically is too impreciseise - the accidents of bread and wine don't change, the appearance is still of bread and wine - the bread and wine are truly changed .. ontologically, substantially, sacramentally, really, literally changed. 

But to focus on "sacramentally but not literally," leaves the door wide open to seeing the Eucharist as more of a symbolic presence, as Jesus in only a nebulous sense.  And if we are to take that step "forward," then Adoration is a step "backward" .. but then, so is orthodoxy.