The Dispatch: More from CWR...

Bishop Stowe ‘not in favor’ of Eucharistic document, but predicts it will pass

Joe Bukuras By Joe Bukuras for CNA

Bishop John E. Stowe of Lexington, Ky., listens to a speaker during the fall general assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore Nov. 12, 2019. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)

Boston, Mass., Nov 12, 2021 / 19:05 pm (CNA).

An outspoken critic of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ draft document on the Eucharist predicts it will be adopted at their fall assembly next week, though he intends to vote against it.

“I’m afraid it is,” Bishop John Stowe, OFM Conv., of Lexington, Ky., said during a media briefing Nov. 11 when asked if he thought the document,“The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church,” is going to be adopted.

“I think it will [pass] because it’s blander than what was proposed at first, and it’s got something that I think was trying to appease everybody,” Stowe predicted, “and I think a lot of bishops would have a hard time voting against it because there’s not something so objectionable contained in it.”

Stowe’s comments came Nov. 11 during a live streamed forum about the fall assembly sponsored by Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture in partnership with the National Catholic Reporter. The assembly begins Monday with a closed-door meeting at which the bishops are expected to have a private preliminary discussion about the Eucharistic document, prior to discussing and voting on it in public later in the week.

A central topic at the bishops’ last meeting in June, the proposed document sparked a heated debate about whether it ought explicitly to address if Catholic politicians who support abortion, such as President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, should be denied Communion. While some bishops consider it a source of scandal to allow those not in communion with Church teaching to receive the Eucharist, others argue that taking a hard line would “weaponize” or politicize the sacrament.

Stowe falls in the latter camp. As it exists now, however, the document makes no mention of Biden or any other politician. Nor does it outline criteria for a priest or bishop to deny Communion to a Catholic who publicly promotes abortion or other grave sins.

Instead, the 26-page document focuses on the importance of teaching the Real Presence of the Eucharist, and on the Eucharist as a tool for evangelization.

“When we receive Holy Communion, Christ is giving himself to us. He comes to us all in humility, as he came to us in the Incarnation, so that we may receive him and be one with him,” the draft document states. “Christ gives himself to us so that we may continue the pilgrim path toward life with him in the fullness of the Kingdom of God.”

While Stowe credited the work done to revise the document since the June meeting, he said he remains opposed to it, adding that he doesn’t see why it is necessary right now. Stowe and other featured speakers at the media briefing cast doubt on the validity of a 2019 Pew survey that found just one-third of U.S. Catholics say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.”

Responding to Stowe’s comments, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, a supporter of the draft document, told CNA that it is vital that the bishops speak clearly on the Eucharist.

“To forge a new unity in Christ, and a new Eucharistic revival, we bishops will have to work hard, remain open to each other and to the Holy Spirit and hold fast to the Teachings of Christ including this one: The Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Take Communion only if you are in communion with Him. Confession opens the gate to heaven,” Cordileone said.

“We need to speak truth to each other, and to speak God’s truth to those in power,” he said.

Increasing division?

During the briefing Thursday, Heidi Schlumpf, executive editor of the National Catholic Reporter, expressed concern that if the bishops approve the document “it will further highlight the split” between the U.S. bishops and Pope Francis.

“And my guess is if U.S. Catholics are forced to choose, they’re going to choose Pope Francis, hands down,” she said.

“I couldn’t agree more,” Stowe responded. “I’m afraid that is exactly what’s at stake here. And I think some of the bishops that are promoting a hard line on Communion realize that, as well.

“They think that the magisterium of Pope Francis is an aberration [in] the history of the Church and that they can wait it out and the next Pope will set things back the way it was,” he said.

“And I think, in general, you can see in the U.S. bishops conference, there’s been no real enthusiasm for any of the documents, the encyclicals, or other teachings that have come forth from Pope Francis,” Stowe said.

“We live in very polarized and divided times, and we’re talking about a sacrament of unity and adding to the polarization, rather than trying to find the ways that the Church assembles everybody together or opens the tent flaps of the field hospital to bring people in,” Stowe argued. “I just wish we would demonstrate that we hear Pope Francis and would follow [his approach.]”

Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila says Mass for the Transitional Deacon Ordination in 2020. Archdiocese of Denver, photography: A&D Creative LLC
Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila says Mass for the Transitional Deacon Ordination in 2020. Archdiocese of Denver, photography: A&D Creative LLC

In response to Stowe’s comments, Archbishop Samuel J. Aquila of Denver told CNA that the document on the Eucharist is in accordance with Pope Francis’ teaching.

“Bishop Stowe presents the discussion surrounding Eucharistic coherence as being motivated by a desire to return to a pre-Vatican II Church and to ignore Pope Francis’ teachings,” Aquila said.

“On the contrary, I believe that directly addressing the issue of worthily receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is completely in line with what the Holy Father has called for and is directly linked with encouraging a deeper belief in and reverence for our Lord in the Eucharist,” he said.

“Some bishops seem insistent on portraying this effort to teach clearly on worthy reception of Jesus in the Eucharist as divisive. By framing the discussion this way, they are in fact increasing division by failing to address the scandal given to the faithful by those public figures who insist on saying they are devout Catholics in communion with the Body of Christ, when they are blatantly advancing laws that allow the taking of innocent life and the serious distortion of human sexuality,” Aquila said.

Rupturing communion

While the proposed document on the Eucharist doesn’t provide criteria for denying someone Communion, it does explain the differences between venial and mortal sin, and says that a Catholic in a state of mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist until they have gone to Confession and received absolution.

“While all our failures to do what is right damage our communion with God and each other, they fall into different categories, reflecting different degrees of severity,” the document states.

“There are some sins, however, that do rupture the communion we share with God and the Church,” the document states.

“As the Church has consistently taught, a person who receives Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin not only does not receive the grace of the sacrament, he or she commits the sin of sacrilege by failing to show the reverence due to the Body and Blood of Christ,” the document explains.

The document states, “the reception of Holy Communion entails one’s communion with the Church in this visible dimension.” The document also restates the text of a 2006 document from the bishops concerning Catholics in public life.

“If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive teaching on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church,” the new document states, repeating the bishops’ 2006 guidance.

“Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation,” the guidance states, “would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

During the media briefing, journalist David Gibson, the moderator, asked Stowe if there were “any circumstances” where a Catholic should be denied Communion.

Stowe pointed to the document’s reference of St. Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians about receiving the Real Presence worthily.

In 1 Cor. 11:27-30, Paul states: “Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

Paul’s admonition needs to be placed in proper context, however, by “looking at the social construct of Corinth and the Corinthian community at that time,” Stowe said.

“And what Paul was chastising was in the context of a communal meal. Some people are eating more than their share and getting drunk before the other people even arrived there. How could you say this is a sacrament of unity?” he said.

“So I guess the short answer is there should be some discernment on the part of the individual about receiving the sacrament and preparing oneself for it. But I think Pope Francis gives us the right direction. It’s not a prize for the perfect, but medicine for those who are on the way, who really want it,” Stowe said.

During the media briefing Stowe disclosed that he has denied Communion to someone on at least one occasion.

“I can’t say, like Pope Francis, that I’ve never denied Communion to somebody, because I was in a conversation with somebody who outright told me they did not have any beliefs in anything that the church teaches, and then the next day presents himself at Communion. Well, it was almost like a personal test to me, what I was going to do. And I did not think there was any grounds on which I could give that person Communion,” he said.

“But that’s such a rare … occurrence, for me, but not based on somebody’s public stance,” Stowe said.

“Plus, you know, if it were well-known that Joe Biden encouraged someone that he impregnated to abort a child, that would be one thing,” Stowe continued. “That’s a very different reality, publicizing this personal involvement in that sin, as opposed to saying that it’s the law of the land, and I will abide by that law of the land. There’s … several layers of separation there.”

Archbishop Aquila, however, noted that there are other questions to consider.

“Pope Francis has been clear that ‘abortion is murder.’ I would like to ask my brother bishops: Have you had conversations with Catholics in public life who take positions contrary to the dignity of the human person, whether it be abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty or other life issues? How do you suggest we respond to those Catholics who lose faith in the Church because of those public figures providing a counter-witness and receiving the Eucharist? How do you see them following the teaching of Vatican II to be a leaven in society?” Aquila said.

“These are questions that need to be answered if we are going to fulfill our role as shepherds who protect our flock and the faith,” he said. “As bishops, we are responsible for both the public figures and the faithful who are led into sin or lose their faith when the integrity of the faith is publicly undermined on so many levels.

“One day we will be judged,” Aquila said, “and the Lord has warned us in Ezekiel 33 to be his sentinels and with truth and charity to warn those who turn from the way of the Lord.”

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Catholic News Agency 6551 Articles
Catholic News Agency (


  1. FIRST, we read: “While some [!] bishops consider it a source of scandal to allow those not in communion with Church teaching to receive the Eucharist, others argue that taking a hard line would ‘weaponize’ or politicize the sacrament.” Weaponize and politicize the sacrament?

    Total nonsense. Instead, it’s about the very nature of the Church, and its right simply to be what it is, in season and out of season. To be sacramentally incorporated into Jesus Christ—and not to genuflect to those in power who live notoriously in fatal contradiction while still waltzing forward with eyes wide shut.

    SECOND, we read: “Plus, you know, if it were well-known that Joe Biden encouraged someone that he impregnated to abort a child, that would be one thing,” Stowe continued. “That’s a very different reality, publicizing this personal involvement in that sin, as opposed to saying that it’s the law of the land, and I will abide by that law of the land. There’s … several layers of separation there.”

    “Layers of separation”? Not “well-known?” As in Biden codifying Roe v. Wade, undermining the Hyde Amendment, conditioning foreign aid, and actively expanding public funding? As for the singular and concrete “abort a child,” some guy named Stalin said it best: “a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.”

    THIRD, as for the “context” of corrupt Corinth…look with open eyes at our society! Other than our addiction to material culture, techy social media and such, in what way are we really any different from the (im)moral culture St. Paul found in Corinth?

    So, as for taking a “hard stand,” as on reception of the Eucharist, the shoe is really on the other foot. Stowe and like-minded poseurs are the ones taking an easy-out/“hard stand”—passively allowing the current political context to hollow-out the perennial and Eucharistic Church.

  2. Did Jesus not “weaponize” the hypocrisy of the Pharisees when He condemned their cleansing the outside of the body while allowing the inside to decay? Since when did equivocating the teaching of the Catholic Church become the job of the USCCB? Are they not supposed to be the instructors of the faithful? Why do we rely on the spineless bishops to support the tenets of the faith? Will there not be a reckoning for them if they fail their responsibilities? “To whom much has been given, much is expected.”

  3. Three questions that should be asked of: politicians like Biden, Pelosi, Durbin and Company, as well as of bishops like Stowe, Cupich, Bamberg and their ilk:

    #1. Do you understand that the taking of an innocent and defenseless human life is a grave mortal sin? And,do you understand that abortion is the taking of an innocent and defenseless human life and, as taught by the Catholic Church which you profess, is taught to be a mortal sin?

    #2. Have you by your actions given support to the taking of an innocent life in your role as a politician or in your ecclesial ministry have you supported politicians who do?

    #3. When was the last time you went to Confession and confessed such a sin?

    When they answer such questions, and only then, should they approach the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

  4. Quote from a Catholic priest and canon lawyer—“Thus, we have six very well-crafted paragraphs directed to informing and guiding the faithful in the pews on the conditions they should observe for worthily receiving Holy Communion according to canon 916. But we only have one paragraph directed to the pastors of the Church about the provisions of canon 915. But there’s no developed explanation of the reasons for these provisions nor any guidance on how to apply them in cases where the faithful utterly disregard their obligation not to come forward for Holy Communion when, for instance, they use their elected office to promote abortion.
    Isn’t it a form of clericalism to insist, rightly, on the obligations of the people in the pews while not insisting with equal clarity and force on the obligation of bishops and priests not to administer the sacraments to those people in the pews who disqualify themselves by their public actions?
    This uneven treatment of canons 915 and 916 is a glaring flaw in this document. It gives the appearance that the bishops are loath to remind themselves of their duty to enforce canon 915 in their dioceses. It is obviously not enough to remind Biden and Pelosi that promoting the “right” to abortion is a grave offense against God’s law. They plainly do not care. They need to be told that the Church’s bishops will no longer treat canon 915 as a dead letter.”

  5. “If a Catholic in his or her professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined teachings of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her defined teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church”, the new document states, repeating the bishops’ 2006 document.
    “Seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church?” The above is the definition of heresy. But we can’t have that kind of language today by the bishops, especially Bishop Stowe, the bishop of a diocese in my state, thrower of the Covington boys under the bus, celebrator of gay pride month, registered member of the party of death, etc., etc.

  6. While some bishops consider it a source of scandal to allow those not in communion with Church teaching to receive the Eucharist, others argue that taking a hard line would “weaponize” or politicize the sacrament.

    Acknowledging the presence of the living God in His humanity and His divinity in the most holy Eucharist by refusing it to those who openly advocate or brazenly facilitate the murder of the innocent children of the living God by the millions is the duty of an Apostle of Christ regardless of whether doing so would “‘weaponize’ or politicize the sacrament.”

    So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

    Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.

    He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

    He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.
    — Matthew 10:32-39

    It seems that faithfully following Christ will have some negative consequences in this life. But didn’t Christ say “If you love me, keep my commandments, unless, of course, doing so will have consequences that you deem to be negative.”? Where is that verse in the New Testament? It isn’t there. Christ said no such thing. Christ’s shepherds were commanded to care for His flock, His precious children. He taught them that good shepherds lay down their lives for the sheep.

    Legitimizing the mass murder of the children of the living God by allowing the sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist to those who openly advocate and brazenly facilitate crimes against humanity (the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials referred to “legal” abortion as a crime against humanity) is evil. The poisonous scandal this brings about is evil. Publicly signalling to Caesar in this way that the bishops are willing to render unto him authority over innocent human life that belongs to God alone is evil. It is idolatrous. All of this couldn’t be further from what Christ commanded His apostles to be and to do.

    It was “Feed my sheep.” not “Legitimize the slaughter of my sheep.”

  7. First I have an observation. It appears to me that almost all of those ordained/ appointed by Pope Francis are vehemently opposed to Church Doctrine and are callous in their understanding of the Holy Eucharist.
    Secondly, I often wonder how this faithless Bishop, and many others,were even considered and ordained Priests in the first place. This Bishop, and many others, are the true enemies of Catholicism and they must be exposed.They are destroying the Faith of many,especially their belief in the Holy Eucharist.
    Finally,it is ridiculous to write about the Holy Eucharist while allowing public scandal towards this “Immanuel”. This “Bread of Life.”

    • If Stowe were my bishop, I’d be attending Divine Liturgy at the nearest Eastern Rite Catholic Church (and financially supporting them as well).

      In any case, on Tuesday I’ll be in Baltimore at the Prayer Rally across from the hotel where the bishops are meeting. I’ll be Prayer for the conversion of our bishops to the True Faith.

  8. Every time I listen to a nincompoop, charitably speaking, like Bishop Stowe comment, I wonder at what point would it become necessary to deny the Eucharist to an ordained prelate?

  9. +Stowe wouldn’t vote for anything that didn’t have a Banned Parenthood pin or lmnopqrst+ sash attached to it…
    Why would zed vote for a document that even he doesn’t appear to believe in: Jesus present fully in the Eucharist…
    God save & spare us.

  10. Head in hand Bishop Stowe seems to be musing, Oh! The pathos of it all. Can’t the others understand it’s the law of the land, and I will abide by that law of the land. There’s several layers of separation there. Others rights, distance of moral responsibility for an abortion. That’s good ethos. What happened in Nazi Germany differs. This is America.

  11. Bishop Stowes’ comments are disheartening. It is as though he imagines misunderstanding in others. He likely thinks himself more enlightened, less judgmental. His concern include the politics of the matter. Relativism permeates his musings. His moral compass parses ‘advising abortion’ as opposed to ‘flacking for it’.
    Objective truth can be a hard thing for some.
    Abortion most often stops a beating heart.

  12. Sadly, I believe that the young Bishop John E. Stowe doesn’t have the gift of wisdom from the Holy Spirit of God yet. He is still young and too impressed by the world with its politics and declared opinions, forgetting that one cannot serve both God and the world. And, unfortunately, he is naively idealistic. I pray that Bishop Stowe finds the Truth that never compromises, focusing instead on shepherding his flock.

  13. Regards to this document, it will be an exercise in fudge blather and of no real importance! It will make the Charge of the Light Brigade seem like a sensible military decision!

  14. Hear ye lukewarm, indecisive and “law of the land”-abiding bishops: remember the words of our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, “you who run neither hot nor cold I will vomit out of My mouth.”
    Your spineless, wimpy and collectively noncommittal efforts to save your own hides will, in due time, make vomitable projectiles out of all of you.
    In the mean time, for my part, i will invest in high quality rain gear.

  15. I don’t get why people call the Eucharist the sacrament of unity.

    From the get go, it has been a sacrament of division. Most of His disciples left Him over this teaching and He let them leave!!

    If we really believe what we believe about the Eucharist then we should do the same. We should proclaim it for what it is and let people leave.

    It is only a sacrament of unity for those who truly wish to be united to Jesus. The fakes can get off the train.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Bishop Stowe ‘not in favor’ of Eucharistic document, but predicts it will pass – Via Nova Media

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.