By 
Four years after U.S. bishops launched the National Eucharistic Revival, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, said Catholics must recover “Eucharistic coherence,” saying belief in Christʼs real presence must be reflected in both moral life and the worthy reception of Communion.
The National Eucharistic Revival, a three‑year U.S. bishops’ initiative aimed at renewing Catholic belief in and devotion to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist through teaching, parish outreach, and national events, was launched in 2022 in response to declining belief among Catholics in the Real Presence. The revival culminated in the National Eucharistic Congress in 2024.
Speaking at the Institute for Catholic Culture on the topic “The Table of the Lord and the Table of Demons: Eucharistic Coherence and the Age of Moral Relativism,” Paprocki said July 14 that the revival’s mission extends beyond renewing devotion to the Eucharist to fostering lives that correspond to what Catholics profess to believe.
Paprockiʼs remarks revisit a debate that surfaced during the U.S. bishops’ 2021 spring meeting over reception of Communion for Catholic public officials who support abortion access. While some U.S. cardinals warned that denying Communion could politicize or “weaponize” the Eucharist, distort teaching on worthiness, and damage ecclesial unity, some bishops invoked a duty to safeguard the integrity of the sacrament and cited canon law, which provides circumstances in which ministers should withhold Communion.
Canon 915 says: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.”
Communion with Christ
“The criteria for the worthy reception of holy Communion are discussed, but they flow from the foundational understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist,” Paprocki said, pointing to Christ’s words in the Gospel of John: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”
Paprocki emphasized that the Eucharist is both the sacrifice of Christ made present and the sacrament of communion with God and the Church.
“The core belief of Catholics about the mystery of the Eucharist is our faith in the real presence of Christ,” he said. “The sacrament of the Eucharist is called holy Communion precisely because, by placing us in intimate communion with the sacrifice of Christ, we are placed in intimate communion with him, and through him, with each other.”
Worthy reception of Communion
Because of that reality, Paprocki said, Catholics conscious of mortal sin should first seek reconciliation before approaching the altar.
“As the Church has consistently taught, a person who receives holy Communion while in the state of mortal sin not only does not receive the grace that the sacrament conveys, he or she commits the sin of sacrilege,” Paprocki said.
Quoting St. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians, the bishop added that “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”
Paprocki said this understanding forms the basis for what the Church calls “Eucharistic coherence,” which he defined as consistency between belief and conduct.
“A person who, by his or her own action, has broken communion with Christ in his Church but receives the Blessed Sacrament acts incoherently, both claiming and rejecting communion at the same time. It is thus a countersign, a lie,” he said.
Canon law and public witness
Referring to Canon 915, Paprocki said ministers of holy Communion must sometimes withhold Communion from those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.
The bishop cited a 2004 memorandum by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger interpreting Canon 915, which addresses the denial of holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Paprocki said those who publicly and obstinately support grave moral evils such as abortion or euthanasia fall under Canon 915ʼs provisions.
Paprocki quoted the memo: When “the person in question with obstinate persistence still presents himself to receive the whole Eucharist … the minister of holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”
Paprocki clarified that this denial is not meant as a punishment but to encourage a change of heart.
Paprocki said behaviors that would warrant denial of Communion include heterosexuals cohabiting without marriage, homosexuals engaging in sexual activity, and divorced people remarrying without having received an annulment.
Paprocki referred to his 2018 denial of the Eucharist to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, for supporting abortion access laws. Paprocki said: “The denial of Communion is a medicinal remedy that seeks to foster a change of heart” and is meant to encourage politicians “to repent and return to being pro-life.”
Paprocki concluded: “In seeking Eucharistic coherence in an age of moral relativism, it is important to remember that the ultimate goal is conversion and readmission to Communion. Even when a difficult decision must be made, not to admit someone to holy Communion until there has been repentance and reconciliation, such discipline does not contradict the law by which it is motivated.”
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.
Suggestion: Offer Confession more than one (inconvenient) hour a week.
Offer Confession an hour before Grandma’s funeral. Ditto weddings.
I know. I know. We need more priests.
We’re blessed to have Confessions heard 30 mins before each Mass, including weekdays. Which is great, but 30 mins before Sunday Mass just isn’t enough time for Father to hear everyone. I suppose long lines for Confession is a good problem to have though.
Can anyone explain why 1 Corinthians 11: 27-30 are not in the lectionary – Sunday or weekday? IMHO – these are some of the most important verses in scripture.
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or 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.”
The lectionary of the 1962 Roman Missal contains 1 Corinthians, 11, 20-32 as the Epistle for Maundy Thursday (The Mass of the Last Supper). It is read, IOW, at the TLM, every year, on Holy Thursday.
The lectionary of the 1962 Roman Missal contains 1 Corinthians, 11, 20-32 as the Epistle for Maundy Thursday (The Mass of the Last Supper). IOW, it is read every year on Holy Thursday, at the TLM.
This seems to be a no brainer.
Same old language, same old ideas, same old mind-frame, nothing new, no creativity, just two separate circles without any contact, without any interrelationship or communication. And the world goes on without the slightest concern for what this bishop thinks or says. So unlike the New Testament in which this Person, Jesus, goes out and heals the sick, raises the dead, eats with outcasts, condemns the hypocrisy of the religious elite, with the result that the world is radically changed. Pontificating from on high is so much easier, but much less effective. The congregations still shrink.
That’s just the point. The Church is Eucharistic, not a bunch of local congregations (CCC 1374). More than a replica, the Mass is the very continuation and extension of the singular event of Calvary through all of time and history.
It used to be that the knowing and willing reception of the Real Presence while in a state of unrepentant and therefore unforgiven mortal sin was recognized as a mortal sin of sacrilege.
Prior to Calvary, the soon-to-be betrayed incarnate Jesus Christ wept at Getsemani.
Thomas James: “same old language, same old ideas, same old mind-frame, nothing new, no creativity.”
Conceiving of Jesus as a revolutionary is an insult to Jesus who is, to use contemporary terminology, the complete reactionary to our vanities. The only reason those who honestly hear him and can respond positively is because He spoke universal truths for all times and all places that are already endowed in every individual’s heart by God the Father.
Our human condition, with limitations, is an affront to the vanities of both the religious and anti-religious who abuse and subordinate Jesus as their co-warrior for departures from the “same old language, same old ideas, same old mind-frame, nothing new, no creativity.” The only creativity Our Creator allows is how we give witness to and live His truth that never changes. This is sufficient to avoid losing our souls to dehumanizing revolutions.
An exhortation all bishops should make for their diocese.
The Eucharist is more than the Real Presence. It is a participation in the Last Supper, which itself is a participation in the sacrifice of Calvary. It is a union with the pivot point of history, the Redemption. Moreover, by consuming the Body of Christ, we actually complete His sacrifice, just as the Jewish priests of old consumed the sacrificed flesh of animals as a final step in their bloody sacrifices to God.
What an incredible and awe-inspiring privilege has been given to us by Christ, and passed down to us through the ages.
I don’t know why these truths not more often talked about in greater depth.
What constitutes public? Sure, national gets attention but doesn’t seem to filter down.
In my parish, our local elected government representative consistently voted in favour of abortion “rights” and euthanasia AND was an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. Parishioner objections to the pastor (granted, a Jesuit) fell on deaf ears.
Kudos to Bishop Paprocki. May his tribe increase, sooner rather than later, please.
IF the Bishops want more people at confession then maybe they should allow the priests to talk about confession and SIN a little more. And brush off the whiners in the pews who will be affronted and complain to them about it. I am a daily Mass-goer and I almost NEVER hear anything on this topic preached from the pulpit. Maybe a sideways reference during Lent, but thats IT!!! Talk about love and mercy is all well and good but if the church fails to teach about the sins which makes that love and mercy necessary, they do a criminal disservice to their congregations. Stop treating adults like babies and talk some turkey to them. Co-habitation, abortion, all that should be ripe subjects for discussion.
You have said it! When have we last heard about what indeed constitutes mortal sin
Do the bishops want more people at Confession? Do priests? Does your priest?
Why would you talk about mortal sin to the people who choose to be there at Mass? Why do you think they are there? Explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the congregations in this country need to be told about mortal sin. If you were to ask them what constitutes sin, do you think they’d be stuck for an answer?
Why wouldn’t you talk about what mortal sin is, what grave matter is, the importance of Confession, and how to avoid sin, from the pulpit? St. John Vianney was known for that. If a person cares enough to show up, there’s a good chance he wants help living his life in Christ more fully, and avoiding the things that damage or destroy that life. Christ didn’t die on a cross and establish His Church on St. Peter for the sake of cheerful superficiality or even for academic dissertations on Scripture. He came to give life to the spiritually dead, by Sacraments and by *every* teaching given to the Apostles.
Common grave sins among Sunday Massgoers include skipping obligatory Mass (many show up monthly, or only for Christmas, Easter, and Palm Sunday), hours of unneccessary work on Sunday, contraception, pornography, and “cafeteria Catholicism”. The first we can track from the differences in Mass attendance between the special feasts, Sundays, and Holy Days of obligation. The others we can see from statistics are nearly as bad among Catholics as among non-Catholics.
Even if there were some reason to believe that people who come to Mass are so different from those outside that they would *never* commit a mortal sin, and definitely know all the things that are grave sins, I really don’t understand how that state of affairs could be maintained without checking people at the door to ensure no sinners enter.
I have recently had occasion to speak to two different women, both upper class, well educated, and raised Catholic. The subject of confession had come up during conversation. Not only were they astonished that I myself would frequent confession, they both told me flat out they didnt go to confession because they “couldnt think of anything to say”. SERIOUSLY??? Nice women, both of them. But I did not imagine I had potential saints for friends!!! The problem is I have heard this statement before. Once from a person in ministry to the church. Confession is not just for mortal sins. One need not be engaged in murder for hire, or adultery, to benefit from confession as we all know. I daresay most of us are guilty of minor sins. It is beneficial to acknowledge it in confession. These statements indicate to me a poorly educated body of faithful. And the basics most certainly bear repeating at church when you have their attention. I dont necessarily need to hear for the 12th time what St. Paul was saying in a certain passage I have heard many times. the church as a whole would benefit from educating its members periodically and NOT assuming that because they have reached adulthood and sometimes darken the door of a church that they are as well informed about the faith as they need to be.
People attend church for a variety of reasons. It could be to please a spouse, parental insistence, guilt, praying for intentions, or any number of things. It does not follow that all those sitting in a pew are well informed about the faith, sin, or any other topic.
My late grandmother was fond a joke that, assuming I remember it properly. captures the attitude of those “upper class, well educated, and raised Catholic.” women, I think.
There was a missionary priest who happened upon a lumber camp. The lumberjacks worked long and hard, but caroused, cursed, drank and engaged in other vices longer and harder and weren’t terribly religious as they were far from a church in their camp.
The priest offered to hear confessions and the first man admitted he hadn’t been to Confession in a long time. As he wasn’t practiced at the art of examining his conscience, he admitted that, so the priest, hoping to inspire questions said “have you murdered any one” and the man answered no. The rest of his confession was venial sins, and the priest was lenient with the man to encourage candor, telling him that venial sins were still sins, but forgiven with less context or detail.
Upon completion of his act of contrition, the other men, who were also out of practice and curious about how the priest would handle rough men who hadn’t availed themselves of confession.
the man left the priest, drawing the wrong conclusion and responded to their questions by saying “he’s only hearing murder cases today”.
I bet they’d “blow a gasket” knowing they were likened to lumberjacks.
Certainly, they’d be stuck for an answer since most do not believe in mortal sin, and many do not believe in sin at all. The majority of mass going Catholics are even abortion toleratn. Why are they there? For the same reasons everyone who lies to themselves, to find supportive ways to avoid confronting their dark side.
Recently in a sermon (from a former Anglican-now-Catholic priest, note) we heard about the five precepts of the Church. One of them was obligatory Sunday Mass attendance. Oops. I thought since VII Mass attendance was optional. Ditto Confession at least once a year.
Reply to Amanda and Cleo
You wrote: “Why wouldn’t you talk about what mortal sin is, what grave matter is, the importance of Confession, and how to avoid sin, from the pulpit?”
Do you not think they know what serious sin is?
You say: “If a person cares enough to show up, there’s a good chance he wants help living his life in Christ more fully, and avoiding the things that damage or destroy that life.”
If a person wants to get to a certain destination, part of those instructions should include what exits on the highway not to take (a negative approach), but the most important instructions will have to do with the more positive instructions on how to get there, what highway to take, what holiness really is, what charity really looks like. That’s why the example of people like Mother Teresa and St. John Bosco and Dorothy Day and Oscar Romero, to name a few, are so important. Their lives were not about telling the people they serve that they are in sin, that they need to come to Church every Sunday and line up for Confession. That’s easy. Nothing challenging in that. No, rather, they went out and brought the risen Christ to them by their love. It’s not enough to talk about virtue. It’s not enough to talk about holiness. No, you have to actually love. Words are easy.
Indeed, Christ did not die on the cross for the sake of cheerful superficiality or even academic dissertations on scripture. Nor did he die on the cross for the sake of gloomy and negative pontificating on sin. He died so as to rise, so that we could rise in him and actually “be him” (it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me), and if a person becomes Christ, that person will not settle for “finger wagging”. We teach with actions, and actions speak louder than words. We’ve had centuries of words and more words, and those words have been accompanied in recent years by clerical sex abuse scandals and episcopal cover ups. So you can understand why most people today are skeptical when a bishop stands up there and wags his finger at the congregation, especially about sexual matters. As for contraception, it is easy to understand why priests and bishops keep mum about that one–their celibacy allows them to live an upper middle class lifestyle that includes exotic trips, pilgrimages, lots of quiet time, retreats, no worries about the rising cost of living or job security. A priest would have to be rather clueless to get up there and tell young people today that practicing contraceptive birth control is mortally sinful, killing the grace of God within their souls, condemning them to hell for all eternity. They know their churches would empty out rather quickly, and what then of those exotic vacations? We lead by example, not by words.
In any case, this notion of a God that takes notes and keeps a good record of the mortal sins we commit and will condemn us to eternal and unimaginable suffering (fire) on the last day, because we didn’t attend Mass every Sunday and didn’t exercise perfect custody over our eyes and did not have 15 children, etc., is a notion that people have no use for. You complain that priests and bishops are not preaching like that anymore. These priests at least are smart enough to know that “checking people at the door to ensure that no sinners enter” is completely asinine.
You actually believe that it is God who condemns, rather that it is we who condemn ourselves?
The sin of presumption or sloth, for example. “So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16). Or, this meditation on what might be another of your examples: “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt5:28).
What is it about “sin,” exactly, and the mystery of the human heart and the mystery of other persons, that called for (as you mention) the self-immolation on Calvary of the Second Person of the absolutely relational Triune One?
You are quite right, of course, that today it’s very difficult, this: “to preach the word; be ready in season and out of season[!]; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim 2:4). When would consistent reluctance to do this, in maybe an artful way, have something to do with millstones?
Reply to Amanda
You wrote: “Why wouldn’t you talk about what mortal sin is, what grave matter is, the importance of Confession, and how to avoid sin, from the pulpit?”
Do you not think they know what serious sin is?
You say: “If a person cares enough to show up, there’s a good chance he wants help living his life in Christ more fully, and avoiding the things that damage or destroy that life.”
If a person wants to get to a certain destination, part of those instructions should include what exits on the highway not to take (a negative approach), but the most important instructions will have to do with the more positive instructions on how to get there, what highway to take, what holiness really is, what charity really looks like. That’s why the example of people like Mother Teresa and St. John Bosco and Dorothy Day and Oscar Romero, to name a few, are so important. Their lives were not about telling the people they serve that they are in sin, that they need to come to Church every Sunday and line up for Confession. That’s easy. Nothing challenging in that. No, rather, they went out and brought the risen Christ to them by their love. It’s not enough to talk about virtue. It’s not enough to talk about holiness. No, you have to actually love. Words are easy.
Indeed, Christ did not die on the cross for the sake of cheerful superficiality or even academic dissertations on scripture. Nor did he die on the cross for the sake of gloomy and negative pontificating on sin. He died so as to rise, so that we could rise in him and actually “be him” (it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me), and if a person becomes Christ, that person will not settle for “finger wagging”. We teach with actions, and actions speak louder than words. We’ve had centuries of words and more words, and those words have been accompanied in recent years by clerical sex abuse scandals and episcopal cover ups. So you can understand why most people today are skeptical when a bishop stands up there and wags his finger at the congregation, especially about sexual matters. As for contraception, it is easy to understand why priests and bishops keep mum about that one–their celibacy allows them to live an upper middle class lifestyle that includes exotic trips, pilgrimages, lots of quiet time, retreats, no worries about the rising cost of living or job security. A priest would have to be rather clueless to get up there and tell young people today that practicing contraceptive birth control is mortally sinful, killing the grace of God within their souls, condemning them to hell for all eternity. They know their churches would empty out rather quickly, and what then of those exotic vacations? We lead by example, not by words.
In any case, this notion of a God that takes notes and keeps a good record of the mortal sins we commit and will condemn us to eternal and unimaginable suffering (fire) on the last day, because we didn’t attend Mass every Sunday and didn’t exercise perfect custody over our eyes and did not have 15 children, etc., is a notion that people have no use for. You complain that priests and bishops are not preaching like that anymore. These priests at least are smart enough to know that “checking people at the door to ensure that no sinners enter” is rather asinine.
I’m actually not complaining, I get those sermons every so often. Not constantly – you are right that the positive is very important.
St. John Bosco definitely talked to his charges about avoiding sin. It wasn’t all he did, neither did he neglect it simply because “they already know all that”. We need reminders, we need encouragement, we need clarifications. Having a priest talk about how to avoid sexual sin and contraception when it is rampant in and out of the Church seems like common sense. It’s not about him, and it’s not about his ability to be a shining example to others. It’s about giving people what they need to become holy, to the best of his ability. “We hold this treasure in earthen vessels”.
You seem to think it’s all about hellfire. For all the sermons I’ve heard on sin, hell was rarely mentioned, often not at all. Neither did I mention it. That was all you. The assumption is not that people are unmotivated, but that we need help in particular areas, and priests can provide that in homilies. And in Confession – which is required for all mortal sins, to the best of your ability. God won’t penalize you for a bad memory, but to deliberately withold a mortal sin is to cling to the rejection of God intrinsic to that mortal sin, and you cannot simultaneously accept and reject God. It’s also quite helpful for venial sins.
It is the priests who *do* preach on sin that are assuming sinners are coming to church and not being stopped at the door. The only reason not to offer help with sin is if you think there isn’t any.
Do I think Catholics deny their sins? Absolutely. It is very difficult to find a professed Catholic who seriously views himself as a sinner. Confession lines have not decrease by 99+ percent by accident.
what is the purpose of saying anything possitive in a homily while ignoring sin, especially the sins of ommission?
The bishops made a mistake. The Developing View: From Liturgy to Solidarity
In the beginning of the first document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council on Dec. 4, 1963, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, we read:
[For the liturgy, “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (1) most of all in the divine sacrifice of the eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church]
At the end of the last document promulgated by the Council on Dec. 7, 1965, The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we read:
[Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world with mounting generosity and success. Therefore, by holding faithfully to the Gospel and benefiting from its resources, by joining with every man who loves and practices justice, Christians have shouldered a gigantic task for fulfillment in this world, a task concerning which they must give a reckoning to Him who will judge every man on the last of days.]
The Council seems to suggest that we take seriously the scripture passages:
[Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Matthew 5:23-24
Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.] John 4:21
[Let me have no more of your stumming on harps. But let justice flow like water, and integrity like an unfailing stream.] Amos 5:23-24
The bishops made a mistake; they should have accepted a “synodal church” before they proposed a “Eucharistic revival”.
Well, yes and no.
A Church synod (of bishops) is one thing, while a “synodal” church risks being something else. Yet still centered, first, on the Eucharist? But, to your point, a greater sense of an “ecclesial assembly” of laity and clergy together (not a synod), within the “universal call to holiness,” is the purpose. And, yet, not violating Lumen Gentium which holds that these two roles “differ in kind and not only in degree”. The Apostolic Success of being “sent” (apostello) rather than only congregational.
Recall that a “Eucharistic revival” is apparently a compromise, or a remedial step toward the original proposal for “Eucharistic coherence.” Meaning that prominent politicians cannot both advocate for abortion and then receive the Eucharist—as if there is no contradiction and scandal and duplicity.
A more unified (synodal?) Church (capitalized here) is so because it is giftedly Eucharistic, and takes seriously and to heart the sacramental Real Presence (CCC 1374).
Or, are we all Calvinists now, with only a symbolic church (your lower case)?
Apostolic Succession (the curse of autospell!)
Thomas James (2:38 p.m.)
Get to your point, please.
My point is that Confession is greatly overlooked these days. I think that, as a result, many people, including pewsitters, haven’t a clue about what constitutes worthiness to receive Communion.
And who do you think you are? Worthy? Just focus on your own unworthiness and stop projecting that onto others.
You might consider your own advice after rereading your own comments.