Roberto Beretta, an Italian journalist who writes for catholic newspapers and journals, attacks in no unclear terms the traditional practice of spiritual communion. He expresses his perplexity with this practice which he calls "one of the most subtle aberration of Christianity". I beg to differ.
For those not familiar with the practice of spiritual communion, it is often in the form of a small prayer which one says when not being able to receive communion at Mass. The purpose is to express on the one hand the desire to be united with Jesus in the sacrament of the Eucharist and, on the other hand, to express the belief that one is already in communion with Jesus.
My Jesus, I believe that you are in the Blessed Sacrament. I love you above all things, and I long for you in my soul. Since I cannot now receive you sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though you have already come, I embrace you and unite myself entirely to you; never permit me to be separated from you. Amen.
Beretta has basically two arguments. The first is that it 'renders abstract that which is eminently concrete', and second, that it is a practice that was influenced by Jansenist worries of having to be 'pure' in order to receive the sacrament. Let's take them in turn.
The first argument is based on the assumption that spiritual communion is a sort of Eucharistic communion without receiving the Eucharist. If that is the case, than one can receive the grace of the sacrament, namely the union with the Mystical body of Christ, without receiving the 'concrete' sacrament: res sine sacramentu. Granted that the assumption is right, the practice of spiritual communion is indeed pernicious and dangerous to the doctrine of the Eucharist. What need is there after all of going to Mass? Beretta writes that 'evidently' spiritual communion can not be compared to the sacrament. Hence it is a 'fake' sacrament and the practice should be reconsidered.
However, the assumption is false. Evidently, spiritual communion is different from Eucharistic communion. It is not intended as a para-sacrament and it never was. In the words of Aquinas spiritual communion is "an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the Holy Sacrament and a loving embrace as though we had already received Him". Spiritual communion is intimately connected to the Eucharistic communion, but not in the sense that Beretta sees that relation. Spiritual communion is not the reality without the matter, but an expression of the desire to receive Jesus in the Eucharist. So instead of undermining the doctrine and practice of the Eucharist, it strengthens it.
The second argument Beretta employs consists in rendering absurd and backward those who want to defend the practice of spiritual communion. It is based on a fallacy by association. It is true that the practice of spiritual communion has been abused by 'jansenist' currents in the Church. But by affirming such a thing without qualification Beretta taints the practice of spiritual communion with the label of backward, pre-conciliar, traditionalist, ... Since he does not present a real argument, let me just reply in his own coin. People who recommended spiritual communion were among others Thomas Aquinas, Theresia of Avila and John Paul II. Surely not all were tainted with the 'Jansenist' streak?
Conclusions? There is no contradiction between practising spiritual communion and being faithful to the doctrine and practice of the Eucharist. The two arguments Beretta presents are both flawed. Of course, every practice has its excesses but that is no reason to condemn a practice. I agree with Beretta's last comments, namely that we have to take a good look at our devotional practices. Not in order to reject them, however, but in order to renew them and root them again in the Gospel and in Him who is our Salvation.
