264 PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS However, given their ecumenical nature and mission, as well as the role Eucharistic hospitality plays in the ecumenical processes within the communities, it seems to me that there is more at stake here. The situation in the communities transcends the individual spiritual need and relates sharing the Eucharist to the promotion of unity. Therefore, it seems problematic to justify the practices encountered in Taizé and Bose with reference to canon 844 CIC/1983. Still, as already mentioned earlier, the French Bishop’s Conference has defined grave spiritual need as a “’real need’ or an experienced spiritual desire in the circumstance of deep and continuous bonds of fraternal communion with Catholics (as they are experienced in some mixed marriages and in some durable ecumenical groups)”557 in their guidelines concerning Eucharistic hospitality. It provides a small opening towards an interpretation of the regulations that allows for continuous Eucharistic hospitality, but given the usual stress on the exceptional, individual, and occasional character of such hospitality, it seems hardly adequate to accommodate the practice of the ecumenical monasteries. Indeed, their practice, both in intention and in its consequences, exceeds the care for the ‘eternal salvation of an individual believer’ and includes the quest for Christian unity. Hence, the question inevitably arises as to whether the communities (or the local bishops, for that matter) should adhere to the current regulations more strictly, or if the regulations themselves are in need of an update to accommodate this extended goal. I would argue that the practices of Taizé and Bose do justice to the considerations of the Second Vatican Council as defended by George Tavard, since the communities respect the dimension of expression of unity – which is imperfect but growing – as well as the dimension of means of grace – not only in an individual sense, but also benefitting the unity of the church. They do so in a way that inhabits the ‘creative tension’ of which George Tavard spoke, challenging his initial conclusion that sharing the Eucharist cannot be used to promote unity because of the inseparability of the principles of UR sec. 8 (the Eucharist as expression of unity and means of grace). 557 Commission épiscopale pour l’unité des chrétiens, “L’hospitalité eucharistique avec les chrétiens des églises issues de la Réforme en France.” Original text in French: “’réel besoin’ ou un désir spirituel ‘eprouvé des liens de communion fraternelle profonds et continus avec des catholiques (tels qu’ils sont vécus dans certains foyers mixtes et dans quelques groups oecuméniques durables)” (translation: FW).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw