EMHCs - why more women than men

[casslean]

You’ve also selectively quoted the Catechism. It is usually best to give the full quote, so that your statement has context.

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."222 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

Neither of you is incorrect. The Catechism(and the GIRM) both state that the “sign of communion” is more complete when offered in both species. The sign of communion or the sign of the Eucharistic meal is not the same as communion (or Eucharist). Those who receive Eucharist under one species alone have indeed received the complete Eucharist, with all its associated graces.

This is probably an instance where it is best to speak to your pastor, or someone else with formal theological training, rather than arguing with strangers on the internet.

 

[Fauken]

You will see that I did not misquote; I started with agreement that the Eucharistic meal in one species is complete, but then quoted that the sign is more complete in both kinds. I was being precise.

The reply then misquoted what I had said

Not this again. You have yet to prove that more complete means what you think it is. Your understanding of more complete is, in my opinion, problematic. Please don’t drag this thread towards another discussion on this.

 

[casslean]

You will see that I did not misquote; I started with agreement that the Eucharistic meal in one species is complete, but then quoted that the sign is more complete in both kinds. I was being precise.

The reply then misquoted what I had said

You might read a little more closely. I did not say you had misquoted. I said you had selectively quoted, which means to take one part of a passage that supports your argument and not include contextual or opposing information from the same passage.

The reply then also selectively quoted your response.

Neither is a good strategy. Perhaps you might simply all acknowledge the misunderstandings and move on.

 

[PetraG]

That is a very good clarification!

The actual Real Presence cannot be diminished or supplemented. The sign–the visible, tangible experience–is what is more complete when the Catechism says the sign is more complete under both kinds.

This is the full section from the Catechism that was referred to:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”(222) This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

And citation 222 refers to the GIRM (boldface mine, of course)
Communion under Both Kinds

281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.[104]

282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it, are made aware by the most suitable means possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and hence that as regards the resulting fruits, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any grace that is necessary for salvation.[105]

Furthermore, they should teach that the Church, in her administration of the Sacraments, has the power to lay down or alter whatever provisions, apart from the substance of the Sacraments, that she judges to be more readily conducive to reverence for the Sacraments and the good of the recipients, in view of changing conditions, times, and places.[106] However, at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.

 

[somecanadian]

I think it depends on the parish.

In my parish it’s because there are simply way more women than men.

I’ve heard a theory once that men are wired (generally) in such a way that if something is already being ‘handled’ they won’t bother to step up. The people who believe this think that less men are volunteering in churches because it’s already being handled by the women so the men think: “I’m not needed.”

I see this in marriages sometimes… the women get impatient for the men to do something so they do it themselves but then the men in the family are never given the chance to do things on their own.

Anyway. Not MY theory just one I’ve heard espoused in Catholic forums and on Catholic radio.

 

[PetraG]

I’ve heard a theory once that men are wired (generally) in such a way that if something is already being ‘handled’ they won’t bother to step up.

C.S. Lewis held that not only were there differences between the sexes, but that by the work of the devil each sex was liable to look down on things actually done out of charitable intention to be selfish (boldface mine):

The grand problem is that of “unselfishness”. Note, once again, the admirable work of our Philological Arm in substituting the negative unselfishness for the Enemy’s positive Charity. Thanks to this you can, from the very outset, teach a man to surrender benefits not that others may be happy in having them but that he may be unselfish in forgoing them. That is a great point gained. Another great help, where the parties concerned are male and female, is the divergence of view about Unselfishness which we have built up between the sexes. A woman means by Unselfishness chiefly taking trouble for others; a man means not giving trouble to others. As a result, a woman who is quite far gone in the Enemy’s service will make a nuisance of herself on a larger scale than any man except those whom Our Father has dominated completely; and, conversely, a man will live long in the Enemy’s camp before he undertakes as much spontaneous work to please others as a quite ordinary woman may do every day. Thus while the woman thinks of doing good offices and the man of respecting other people’s rights, each sex, without any obvious unreason, can and does regard the other as radically selfish.

If there are plenty of people volunteering, it is possible that the men, not wanting to step on toes or take away a position someone else might want more, are more likely to step back and let the people who “really want to do it” have the position. A woman, meanwhile, will be more likely to step up so that whoever is looking for help won’t be bothered to have to come and ask her personally in order to gain her help. Thus each of two groups of volunteers–groups that really do not split strictly down lines of sex, I might add!!–has a positive reason for what they do that could lead to a situation in some parish where more women than men are volunteering, leaving the men who allow others this opportunity open to the uncharitable view that they are not as forthcoming with their cooperation and the women who are willing step up without being asked personally whether the work interests them or not with the uncharitable view that they are only volunteering because of what they get out of it personally!

 

[Zach]

I know C.S. Lewis is much revered but that all sounds like psychobabble to me.