Click for larger
One may legitimately ponder the state of the hierarchy today.
Remember Bishop Garcia of Austin? Bishop Garcia, as the former bishop of Monterey, issued the letter to the Latin Mass community located at Sacred Heart Church in Hollister, CA, on 14 September (coincidently the anniversary of Summorum Pontificum going into effect) snuffing out their TLM and community. This was four days before he was installed as the new bishop of Austin, Texas.
Today I received a missive from Austin detailing more harsh news. This is a letter from the Vicar General of Austin to “Pastors”. Here’s the text. I also have an image of the letter (above), which was sent out only 55 days after the installation of Garcia in Austin.
I ask that you read it carefully.
To: Pastors
From: Very Reverend James A. Misko, VG
Cc: Most Reverend Daniel E. Garcia
Subject: The use of kneelers for Holy Communion at Mass Date: November 12, 2025
Over the past few years, the practice in some parishes of placing a kneeler (prie-dieu) out for the distribution of Holy Communion has become more common. Some priests report that the reason for bringing out the kneeler is that some people who kneel for the reception of Holy Communion are finding it difficult to stand back up after receiving. If this is the case, the priest should have a pastoral conversation with the communicant to explain that they are not offending God by not kneeling and that they have the priest’s recommendation to stand to receive Our Lord with reverence and devotion.
Bishop Garcia asks that the practice of setting out a kneeler for Holy Communion be discontinued. The basis for this decision is offered here:
1. The General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM) states, “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling,” (GIRM 160);
2. The placing of a kneeler near the distribution of Holy Communion could confuse the faithful regarding what is the norm while sending a message that one way of receiving Holy Communion is more, or less, appropriate; and
3. Placing a kneeler near the distribution of Holy Communion could put undue pressure on the communicant to receive Communion kneeling, which may not be his/her desire.
The bishop appreciates the reverence of our parishioners for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The faithful are also permitted to kneel to receive Holy Communion. At the same time, it is important to catechize the faithful that one can receive Holy Communion with the same reverence while standing and that there should not be an emphasis on kneeling for Holy Communion by priests, deacons, and lay liturgical leaders.
Note a couple things. This is not a decree. This is not from the bishop. The cited norm in the GIRM contains an “unless”, which effectively negates the first part.
Meanwhile:
To heck with seniors.
To heck with the sensibilities of individuals.
People are stupid and will be “confused” by a kneeler.
People mustn’t be pressured… except when WE want to pressure them.
Loading ...
As is so common now-a-days, either the justification for the decision is merely a bureaucratic attempt to cobble something together to provide cover for a decision that was already made and for completely different reasons, or the folks making these decisions are truly ignoramuses and unable to observe the great torrents of hypocrisy gushing forth from the gaps of logic in their justification. Perhaps it’s both?
Given all the liturgical abuses still occurring on a daily basis, despite every survey showing actual belief in the Real Presence at an all time low, and with the swirling typhoon of LGBTQ+ activists around and inside the Church . . . that the bishops have selected “kneeling while receiving Communion” as the MOST important thing they need to stamp out speaks volumes and at a level that can surely be heard all the way up to the seventh Heaven.
But, remember, “obedience” is the only thing that matters right now. When bishops start decreeing that folks lounge on sofas while snacking on the Eucharist, ala “The Neo-Catechumnal Way” – will we still hear about “obedience, obedience, obedience”? Sadly, I think I know the answer.
Legitimately, one can make the case that this is an ADA violation.
Anyone know the legal ways to use this? I am no lawyer.
I tried to attach a picture– worth a 1000 words– but failed.
It was an image of a man with a gun shooting his foot and there was a message with the image: “Avoid this common mistake”
Really? The Very Reverend must be a barrel of fun at the Kumbaya Mass, I bet.
1. The General Instruction for the Roman Missal (GIRM) states, “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling,” (GIRM 160);
It seems to me this says the norm is for people who prefer to stand to stand, while that for people who prefer to kneel is to kneel.
Give me a break!
Well then, logically,,,since Advent is coming up, I think having a Nativity scene with characters kneeling before the Bambino might confuse some people in the pews. Nix on that!
Placing a kneeler near the distribution of Holy Communion could put undue pressure on the communicant to receive Communion kneeling, which may not be his/her desire.
NOT placing a kneeler may put undue pressure on the communicant to receive Communion standing, which may not be his/her desire.
So: which “undue pressure” prevails?
Re-read the GIRM: The NORM is as follows:
The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling,
The NORM is to stand unless the individual wishes to receive while kneeling. Then the norm is to kneel. That’s what the GIRM says: if the person wants to kneel, the norm is to kneel.
It can’t be undue pressure to ask that someone follow the norm. Tension resolved: Dear monsignor: we have established definitively that placing kneelers does not provide undue pressure to FOLLOW THE NORM. By kneeling, people who want to kneel are following the norm to the letter.
(It is of course childish to pretend that a prie dieu set to the side of the line for standing creates “pressure” to kneel anyway. If more than 50% receive standing, the social pressure will automatically be on the others to receive standing.)
It is a matter of dispute whether the the GIRM definitively intends a singular uniformity of posture on receiving, in order to effectively carry out the idea of GIRM 42:
The gestures and bodily posture of both the Priest, the Deacon, and the ministers, and also of the people, must be conducive to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, to making clear the true and full meaning of its different parts, and to fostering the participation of all.
The reason it is doubtful the that the GIRM at 160 specifically intends that singular sort of uniformity of posture for receiving is needed to carry 42 into effect is the SECOND sentence of 42:
Attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.
Following the 1500-year Roman tradition – which you learned in your youth – is decidedly NOT “private inclination or arbitrary choice”. It is more probable that the intention of the GIRM is to establish that conformity of posture in communicating as comprised in: to receive either standing or kneeling. Receiving standing or kneeling – either – effects the desired beauty and noble simplicity that the GIRM directs us toward. Like not directing people whether to stand with feet together or feet apart in a more relaxed position – either being OK – it doesn’t direct people toward ONLY ONE of standing or kneeling for communicating.
A last word: when is the last time a bishop or priest got after standing communicants for not conforming to the requirement to bow? If they want unity and conformity, they should demand it of those too. (And what about coming to church in flip flops, shorts, and t-shirts with loud logos or slogans emblazoned on them? The “Roman tradition” (and enforced at St. Peters) is not to come into the church dressed like that.) When do they take it seriously? (And when do they cancel the clown priests and dancing priests, who gravely violate the noble simplicity norm.)
Bring your own kneeler. Just say it’s your mobility aid.
Looks like there be a growing market for such a product. Lightweight Aluminum frame, inflatable cushions.
My eyes rolled right to the back of my head with this. Good grief these bishops. Who do they think they’re kidding.
Sounds like some strong men need to be at the ready to help those who need assistance to stand back up. Might make communion take longer but oh, well.
The old saying is that the devil can’t kneel as he has no knees.
I suppose the norm in hell is standing
What exactly is meant by “the norm,”
This point needs clarification:
“The norm (established) for the Dioceses of the United States of America …”
The statement that “the norm” in the USA is to stand for Holy Communion is merely an observation that can be verified by watching a few Masses in a random sample of parishes. That is to say, yes, most people do that. It seems to be “the norm,” in the sense that it happens in most places. The norm is also that most people are right-handed.
But has a norm actually been “established” by some sort of legislation? Is there a “norm” in the sense that it is the law? Is it required? Are there no exceptions? Is there an authoritative decree that kneeling is forbidden? If so, when was it issued?
That peculiar statement about standing for Holy Communion being “the norm” has always been an unusual and ambiguous expression. In fact, I can’t think of any other examples of a law being passed, or “established,” with this kind of language. It sounds like an ambiguous term, employed to suggest a requirement that does not actually exist.
I propose a very opportune promotion for Msgr Visko to “Co-Custodian”.
Archbishop Garcia, too bad- I will kneel as long as I’m able to…
We are recusants in our own Church!
I would think that it would be supremely reckless, from a personal liability standpoint, for this or any other Bishop (fully aware of the long established history of Catholic Communicants kneeling to receive the Holy Eucharist) to presuppose that absent accommodation provided by the Bishop for Communicants to kneel, a clutch of frail and elderly old dears will not topple over while reflexively attempting to kneel for Communion and thereby sustaining significant (if not fatal) injury to themselves. A foreseeable civil liability for the Bishop. Bishop better have his wallet ready. Time for a review of the Diocesan insurance coverage.
Oh dear! So many are ‘confused’ whether to kneel or not! Who knew. Not true. I often attend at several parishes that put out a kneeler and some use and some don’t. No one is confused. Just like no one was confused about having a tabernacle in the sanctuary but that was a reason to remove it. We are not ‘confused’ about Our Lady’s titles and roles either. None of this is about unity or confusion; they are excuses and I do not accept them.
A PS here: standing is also to encourage communion in the hand.
I’m assuming that climbing the episcopal ladder is a bit like both academia and the corporate ladder— to ascend one needs to have basic social skills, tact, and enough sense not to make enemies of people one might later want as allies.
.
Which makes me wonder why so many bishops appear to go out of their way to demonstrate their contempt and indifference towards a loyal portion of their flocks. I cannot believe that those bishops would be just as socially inept with their superiors in Rome, with useful politicians at home, or with big donors. So their callous behavior and pettiness must be a choice, and it must somehow serve these bishops’ ends (and their careers). It’s not an accident, it’s not a misunderstanding— these bishops are choosing to behave like this.
Frequently in response to a story about climate-change proponents flying in private jets to a climate conference, a blogger I like to read will state that he’ll believe in the climate change claim when its proponents act as if they do. I think this same analysis would apply to Bishops who wonder why belief in the Real Presence is declining, while they force people to receive the sacred host only in the hand and while standing.
Does the Austin Diocese still make kneeling before and after Communion the norm or is it another diocese where people stand then too?
It’s always been odd to me that people who are happy to kneel during the prayers before and then after receiving would oppose kneeling to actually receive Communion.
His excellency doesn’t seem to be a big proponent of the principle of subsidiarity.
In an extremely rare circumstance this past Sunday, I was asked by our pastor to serve as an extraordinary minister on an ad hoc basis (our parish does not have a cadre of EMHC’s from which to choose: we typically have a deacon to assist our priest with distribution). We have kneelers available for the reception of Communion, and I thus had a firsthand view of people (adults as well as children who were of age) receiving:
-on the tongue, kneeling (common)
-in the hand, kneeling (rare, but more than 1)
-on the tongue, standing (common)
-in the hand, standing (rare, but more than 1)
I wasn’t keeping track of how many in each category, but I would comfortably estimate those standing to receive in my line were about 50%, with those kneeling making up the other 50%. Not anything scientific, of course!
No one seemed confused by the presence of the kneelers, and while I can’t speak for everyone who received while kneeling, you certainly couldn’t say that the mere existence of the kneelers coerced everyone to utilize them, any more than the fact that people have hands and tongues forces them to receive either in the hand or on the tongue. This is a non-argument that, even if it were true, would be easily addressed by a sentence of instruction just prior to distributing Communion.