It is hard to watch what is happening in the Diocese of Charlotte. It is hard to watch what is happening and wonder if there isn’t something seriously out of whack. It’s as if the 1980’s are back.
First, the bishop has issued a “pastoral letter” “on norms for Holy Communion”. Download PDF.
Here’s a sample (my emphases and comments):
Manner of Receiving Holy Communion
According to liturgical norms, regional episcopal conferences are entrusted with establishing more precise norms for the reception of Holy Communion. 6 The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), with the approval of Rome, has established “[t]he norm … that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. 7 The normative posture for all the faithful in the United States is standing, it is nonetheless the free choice of an individual member of the faithful to kneel, and Communion cannot be denied this individual solely based on their posture (Redemptionis Sacramentum, n. 91).
A normative posture is not only given so that we may be united in how we receive Holy Communion, but also as an aide to direct our catechesis and sacramental preparation. While it is the right of an individual member of the faithful to kneel, pastors should not direct their faithful to do so as something that is “better.” It is the responsibility of those in a pastoral or teaching role to instruct those in his/her care the episcopal conference norms for reception without prejudice. Doing otherwise disrupts the harmony and unity [“harmony” as used in the documents by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party] that the Bishops have legitimately set forth for the manner of distribution of Holy Communion in the United States. [Wait a minute… look around in these USA at other dioceses. Are other bishops going this far to repress kneeling for Communion? Are even the neighboring dioceses? But now get this nasty dig…] The faithful who feel compelled to kneel to receive the Eucharist as is their individual right should also prayerfully consider the blessing of communal witness that is realized when we share a common posture. [Sort of nauseating. Yeah… that’s what people are thinking about when going to Communion… “what a beautiful communal witness this is”.]
The episcopal conference norms logically do not envision the use of altar rails, kneelers, or prie-dieus for the reception of communion. [Qui tacet consentire videtur.] Doing so is a visible contradiction to the normative posture of Holy Communion established by our episcopal conference. Instead, the instruction emphasizes that receiving Holy Communion is to be done as the members of the faithful go in procession, witnessing that the Church journeys forward and receives Holy Communion as a pilgrim people on their way. 8 The USCCB in its explanation for the norms governing reception of Holy Communion reminds us of the beauty of this procession: “In fact, each time we move forward together to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, we join the countless ranks of all the baptized who have gone before us, our loved ones, the canonized and uncanonized saints down through the ages, who at their time in history formed a part of this mighty stream of believers.” 9 [Who writes this dreamy blah blah? And does this seem familiar? Almost exactly a year ago HERE in which Feser and Esolen comment on the goofy notions under consideration.]
Therefore:
-
- Clergy, catechists, ministers of Holy Communion, and teachers are to instruct communicants according to the normative posture in the United States. They are not to teach that some other manner is better, preferred, more efficacious, etc.
- The use of altar rails, kneelers, and prie-dieus are not to be utilized for the reception of Communion in public celebrations by January 16, 2026.
- Temporary or movable fixtures used for kneeling for the reception of communion are to be removed by January 16, 2026.
He also promotes Communion under both kinds if “there is no danger of profanation of the Eucharist”. Problem: danger of profanation is galactically increased thereby.
And this:
In addition, the practice of intinction has arisen to distribute under both kinds in a handful of our parishes. While allowed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, it should not be considered an option in the Diocese of Charlotte for distribution to the faithful in public celebrations.
You know what he is doing here, right? He is trying to stop any sort of reception of Communion on the tongue instead of in the hand.
Can he do that? I suspect not. But, hey, he would probably find a way to crucify a priest who offered it for some other reason because he has power and the priest doesn’t.
He trots out the old “progressive solemnity” chestnut. I thought that was pretty much a nothing burger about a decade ago. Note also, the notion of “progressive solemnity” was originally a music issue. The problem with “progressive solemnity”, which seems to be a good idea founded in common sense and the obvious difference between a “dies non” ferial day and a major feast is that it produces a minimalism on less weighty days which enervates and diminishes liturgy. This is particularly so in the realm of sacred liturgical music… not that there is much worthy of that name to be encountered these days. “Progressive solemnity” starts with the watering down of some Masses, rather than raising the bar, and militates against the use of the true propers of the Mass, especially sung. It’s curious to see it introduced in this context. Is this a subtle utilitarian treatment of the Most Precious Blood? An “instrumentalizing” of the Eucharist for the sake of an agenda?
What I find particularly irritating is that the whole thing is sandwiched – introduction and conclusion – between references to Pope Leo, as if to say, “Hey.. this is what Pope Leo thinks too!” To wit: “As Our Holy Father’s motto — In illo unum uno — reminds us, “In Him who is One (Christ), we are One,…” and “These norms for our diocese move us together toward the Church’s vision for the fuller and more active participation of the faithful, especially emphasized by our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, at the beginning of his Petrine ministry.” That second quote is footnoted:
“Brothers and sisters, I would like that our first great desire be for a united Church, a sign of unity and communion, which becomes a leaven for a reconciled world” (Homily for the Beginning of the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, May 18, 2025).
Amy gets it.
Next, the Pillar reports that
[…]
The Diocese of Charlotte announced a change to its seminary formation program in a Dec. 15 email to the priests and deacons of the diocese.
Starting with the upcoming academic year, diocesan seminarians will spend a pastoral year teaching at a local high school or middle school, the email explained.
Seminarians will each have a lay mentor, and will receive pay and benefits. Each seminarian will live at a local rectory, paying room and board at a rate established by the diocese.
[…]
One Charlotte priest said the initiative will ask seminarians to function in a sort of in-between state, “kind of a lay person, kind of a seminarian” — and that situation could cause confusion.
Others lamented that seminarians will reportedly not be permitted to wear clerical garb during the “teaching year,” which could undermine, priests said, the effort to form a clear clerical identity during priestly formation.
[…]
Priests in the diocese said their biggest concern is that a major change to priestly formation in the diocese comes without a widespread consultation before making the shift.
And in that light, priests expressed frustration with Martin, and a sense among the clergy, they said, that their bishop has not developed a synodal leadership style.
One priest of the diocese called the bishop an “autocrat,” while another said he is “a bully” who has a reputation for berating his priests, going once on a lengthy tirade toward diocesan seminarians that left clergy frustrated.
Criticisms of that nature seem to reflect a growing morale problem among Charlotte clergy, which several priests said is causing them concern.
[…]
He said the new program adds to a general feeling of instability and uncertainty with the priesthood, and frustration at feeling unheard.
“Everybody is upset. It doesn’t matter — liberal, conservative, traditional, not so traditional, whatever. It’s a style of leadership issue,” another individual commented.
And while many of the recent headlines surrounding the diocese have focused on liturgical changes, the real issue is much bigger, sources said.
“It’s not just about the liturgy,” one person emphasized.
“The liturgy gets in there, and it is the flashpoint that people respond to, but this is a much deeper problem of a kind of leadership style that is antithetical to the Catholic way of life.”
We continue our look at the 
Loading ...
