Follow-up thoughts on communion and baptism

First, I want to stress that I believe there is an important difference between “not eligible” and “prohibited.” Eligible means “having the right to do or obtain something.” Someone who is not eligible for something does not have a right to expect that thing. In Matthew 20:1-16, only the workers hired in the early morning were *eligible* for the usual daily wage. The others did not have the right to expect that wage. And yet Jesus delivered the usual daily wage to all of them: those who had the right to obtain that wage, and those who had worked fewer hours and thus did not have the right to obtain that wage. Prohibited means you cannot receive something without breaking the law; not eligible means that the law does not guarantee you a right to receive something. Unbaptized persons are not eligible to receive communion: they have no right to expect that communion will be served to them. This, I believe, is meet and right. But the canon does not say they are prohibited from receiving, or, more to the point, that the faithful are prohibited from serving them communion.

So I would argue that it is not a matter of canon law that we cannot serve communion to the unbaptized. But *should* we serve communion to the unbaptized? I would argue that radical welcome would be better served by baptizing the unbaptized and then serving them communion rather than serving them communion and ignoring the state of their baptism.

Most of the arguments in favor of communion without baptism (CwoB) seem to have a very low doctrine of both baptism and eucharist. If one believes that baptism is (not symbolizes, but *is*) death to an old self and a new birth in Christ, and that Eucharist is that new self being made one with and strengthened by the Body and Blood of Christ, and that both are essential to what we understand to be God's plan for our justification and sanctification (which is not to say that God could not accomplish said justification and sanctification some other way, but this is the way we know that God has promised us), then their order very much matters, and pretending that either is trivial or able to be omitted is to neglect the faith.

The only argument for Eucharist preceding Baptism that I've seen that takes both Eucharist and Baptism seriously is the Wesleyan argument that the grace of Eucharist could lead an unbaptized person to become baptized. While that is not what I would advocate for, I don't think that's a bad argument, and I would certainly be willing to break bread with those who hold this position. But most of the arguments for CwoB seem to take the stance that communion and baptism are both "just symbols" and that including people at the table is more important than the process of growth in grace imparted by the two sacraments.

In other words, I would say that one *can* advocate for communion before baptism without abandoning sacramental theology, but that most arguments for communion without (not before) baptism DO abandon the sacramental teaching of the church.

So my conclusion on the matter of CwoB is that it *can* be done without violating canon law. There are reasons to do it that could be consistent with the teaching of the church on the subject of sacraments, but most of the reasons advanced for the practice are bad reasons and would be better served by making our radical welcome at the baptismal font rather than at the altar rail, preserving the link between the two sacraments.