Receiving

I recall one of those long, late night, sounding-each-other-out conversations over Mother Butler's Pie at Denny's that were a staple of getting to know any castmate with whom one thought one had something in common in my early professional theater days; the ritual called for drinks en masse at some inexpensive bar, which meant a chain or a dive, no other alternatives, but conversation required a lower decibel level... friendships required pie.
A man I worked with several times was the first person of his sort i had ever met, intensely, almost obsessively spiritual, and intensely amoral, if not immoral, in his behavior. (He seemed so lost, and as I recall, I was strongly attracted to him, but even more, wanted to help him, and didn't know how.... I wonder what became of him. Saw his picture in a cast photo in LA. so I knew at least then that he was still in the business. ButIDigress)
Discussing, (arguing over?) whether or not women were suited to the ministry, (he was a member of some non-liturgical denomination, was from a family of preachers, had some seminary training himself, IIRC,) I remember his declaration that the salient difference between the sexes on this point boiled down to "women are receptive."
I thought of that recently in regard to the ongoing conversation about the meaning of Communion, and the Mass as Sacrifice/Banquet, now highlighted by a fierce thread on Fr Z's about a priest who illicitly/invalidly "consecrates" more hosts mid-Communion when he runs short.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/quaeritur-consecrating-hosts-apart-from-the-consecration-during-mass/
The discussion naturally turned to the "modern" emphasis on the reception of Communion by the Faithful, and whether that has distorted the theology of the Eucharist, whether it is an over-emphasis.
If "women are receptive" in a way that men are not, or at least are on one side of a continuum of which men occupy the other end, (I neither accept nor deny this,) - is the insistence on receiving communion, the falling into dis-use of the concept of "spiritual communion," the flagrant unworthy reception of communion -- is all that a function of the Faithful always having been and always being overwhelmingly female?
I'm not just talking about the almost total co-opting of those "ministerial" positions open to the laity by women, which is surely at least to some extent a reaction to the presbyterate being denied them.
I'm talking about the (seemingly) open-to-all act of participation in the Mass that is the physical reception of the Sacred Species -- is there something "feminine" in that?
I have read internet boards where people are all but frothing at the mouth that it is the absolute duty of a Catholic to take Communion under both Species, and they are invariably women.
I have been scolded for making a habit of receiving after Mass, as is my practice during the choir's off-season or when the accompaniment is too complex to free hand or eye to receive reverently (rather than, what? stopping the communion music to chase after an EM? demanding that 2 EMs be spared to come up to the loft for me alone?) and it is always by a woman.
I have thought about fasting from the Body and Blood of Christ for a time... I wonder what the reaction to that would be.
I wonder if it is in some manner "manly" to concentrate on the sacrificial aspects of the Mass, and "womanly" to focus on the communal banquet POV.
I doubt any of these rumination makes any sense, or that anyone can see how I am connecting these ideas in my mind.... ah, well.
One poster on that thread I mentioned:
I remember in the ‘70s a priest sermonising on the Renewal, literally shouting at the congregation “If you do not receive Communion its a waste of time coming to Mass!”
We, very recently, had a Mass where even with the priest and EMs breaking the hosts into tiny particles, there was not enough Body and Blood of Christ for all to partake.
Two equally loud and strident, and equally obsessive POV's were expressed after Mass: one that it was a scandal, a horror and virtually criminal that many of the Faithful had been denied their rights; and one, big deal, active attendance does not require receiving Communion.
It's all very interesting.
Another current topic of conversation that plays into this is the unworthy reception of communion, specifically by pro-abortion legislators and the like, and how this is not just encouraged, but almost forced by the row-by-row commands of the ushers for the communion procession. (Many people feel very self-conscious if they don't receive under these circumstances.)
I do remember as a child, an announcement at our parish one weekend that the Bishop had recently attended and scolded the pastor because we had no pattern for reception, people just approached the altar willy-nilly, and it would henceforth be accomplished in thus-and-such a manner.
Funny, I don't recall any traffic accidents, no noise or tramplings underfoot ensuing from our haphazard methods, and we were a standing room only place.
Nor do I see any collisions at the few parishes of which I am now aware that have no enforced traffic pattern (and one of them, St John Cantius, uses a rail, not communion stations.)
As I said, it's all very interesting.