Blair, Which Church?

It's been rumored widely that UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair is considering conversion to the Catholic Church. (I just learned this.) My understanding is that he has been a nominal Anglican, but that he has close ties to the Catholic Church.

If true, this is great news. It is good when anyone comes "home" and is fully united to the Church that Jesus built -- the very Body of Christ.

Troubling, however, are the rumors that Mr. Blair, while not yet Catholic, has already been receiving Holy Communion regularly. Priests that permit this are contravening Church teaching.

Not Everyone May Eat at the Table
This, from paragraph 1400 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

Because Holy Communion both represents and strengthens communion with the Church, which Catholics believe is the Catholic Church, then, in ordinary circumstances, it makes sense that a non-Catholic should not receive the Eucharist.

For example, if a person disbelieves the Church's dogmatic teaching that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus (in a real way, not merely symbolic), then that person is not in full communion with the Church. Just as he presumably would not desire to partake of "the Lord's Supper" with Jehovah's Witnesses because he does not share their beliefs, neither should he want to partake of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

To receive the Eucharist, a person must be "visibly" and "invisibly" in communion with the Church. If he's not Catholic, then, "visibly," he is not in communion. There is little question here; he should not receive the Lord on his tongue. If he is Catholic, but is guilty of mortal sin, then neither is such a person in communion with the Church. He must first be reconciled through the Sacrament of Confession. That's why it is gravely wrong for "Twice-a-Year Catholics" (those who attend Mass rarely, usually only on Christmas and Easter) to hop into line to receive the Eucharist. They first need to hop into the line to Confession, and sincerely repent like everyone else.

If I correctly understand Mr. Blair's public views and voting record concerning abortion and marriage, then right now there are things "visible" and "invisible" that should prevent him from taking Holy Communion.

Catholic by Desire?
An unknown "church source" has reportedly defended Mr. Blair's alleged reception of Catholic Holy Communion. A Times article says the source claims "that Mr Blair was a Catholic by desire and that this did not necessitate a formal conversion."

This "source" misapplies the concept behind the "baptism of desire," which is summarized thusly in paragraph 262 in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire).

Unless for some reason he is not free to become Catholic, Mr. Blair cannot be "Catholic by desire," because if he desired it, he would make that step to become fully Catholic. Otherwise his "desire" would be empty, meaningless. But if, for argument's sake, his conversion is somehow impeded against his will, then he should respect the teachings and rules of the Church with which he desires to commune.

I'm interested in what lies ahead for Mr. Blair. I hope and pray for the best. But which will it be? Full, legitimate communion with the Catholic Church? Or something else?