| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Cohabitees receiving Communion | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 2. January 2009, 13:47 (872 Views) | |
| Angus Toanimo | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 04:00 Post #46 |
![]()
Administrator
|
OH NO!!! Don't you even DARE go there!! I know that co-habiting does not necessarily mean sexual relations. I never mentioned anything about sex. But, you can take sex out of your equation there and end up with Mortal Sin. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 10:41 Post #47 |
|
The point is that we cannot - or, at least, should not, make assumptions about any individual. I don't think you should be making any conclusions about other people going to Communion, without wanting to sound rude, it's really none of your business. That is gossip, Clare, nothing more, nothing less and I am horrified at the very suggestion that a priest should refuse Holy Communion on the basis of local gossip. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 10:42 Post #48 |
|
Can you give a reference or source for that, Clare? |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 10:58 Post #49 |
|
I now a young engaged couple who are sharing a house; they say that they are celibate and that they are only trying to save money to enable them to get married as soon as possible. They are a very open and honest couple, I have no reason whatsoever not to believe them. The young couple are practising their Catholic faith, in my opinion mainly because of loyalty to their parents at this stage rather than personal commitment to their Faith. If some busybody priest, acting at the behest of some busybody parishioner, were to tell them that they are not welcome to Holy Communion, there is no doubt in my mind that that would drive them - and possibly their parents - away from the Church completely. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 11:09 Post #50 |
|
Wrongly accusing people of immorality would also be scandal. A priest publicly refusing Holy Communion to a couple and then finding out he was wrong could bring far more scndal upon the Church than the couple originally did. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 11:12 Post #51 |
|
So please tell me where the Mortal Sin might come from if there is no sex involved; and please tell me how you would know if a particular couple were guilty of Mortal Sin. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 11:16 Post #52 |
|
Rose Why do I so often associate the words 'nail', 'hammer' and 'head' with your name?
|
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 12:42 Post #53 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Rose, Any licensee, Catholic or otherwise, is entitled to serve drinks after time, provided no money passes through the till and as long as it's a "private party". A licensee's lounge or saloon bar is his "front room". |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 13:14 Post #54 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Mairtin, Even if the cohabiting couple intend to abstain from sex before marriage, they are exposing themselves to a serious moral risk of doing so and thereby sinning. And even then, if they can and do abstain from sex whilst cohabiting, they are still causing scandal to others who see them living as if they were a married couple, likely to be fornicating.
See above. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Bob Crowley | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 13:51 Post #55 |
|
I think if I were the priest, and knew somebody was "cohabiting" as you call it, I'd take the person aside privately and tell them why I could not give them communion. The fact is that we don't know the person's circumstances, and whatever decision is made, it must be cone with tact. Christ encountered the "cohabiting" Samaritan woman at the well. His words to her were "If you knew who was speaking to you, He would give you streams of life giving water that will never run out" (or something similar). The Gospels are silent about her situtation after the meeting - did she get formally "married", or did she split for the fifth time? Frankly we don't do a very good job of evangelising. We're so careful of crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's in matters of liturgy, sacraments, church organisation, church processes, and all the rest, and meanwhile an entire generation goes to perditon. I wonder if Christ wants or cares about our super careful observation of all the fine points of canon law, like the Phairsees in the His day with their scrupulous observance of the most minute legal point? |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 13:57 Post #56 |
|
"Even if the cohabiting couple intend to abstain from sex before marriage, they are exposing themselves to a serious moral risk of doing so and thereby sinning" True enough - St. Teresa of Avila did make a strong point about the wisdom of avoiding occasions of temptation. But then, youth being what is its nature, the same would apply to a quick cuddle on the sofa when mum and dad were out. I could have used a more accurate word for cuddle; but have refrained from that temptation in order not to lead anyone here astray. [By the way Patrick - 'thereby sinning' would only apply after having gave way to it.] PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 15:36 Post #57 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I do know, Patrick. I have been a licensee. I think you knew what I meant. My point was, if it is known that a publican habitually sells alcohol, in the licensed area of the premises, after time, and is known for "lock ins" would people make such a fuss about him receiving Communion as they would, about two cohabitees? If is is known that the same publican knowingly serves customers who have consumed too much alcohol to drive safely and he knows they are going to drive away, he could be in mortal sin, putting lives in danger with free will, full consent and knowledge of the gravity. Catholics to tend to view sexual sin more sererely than they do other sins. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:28 Post #58 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
See? That's what happens. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:43 Post #59 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
This is about what is "known". In a hypothetical situation, an unmarried couple is known by most of the parish to be living together, and they are open about the sexual nature of their relationship. Now, you gave a hypothetical example of what would seem to be the only situation where submitting to sex would not be a mortal sin for one of the parties. I can't think of any other excuse. Now. Armed with the knowledge that 1. Pre-marital sex is a mortal sin. 2. Communion should not be administered to people who are publicly known to be in sin. 3. The only situation where someone in a sexual relationship out of marriage would not be in sin would be if he or she was an unwilling party. 4. Someone known to be unmarried and in a sexual relationship is a regular communicant. Do the math, as they say! Either, he or she is in a violent relationship, or he or she should not be given Communion. There is no other justification. If the couple are ignorant, the priest's job is to inform them. That is a spiritual work of mercy. Sacrilege is not. Furthermore, as I've already said, living together even platonically is ordinarily forbidden by the Church, unless there is a very good reason. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:45 Post #60 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Deliberate non-avoidance of unnecessary occasions of sin is itself sinful. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







9:20 AM Jul 11