Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Cohabitees receiving Communion
Topic Started: Friday, 2. January 2009, 13:47 (871 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 11:09
Clare
Friday, 2. January 2009, 23:59
The Church does take scandal seriously. And giving Communion to cohabitees causes scandal.
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.
This is about what is known.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Patrick
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 13:14
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.
So the people who are the subject of gossip are the sinners rather than those doing the gossiping?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:43
Mairtin
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 10:41
Clare
 
Such a case as you mention is presumably rare. Or should we assume that all cohabitees who receive Communion are in violent relationships?
The point is that we cannot - or, at least, should not, make assumptions about any individual.
This is about what is "known".
Go back and read my original post, Clare, I specifically said only that the priest knows the couple are living together, nothing about him knowing anything about their sexual activity.

"Clare"
 
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.
Clare, I don't know what sort of people you mix with - and this may be an English v Irish thing - but I know very few people who are married or in an ongoing relationship who talk openly about their sex lives.

Clare
 
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.
My point wasn't about "submitting to sex" - a turn of phrase that I find most peculiar, by the way - it was about living together; I gave one example where sex is actually involved but no Mortal Sin involved; I can readily think of several reasons why people might live together without having sex - see my earlier reply to Rose for just one example.

Clare
 
4. Someone known to be unmarried and in a sexual relationship is a regular communicant.
You again chose to ignore the point that you don't know - nor does the priest - whether they are actually having sex, you are jumping to conclusions.

For what it's worth, I agree that you are probably correct i the majority of cases; the point, however, is that you don't know if you are correct in any individual case and you should therefore not be making judgements about individuals.

Clare
 
Do the math
I wouldn't like to think that a priest would make decisions about people receiving Holy Communion on some probability calculation!

Clare
 
Furthermore, as I've already said, living together even platonically is ordinarily forbidden by the Church, unless there is a very good reason.
And I've asked you for a source or reference for that which you still haven't given.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
pete

1. Judge not one another. 2. Anyone who receives the Lord’s Supper unworthily brings judgement upon him/herself. In other words, it’s the responsibility of the communicant if he or she receives the Body of Christ, nothing to do with anyone else. Those of you without sin cast the first stone.
God bless
Pete
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Bob Crowley
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 13:51
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?
Note that He didn't condemn Her and her situation didn't stop Him from choosing her as the first person outside his immediate circe of disciples to whom He would reveal His divinity .
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

pete
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:41
1. Judge not one another. 2. Anyone who receives the Lord’s Supper unworthily brings judgement upon him/herself. In other words, it’s the responsibility of the communicant if he or she receives the Body of Christ, nothing to do with anyone else. Those of you without sin cast the first stone.
Very wise words, Pete.

It's too easy to forget how we can go back to the words of Jesus Himself and find very simple answers to apparently complex questions.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Yes mairtin but don't forget Our Lord was speaking without the guidance of the Synod of Whitby or the Council of Trent so can we rely on him on this one?

John
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
pete
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:41
1. Judge not one another. 2. Anyone who receives the Lord’s Supper unworthily brings judgement upon him/herself. In other words, it’s the responsibility of the communicant if he or she receives the Body of Christ, nothing to do with anyone else. Those of you without sin cast the first stone.
God bless
Pete
That, Pete, is one of the most common sense postings I have ever read on any forum.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

John Sweeney
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 18:00
Yes mairtin but don't forget Our Lord was speaking without the guidance of the Synod of Whitby or the Council of Trent so can we rely on him on this one?

John
:stirthepot:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD


"Deliberate non-avoidance of unnecessary occasions of sin is itself sinful. "

I would give way somewhat to you Clare on this.

Let's compromise - judged on a case-for-case basic.

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Emee
Member Avatar

Clare
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:45
Deliberate non-avoidance of unnecessary occasions of sin is itself sinful.
Clare

Your double negative is doing my head in this time of the evening.

Although I (think I) take your point. Easier said than done though. And it might not always be the best course of action either.

An example; when I was a student I went to a male student's room for a cup of tea believing him to be respectable. While there he asked if he could have sex with me. Now taking the deliberate avoidance route, I should have dropped my mug and run there and then, but instead I chose to stay, ie the deliberate non-avoidance route, to explain why, as a Christian, I would NOT be having sex with him although I was more than happy to be his friend. And we did stay friends afterwards.

Whether in hindsight I was taking a huge risk in staying who knows? All I can say is, he fully accepted my explanation, while, I expect, not understanding me. I think, if I remember rightly, he may even have recalled a time when he was much younger and had been part of a Christian community.

I just hope it did him some good.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Well Emee that is easily the most exciting post we have had on here for many a long day. I am going to go and lie down now.

John
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 16:45
Deliberate non-avoidance of unnecessary occasions of sin is itself sinful.
Ooh, Clare, pray tell me, what are the necessary occasions of sin? Are they non-sinful? Does the Church have an approved list?

I can't wait to find out what I've been missing.

:rofl:
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Paduan
Member Avatar

I have been of the understanding that a priests have to treat pretty much every communicant as having had possibility of receiving absolution prior to Mass, and that he should not withhold communion because he can't be sure that the communicant is still in a state of mortal sin. Unless the communicant says to the priest at the head of the line for communion "I'm in a state of mortal sin at the moment" how is he to know otherwise?

Additionally, surely we have to be careful about what we are 'scandalised' about? Making assumptions about the state of someone else's soul is arrogance. We cannot be judges when we are not in possession of full and complete knowledge and only God possesses that knowledge. If we think badly of someone because of our flawed understanding of them, if we are not charitable towards them as a result, are we not sinning ourselves? "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is a terribly serious commandment: our perceived 'scandal' could have so much more serious repercussions upon ourselves. Charity and open-heartedness is called for or we will suffer for it.
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Powerofone

John Sweeney
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 00:57
Well Emee that is easily the most exciting post we have had on here for many a long day. I am going to go and lie down now.

John
I'll second that. Where are my smelling salts?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic