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 (870 Views)
pete

We all know what sin is but are our ideas of sin dissimilar to the One who is offended. For instance: - adultery, murder, lies, are these sins greater than taking the Lords name in vain? If God deems that they are more serious sins then why should he put them lower on His list of priorities? By cohabitating I presume it would come under the 6th Commandment, in using the name of God out of context, it is positively in defiance of the 2nd Commandment. It’s our duty as Gods children to avoid sin, even though we are all sinners. By all means condemn the sin but not the sinner, better still read Luke 18:9-14 The Publican and the Pharisee then ask yourself “which one better describes me”?
God bless
Pete

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ned

pete
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 16:51
It’s our duty as Gods children to avoid sin, even though we are all sinners.
Yes, Pete.

And may I add that with that there is a duty to avoid not just 'occasions of sin', but 'near-occasions of sin'.

And furthermore our neighbours owe a duty of care to us, that they should assist us in that regard.

Regards

Ned
Edited by Ned, Sunday, 4. January 2009, 17:49.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I'm sure that Pete, Ned and Clare are absolutely right. However, if you go through life avoiding all occasions of sin then it it going to be a long and very dull life indeed.

John
Goto Top
 
Emee
Member Avatar

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
John and P1

It was the first example I could think of as an answer to the statement posted by Clare, showing an example where, hopefully, there was a benefit from my deliberate non-avoidance of "an occasion of sin"...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 01:12
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:
Use your intelligence Rose, for goodness' sake!

A heterosexual male doctor might have to examine an attractive young woman. It's an occasion of sin, but unavoidable and necessary.

A priest has to hear confessions. Hearing about certain sins might be an occasion of sin for him. He can't avoid it though. It's unavoidable and necessary.


Edited by Clare, Sunday, 4. January 2009, 22:16.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:44
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 .
He knew her heart, and would have known that she was repentant and had a firm purpose of amendment.

She is St Photina.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

If they are occasions of sin for those professionals, then they're in the wrong profession.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Saturday, 3. January 2009, 17:40
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.
Well then. It's not so relevant is it. Why mention it? There may be a legitimate reason for their cohabiting, and they may be living as brother and sister. If that is so, and counsel from the priest has been sought, then there is no problem. So no point in raising it.
Quote:
 
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.

I jumped to the conclusion because a situation where a couple are cohabiting platonically for good reason is irrelevant to the issue of giving Communion to people in mortal sin, and I was replying to you under the misconception that your posting was relevant!
Quote:
 
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.

I agree, and I don't make judgments about individuals. I'm talking about general principles.
Mairtin
 
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.

Did you? I missed it. I'll find one then.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 22:15
Rose of York
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 01:12
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:
Use your intelligence Rose, for goodness' sake!
I do, I do. That is why I saw the funny side of what you wrote,
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 22:15
A priest has to hear confessions. Hearing about certain sins might be an occasion of sin for him. He can't avoid it though. It's unavoidable and necessary.


Yes, he can avoid it. If he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen, seek counselling, ask to be excused from hearing confessions until his problem has been sorted out. Same with a doctor. If he lacks the ability to switch off during consultations, with a women witness present, he needs help or a career change. I have yet to hear of a female nurse being sex mad because she has spent the day viewing undressed or partly dressed men.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Now who's being judgmental?

Rose, there would be practically no doctors or priests if you had your way!

Most people are not saints.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

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

Clare, they do, however, have professional standards to adhere to...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Emee
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 23:02
Clare, they do, however, have professional standards to adhere to...
Yes, of course.

But they can still sin, even mortally, in thought.

You can have impure thoughts. The patient or penitent won't be affected.

In other words, professionals can still be thoroughly professional and still sin in thought.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

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

I think I'd probably be able to tell Clare, by the way the doctor was looking at me...

I take your point though.

However, how many women do doctors examine during their career??

I expect it would become like directing traffic after a bit...
Edited by Emee, Sunday, 4. January 2009, 23:08.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Emee
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 23:08
However, how many women do doctors examine during their career??
How many attractive women do they examine, more to the point?!

And of course, the same would apply to lady doctors and handsome men.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
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