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 (869 Views)
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 23:23
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.
Oh dear, I think I have mentioned on this forum that I am married to the most handsome man I have ever set eyes on. He's a tall, slim, blonde, blue eyed giant with a gorgeous head of wavy hair.

Now I know why our female doctor writes periodically, saying "please make an appointment for review of your medication." Sometimes the dispenser says "Doctor won't let you have your medication until you've been to see her."

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Emee
Member Avatar

Doesn't matter Clare.

Still traffic, be it a fiesta or a ferrari... Plus I expect some people are attracted to ugly people rather than beautiful people who knows??

I would have thought doctors are probably taught how to deal with such matters during their training. I am sure more experienced doctors would give advice on such matters. Let's face it, doctors have been around for centuries and are fully aware of the uncompromising situations they have to be put into.

I expect most have some sort of mental on / off mechanism they develop.
Edited by Emee, Sunday, 4. January 2009, 23:32.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Paduan
Member Avatar

Emee
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 23:08
However, how many women do doctors examine during their career??

I expect it would become like directing traffic after a bit...
I actually laughed out loud for that...

I'm still chuckling now :)
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Clare
Sunday, 4. January 2009, 22:27
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.
Right! From a different moral theology manual from my usual...

Dictionary of Moral Theology, Imprimatur 1962, compiled under the direction of H E Cardinal Roberti, page 252:

Quote:
 
...
Fraternal cohabitation, or the brother-sister relationship, is a self-imposed condition of life by persons who have entered an irregular marital union, which because of an existing impediment, cannot be rectified or validated and which, because of very grave reasons, cannot be severed. Of course, if the union can be severed, even at the cost of great sacrifice (Matt.5:29 ff), it should be done to eliminate radically all danger of sin and scandal.

There may be at times very grave reasons for tolerating such union, if it is considered necessary. Some such reasons are: children to be reared and educated, the need for mutual assistance, the danger of scandal or loss of reputation, particularly if residents of the community commonly believe the couple are legitimately married.

Granted such grave reasons, the pseudo-married couple may: (a) pray, without presumption, that God will grant them the necessary assistance to live chastely; (b) reasonably hope, through opportune and prudent explanations, to remove all scandal among those who know of their irregular union. If the pseudo-married partners live a truly chaste life, as brother and sister, and if all scandal has been effectively removed, they may be permitted to live fully a Christian life and even receive the sacraments. The case, of course, must be submitted to the local Ordinary, who is the only judge in the matter.
...

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SeanJ
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare,

Any male doctor who examines a teenage or adult female patient without a chaperone is a fool.

Whenever I have examined a teenage girl, I have been more concerened with the cause of her distress (pain, bleeding, weight loss etc.) than her appearance. And, believe me, there is nothing sexy about examing the rectum or toe nails.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
SeanJ
Monday, 5. January 2009, 20:48
believe me, there is nothing sexy about examing the rectum or toe nails.
You haven't seen my lovely toe nails.

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting that.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare
Monday, 5. January 2009, 20:40
Dictionary of Moral Theology, Imprimatur 1962, compiled under the direction of H E Cardinal Roberti, page 252:

Quote:
 
Fraternal cohabitation, or the brother-sister relationship, is a self-imposed condition of life by persons who have entered an irregular marital union, which because of an existing impediment, cannot be rectified or validated and which, because of very grave reasons, cannot be severed. Of course, if the union can be severed, even at the cost of great sacrifice (Matt.5:29 ff), it should be done to eliminate radically all danger of sin and scandal.

There may be at times very grave reasons for tolerating such union, if it is considered necessary. Some such reasons are: children to be reared and educated, the need for mutual assistance, the danger of scandal or loss of reputation, particularly if residents of the community commonly believe the couple are legitimately married.

Granted such grave reasons, the pseudo-married couple may: (a) pray, without presumption, that God will grant them the necessary assistance to live chastely; (b) reasonably hope, through opportune and prudent explanations, to remove all scandal among those who know of their irregular union. If the pseudo-married partners live a truly chaste life, as brother and sister, and if all scandal has been effectively removed, they may be permitted to live fully a Christian life and even receive the sacraments. The case, of course, must be submitted to the local Ordinary, who is the only judge in the matter.
...

Clare is the writer telling us that an elderly couple, both widowed, who decide to share a home, living a chaste life, not marrying because they don't want to complicate the matter of inheritance for their children, need the permission of their bishop, not to separate?

I know people in that situation, there is no public scandal, people tend to be mature enough not to think "are they sinning? are they having sex?"

I doubt whether many bishops would want to be approached about such a situation. A mature couple know whether they are doing right or wrong in this situation. If two elderly people are devoted to each other, are prepared to live celibately, and want to share a home for mutual companionship, support and cutting down on expenses, nobody else should be the least bit interested in how they express their mutual love. If they are sexually sinning, they know they are. They also know if they are innocent.
Edited by Rose of York, Monday, 5. January 2009, 21:45.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SeanJ
Member Avatar
Administrator
Clare, Rose,

This issue seems to be complicated by a simple problem of language. Fraternal cohabitation as defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary refers to a brotherly relationship, not, as the quotation states, a brother-sister relationship. But, I suppose we could stretch a point and apply the same reasoning to two females.

But now you have me thinking. When I was a student living in digs and sharing a room with another Catholic male student, all under the eagle eye of a Catholic landlady, was I living in a sinful relationship?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Sean J asked:

"But now you have me thinking. When I was a student living in digs and sharing a room with another Catholic male student, all under the eagle eye of a Catholic landlady, was I living in a sinful relationship?"

I can't answer I wasn't there.
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
SeanJ
Monday, 5. January 2009, 22:02
Clare, Rose,

This issue seems to be complicated by a simple problem of language. Fraternal cohabitation as defined by the Concise Oxford Dictionary refers to a brotherly relationship, not, as the quotation states, a brother-sister relationship. But, I suppose we could stretch a point and apply the same reasoning to two females.

But now you have me thinking. When I was a student living in digs and sharing a room with another Catholic male student, all under the eagle eye of a Catholic landlady, was I living in a sinful relationship?
Sean you highlight a problem:

Gossip and suspicion.

It is all too easy to assume that two men who get on well together, share their social life and home, are in an active homosexual relationship. One cannot judge by whether they have girl friends. Some men are just not interested in going out with women. Some are living a long way from the girl friend or fiancee. The two men could be just good friends. It is only in recent years that people have jumped to conclusions about two blokes who are good mates.

It is the same when two people of the opposite sex house-share. Unless the couple tell others whether or not their relationship is sexual, who is to know? Provided people don't make uninformed assumptions there is no scandal.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD


I think you put that well Rose if you don't mind my saying so.

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Most of the responses in this thread have adequately demonstrated that there can be occasions when cohabiting does not equate with sinning and it is not anyone's place to judge which are and which are not.
I had the impression that the original point raised
Quote:
 
Apart from the rubrics of the Mass he willingly gives Holy Communion to couples whom he knows to be unmarried but living together - he has publicly declared that nobody will be turned away from his Church or his altar. Should I or somebody else be reporting him to the Bishop for that?

actually related to the far from unusual cases in which there is no attempt to hide the fact that the cohabiting couple are indeed in a sexual relationship; what then?

KatyA
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
KatyA
Monday, 5. January 2009, 23:40
I had the impression that the original point raised
Quote:
 
Apart from the rubrics of the Mass he willingly gives Holy Communion to couples whom he knows to be unmarried but living together - he has publicly declared that nobody will be turned away from his Church or his altar. Should I or somebody else be reporting him to the Bishop for that?

actually related to the far from unusual cases in which there is no attempt to hide the fact that the cohabiting couple are indeed in a sexual relationship; what then?

KatyA
In theory the priest should refuse Communion to a couple who openly admit they are in a sexual relationship and have no intention of amending their behaviour. If he is to do that, he must be impartial and refuse Communion to all others who openly admit to serious sin.

It is quite common for people who cheat the state of benefits or tax liability, to tell people about it. Another person may be well known to be neglecting their children, depriving of them of necessities so they can have the money for their own drink, smoking or hobbies and possessions. There may be, in the parish, a person who sells cannabis, claiming it is harmless, though we all know it is illegal to sell it. What of the businessman or businesswoman who openly admits to indulging in unethical practises, saying "All's fair in business"?

If one class of public sinner is to be refused Communion, so must the others. There are eight commandments besides the sixth and ninth.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Yes , Rose, and why is Communion not refused to those, for example, who do not "keep holy the Sabbath Day"? Which is most of us. Shopping, working, entertainment , most of us indulge but no sign of refusal of the Sacrament. And yet it is possibly a clearer commandment than " Thou shalt not commit adultery" which makes no mention of marriage.


John
Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
John Sweeney
Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 00:27
Yes , Rose, and why is Communion not refused to those, for example, who do not "keep holy the Sabbath Day"? Which is most of us. Shopping, working, entertainment , most of us indulge but no sign of refusal of the Sacrament. And yet it is possibly a clearer commandment than " Thou shalt not commit adultery" which makes no mention of marriage.


John
Hey, what about the crowd of Catholics who turn up at Christmas for midnight Mass, year in and year out, and never darken the church door in between Christmasses? Are they not giving scandal to our young Catholics?

No priest has, to my knowledge, announced that they must not receive Communion. You see, its not a sexual sin.
Keep the Faith!

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