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 (868 Views)
PJD


Interestig perspectives given by John & Rose above!

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

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?
It's the difference between the sin and sinners.

We can say that a particular action is sinful e.g. stealing or killing but we cannot judge that any individual is actually sinning, we don't know exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it or what their state of mind is when they are doing it.

Anyway, Pete summarised it extremely well a few posts ago, if he doesn't mind me paraphrasing him - let the priest who is without sin make the first refusal.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 01:43
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.
Of course they should not receive Communion.

The priest should make an announcement that only practising Catholics, who are in the state of grace, may receive Holy Communion.

'tain't rocket science!

And everyone would have known it without needing to be told, before Holy Communion became a free-for-all.
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
Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 10:47
It's the difference between the sin and sinners.

We can say that a particular action is sinful e.g. stealing or killing but we cannot judge that any individual is actually sinning, we don't know exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it or what their state of mind is when they are doing it.

Anyway, Pete summarised it extremely well a few posts ago, if he doesn't mind me paraphrasing him - let the priest who is without sin make the first refusal.
And how is the priest supposed to convey to his flock that a particular action is a sin if he does not treat it as such.

Scandal is not about gossip and judging. That kind of scandal is pharisaic scandal.

The scandal I've been mentioning is concerned with the example set to others. And quite often the example leads, not to tutting and gossip, but to imitation.

It would be a dereliction of the priest's duty if he were to let his own sins get in the way of carrying out his ministry properly. He has to refuse sometimes. It would be better if he would remove the beam from his own eye first (if he has such a beam), but even if he doesn't that's no excuse to fail to perform his duties. He would just be adding more beams to his eye!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Two men, neither of whom has any desire to marry, are close friends. They pool their resources and share a home. They go out together, to the trheatre, the pub, on walks around the park. One does the cooking and cleaning, his friend cleans the car and does the heavier jobs and DIY. Being rather private people, they rarely invite other people into their house, so nobody else knows whether they share a bedroom. Some say they are homosexuals.

Are the two men giving scandal? Should they refrain from receiving Communion?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I suppose for those few parishes luck enough to be still well-staffed, this could refer to the PP and his curate Rose!

John
Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

That's one way of killing idle chat about the priest and his housekeeper, John :wh:
Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 14:21.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 12:02
Two men, neither of whom has any desire to marry, are close friends. They pool their resources and share a home. They go out together, to the trheatre, the pub, on walks around the park. One does the cooking and cleaning, his friend cleans the car and does the heavier jobs and DIY. Being rather private people, they rarely invite other people into their house, so nobody else knows whether they share a bedroom. Some say they are homosexuals.

Are the two men giving scandal? Should they refrain from receiving Communion?
This issue is about people who identify themselves as "a couple", not just "two friends".

And if two friends cause scandal, it would be of the pharisaic kind.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

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

Rose of York
Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 01:43
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.
Actually my PP will often make announcements in such circumstances (including funerals where another priest might bite his tongue!) that only people who are currently in 'good standing' with the Church should present themselves for Communion.

And I repeat my point that even in these sorts of situations, in particular if there are people there who aren't seen from one end of the year to the next, the priest isn't to know generally whether the person presenting themselves for Communion hasn't, in the past few days or hours, presented him/herself somewhere else for Confession and received Absolution or even whether they customarily attend Church elsewhere... He can't withhold Communion because he thinks someone isn't in 'good standing'... (Mind you, there have been one or two occasions where my PP actually DID withhold Communion for these sorts of reasons where he was sufficiently sure of himself, so he's not 'copping out' for the sake of an easy life.)
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Paduan
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Two men, neither of whom has any desire to marry, are close friends. They pool their resources and share a home. They go out together, to the trheatre, the pub, on walks around the park. One does the cooking and cleaning, his friend cleans the car and does the heavier jobs and DIY. Being rather private people, they rarely invite other people into their house, so nobody else knows whether they share a bedroom.


Make that three men, and you've got my house!

And before anyone worries, don't! Everything is quite in order, thanks! :smiley:
Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
pete

What about Laurel and Hardy they shared the same bed and no one raised an eyebrow, come to think of it so did I until I left home to join the Navy. What’s wrong with society today they always think the worst in people. Is the thought alone that 2 people might be involved in a relationship a sin in itself? Or should our thoughts be pure and not allow thought of this nature enter our heads?. I for one will still enjoy Laurel and Hardy even though they slept together; in fact I’d never given the matter a thought until I joined this thread, perhaps my thoughts are pure after all. :angel:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ned

I think that this thread is getting off topic.

Returning to the issue of co-habitees there was the situation, in the news a few years back, where Irish children, having already been prepared for Holy Communion, where refused the Blessed Sacrament because their parents couldn't produce a Catholic marriage-certificate to their PP. While in England they had married in a Registry Office.

Apparently it wasn't unusual for PPs to make such checks.

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

What happened to the children if their parents didn't regularise the situation? I suppose they lapsed!
Derekap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD


That would seem spiritually intolerable Derek.

A child is a person, his/her soul is distinct from its parents.

Thus, after the age of reason, or later perhaps, a child expressing wish to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, would presumably be entitled to expect the Church to oblige?

PJD
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Ned
Wednesday, 7. January 2009, 19:19
...there was the situation, in the news a few years back, where Irish children, having already been prepared for Holy Communion, where refused the Blessed Sacrament because their parents couldn't produce a Catholic marriage-certificate to their PP.
Are you sure that you're not thinking about this story, Ned where two priests told unmarried parents that they were not welcome to receive Holy Communion along with their children at first Holy Communion; they did not bar the children which I think would be entirely wrong of them. Would they even have the authority to do so?

Whilst I have been arguing against refusing Holy Communion to unmarried people, I actually think that these two priests did handle the matter very well; they privately pointed out to the couples that under Church Law, their status makes them ineligible to receive - it was the couples themselves who made it a public matter - but, despite the article's headline, the priests made it clear that they would not actually refuse to give them Holy Communion:

Quote:
 
Father McCarthy added that if parents came to the altar demanding the Eucharist, he would not be controversial and would handle the situation as best he could.

"I think it would be fairly unfair and very, very wrong to isolate parents and as it were point the finger at them as being unworthy," he said.

"Should the parents come up, as they do in lots of other countries, they come up and get a blessing and hopefully a smile.

"If they make up their own minds that they have to get the Eucharist, the onus is on their consciences.

"All I can do is reasonably as best I can face the situation and be prudent within the situation."

The priest said if forced, he would serve Communion to the people involved, as he would "not cause controversy in the house of God".

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