Allow gay Catholics in ssm to receive communion?

[Blue_Horizon]

It would inflict more condemnation on them seeing they’re already in the state of Mortal Sin.

An unfortunate and poorly put statement methinks.

Perhaps what you really meant was that same sex acts are of grave matter and if engaged in with full consent and knowledge constitute actual mortal sin.

 

[1990Domer]

Not our decision to make, but personally it would not hurt for those in uhh the ssm to recieve jesus

It would be a mortal sin for someone to receive Holy Communion with a mortal sin on our souls. That goes for any sex outside of marriage.

 

[1990Domer]

The danger isn’t that God would be defiled but that the person would be judged. The gospel of Jesus isn’t about allowing everyone to sin before God without judgement but to enter God’s judgement as a righteous incondemnable person who has an eager and sure hope of eternal fellowship with God. Excusing sin is the devils work. Calling sinners to repentance and justification is God’s work. We don’t want the couple in ssm to be condemned or excluded. We want them to repent and leave their life of sin so they can be included without risk of condemnation.

This…exactly. Live as brother and brother just like an engaged couple have to refrain from premarital sex.

 

[Fiasco]

Yes, but we should not kick them out when they are in need of Christ’s help. Even if they do not realize they need Christ back in their lives.

We certainly shouldn’t, but in your firsrt post you expressed the thought that they could probably recieve Communion while still engaging in their sexual activities.

Yes, but it is vital we put them on the right track to recieve communion again

Yep.
But they have to refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament until they stop engaging in sexual relations.

An unfortunate and poorly put statement methinks

Perhaps what you really meant was that same sex acts are of grave matter and if engaged in with full consent and knowledge constitute actual mortal sin.

What i meant was what i wrote: that receiving the Blessed Sacrament when in the state of Mortal Sin makes the spiritual state even worse. (the spiritual consequences of same sex acts being taken for granted)

It was slightly clumsily put, but in what way was it “unfortunate”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What i meant was what i wrote: that receiving the Blessed Sacrament when in the state of Mortal Sin makes the spiritual state even worse.

I don’t think you realise what you are saying.

in what way was it “unfortunate”?

That is the unfortunate part.

 

[Fiasco]

I don’t think you realise what you are saying.

Are you saying that the spiritual state of a person who’s (already) in the state of Mortal Sin isn’t worsened when he receives the Blessed Sacrament? (sacrilegious reception)

If you can prove my error, i’ll concede.

 

[mikekle]

Yes, but it is vital we put them on the right track to recieve communion again

But the first step is for them to recognize their chosen lifestyle is an abomination to God, not to try and have their sins justified so they can continue on the same path.

In order to be absolved for a sin, you have to actually recognize it as a sin and admit you were guilty.

 

[Ender]

But the first step is for them to recognize their chosen lifestyle is an abomination to God, not to try and have their sins justified so they can continue on the same path.

In order to be absolved for a sin, you have to actually recognize it as a sin and admit you were guilty.

It is an astonishing sign of the times that something so basic would need to be said.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you saying that the spiritual state of a person who’s (already) in the state of Mortal Sin isn’t worsened when he receives the Blessed Sacrament? (sacrilegious reception)

If you can prove my error, i’ll concede.

Perhaps someone else can explain .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It would be a mortal sin for someone to receive Holy Communion with a mortal sin on our souls. That goes for any sex outside of marriage.

I think you mean if they are aware of having sinned gravely?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But the first step is for them to recognize their chosen lifestyle is an abomination to God, not to try and have their sins justified so they can continue on the same path.

In order to be absolved for a sin, you have to actually recognize it as a sin and admit you were guilty.

Is killing an abomination to God?
How then do we explain that habitual Catholic killers (ie soldiers) may receive Communion even without confession?
For a while In the Early Church killers were banned from Communion too.

I think it helpful not to confuse absolution with forgiveness and also perhaps realise there are different meanings to the word sin and guilt at play here.

 

[Mammoths]

Is killing an abomination to God?
How then do we explain that habitual Catholic killers (ie soldiers) may receive Communion even without confession?
For a while In the Early Church killers were banned from Communion too.

I think it helpful not to confuse absolution with forgiveness and also perhaps realise there are different meanings to the word sin and guilt at play here.

Red herring

In scripture God repeatedly approves of those braves souls who face combat for just cause trusting in his Glorious Name. To be ignorant of the difference between killing in war and killing in murder is only possible through ignorance of scripture. Certainly murderers would be obstaining from communion until ceasing to be murderers. A righteous warrior could receive the sacrement with his left hand at his enemy’s throat.

 

[Fiasco]

Perhaps someone else can explain .

Why can’t** you**, seeing you’re certain i’m wrong?

Maybe i am, but proof first.

Any takers?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Red herring

In scripture God repeatedly approves of those braves souls who face combat for just cause trusting in his Glorious Name. To be ignorant of the difference between killing in war and killing in murder is only possible through ignorance of scripture. Certainly murderers would be obstaining from communion until ceasing to be murderers. A righteous warrior could receive the sacrement with his left hand at his enemy’s throat.

Ah, Scripture…“Thou shall not kill”?

 

[Fiasco]

Ah, Scripture…“Thou shall not kill”?

You better explain this to:
David with his slingshot,

Gideon and co,

St John the Baptist who told the inquiring Roman soldiers to be satisfied with their pay, not to use extortion, but nothing about throwing away their weapons,

Constantine at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge,

The victors of the Battle of Lepanto,

And on and on.

By quoting a Scripture text out of context, you’re distorting it’s meaning. Mammoths has already given you ample proof of the blamelessness of soldiers fighting for a just cause. And it goes beyond that.

 

[Wesrock]

I think you mean if they are aware of having sinned gravely?

I suspect it’s the very rare few who don’t know the Church’s teaching. And it’s not like some sins aren’t just apparent. You don’t need to have ever been religious to know that murder is wrong.

 

[Ender]

Is killing an abomination to God?

No.

How then do we explain that habitual Catholic killers (ie soldiers) may receive Communion even without confession?

Because killing in a just war is not a sin, nor has the church ever considered it one.

For a while In the Early Church killers were banned from Communion too.

The church, as opposed to specific individuals, never said being a soldier was sinful, nor has the church ever interpreted the Fifth Commandment to mean that all killing was forbidden. She has always excepted killing in war, in self defense, and capital punishment.* “It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)Ender

 

[Ender]

Why can’t** you**, seeing you’re certain i’m wrong?

Maybe i am, but proof first.

Any takers?

I think what is being alluded to here is the state of mind of the sinner, and the possibility that someone can sin and not be held accountable for it. So, if I commit a gravely sinful act but am not held accountable, can it be said that I am in a state of grave sin? Taking this back one step further, if I don’t believe an act is sinful should I be held accountable for committing it? Specifically, if I believe the church is wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, and engage in it, am I in a state of grave sin, is it proper for anyone else to claim that I am, and if no one can say for sure, why should I be denied communion?

Well, communion is not withheld because of the certainty that the person is not worthy to receive it, but because canon law operates in the face of public sin, and a person in an open homosexual relationship commits a public sin. Accountability for the sin is not relevant.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The the church [never] interpreted “Thou shall not kill” to mean that all killing was forbidden.

Great, so as New Testament Christians let’s also drop the Old Testament abomination, always a personal mortal sin, red neck, President Putin prejudice thing. The moral theology involved is not complicated but neither is it as simplistic as a number of contributors are seeming to assume. .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I suspect it’s the very rare few who don’t know the Church’s teaching. And it’s not like some sins aren’t just apparent. You don’t need to have ever been religious to know that murder is wrong.

When is murder actually not murder but killing and therefore not always morally imputable is the more common reality/difficulty I was alluding to. And can barring from Communion sometimes not be about personal sin at all but merely the grave appearance thereof?