Allow gay Catholics in ssm to receive communion?

[Mammoths]

I believe this was not the case as Judas seems to have gone out by then.
Though if he was there I would agree that Jesus would likely have shared with him also.

I believe Luke 22:

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you can’t explain when you realize you have mis-spoken and can’t bring yourself to admit it.

You are correct.

Don’t know what you are on about.
As stated numerous times my contribution is about hoe God sees a person’s soul not whether the rules allow them to receive Communion or not.
If posting or reading on CAF makes us somewhat bitter and retaliative perhaps it’s better to do something else that is more grace filled.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But seriously, I believe what I said,

In particular, anyone going against Catholic teaching should not receive communion (in a Catholic church I mean) whether or not they’re in a state of mortal sin.

Peter have you read the Confessor’s Vademecum?
After reading would you think priests are being advised to allow some types of ongoing contraceptors to be absolved without confessing the sin and so receive Communion?
While of course working with them in a gentle ongoing matter to one day bring them to the realization of the gravity of this matter that they are as yet unaware of.

As I say, those who believe they are not “in a state of mortal sin” have every right to present themselves for Communion as per Canon 916.

But as per Canon 915 every priest has the right to decline those who obstinantly persist in manifest (which means public) “grave sin”. Therefore priests can make exceptions where the grave matter is not public or the penitent is not obstinant but sincerely mistaken.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe Luke 22:

14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.

15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!

23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Checkout
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=300948

It is by no means a cut and dried question.
I believe current Catholic Biblical Scholarship favours he didn’t.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter have you read the Confessor’s Vademecum?
After reading would you think priests are being advised to allow some types of ongoing contraceptors to be absolved without confessing the sin and so receive Communion?
While of course working with them in a gentle ongoing matter to one day bring them to the realization of the gravity of this matter that they are as yet unaware of.

As I say, those who believe they are not “in a state of mortal sin” have every right to present themselves for Communion as per Canon 916.

But as per Canon 915 every priest has the right to decline those who obstinantly persist in manifest (which means public) “grave sin”. Therefore priests can make exceptions where the grave matter is not public or the penitent is not obstinant but sincerely mistaken.

I have not read the Confessor’s Vademecum, but I can understand how there could be cases where a priest allows a person who contradicts Church teaching but isn’t in a state of mortal sin to receive communion.

 

[Stephen168]

Jesus gave communion to Judas at the last Supper.

I believe this was not the case as Judas seems to have gone out by then.

It is by no means a cut and dried question.

 

[neophyte]

A lot of time’s been spent in they thread discussing the subjective state of the one presenting himself to receive, but that’s totally irrelevant to the OP, which is about someone obstinately persevering in a manifest grave sin.

To enter into a same-sex so called “marriage” is a public act (therefore it is by definition manifest), and it’s quite simply not possible for anyone with even a shallow knowledge of Catholic teaching to not know the Church’s position on homosexual acts (therefore it is by definition obstinate). Canon 915 thus applies, and those in such relationships are therefore not to be admitted to holy communion regardless of whether or not they are conscious of grave sin.

End of story.

 

[Ender]

I am disappointed about the way the discussion has gone. Had I known I would not have started it. All this posturing about who has the most extensive moral theological background to discern on the application of terms like kill, sin, grave sin, mortal sin, sanctifying grace, culpability, full knowledge and consent, etc has no bearing on the question at hand and doesn’t change the answer. The posturing is destructive and the sincere discussion of these topics would be beneficial in several threads of their own.

Actually you should consider your point won when the insults begin, which Blue_Horizon has the unhappy tendency of resorting to. But you’re right, it is unpleasant and it drives a lot of people away from discussing a topic because they simply don’t want to be subjected to that kind of abuse. Consider it as penance.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Jesus gave communion to Judas at the last Supper.

Canon 915 would not have applied to Judas inasmuch as his sin, which he had not yet even committed, was not manifest to the others. The sin must be publicly known for communion to be publicly withheld.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actually you should consider your point won when the insults begin, which Blue_Horizon has the unhappy tendency of resorting to. But you’re right, it is unpleasant and it drives a lot of people away from discussing a topic because they simply don’t want to be subjected to that kind of abuse. Consider it as penance.

Ender

It never ceases to amaze me that those who are not formally trained in moral theology throw their lead around with all the confidence of a youngster using dad’s expensive and finely honed chisel as a screwdriver.

Further, when this objective observation is even hinted at one is considered trolling, abusive or insulting.
Such people are quite welcome to tentatively opine, but maybe dial back on the single view pontificating.

 

[Peter_J]

It never ceases to amaze me that those who are not formally trained in moral theology throw their lead around with all the confidence of a youngster using dad’s expensive and finely honed chisel as a screwdriver.

Further, when this objective observation is even hinted at one is considered trolling, abusive or insulting.
Such people are quite welcome to tentatively opine, but maybe dial back on the single view pontificating.

After a dozen years on discussion forums, not much surprises me anymore.

 

[Fiasco]

I can’t tell to whom you are addressing these remarks.

I think you can’t explain when you realize you have mis-spoken and can’t bring yourself to admit it

Pretty sure that was aimed at BH.

You are correct.

Pretty sure (and hope!!!) that was directed at Fiasco.

Earlier on, this was said to Fiasco:

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.

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

Perhaps someone else can explain .

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

Maybe i am, but proof first.

Any takers?

Stephen’s response came sometime after that.

Probably still as clear as mud, but i can’t do any better.
Wanted to give you some background.

PS
Made the mistake of missing Post #139!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A lot of time’s been spent in they thread discussing the subjective state of the one presenting himself to receive, but that’s totally irrelevant to the OP, which is about someone obstinately persevering in a manifest grave sin.

To enter into a same-sex so called “marriage” is a public act (therefore it is by definition manifest), and it’s quite simply not possible for anyone with even a shallow knowledge of Catholic teaching to not know the Church’s position on homosexual acts (therefore it is by definition obstinate). Canon 915 thus applies, and those in such relationships are therefore not to be admitted to holy communion regardless of whether or not they are conscious of grave sin.

End of story.

While invalid marriages are clearly public and objectively contradict Church teaching (which evil has nothing to do with sexual activity)…it would be difficult to make the same solid case for alleged sexual acts that may or may not be taking place within that legal structure simply on the basis of the public character of that legal structure. The connection between the two is presumptive only therefore what is true of the former is not logically true of the latter. It is additionally complicated that you imply a SSM rather than SS UNION. The former is not even recognised at a civil level as a marriage anyways by Church teaching.

Think of Mary and Joseph and couples who marry or cohabit for companionship rather than having children or sex.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have not read the Confessor’s Vademecum, but I can understand how there could be cases where a priest allows a person who contradicts Church teaching but isn’t in a state of mortal sin to receive communion.

 

[Peter_J]

While invalid marriages are clearly public and objectively contradict Church teaching (which evil has nothing to do with sexual activity)…it would be difficult to make the same solid case for alleged sexual acts that may or may not be taking place within that legal structure simply on the basis of the public character of that legal structure. The connection between the two is presumptive only therefore what is true of the former is not logically true of the latter. It is additionally complicated that you imply a SSM rather than SS UNION. The former is not even recognised at a civil level as a marriage anyways by Church teaching.

Think of Mary and Joseph and couples who marry or cohabit for companionship rather than having children or sex.

Well, I haven’t brushed up on canon law, but I think that having a wedding is (or can be reasonable taken as) a declaration of a sexual union – with some rare exceptions.

 

[Stephen168]

A lot of time’s been spent in they thread discussing the subjective state of the one presenting himself to receive, but that’s totally irrelevant to the OP, which is about someone obstinately persevering in a manifest grave sin.

To enter into a same-sex so called “marriage” is a public act (therefore it is by definition manifest), and it’s quite simply not possible for anyone with even a shallow knowledge of Catholic teaching to not know the Church’s position on homosexual acts (therefore it is by definition obstinate). Canon 915 thus applies, and those in such relationships are therefore not to be admitted to holy communion regardless of whether or not they are conscious of grave sin.

End of story.

Exactly. I’ve observed priests who treat homosexuals with charity when they come out as homosexuals and even while cohabiting with another. But when they get a marriage license the scandal becomes to great to ignore.

 

[Stephen168]

Pretty sure that was aimed at BH.

Pretty sure (and hope!!!) that was directed at Fiasco.

 

[neophyte]

While invalid marriages are clearly public and objectively contradict Church teaching (which evil has nothing to do with sexual activity)…it would be difficult to make the same solid case for alleged sexual acts that may or may not be taking place within that legal structure simply on the basis of the public character of that legal structure. The connection between the two is presumptive only therefore what is true of the former is not logically true of the latter. It is additionally complicated that you imply a SSM rather than SS UNION. The former is not even recognised at a civil level as a marriage anyways by Church teaching.

Think of Mary and Joseph and couples who marry or cohabit for companionship rather than having children or sex.

There’s so much wrong in this that it’s difficult to know where to start.

First, yes, my use of the word “public” was ambiguous, but one as keen on the meaning of words as you repeatedly claim to be must surely know that the word “manifest” means “clear or obvious to the eye or mind". The vast majority of invalid marriages are not so publicly invalid that they risk giving scandal, largely because most people haven’t themselves dug into the pertinent records of the State and of the Church (and the need to do so to attain the knowledge itself indicates that the invalidity is not “manifest”), and even more so because there’s no outward sign that a man and woman are not validly married due to the fact that a man and woman can, in fact, marry. On the other hand, homosexual couples by definition cannot be married and it’s immediately obvious that the relationship they refer to as marriage is not and cannot be marriage at all; in fact, to refer to it as any kind of marriage is such a grave category error that not only can it not be said to be right, it can’t even be said to be wrong.

Marriage exists for the good of the spouses and the procreation of children. Same-sex relationships cannot exist for the good of those in them, because they are intrinsically disordered - such relationships are harmful to the participants, regardless of their subjective experience. Furthermore, married couples are by definition presumed to be engaging in sexual activity, and in fact the children of a married couple are presumed to be the children of the two spouses until proven otherwise. Marriage is sexual by its nature, and the purpose of calling a homosexual relationship “marriage” is to declare publicly that this sexual relationship is equal to true marriage, and not merely a merging of assets or exchange of durable powers of attorney (which was always able to be done). Your attempt to explain this away is utterly bizarre.

Your complaint that I “imply a SSM rather than a SS UNION” is equally bizarre, given that 1) the OP specifically asks about SSM and 2) “same-sex union” is merely a shallow prevarication.

Triply bizarre is your referral to married couples who practice perfect continence; it’s as if you think that the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph committed a gravely sinful act by doing so. This is so totally outside of the pale of orthodoxy that it beggars the mind, and I see no use in continuing this with you.

 

[Peter_J]

…
and I see no use in continuing this with you.

We shall see I guess.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There’s so much wrong in this that it’s difficult to know where to start.

First, yes, my use of the word “public” was ambiguous, but one as keen on the meaning of words as you repeatedly claim to be must surely know that the word “manifest” means “clear or obvious to the eye or mind". .

…you think that the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph committed a gravely sinful act by doing so.

From this I conclude we do not seem to speak the same language. Somehow you have an inability to understand what it is I am saying so it seems unfruitful to attempt further conversation with you sorry.

May I also observe that if you believe the above is a scholarly or intelligent way to approach and understand Magisterial statements (ie using colloquial or secular sources to define words used in official Church) you will unlikely ever attain an objective understanding of what is being stated.

As I say the primary meaning conveyed by the word “manifest” in Canon 915 is indeed “public”. One has only to study the history of Canon Law, the way this Canon was discussed and formulated in preliminary versions of the final 1982 version, the equivalent Canon restated from the 1917 Code and the versions before then and the commentaries of these times…and all this becomes somewhat obvious.

e.g. “*Likewise excluded are those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” … before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave.” * The Canon Law Letter & Spirit: A Practical Guide to the Code of Canon Law, Dublin 1995,503.

I believe it is commonly known discipline that a priest is generally expected to give Communion to a communicant he privately knows to be a grave sinner if his sins are not known publicly.

The decision of the minister of Holy Communion is not a sanction or a penalty but rather the recognition of objective and public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion.