Allow gay Catholics in ssm to receive communion?

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

It appears fairly plain that one does not have to assume sexual acts to decline public Communion to those who are publicly known to be in a 2nd (Civil marriage) without an annulment for the first. The very act of marrying again and continuing in that objective state contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.

 

[Peter_J]

It appears fairly plain that one does not have to assume sexual acts to decline public Communion to those who are publicly known to be in a 2nd (Civil marriage) without an annulment for the first. The very act of marrying again and continuing in that objective state contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.

Oh, alright then. I thought you were arguing contrary to that.

 

[Stephen168]

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 appears fairly plain that one does not have to assume sexual acts to decline public Communion to those who are publicly known to be in a 2nd (Civil marriage) without an annulment for the first. The very act of marrying again and continuing in that objective state contradicts Jesus’s teaching on the indissolubility of Catholic marriage.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

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.

And of course…it only takes one mortal sin. Adding more unrepentant mortal sins onto one doesn’t do much to change the course of one’s final destination.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And of course…it only takes one mortal sin. Adding more unrepentant mortal sins onto one doesn’t do much to change the course of one’s final destination.

Both the CCC and Canon Law speak of being conscious of “grave sin” not somehow getting splashed and stained by a puddle of mortal sin.

In adult discussions like this we need to move beyond the simplistic images and concepts of primary school RE.

 

[Ender]

Both the CCC and Canon Law speak of being conscious of “grave sin” not somehow getting splashed and stained by a puddle of mortal sin.

ThundersnowIV: If I understand her, the concern here is the consciousness of sin, and that if we don’t believe we are committing a sin how can we be said to be conscious of having sinned? This is a primacy of conscience thing: how can I sin if I do what I think is right, even if it entails something contrary to what the church teaches?

In adult discussions like this we need to move beyond the simplistic images and concepts of primary school RE.

Welcome to the club. Everyone presumptuous enough to suggest she might be mistaken is treated with the same disdain.

Ender

 

[Fiasco]

And of course…it only takes one mortal sin. Adding more unrepentant mortal sins onto one** doesn’t do much to change the course of one’s final destination.**

That’s true, but it means that the lodging will be even more squalid.

 

[PatrickKen]

SSM or ‘marriage’ is that in and of itself sufficently sinful enough to debar reception of communion. Isn’t the sin the sex? Maybe they are in a SSM to protect pensions…who knows.

 

[Faithdancer]

It seems repentance would be essential. Which would mean acknowledging their lifestyle is a sin against God, and endeavoring with God’s help to leave sin behind and live a holy life.

Sin? Surely it’s just another form of loving expression…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

SSM or ‘marriage’ is that in and of itself sufficently sinful enough to debar reception of communion. Isn’t the sin the sex? Maybe they are in a SSM to protect pensions…who knows.

You mean this is your personal opinion?
If you mean that’s alleged Catholic teaching please provide a Magisterial quote.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

SSM or ‘marriage’ is that in and of itself sufficently sinful enough to debar reception of communion. Isn’t the sin the sex? Maybe they are in a SSM to protect pensions…who knows.

One would think the main issue is the sex not the legal union itself.

 

[Faithdancer]

Maybe they are in a SSM to protect pensions…who knows.

Right. There are so many such arrangements…

 

[Peter_J]

SSM or ‘marriage’ is that in and of itself sufficently sinful enough to debar reception of communion. Isn’t the sin the sex? Maybe they are in a SSM to protect pensions…who knows.

Welcome PK.

I would say that, in our present cultural climate, legal “marriage” is generally understood to indicate a sexual arrangement … so perhaps the question should be: given our present cultural climate, if two people enter into a legal “marriage” that they don’t intend as a sexual arrangement, is it incumbent on them to indicate that somehow? Since it’s not the default.

 

[Ender]

SSM or ‘marriage’ is that in and of itself sufficently sinful enough to debar reception of communion. Isn’t the sin the sex? Maybe they are in a SSM to protect pensions…who knows.

It is the public nature of the union that triggers canon 915, not what is or is not done in private. The “marriage” is a grave sin, and as it is public it is clearly manifest.Can 915: Those … obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Ender

 

[Herculees]

Homosexuals and Transgender individuals ARE permitted to receive holy communion IF they are CURRENTLY living a chaste life.

 

[Rau]

It is the public nature of the union that triggers canon 915, not what is or is not done in private. The “marriage” is a grave sin, and as it is public it is clearly manifest.Can 915: Those … obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Ender

I agree with you, but some will argue that “civil marriage” has no meaning beyond its legal features. They have imparted to the legal features of “civil marriage” a kind of standalone reality, forgetting what those features serve.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I agree with you, but some will argue that “civil marriage” has no meaning beyond its legal features. They have imparted to the legal features of “civil marriage” a kind of standalone reality, forgetting what those features serve.

Full of holes.
If its only a form of Civil Union that provides no intrinsic sexual rights whatsoever then whatever predictable conclusions we may validly come to re added sexual meaning in the minds of those involved in any given Union it is still an “accidental” association not an intrinsic “substantial” one. A classic case of identifying a person by their clothes not their body.

The judgement of the presence of public grave matter (ie homosexual acts) from the fact of the Union alone would then seem a prudential judgement.

That judgement could be a global one (ie country by country dependent on the particulars of the Union type and the meaning it generally has in that culture re likely presence of sexual acts) or on a case by case basis.

Thus like the issue of public Communion access to hetero irregulars it boils down to a prudential/disciplinary judgement not an intrinsic apriori principle re the attempted marriage itself.

 

[Rau]

Full of holes.
If its only a form of Civil Union that provides no intrinsic sexual rights whatsoever then whatever predictable conclusions we may validly come to re added sexual meaning in the minds of those involved in any given Union it is still an “accidental” association not an intrinsic “substantial” one. A classic case of identifying a person by their clothes not their body.

Fanciful, or tangential, you can choose.

The union spoken of in the prior posts, and mine, was “civil marriage”, not some unspecified (perhaps not yet existing) “form of civil union”.

 

[Peter_J]

That judgement could be a global one (ie country by country dependent on the particulars of the Union type and the meaning it generally has in that culture re likely presence of sexual acts) or on a case by case basis.

Well in principle it is a case by case matter, but a positive judgment would be very rare. Particularly if we are talking about gay couples who have a public wedding ceremony.

Or so it seems to me at least.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well in principle it is a case by case matter, but a positive judgment would be very rare. Particularly if we are talking about gay couples who have a public wedding ceremony.

Or so it seems to me at least.

A perfectly reasonable position .

At least this view invites a prudential discussion where intelligent and sincere people may both at times legitimately disagree.

Unlike other views here that brook no possibility of being mistaken and demonise 100% of those who may seek a Union.