Can a cohabitating spouse go for confirmation before church wedding?

[losh14]

Here’s a really big point I don’t understand:

Both the OP and his wife are baptized Catholic. The moment they were baptized they became subject to Canon Law.

What if one or both left, and not of his or her own will? I think of the example of my cousin and his wife who divorced last month. They agreed to baptize the kids in his church (Catholic) but their Mom has been taking them to her church (Lutheran) for the past four or five years. I don’t see them having more of a Catholic upbringing now that they see their dad two days a week. Will they be held to Canon Law not having known it growing up? If they later marry non-Catholic spouses outside the Church and wish to become Catholic, will their marriages be considered invalid because they were baptized Catholic but didn’t marry in the Church, or will they be seen as outside the Church and therefore not under Canon Law because they effectively had no upbringing in the Catholic faith? I’m looking at this as a pastoral issue as well as a matter of Canon Law.

 

[maryjk]

Here’s a really big point I don’t understand:

What if one or both left, and not of his or her own will? I think of the example of my cousin and his wife who divorced last month. They agreed to baptize the kids in his church (Catholic) but their Mom has been taking them to her church (Lutheran) for the past four or five years. I don’t see them having more of a Catholic upbringing now that they see their dad two days a week. Will they be held to Canon Law not having known it growing up? If they later marry non-Catholic spouses outside the Church and wish to become Catholic, **will their marriages be considered invalid because they were baptized Catholic but didn’t marry in the Church, **or will they be seen as outside the Church and therefore not under Canon Law because they effectively had no upbringing in the Catholic faith? I’m looking at this as a pastoral issue as well as a matter of Canon Law.

Yes, they would be. I was.

The pastoral issue is how you approach it.

When I found out that I should have been married “in Church,” my priest didn’t yell at me, call me a sinner or even tell me that I was in an invalid marriage. He just said, “Let’s get you straight with the Church.” And proceeded to do so. I was in the Confessional when he found out. I wasn’t confessing it, since I had no idea that I was suppose to be married in Church.

He didn’t tell either one of us to move out of our family home. He didn’t tell us that we should get a divorce.

And that is how most pastors approach it. Which is why the OP needs to meet with his pastor.

And that is also why the OP doesn’t need to ask questions like this on a forum. Here you will receive chapter and verse about what you did wrong. Rather than the pastoral approach that a pastor would take.

 

[losh14]

Thanks for your answer:

And that is how most pastors approach it. Which is why the OP needs to meet with his pastor.

And that is also why the OP doesn’t need to ask questions like this on a forum. Here you will receive chapter and verse about what you did wrong. Rather than the pastoral approach that a pastor would take.

Now I’d like to move past the immediate pastoral issue (which is that the OP should meet with his pastor) and on to a theological one. How can we say that someone is in sin without knowledge of it? My cousin’s kids aren’t going to know that they should marry a Catholic in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony if they grow up in a Lutheran church. I have a very difficult time digesting the notion that we can unintentionally fall into sin (CCC 1859 states that mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent). So I suppose that, in your situation (maryjk) the sin wouldn’t be having married your spouse but rather attempting to receive Communion while you weren’t yet right with the Church.

At this point I think I’ll check in again and then walk away for a while. I’ve long struggled with my faith and with placing trust in the Catholic Church and I find that if get angry enough I just think about leaving altogether,which does no one any good.

 

[maryjk]

Thanks for your answer:

Now I’d like to move past the immediate pastoral issue (which is that the OP should meet with his pastor) and on to a theological one. How can we say that someone is in sin without knowledge of it? My cousin’s kids aren’t going to know that they should marry a Catholic in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony if they grow up in a Lutheran church. I have a very difficult time digesting the notion that we can unintentionally fall into sin (CCC 1859 states that mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent). So I suppose that, in your situation (maryjk) the sin wouldn’t be having married your spouse but rather attempting to receive Communion while you weren’t yet right with the Church.

At this point I think I’ll check in again and then walk away for a while. I’ve long struggled with my faith and with placing trust in the Catholic Church and I find that if get angry enough I just think about leaving altogether,which does no one any good.

I have to continue with the pastoral issue, only because I can only speak to how this was handled in my case.

My priest told me that it wasn’t a mortal sin to marry in the courthouse. But it was a mortal sin to not fix it. Once I found out that I was suppose to marry in the Church, I needed to move towards that solution.

So, your cousin’s kids that marry outside the Church aren’t committing mortal sin. (At least in the opinion of the priest that spoke to me.) Unless and until someone tells them that they are Catholic and need to be married in a Catholic church.

 

[Phemie]

I have to continue with the pastoral issue, only because I can only speak to how this was handled in my case.

My priest told me that it wasn’t a mortal sin to marry in the courthouse. But it was a mortal sin to not fix it. Once I found out that I was suppose to marry in the Church, I needed to move towards that solution.

So, your cousin’s kids that marry outside the Church aren’t committing mortal sin. (At least in the opinion of the priest that spoke to me.) Unless and until someone tells them that they are Catholic and need to be married in a Catholic church.

You’re right. To commit a mortal sin requires 3 things.

1. That it be grave matter. Now, marrying outside the Church is grave matter.
2. That you know it is grave matter. They’ll have no idea.
3. That you do it anyway, even if you know it’s gravely wrong. They can’t deliberately consent to sinning if they don’t know something is a sin.

 

[Lapey]

Here’s a really big point I don’t understand:

What if one or both left, and not of his or her own will? I think of the example of my cousin and his wife who divorced last month. They agreed to baptize the kids in his church (Catholic) but their Mom has been taking them to her church (Lutheran) for the past four or five years. I don’t see them having more of a Catholic upbringing now that they see their dad two days a week. Will they be held to Canon Law not having known it growing up? If they later marry non-Catholic spouses outside the Church and wish to become Catholic, will their marriages be considered invalid because they were baptized Catholic but didn’t marry in the Church, or will they be seen as outside the Church and therefore not under Canon Law because they effectively had no upbringing in the Catholic faith? I’m looking at this as a pastoral issue as well as a matter of Canon Law.

I think you’re beginning to see the big picture, so let’s continue down this road.

First off, once a person is baptized a Catholic Christian they are forever a Catholic Christian. The indelible mark cannot be removed. Now one may be considered a fallen away or lapsed Catholic or even an excommunicated Catholic but still Catholic. With that said, still under the jurisdiction of Canon Law.

On the point you make about marrying outside of the Church not knowing, the marriage would be invalid because of lack of form.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks for your answer:

Now I’d like to move past the immediate pastoral issue (which is that the OP should meet with his pastor) and on to a theological one. How can we say that someone is in sin without knowledge of it? My cousin’s kids aren’t going to know that they should marry a Catholic in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony if they grow up in a Lutheran church. I have a very difficult time digesting the notion that we can unintentionally fall into sin (CCC 1859 states that mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent). So I suppose that, in your situation (maryjk) the sin wouldn’t be having married your spouse but rather attempting to receive Communion while you weren’t yet right with the Church.

At this point I think I’ll check in again and then walk away for a while. I’ve long struggled with my faith and with placing trust in the Catholic Church and I find that if get angry enough I just think about leaving altogether,which does no one any good.

Phemie explained it quite well, I would just add this point. Whether a person knows they are choosing grave sin or not can affect their ability to freely choose it or reject it but it cannot affect that grave matter involved. Here is my point, being guilty of a sinful action is only a third of the equation, the matter is grave, but in ignorance chosen and therefore outside of a truly free choice; so is there culpability? No, is there sinful matter, yes.

Not knowing an action is sinful does not make the action okay, but it could change responsibility for that action. Makes sense?

 

[ProVobis]

Phemie explained it quite well, I would just add this point. Whether a person knows they are choosing grave sin or not can affect their ability to freely choose it or reject it but it cannot affect that grave matter involved. Here is my point, being guilty of a sinful action is only a third of the equation, the matter is grave, but in ignorance chosen and therefore outside of a truly free choice; so is there culpability? No, is there sinful matter, yes.

Not knowing an action is sinful does not make the action okay, but it could change responsibility for that action. Makes sense?

It seems that there are different schools of thought on this. One can also choose to be in a permanent state of ignorance by NOT seeking advice where something might be suspect. I’m one who thinks the attitude of “Don’t tell me. I don’t want to know” is not okay. There are others who simply get the wrong advice, such as those who were instructed to use only their consciences in matters of birth control or on other matters. How does one deal with them? I certainly don’t think we should continue to condone the “ignorance is bliss” mindset when it comes to receiving communion.

 

[Lapey]

It seems that there are different schools of thought on this. One can also choose to be in a permanent state of ignorance by NOT seeking advice where something might be suspect. I’m one who thinks the attitude of “Don’t tell me. I don’t want to know” is not okay. There are others who simply get the wrong advice, such as those who were instructed to use only their consciences in matters of birth control or on other matters. How does one deal with them? I certainly don’t think we should continue to condone the “ignorance is bliss” mindset when it comes to receiving communion.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

This is the section from the CCC about Erroneous Judgment. I think the point you bring up falls under this section. We can choose to remain in ignorance but we will eventually be held accountable because there is a reasonable expectation for a person to learn truth and live by truth; if not we will still be held accountable.

 

[losh14]

Thanks for the follow ups, let’s continue down this road.

First off, once a person is baptized a Catholic Christian they are forever a Catholic Christian…still under the jurisdiction of Canon Law.

On the point you make about marrying outside of the Church not knowing, the marriage would be invalid because of lack of form.

Phemie explained it quite well, I would just add this point. Whether a person knows they are choosing grave sin or not can affect their ability to freely choose it or reject it but it cannot affect that grave matter involved.

And, being in an invalid marriage, sexual relations are always illicit. So there is grave matter, but not knowledge of the offense and so no freedom to choose/not choose, so there is no culpability. How do you pastor to someone who tells you, in the course of a normal social situation, “my wife and I are Baptists, but you know we were both raised Catholic until our parents left the church when we were kids.”? Do you have the responsibility as a Deacon to point out the invalidity of their marriage and their still being under Canon Law?

I find this example particularly interesting because my college roommate, raised by his evangelical parents, found out later he’d been baptized Catholic. His birth father had abandoned the family and ran off with his secretary to Florida (so his father was actually his stepfather, and his younger brother, who is shorter, thinner and has darker hair than he or his older brother, is his half-brother). His mother told him when he was about 33, and he was already ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), married in the PCA, and had homilized, performed baptisms and weddings as a PCA minister. So all of these are points of grave matter to a baptized Catholic, but he had no culpability because he had no knowledge of ever having been Catholic until he learns he had been baptized. Is that correct? So under Canon Law, as soon as he finds out that he was baptized Catholic - and, having studied Catholic theology while at the PCA seminary, I’d assume he knows that he is considered under Canon Law - he’s immediately in mortal sin for his marriage, his ministry and his professed beliefs. I didn’t think to ask him his reaction at this but I think it was less of a matter to him than that his father was not his birth-father.

It seems that there are different schools of thought on this. One can also choose to be in a permanent state of ignorance by NOT seeking advice where something might be suspect. I’m one who thinks the attitude of “Don’t tell me. I don’t want to know” is not okay. There are others who simply get the wrong advice, such as those who were instructed to use only their consciences in matters of birth control or on other matters. How does one deal with them? I certainly don’t think we should continue to condone the “ignorance is bliss” mindset when it comes to receiving communion.

There’s poor catechesis (and mine probably wasn’t the best - it’s only in the past few years that I found out about Mary’s centrality to salvation theology and her title as Spouse of the Holy Spirit), there’s the desire not to know, but I think there’s a wide group in the middle of people who aren’t going to take the effort to find out because they don’t see any reason to. If you’re born Catholic but raised something else - maybe your parents divorced and wanted to remarry, became angry at the Church for not allowing it, and joined another Church where they could marry freely - are you really going to take the time to seek out what the Church your parents left taught about you and your responsibilities, what marriage you can enter into, etc? I think that it’s really difficult to meet someone anywhere other than where they currently are, especially if your intent is to move them somewhere else. It’s got to be an extraordinarily difficult situation to encounter someone who wants to return to the Catholicism they left as a child, and have to tell them that they are in a tremendously precarious state because of the decisions of another. Will that make them walk away, shaking their heads at what looks like excessive legalism? Will it come across as heartless? I’m very glad I never left the Church (there have been times I was very sorely tempted), and that my wife is faithfully Catholic as well, so these questions have never come up for us.

 

[maryjk]

I find this example particularly interesting because my college roommate, raised by his evangelical parents, found out later he’d been baptized Catholic. His birth father had abandoned the family and ran off with his secretary to Florida (so his father was actually his stepfather, and his younger brother, who is shorter, thinner and has darker hair than he or his older brother, is his half-brother). His mother told him when he was about 33, and he was already ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), married in the PCA, and had homilized, performed baptisms and weddings as a PCA minister. So all of these are points of grave matter to a baptized Catholic, but he had no culpability because he had no knowledge of ever having been Catholic until he learns he had been baptized. Is that correct? So under Canon Law, as soon as he finds out that he was baptized Catholic - and, having studied Catholic theology while at the PCA seminary, I’d assume he knows that he is considered under Canon Law - **he’s immediately in mortal sin for his marriage, his ministry and his professed beliefs. **I didn’t think to ask him his reaction at this but I think it was less of a matter to him than that his father was not his birth-father.

I am betting he doesn’t care. If he doesn’t believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, why would he care about her teachings?

I know my husband didn’t care. He was baptized Catholic, but rarely stepped foot into a church until I reverted. He doesn’t consider himself Catholic, so the fact that he could be in mortal sin doesn’t cross his mind.

When I told him that we hadn’t been married in church, his response was, “And?”

He was more than willing to go through with it because I wanted it. But it really had nothing to do with what the Church required.

 

[ProVobis]

There’s poor catechesis (and mine probably wasn’t the best - it’s only in the past few years that I found out about Mary’s centrality to salvation theology and her title as Spouse of the Holy Spirit), there’s the desire not to know, but I think there’s a wide group in the middle of people who aren’t going to take the effort to find out because they don’t see any reason to. If you’re born Catholic but raised something else - maybe your parents divorced and wanted to remarry, became angry at the Church for not allowing it, and joined another Church where they could marry freely - are you really going to take the time to seek out what the Church your parents left taught about you and your responsibilities, what marriage you can enter into, etc? I think that it’s really difficult to meet someone anywhere other than where they currently are, especially if your intent is to move them somewhere else. It’s got to be an extraordinarily difficult situation to encounter someone who wants to return to the Catholicism they left as a child, and have to tell them that they are in a tremendously precarious state because of the decisions of another. Will that make them walk away, shaking their heads at what looks like excessive legalism? Will it come across as heartless? I’m very glad I never left the Church (there have been times I was very sorely tempted), and that my wife is faithfully Catholic as well, so these questions have never come up for us.

I don’t disagree with you. You bring up good points. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to receiving communion, the ones with the legal case and/or can mitigate any grave sin they may have, have an obvious advantage. The more scrupulous and/or conscientious ones not so much.

 

[losh14]

I don’t disagree with you. You bring up good points. Unfortunately, though, when it comes to receiving communion, the ones with the legal case and/or can mitigate any grave sin they may have, have an obvious advantage. The more scrupulous and/or conscientious ones not so much.

If we think we have no sin, we fool ourselves. I don’t know that this is the issue here. Certainly there are those who live in such a way as to openly flaunt Church teaching. To them belongs the condemnation they reap. I think of others who are more innocently ignorant. Yes, Canon Law is out there, yes there are plenty of resources. What makes a person who is otherwise content with where they are and how they live go and look it up? One day I looked up what Muslims think of Jesus. I haven’t liked Islam since.

It’s funny how much my perspective on receiving Communion has changed. I found out four years ago I have celiac disease. After I went on a gluten-free diet and took the Eucharist under specie of the Bread, I was quite ill. So now I only take the Blood, and even then not very often (sometimes it’s not even offered at Mass, and never during the daily Masses if I go with my oldest in the mornings). I know there’s low-gluten hosts, I know some celiacs who bring their own and go up with the the Eucharistic ministers, hold it up for consecration and take theirs first then minister to others, I know there’s all these things I can do, but I don’t know our priest well enough and we really don’t have a set parish schedule, so I’ve never bothered to try to arrange that. Instead, I receive spiritually by staying in my seat and saying an Act of Spiritual Communion, or (if I can’t stay seated) going up, reverencing the Host from two spots back in line, and zippering in later on. My mother, who is more fervent in her faith than I am, took the diagnosis as devastating; she hasn’t stood up for Communion in four years (she works in health care and refuses to drink from a common cup, always has).

What else needs to be said here? I’ve very much hijacked this thread and for that I deeply apologize. Maybe we can all agree on one more thing, to pray for our returning sibling, the OP, and offer up something for all of us who have much to learn.

 

[maryjk]

What else needs to be said here? I’ve very much hijacked this thread and for that I deeply apologize. Maybe we can all agree on one more thing, to pray for our returning sibling, the OP, and offer up something for all of us who have much to learn.

Actually, I think we might be able to bring it full circle.

Canon Law says that you must receive Confirmation before you can receive the Sacrament of Matrimony.

But there are exceptions.

Like my husband, who didn’t want Confirmation.

Due to pastoral reasons we had our marriage Convalidated and my husband never received Confirmation.

(losh, I am a fellow Celiac.)

 

[ProVobis]

I receive spiritually by staying in my seat and saying an Act of Spiritual Communion,

Good for you. Encouraged by Trent but unfortunately, the vast majority of Catholics (I would say) have never heard of it.

 

[Elizium23]

I know there’s low-gluten hosts, I know some celiacs who bring their own and go up with the the Eucharistic ministers, hold it up for consecration and take theirs first then minister to others,

Woooooooah! Wait a minute! I don’t know if you described it precisely as it happens, but as described, it’s incredibly wrong!

The proper procedure is for the celiac to present his host before Mass in a small pyx. The sacristan is usually in charge of making sure it is put on the credence table, or brought up in the offertory. By the time the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion approach the altar (which must be after the “Ecce Agnus Dei”) it is far too late to present a host for consecration! No lay person is capable of “holding it up for consecration” the priest does that during the Eucharistic Prayer, which is way before Communion is distributed. It is of course advisable that celiacs receive first so that the fingers of the minister are not contaminated with gluten when he goes to touch the special host.

I hope you merely described this situation inaccurately. I shudder to think that this kind of thing actually goes on in a parish.

 

[kilotsi]

Many thanks to all for the pieces of advice. Going through all of them was not easy but the most important that I have retained is that we have to meet and talk with our priest.
Sorry to say am not versed with using the site, I would have loved to quote many of the interventions that realy touched me. I have learned much through this about the faith.Thanks much

 

[kilotsi]

You need to meet with your priest. He can answer all of your questions.

Thanks for the advice, would do that.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks for the follow ups, let’s continue down this road.

And, being in an invalid marriage, sexual relations are always illicit. So there is grave matter, but not knowledge of the offense and so no freedom to choose/not choose, so there is no culpability. How do you pastor to someone who tells you, in the course of a normal social situation, “my wife and I are Baptists, but you know we were both raised Catholic until our parents left the church when we were kids.”? Do you have the responsibility as a Deacon to point out the invalidity of their marriage and their still being under Canon Law?

One point I would make to you is that it’s not an automatic that there is no culpability. As a person continues in the ignorance of the sin in which they live, more responsibility builds on the person. It is expected and reasonable to expect people to attain knowledge, we are expected to move closer to God daily; this means seeking truth.

As to your question, yes, I am required to bring truth to folks. The word pastoral is what this is. Pastoral care does not mean change truth, it means pastoral care of souls. Souls make it to heaven by knowing and living truth. Being ignorant and rejecting truth places souls in jeopardy. If I choose to ignore and not teach truth I can become responsible for the possible loss. Pastoral care is approaching folks where they are and lovingly teaching truth.

The scenario you mention here is more prevalent these days than most understand. Every time I do baptismal seminars it seems there is a couple or more that are cohabitating or in a civil marriage, but they are only seeking baptism for their child because grandma wants them to; they are not practicing or going to the local feel good ND worship center. We have seen an enormous jump in our RCIA program as I direct result of an effort which I have led in my parish to approach these couples at the baptismal seminars about these very issues. I do this in exactly the same way Jesus met the woman at the well. He met here where she was, in sin, then with love and compassion lifted her out of sin with truth.

I find this example particularly interesting because my college roommate, raised by his evangelical parents, found out later he’d been baptized Catholic. His birth father had abandoned the family and ran off with his secretary to Florida (so his father was actually his stepfather, and his younger brother, who is shorter, thinner and has darker hair than he or his older brother, is his half-brother). His mother told him when he was about 33, and he was already ordained in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA), married in the PCA, and had homilized, performed baptisms and weddings as a PCA minister. So all of these are points of grave matter to a baptized Catholic, but he had no culpability because he had no knowledge of ever having been Catholic until he learns he had been baptized. Is that correct? So under Canon Law, as soon as he finds out that he was baptized Catholic - and, having studied Catholic theology while at the PCA seminary, I’d assume he knows that he is considered under Canon Law - he’s immediately in mortal sin for his marriage, his ministry and his professed beliefs. I didn’t think to ask him his reaction at this but I think it was less of a matter to him than that his father was not his birth-father.

A person who considers him/herself not part of the Catholic Church, whether they actually are or not, wouldn’t give much thought about whether they are culpable or not or even why the CC matters. Sometimes we just place the care of their soul in the hands of God’s mercy; we just don’t know. Bottom line is, once Catholic always Catholic.

There’s poor catechesis (and mine probably wasn’t the best - it’s only in the past few years that I found out about Mary’s centrality to salvation theology and her title as Spouse of the Holy Spirit), there’s the desire not to know, but I think there’s a wide group in the middle of people who aren’t going to take the effort to find out because they don’t see any reason to. If you’re born Catholic but raised something else - maybe your parents divorced and wanted to remarry, became angry at the Church for not allowing it, and joined another Church where they could marry freely - are you really going to take the time to seek out what the Church your parents left taught about you and your responsibilities, what marriage you can enter into, etc? I think that it’s really difficult to meet someone anywhere other than where they currently are, especially if your intent is to move them somewhere else. It’s got to be an extraordinarily difficult situation to encounter someone who wants to return to the Catholicism they left as a child, and have to tell them that they are in a tremendously precarious state because of the decisions of another. Will that make them walk away, shaking their heads at what looks like excessive legalism? Will it come across as heartless? I’m very glad I never left the Church (there have been times I was very sorely tempted), and that my wife is faithfully Catholic as well, so these questions have never come up for us.

Truth is not heartless unless we make it that way. Pastoral care is not a bunch of legalism, it is honestly loving the souls in which we encounter. That love requires truth, not acceptance of falsehood.

Archbishop Sheen has a beautiful way to think of this;

“There is no subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance… Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons.”

We love the sinner and hate the sin.

 

[Lapey]

If we think we have no sin, we fool ourselves. I don’t know that this is the issue here. Certainly there are those who live in such a way as to openly flaunt Church teaching. To them belongs the condemnation they reap. I think of others who are more innocently ignorant. Yes, Canon Law is out there, yes there are plenty of resources. What makes a person who is otherwise content with where they are and how they live go and look it up? One day I looked up what Muslims think of Jesus. I haven’t liked Islam since.

I think what makes people who is “otherwise content” “look it up” as you put it, is someone like us lovingly pointing out there is more. There is so much more to life than practicing civil rights as man has designs. There is much more in the ways in which God has designed. This is our role, to lead as examples in our lives, by far this is the most critical point, then to love them enough to share truth. Believe me, that is true love!

I know there’s low-gluten hosts, I know some celiacs who bring their own and go up with the the Eucharistic ministers, hold it up for consecration and take theirs first then minister to others, I know there’s all these things I can do, but I don’t know our priest well enough and we really don’t have a set parish schedule, so I’ve never bothered to try to arrange that.

I don’t believe this is what is actually happening, because if it is, there are larger problems at the parishes which you have been to. First, “low-gluten and/or “gluten-free” hosts must be carefully chosen to be within the guidelines of what is proper matter. The host must contain wheat, gluten. If the hosts presented for consecration is 100% wheat free, it is not proper matter, therefore is not a valid Eucharist. Second point is that the only person who can “hold” the host during consecration is the priest celebrant, not even the concelebrating priests are allowed to hold the host during consecration. If what you describe is taking place please speak with your priest about it and if nothing is done, your bishop. This would be a grave abuse.

What else needs to be said here? I’ve very much hijacked this thread and for that I deeply apologize. Maybe we can all agree on one more thing, to pray for our returning sibling, the OP, and offer up something for all of us who have much to learn.

No need to apologize. I’d like to thank you. Thank you for accepting the responses you receive from me and others with grace and not anger and rejection. Many who are “corrected”, I hate to put it like that, react much more uncharitably than you have, so thanks.