Can We Put this Myth to Rest: EF vs EMHC?

[YoungTradCath]

The person must know that it is grave matter. Hearing has nothing to do with it. You could tell a person 100 times that contraception is grave matter. But if they were taught by trusted clergy and teachers that it is a matter of conscience, 200 times, what do they know?

We are missing the point here. You who frequent CAF and listen to CAL know and understand that contraception is an objective evil. The 95% of Catholics who do not frequent CAF or listen to CAL or otherwise receive orthodox teaching do not know or understand that contraception is an objective evil. They are not told this “numerous times.” In fact, they are told the contrary, by people they trust.

We must also acknowledge that some matters are easier to understand via the natural law. Most everyone understands, even from young childhood, that stealing what isn’t yours is wrong. People understand that murder is wrong. People know in their hearts that adultery is wrong. It’s the very rare circumstance where a person doesn’t understand and know these basics of the natural law. But I would contend that contraception is a much more subtle issue. It’s obvious to most humans that murder of an innocent child is wrong. It is not so obvious to most humans that preventing an “unwanted” or “unplanned” pregnancy via contraception is wrong. This is something that has to be taught, not only “told numerous times that it is wrong,” but taught ***why ***it is wrong.

So you’re saying that telling someone something doesn’t make them know it. Telling someone something is a grave matter doesn’t, therefore, institute culpability thenceforth. So then how do we know that a Catholic kid who goes to a devout high school and has four years of hardcore religion class with an orthodox priest and is reminded of the grave nature of contraception and then goes and uses condoms when he has sex is guilty of sin? We don’t know that he knows contraception is a grave matter, after all, right? Is it therefore “uncharitable” (a word I feel thrown around far too often here for things that don’t warrant it, therefore diluting its force) to go up to well-catechized Catholic woman and tell her she has sinned by aborting her child because we don’t know if she knows that abortion is a grave matter or not?

I wouldn’t say that the majority of modern (American, at least) Catholics don’t know that contraception is a grave matter. Just as an example, my parish isn’t exactly the most traditional by any means, yet in the Prayers of the Faithful, it is almost always interceded, “End the disgusting scourge of abortion and contraception.” Pretty strong, plain language. Of course, as we know, an anecdote isn’t exactly proof of widespread teaching. ( )

I would be very surprised and sad indeed if I were let known that most priests still go around saying, “Use your conscience, use your conscience, use your conscience, blah, blah, blah…,” to everything. I think we are gigantic leaps and bounds behind where we need to be catechetically and liturgically, but is it that bad?

As an aside, I thought all Catholic moral teaching is rooted in natural law. Am I wrong? Please tell.

 

[TheMc]

To judge any specific individual without knowing the specifics of the situation would be very wrong. Please don’t tempt GwenL into doing something that is quite wrong. However it is a simple matter of discernment. It is an objective fact that 1. Large numbers of Catholic are habitually committing the mortal sin of ABC. 2. Virtually 100% of Catholics at any given mass receive communion. 3. The confessional gathers dust and a tiny fraction of Catholics make use of it even once per year.

For too long the bishops have buried their heads in the sand on this issue and have allowed the sacriledge of the Lord’s body and blood to go unchecked. We should cry out for the exercising of ecclesiastical authority because if the church will not judge her people then surely we will all fall into the hands of the Living God. Judgement begins with the house of God.

And for whoever thinks that I am being unkind and uncharitable I would like to point out that these notions which I have presented are straight out of the scriptures.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God?

Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

This is exactly what I’ve been trying to say.
Gwen, I’m not judging you,or anyone in particular. Most in my circle of friends havee large families, yet not all. I don’t think twice about the family with two kids. But I am saying it’s a statistical fact than in nearly every american parish, there people that recieve that also believe in ABC. I’m not judging anyone in particular, but the fact that it happens, even happens frequently is indisputable

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is exactly what I’ve been trying to say.
Gwen, I’m not judging you,or anyone in particular. Most in my circle of friends havee large families, yet not all. I don’t think twice about the family with two kids. But I am saying it’s a statistical fact than in nearly every american parish, there people that recieve that also believe in ABC. I’m not judging anyone in particular, but the fact that it happens, even happens frequently is indisputable

I don’t think she is arguing that there aren’t lots of Catholics who believe ABC is okay. I think she is arguing that their thinking it is okay isn’t their fault, that they aren’t culpable, because of the gross misrepresentation of much of Church teaching by clergy in the post-Vatican II hype, perhaps up until even recently.

But I think much of this has dissipated now, and I’m not so sure that Catholics can’t be held culpable. It seems most priests are solid in their teaching now, that is, when they do teach, of course.

But iunno.

 

[triumphguy]

In 1968 the Canadian Bishops made the **“Winnipeg Statement” **en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement which was reiterated in 1998 stating birth control was a matter of conscience for Catholics

However in 2008 they issued ** Lberating Potential**, a pastoral message to mark 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae cccb.ca/site/eng/bishops/annual-plenary-assemblies/182-plenary-assembly-2008/2636-canadian-bishops-issue-pastoral-message-to-mark-40th-anniversary-of-humanae-vitae which is in conformity with John Paul II’s theology of the Body and Humanae Vitae.

1. It goes without saying that not every marriage act will result in a new life. Spouses have the right and duty to plan their family and to exercise their responsibilities of maternity and paternity sensibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They must, with generosity and lucidity, “keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society,”12 and discern if it is the moment for them to give life to a new child. If in conscience they deem that they should delay a birth for serious reasons because of physical, economic or psychological conditions, natural planning methods will allow them to manage their fertility, while respecting “the indivisible link between loving union and the procreative potential of intercourse in the context of married love.”

So there has been a 40 year teaching vacuum while the Bishops figured out what Catholics should believe.

 

[ProVobis]

The person must know that it is grave matter. Hearing has nothing to do with it. You could tell a person 100 times that contraception is grave matter. But if they were taught by trusted clergy and teachers that it is a matter of conscience, 200 times, what do they know?

But this thread is more about how should be receiving and who shouldn’t be. Even bishops have admonished pro-choice politicians against receiving. They don’t necessarily use the words “mortal sin” when doing so either. Shouldn’t the ordinary person who hears that living in the state of contraceptive sex is grounds enough to avoid communion be sufficient? And what happened to the sin of scandal, even if those cohabitating or having unmarried sex don’t think it’s a mortal sin to do so?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

But this thread is more about how should be receiving and who shouldn’t be. Even bishops have admonished pro-choice politicians against receiving. They don’t necessarily use the words “mortal sin” when doing so either. Shouldn’t the ordinary person who hears that living in the state of contraceptive sex is grounds enough to avoid communion be sufficient? And what happened to the sin of scandal, even if those cohabitating or having unmarried sex don’t think it’s a mortal sin to do so?

The question becomes though, who is to tell these Catholics that they shouldn’t present themselves to receive? If they come up for communion at Mass, the EMHC must assume that they are properly disposed. Even a priest wouldn’t know that they hadn’t been to confession at another church the day before.

In another thread we are talking about what will help bring Catholics back to regular Mass attendance. One of those things is a sense of community. In the past, parishes were smaller and much more homogenous. The priests (and everyone else practically) knew what was going on and knew his parishioners well enough to talk to them about it. Also, with the longer fast times, it was very easy to simply say you broke the fast then to say you were not disposed in some other way.

Today, many parishes are very large, people attend Mass at places other than their territorial parish, communities are very mixed and people don’t even speak to their neighbors, let alone know if they are repentant of their sins. If a priest doesn’t even recognize the people in his communion line, how can he assume that they are sinners? Since folks skip here and there for Mass, communion, CCD, schools, how can a priest (or EMHC) in charity assume that someone hasn’t been going to confession elsewhere.

The world has changed greatly in the past 60-80 years (and even in the past 20 years) and while we can pray for a more devout Catholic church, we cannot turn back the hands of time. We will all need to work to find what works in the world today to bring people back to faith. That is the ‘new evangalism’ Blessed JPII and Pope Benedict are takling about - not changing the faith, but changing the way we help people become faithful.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But this thread is more about how should be receiving and who shouldn’t be. Even bishops have admonished pro-choice politicians against receiving. They don’t necessarily use the words “mortal sin” when doing so either. Shouldn’t the ordinary person who hears that living in the state of contraceptive sex is grounds enough to avoid communion be sufficient? And what happened to the sin of scandal, even if those cohabitating or having unmarried sex don’t think it’s a mortal sin to do so?

The whole point is that no one except God can know that these people are in a state of mortal sin. To judge that they are is unwise and uncharitable.

 

[GwenL]

So you’re saying that telling someone something doesn’t make them know it. Telling someone something is a grave matter doesn’t, therefore, institute culpability thenceforth. So then how do we know that a Catholic kid who goes to a devout high school and has four years of hardcore religion class with an orthodox priest and is reminded of the grave nature of contraception and then goes and uses condoms when he has sex is guilty of sin? We don’t know that he knows contraception is a grave matter, after all, right? Is it therefore “uncharitable” (a word I feel thrown around far too often here for things that don’t warrant it, therefore diluting its force) to go up to well-catechized Catholic woman and tell her she has sinned by aborting her child because we don’t know if she knows that abortion is a grave matter or not?

I wouldn’t say that the majority of modern (American, at least) Catholics don’t know that contraception is a grave matter. Just as an example, my parish isn’t exactly the most traditional by any means, yet in the Prayers of the Faithful, it is almost always interceded, “End the disgusting scourge of abortion and contraception.” Pretty strong, plain language. Of course, as we know, an anecdote isn’t exactly proof of widespread teaching. ( )

I would be very surprised and sad indeed if I were let known that most priests still go around saying, “Use your conscience, use your conscience, use your conscience, blah, blah, blah…,” to everything. I think we are gigantic leaps and bounds behind where we need to be catechetically and liturgically, but is it that bad?

As an aside, I thought all Catholic moral teaching is rooted in natural law. Am I wrong? Please tell.

“How do we know?” We don’t ever know. Only one Person knows the state of a soul, and He is not sharing that information with you or me.

Would you really go up to a well-catechized adult Catholic woman and tell her that she has sinned by getting an abortion? Who are you to do that? I do not hesitate to teach that the direct abortion of a child is always a horrible evil and a mortal sin. I think it should be preached early and often from the ambo. But it is not your place nor mine to “go up and tell” someone that they are in a state of mortal sin. You just don’t know that.

I do think that the state of catechesis is getting better. You live in the South, yes? I’m in Nevada, and we are rather corrupted by the California influence. I know a catechist at a nearby parish who taught that abortion, contraception, sex outside of marriage, etc are mortal sins. She was pressured to leave the position by the DRE. The DRE is on the diocesan staff. The pastor did nothing.

Things are getting better in some places; in other places we are in the depths of the pit. Sorry to say.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Of course, as you are indicating, that is absurd, and I never suggested that. I gave a remedy.

1. Ban EMHC’s
2. Allow long queues out the door and up the street.
3. Passengers of the Catholic faith will get out of the queue because they don’t want to be bothered waiting.
4. Have some sermons which alert people that sacriledge of the Lord’s body and blood leads to hell fire.
5. Have some sermons to alert people that ABC is mortal sin and that those who take of the body and blood of Christ are committing sacriledge if they practice ABC.
6. Have some sermons to alert people that if they have practiced ABC, premarital sex, or any other mortal sin that they must receive the sacrament of penance before receiving the body and blood of Christ.
7. Bring back the fast before the mass. Therefore people have a choice; breakfast or receiving communion. Alert people that if they do not observe the fast that they are committing sacriledge.

In fact the lenient reduction of the fast to a mere one hour is utterly ruinous of the faith. This unnecessary “minimum requirement” was put into enable more people to receive more often.

What is better? That the people fast before receiving communion or that we turn the sanctuary into a circus of EMHC’s. Point seven alone would cut the queues by 1/10th because not one catholic in ten would forgoe breakfast in order to receive Holy Communion. Showing how cheaply the great bulk of Catholics view the most precious object on all the earth.

I understand that the church at Vatican 2 was addressing a situation where the faithful had very little participation with the elements of the Eucharist. It was seen by them as something priests do. The church in her wisdom wished to make the Holy Communion more accessible to the people. Sadly though, as is often the case, the pendulum swang too far in the opposite direction. The need for EMHC’s is a clear signal that the pendulum has swung too far and it simply cries out that a bit of management on the part of the diocesan bishops is called for.

Surely we don’t need an ecumenical council everytime we want to change the direction of the pendulum.

And this is why I am glad you don’t run the Church! Your views about your fellow Catholics are highly uncharitable.

 

[ProVobis]

The question becomes though, who is to tell these Catholics that they shouldn’t present themselves to receive? If they come up for communion at Mass, the EMHC must assume that they are properly disposed. Even a priest wouldn’t know that they hadn’t been to confession at another church the day before.

In another thread we are talking about what will help bring Catholics back to regular Mass attendance. One of those things is a sense of community. In the past, parishes were smaller and much more homogenous. The priests (and everyone else practically) knew what was going on and knew his parishioners well enough to talk to them about it. Also, with the longer fast times, it was very easy to simply say you broke the fast then to say you were not disposed in some other way.

And having the Mass in one language, a neutral one at that, helped IMO. That said, though, one only has to look at the Polish community if wanting to bring Catholics back to regular Mass. Polophones are 90% Catholic and 70% attend Mass. Whether divorced, cohabitating, pro-choice, or whatever, they go to Mass. That’s their community. The priest is their chief counsel and guide in everything. But look at their communion rates. Mile long confession lines but lucky to find over 50% receiving. It’s okay not to receive at every Mass. They don’t find it uncomfortable during communion time to stay in their pews. Besides they always have the oplatki (unconsecrated bread) to exchange during Christmas which is communion for everybody. This shouldn’t be overlooked as a possible sign of communion among other communities.

At least this used to work. I don’t have the currect statistics.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And having the Mass in one language, a neutral one at that, helped IMO. That said, though, one only has to look at the Polish community if wanting to bring Catholics back to regular Mass. Polophones are 90% Catholic and 70% attend Mass. Whether divorced, cohabitating, pro-choice, or whatever, they go to Mass. That’s their community. The priest is their chief counsel and guide in everything. But look at their communion rates. Mile long confession lines but lucky to find over 50% receiving. It’s okay not to receive at every Mass.

They don’t find it uncomfortable during communion time to stay in their pews.

American culture is very…strongly silly[stronger term would be “uncharitable” but true]…in that regard, imo.