Chicago prelate: Let gay and divorced Catholics take part

[phil19034]

Penance must always be done because a person desires to out of love for God, not because they’re forced to, out of fear they’ll commit a mortal sin and burn in hell for all eternity if they don’t make it to confession before they die.

I wonder how many Catholics are burning in hell for eating meat on Friday, but post-Vatican II Catholics will not be held accountable by God for doing the same ?

Jim

Jim - if you FORGOT that it was Friday and at meat, it was NOT a mortal sin back then.

However, if you remembered and then did it anyway, that that WAS a mortal sin. Mom could have saved the dinner for Saturday.

This is no different than forgetting to do your penance after Confession. If you honestly forgot, then it’s not mortal. But if you choose not to do the penance the priest assigns you after Confession, than it’s a mortal sin.

The basis of the Mortal sin is saying you know better than the Church. That you know God’s Truth better than the Body of Christ.

 

[phil19034]

No a priest would not tell a mother she must throw out a meal because it was made with meat and she forgot it was Friday during Lent.

Jim

Right… a priest would tell the mother to save the meal for Saturday

 

[JimR-OCDS]

phil19034;13372700]

Jim - if you FORGOT that it was Friday and at meat, it was NOT a mortal sin back then.

Correct, which is what I’ve said. A poster disagreed with this, which is what I addressed.

However, if you remembered and then did it anyway, that that WAS a mortal sin. Mom could have saved the dinner for Saturday.

Correct, but it wasn’t eating meat in of itself, but rejecting obedience.

This is no different than forgetting to do your penance after Confession. If you honestly forgot, then it’s not mortal. But if you choose not to do the penance the priest assigns you after Confession, than it’s a mortal sin.

If you refuse to do penance, then the person was most likely not truly contrite, which is a problem in of itself.

The basis of the Mortal sin is saying you know better than the Church. That you know God’s Truth better than the Body of Christ.

OK, be careful here. In the course of history, some corrupt Bishops placed mandates on the people for economic and political gain.

Fortunately, the Church has reigned in allowing individual Bishops who make up their own teachings.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Right… a priest would tell the mother to save the meal for Saturday

I today’s world perhaps, but in 1929 when food was hard to come by and keep food safe to eat was not so easy, it wasn’t possible.

Jim

 

[phil19034]

I today’s world perhaps, but in 1929 when food was hard to come by and keep food safe to eat was not so easy, it wasn’t possible.

Jim

In America, back in 1929, if you couldn’t keep the food safe, you could have donated it to a nice Protestant family

 

[DAML72]

I was referring to what is actually practiced. Have you ever witnessed someone whom the priest or minister refused communion? Now that I think about it, I actually have but it had nothing to do with their marital state or abortion or anything like that.

I confused a priest at a funeral once. If I hadn’t caught on and done/said the right thing, he probably would have refused me.

 

[Beircheart]

So, do you view the endpoint of this process as the issuance of a declaration of nullity?

That is an excellent question the answer to which I really can’t provide; reason being it gets into points of cannon law and is nuanced well beyond my pay-grade, so to speak. That’s why I included my caveat “thinking out loud.”

It just seems to me that, by the time we come to asking what to do about our brothers and sisters in this situation 1) the previous marriage is beyond salvage and/or 2) the current marriage (if there is one) cannot be ignored. That leaves a need for some form of reconciliation by which Catholics can re-baseline their faith lives through forgiveness and begin to move forward.

 

[JimG]

That is an excellent question the answer to which I really can’t provide; reason being it gets into points of cannon law and is nuanced well beyond my pay-grade, so to speak. That’s why I included my caveat “thinking out loud.”

It just seems to me that, by the time we come to asking what to do about our brothers and sisters in this situation 1) the previous marriage is beyond salvage and/or 2) the current marriage (if there is one) cannot be ignored. That leaves a need for some form of reconciliation by which Catholics can re-baseline their faith lives through forgiveness and begin to move forward.

Yes, I understand. The problem which prevents them from moving forward, though, is the existence of a previous and presumably valid marriage. If the prior marriage is not determined to be null, then the second marriage is invalid and presumably adulterous. One is faced with disregarding Jesus words on the permanence of marriage, thereby changing doctrine, or finding a way to integrate persons in an invalid marriage into parish life without changing doctrine. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’ve known people who are active in the parish without receiving communion due to just these kinds of situations.

 

[Megan7]

Archbishop Cupich should have a heart to heart with Archbishop Chaput.

Thanks for your post. God bless you!

** “Augustine says in his Rule:

‘Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger.

’ But fraternal correction is a work of MERCY.

Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4, Sed Contra. **

+PAX

 

[graciew]

That is an excellent question the answer to which I really can’t provide; reason being it gets into points of cannon law and is nuanced well beyond my pay-grade, so to speak. That’s why I included my caveat “thinking out loud.”

It just seems to me that, by the time we come to asking what to do about our brothers and sisters in this situation 1) the previous marriage is beyond salvage and/or 2) the current marriage (if there is one) cannot be ignored. That leaves a need for some form of reconciliation by which Catholics can re-baseline their faith lives through forgiveness and begin to move forward.

I was " thinking out loud" with you and chose the part of the conciliatory process as something prepared during difficult times in marriage. I was thinking basically of the only marriage. Getting into different aspects that might help . Aside and in cooperation with all priests and deacons already do . More of a team. Due to the nature of one of my proffessions/occupation it is possible to see that there are lights persons can see with time and patience ,as in the midst of turbulence many just sink. Hard to explain but still shaping it in mind to take it to the priest. Praying !

 

[Beircheart]

Yes, I understand. The problem which prevents them from moving forward, though, is the existence of a previous and presumably valid marriage. If the prior marriage is not determined to be null, then the second marriage is invalid and presumably adulterous. One is faced with disregarding Jesus words on the permanence of marriage, thereby changing doctrine, or finding a way to integrate persons in an invalid marriage into parish life without changing doctrine. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’ve known people who are active in the parish without receiving communion due to just these kinds of situations.

Thanks, Jim. You seem to have a far better understanding of the issue than I and you articulate it well.

Where my struggle lies is in knowing people (not limited to the marriage/remarriage/divorce conversation now) who experience such depths of despair feeling trapped between never again being allowed in good conscience to receive the Bread of Life and receiving with such an aching heart, knowing full well what sin they are carrying within themselves. Perhaps I am just an ol’ softie but to imagine the Church accepting being caught between two such rugged crosses indefinitely as simply the way things are seems contradictory to its teachings of forgiveness and the promise of redemption.

 

[nodito]

Thanks, Jim. You seem to have a far better understanding of the issue than I and you articulate it well.

Where my struggle lies is in knowing people (not limited to the marriage/remarriage/divorce conversation now) who experience such depths of despair feeling trapped between never again being allowed in good conscience to receive the Bread of Life and receiving with such an aching heart, knowing full well what sin they are carrying within themselves. Perhaps I am just an ol’ softie but to imagine the Church accepting being caught between two such rugged crosses indefinitely as simply the way things are seems contradictory to its teachings of forgiveness and the promise of redemption.

Biercheart,

I’m genuinely curious. Beyond those in irregular marriage situations, who are you thinking of? Are there other groups who feel they are precluded from going to confession and receiving communion?

 

[Beircheart]

Biercheart,

I’m genuinely curious. Beyond those in irregular marriage situations, who are you thinking of? Are there other groups who feel they are precluded from going to confession and receiving communion?

I honestly believe there are precluded folks out there. I’ve known of situations wherein a person cannot receive forgiveness from the confessional because they are not capable physically, financially, emotionally, or faithfully (the last two being too immature or just plain too weak) to make changes rendering their confession insincere. Active addicts (porn, drugs, an affair, you name it!) often struggle with this. Unless the sacrament of confession is administered 2 seconds before communion, relapse is such a very real possibility. There again, how valid is a confession when one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt the behavior will be repeated and there is no intention beyond lip-service to “go and sin no more” (thoroughly defeated will being a hallmark trait of addictions), even if the pain of regret is horrendous?

How often have we seen lack of faith in trusting that the church’s teaching is right leading to sinful behaviors? How many married couples are using contraception and receiving communion for this very reason? Homosexual relationships? Sure, most won’t give receiving communion a second thought, so sure are they of their perspective’s righteousness. On the other hand, there are many who deeply, sincerely, and woundfully struggle with these issues each and every Sunday.

My suspicion is that deep love for the Eucharist, the soul’s yearning for it, leads far more people with grave issues actively playing out in their lives to join the communion line than most of the congregation ever realizes. In fact their conflicted emotions and their hurting and broken state probably makes them MORE likely to receive in spite of their unforgiven sins.

Now, whether or not they are factually precluded? Again, I just don’t know enough to definitively say. What I can say is that, if in the grips of their despair they condemn themselves to being precluded, that is just as, if not more powerfully binding. Which, then, do they violate? Their receiving in a state of sin and guilt because they know full well who and what they are? Or their soul’s insatiable crying out for the Body of Christ; the Real Presence of the only one who can save them and they being so desperate to be saved?

 

[JimG]

There is no sin in not approaching for communion. Probably more of us should stay in the pew, if we really examined our consciences thoroughly. I grew up at a time when it was not expected that nearly everyone attending Mass would come up for communion. The ushers didn’t bring us up pew by pew. If you wanted to receive you had to make a decision to get up and go to the altar rail. Nobody questioned why you did or didn’t. Nobody thought less of anyone for staying in the pew.

I’m thinking that in earlier times, this would simply not have become a big issue. The obligation was to attend Mass (it still is) not to receive communion. I knew people in putatively invalid marriages who never approached for communion, and still attended Mass every week and were active in the parish.

 

[phil19034]

There is no sin in not approaching for communion. Probably more of us should stay in the pew, if we really examined our consciences thoroughly. I grew up at a time when it was not expected that nearly everyone attending Mass would come up for communion. The ushers didn’t bring us up pew by pew. If you wanted to receive you had to make a decision to get up and go to the altar rail. Nobody questioned why you did or didn’t. Nobody thought less of anyone for staying in the pew.

I’m thinking that in earlier times, this would simply not have become a big issue. The obligation was to attend Mass (it still is) not to receive communion. I knew people in putatively invalid marriages who never approached for communion, and still attended Mass every week and were active in the parish.

This is why I think the answer is to increase the Communion fast back to 3 or more hours. That way people who remain in their pews will not think: “only mortal sinners refrain from Communion.” They will feel less self-conscious because as far as anyone knows, they broke the communion fast.

 

[St_Pancake]

I today’s world perhaps, but in 1929 when food was hard to come by and keep food safe to eat was not so easy, it wasn’t possible.

Jim

Home refrigeration, even if it was just an “ice box”, was pretty common in the 1920s. If you were one that couldn’t afford home food refrigeration, you probably weren’t eating a lot of meat either.

 

[St_Pancake]

This is why I think the answer is to increase the Communion fast back to 3 or more hours. That way people who remain in their pews will not think: “only mortal sinners refrain from Communion.” They will feel less self-conscious because as far as anyone knows, they broke the communion fast.

Is the solution to deny those that are otherwise in a state of sanctifying grace the Eucharist? I imagine those that are unworthily consuming now, won’t think twice about unworthily consuming under different rules.

Whether to partake or not is basically left to each of us in a Holy honor system. As humans, we do get caught up in what others think about us and hopefully, we will remember it’s more important what the creator thinks than what our neighbor does. There have been times where I’ve attempted to fool the neighbor but whether or not any person is fooled, God is not.

 

[b_ulmen]

The change I think will help make people not feel “left out” would be returning the Communion fast to 3 hours (or more).

I Staying in the pew makes you feel like a marked sinner. Extending the fast would not only provide for a more reverential preparation but provide those who can not receive worthily with a acceptable ‘cover.’

Pardon me if this seems callous, and I’m purposefully being blunt, but it seems as if some are advocating putting the one over the many here. If folks in the pew feel left out or consider themselves marked sinners – that’s their problem, not mine. If they are that insecure in their faith and lack the self-confidence to be comfortable with their situation, then they should seek some professional help. Arbitrarily adding what could be considered a punitive action to the entire flock for the sake of a very few is not the way to solve this “problem”.

Now before you start taking me to task over my apparent lack of caring, let me clarify. I loathe any authorities attempt to “legislate compassion”. Don’t tell me I have to be nice under penalty of force, I’ll be nice on my own because it’s the right thing to do. Forced charity is not charity. I’ll fast at least an hour before mass because it’s the right thing to do, but I’ll refuse to obey any rule that will put my health in jeopardy just so someone won’t get their feelings hurt. Selfish? Perhaps.

There are many reasons to not receive communion, and none of us has to justify to the rest why we don’t. We don’t need cover, some may **want **it but we don’t need it.

A smile, handshake, and a friendly greeting are much more welcoming than having lots of company in the pew during Communion. Sometimes being in mass is no different than being on the bus (wrt interactions). Remind me again why we’re in the pews to begin with?

 

[St_Pancake]

nodito

Really ? Abstinence from meat on Fridays was proclaimed as Penance at the end of the last Crusade, as penance offered to God to keep the Holy Land Free.

It wasn’t for our benefit, although sacrifice does help strengthen us spiritually, if done for the right reason.

Wonderful !

Those poor souls burning in hell for all eternity, because they were born before Vatican II and ate meat on a Friday.

Oh so you want to change the discussion from abstinence of meat during Lent to the obligation to attend Mass ?

Jim

My writing skills are definitely sub par but it wasn’t that long ago that I worked through the issue of what seemed to be, petty issues causing souls to spend an eternity in hell. Maybe sharing it will help others and certainly other’s feedback can only help me.

As a Catholic, it’s my understanding that if I’m not in a state of sanctifying grace, my soul is in danger of eternal damnation. Having said that, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that no one has ever been condemned to hell for eating meat on Friday. Additionally, I contend that no one has ever been condemned for skipping mass, telling a lie or any number of seemingly minor sins.

Even though it is assumed that these seeming minor sins would remove one from being in a state of sanctifying grace, there is always a more serious sin involved with all of them.

When Jesus was asked the most important commandment, 29 Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! 30 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’

Jesus has told us that loving God is the most important thing but when we consciously choose, in the battle of right and wrong (good and evil) to do wrong (evil) can we truly be loving God with all our hearts, our souls and our minds? If you knowingly eat meat on Friday during lent, not only have you been disobedient to the Church that Jesus Christ gave us to lead us but you have denied God and have broken what Jesus said was the most important commandment.

When Adam and Eve were in the Garden, they had very few rules. The most important rule was: Don’t eat that fruit. The tree the fruit grew upon was right in the garden and they both turned from God, their disobedience was choosing wrong over right and the consequences were grave. They brought death upon themselves and all future generations just for eating a piece of fruit. The stain of original sin and concupiscence has been passed on to us, our children, grandchildren and all that came between because of eating that piece of fruit but it’s really more than a piece of fruit. They turned their back on God, they freely chose to disobey, they were not loving him at that moment and they made the wrong choice.

Most of us tend to repeat the same sins over and over again. Hopefully, with the help of the Church and the Holy Spirit, those sins are more rare or are becoming more rare. God has given us these things to help train us to be able to better be able to resist sin.

21 years ago, this week, I was at a beach on the space coast. I can remember seeing very scantily attired young women at that beach and having less than holy thoughts about their bodies. If I was at that same beach tomorrow, instead of sneaking peeks like I was 21 years ago, I would be trying not to look in their direction and hopefully appreciate them as the special beings that God created rather than something pleasing to my lustful eyes.

I know many Catholics now, young and old, that will not eat meat on any Friday. Even the older ones that are retired make sure they keep up with the days of the week to avoid having that issue. We all know many Catholics that wouldn’t dream of intentionally missing Sunday mass. For me, mass is nearly always a great blessing and I enjoy it. Others may not enjoy it as much and may be there for only the “obligation” factor.

Everyone of us will fail at loving God and like Adam and Eve, we will turn from him and choose the wrong. It’s almost as if we stick our fingers in our ears shouting, “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU GOD!” as we choose to be disobedient and sin.

All of us build our lives around different things. If you are employed, you have to order your life around the responsibilities given by your employer. That means your time is not your own for certain times and everything has to fall in behind that. The same with your family obligations, your life has to bend itself to fulfill those. We also have obligations to our God. We have to worship God, pray to him, be loyal and obedient. We have to make God part of our daily lives and walk in the ways that he wants us to walk. We are commanded to love god with our entire heart, soul, mind and strength. If we’re building our lives around God and attempting to love him as commanded, we will be stronger to resist stealing, murdering, lying, lusting, skipping mass, skipping Friday penance, etc., with the help of God, the Church and the Holy Spirit. We’ll all fail from time to time but it hopefully will be less likely and less often if we are choosing to love God more.

 

[b_ulmen]

We’ll all fail from time to time but it hopefully will be less likely and less often if we are choosing to love God more.