C
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
In normal times, this would just be Catholic common sense.
But we are not living in normal times.
But we are not living in normal times.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
I’d be a lot more impressed if the Bishops could have used the words “mortal sin” and “not in a state of grace.” But I guess it’s not politically correct. Instead we get: ““The Church does not impose this as a punishment, but because the way of life of such people goes against the sacrament of marriage,” the bishops said.” Why couldn’t the bishops say that those who live together without the sacrament of marriage are breaking the 6th commandment and therefore are in a state of mortal sin. This may actually help couples realize that what they are doing is serious and if they have any belief at all, that their souls are in jeopardy. The way the bishops phrased it makes it seem like these couple just aren’t quite in step with the church. I really long for the days before political correctness. 
L
Lycorth
Guest
I agree; sugarcoating or using kid gloves isn’t going to hammer home the seriousness of the sin.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
How does this apply to people who cohabitate, realize it is not in line with their faith, then live celibate? They would still be living together cohabitating) but not sinfully. The inherent sin of cohabitation is the abuse of the marital act.
For instance, a homosexual couple living celibately together would not be inherently sinful. It would be a type of sin of scandal, but not inherently sinful.
Perhaps I am wrong, feel free to let loose with both barrels, but also contemplate WHY cohabitation is sinful.
FSC
For instance, a homosexual couple living celibately together would not be inherently sinful. It would be a type of sin of scandal, but not inherently sinful.
Perhaps I am wrong, feel free to let loose with both barrels, but also contemplate WHY cohabitation is sinful.
FSC
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
Not to nitpick but there is a good theological reason for why a Bishop would not say mortal sin or “not in a state of grace”. In order for a sin to be mortal 3 conditions have to be met:I’d be a lot more impressed if the Bishops could have used the words “mortal sin” and “not in a state of grace.” But I guess it’s not politically correct. Instead we get: ““The Church does not impose this as a punishment, but because the way of life of such people goes against the sacrament of marriage,” the bishops said.” Why couldn’t the bishops say that those who live together without the sacrament of marriage are breaking the 6th commandment and therefore are in a state of mortal sin. This may actually help couples realize that what they are doing is serious and if they have any belief at all, that their souls are in jeopardy. The way the bishops phrased it makes it seem like these couple just aren’t quite in step with the church. I really long for the days before political correctness.
- The thought, word or deed must be wrong. [This would be met]
- The sinner must know this. [It is possible that one may not know what the teaching on cohabitation is]
- The sinner must give full consent to it. [This would be met]
B
barb_finnegan
Guest
So do I, Brooklyn…so do I…I’d be a lot more impressed if the Bishops could have used the words “mortal sin” and “not in a state of grace.” But I guess it’s not politically correct. Instead we get: ““The Church does not impose this as a punishment, but because the way of life of such people goes against the sacrament of marriage,” the bishops said.” Why couldn’t the bishops say that those who live together without the sacrament of marriage are breaking the 6th commandment and therefore are in a state of mortal sin. This may actually help couples realize that what they are doing is serious and if they have any belief at all, that their souls are in jeopardy. The way the bishops phrased it makes it seem like these couple just aren’t quite in step with the church. I really long for the days before political correctness.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Good points, and you’re right, a truly “self respecting PC Bishop” would not deny communion in such cases. But nonetheless, I still think it is important that the Bishops point out the fact that a couple living together outside the sacrament of marriage are in a state of sin. If they didn’t know it before, they would certainly know it then. And then they would be responsible. How are people ever going to know what is right and wrong if no one ever tells them? And don’t you think that at least with some it might make a difference if they really did know they were in a state of mortal sin? The Bishops are responsible for the souls of those in their care - they need to teach!! We have to stop being afraid of the word “sin.” After all, sin is the reason our Lord had to die on the cross. I think it needs to be taught from the pulpit.
manygift1spirit
New member
The issue with cohabitation is twofold (at least):
- It is scandalous: it suggests to others that certain types of sins are not really sins. To commit scandal is in itself sinful.
- It is an acceptance of strong occasions of sin. I do not know the subtleties of whether this is sinful in itself, but surely it is imprudent.
My wife and I actually did this before we got married. Unfortunately our declaration was not public, only to ourselves (thus dealing with #2 above, but not #1), and it actually led to some sticky misunderstandings with others later. So the public aspect of it is probably essential. (We have since made peace with our Lord about it
)Note that in the same-sex case, such a declaration if done properly could be a very fine witness to the Church’s teachings on sexuality. It is a crying shame it is done so rarely, if at all.
If anyone knows more canonical details of this whole issue, it would be appreciated.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
I hear ya, oh do I hear ya! I posted on another thread that the Bishops of my country (Canada) publicly dissented from Humanae Vitae in 1968 with the Winnipeg Statement that said Catholic couples who had trouble with Humanae Vitae could do whatever their felt was right.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
If no one knew they were homosexuals, there wouldn’t even be scandal associated with it.
My wife’s aunt, an old biddy who never married, late in life moved in with her best friend after the woman’s husband died. Two women living together might have raised a suspicion of lesbianism in some small minds, but at their ages, no one rational would have considered anything amiss just because they were sharing a home together.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
Well, let’s see if cohabiting couples are denied communion, or if the remarks were just wishful thinking. Everybody knows that here in the good old USA that, with the occasional exception of public figures, any adult who walks up to receive, receives.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Which is how it should be. How would a priest know whether I just blasphemed a blue streak just before I drove into the church parking lot or just came from a brothel, for example?
Z
Zatzat
Guest
This is excellent…the Church should post huge signs out front of their main entrances reminding everyone of all the sins that need to confessed prior to receiving the Eucharist.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
The actual statement from the Bishops may say something different but it is worth noting that nowhere in the article does it state that cohabiting couples would be deined communion. It merely states that they should not receive it. The “burden” is apaprently being placed on the couple not the minister of communion.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
This is almost always the case. The burden of avoiding taking communion unworthily rests on the shoulders of the parishioner. The priest cannot be held accountable for others, assuming that he has not shirked his responsibility to inform the parish that receiving in a state of sin heaps condemnation upon oneself. The times when the priest may prudently refuse to give communion are the times of public and persistent sin. Gay rights advocates, abortion advocates, politicians persistently making decisions contrary to fundamental Catholic teachings.
FSC
B
Brooklyn
Guest
That is very true - the burden does rest with the parishioner. I remember one priest saying that if someone presented himself for communion that the priest knew had committed murder, but it wasn’t publicly known, the priest would have to give him communion. As you say, it is different when a person is known publicly to be in conflict with the Church. When the Pope was here in NYC, and Guiliani, who is in conflict with the Church for being re-married without benefit of annulment and also supporting abortion and gay rights (although “personally” against both) presented himself for communion. I saw it on TV and was horrified. But shortly after Cardinal Egan called him and said no more. And Guiliani agreed to comply. This is done to avoid scandal.
C
catsrus
Guest
In my Church in CA, 5 years ago, the Priest did just that.
I’m reminded of when I was in R.C.I.A., I was told that I could not be received fully (Eucharist) into The Church until my marriage was sanctified by the Priest. My husband, who had no faith whatsoever, agreed to have our civil union blessed at a Mass.
Of course, 2 years later, he left me and married another but in my belief and the eyes of God and Holy Mother Church, we are still married.
Whether he likes it or not.
C
comrade1789
Guest
Of course not, to do so would be to confirm them in their sin, which in turn would be a sin in itself, and to allow the Eucharist to be a vehicle of sin is unacceptable. It is sad that things like this have to be spelled out, but it is not meant to punish the couples, but to make them aware of the seriousness of their sin and help them address it and “rectify” it. I know it is hard, some situations people are in, but the Church wants to help and is able to.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
What do you mean by “blessed”? What was done would determine if you may have access to the Petrine Privilege to dissolve the marriage.In my Church in CA, 5 years ago, the Priest did just that.
I’m reminded of when I was in R.C.I.A., I was told that I could not be received fully (Eucharist) into The Church until my marriage was sanctified by the Priest. My husband, who had no faith whatsoever, agreed to have our civil union blessed at a Mass.
Of course, 2 years later, he left me and married another but in my belief and the eyes of God and Holy Mother Church, we are still married.
Whether he likes it or not.
Furthermore, you may qualify for an annulment if your husband had no intention of honoring his vows to you.
If I were you, I’d see someone at the Chancery. Your “belief” isn’t controlling. You may have good cause for an annulment.
- Status