Church: Cohabiting couples cannot receive Communion

[manualman]

The bishop is quite right in refraining from labeling cohabitors as being in ‘mortal sin.’ As noted by others, mortal sin requires informed consent. Nobody on earth is qualified to judge that which is why there is NO catholic list of people in hell.

But there IS a case to be made for denial (though I agree it won’t happen in our age). The act of cohabitation is a PUBLIC statement of disregard for the teachings of the catholic faith. Until that public statement is correctly in a publicly observable way, a priest or bishop would be entirely within his rights to deny communion. The matter of whether the couple had just the day before repented and gone to confession is moot. The issue at hand is the public repudiation of catholic teaching that justifes the public response of the priest.

This is precisely what would have happened to such couples in the early church. Somewhere along the path the line between pastoral care and enabling got blurred.

 

[Brooklyn]

The bishop is quite right in refraining from labeling cohabitors as being in ‘mortal sin.’ As noted by others, mortal sin requires informed consent. Nobody on earth is qualified to judge that which is why there is NO catholic list of people in hell.

This kind of PC attitude drives me absolutely crazy. I knew before I was even 10 years old that sex before marriage was a sin, and I didn’t even know what sex was at that time (we kids in the 60’s still had some innocence left). I’m sure it is possible that these adults living together without the benefit of the sacrament of marriage were actually ignorant of the fact that it is a mortal sin, but how plausible do you think that really is? And I don’t say we need to judge that one way or the other. But I do think it is imperative that the Bishops use the words “mortal sin” when they are talking about this. They need to actually come out and say that if you choose to have sex before marriage, you are not only cut off from the Church, you are cut off from the grace of God, and if you should die without repenting of and confessing this sin, you will go to hell. They certainly couldn’t claim ignorance then, could they? Or are we just too afraid to hurt anyone’s feeling? I understand sin and hell are not popular topics anymore, but maybe that needs to change.

If these couples are honestly ignorant of the fact that sex before marriage is a mortal sin, then I would say that the state of catechesis in the Church must be at its lowest state in its 2000 year history. There are certainly Catholics who do not agree that sex before marriage is a sin, just as the majority of Catholics do not agree that artificial birth control is a mortal sin, but that does not change the fact that it is, and it also does not change the fact that although they are aware of the Church’s teachings, they choose to voluntarily ignore it. I believe that is called “sin.”

As I say, it is not up to any of us to judge each other or the state of each other’s soul. That is God’s department. But certainly you must agree that the Bishops need to state exactly what mortal sin in, and not just tip toe around it, afraid of hurting people’s feelings.

Excuse me while I go outside and scream.

 

[manualman]

Not every cautious approach is PC. Sometimes it is simply faithfulness to the ACTUAL teachings of catholicism. I suggest you learn the difference between “grave matter” and mortal sin. You can make a list of “grave matter” if you like.

You simply cannot make a list of actions and label them “mortal sins.” Mortal sin is not just the exterior action, it takes into account interior issues. This isn’t PC, it is catholicism. As I said before, you can look all you want, but you won’t find the Church proclaiming that ANYBODY (specifically) is in hell. This is precisely why.

And none of this matters to the topic at hand. Public repudiation of Church teaching is what makes refusal of communion allowable, not the priest’s judgement of the couple being in a state of mortal sin. The priest simply need not make that judgement.

 

[Brooklyn]

Not every cautious approach is PC. Sometimes it is simply faithfulness to the ACTUAL teachings of catholicism. I suggest you learn the difference between “grave matter” and mortal sin. You can make a list of “grave matter” if you like.

You simply cannot make a list of actions and label them “mortal sins.” Mortal sin is not just the exterior action, it takes into account interior issues. This isn’t PC, it is catholicism. As I said before, you can look all you want, but you won’t find the Church proclaiming that ANYBODY (specifically) is in hell. This is precisely why.

And none of this matters to the topic at hand. Public repudiation of Church teaching is what makes refusal of communion allowable, not the priest’s judgement of the couple being in a state of mortal sin. The priest simply need not make that judgement.

Why is it wrong to say that it is a mortal sin to have sex outside of marriage? How are people ever going to know this unless it is said. You say we can’t make a list of “mortal sins.” Funny, that is what the church did when I was a kid. Why did that suddenly change? A mortal sin is deliberately missing Mass on Sunday, a mortal sin is sex outside of marriage, murder is a mortal sin, etc. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

If you’re talking about culpability, yes, that is a different matter. And in that sense, we can’t judge another’s culpability.

I’m afraid you will have to educate me in the difference between a “grave” matter and a “mortal” sin. Maybe you will do like a priest who once wrote to me and said there are three types of sin - venial, grave and mortal.

I did find this definition of “grave” matter:

"The term grave matter means a serious act contrary to the moral law. "

As this article goes on to say:

"Much of the time, we know what acts are gravely wrong. Because of something called the “natural law”, we have a natural understanding of the universal norms of morality.

We don’t always recognize the natural law clearly because sin clouds our vision of it. So…

We also have the obligation to form our conscience, so that it can judge accurately and bear witness to the objective moral truth.

We can’t get off the hook here by just pretending ignorance, or by willfully remaining ignorant to justify some behavior. This actually increases our culpability! It’s also no excuse if we fail to make the effort to form our conscience based on divine law as revealed in Scripture and Church teaching. (See Catechism, 1859-60, and also 1783-5, 1792, 2039) "

beginningcatholic.com/mortal-sin.html

 

[manualman]

Actions constituting grave matter are actions that are, by their very serious immoral effects, potentially mortal sins (presuming the other conditions for mortal sin are met).

Certain nuns and priests in the past WERE quite sloppy in their explanation of all this. My mother’s family was quite devastated by this sloppy practice because that list of “mortal sins” included suicide. When my uncle committed suicide in the late 1960’s, their oversimplified catechesis told them that he was in hell, no question about it. That whole family is a mess today, few of my mother’s siblings remain catholics.

None of them were ever told to trust their brother to God’s mercy or that God alone knew what drove him. It was never explained that what he did was gravely sinful, but that none of us knew the full story and that God alone, who embodies Mercy and Justice, did.

On a sunny day, when your conscience is clear it feels good to oversimplify things. But it has bad consequences when the rain comes. Go ahead and (charitably) tell people when they are committing grave sins. Even tell them what mortal sin is and that they may be in danger of it. But draw the line at telling somebody that they are in a state of mortal sin. Not our job.

 

[Brooklyn]

QUOTE=manualman;6682611]Actions constituting grave matter are actions that are, by their very serious immoral effects, potentially mortal sins (presuming the other conditions for mortal sin are met).

This is still PC semantics nonsense. You are basically saying that there are no mortal sins, only potential mortal sins? What the heck does that mean? Then why is someone who willingly commits or participates in an abortion automatically excommunicated from the Church? Couldn’t they just argue that this is a “potential” mortal sin? And if you really want to use this kind of language, as nonsensical as it sounds, then why can’t the bishops say this is a “potential” mortal sin? Great way to give everyone an out, that’s for sure. But it’s not going to help them when they have to face their Creator and explan why they committed this act when they have been told it was wrong. Why has it worked for the Church for 2,000 years to lay down exactly what constitutes venial sin and what constitutes mortal sin, and all of a sudden, in our PC culture, it no longer works.

Certain nuns and priests in the past WERE quite sloppy in their explanation of all this. My mother’s family was quite devastated by this sloppy practice because that list of “mortal sins” included suicide. When my uncle committed suicide in the late 1960’s, their oversimplified catechesis told them that he was in hell, no question about it. That whole family is a mess today, few of my mother’s siblings remain catholics.

None of them were ever told to trust their brother to God’s mercy or that God alone knew what drove him. It was never explained that what he did was gravely sinful, but that none of us knew the full story and that God alone, who embodies Mercy and Justice, did.

This is a red herring. Suicide is a totally separate issue, and to equate it with sex outside of marriage is a false argument. The Church’s teaching on suicide has changed. The Church’s teaching on sex outside of marriage has not changed.

I’m very sorry for what happened in your family, but it has no bearing whatsoever on this argument.

On a sunny day, when your conscience is clear it feels good to oversimplify things. But it has bad consequences when the rain comes. Go ahead and (charitably) tell people when they are committing grave sins. Even tell them what mortal sin is and that they may be in danger of it. But draw the line at telling somebody that they are in a state of mortal sin. Not our job.

I did not say that we should be telling them they are in a state of mortal sin. I said we should tell them that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and that if they voluntarily commit this sin with full knowledge of what they are doing, then yes, they are in a state of mortal sin. You can deny that all you want, but you will be denying the teachings of the Church.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Why is it wrong to say that it is a mortal sin to have sex outside of marriage? How are people ever going to know this unless it is said. You say we can’t make a list of “mortal sins.” Funny, that is what the church did when I was a kid. Why did that suddenly change? A mortal sin is deliberately missing Mass on Sunday, a mortal sin is sex outside of marriage, murder is a mortal sin, etc. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

If you’re talking about culpability, yes, that is a different matter. And in that sense, we can’t judge another’s culpability.

I’m afraid you will have to educate me in the difference between a “grave” matter and a “mortal” sin. Maybe you will do like a priest who once wrote to me and said there are three types of sin - venial, grave and mortal.

I did find this definition of “grave” matter:

"The term grave matter means a serious act contrary to the moral law. "

As this article goes on to say:

"Much of the time, we know what acts are gravely wrong. Because of something called the “natural law”, we have a natural understanding of the universal norms of morality.

We don’t always recognize the natural law clearly because sin clouds our vision of it. So…

We also have the obligation to form our conscience, so that it can judge accurately and bear witness to the objective moral truth.

We can’t get off the hook here by just pretending ignorance, or by willfully remaining ignorant to justify some behavior. This actually increases our culpability! It’s also no excuse if we fail to make the effort to form our conscience based on divine law as revealed in Scripture and Church teaching. (See Catechism, 1859-60, and also 1783-5, 1792, 2039) "

beginningcatholic.com/mortal-sin.html

It really is so simple. You like to quote how things used to be. I assume you think the Baltimore Catechism is good then. In the Baltimore Catechism to make a sin mortal:

1. The thought, word, deed or action, must be wrong.
2. The sinner must know this.
3. The sinner must give full consent.

If any of these conditions are missing it is venial. It would be accurate to say that pre-marital sex can be mortal but not all cases are mortal and to say otherwise is heresy.

 

[manualman]

Church teaching on suicide has not changed. It is still gravely sinful. If done with full knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin. What changed is a crackdown on oversimplified catechesis.

Someone excommunicated is not sentenced to hell. Excommunication is a disciplinary tool, not a judgement of the state of someone’s soul. Many excommunicated people have died in that state. The Church still refrains from saying they went to hell. Why? Because we don’t know for sure.

I share your frustration with exaggerated pastoral concerns to the point where true teaching is ignored. But you don’t make that better by swinging to the opposite extreme.

 

[Brooklyn]

Church teaching on suicide has not changed. It is still gravely sinful. If done with full knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin. What changed is a crackdown on oversimplified catechesis.

"The auxiliary bishop of Westminster, the Rt Rev Bernard Longley, said church teaching on suicide had not changed but its understanding of mental health had altered.

He said: "Suicide is a grave sin, but an individual must be mentally healthy to be fully aware that what they are doing is a sin.

"When a person commits suicide, they are generally so clouded by confusion and despair as to be no longer in full control of their mental faculties.

“God does not condemn anyone not fully aware of what they are doing - His mercy is without end.”

telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5789592/Catholic-Church-softens-stance-on-suicide.html

As you can see from this, the church’s understanding on mental health has changed. They realize that when it comes to suicide, people are not often in a healthy state of mind and we cannot know for certain what their state of mind is. They may be very aware that suicide is a mortal sin (potential or not), but they may be so mentally distraught they are not actually culpable. That is a major change. But it has nothing to do with catechesis or an oversimplification thereof.

This is still not equivalent to co-habitating before marriage. You can’t say someone is so mentally distraught that they don’t know what they are doing when they have sex outside of marriage.

Someone excommunicated is not sentenced to hell. Excommunication is a disciplinary tool, not a judgement of the state of someone’s soul. Many excommunicated people have died in that state. The Church still refrains from saying they went to hell. Why? Because we don’t know for sure.

 

[Brooklyn]

It really is so simple. You like to quote how things used to be. I assume you think the Baltimore Catechism is good then. In the Baltimore Catechism to make a sin mortal:

1. The thought, word, deed or action, must be wrong.
2. The sinner must know this.
3. The sinner must give full consent.

If any of these conditions are missing it is venial. It would be accurate to say that pre-marital sex can be mortal but not all cases are mortal and to say otherwise is heresy.

Wby is it wrong to tell people that it is a mortal sin to have sex outside of marriage? The argument I keep getting is that people don’t know this is a sin. Well, then why not tell them? That is my whole argument with what the bishops did here. As I mentioned in a previous post, the way they worded things, it makes it sound like if you have sex before marriage, you’re basically not in step with the Catholic Church. My argument is you need to tell people that sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin and puts your soul in danger.

Why don’t you want people to know this? You keep saying that I am judging people. I am not judging anyone. I am saying - tell people what the Church teaches!!! Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[OriginalJS]

Why is it wrong to say that it is a mortal sin to have sex outside of marriage? How are people ever going to know this unless it is said. You say we can’t make a list of “mortal sins.” Funny, that is what the church did when I was a kid. Why did that suddenly change? A mortal sin is deliberately missing Mass on Sunday, a mortal sin is sex outside of marriage, murder is a mortal sin, etc. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

That’s what the Church did when I was a kid in the 50s. I can remember priests having a message given to persons that the persons were not to come to the communion rail until they had talked to him. Those days are long gone; the Church over the years lost that solid, not theoretical, authority.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As you can see from this, the church’s understanding on mental health has changed. They realize that when it comes to suicide, people are not often in a healthy state of mind and we cannot know for certain what their state of mind is. They may be very aware that suicide is a mortal sin (potential or not), but they may be so mentally distraught they are not actually culpable.

A decade or so ago, the former pastor of my church in North Little Rock, a good priest well liked by all especially the youth went on to be Vocations Director for the diocese. A good choice as his empathy for youth and ability to relate to them was unsurpassed.

One day, he went out, bought a revolver, and shot himself.

He got a funeral approprate for a deceased priest. What we didn’t know, but what the bishop knew, was that the man had serious mental struggles, for which the Diocese had quietly sent him for counseling and treatment. It wasn’t enough.

The bishop told us that it was not ours to judge the man given his problems and efforts to find healing.