Communion to couple living together

  • Thread starter Thread starter antalvmol
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A couple married by the civil law and living together waiting for the annulment of one of them and saying they are living as brothers (no relations), can they receive Holy Communion? Can they receive absolution from the priest when they go to confession?
40.png
antalvmol:
What about the scandal of those who know they are living together and not married by the Church and receiving Communion?
40.png
antalvmol:
Sorry, but they were not children when they took the decision to live together and they knew the risk were undertaking. We may support them as much as we can but we can allow them to make a sacrilege.
Okay, I was married civilly for 11 years. We had a seven year old son. We went through the process of a convalidation. There was no prior marriage, so there was no need for an annulment.

It took three months.

Who should have moved out? Where should they have lived? Should the parent that moved out get visitation? Are we talking every other weekend or one month here and one month there.

What about the fact that my husband is not Catholic?
Okay, dear, I know you think we are already married. I know that you are willing to do this for me. But not only can we not have relations until after the ceremony, you also have to move out. We can not be seen together after 9pm and we can’t kiss in public in case there is someone from my church around, they might be scandalized.
 
There are absolutely no circumstances where an extraordinary minister should deny communion to anyone.
 
There is another problem here that has not been covered.

One of these persons is considered to be married. ‘Annulments’ are not a right to any one. A person can’t even go off in search of another spouse (date) if their first marriage has not been shown to be non-existent. There are serious problems here. Their priest is the one who bears accountability for helping this couple discern their state of grace.

Dan
 
Let’s not be naïf! When they sleep together even though (as she says) they don’t have relation, what do you think they are doing: praying the Rosary or playing cards? :rolleyes:
Uh…maybe eating cheese and crackers and watching TV. Naive or not, it’s none of our business. Pray for them if you think they need help but get out of the “ain’t it awful” mode.
 
Almost did that for about 6 months. We had a couple of failings. So I can’t testify that its truly possible, but it’s at least almost possible. :o

Chuck
Pretty sure that “living in sin” is only used to mean when they are having sex while unmarried - not merely living in the same house.

Edit - I have friends who have regularly slept in the same bed as their girlfriend and never had sex with them. It is possible you know.
 
Actually, in the situation you describe, I think you were good to go.

I don’t think you were “Sacramentally” married, but I don’t believe the Church teaches that Civil marriages = Adultry.

But then again, I could be wrong. Where you’d you look up such a thing for the “official answer” anyway?

Chuck
Okay, I was married civilly for 11 years. We had a seven year old son. We went through the process of a convalidation. There was no prior marriage, so there was no need for an annulment.

It took three months.

Who should have moved out? Where should they have lived? Should the parent that moved out get visitation? Are we talking every other weekend or one month here and one month there.

What about the fact that my husband is not Catholic?
Okay, dear, I know you think we are already married. I know that you are willing to do this for me. But not only can we not have relations until after the ceremony, you also have to move out. We can not be seen together after 9pm and we can’t kiss in public in case there is someone from my church around, they might be scandalized.
 
Uh…maybe eating cheese and crackers and watching TV. Naive or not, it’s none of our business. Pray for them if you think they need help but get out of the “ain’t it awful” mode.
I do care about this. I am praying for them and I need just to know if I can help them out more. This is a serious matter all joking aside. Don’t misunderstand me! :tsktsk:
 
There is another problem here that has not been covered.

One of these persons is considered to be married. ‘Annulments’ are not a right to any one. A person can’t even go off in search of another spouse (date) if their first marriage has not been shown to be non-existent. There are serious problems here. Their priest is the one who bears accountability for helping this couple discern their state of grace.

Dan
Thank you Dan, I think you hit the target. 👍 They cannot look for absolution in that adulterous condition. You sovle the problem, but what about if they were single people or just married by the law. Can they be absolved and receive Communion? :confused:
 
There is another problem here that has not been covered.
One of these persons is considered to be married. ‘Annulments’ are not a right to any one. A person can’t even go off in search of another spouse (date) if their first marriage has not been shown to be non-existent. There are serious problems here. Their priest is the one who bears accountability for helping this couple discern their state of grace.
Dan
What about in a situation where one spouse is married for a year or so, civilly divorces, then remarries, fast forward ten years and three children.

At this point what should they do? We are back to one spouse moving out, leaving the children. Setting up another household and paying for all of that. And explaining it to the children, family and friends.

I would like to hear that conversation. Yes, I am moving out. Yes, we still love each other. No, I do not want a divorce. We want to be married in the Catholic Church and this is what I have to do.

I have to tell you. Unless the couple makes it public, very few people are aware of a situation like this. No one in my church had a clue that I needed a convalidation. Other than our Priest.
 
In reply to post #12 - I must disagree with the statement that it is not the concern of the Eucharistic minister. Also, I am a friend and relative of the couple, and attended their baby’s christening. This couple has good examples set before them, and plenty of support - physical, emotional and financial. I’m addressing a specific instance personally known to me. It is possible I may be lacking in Christian charity here - I have struggled with this for quite awhile. I am very concerned about the message this couple is sending - in particular to the children involved. It’s easier to theorize about a hypothetical situation I think.
I sympathize with your concern as I’ve faced a similar situation myself. I also respect your reverence for the Eucharist. Perhaps concern is not the right word. Authority might be a better choice. I know of no teaching, document, or cannon law that allows me and as an extraordinary minister to refuse communion to anyone based on the fact that I know of their grave sin. To take that authority upon oneself IMHO just oversteps my prerogatives as an EM.

One suggestion I might make is to discuss this concern with the couple. Tell them that you would feel better if they did not receive communion from you because you know you are forced to participate in compounding their grave sin. Tell them you love them and quit being and EM for that very reason. You love them so much that the thought of hurting them by giving communion to them in their state of mortal sin is too painful. Ask them if they would consider getting in another line to receive instead of receiving from you. It will likely hurt their feelings, but it will also perhaps make them stop and think some more about what they are doing.

That’s my two cents, which is probably worth what you paid for it. It’s a tough dilemma.

pax vobiscum
 
We’re reading things into the OP’s example that aren’t there - the existence of a previous marriage for either partner was never mentioned by them.

Of course such a detail changes the situation, including the potential for scandal, hugely.

Personally I was thinking of a couple neither of whom had a previous marriage. In which case neither of them is guilty of adultery or morally prohibited from dating or even living with a member of the opposite sex.

And I think someone who takes their faith seriously enough, for example, that they’re seeking to make their marriage sacramental, must be given the benefit of the doubt that they are doing their best to adhere to church law in the area of living chastely as well. Which is all any of us can say.
 
Here’s my story. I wrote this on another non-religious board I participate in, so I’m just reposting it here.

Perhaps this story will be helpful to anyone in a similar situation.
My wife and I were both previously married and divorced. My wife is a Quaker. We each have one son by our previous marriages. They were born three weeks apart and are now sixteen.

We met a bit over eleven years ago. Fell in love. Cohabited for a while, and then married civilly.

At the time, I was returning to the Catholic faith after being many things, including an atheist, for over twenty years. I found my way back through a parish that you might describe as “liberal”. The parish had many divorced and invalidly remarried couples. Many openly gay couples. Many proponents of women’s ordination. A few members of groups like Catholics for Choice.

At first, I was very happy there, but I began to notice something gnawing at me.

One time in those early years before we were married, my wife and I took a drive up to Vermont to pick up my step-son from his father. We talked about marriage and children and all of those things pre-married coulples talk about.

One thing that we both zeroed in on, me through my Catholic “reason” and she through her Quaker “insight”, was that abortion was always wrong. We agreed that we would never have one. Then we talked about our use of the IUD as birth control. It became pretty clear that in order to be absolutely sure that we were not participating in an abortion we would have to stop using an IUD.

This was the first step in understanding that many of my beliefs held as a “Cafeteria Catholic” were incorrect.

Fast forward a bit.

By a chance encounter, I was given a biography of John Paul II. Most of my fellow parishoners hated him, thought he was the main problem in the Church. I read the biography and then began to read more of his work. I was astonished by its reasonableness. It made me wonder why my fellow parishoners, and our priests, wanted to discount what the Pope had to say.

I was so excited by discovering JPII’s work that I booked a ticket to Rome during the Jubilee year in 2000. I attended a Papal Mass on Palm Sunday in St. Peter’s Square.

Before Mass I sat with some nuns from Sri Lanka. We chated about this and that. When the conversation turned to our families, I lied to them. I talked around the issue of my divorce. Didn’t want to tell them directly about my state in life.

Then I received communion, the Body of Christ consecrated by the Holy Father. Again, something was gnawing at me. I felt an unease.

Fast forward again.

continued…
 
Our first son, now five, was born. My Quaker wife lovingly agreed to let him be baptised, even though she herself does not believe it is necessary.

So we were standing there on the altar during mass in our “liberal Catholic faith community”, along with five or six other familes, most of whom were in situations like ours. The sexual abuse crisis had began some months before. Everyone in the community was livid. Everyone thought that the crisis resulted from “sinful power structures”, or the “patriarchal hierarchy”. No one wanted their children baptised into the “Church”, they wanted them baptised into the “faith community” that was being built in that little parish.

Finally, all of my doubts that came from that constant gnawing gave way. The priest charged me, as are all parents of babies being baptised, with raising our son in the faith. For me, finally, that meant the real faith. Not the one I wanted to create out of my own ego so that my “lifestyle” could be validated.

I wanted the real deal. I wanted to confront the sin that was in me.

My first step was to stop receiving communion. I finally came to know that on top of my sin in being married to my wife outside the Church, I was also commiting blasphemy against our Lord. And not receiving communion in that parish was not an easy thing to do. I was seen as suspect because I did not toe the party line around the issue of divorce and remarriage; that line being that it was none of the Church’s business.

I finally had to leave the parish. Found my way to my local parish down the street, that thankfully has an orthodox priest as pastor.

I continued to not receive communion for a year or so. Then something really wonderful happened.

I had asked my wife for a while if she would agree to live with me in continence as brother and sister. A few months before our youngest was born, she agreed to do it on a trial basis. Finally, six months into it, she agreed to vow to live this way.

At that point, after I made a confession, I was allowed to enter into a full sacramental life again, and was allowed to continue living with my wife and raising our children. My youngest son was baptised.

I can’t begin to tell you what a joyful reconciliation it’s been. And the added benefit is that the love between my wife and I just continues to grow deeper and more meaningful. It has all been a great, great gift.

The situation now is that we hope to one day be validly married in the Church, but there is no assurance that this will happen. My wife is in the process of getting a review of her previous marriage by the local marriage tribunal. If her previous marriage is judged to be invalid, then she will be granted an annulment and we will be free to marry in the Church.

At that point, we will begin the preparation for marriage. It’s quite possible that there will be something in the process that my wife will not agree to. I really don’t know. She is a woman of great integrity. That’s one reason why I fell in love with her. If it’s the case that she cannot agree to something, and if that prevents our being married in the Church, then we’ve agreed that we will continue to strive to live in continence as brother and sister.

I’d say what helped me the most in finding my way to the truth were some people who refused to confirm me in my sin, but did so in a charitable way. That’s a balance I’m still trying to learn as I attempt to help other people caught up in objective sin.

Please say a prayer for my family as we continue down this journey.
 
We’re reading things into the OP’s example that aren’t there - the existence of a previous marriage for either partner was never mentioned by them…
*waiting for the annulment of one of them *… from #1, we may asume easily the existence of a previous marriage.
even living with a member of the opposite sex.
to my understanding cohabitation is a mortal sin.
 
*waiting for the annulment of one of them *… from #1, we may asume easily the existence of a previous marriage.
Forgive me, had a slip of the brain there :o
to my understanding cohabitation is a mortal sin.
Fornication is, adultery is. I know of no source that says it is a sin of any kind for unrelated persons of opposite genders to simply share the same house, of course sharing the same room or the same bed is a different matter. If you have any current official source that says different I’d like to see it.
 
I know of no source that says it is a sin of any kind for unrelated persons of opposite genders to simply share the same house, of course sharing the same room or the same bed is a different matter. If you have any current official source that says different I’d like to see it.
I don’t think the Church considers cohabitation as inherently sinful. There is the scandal that it may cause, but there may be circumstances where the good of living in the same house outweighs the scandal (raising of children)

However, in almost all typical cases this would qualify as ‘occasion of sin’. As with scandal, something to be avoided, as long as moving out does not constitute the greater wrong.

Dan
 
all this discussion about the marital status of hypothetical couples is beside the point. No EMHC has the right to deny communion to anyone because that would entail making a pastoral judgement that belongs only the the priest.

Yes cohabiting is always sinful, yes remarriage after divorce without annulment is always sinful. But that is not the point of this discussion. The point is that sin is judged, confessed and absolved in confession, by the priest, who through this sacrament gives the individual (not a couple, a couple does not go to confession together) restores that individual to full communion. Only the priest can make a judgement about the spiritual health of that soul, not a lay minister of communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top