Call me a liar if you must, but I would not make that assumption. I would acknowledge it is likely- but certainly not assume it.We do have a duty to avoid giving scandal. What conclusion is naturally going to be drawn about two straight, unrelated and unmarried people of the opposite sex living together? That’s one of the reasons why it used to be common sense that such people did not live together (another reason being that it’s not the best way to avoid the occasion of sin).
No, I’m not. By living with someone when you know it is going to be assumed that you are sleeping together, you may be encouraging somebody else to shack up.Call me a liar if you must, but I would not make that assumption. I would acknowledge it is likely- but certainly not assume it.
“2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.”- you’re mixing your definitions of scandal.
You can’t control how other people are going to interpret your actions- one might assume a childless couple is practicing contraception or abortion, but that doesn’t make abstaining/being really really really really good at NFP “scandal”No, I’m not. By living with someone when you know it is going to be assumed that you are sleeping together, you may be encouraging somebody else to shack up.
So then, I guess, according to you, there’s no such thing as giving scandal.You can’t control how other people are going to interpret your actions- one might assume a childless couple is practicing contraception or abortion, but that doesn’t make abstaining/being really really really really good at NFP “scandal”
Did you even read my post? Are you denying that a childless couple could easily be assumed to be practicing some form of contraception?So then, I guess, according to you, there’s no such thing as giving scandal.
Your example is not on point. A married couple does not sin openly and notoriously by living together, because married couples are supposed to live together. A married couple does not sin openly and notoriously merely by being childless. People who shack up are sinning openly and notoriously. People who sin openly and notoriously give a bad example that encourages others to do likewise.
Just because you choose not to give the benefit of the doubt (and unless you have some outside indicator that sex is being had, there is doubt) does not mean there is sin afoot- it just makes you judgmental.All things being equal, living with an unrelated person of the opposite sex to whom you are not married gives the appearance of living openly and notoriously in sin. You have to forego common sense in order not to see this. There is no point in debating somebody who has foregone common sense.
Meaning what? That the Church ought to try to give up on the idea of enforcing rules against concubinage?In most cases, if your just dating, it`s assumed your having sex.If the Church were to throw out all the single Catholics having sex & those who are cohabitating, , we would have empty Churches & hardly any congregation at all. Christ came for sinners, The just & rightous had no need of him. Not to mention all the married Catholics who are using artificial means of birth control , & they all go to the altar
My answer is plain, NO! Can`t U deduct that from what I wrote. If they deny sacraments to all the sinners that sit in Church, there would be no Church, even among the Priests & consecrated religious, there is sinMeaning what? That the Church ought to try to give up on the idea of enforcing rules against concubinage?
Anyway, nobody’s talking about throwing out sinners, but about whether or not people who shack up should be denied Sacraments.
Nobody’s talking about all the sinners. The discussion is about open and notorious mortal sin, and how the Church should respond to it.My answer is plain, NO! Can`t U deduct that from what I wrote. If they deny sacraments to all the sinners that sit in Church, there would be no Church, even among the Priests & consecrated religious, there is sin
concubinage is a sin, therefore we are talking about sin& U dont have to come across so angry. So I say if the Church denys the sacrament to a couple who are cohabitating, they they have to deny it to the married who regularly use artificial means of birth control. & Many single people having sex outside of marriage, ETC ETC. I respect purity, I am just saying what isNobody’s talking about all the sinners. The discussion is about open and notorious mortal sin, and how the Church should respond to it.
Anybody who knows himself to be in a state of mortal sin should deny himself Communion. **But we are talking here about people whose mortal sin is **concubinage is a sin, therefore we are talking about sin& U dont have to come across so angry. So I say if the Church denys the sacrament to a couple who are cohabitating, they they have to deny it to the married who regularly use artificial means of birth control. & Many single people having sex outside of marriage, ETC ETC. I respect purity, I am just saying what is
But they don`t do they, a lot of people commit sacrilege. Cohabitation is a sin, but the Church cannot throw these people away. The OP asked why they even marry these peopleAnybody who knows himself to be in a state of mortal sin should deny himself Communion. **But we are talking here about people whose mortal sin is **
1. Open; and
2. Notorious.
The discussion is not about people who sin in secret. People who are secretly in a state of mortal sin and who present themselves for Communion or Matrimony are not the issue here, because when the Church administers the sacraments to such people, she does not give the appearance of condoning their behavior – because nobody knows what they are up to. It is when everybody knows what they are up to, and these Sacraments are nevertheless administered to them, that you have a potential for scandal.
Personally I do not see how co-habitation is necessarily a sin - but it is a very present temptation. The church does recomend co-habitation as brother and sisters in certain cases (invalid marriage that includes children). However, in that case, the standard rule is to deny sacraments while the situation is being resolved.“co”- together
“habitation”- living
The word sex does not come into play
Just because people are going to be judgmental and assume sex is taking place does not make it sinful.
The Church doesn’t throw people away by denying them Sacraments. Where the Sacraments are denied to those engaging in public sin, the purposes are (a) to avoid scandal (i.e., giving the appearance that the Church condones what they’re doing), and (b) to wake the people in question up to the seriousness of their situation.But they don`t do they, a lot of people commit sacrilege. Cohabitation is a sin, but the Church cannot throw these people away. The OP asked why they even marry these people
Personally I think there would be a lot of problems if Christian churches started to deny the sacraments to all but a small number of ‘righteous’ by applying the law very strictly. Understandably each church (including the CC) has certain laws and norms which are supposed to ensure a degree of order and harmony. As with many situations involving morality and law, I think the judgements I see of people here are very harsh and to a certain degree inequitable because they are not so much animated by charity as to a very hard-line stance on moral rigor. I can understand the concerns people may have about laxity but in my view too much harshness on the application of the universal law to particular situations will only drive people away from churches and introduce a strong spirit of legalism and Phariseeism and self-righteousness Jesus himself so harshly criticises in page after page on the gospels. Who is to say those who feel ‘everything is right’ because they feel they have followed the written law have not themselves sinned mortally and done so many times through self-righteousness and pride at their own ‘status’ and callousness and indifference to the weaker members of their own communities as well as those outside their churches? I personally think God’s judgement will be even harsher on such people than it would be upon those who are not perfect but acknowledge this is the case and do their best to improve. As St John says in one of his letters, if anyone says they are without sin and perfect, they are liars.
Also, there is a problem, if we start to ask about who to ‘include’ and who to ‘exclude’, about how you go about the process. I imagine if priests and pastors would be faced with a very difficult situation if they were required to make detailed inquiries about the private lives and situations of everyone who approached them to have access to the sacraments. A priest or pastor cannot go into the depths of everyone’s conscience and understand the reasons they do what they do, not can they acquire a complete and comprehensive knowledge of each person, their character, life, history and situation, to form a perfect judgement about their nature and moral fitness. It would also no doubt be extremely intimidating to potential converts to find that the leaders of the church putting them through a very harsh program of examination of their private moral life before they can be ‘let in.’ I agree it is reasonable to only allow a person into the church after a degree of examination and instruction in the faith, but not to the extreme of judging their lives harshly in the light of certain laws.
From these principles I think churches should deny sacraments to their faithful only in the most extreme circumstances. They should assume people who take the sacraments do so in good faith and not judge otherwise unless there is solid independent evidence to support the charges against the good faith of those taking part in the sacraments, and also if someone is accused by someone else of being unworthy for whatever reason, the priest or pastor giving the sacraments should observe natural justice by allowing the person accused of being unworthy to respond to the accusations and also instruct them on the proper manner of taking the sacraments (including the norms and laws) and giving the person a chance to repent of their sins (if they have any) and recieve the sacrament in question properly. If someone is to be excommunicated from all the sacraments, unless someone goes off on their own and harms someone or committs a very serious crime under the law of the church (i.e. stealing large amounts of property, seriously assaulting and harming another member of the congregation, committing adultery with another member of the faithful or their spouse, murder, etc) access to the sacraments should not be denied to someone without a proper judicial process is carried out which presumes the person accused is innocent of the charge against them and observes natural justice by giving them a chance to respond and defend themselves of the charges against them or to repent before any adverse findings are made and any decision is made to punish the offender in question.
Only after these processes have been exhausted and the person in question is either manifestly and wilfully impenitent, or simply shows no desire to remain a member of the community, should they be excommunicated or denied access to the sacraments. Otherwise, people themselves should do their best to make themselves aware of the consequences of disobeying laws and norms in their respective communities. Most people are competent adults who can understand the laws of their communities and the rationales behind them, and should behave like adults by taking the responsibility to instruct themselves properly about their faith and take responsibility for their actions, including the need to acknowledge their faults and wrongdoing and repent appropriately. This is especially applicable to the ‘self-righteous’ who falsely believe they are in good graces of their communities and so therefore also with God.
Given that denial of the sacraments or excommunication is the harshest penalty a church can impose on one of its members, the level of evidence required to impose such a penalty should be very high and depend more on the suspicion of a individual priest or layperson or even group of laypeople. Such a process should also be done impartially and independently by an unbiased judge. I think then such a punishment, where it is not an automatic one, should only be allowed to be imposed by a bishop or a senior group of elders or church leaders, and only then after a proper and untainted trial of the person in question has been carried out which clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt demonstrates their guilt of the crime with which they are accused of. People in civil society are afforded such protections without invoking any religious considerations, so why should not religious communities also observe such standards when they so often claim the moral high ground in society.
If the Church denied them a wedding in Church then they would still be living in sin. Yes, they would be consistent sinners and they would not be allowed to convert. However, the Church also teaches that people can convert and the sacrament of Confessions washes away previous sins so that a couple can get married with a clean slate. Even though they are living together this does not mean they are having sex and there are also couples who have sex and who do not live together so it is not always public. There are also couples who have had abortions prior to marriage and therefore do not have any children before their wedding day and others that get married with children because they kept their babies. Certainly in Britain anyway. So we shouldn’t judge by appearances.My question concerns whether or not sacraments can be denied to people. Here’s the problem:
Last spring I taught NFP to 13 couples. Eleven of those 13 were living together and contracepting (both mortal sins, for anyone in doubt). I have taught for about four years and have now resigned for several reasons, but this one is my top. Why are co-habitating couples permitted to marry in the Church?
I’ve asked priests and other folks and the answer I’ve gotten is that priests are not permitted to deny the sacraments to anyone. In fact, the last priest I talked to about this said they were taught that in seminary (he is newly ordained).
It cannot be true that sacraments cannot be denied. Archbishop Burke was the first of many who are now denying Holy Communion to those politicians advocating abortion. I know of a man denied Holy Orders the week before his ordination when family members finally came forward with information that he had problems. Parents are denied the baptism of their child if they have no intention of practicing the Catholic faith. These are a few examples.
One reason I’m told that couples should be allowed to marry in the Church anyway is because otherwise they’ll go to another church or judge to marry. My response is, “Fine. At least they’ll be consistent.”
Another reason I was given was that hopefully the graces of the sacrament will help them see the truth. People in mortal sin don’t receive graces. And if they choose to have a wedding Mass, they also put on an additional mortal sin on their souls by receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin.
Please don’t misunderstand that I’m just a grump. I Corinthians 11 makes it very clear that those who receive Our Lord in an unworthy manner bring judgment, and eventually death, upon themselves. By allowing these folks to marry in the Church I see two things:
So, can anyone tell me where in Canon Law, the Catechism, writings of the popes, etc. where it says that sacraments cannot be denied?
- Our Lord is dishonored publically since most folks at the wedding know the couple is living together. Co-habitation is a public sin, especially when they don’t bat an eye giving the priest the same address!
- These people do not take seriously the eternal ramifications of what they’re doing. Why should they? Obviously the Church doesn’t see it as a big deal or they would deny them a Catholic church wedding.
Thanks,
Tracy