O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
SHE IS IN SIN. And you know this how? Because the OP posted it? Or do you have a crystal ball, and you know all?
First, it seems clear that you do not understand what the sin of “judgment” is. It is not seeing someone commit a sin, rather it is determining the state of a person’s soul and condemning them to Hell.What sin did the OP see the woman in ministry commit? So far, she hasn’t explained. She hasn’t even been back in three days, leading me to believe, sadly, that this has been bait.
Next, you fail to understand that we are all morally obligated to correct the sinner. In fact, failing to correct a sinner may itself be a sin of inaction. Only if we know for sure a sin has been committed.
Third, the OP described this person as one in a public ministry and this is in a position to set an example. One who is in public ministry, not one who has publically sinning, Where is the proof?
Finally and most importantly, we are talking about the worthiness of someone who is handling the the precious Body and Blood of Jesus. Such a person **must **be worthy to receive. And you are this woman in ministry’s confessor? or you also have a big crystal ball?
Canon law states that a person in manifest grave sin must be denied Holy Communion lest they receive it unworthily and further endanger their souls. Such a person should, by extension, not handle Holy Communion either. But first there must be proof. So far, no proof, only conjecture and hearsay and assumption. And we all know what “assume” does.
I have never before written this sort of a response, but let me give it a shot.
Has no one else realized that the OP has a single post, three days ago, with no follow-up whatsoever? Yes. I pointed that out in my first post.
I think without any further contributions by the OP, this thread should just die away. I would be inclined to agree, except for those who feel they make a judgment based on no information other than that provided by the OP. I feel somehow the necessity to defend the woman, as I have been the victim of rumor and inuendo.
One point I do feel compelled to make. Without any further information, is anyone here ***certain ***that the women referenced by the OP is currently in a state of sin? Of course not, because one can never know this. Especially so here because of how little info there is. It is quite possible that what is written in the OP is all correct but that the woman at issue knows of her own sins and has sought confession and absolution.
If all the sinners were prohibited from being Lectors or EMHCs (she cannot be a Eucharistic Minister) churches would be silent and with unending lines waiting in vain for someone to distribute the Eucharist.
Aside from the conspicuous absence of the OP, I disagree with the thrust of your statement. I know some of our EMHCs and readers have “creative” views about the faith, but most in my parish are deeply committed to the faith; they are knowledgeable and definitely living exemplary lives insofar as anybody can tell. The OP was concerned about scandal, not JUST the condition of the person’s soul. And scandal is a very real issue – as any Catholic who has been around since 2002 can attest. The difference in that, mercy dear, and this woman in ministry, is that the OP offered no proof of scandal or sin, only that she knew. I have been accused of a couple things I’ve never done in my time, and yet people have chosen to believe them over me, based on the fact of, “Well, everybody’s talking about it?” It didn’t make it true, it only meant there was gossip to the effect.