Homily on sexual morality

[Sir2v4]

No, I have never heard a homily dedicated to this subject. I think it would be too complex to even define terms, much less go into a deep discussion. It took the pope a long time to lay out the “theology of the body” during daily vatican audiences, and that is the “gold standard” for discussing these in the proper context.

 

[babochka]

When a person is sick and in a hospital or homebound, if a priest comes, the priest…who is in persona Christi, unlike the Extraordinary Minister…can provide pastoral care a layman cannot. He can provide Penance, which may well be necessary in certain cases before Communion. He can anoint.

So yes…far better 1 priest a month than a layperson every week.

Why not Communion every week, with the priest being the person to bring Communion once a month? Can’t it be both?

 

[KMG]

Again…and for the umpteenth time…the priest in question may well now things the original poster does not, or which she left out.

There may have been abuses.

Further…there may well be other reasons the priest does not want a regular practice of Extraordinary ministers bringing Communion to the homebound.

 

[Rau]

So yes…far better 1 priest a month than a layperson every week.

Do you too pretend this is an either/or question? Is not both the best? Is that not how it was? Is that not what the OP and others have suggested? Why are the additional opportunities for communion denied to the homebound in this parish?

 

[Joe_5859]

It feels like we are all just repeating ourselves and talking past each other at this point. I don’t know if the OP has garnered anything useful from this thread. Hopefully something was said that may be of some help/consolation.

 

[Rau]

and talking past each other

There is one small group of posters who will not address the point raised by the others. This small group keep pointing out what is not in debate - that nothing beats the priest’s personal visit. They won’t address whether there might be merit in EMHC visiting on those (majority) of Sunday’s when the priest cannot. Isn’t that strange.

 

[KMG]

I really hope that everyone who is pushing for 4 “Extraordinary” ministers a month are just as equally pushing for 4 “Extraordinary” Form Masses a month.

I have long found it strange that we are often told how Extraordinary means one thing regarding the Mass, and quite another regarding the use of lay ministers of the Eucharist.

 

[KMG]

Not not addressing anything. The priest may not want Communion brought to someone who cannot provide what may be a necessary Confession before reception.

 

[Rau]

Not not addressing anything. The priest may not want Communion brought to someone who cannot provide what may be a necessary Confession before reception.

Sure you are not addressing the issue. Instead you speculate about what might possibly explain the priest’s decision. Maybe the priest disapproves of the the whole idea of EHMC. Who knows! I offered some speculation earlier too. Maybe the EHMCs are irresponsible.

 

[KMG]

All we have is speculation, because all we have is the word of the disgruntled parishioners who are upset this priest has changed previous practice.

 

[Rau]

…all we have is the word of the disgruntled parishioners who are upset this priest has changed previous practice.

…to a practice which on face value offers communion much less frequently to the homebound and for no expressed reason.

 

[Rau]

That remark may suggest a basis for the position you’ve adopted. For me, how fortunate would I be to have both OF and EF masses available. And similarly for communion, should I be homebound.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The priest’s “right” to decide that is not being challenged or debated

A priest, above all a priest whose assignment is temporary by its very nature when he is only appointed as administrator, serves at the pleasure of His Excellency, the Bishop of the Diocese.

As the Council Fathers taught at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium:

Every legitimate celebration of the Eucharist is regulated by the bishop, to whom is committed the office of offering the worship of Christian religion to the Divine Majesty and of administering it in accordance with the Lord’s commandments and the Church’s laws, as further defined by his particular judgment for his diocese. /…/

Bishops /…/ By the ministry of the word they communicate God’s power to those who believe unto salvation and through the sacraments, the regular and fruitful distribution of which they regulate by their authority, they sanctify the faithful /…/

Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power/…/ This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church /…/ In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern /…/ But the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to Christ /…/

Priests, although they do not possess the highest degree of the priesthood, and although they are dependent on the bishops in the exercise of their power, nevertheless they are united with the bishops in sacerdotal dignity./…/

Priests /…/ Associated with their bishop in a spirit of trust and generosity, they make him present in a certain sense in the individual local congregations, and take upon themselves, as far as they are able, his duties and the burden of his care, and discharge them with a daily interest. And as they sanctify and govern under the bishop’s authority, that part of the Lord’s flock entrusted to them they make the universal Church visible in their own locality and bring an efficacious assistance to the building up of the whole body of Christ /…/. On account of this sharing in their priesthood and mission, let priests sincerely look upon the bishop as their father and reverently obey him"

The judgment and disposition of what is best for any member or parish of the diocese rests with the Bishop…not with the Priests

 

[KMG]

Has anyone questioned that a layman is free to appeal anything to a bishop, indeed to the Holy See?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Of course, hearing from a home-bound elderly or ill parishioner how much weekly reception of the Eucharist comforted him or her, when he does his rounds, may end up softening his heart faster than anything that could be said in a meeting, cordial or otherwise.

Or being forced to confront the matter in a face to face meeting with his Bishop, who can call the Priest to account for his stewardship of the parish which is, first and foremost, the Bishop’s to govern.

 

[KMG]

You do realize that your language regarding this priest indicates that in your estimation he is already guilty of poor stewardship?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

You are being disingenuous here. In the other case Fr. Ruggero was talking about personal reasons for needing EMHCs to assist, and he was quite right in stating that personal circumstances, such as a health condition, are confidential. The use of EMHCs is not abusive when circumstances warrant and most often, such as the health of the pastor, those circumstances are indeed confidential, so what might appear to be an abuse is in fact perfectly than justified.

In this case it is true that there might be particular circumstances that only the priest is privy to and should be the only one privy to them along with his bishop. But given that there is widespread concern among parishioners that the spiritual needs of the homebound are not being met, and that age-inappropriate language was used in a homily where children can reasonably be expected to be present (a homily is not a sex-ed class), we are in a completely different context.

Correct…

 

[Rau]

You do realize that your language regarding this priest indicates that in your estimation he is already guilty of poor stewardship?

On the face of it (that is, given the testimony of the OP, which is all we have to go on) his actions could very usefully be reviewed by others. Because on the face of it, they seem to run counter to the best available pastoral care of the homebound.

 

[MikeInVA]

The judgment and disposition of what is best for any member or parish of the diocese rests with the Bishop…not with the Priests

I assume that the priest was placed in that parish by the Bishop, and is supervised by that Bishop. Is it possible that the priest is doing exactly what he was charged to do by his Bishop?

 

[Hebrews12]

I’m very glad to hear that a new generation of priests are coming out and willing to talk about sin and condemn it from the pulpit instead of just wishy-washy feel-good messages of the sort I’ve so often heard. My feeling is, if anyone leaves the Church over a homily that is in keeping with the teachings of the Catholic Church, they were never really Catholic to begin with. Sad not to have them in the pews, but we are talking about good and evil here. We shouldn’t be timid, or shy away from topics that might hurt some sinners’ feelings.

The question is, how many people have already left the Church prior to this, because they felt they weren’t getting the sort of firm answers they expect to get from religion? The secular world is full of ambivalence and moral relativity, what does the Church offer to draw people in if it just provides more of the same? The world is really screwed up, and it started getting more and more screwed up since Vatican II (though I would argue not because of Vatican II, just a lot of stuff was happening at the same time and some in the Church took Vatican II as an excuse to take things too far).

How many Catholics will have children of their own, and having not heard this message, raise their kids with wrong beliefs, causing those children to eventually leave the Church? Sometimes a stitch in time saves nine.

I personally know Catholics who don’t know much at all of Catholic morals. They are totally ignorant. Who is going to teach them? My own Catechism as a child was pretty terrible, and only as an adult, many years after my Confirmation, am I learning things for the first time about the Church’s teachings.

People can debate delivery and such all they like. The fact is only one person in this thread actually heard the homily in question, and we have only their word on what it was like. I refuse to judge a homily I haven’t heard, or a priest I don’t know. I’m just glad there is at least some priest out there willing to speak up on matters essential to morals in the Church.