C
Churchman25
Guest
Is it ok to tell a priest not to give someone the host you know has been committing grave sins but has been receiving anyway?
Last edited:
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
What LumineDiei said.
It would be one thing to tell the priest not to give communion to someone you knew was not Catholic or whom you knew was planning to desecrate the Host in some way. But discussion of someone else’s sins with the priest is off limits.
It would be one thing to tell the priest not to give communion to someone you knew was not Catholic or whom you knew was planning to desecrate the Host in some way. But discussion of someone else’s sins with the priest is off limits.
C
Churchman25
Guest
what was trying to say is that if I knew someone who was committing grave sins and was receiving unworthily, telling the priest so it stops happening.
D
DeniseNY
Guest
No, it’s not ok.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
We understood what you were trying to say, but it is still not OK.
If you are close to the person who you think is committing the grave sins, then you can have a talk with the person and tell them they shouldn’t be receiving in a state of grave sin. If they don’t listen to you, then you should just pray for them. But going to the priest is not okay.
If you are close to the person who you think is committing the grave sins, then you can have a talk with the person and tell them they shouldn’t be receiving in a state of grave sin. If they don’t listen to you, then you should just pray for them. But going to the priest is not okay.
Last edited:
C
Churchman25
Guest
Thanks for the info.
I
InThePew
Guest
No one knows another’s conscience. You don’t know if they’ve been to confession or whether there are circumstances that reduce their culpability. For all you know that may not actually be sinning at all - we should certainly never presume sin.
D
Dolphin
Guest
Believe it was Jesus who said “Let the person without sin cast the first stone” …
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
I have known quite a few priests.
A kind one likely would tell you it is NOYDB.
not so kind one (and i have known several) might verbally “rip your head off and spit down your throat”, as the saying goes.
No priest has the authority, based on what someone “tattles” (which may be true or not) to refuse Communion to another person.
A kind one likely would tell you it is NOYDB.
not so kind one (and i have known several) might verbally “rip your head off and spit down your throat”, as the saying goes.
No priest has the authority, based on what someone “tattles” (which may be true or not) to refuse Communion to another person.
D
DeaconFrankdeGenoa
Guest
In my humble opinion, always seek to do the best you can to help your “brother”. Do it out of love and for the protection of their soul.
Yes, if you truly have tried and also included others to support you as witnesses, take it to the church and then be at peace with yourself.
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Yes, if you truly have tried and also included others to support you as witnesses, take it to the church and then be at peace with yourself.
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Some might find it hard to defend someone telling the priest when a prospective communicant is a manifest public sinner, and the sin is something that is mortal in the objective order (one of the three conditions), but still, I have to wonder how this was seen traditionally, i.e., prior to the reign of John XXIII, or even prior to the 20th century. Does anybody know?
I am probably going to get incinerated for this — come rack! come rope! — but if I were the priest, quite honestly, I’d appreciate being told. If the prospective communicant were, for instance, the owner of an abortion clinic or a bawdyhouse, or if it were even more of a pedestrian public sin such as being invalidly “remarried” without an annulment and it were common knowledge (but not to me), you’d better believe I’d refuse them communion, and I’d be grateful that the “snitch” told me about them. Such a public sinner could be “invoking conscience” — it’s been known to happen — and trying to sneak and receive communion in a parish where nobody knows them.
I’m sure this is a minority opinion, but I’ve had that kind of opinion before, and I’m sure I’ll have that kind of opinion again.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Priests often, though not always, had a lot more personal knowledge of what was going on in their parishes at that time and kept in touch with their parishioners. In many places, the same families were part of the parish for generations; in places where there were many immigrants, such as parts of USA during certain eras, the immigrants would be coming to the parish for help of all kinds including spiritual.
If a priest became aware through community gossip or through a family member coming to him for help, that someone might possibly be doing sinful things, then the priest would often seek out the alleged sinner and have a talk with them. It might end with the person going to confession. Or it might end with the priest telling the person that he needed to repent and confess before receiving Communion. Or it might end with the priest concluding that there wasn’t any problem and that the person who told him there was, was either mistaken or nosy. In any event it would be based on the priest having a personal one-on-one with the alleged sinner, not on the fact that somebody else spread a story.
I suspect there was also a good bit of social pressure that if you were out getting drunk and carousing lewdly on Saturday night, you knew not to turn up for Mass on Sunday looking all fresh and like you could go right up to Communion. Also, remember that there was usually confession going on before Masses and even during Masses, so somebody in that situation could conceivably go get back in a state of grace immediately, and more or less in front of all his neighbors who would see him popping into the confessional in the worship space. Some parishes still have confession right before Mass and some even during Mass.
Nowadays when people are very transient, may be attending parishes other than their own, and priests are ministering to much larger parishes of folks they mostly don’t know, it’s not really possible for priests to be tracking down people and confronting them, and likely the priest might not even recognize a good many of the people who turn up at his church on a Sunday. It’s not like olden times. If you want this situation to improve, then pray for vocations and maybe one day we will have enough priests again so that one priest won’t be needing to minister to 2000 people.
Last edited:
Very good answer, exactly the kind of information I was looking for.HomeschoolDad:
Priests often, though not always, had a lot more personal knowledge of what was going on in their parishes at that time and kept in touch with their parishioners. In many places, the same families were part of the parish for generations; in places where there were many immigrants, such as parts of USA during certain eras, the immigrants would be coming to the parish for help of all kinds including spiritual.
If a priest became aware through community gossip or through a family member coming to him for help, that someone might possibly be doing sinful things, then the priest would often seek out the alleged sinner and have a talk with them. It might end with the person going to confession. Or it might end with the priest telling the person that he needed to repent and confess before receiving Communion. Or it might end with the priest concluding that there wasn’t any problem and that the person who told him there was, was either mistaken or nosy. In any event it would be based on the priest having a personal one-on-one with the alleged sinner, not on the fact that somebody else spread a story.
I suspect there was also a good bit of social pressure that if you were out getting drunk and carousing lewdly on Saturday night, you knew not to turn up for Mass on Sunday looking all fresh and like you could go right up to Communion. Also, remember that there was usually confession going on before Masses and even during Masses, so somebody in that situation could conceivably go get back in a state of grace immediately, and more or less in front of all his neighbors who would see him popping into the confessional in the worship space. Some parishes still have confession right before Mass and some even during Mass.
Nowadays when people are very transient, may be attending parishes other than their own, and priests are ministering to much larger parishes of folks they mostly don’t know, it’s not really possible for priests to be tracking down people and confronting them, and likely the priest might not even recognize a good many of the people who turn up at his church on a Sunday. It’s not like olden times. If you want this situation to improve, then pray for vocations and maybe one day we will have enough priests again so that one priest won’t be needing to minister to 2000 people.
In my younger years, and this would have been mid- to late-1970s, there was a handful of couples who had attempted invalid “remarriage” without benefit of annulment. Never in a thousand years would they have approached the priest for communion. They just sat there during Mass, and when communion was administered, everybody knew who they were, and why they weren’t receiving. It was kind of like Hester Prynne’s “scarlet A”, figuratively speaking. If they had received, you well might have had the kind of whispering and murmuring that takes place when something goes horribly wrong in a stage presentation or a musical performance. It would not have been a pretty sight.
I do, indeed, pray for vocations (or rather, that the faithful who are called will discern and follow the vocations Our Lord asks of them — is He calling fewer people, or is His call getting drowned out by the blandishments of the world?), but even an abundance of priests would not keep people from being transient and traveling to other parishes — it’s just part of modern life for many.
I do, indeed, pray for vocations (or rather, that the faithful who are called will discern and follow the vocations Our Lord asks of them — is He calling fewer people, or is His call getting drowned out by the blandishments of the world?), but even an abundance of priests would not keep people from being transient and traveling to other parishes — it’s just part of modern life for many.
C
ChuckB
Guest
Uhhh…that’s not exactly how the saying goes.
O
otjm
Guest
Okay, let’s review the OP’s question:
The OP was not talking about the owner of a bawdy house or an abortion clinic, and I would submit that neither of them are going to darken the doors of the church, so let’s get back to the topic at hand.
Maybe other people are busybodies - going around and asking other parishioners if this is their first or second marriage, and if the second, did they bother to get a decree of nullity.
I don’t, and I kind of have my doubts you do either. So that is not the topic.
Neither of us know what sin the OP is talking about and I am not going to let my imagination run wild pursuing it. Nor does the OP tell us how they came upon this “special knowledge” nor do they say whether of not they know that the “sinner” has not confessed - and perhaps confessed repeatedly - of the sin. But reading the OP’s statement for what it is worth, my answer is that no priest wants a tattle tale coming up and essentially gossiping.
No priest is going to refuse Communion to the “sinner” in a Communion line. Ain’t gonna happen. That is not the place where confrontations are made.
So where is the priest going to do this? Pull the sinner out of the group of people leaving Mass and say “You and I need to have a chat?” Yeah, not likely.
Go over to the sinner’s house and confront them? Yeah, ain’t gonna happen.
I understand the desire to protect the Eucharist - Jesus - from blatant disrespect; I also suspect Jesus is effeminately capable of doing so without our “help”. And I suspect the OP is a bit on the young side.
They are capable of praying for the individual whom they know; they are capable of speaking with the individual on the matter. And that is the extent with which they have to operate.
O
otjm
Guest
True - but I believe the powers that be would not approve of the saying as I learned it.
Oh, but I do think that it is entirely possible someone committing sins of this magnitude would try to receive communion, possibly going to a nearby town where they’re not known on sight. There are not a few teachers (and they could be priests, or they could be laity) who will tell people that “you can do whatever you want to, as long as your conscience tells you that it’s okay — conscience is supreme!”. I knew of such a teacher. He was misleading entire classes. I challenged him — “even abortion?”. He said “yes, even abortion”. So how is it so farfetched to think that a Catholic abortion clinic owner would tell himself “this is a good thing to do for women, I am right and Rome is wrong, this teacher told me I am fine with God as long as I’m in good conscience — and I am — but I don’t want to cause a riot in my home parish, so I’ll go over to the church in Nextown where I won’t be recognized”. Ditto for the madam who says “I’m providing a needed public service for men, I am right and Rome is wrong, this teacher told me I am fine with God…” — you get the idea. I happen to be at the church in Nextown and I recognize the abortionist or the madam. Others can do what they want, but I’m going to speak up. (Of course, the priest might be justified in asking me “and how do you know she is a madam?”…) If the priest cauterizes me, that is his problem, not mine. Wouldn’t bother me a bit. I’d just walk away knowing I’ve done the right thing. After all, I, too, am “in good conscience”.
Two words: Joe Biden.
Florence, South Carolina, a few months ago. It was all over the news.
If I were the priest, I would. I have to think there are priests in the world who would do likewise.
They may be, but I’m not. I am in the sixtieth year of my earthly life. Sixty-first, if you count in utero (and we should).
O
otjm
Guest
Again, the OP is not talking about Biden, and I doubt there is a priest out there who does not know who Joe is.
The OP is not talking about any one specific person, category of sinner, or set of circumstances. It’s a general question.
I really don’t want to take this down a rabbit hole, but there are places where Joe Biden wouldn’t be recognized. My mother-in-law has lived her whole life in a small village in Poland, only ventures into the nearest city three or four times a year, doesn’t speak English, and one time I said something about Hillary Clinton. I don’t think she knew who Hillary was. It wasn’t part of her life. If Joe Biden went up to receive communion in that village, I’m not sure anyone would know him. He would stand out as a North American (or possibly Dutch, German, Swiss, etc.) due to his grooming, dress, and body language, but aside from that, he could easily go unnoticed. If he manages to get elected, then that would be another story entirely.
“Effeminately”? Eh?
Last edited:
- Status