Host and Priest

[InThePew]

I really don’t want to take this down a rabbit hole, but there are places where Joe Biden wouldn’t be recognized.

This actually raises an interesting question (well, I think it’s interesting). The Code of Canon Law basically says that obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion, with the focus being on public sins for the protection of the good of the Church (i.e. the people of God). However, if a person’s obstinate persistence (and indeed the fact of their sinfulness) is not known to the people where they present themselves for communion (and is not likely to become known e.g. through TV or other media coverage) the question is can they be denied? Obviously, they shouldn’t present themselves at all and, if the priest has no idea who they are then the question doesn’t even arise. However, where the priest does recognise them but they (or at least their reputation) isn’t widely known then I’m not sure that there’s grounds for publicly refusing them the eucharist.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I really don’t want to take this down a rabbit hole, but there are places where Joe Biden wouldn’t be recognized.

This actually raises an interesting question (well, I think it’s interesting). The Code of Canon Law basically says that obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion, with the focus being on public sins for the protection of the good of the Church (i.e. the people of God). However, if a person’s obstinate persistence (and indeed the fact of their sinfulness) is not known to the people where they present themselves for communion (and is not likely to become known e.g. through TV or other media coverage) the question is can they be denied? Obviously, they shouldn’t present themselves at all and, if the priest has no idea who they are then the question doesn’t even arise. However, where the priest does recognise them but they (or at least their reputation) isn’t widely known then I’m not sure that there’s grounds for publicly refusing them the eucharist.

Thank you, Father. Canon Law — forgot all about it. I knew that. So as you point out, a “manifest grave sinner” can, should, and probably even must be denied communion. But if it’s not manifest (i.e., nobody knows except the priest and that little snitch from the communicant’s home parish), then the situation’s not so clear.

This is one more reason why I don’t think I could ever be a priest, even if my age, family responsibilities, and lack of annulment didn’t militate against it. If someone came up for Holy Communion, and I had moral certainty that things weren’t as they should be, I would well-nigh violate my own conscience if I had to commune them.

I have to wonder how Padre Pio handled such situations.

 

[otjm]

Eminently. The Facile Finger of Fate struck again.

 

[InThePew]

If someone came up for Holy Communion, and I had moral certainty that things weren’t as they should be, I would well-nigh violate my own conscience if I had to commune them.

I’m not sure I can say I ever have moral certainty that things aren’t the way they should be because I don’t know the state of another’s soul. Publicly denying the Eucharist is a serious step whcih can only be taken if the scandal caused by the person receiving is greater than the scandal cause by them being refused. We should never presume sin on the part of others nor be quick to judge - as Pope Francis has rightly said, the Eucharist isn’t a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine for sinners.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

If someone came up for Holy Communion, and I had moral certainty that things weren’t as they should be, I would well-nigh violate my own conscience if I had to commune them.

I’m not sure I can say I ever have moral certainty that things aren’t the way they should be because I don’t know the state of another’s soul. Publicly denying the Eucharist is a serious step whcih can only be taken if the scandal caused by the person receiving is greater than the scandal cause by them being refused. We should never presume sin on the part of others nor be quick to judge - as Pope Francis has rightly said, the Eucharist isn’t a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine for sinners.

We live in insane times, from a faith perspective. As a practical matter, people who are determined to live their lives of faith without the gentle guidance of the magisterium, end up doing pretty much whatever they see fit. In my parish that I described upthread (post #15)— that was the 1970s — if any of those illicit spouses had approached our pastor for communion, I am absolutely certain that he would have softly whispered to them “you are in an invalid marriage, no, you may not receive, come to the sacristy and see me after Mass”. That stuff didn’t fly back then. It just wasn’t done.

 

[InThePew]

if any of those illicit spouses had approached our pastor for communion, I am absolutely certain that he would have softly whispered to them “you are in an invalid marriage, no, you may not receive, come to the sacristy and see me after Mass”. That stuff didn’t fly back then. It just wasn’t done.

Surely the question would be how would he know?

• How would he know they hadn’t received an annulment?
• How would he know what went on in their bedroom?
• How would he know they weren’t going to confession every week?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

if any of those illicit spouses had approached our pastor for communion, I am absolutely certain that he would have softly whispered to them “you are in an invalid marriage, no, you may not receive, come to the sacristy and see me after Mass”. That stuff didn’t fly back then. It just wasn’t done.

Surely the question would be how would he know?

• How would he know they hadn’t received an annulment?
• How would he know what went on in their bedroom?
• How would he know they weren’t going to confession every week?

It was one of those small towns, in a part of the country that wasn’t quite Midwestern and wasn’t quite Southern, 40-45 years ago, where everyone knew everyone else’s business and “privacy” meant something different than it does nowadays. (For what it’s worth, the website Topix had to close down due to lawsuits caused by vicious online gossip in towns just like this one. That’s the kind of place it was.) This is information the pastor would have known, and so would everyone else. The assumption “well, maybe they’re in a Josephite marriage, even if they fall off the wagon once every so often, and go to confession when that happens” would not have been made by anybody. With all due respect to your orders, Father, if it’s a young, virile couple, I think that’s making an assumption that’s a little too broad — I think it borders on denial to come to any other conclusion than “they wanted to get married, they said pfui to the Church, pfui to their prior valid marriages, and they’re doing whatever the heck they want to do, including receiving communion”.

I’m a bit baffled by your comment about “going to confession every week”. That’s what the Protestants used to bash us with so much — “they think they can do whatever they want all week, then go to confession on Saturday, communion on Sunday, then go out and do the same things all over again”. I have to imagine that even Josephite marriages of the involuntary variety — where couples have been forced to “live as brother and sister” to regularize their situation with the Church where there was a grave need to keep the home together, as when children are involved — sometimes, in some cases, become “not-so-Josephite”, owing to human weakness and the fact that the spouses are still attracted to each other “in that way”.

 

[whatistrue]

where everyone knew everyone else’s business and “privacy” meant something different than it does nowadays.

But even then what “everyone knew” wasn’t necessarily true. Common knowledge is commonly mistaken.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

where everyone knew everyone else’s business and “privacy” meant something different than it does nowadays.

But even then what “everyone knew” wasn’t necessarily true. Common knowledge is commonly mistaken.

Evidently you didn’t grow up in a town like that, back in those times. There were neighborhoods. People had lived there forever. There was even a “Catholic ghetto” of sorts within several city blocks of the parish church and school. People didn’t just jump in their SUVs after Mass, drive out to their nice suburban homes, with everyone living in their own little “bubble” and not knowing a whole lot about anyone else’s affairs.

And if someone did get an annulment, they would have made sure to tell people and “let the word get out”. It was the type of town, and the type of parish, where couples would have felt the need to disclose something like that, precisely so people wouldn’t jump to conclusions — conclusions that, without this knowledge, would be perfectly logical and understandable.

It wasn’t the most pleasant place in the world to grow up. I never go back there anymore. No reason to.

 

[whatistrue]

Evidently you didn’t grow up in a town like that

This is a case in point. I am intimately familiar with the environment and culture. I just am also aware that the assumptions made and conclusions jumped to are very often incorrect; i.e. what “everyone knows” is incorrect. And I am very happy to now be in a location and culture where the rule is “MYOB”.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Evidently you didn’t grow up in a town like that

This is a case in point. I am intimately familiar with the environment and culture. I just am also aware that the assumptions made and conclusions jumped to are very often incorrect; i.e. what “everyone knows” is incorrect. And I am very happy to now be in a location and culture where the rule is “MYOB”.

My experience was different. If couples didn’t have annulments, everybody knew it. And if they did, they let everyone know that too. There was such a thing as seeking to avoid scandal.

I, too, now live in a “MYOB” city, and people get by with every kind of shenanigans you can shake a stick at. Almighty God will just have to be their Judge…