Is it licit for me to receive Communion? (Cohabitation)

[Gorgias]

Seems like the confessional is precisely the place for this discussion.

It really isn’t. That discussion requires quite a bit of context, and fleshing out:

• cohabitation
• the nature of the relationship
• the person’s willingness and ability to follow through on the promise of a chastity that he hasn’t lived out yet, to date
• the possibility for scandal
• the path to resolving the issue permanently (i.e., marriage)

Let’s also recall that anonymity in the confessional is a right that a penitent has, but this discussion requires the priest to know to whom he’s talking.

Finally, it’s important to recognize that the person’s pastor is the proper person to grant permission for this solution. Not the parochial vicar, or a pastor from a neighboring parish, or whomever happens to be in the confessional that day. He must talk to his own pastor.

Personally, I prefer a confessor who gives advice over one who simply gives three Hail Mary’s and shoo’s you out the door… but this discussion goes far beyond simple advice. It’s a discussion that requires time and pastoral care.

 

[Gorgias]

Not 20 questions. Just one.

If you mean that the penitent brings it up, then yeah – he only asks one question. The confessor, however, needs to ask quite a few questions in order to come to an answer!

 

[rcwitness]

Seems like the confessional is precisely the place for this discussion.

I cant imagine why not!

And the priest is perfectly capable of suggesting a separate meeting to discuss more, if he feels.

But the accusation that its inappropriate to ask this question in the Confessional is jut wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

And the priest is perfectly capable of suggesting a separate meeting to discuss more, if he feels.

But the accusation that its inappropriate to ask this question in the Confessional is jut wrong.

Wow…!

If all you’re suggesting is that he bring it up – a la “Father, can we talk sometime about my current living situation?” – then fine. But the confessional is not the place to hold that discussion, which – up until now – you disagreed with.

 

[rcwitness]

No, my point is that it is good, appropriate, and perfectly ok to both ask and talk about it in the Confessional.

The priest can respond however he wishes.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

Seems like the confessional is precisely the place for this discussion.

It really isn’t. That discussion requires quite a bit of context, and fleshing out:

• cohabitation
• the nature of the relationship
• the person’s willingness and ability to follow through on the promise of a chastity that he hasn’t lived out yet, to date
• the possibility for scandal
• the path to resolving the issue permanently (i.e., marriage)

Let’s also recall that anonymity in the confessional is a right that a penitent has, but this discussion requires the priest to know to whom he’s talking.

Personally, I prefer a confessor who gives advice over one who simply gives three Hail Mary’s and shoo’s you out the door… but this discussion goes far beyond simple advice. It’s a discussion that requires time and pastoral care.

All those things you mentioned are part of the context of the sin. It is appropriate to discuss the context in confession. Perhaps this would be a good time to make an appointment for confession, but it would seem strange to confess the sin without any context, then make an appointment to discuss the rest. But you and I have had this discussion in other threads and I know we disagree.

A fixed grate is a right. Anonymity is not.

To the OP: Essentially, I agree with other posters. Go to Confession and talk to your priest. He will guide you.

 

[babochka]

When we’re talking about certain priests being equipped to deal with specific issues, then it does matter which priest you go to. I wasn’t taking about sacraments.

Maybe you can help by explaining why you think that a traditional priest is best equipped to handle this relatively common and timeless dilemma?

I’ve had a lot of confessors over the years. One of the most solid on sexual morality was a Jesuit. Go figure.

 

[Gorgias]

All those things you mentioned are part of the context of the sin.

The request for permission to live as brother and sister and return to reception of the Eucharist is not a sin being confessed, though. It’s a separate matter altogether.
Pope Francis:

The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. … The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that no “easy recipes” exist.

I would argue that Pope Francis isn’t thinking about a two-minute conversation in a confessional when he asserts that there should be a careful discernment of situations in a way that adequately distinguishes the situation. In fact, it’s reasonable to presume that the two-minute conversation is precisely an attempt at an “easy recipe” of the sort he claims do not validly exist.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

All those things you mentioned are part of the context of the sin.

The request for permission to live as brother and sister is not a sin being confessed, though. It’s a separate matter altogether.
Pope Francis:

The Church acknowledges situations “where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate”. … The Synod Fathers stated that the discernment of pastors must always take place “by adequately distinguishing”, with an approach which “carefully discerns situations”. We know that no “easy recipes” exist.

I would argue that Pope Francis isn’t thinking about a two-minute conversation in a confessional when he asserts that there should be a careful discernment of situations in a way that adequately distinguishes the situation.

It doesn’t have to take place in a confessional, but it can and it seems like it would be easier to have just one conversation on the matter. I’m not suggesting this happened in a 2-minute confession. I mentioned in a previous post that an appointment for confession might be a good idea.

If I wanted to ask my pastor for a dispensation for fasting regulations or something along those lines, I would have no problem bringing that up in confession, especially if my reasons for asking we’re somehow relevant to my sin. I have, in fact, done precisely that. I would also bring it up outside of confession if that seemed more appropriate or simpler.

 

[Gorgias]

If I wanted to ask my pastor for a dispensation for fasting regulations or something along those lines, I would have no problem bringing that up in confession, especially if my reasons for asking we’re somehow relevant to my sin. I have, in fact, done precisely that.

Yeah, but that’s a much simpler conversation, don’t you think? It essentially comes down to “may I?” and “yes”.

I would also bring it up outside of confession if that seemed more appropriate or simpler.

Right. That’s all I’m saying: for a conversation of this complexity, outside of confession is what’s appropriate.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

If I wanted to ask my pastor for a dispensation for fasting regulations or something along those lines, I would have no problem bringing that up in confession, especially if my reasons for asking we’re somehow relevant to my sin. I have, in fact, done precisely that.

Yeah, but that’s a much simpler conversation, don’t you think?

I would also bring it up outside of confession if that seemed more appropriate or simpler.

Right. That’s all I’m saying: for a conversation of this complexity, outside of confession is what’s appropriate.

I get what you are saying. I just disagree.

But I do think that an appointment to discuss this, with or without confession, is appropriate.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If you are repentant, then you may go to Confession. After Confession, you may receive Communion. Cohabitation, in the sense of simply living in the same domicile, is not intrinsically evil. As long as you are refraining from premarital sex, you may receive Communion. May God bless your marriage.

 

[Gorgias]

I get what you are saying. I just disagree.

But I do think that an appointment to discuss this, with or without confession, is appropriate.

Right. That’s all I’m saying. (I’m not saying that, at that appointment, it’s unthinkable to also introduce the sacrament of reconciliation. However, I am saying that attempting to wade through this during a normal Saturday trip to the confessional is not the way to go.)

Cohabitation, in the sense of simply living in the same domicile, is not intrinsically evil.

No, but the sin of scandal is a grave one.

As long as you are refraining from premarital sex, you may receive Communion.

That’s for his pastor to decide.

 

[Pup7]

Are you really suggesting that the sin of scandal is only applicable to those “who establish laws” and “business leaders”, “teachers”, or “manipulators of public opinion”? If so, you’re misinterpreting the Catechism.

No, I’m reading and quoting what’s there. It is up to the processor of information to determine whether they’re scandalized or not. Come on - there’s been more than enough scandal from inside the Church over the years. Don’t tell me you didn’t and don’t take offense at all the pokes taken at Holy Mother Church in the last 15 years that just won’t die. That was scandal. A parishioner striving to make things right with God is hardly the same thing. People should judge not, mind their own business, and pray for their fellow man - and thank God life was chosen for the baby over the alternative. We’re all sinners - not one person in that church is perfect.

No, what I’m saying is that there is the possibility (which can only be weighed by his pastor) that there might be parishioners who might misunderstand and be tempted toward sin.

There’s always the possibility. If I skip Mass today (which I’m not), someone else might be tempted to…use that as an excuse. “Well she did it.” Sounds like a little kid to me - and sounds like someone isn’t stable in their faith. It’s like the idiot zipping in and out of traffic yesterday on I-5 - no one followed his example that I saw in my immediate area because I’m assuming we all knew better. We are responsible for our own actions. We still have to live our own lives and commit our own errors. Judge not, and pray.

That temptation doesn’t come from the attempt “to regularize [the OPs] situation”, but from his reception of the Eucharist, which is the only thing they see (in addition, potentially, to the baby bump and the lack of wedding rings).

I didn’t say it came from the OP’s attempt. I’m 44 - I know what people will see. That’s between the OP, his fiancee, God, and the priest. Judge not, mind one’s own business, reach out to this little family, and help them as fellow children of God - and fellow sinners.

The wedding ring/baby bump comment was a bit much. That’s why I think you’re judging. Why say that??

You snipped that last quote out of context. You snipped this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

What I said was:

So in my view what you’re saying is the OP’s fellow parishioners are so weak in their conviction and their faith that they can’t possibly adhere to their own catechesis and their own concept of what’s right and wrong simply because the OP and his fiancee are trying to regularize their situation and choose to follow the instruction of a priest.

…which was my opinion based on the CCC paragraphs. So what was “patently false” about this statement?

 

[semper_catholicus]

That’s good for you. I’m glad to here that.

 

[Gorgias]

Come on - there’s been more than enough scandal from inside the Church over the years. Don’t tell me you didn’t and don’t take offense at all the pokes taken at Holy Mother Church in the last 15 years that just won’t die. That was scandal. A parishioner striving to make things right with God is hardly the same thing.

Hold on a second. I think we’re talking about two, distinct, unrelated meanings here. You seem to be talking about ‘scandal’ in the way that it’s used in the secular world – that is, the way that Webster’s defines it. (To wit: “indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion”.)

That’s not at all what I’m talking about!!! Rather, I’m talking about the theological definition of a particular sin, namely, “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.”

These two are very different concepts, and you seem to be taking me to task for the former when I’m only discussing the latter.

People should judge not, mind their own business, and pray for their fellow man

With all due respect @Pup7, you’re missing the boat on this one. Scandal absolutely isn’t about judging a person! In fact, it’s the opposite of judging! It’s the result of using someone as an example for your own behavior – but, it’s about being mistaken, and thinking that they’re doing something that you had previously thought was wrong, and about doing it because you think that their example is showing you that it’s all OK.

In this case, it’s not about judging the OP, it’s about thinking, “well, if he can do it, so can I!” … without properly understanding the circumstances.

There’s always the possibility. If I skip Mass today (which I’m not), someone else might be tempted to…use that as an excuse. “Well she did it.”

Exactly. And, it’s not as uncommon as you make it out to be. People say that all the time in the Church. It’s human.

We are responsible for our own actions.

Absolutely. And the sin we’re discussing here is only the sin of “leading another into temptation”, that’s all.

You snipped that last quote out of context.
…which was my opinion based on the CCC paragraphs. So what was “patently false” about this statement?

You made it about the OP’s attempt to regularize his situation and their desire to follow the instructions of his pastor. That’s completely false – and has nothing to do with the sin of scandal that is the topic at hand! Scandal doesn’t arise from “attempting to regularize one’s situation” or from “following the instruction of a priest”! Rather, it arises from someone’s misunderstanding of a situation and the resulting temptation to commit the sin that he believes the other person, also, is committing.

So, what’s false is your attempt to characterize the sin in terms of something that’s completely irrelevant.

 

[Elf01]

the person’s willingness and ability to follow through on the promise of a chastity that he hasn’t lived out yet, to date

To be fair I don’t think the OP has stated that he is the baby’s father. It is possible that no sin was committed by him or his fiancee. I do agree that living together with a pregnant woman will lead to assumptions but living together without her being pregnant/having children would also.

 

[TheLittleLady]

It’s odd to me to think that these two persons who have resolved to live as brother and sister in the Faith are giving more scandal than others in the Church , which is full of sinners including yourself,

It is because the sin of scandal is not what many people THINK it is.

Causing someone to clutch their pearls and say “oh my, I think he is sinning!” is not scandal.

 

[joeybaggz]

Appearance is none of anyone’s business. Not one bit.

I’ve read a number of your posts and find you well informed and offering solid and significant (name removed by moderator)ut on various threads. Charitably, I suggest you examine the words above. I think scandal is often the result of appearances. I understand what you mean, I just wonder if you might word it a bit differently?

 

[Gorgias]

MaryT777:

It’s odd to me to think that these two persons who have resolved to live as brother and sister in the Faith are giving more scandal than others in the Church , which is full of sinners including yourself,

It is because the sin of scandal is not what many people THINK it is.

Causing someone to clutch their pearls and say “oh my, I think he is sinning!” is not scandal.

This!

This is exactly what’s in play… when we hear ‘scandal’, we think of the common, secular definition, and not what the Church means when it talks about “the sin of scandal”.