New priest conundrum

[OraLabora]

Are you saying that a priest actually can /should deny communion on the tongue in certain cases

I’m saying that if an pandemic of a potentially fatal virus is going on, common sense should prevail.

 

[Reepicheep]

That is my understanding as well…our congregation is shocked to say the least.

I was wondering if this was common or not.

Thanks for responding

Do you mean, your priest has made this announcement?
You have my condolences. I see communion in the hand all the time but no priest has ever refused to give me communion on the tongue when I made clear I desired itl.

 

[ServusHumilis]

I’m saying that if an pandemic of a potentially fatal virus is going on, common sense should prevail.

Common sense would then say not to have communion at all nor even have holy water at the door for people to bless themselves. Not having Mass at all wouldn’t be far off. So much for that idea.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Do you mean, your priest has made this announcement?
You have my condolences. I see communion in the hand all the time but no priest has ever refused to give me communion on the tongue when I made clear I desired itl.

Yes this announcement has been made, I was there and heard it.

It was reported to me that he actually denied parishioners. This part I did not see myself but I believe it to be true in light of the announcement.

It troubles me greatly because I am on a committee and have had several meetings with him. He seems like a nice guy.

My dilemma is whether I can continue at this church. I have been a parishioner for 15+ years.

 

[Brendan]

I’m saying that if an pandemic of a potentially fatal virus is going on, common sense should prevail.

Is Church Law not simply common sense as applied to the Sacraments?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m saying that if an pandemic of a potentially fatal virus is going on, common sense should prevail.

For example when swine flu swept the western world a few years back, Catholic practices were modified to reduce its spread among Mass goers.

 

[LongingSoul]

Is Church Law not simply common sense as applied to the Sacraments?

Aquinas said a number of times that divine law presupposes natural law. We aren’t meant to suspend our reason when treating of Church Law.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Common sense should prevail. The Law is meant to serve mankind, not the other way around. The common-sense approach is to realize that there may be unforeseen circumstances that the Law did not provide for, and make an exception, not stand behind a rule that may endanger people. I once saw a car speed down a city street at top speed, passing people. At first I thought “what a crazy driver” but then he pulled into the hospital parking, drove up to the emergency entrance, and I saw the mother emerge with an inanimate child in her hands and run into the door. Would you have handed out a speeding ticket and a ticket for illegal passing because “unconscious child, woman in labour, it doesn’t matter, the law is the law?”

Maybe it’s just me, I live in an area with a more Latin European approach towards the law… and where common-sense exceptions to the rule are made when clearly the public good requires it.

I would challenge that canon law serves the Church, not man.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

Aquinas said a number of times that divine law presupposes natural law. We aren’t meant to suspend our reason when treating of Church Law.

That is an interesting reflection in light of your bold red footer.

 

[Marie5890]

My territorial parish was using hand sanitizers. I don’t know, do those things even work? There are such things as those giving a false sense of security.

Studies have shown that washing one’s hands does a better job than that stuff.

Our EM’s use that stuff, but it’s a false sense of security in all honesty.

 

[Brendan]

Aquinas said a number of times that divine law presupposes natural law. We aren’t meant to suspend our reason when treating of Church Law.

In which case, are the Church laws in regards to the Sacraments unreasonable?

 

[OraLabora]

I would challenge that canon law serves the Church, not man.

I would argue that God never expects us to suspend reason and common sense precautions to avoid the spread of a potentially fatal disease.

I would also argue that Canon Law is not dogma, but supremacy of conscience is.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

I would argue that God never expects us to suspend reason and common sense precautions to avoid the spread of a potentially fatal disease.

I would also argue that Canon Law is not dogma, but supremacy of conscience is.

It has happened in my city during an outbreak that the archbishop requested to have communion in the hand only and suspended handshake during the sign of peace. I had no issue. I complied, and did not violate any laws in doing so.

Had I been asked to do something against canon law I would have dissented, even with a seemingly logical argument

The case here is a priest is refusing to administer communion on the tongue in normal and ordinary circumstances, as a rule, made as a general announcement at all masses, the first time mass was celebrated by him at that parish.

My question to you pertained specifically to your statement that the “law serves man and not the other way around”. I would submit that canon law serves God and His church also, that you and I should submit to it. Nothing in your conscience should lead you outside of canon law.

In the case of the flu, your desire to receive in the hand is within the law.

If someone in their conscience feels that the only way to properly honour the body of Christ is to not handle it with the hands, it is within the law to do so.

The supremacy of your conscience sounds dangerously close to usurping the Throne.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The case here is a priest is refusing to administer communion on the tongue in normal and ordinary circumstances, as a rule, made as a general announcement at all masses, the first time mass was celebrated by him at that parish.

If this is truly the case, I believe that a meeting with said priest and the Pastor of the parish is in order. No priest can do what you say this priest is attempting to do. The faithful have a right to receive Communion on the tongue if they so choose.

I am hoping that this is some kind of misunderstanding. If it is not, and you get no where with said priest or the Pastor (if they are not the same person), then I think a call and/or letter to the Bishop’s office should be the next step.

 

[Dulcinea2721]

If this is truly the case, I believe that a meeting with said priest and the Pastor of the parish is in order. No priest can do what you say this priest is attempting to do. The faithful have a right to receive Communion on the tongue if they so choose.

I am hoping that this is some kind of misunderstanding. If it is not, and you get no where with said priest or the Pastor (if they are not the same person), then I think a call and/or letter to the Bishop’s office should be the next step.

Priest and pastor are the same person. I believe that it has gone to the Archbishop already. It is a recent occurrence and will see how it unfolds.

I was just wondering if this was common. Seems that this is a unique thing.

 

[Brendan]

I would argue that God never expects us to suspend reason and common sense precautions to avoid the spread of a potentially fatal disease.

But, that would imply that to receive on the tongue is contrary to Reason. There might be reasons against it, but that is not that same thing as having to suspend Reason.

I would also argue that Canon Law is not dogma, but supremacy of conscience is.

That seem to be a point in favor of continued reception of communion on the tongue, if one feels so compelled to do so.

And I would also claim that Canon Law is often ( but not always, a reflection of doctrine)

For example

Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

§2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling

§3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled…

That Canon is a combination of doctrine and discipline.

The valid matter, wheat bread and wine from grapes, is certainly doctrinal. The Church has no power to change that. And no level of supremacy of conscience could alter that requirement. It might be in accord with Reason to allow rice flour, it would be beneficial to celiacs, for example. A priest could potentially form their conscience in a way to desire to use such matter. But it would be contrary to the authority that the Church has been given to allow such matter.

The requirement to mix water with the wine is disciplinary. It has great theological significance, but the Church could change that requirement without affecting the validity of the Eucharist.

 

[Corki]

There may be underlying issues with radical traditionalists in the Parish. A few years ago in my parents parish the Priest asked (not mandated) for people to receive in the hand because of a group of hostile parishioners who were trying to force through quiet aggression… pre VII practices. They (the group) left the parish after that. It was a problem that was known about at diocesan level and the measure was an attempt to diffuse the abuse of the communion line by a hostile group.

Hmmm. So, in order to thwart a group of parishioners who were “aggressive” in exercising a valid option, the priest thought it was better to break canon law to make a point? Seems like he just gave them ammunition.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Aquinas said a number of times that divine law presupposes natural law. We aren’t meant to suspend our reason when treating of Church Law.

CAF has a short teaching tract on the topic…

catholic.com/quickquestions/arent-faith-and-reason-incompatible

Having full faith in Jesus existence and the promises He made, because if we believe that He is the Son of God by His own word, we have to believe everything else including the authority He gave the Church to bind and loose and the promise to protect her from error on matters of faith and morals… So for all my deliberation on an issue I cannot by virtue of reason, disobey the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, without abandoning the first foundations of reason.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hmmm. So, in order to thwart a group of parishioners who were “aggressive” in exercising a valid option, the priest thought it was better to break canon law to make a point? Seems like he just gave them ammunition.

It was a dilemma which God ultimately resolved without war but when a group of people plan to use the body of Christ as a pawn in the manner that they did, some way of defense of the Eucharist was called for. Whether it was the best way or the reaction of a flustered Priest, I don’t know. If wolves come to the door in sheeps clothing some sort of diversion is called for. In any case, the Priest and parish were not censured and God resolved the situation fairly expediently.

 

[Brendan]

CAF has a short teaching tract on the topic…

catholic.com/quickquestions/arent-faith-and-reason-incompatible

Having full faith in Jesus existence and the promises He made, because if we believe that He is the Son of God by His own word, we have to believe everything else including the authority He gave the Church to bind and loose and the promise to protect her from error on matters of faith and morals… So for all my deliberation on an issue I cannot by virtue of reason, disobey the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church, without abandoning the first foundations of reason.

And there is nothing contrary to Reason in the Church’s teaching on this matter. As I stated above to Ora, there might be reasons against receiving on the tongue, but that is not that same thing as stating that it is contrary to Reason; or that one must suspend Reason.