Non Practicing Catholics Receiving Communion

[former_Catholic]

he has a vendetta against me because I showed him/her up in another thread when he/she claimed humans can turn into angels when dead.

I said no such thing at any time, anywhere. Quit lying.

When I say Catholic Convent schoolgirls, this doesn’t mean they are currently in school. They are now at university. With me. Friends. Of mine.

I am vastly relieved that they are not underage school girls, but university student women. You are the first male university student I have ever heard refer to female university students as “Catholic convent school girls” rather than “Catholic school graduates” or “former Catholic convent school girls.”

Irregardless of the fact they are not underage school girls, I still consider it completely inappropriate of you to have watched these women at mass and confronted and subsequently challenged them on the fitness of their souls to receive communion such that they are not only uncomfortable confessing to the parish priest, but now also apparently foregoing communion altogether, apparently as a result of your confrontation with them.

I think it is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say that someone is going to leave the Church on account of me saying what a certain rule is.

No one here said that anyone is going to leave the Church on account of you saying what a certain rule is.

You said the 3 “Catholic convent school girls” told you that they intended to no longer take communion after you confronted them. You therefore bear the heavy responsibility of having convinced them to alter their spiritual practice and spiritual support system to this extent, and in spite of the fact that you are not authorized by the Catholic Church to be their spiritual advisor.

What is it about a man approaching a woman after mass and saying “by the way, if you are in a state of mortal sin, you can’t receive the Eucharist until you have confessed” that people might find repulsive? Women (and men) generally regard unsolicited spiritual advice from an unauthorized unqualified lay spiritual advisor (particularly of the opposite sex) suggestive that they may have been in some sort of state of mortal sin and unfit to receive communion when they received communion as being not only unsolicited and unwelcome, but also constituting both sexual and spiritual harrassment.

It makes me wonder what you are hiding, what about it makes that statement so ugly to you? And yet, if a Priest said it to you, even if he wasn’t your confessor, you would humbly accept and thank him for that information (even if you already knew the rule). Something about a lay person telling you the rule makes you disgusted.

People are often disgusted by completely unqualified and unauthorized lay men playing the self-assigned role of unsolicited “priest” and “spiritual advisor” to lay women, for sure, because it certainly qualifies as both sexual and spiritual harrassment.

You judge your soul too pure, your ears too good, to hear the rule. Or you judge me too much a sinner, too unholy, to teach you - oh You, the great Saint of our time, how could it ever be that I tried to inform you.

What judgment? The fact is that you apparently managed to convince 3 university women, too uncomfortable with their parish priest to go to him for confession, to no longer take communion in their Church.
This is what you managed to teach them. You undermined and severed this connection they had to their faith and their Church and to Christ through their reception of the communion.

You personally feel that you did right by them, and that you protected the Eucharist from not being treated disrespectfully.
Sure you did.
Well, then, you really must report this to the priest so that he can be sure to congratulate you on your stunning achievement that there are 3 women in his parish, not only too uncomfortable to come to confession from him, but now also too uncomfortable to receive communion from him.
How long do you figure these women will care to show up for mass with you sitting there watching them and wondering what you’ll come up with next in the way of unsolicited spiritual advice for them?

 

[NewsTheMan]

I sit and bash my head against the wall. I want to at least.

I am dumbfounded that you actually take so much out, you draw so much out of my posts. Things that aren’t there, and things that have been explained.

1. I wasn’t lying
2. I refer to them as women, but if I want to make it clear they went to a Catholic Convent school this is how I refer to them. That is usual, normal human linguistic practice.
3. Once again, I do not sit and watch everybody
4. The connection between their feeling uncomfortable in confessing and my telling them the rule is one you stretch to try connect, because you rely so much on this. But the connection isn’t there. They were always embarrassed regardless of what I said. Heck, I am still embarrassed in confessing some sins. But its a lesson in humility when I do go. You’re trying to connect something that isn’t there. The rule exists outside of my realm and inside of it; whether or not I tell someone doesn’t make the rule any more or less harsh, or however you percieve it.
5. I like the underhanded way you keep using language - “underage” school girls and such. It is very clever. Underage to what? Are you implying sexual things? Underage?
6. As I keep saying over and over and over and over and over - whether or not I tell them the rule, the rule exists. But rather let them know then for them to keep practicing their Catholic faith wrong, or treating the Eucharist without respect, or going by in life without the sacrement of confession. You seem to not understand that confession is necessary for communion. I do not take away their right to communion - they take away their right by not confessing. It is not me. You have such a good way of twisting things, well done.
7. Yes, you claim in hypothetical situations that people will leave the Church, etc. You hypothetically theorize on ridiculous situations then go on to talk about me, my position and everything as if your hypothetical situation is in fact reality.
8. I didn’t convince them to do or not do anything. You are coming at this from once again a ridiculously flawed and non Catholic angle. The way you practice your faith as a Catholic means you follow Catholic teachings. I mean, I don’t understand how that is unclear to you. It isn’t subjective, you don’t pick and choose. Altering their spiritual practice implies everybody can do as they please. No they can’t. There are rules and teachings. By trying to impose on me guilt and arrogance and wrongness you tie yourself up in contradictions and fallacy.
9. Your talk on sexual harrassment leads me to believe that you think every act of speaking to a women is sexual. I don’t know how to respond to that. Look up sexual harrassment please. This is part of your ongoing attempt to twist and use language and situations that place on me wrongdoing and immorality. You honestly need to realise it doesn’t work on me.
10. I have made this point already. You just completely misread what I say. And misunderstand and twist everything. How did I convince these girls not to go to confession? Really? Is that what you claim? I convinced them not to go? So, in your estimation I want to be the best Catholic and in my arrogance I teach them about one sacrement but discourage the other sacrement? REALLY? Contradiction, fallacy, circular rhetoric.
11. Please re-read my posts. In fact. Don’t, you obviously just have no clue.

It just baffles me. One minute I am an arrogant college student trying to evangelize, the next a perverted nosey old man, the next a college student who preaches one sacrement’s good but discourages from the other sacrement.

This is getting bizarre. former Catholic in all my dealings with you this has by far been the most entertaining and baffling. You have a way with words, but not in a good way.

 

[NewsTheMan]

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

What is a former Catholic even doing on this thread! You don’t care about the Eucharist, you don’t care about our Faith, our teaching, our Magisterium. You are here ONLY to argue (and argue badly). Good grief.

 

[CAnnElizabeth]

Those of us who have been shocked at your actions and intent (you, NewsTheMan) have directly quoted your postings time after time. We ARE listening. We ARE reading. We DO understand what you’re saying and what you’re doing…and we vehemently disagree with both your (“high-horsey and judgmental”) attitude and methods. I respectfully say to you that YOU are the one not listening. Have you perhaps noticed that, except for a couple of early posters, you and your actions have no supporters on this thread?

I’ll say this one final time: You have no knowledge of the state of anyone’s soul or relationship with God at any point in time. Advising them privately and charitably ONCE of the rules surrounding the reception of Communion for their knowledge, then leaving up to them their subsequent decision and actions, in light of their own relationship with God, in my opinion would be acceptable.

Anything beyond that, ESPECIALLY THIS: “And I will keep telling people they can’t take our Lord until they confess.” is far beyond the actions of any Catholic layperson. It just simply isn’t your business to either judge or act in this manner. You are wrong.

By the way, knowing that you are only a young student without decades of religious training and devotion behind you, greatly diminishes your import in my mind. You may be zealous but you’re certainly not acting charitably – ask yourself (or research it) what Jesus gave us as the greatest commandment, then look at your own motives and own life before you judge others.

I’m done with this conversation.

 

[Newbie2]

Betsy and another:

If my pointing out to a friend that in order to recieve communion they need to confess mortal sins forces them to leave the Catholic Church (as former Catholic points at as a probably possibility - I question this but lets continue) then they were never in communion with it. Why?

Well, why did they leave? The only possibility is that they left because I pointed out a teaching to them, and they didn’t like that teaching and so left. They were receiving communion not knowing a rule, and then rejecting the rule once they knew it, so they were there under false assumptions. **They were never in communion with the Catholic Church in the first place! **

Quoting former President Reagan, “There you go again”.

“The only possibility…”? C’mon, get real. You again are presuming to know what these people may be thinking. There are many reasons why someone might leave the Church. Yours might just be one of a myriad of reasons a particular person might leave. They might not like lay people telling them what to do or not to do, and that might be the reason. In other words, it’s not the message but the messenger and how he delivers the message that puts them over the edge. Ever consider that?

“They were never in Communion with the Church in the first place”. WOW again. So you can read minds as well as hearts too. Ever consider the notion of “Cafeteria Catholics” who start out as “Regular Catholics” and let things slip? While nobody here is defending this as a good thing, you have no basis to say someone was never in communion in the first place.

Those of us who have been shocked at your actions and intent (you, NewsTheMan) have directly quoted your postings time after time. We ARE listening. We ARE reading. We DO understand what you’re saying and what you’re doing…and we vehemently disagree with both your (“high-horsey and judgmental”) attitude and methods. I respectfully say to you that YOU are the one not listening. Have you perhaps noticed that, except for a couple of early posters, you and your actions have no supporters on this thread?

I’ll say this one final time: You have no knowledge of the state of anyone’s soul or relationship with God at any point in time. Advising them privately and charitably ONCE of the rules surrounding the reception of Communion for their knowledge, then leaving up to them their subsequent decision and actions, in light of their own relationship with God, in my opinion would be acceptable.

**Anything beyond that, ESPECIALLY THIS: “And I will keep telling people they can’t take our Lord until they confess.” is far beyond the actions of any Catholic layperson. It just simply isn’t your business to either judge or act in this manner. You are wrong. **

Agreed.

Nobody here who has disagreed with you in this thread has said that communing without the benefit of confession is a good thing.

You are not the Eucharist Police. You are not these people’s Priest. You are not these people’s spiritual advisor. You have no authority doing what you have described youself as doing.

Again, if I can speak for those who oppose your methods, your message is a good one but your methods are faulty. Please find some other way of expressing your concerns. What I see you doing is similar to the college preacher standing outside a college bar on a Saturday night bellowing “REPENT OR DIE IN HELL”. Nobody listens.

It’s not the message, it’s the method.

 

[NewsTheMan]

How do you know how I deliver the message? There is no way of knowing - and yet you presume to know. If someone honestly does leave the Church for a “myriad” of different reasons after I told them the teaching then I would go so far as to say I had nothing to do with it. Only crazy people quit because one person told them a rule.

Cafeteria aren’t fully in communion with the Church. They can’t be. We profess the Creed and in doing so say we agree 100% and thus we are Catholic. We cannot have a 50% Catholic belief but the other 50% is a bit iffy so I reject it. If that is the case you aren’t in communion with the Church. I don’t care how bold or offensive that sounds, because it is the truth.

Again, I must say, for the last time I hope, I do not sit and watch in pews, waiting to catch people. Nor do I police people. No. I speak to my friends about it. And within that I will keep telling them over and over if they keep taking communion without confessing. Because they are broken the rules. You can’t do it. It is not only breaking the rules but a mortal sin. Communion without the benefit of confession is a flawed statement. Communion without confession is just pure and simply not allowed. Being in a state of grace is the pre-requisite for communion. Confessing isn’t just a benefit.

The method you speak of just doesn’t affect me. What method? The feelings I have towards it don’t represent my method. If I am strongly opposed to abortion does that make me a pro-choice murderer? No. If I express my views, my concern, does that mean every time I encounter a pro-choice person I berate him? Does that mean I police everybody? No.

And you seem to be stuck on this judgement thing. I am not making THE judgement, I am making a judgement call. I see my friends not obeying or being ignorant.

The Didache says: “Whosoever is holy *, let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent” (Didache 10).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement applies today. “A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible”.

If I see that there is no grave reason in my friends, I will tell them the teaching. Thats that.

I suggest, on this line of thought, you also contact Karl Keating, who published 5 reasons John Kerry cannot recieve communion a few years back. Maybe I am just a arrogant college student, but he is a wise apologist. You should all tell him how you feel about this, because I am sure he would like to know.*

 

[NewsTheMan]

catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/2c.htm

Read that first, and then come back and start disagreeing.

The quote I think is important:

“In addition to the Eucharist being closed to non-Catholics, there are certain Catholics who are unable to receive the Eucharist. A Catholic apologist* must *be prepared to address this issue, as the unworthy reception of communion causes both scandal to the Church and very real spiritual damage to the individual who is receiving communion unworthily.”

Now, who’s duty is it? Are you going to now claim that I cannot call myself an Apologist?

 

[NewsTheMan]

In a memorandum, delivered as guidance for the first of the 2004 meetings of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows:

"1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass,*** is an abuse that must be corrected*** (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

“6. When precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

 

[Incomplete]

My priest, who is very clear on Catholic teachings, reminds people that we never know how God works, even when it concerns those not in communion with the Church receiving communion.

I read a story about a guy who was not just an atheist, but also vehemently anti-Catholic. He was asked to be in a friend’s Catholic wedding, and almost turned him down because of his hatred for the Church.

In the end, he was in the wedding. When it came time for communion, he knew he shouldn’t go but decided to disregard this and receive communion. The priest, of course, had no clue, so he wasn’t denied.

The moment he received, he became convinced of the Real Presence.

Now he’s an ardent Catholic.

God will use anything to reach us, even those who “unworthily” receive.