Ryan,
John,
As opposed to sinner (which we all are) who intends to seek absolution for his sins, what if you don’t believe you need to go to Confession - as many do many Catholics. What if you believe that you can be a good person and not go to Mass? You basically don;t believe what the church teaches. I guess, from a baptismal perspective, you can call them a Catholic, but I wouldn’t … whether they publicly renounced their affiliation as required by Canon Law or not.
If the orientation remains, is a chaste person suffering from same-sex attraction guilty of sin?
The devil is a supernatural being who has a knack for finding the weaknesses in all of us and who loves a challenge. So, I think that it would be imprudent for two people who love eachother to be living together be they homosexual or heterosexual.
No, no more than a chaste heterosexual person sins who is suffering from opposite-sex attraction.
Very wise advice in most cases, i’m sure.
If I can take that sentiment a step further, a priest, then, would not have grounds to refuse communion to “suspected” homosexual cohabitants, nor should the parish shun such people. It is not prudent to ask what goes on behind closed doors. We are not the True Judge; we must assume that people behave in accordance with God’s Law, no?
This appears to be the common practice. The confession lines are quite short while the communion lines are very long. It seems that priests are giving their faithful the benefit of a doubt concerning the state of their souls as they come up to receive, which I’m sure is the correct way to go about it. But that’s just my two cents.
Now what’s your definition of prudent? Seriously, what do you mean by that. I’m not sure it fits with the traditional definition, but I’m interested in hearing how you understand it so I can know where you’re coming from.
And I’m sure most people do not live in accordance with God’s law. But unless someone is a public sinner (politicians who publically support abortion, for example), then how can a priest just pick and choose who he thinks might be in mortal sin and refuse Holy Communion?
Some situations lend themselves to the belief that a person in that situation is sinning as more rational than that they are not.
I thought that was Church teaching.
True. But if a priest is concerned, I would think the appropriate steps would be to talk to the individual privately to clarify the situation rather than just assume.
IMHO, you are correct. A priest should not refuse Communion on the suspicion that they have sinned. However, it would not be improper for a priest to inquire in the confessional as to any person’s situation. I have found that Traditional priests have more of a tendancy to drill down into a person’s life. For instance, if you confess a sin of impurity, you could expect a further clarification of “alone or with someone else” … and from there a discussion about your situation.
You’re right, they are still ontologically Catholic, but there are other levels on which someone can be called “Catholic”, for example, if one believes the theology of the Catholic Church, they can be considered “theologically Catholic”. Unfortunately some people (on occasion, myself also :S) tend to conflate these categories.
We are all called to exercise the utmost charity. But either way we are making an assumption. Do you assume they are not sinning or do you assume they are? In making moral judgments, we must work to avoid evil and do good. So, if something may be wrong, I am under an obligation to avoid it. If there is a blanket on the ground, and I think there may possibly be an innocent person under the blanket, but it might also be a dangerous animal under the blanket, then I really shouldn’t shoot first and look later. In a similar way, if it appears that two persons are living in sin, and since it would be a grave sin for them to receive communion if they are in grave sin, then I shouldn’t give them communion first and look into the matter later. I am under a certain obligation to look into the matter first and not assume that everything if fine and dandy.
I suppose we’ll agree to disagree. Unless it is clear that a person is willfully and obstinately committing a grave sin, I do not believe it is appropriate for a priest to deny them Communion without first clarifying the situation. In the context of our discussion, if a priest has a gay couple in his parish, he should ask them if they are living according to the precepts of the Church before telling them not to present themselves for Communion. The fact of the matter is that there are many gay couples who choose to have intimate yet celibate relationships.
I cannot agree to disagree because I mostly agree with you. A priest should clarify before telling them not to present themselves. That doesn’t mean that he should give them communion before clarifying though. This last point I find that your above paragraph does not treat, so I will not assume you stand one way or the other on it.