Openly same sex relationship and the Eucharist

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t think the appeal to canon law here is particularly convincing, to be honest.

Too often, this question of denying the Eucharist to someone over one thing or another devolves into an exercise of separating the righteous “us” from the despicable “them.” While I fully acknowledge and fully subscribe to the belief that the Eucharist is indeed the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and therefore supremely worthy of our devotion, attention and care, denying someone communion, no matter how unworthy we believe them to be, is a denial of the grace and mercy of our God who dined with outcasts and sinners. Too often, I believe, it is overlooked that when Paul speaks of discerning the body in the Eucharist, he is not only speaking of transubstantiation, but also of perceiving the Church, the Body of Christ, in the elements. The sinner next to us at the communion rail is a part of this body, too, and no less deserving of God’s grace and mercy than we are.

When Jesus consented to hang upon the cross as outcast and as victim of our own sinfulness and blind self-righteousness, I believe he exhausted the need for us to look at each other and say, “you are worthy, you are not” by placing himself, God Incarnate, the supremely desireable one, in the place of the unworthy outcast. There is no room in Christ for an “us” and “them” sort of outlook. We are all one body-- the Saints in heaven, the holy souls in Purgatory, and the rest of us sinners mourning and weeping in this valley of tears here below.

Denying the Eucharist to a brother or sister in Christ must be the last measure a Priest takes in the reformation of a sinner, even one guilty of notorious or scandalous sins. It cannot be pre-emptive. And I think the only reason to do so, in the final analysis, is if it is known that the communicant consciously desires to partake of the Eucharist solely in order to desecrate it. I do not believe that a partnered homosexual, simply by virtue of his or her being a partnered homosexual, fits the bill here.

In our zeal, it often happens that we risk putting ourselves in the role of the apostles who wished to prevent the children from seeing Jesus, or who wished to send away the woman who anointed Our Lord’s feet with her tears. We risk becoming the man in the parable who said, “thank you God for making me better than this man next to me.” We risk contracting a real spiritual illness.

Mercy, not legalism, is our law.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias

 

[alveolate]

if you know about his actions because you are friends or acquaintances on good terms, i think you might attempt “brotherly correction” as per Matthew 18:15-18. of course, all the while maintaining **Matthew 7:1-5 **(i.e. judge not lest ye be judged).

it’s definitely not going to be a walk in the park, and to the many previous suggestions of meditative prayer, seeking spiritual guidance from a religious, etc., i’d include spending time in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. take some time to lift the sinner to Jesus’ real presence, asking Him how this “conflict” should be resolved - and if you could be of assistance, how? your own well-maintained communion and regular partaking of the Eucharist would also help you understand the entire experiential process of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while still in a state of sin.

it is quite probable that (especially if one were deeply attentive) the Holy Spirit would give you a hint or an answer during prayer itself. as others have presented, it may ultimately be that His will for you is to simply do nothing, and to trust in the clergy’s reach. if such an answer, however, remains doubtful to you and you still can’t let go of this issue, you’d probably need to see your confessor for proper advice. it can likely be an issue of pride or envy when one obsesses over someone else’s sin.

listen to your conscience, and seek advice from those close to you and your spiritual advisors, and especially the religious who will pray for you and the sinner. it is a delicate manner, so pray and be patient!

 

[rick43235]

Recently I discovered that a person in a same sex relationship (and open about it) is admitted to the Eucharist at a Parish I’ve attended. Any thoughts on what I can or should do about this?

Well, I was going to suggest that you mind your own business, but this poster said it much better than I ever could:

Grace & Peace!

I don’t think the appeal to canon law here is particularly convincing, to be honest.

Too often, this question of denying the Eucharist to someone over one thing or another devolves into an exercise of separating the righteous “us” from the despicable “them.” While I fully acknowledge and fully subscribe to the belief that the Eucharist is indeed the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and therefore supremely worthy of our devotion, attention and care, denying someone communion, no matter how unworthy we believe them to be, is a denial of the grace and mercy of our God who dined with outcasts and sinners. Too often, I believe, it is overlooked that when Paul speaks of discerning the body in the Eucharist, he is not only speaking of transubstantiation, but also of perceiving the Church, the Body of Christ, in the elements. The sinner next to us at the communion rail is a part of this body, too, and no less deserving of God’s grace and mercy than we are.

When Jesus consented to hang upon the cross as outcast and as victim of our own sinfulness and blind self-righteousness, I believe he exhausted the need for us to look at each other and say, “you are worthy, you are not” by placing himself, God Incarnate, the supremely desireable one, in the place of the unworthy outcast. There is no room in Christ for an “us” and “them” sort of outlook. We are all one body-- the Saints in heaven, the holy souls in Purgatory, and the rest of us sinners mourning and weeping in this valley of tears here below.

Denying the Eucharist to a brother or sister in Christ must be the last measure a Priest takes in the reformation of a sinner, even one guilty of notorious or scandalous sins. It cannot be pre-emptive. And I think the only reason to do so, in the final analysis, is if it is known that the communicant consciously desires to partake of the Eucharist solely in order to desecrate it. I do not believe that a partnered homosexual, simply by virtue of his or her being a partnered homosexual, fits the bill here.

In our zeal, it often happens that we risk putting ourselves in the role of the apostles who wished to prevent the children from seeing Jesus, or who wished to send away the woman who anointed Our Lord’s feet with her tears. We risk becoming the man in the parable who said, “thank you God for making me better than this man next to me.” We risk contracting a real spiritual illness.

Mercy, not legalism, is our law.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias

Best post I’ve read on CAF in a long time.

 

[Cluny]

Recently I discovered that a person in a same sex relationship (and open about it) is admitted to the Eucharist at a Parish I’ve attended. Any thoughts on what I can or should do about this?

---

Unless you’re the pastor, there’s nothing you can or should do about it except pray.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

This is a slippery slope to tread on. Judge not, lest you be judged. Unless you are a church lawyer, consider who Jesus routinely dined with.

However if a persons outward and public actions are harmful to the faithful, it must be addressed.

 

[buffalo]

I would let the pastor know and if no action is taken. They continue to receive in public, let the Bishop know.

Call the Knights of Columbus. Maybe they will come out and stand militant so the Eucharist is not profaned in such a public manner.

 

[maryjk]

**Recently **I discovered that a person in a same sex relationship (and open about it) is admitted to the Eucharist at a Parish I’ve attended. Any thoughts on what I can or should do about this?

The key word here is recently. How open is the person about this, if you recently discovered

However if a persons outward and public actions are harmful to the faithful, it must be addressed.

I am wondering how outward and public the actions are.

You need to be honest. Are you ignoring the possible invalid marriages and other types of public sin and focusing on this one? So look deep before you engage the church on this. You’ll need the fortitude of a clear heart and conscience if you proceed.

robdaddyf:

I know of no invalid marriages nor any other public sin…though evil triumphs when good men say nothing.

Ask around, I am sure you could find someone in an invalid marriage. Its not like they wear a sign.
First make sure the plank has been removed from your eye, before you concern yourself with removing their splinter.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t think the appeal to canon law here is particularly convincing, to be honest.

When Jesus consented to hang upon the cross as outcast and as victim of our own sinfulness and blind self-righteousness, I believe he exhausted the need for us to look at each other and say, “you are worthy, you are not” by placing himself, God Incarnate, the supremely desireable one, in the place of the unworthy outcast. There is no room in Christ for an “us” and “them” sort of outlook. We are all one body-- the Saints in heaven, the holy souls in Purgatory, and the rest of us sinners mourning and weeping in this valley of tears here below.

Denying the Eucharist to a brother or sister in Christ must be the last measure a Priest takes in the reformation of a sinner, even one guilty of notorious or scandalous sins. It cannot be pre-emptive. And I think the only reason to do so, in the final analysis, is if it is known that the communicant consciously desires to partake of the Eucharist solely in order to desecrate it. I do not believe that a partnered homosexual, simply by virtue of his or her being a partnered homosexual, fits the bill here.

In our zeal, it often happens that we risk putting ourselves in the role of the apostles who wished to prevent the children from seeing Jesus, or who wished to send away the woman who anointed Our Lord’s feet with her tears. We risk becoming the man in the parable who said, “thank you God for making me better than this man next to me.” We risk contracting a real spiritual illness.

Mercy, not legalism, is our law.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias

I appreciate the sentiment put forth by your post but it does not comport with Catholic theology.

From Archbishop Burke’s letter, “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin” he concluded:

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.

Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke

Read what Archbishop Burke has to say in this letter. The letter explains in great detail why the Eucharist must be withheld and contains nearly 100 explanatory citations. It is one of the best explanations that I’ve seen on this subject.

This isn’t a question of passing judgement on someone. This is a question of following Church teachings and law to minimize the scandal and harm caused when the publically unworthy receive communion. How can you dismiss Canon Law so easily?

Does anyone doubt that the decline in reverence for the Eucharist or the decline in belief in the Real Presence relates to this issue? How do you think people are affected when they see these people, particularly high profile politicians, receive communion and then turn around vote for homosexual marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. without so much as a word of condemnation from the Church?

The bishops who have been silent on this issue have become, in my opinion, accessories in sin.

Pope John Paul II then proceeded to discuss the case of grave public sin, relating the self-judgment of unworthiness to receive to the refusal of Holy Communion to the person remaining in manifest grievous sin. He declared:

The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who <<obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion [11].
Pope John Paul II made it clear that the norm of can. 915 is required by the Church’s teaching on the respect due to the Most Blessed Sacrament and her concern to avoid scandal in the community.

With the words, <>, the Roman Pontiff clarified the obligation, on the part of the Church, to take action, when a person who remains in grievous and public sin approaches to receive Holy Communion. The obligation in question is distinct from the obligation of the person to examine his conscience regarding grave sin before approaching, which is treated in can. 916.

Where are the bishops?

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Numinous]

I with Annie on this one.

This person is the priests responsibility.

Wrong. Scandal is the responsibility of anyone who perceives it. Do not let the little ones stumble.

 

[Numinous]

Well, I was going to suggest that you mind your own business, but this poster said it much better than I ever could:

Best post I’ve read on CAF in a long time.

One should not let one’s adherence to mercy and inclusion lead one astray. People in a state of mortal sin should NOT be taking the Eucharist, and people causing scandal should be confronted.

 

[LilyM]

One should not let one’s adherence to mercy and inclusion lead one astray. People in a state of mortal sin should NOT be taking the Eucharist, and people causing scandal should be confronted.

Exactly - with all possible respect to puzzleannie and the rest of the ‘judge not lest you be judged’ crowd, it IS a spiritual work of mercy on the part of each of us when we a) instruct the ignorant or b) admonish the sinner. Such duties/works of mercy are not restricted to priests or spiritual advisors.

And this situation is clearly a case where the one receiving is either ignorant or consciously sinning, so one or the other might well become our duty. Of course it needs to be done as charitably as possible, but we can’t necessarily wash our hands in such situations either.

When Jesus said ‘if your brother sins, rebuke him’, He didn’t add ‘but only if you’re his priest or spiritual advisor’.

 

[Katie1723]

Personally I think you should approach the person, state your case, and then mind your own business.
Kathy

 

[Numinous]

Minding one’s own business is fine if scandal is not involved.

 

[LilyM]

Minding one’s own business is fine if scandal is not involved.

And I might add potential desecration of the Eucharist by its unworthy reception.

 

[Methodi]

With most of the congregation lining up for Communion in the typical American parish while confession lines remain empty, I doubt the person in question is the only one who has received Communion in a state of mortal sin.

Boy, You got that one right!, I think about half of them shouldn`t approach. If I am in a state of mortal sin, I do not approach

 

[Numinous]

Let’s pray that God will soften our hearts!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t think the appeal to canon law here is particularly convincing, to be honest.

Too often, this question of denying the Eucharist to someone over one thing or another devolves into an exercise of separating the righteous “us” from the despicable “them.” While I fully acknowledge and fully subscribe to the belief that the Eucharist is indeed the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and therefore supremely worthy of our devotion, attention and care, denying someone communion, no matter how unworthy we believe them to be, is a denial of the grace and mercy of our God who dined with outcasts and sinners. Too often, I believe, it is overlooked that when Paul speaks of discerning the body in the Eucharist, he is not only speaking of transubstantiation, but also of perceiving the Church, the Body of Christ, in the elements. The sinner next to us at the communion rail is a part of this body, too, and no less deserving of God’s grace and mercy than we are.

When Jesus consented to hang upon the cross as outcast and as victim of our own sinfulness and blind self-righteousness, I believe he exhausted the need for us to look at each other and say, “you are worthy, you are not” by placing himself, God Incarnate, the supremely desireable one, in the place of the unworthy outcast. There is no room in Christ for an “us” and “them” sort of outlook. We are all one body-- the Saints in heaven, the holy souls in Purgatory, and the rest of us sinners mourning and weeping in this valley of tears here below.

Denying the Eucharist to a brother or sister in Christ must be the last measure a Priest takes in the reformation of a sinner, even one guilty of notorious or scandalous sins. It cannot be pre-emptive. And I think the only reason to do so, in the final analysis, is if it is known that the communicant consciously desires to partake of the Eucharist solely in order to desecrate it. I do not believe that a partnered homosexual, simply by virtue of his or her being a partnered homosexual, fits the bill here.

In our zeal, it often happens that we risk putting ourselves in the role of the apostles who wished to prevent the children from seeing Jesus, or who wished to send away the woman who anointed Our Lord’s feet with her tears. We risk becoming the man in the parable who said, “thank you God for making me better than this man next to me.” We risk contracting a real spiritual illness.

Mercy, not legalism, is our law.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias

Like several other posts on this thread, that’s impossible to improve on.​

 

[Cluny]

Something to consider:

Who on these posts wants his or her sins–or PERCEIVED sins–noised abroad and talked about by other people?

 

[Abbadon]

Recently I discovered that a person in a same sex relationship (and open about it) is admitted to the Eucharist at a Parish I’ve attended. Any thoughts on what I can or should do about this?

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I guess that’s an option? Old school.

 

[pmoo]

I was in a somewhat similar situation recently. I attended my son’s nephew’s baptism and one of the couples there is possibly not Catholic. In all the other family gatherings where we attended mass, I’ve never seen them there. Also, they really seemed lost during the mass and seemed not to know what to do. When it was time to go up for communion, I tapped the husband on the shoulder and asked him if he was Catholic. He paused a bit and thought about his answer (why would that be necessary; you either are or aren’t, right?

Anyway, he eventually replied - Uh, yeah, but he wasn’t very convincing. I have been bothered by this, as I really don’t think they are Catholics and I wondered if I should have done something else. On the other hand, he said yes, so beyond that, I don’t think I can do anything else.

I’m wondering what others would have done and am wondering if I did enough.

Thanks.