You are free to examine your own motives, but there is no justification for “questioning” the motives of others. “Questioning” them is nothing more than trying to make them appear base; it is an offense against their honor and reputation. It is to imply something harmful to them, and it is something we are forbidden to do.Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. (CCC 2477)
I would think that a person’s telling a priest that in their opinion certain people should be denied the Eurcharist would qualify.
Two points: First, the fact that someone else behaves badly and uncharitably judges others can hardly excuse a priest for doing exactly the same thing he chastises others for doing. Second, in the case of violations of Canon 915 those who should be denied communion are publicly known, so it is not a question of committing a rash judgment. It is a question of asking if the priest intends to do his duty as specified in canon law.
Now we are telling priests what they can say during Mass?
I have attended masses where the priest commented publicly about a private confrontation. Even without naming the individuals involved, it was an unfortunate spectacle, and one that he would have been better advised to forgo. A priest can say what he wants. That doesn’t mean he should.
Why is it “quite another” issue to raise that point with a priest when canon law is so explicit in specifying the conditions to be met? Conditions, it should be pointed out, that include public knowledge of the sin involved.
Who’s place is it?
I have attended at least one Mass over the years where the priest said something concerning a person whose name was well known in the community. And what was said was a flat-out condemnation (related to business dealings). I thought at least the name of this person would have been better left unsaid. I concluded that priests are like the rest of us and only human and so make mistakes. But it would have been better if this situation had not occurred.
I don’t agree it is reasonable to conclude that adultery (and the state of mortal sin) is objective public knowledge because a person is divorced and remarried but has not obtained an annullment. This is a subjective moral judgment. As I (and many others) have noted, this is contrary to Matthew 7.1
The subject was not limited to the divorced and remarried as nothing was said about the nature of the situation that was raised. A very common concern involves politicians who publicly support abortion.
And as I have noted several times, it is the presumption the church makes. If I take a deliberate action that gives all the outward appearances of being sinful, to ignore it would be scandalous. This is why the church denies the public reception of communion to the divorced and remarried even if they are living without sexual relations. Matthew 7:1 does not demand the sacrifice of our common sense.
If you look back throught the comments, you’ll find the issue was what was being discussed. Who had said anything about politicians who publically support abortion? You may certainly raise it now, but it really wasn’t the topic.
Yes, I know. We have discussed it at length and disagree. However, what might be the outward appearance that a person is in the state of mortal sin? That presumption could hardly be objective (as you have argued it is).
The original comment about the priest was made by Peebo in post #318 where he said:*Our priest gave a homily last night on the number of Catholics who tell him why certain people should be denied the Eucharist…
A person who is divorced and remarried gives that appearance. Since it was Christ who labeled such people as adulterers it isn’t clear why we should assume he didn’t mean what he said.
The comments of Jesus Christ are subject to the interpretation of the Church. For example, Jesus Christ also said: “Call no man Father.” And He also called for His followers to hate his mother and father. "“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.” Do you hate your mother and father , wife and children?
What you say is certainly true; it’s just not clear how this changes things given that the church interprets that passage quite literally.* In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that **objectively **contravenes God’s law. *(CCC 1650)
Yes, that is your place. Being a busy body of who receives and who doesn’t is not.
Can you think of no situation where it would be appropriate to approach a priest with a concern about someone who is inappropriately receiving communion?
If a parishioner knew that a communicant was not partaking in the eucharist but bringing it to their pew or out of the Church.
What Christ, the Son who was given by the Father the power to judge, said of a women he knew had committed adultery was this: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” John 8:7
The church takes seriously the sin of scandal. Given that scandal by its nature involves a public action, what is the argument that Catholics should ignore scandalous behavior and not try to correct it when the scandal involves the improper reception of communion?
***the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery ***(CCC 2384)