It is the place of the priest and the bishop, not the layman.
You have distorted the situation. It is not a question of having to determine another’s worthiness to receive, but of responding to a situation where someone is receiving who is publicly unworthy. You already approved of someone going to a priest to report one type of abuse, what is so different about reporting others?
Because even the eucharistic ministers (layman) are delegated to watch that the host is not profaned or mistreated. This is much different than gauging (and that’s what it is) another’s worthiness to receive the Eucharist.
No, of course you don’t need to defend what the Church has proclaimed. However, as was earlier noted, the question is before the Synod of Bishops. It is thus fair to discuss the issue and to provide one’s views on it. Pope Francis has encouaged such a questioning and discussion.
I didn’t receive Communion yesterday or today due to carrying a mortal sin. I didn’t feel scandalized or anything other than good and proper shame at my own failings.
No, you don’t need to defend what the Church has proclaimed. However, the question of whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment should be permitted to receive the Eucharist is before the Synod of Bishops. Pope Francis has encouraged Catholics to question and discuss the issue.
That’s fine, but can’t you see it is irrelevant? As it says in the comment (#360), a person who is divorced and remarried and has not received an annullment, but is not in the state of mortal sin, could possibly feel scandalized while remaining in the Church pew when nearly everyone else goes forth to receive communion.
Again, he spoke Church teaching to a group. Your application of this in the setting of a homily, speaking in general, would prohibit any but the most water-down, lovey dovey, Kum ba yah homilies.
One would think they would at least use a paten or something to prevent the possibility of dropping the sacred species on the floor. Even priests drop it every now and then.
No, they might be embarrassed or hurt or angry, but they cannot feel scandalized. The word does not have that meaning.
The church has made it the business of the Minister of Communion in certain cases. It is explicitly spelled out in canon law (Canon 915).
Except a person who’s divorced and remarried is in a state of mortal sin. Because Jesus said that situation equals adultery.
Again, you phrase this in such a way as to invite misunderstanding. The key point in all of this is the sin must be public; it must be manifest. This is why scandal becomes an issue: people know about the sin, and can see the person in line to receive.
Yes, this has been a problem, and it is very likely something like this that prompted the people to approach their priest.
Once again the way you phrase this distorts the true situation. The question of scandal has been raised. The issue is how the priest will respond to it: will he resolve it or will he ignore it?
I have never tried to shut down the debate. What I have done is point to the problems raised by the suggestion that the divorced and remarried should receive communion. Such a thing seems impossible to me without shredding some of the church’s oldest doctrines. It is one thing to blandly suggest the idea should be discussed, but quite another to directly address the problems it raises.
No, he didn’t. He called out a particular group of people and excoriated them before his congregation. There is no church teaching in that.
I’m sure there is pretty great range between “Don’t do evil” and “You’re evil.”
No, again this is inaccurate. Why is this so hard to understand? The catechism is quite clear on the subject and priests are as capable of falling as the rest of us.*2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: *
If I called you a Pharisee and of acting “holier than thou” I’m sure you would be offended, and I would very likely get into trouble with the administrators. If such behavior is inappropriate for us in this forum, how much more inappropriate is it for a priest to sling those accusations out during a homily?
The priest in question did not name those who were in fact accusing by name those who they deemed were not worthy of receiving communion…there was no rash judgement on his part…he did not assume as trueor by remarks contrary to the truth or false judgment…the only shame that should be applied here is to those who had no problem in judging others…no one but the priest knows who they are…and I hope they do feel guilty of** personally ** judging others…it appears from the number of posts you have posted on this you have more sympathy for the accusers who don’t seem to mind naming people they deem as unworthy rather than a priest who did not name a single person but has a right to include in his homily the gospel message of those who judge others.
People keep phrasing this as someone deeming others not worthy of receiving communion, but this is not at all the situation. If we see someone commit a sin are we not free to condemn it? Are we not in fact obligated to chastise the sinner in the hope he will reform? Or does this too constitute an example of the judging that is forbidden us? The church has been very explicit on who she considers unworthy to receive. Why is it a problem for us to expect her ministers to uphold the laws the church has provided?
He assumed they were behaving like the Pharisees. He assumed they had a holier than thou attitude. When did name calling become acceptable for anyone, let alone a priest?
Goodness, I keep saying this but it doesn’t seem to sink in: the sins are public. That’s the whole point. If the priest was the only one who knew about them there would be no scandal and canon 915 would not apply.
Why should they? We are not forbidden to judge everything, only those things we cannot know. Since the sins are public, that is - known - there is no issue about judging them.
Yet again, this description does not even remotely apply to the situation. No one has to “deem” another person as unworthy if that person by his public action has demonstrated his unworthiness.
Again and again your descriptions don’t reflect reality. The priest didn’t merely remind his congregation about the pitfalls of judging. He branded some people as Pharisees. If such an accusation would get us in trouble on this forum how can it possibly be justifiable for a priest to behave in such fashion?
The operative word here is “me”. The differences are:
He assumed they were behaving like the Pharisees. He assumed they had a holier than thou attitude. When did name calling become acceptable for anyone, let alone a priest?