We may judge ourselves and say we have not committed this or that sin, but we may not judge for ourselves what is or is not a sin. That determination is reserved for the church. If I publicly commit an act the church has defined as sinful then there is a public dimension to my reception of communion.
This is an ironic debate for me as I have lived and argued the other side of it. As a convert I well remember how put out I was that I was judged fit to have my feet washed on Holy Thursday, but unfit to receive communion until I was confirmed on Easter Sunday. I certainly believed I should have been permitted to receive, but I think you can see where this would go if the determination was left up to the individual.
My experience differs. I am a cradle Catholic raised in a strict Irish-Catholic family during the pre-Vatican II era. I attended a Catholic elementary school taught ny nuns and later attended an all-boy Catholic high school operated and taught by the brothers of a religious order. It was very strict. We attended religion class every school day for those twelve years. I know Catholic teaching. During high school, Catholic priests taught religion classes and discussion was always free and open. It was encouraged: “What does the class think about this? Tell me.” Consequently, I have thought about things for a very long time, and, frankly, I often do not see this basic tolerance for open discussion on this forum. I understand why. There is division that was not present during the pre-Vatican II era, though it is disconcerting to make a comment for discussion and receive replies informing me in an often contentious way what I already know about Catholic teaching.
It is not merely the recipient but the minister who is at risk as well.*6. These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” *(St. Chrysostom homily LXXXII)
I know, but it is not merely the recipient at risk; it is a two-way street where denial of the Eucharist is also a risk. I firmly believe a person in the state of mortal sin should
not receive communion. For those divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained an annullment, I was referring to those who for various reasons are not in the state of mortal sin. In my view, this does not differ for
anyone who receives communion. A person either is or is not in the state of mortal sin. This Church teaching does not apply only to those who are divorced and remarried Catholics. So, “Who am I to judge?”
After reading another comment above, I realize my upbringing and experience has perhaps skewed my thinking. My cohorts during the pre-Vatican II era were well informed of Church teaching. So was nearly every Catholic. They knew the consequences of receiving communion while in the state of mortal sin. I guess my assumption has been that Catholics just would not do this and so why presume they would? In those days, it was inconceivable that many couples, or even any couple or any Catholic in the state of mortal sin would have blithely taken communion and joked about it. I cannot imagine it. To learn that this is occurring was mind-boggling and a rude awakening. I see the difference, and it perhaps involves both cathesis and our entire society. It is a different world.
Given the rapid decline of the Catholic population in Europe I would say the sky is falling quite fast enough.
It has been. Europe is fast becoming a secular society and a post-Christian world. I am sure Pope Francis knows it and is attempting to address this crisis in the Church. There are no easy answers.
I cut this part out of sequence because I can’t rationalize this comment with what follows. If a Catholic is not in a state of mortal sin he may receive. The end. He may not be able to receive publicly because of the possibility of scandal…but he can receive, and what you describe below is not relevant.
It is why I began with the words “Beyond that”. It was meant as an aside and separate comment. I do not require instruction in Catholic teaching.
So much is made of Christ reaching out to sinners that we tend to forget that as he does so he calls them to repentance. He may invite them to his feast, but if they do not repent they will not enter, and it isn’t sufficient for a person to be at peace with himself. The individual conscience is not the final arbiter of right and wrong, and we do not really seek Christ if we choose to replace his definition of sin with our own. We are obligated to say “I have sinned, forgive me”, not “I have not sinned, let me in.” Until we do that - and regardless of how ardently we seek Christ - our sins are not forgiven.
I don’t disagree at all. But no one escapes judgment. What I have said are only my thoughts, and I do not believe the Church will assume this position. For me, this was simply a discussion. It is also not a personal concern, and in that way is only theoretical. I have been aware of this all along.
A main point of my thinking has been that the rule that a person ought not to receive communion while in the state of mortal sin applies to
every Catholic. What, for example, of the response in the U.S. among Catholics to
Humanae Vitae? Is everyone judged before they take communion? It would seem that the taking of the beam out of one’s own eye surely applies in many instances. My view is that it is for Christ to judge. No person in the end escapes judgment, and there is no getting around it.
