F
fish90
Guest
Is a priest obligated if he were to have knowledge of a recipient’s gravely sinful condition to distribute the Eucharist?
fish90
fish90
- Status
P
Petergee
Guest
If a priest knows of a person’s gravely sinful condition he has a grave responsibility **not **to give him the Eucharist. If such a person comes forward for Communion, normally the priest would say to him quietly “Come and see me after Mass” giving him the opportunity to confess (or explain that he has already confessed) without interfering with the flow of the Mass.
M
Maureen1125
Guest
I disagree. The priest is to distribute communion to you if you are in line and asking for communion. YOU are responsible for not taking communion. The Priest has no way of knowing if you have been to confession or not and the communion line is not the place to question you.
M
Maureen1125
Guest
I read through the Canon Law and I don’t see any prohibition to distributing the eucharist to an individual that knows they are not in a state of grace. The obligation is placed on the individual to abstain, not on the priest to “police” the sacrament
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
How do we know the priest is not in sin? You see, even if he is that will not invalidate the sacrament. So stop worrying about the recipient who will according to your bible and maybe even your catechism be in really big trouble themselves if they are in sin and partake. Lots more trouble than the priest could give them.
B
baltobetsy
Guest
The only time a priest should refuse to administer Holy Communion is in the case of an obstinate public sinner. You know, like the loud, proud, pro-abortion politicians.
N
Newbie2
Guest
You beat me to it…again…Betsy.
I was thinking exactly that.
A priest should make an effort, though, outside of mass and in a pastoral manner to educate the person if he “knows” him or her to be in mortal sin. Very difficult to do with an individual who is not an, as Betsy put it, an “obstinate public sinner”. How a priest would “know” someone privately was in mortal sin…might be difficult. He or she might have confessed elsewhere, say, right before mass for example.
C
CuriousInIL
Guest
Another situation in which a priest may know is if a person is known to be in an invalid marriage.You beat me to it…again…Betsy.
I was thinking exactly that.
A priest should make an effort, though, outside of mass and in a pastoral manner to educate the person if he “knows” him or her to be in mortal sin. Very difficult to do with an individual who is not an, as Betsy put it, an “obstinate public sinner”. How a priest would “know” someone privately was in mortal sin…might be difficult. He or she might have confessed elsewhere, say, right before mass for example.
E
Ender
Guest
Canon 916 places the burden on the individual to determine whether he should or should not receive communion. Canon 915, however, requires the person distributing communion to refuse it to anyone “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” Those four conditions would not normally be known, but where they are known then distribution of communion must be denied.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and* others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion**.*
Ender
C
Cristiano
Guest
That sounds like an obstinate public sin.
S
sherimarie
Guest
The priest has the right to defend the Host! If someone has to wait untill after he explains that he already went to confession to get the Eucharist then that embaressment will go a long way to make up for the scandle his public sins caused.
God bless the priest that cares enough about Jesus in the Holy Eucharist to deny a public sinner communion!
God bless the priest that cares enough about Jesus in the Holy Eucharist to deny a public sinner communion!
N
Newbie2
Guest
I know what you’re saying, but aren’t we all public sinners in a way?
E
Ender
Guest
Don’t diminish the significance of Canon 915 by suggesting that it applies to all of us. To be refused communion the communicant must satisfy all four of the criteria: obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin. The fact that we are all sinners doesn’t even meet the criterion that the sin be grave; I suspect that most of us at least avoid that one. The exception to my comment might be the presence of a divorced and remarried Catholic where the first marriage was not annulled. If the priest is aware of a person in such a marriage **and has counseled him **then communion should be withheld. Most of us, however, don’t come close to meeting the criteria such that 915 would apply.I know what you’re saying, but aren’t we all public sinners in a way?
Ender
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yes, I agree, especially with the “and has counseled him” (or her) part.
R
rick43235
Guest
Several years ago I took RCIA classes for about three months. The lesson one evening was about “Catholic marriage.” During his talk, Father spoke about two (un-named, of course) members of the parish who were in an invalid marriage, yet presented themselves for communion every week. Although he said that they should not be doing so, he also said that it was not his place to refuse them communion.
So, I guess opinions about this differ.
M
Maureen1125
Guest
In the eyes of the church my marriage is invalid and you know what. I DON’T CARE!!! I had the wedding that I wanted with the end result of being legally married. I am sorry that I didn’t follow the Churches “rules” but I personally do not agree with their rules on this matter.
I always dreamed of being married outdoors. I approached my parish Priest and when he told me that this was not allowed, I basically said too bad, I am still getting married my way.
God made the world, Jesus preached from a boat and from hill sides. He performed miracles whereever the situation presented itself. At no time did Jesus ever say - Let’s all walk together to the nearest temple and I will teach you there. Or please carry the leper to the temple so that I can heal him there. At the end of mass, we are told to “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord” but I guess once we get to the church doors we have to leave Jesus inside.
My husband in not religious and I was not going to 1) compromise on the wedding I had always dreamed of or 2) go through a “fake” wedding ceremony with my husband rolling his eyes at the whole thing…just because there is a rule that says Catholic weddings can only take place in the Church.
My Priest is fully aware of this and yet not once in 12yrs have I ever been refused communion and I attend mass 4x a week
I always dreamed of being married outdoors. I approached my parish Priest and when he told me that this was not allowed, I basically said too bad, I am still getting married my way.
God made the world, Jesus preached from a boat and from hill sides. He performed miracles whereever the situation presented itself. At no time did Jesus ever say - Let’s all walk together to the nearest temple and I will teach you there. Or please carry the leper to the temple so that I can heal him there. At the end of mass, we are told to “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord” but I guess once we get to the church doors we have to leave Jesus inside.
My husband in not religious and I was not going to 1) compromise on the wedding I had always dreamed of or 2) go through a “fake” wedding ceremony with my husband rolling his eyes at the whole thing…just because there is a rule that says Catholic weddings can only take place in the Church.
My Priest is fully aware of this and yet not once in 12yrs have I ever been refused communion and I attend mass 4x a week
E
Ender
Guest
This is not simply a matter of differing opinions; it is a question of whether Canon 915 applies in this situation and it surely appears that it does. Your priest was quite plainly wrong when he claimed that it was not his place to refuse them communion - it is his obligation. Had he said that people in invalid marriages do not meet the criteria of 915 that would be different but that was not what he implied.
Not only should he have refused them communion for their sake but he should have done it for his own sake as well. For their sake he should forbid it:
1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.
And for his own sake as well:
1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover,* we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:**
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- **by **not disclosing or **not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
P
Petergee
Guest
“legally” **only **according to the law of the secular state, which didn’t even bother to take any interest in registering and regulating marriages until the 19th century.
If you’re going to call yourself a Catholic, you are, unless you want to be a hypocrite, thereby commiting yourself to obey all of the Church’s rules, not merely the ones you agree with. I could just as well claim “I’m a Moslem, but I don’t obey those of the rules of Islam which I don’t agree with” (that is, those that conflict with Catholicism).
Neither Catholicism nor Judaism has ever had rules stating that preaching, teaching, and healing must only take place in a church, temple or synagogue. However when it comes to worshipping God (including the sacrament of Holy Matrimony which God gave His Church) the successors of the Apostles whom our Lord gave the power to make rules for His Church which are binding in Heaven as well as on earth, this must take place in a church.
Jesus obeyed the rules of His religion. Every Saturday He attended synagogue and every year at Passover time He went to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus didn’t say it’s Ok for His followers to disobey His Church’s rules and make up their own rules, in fact He said the opposite Do you imagine that He’s impressed with you for placing your desire “to get married **my **way” above His commandment to obey His successors on earth?
Being not religious is one thing. But a man who would “roll his eyes at the whole thing” of making a holy commitment to matrimony seems to be too immature for such an undertaking.
I am very saddened to hear of your profanation of the Body and Blood of our Lord and your PP’s facilitation of this grave sin. I will pray for you both, and spend some extra time in adoration of Him in His Blessed Sacrament to help make reparation for such abuses of this His greatest gift to man.
B
Beth_Cecilia
Guest
RE: Maureen’s wedding
What I think is most disturbing in your post, is that you posted it in a discussion about when it is appropriate for a priest to refrain from distributing the Eucharist. If it were a conversation about marriage and the rules surrounding marriage, the post would have been sympathetic. Why do we have these rules? Are they really rules if the Church, or was the priest being hard-headed? I know that Mass is sometimes celebrated outside, so there are exceptions, why could not my wedding be one of them? These questions, and many others, could have been asked quite innocently in a different context.
Here, the context is persistent sin. If you believe you are not in a state of grace, you should go to confession. You should not depend on the priest’s knowledge of your sin to keep you honest. He does not know whether you confessed to another priest. You condemn yourself, as most would not condemn you. You should get advice and absolution. Bringing it up in this context implies that you feel guilt; you wonder if you should be denied the Eucharist. Don’t wonder.
RE: the original topic
The Eucharist should only be denied very rarely. I am sympathetic to priests and bishops who have to make this call. It is a rare circumstance which allows a priest to know, beyond doubt, that a sinner is not in a state to receive. Even should the priest know of a particular sin, he cannot know if it is confessed. Few cases are clear cut. Some think that public sins must be confessed publicly to avoid scandal. Thus some think that politicians should be refused the Eucharist unless they publicly rescind their positions and confess. Some do not. Bishops disagree on this matter so it is not wonder that lay Catholics do as well. Count your blessing that you do not have to make the call, and pray for those who do.
Few cases are clear cut. I remember a recent story, where a group was protesting the Church’s position on homosexuality. They, in protest, wore rainbow sashes to Mass. The bishop- rightly I think, refused the sash wearers communion. This is clear cut because at the very moment that they were asking to receive, they were protesting. Their were not in communion with the Church. Should the same people come next week, sans sash, they should not be denied because there is no way to know if they confessed in the interim.
What I think is most disturbing in your post, is that you posted it in a discussion about when it is appropriate for a priest to refrain from distributing the Eucharist. If it were a conversation about marriage and the rules surrounding marriage, the post would have been sympathetic. Why do we have these rules? Are they really rules if the Church, or was the priest being hard-headed? I know that Mass is sometimes celebrated outside, so there are exceptions, why could not my wedding be one of them? These questions, and many others, could have been asked quite innocently in a different context.
Here, the context is persistent sin. If you believe you are not in a state of grace, you should go to confession. You should not depend on the priest’s knowledge of your sin to keep you honest. He does not know whether you confessed to another priest. You condemn yourself, as most would not condemn you. You should get advice and absolution. Bringing it up in this context implies that you feel guilt; you wonder if you should be denied the Eucharist. Don’t wonder.
RE: the original topic
The Eucharist should only be denied very rarely. I am sympathetic to priests and bishops who have to make this call. It is a rare circumstance which allows a priest to know, beyond doubt, that a sinner is not in a state to receive. Even should the priest know of a particular sin, he cannot know if it is confessed. Few cases are clear cut. Some think that public sins must be confessed publicly to avoid scandal. Thus some think that politicians should be refused the Eucharist unless they publicly rescind their positions and confess. Some do not. Bishops disagree on this matter so it is not wonder that lay Catholics do as well. Count your blessing that you do not have to make the call, and pray for those who do.
Few cases are clear cut. I remember a recent story, where a group was protesting the Church’s position on homosexuality. They, in protest, wore rainbow sashes to Mass. The bishop- rightly I think, refused the sash wearers communion. This is clear cut because at the very moment that they were asking to receive, they were protesting. Their were not in communion with the Church. Should the same people come next week, sans sash, they should not be denied because there is no way to know if they confessed in the interim.
- Status