Refusing the Cup

[sarah_anne_628]

Hosts are solid objects; they don’t “spill” or if they did, they wouldn’t get “all over” anyone.

I assumed she was referring to the Blood, in the Chalice.

No biggie.

I meant both, but I’m still not up to speed on Catholic lingo.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Before saying any of that, you still haven’t answered the questions that should come first:

How are you in a position to judge the consciences and the state of the souls of that couple? And, furthermore how are you in a better position to do so than their own pastor?

Before going any further I want to make clear what it is I am saying.

1. In the original position I would not have refused because I would have assumed the Priest had sorted it out.I am not in a better position than the Priest to judge.
2. Since I am arguing from the position that the OP is true, then I am saying that the Priest is not obeying canon law. The information contained in the OP is that the Priest has done nothing to talk to them.

Public sin is what is manifest. That is the point.

Why do we not assume in the positive when Public sin is manifest. The reason is that where the sin is public suddenly we cannot assume that the person is in a state of grace. Its not a judgment in the strict sense merely a case of uncertainty of a positive state of grace due to the publicity of the sin.

In the other case - all catholics when they approach the altar without public sin are assumed to be in a positive state without any evidence for the contrary. This is not judging the catholic to be in a state of grace merely assuming that it is so. Note that private knowledge of a persons sins cannot be used to refuse Communion.

me:

It is exactly the same thing as someone who is divorced and remarried and presents themselves for communion, or someone who is a pro-abortion politician. People whose sin is public knowledge must be refused Communion.

sirknight:

How do you know that they are “in manifest grave sin”? How do you know that they are not sleeping in separate beds. Unlikely but possible. Is it our place to judge others and ASSUME the worst?

To repeat - The reason is that where the sin is public suddenly we cannot assume that the person is in a state of grace, without information to the contrary. The Priest himself needs to Talk to them and find out if they are in fact obeying Church Teaching.

In the case of people living together, it is improper and generally people living together these days are assumed (if they are a couple) to be engaging in sexual acts.

This is why it has been universally frowned upon by the church for as far back in time as possible but now all of a sudden we have to assume the opposite - of course they must have separate beds no scandal at all!!!

Paul

 

[PaulAndrew83]

MEMEMEME:

To repeat - The reason is that where the sin is public suddenly we cannot assume that the person is in a state of grace, without information to the contrary. The Priest himself needs to Talk to them and find out if they are in fact obeying Church Teaching.

The Priest said that he did not talk to them about their lifestlye. This is from OP.

The only thing that I can think of is that the Priest can actually say he has not talked to them if he has talked to them inside of confession. I seem to remember from my ethics textbook that such statements are not lies even though they are opposed to the truth. They would still fall under the category of broad mental reservation.

What such statement might mean is that “As far as I can tell you I have not talked to them”.

However because of the nature of the thing (the fact that its a publicly known thing) the couple are required to make it clear that they are following catholic teaching in the matter. Charity compels them to do so. See Introduction to the devout life. Part Third, Humility and reputation.

---

This is over analyzing.

So to summarise the position.

1. Should follow the Priest because He is the Priest simple as.
2. However the Priest is under obligation to speak to them outside of mass.
3. If he doesn’t do so this doesn’t give him license to not refuse Holy Communion just because of neglect of above duty.
4. Public scandal is contrary to charity so this is why public retraction is necessary in the case of public scandal.

Paul

 

[Sir_Knight]

To repeat - The reason is that where the sin is public suddenly we cannot assume that the person is in a state of grace, without information to the contrary.

As I said above, there is no PROOF that sin is being done. They could be sleeping in separate beds. Unlikely but possible. And, as I also said above, it is not our place to condemn someone unjustly.

The Priest himself needs to Talk to them and find out if they are in fact obeying Church Teaching.

No argument there.

In the case of people living together, it is improper and generally people living together these days are assumed (if they are a couple) to be engaging in sexual acts.

That may very well be the assumption and it may be correct in a majority of cases but it is not assured to be true in all cases. Speaking from personal experience, my wife moved into “our house” six weeks before our wedding because of numerous complications with rental property, expired leases, moved up house closings, etc. – but we were both still virgins on our honeymoon night.

To have accused us of a sin which we had not committed would have been uncharitable and would have been a sin in it’s own right. To ASSUME that someone is in a state of sin and deny them Communion when they might not be in a state of sin is to unjustly condemn someone and scripture warns us against doing so.

This is why it has been universally frowned upon by the church for as far back in time as possible but now all of a sudden we have to assume the opposite - of course they must have separate beds no scandal at all!!!

We should ASSUME anything. We should be CERTAIN of any accusation that we make or we should not make them for scripture has it that as we judge, so shall we be judged.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

As I said above, there is no PROOF that sin is being done. They could be sleeping in separate beds. Unlikely but possible. And, as I also said above, it is not our place to condemn someone unjustly.

Please state where I have condemned.

Catholic tradition is against couples living together. Otherwise this need for PROOF of sin being committed would have prevented anyone from ever frowning upon it. Since everyone did and quite a number of Catholics still are faithful eneogh to see it that way, This requirement for proof of the mortal sin was never necessary.

When one says the pro-abortion polits must be denied communion it is not a condemnation for maybe they have managed to inexculpably make themselves ignorant.

Unlikely but possible

I think perhaps impossible but thats just my opinion.

That may very well be the assumption and it may be correct in a majority of cases but it is not assured to be true in all cases. Speaking from personal experience, my wife moved into “our house” six weeks before our wedding because of numerous complications with rental property, expired leases, moved up house closings, etc. – but we were both still virgins on our honeymoon night.

To have accused us of a sin which we had not committed would have been uncharitable and would have been a sin in it’s own right. To ASSUME that someone is in a state of sin and deny them Communion when they might not be in a state of sin is to unjustly condemn someone and scripture warns us against doing so.

We should ASSUME anything. We should be CERTAIN of any accusation that we make or we should not make them for scripture has it that as we judge, so shall we be judged.

The problem is stated wrongly.

In your case it was reasonable to move in 6 weeks before due to problems.

However this is not the case in the situation we are describing.

I am not assuming in the negative. I am not saying that the communicant was certainly in mortal sin. I am simply assuming without further information the impossibility of assuming positive that is without further information I cannot assume that a person is in the state of grace as is ordinarily done.

Living together today is generally done by couples living in sin together.

Not to mention the encouragement to moral laxity, for living with a woman who is your gf is a massive occasion of sin.

Paul

 

[Sir_Knight]

Please state where I have condemned.

I’m not going to go through this entire thread but here are a couple …

To repeat - The reason is that where the sin is public suddenly we cannot assume that the person is in a state of grace, without information to the contrary.

Where is the PROOF that a sin is being committed? Without such PROOF, you are condemning when a person MIGHT be free of sin.
PaulAndrew83;4494450:

In the case of people living together, it is improper and generally people living together these days are assumed (if they are a couple) to be engaging in sexual acts.

Again, you are ASSUMING that are performing sinful sexual acts when that MAY NOT be the case.

Catholic tradition is against couples living together.

Catholic tradition also allows for a divorce individual to remarry and receive the sacraments if they live like brother & sister with their second spouse. Why would it be any different for two unmarried individuals if they were living as brother & sister?

Otherwise this need for PROOF of sin being committed would have prevented anyone from ever frowning upon it. Since everyone did and quite a number of Catholics still are faithful eneogh to see it that way, This requirement for proof of the mortal sin was never necessary.

Are you saying that it is alright to condemn someone of a mortal sin without being certain?

I think perhaps impossible but thats just my opinion.

Again, my personal experience differs with your OPINION. I guess that means that you consider me a liar.

In your case it was reasonable to move in 6 weeks before due to problems.

Most people did not know of the circumstances involved nor that we were getting married shortly. What they knew was that two unmarried people were living together. Would it have been proper to UNJUSTLY judge us and assume that we were living in sin and deny us Communion when NO sin was being committed? I think not!

However this is not the case in the situation we are describing.

We don’t know that from what was posted. It doesn’t say how long they have been living together. Might have been only a month for similar reasons. Or it might have been for several months. Again, under similar circumstances. We are not to judge AND condemn others unless we are sure of what we are talking about. As we judge, so shall we be judged. If we condemn unjustly, so shall we be condemned.

I am not assuming in the negative. I am not saying that the communicant was certainly in mortal sin.

Then why deny them Communion?

I am simply assuming without further information the impossibility of assuming positive that is without further information I cannot assume that a person is in the state of grace as is ordinarily done.

Again, it is not our place to ASSUME anything.

Living together today is generally done by couples living in sin together.

Generally but not always and to deny our Lord to someone who is not in sin, would be a sin in and of itself.

Not to mention the encouragement to moral laxity, for living with a woman who is your gf is a massive occasion of sin.

Not if you have good moral fiber.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I am not assuming in the negative.

I am not saying that the communicant was certainly in mortal sin.

I am simply assuming without further information the impossibility of assuming positive that is without further information.

I cannot assume that a person is in the state of grace as is ordinarily done.

Nobody Judges protestants, but we deny them communion. For good reasons.

Please be able to distinguish between denying someone communion for reasons of doubt due to public information and condemning them.

Paul

edit: St Philip Neri had good moral fibre. He said that cowards are the victors.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am not assuming in the negative.

I am not saying that the communicant was certainly in mortal sin.

I am simply assuming without further information the impossibility of assuming positive that is without further information.

I cannot assume that a person is in the state of grace as is ordinarily done.

Nobody Judges protestants, but we deny them communion. For good reasons.

Please be able to distinguish between denying someone communion for reasons of doubt due to public information and condemning them.

Paul

edit: St Philip Neri had good moral fibre. He said that cowards are the victors.

Paul, it is still the decision of the pastor. The pastor MUST make that decision in accord with the canons and teachings of the Church–no one is denying that.

The point I am trying to make (and I daresay some others) is that the decision itself is not to be made by EMHCs, but rather they are to defer to the decision of the pastor, since only the pastor (and presumably other priests in the parish) have knowlege of what occurs (or does not occur) in the internal forum, whether that is confession or a confidential conversation.

The pastor cannot violate the confidence of the internal forum, and expecting him to do so for the sake of satisfying an EMHC is simply not acceptable. If you yourself had a confidential conversation with your own pastor, how would you feel if he shared that information with someone else? Even worse, if you confessed a sin and were genuinely seeking guidance on how to overcome that sin, how would you feel if your confessor told a third-party what you had confessed for the sake of satisfying that other person’s judgment of you? Would you want the priest to say “it’s all right, I just heard PaulAndrew83s confession, and we’re working on it.”

This couple deserves no less consideration, and for that matter, so does the pastor.

 

[Dauphin]

Perhaps we wouldn’t need EMHCs on a regular basis if there wasn’t such a shortage of vocations to the priesthood. My parish has but a single priest, and until recently he had 2 parishes! Icouldn’t imagine mass without EMHCs to assist. The problem lies not with the EMHC, but with the poor catechesis of the parishoner recieving unworthily.

Here’s a solution for getting more priests: get rid of the EMHCs, even if Communion takes a full hour as a result.

As long as anyone’s cousin can pass out the Eucharist, this great sacrament will not be truly recognized for what It is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Here’s a solution for getting more priests: get rid of the EMHCs, even if Communion takes a full hour as a result.

And if that results in not being able to fit in all of the masses, then what?

 

[Dauphin]

And if that results in not being able to fit in all of the masses, then what?

Rejoice that at least there are no EMHCs. Lesser of two evils.

 

[JPUSC]

In the Tridentine Masses I’ve been to with full congregations, Communion took just as long as in other parishes.

Difference is…other parishes usually have like 10 or more EMHCs, lol. In some parishes, things get a little more confusing when people in the last row have to go to Communion first because “the last shall be first”. There are ushers directing people to all sorts of locations with all the EMHC in every corner.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Rejoice that at least there are no EMHCs. Lesser of two evils.

No EMHCs and people missing Mass on Sunday? Hmmmm?? I see that as the greater of the two evils.

 

[Dauphin]

No EMHCs and people missing Mass on Sunday? Hmmmm?? I see that as the greater of the two evils.

So you recognize it’s an evil? That’s a step in the right direction.

Now if only we could get pastors to see this ministry as a “necessary evil” instead of a great way to get people involved, we’d be in good shape.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So you recognize it’s an evil? That’s a step in the right direction.

Poor phrasing of words on my part. I apologize. No, I do not recognize it as “an evil”.

The Church OFFICIALLY allows it. To say that the Church allows evil is to call Christ a liar when He promised us that the gates of Hell would not overcome the Church that He established.

 

[Dauphin]

Poor phrasing of words on my part. I apologize. No, I do not recognize it as “an evil”.

The Church OFFICIALLY allows it. To say that the Church allows evil is to call Christ a liar when He promised us that the gates of Hell would not overcome the Church that He established.

Let’s just call it a really bad idea, shall we?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s just call it a really bad idea, shall we?

So, you no longer recognize it as “an evil”? Good, we’re making progress.

The Lord left us the Eucharist because it was His desire to be united with us.

Without EMHCs there would be MANY sick, elderly & homebound Catholics who would not be able to receive our Lord regularly. In many larger parishes, they would be lucky if they could receive once or twice a year instead of receiving weekly because of EMHCs.

Do you still think that EMHCs is a bad idea?

If so, can I also conclude that if you become homebound and a priest is not available, you’ll give up receiving our Lord rather than receive from an EMHC because you think that it is a bad idea?

 

[Dauphin]

So, you no longer recognize it as “an evil”? Good, we’re making progress.

“Lesser of two evils” is just an expression.

The Lord left us the Eucharist because it was His desire to be united with us.

Without EMHCs there would be MANY sick, elderly & homebound Catholics who would not be able to receive our Lord regularly. In many larger parishes, they would be lucky if they could receive once or twice a year instead of receiving weekly because of EMHCs.

Do you still think that EMHCs is a bad idea?

Yeah. The priests should get off their arses and do it themselves. If it becomes absolutely necessary (as in, the only option), then fine. That’swhy they’re called extraordinary ministers. However, they’re almost universally abused.

When I’m old and dying, I’ll be a priest, so I don’t really have to worry about EMHCs haunting me.

 

[JPUSC]

When I’m old and dying, I’ll be a priest, so I don’t really have to worry about EMHCs haunting me.

Good for you!

We need more priests so we can finally get rid of EMHCs!

The Church only allows them because of the priest shortage.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Paul, it is still the decision of the pastor. The pastor MUST make that decision in accord with the canons and teachings of the Church–no one is denying that.

Yes I have said this.

The point I am trying to make (and I daresay some others) is that the decision itself is not to be made by EMHCs, but rather they are to defer to the decision of the pastor, since only the pastor (and presumably other priests in the parish) have knowlege of what occurs (or does not occur) in the internal forum, whether that is confession or a confidential conversation.

Yes.

The pastor cannot violate the confidence of the internal forum, and expecting him to do so for the sake of satisfying an EMHC is simply not acceptable. If you yourself had a confidential conversation with your own pastor, how would you feel if he shared that information with someone else? Even worse, if you confessed a sin and were genuinely seeking guidance on how to overcome that sin, how would you feel if your confessor told a third-party what you had confessed for the sake of satisfying that other person’s judgment of you? Would you want the priest to say “it’s all right, I just heard PaulAndrew83s confession, and we’re working on it.”

Of course.

This couple deserves no less consideration, and for that matter, so does the pastor.

Yes. Except that requirement in the case of public sin, for a public retraction.

In this couples case that would be to get married, and given the fact that its a small town with everyone knowing everything I would say move out until then. Otherwise staying together gives a bad example. This second thing of mine is one based upon having read many spiritual works and the lives of the saints so is traditional. Some modern views may allow a different pastoral decision.

Catholic tradition also allows for a divorce individual to remarry and receive the sacraments if they live like brother & sister with their second spouse. Why would it be any different for two unmarried individuals if they were living as brother & sister?

Catholic Tradition is not that at all. Thats a modern pastoral decision taken because so many modern catholics forget or ignore the basic catholic teaching on marriage.

First of it is different than people living as a couple because being a couple means that the occasion of sin is greater. Note however there is nothing in catholic tradition that recomends or even allows people of opposite genders to live together. Hence all the age old policy’s of catholic orders devoted to education being for either gender.

If you want to disagree with my principles on this matter go disagree with St Philip Neri, St Antony Mary Claret, and pretty much all saints who are all **INCREDIBLY ** wary on such matters.

Paul