Same-sex marriage supporters denied communion (at the Cathedral of St Paul)

[NeedImprovement]

The encyclical states that no sacred minister may deny those who seek Communion** in a reasonable manner **and **who are rightly disposed ** Holy Communion. This statement presupposes the existence of circumstances which require certain persons not being admitted to Holy Communion.

Open defiance of the truth taught by the holy Catholic Church and promoting sodomy as the marriage act (yes… if you think this thing through , that’s exactly what they are affirming though perhaps some may not have realized it themselves] ) during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, defiinitively means one’s soul is not in a state to receive Holy Communion and neither are they seeking it in a reasonable manner. Furthermore they are diverting attention which is supposed to be focused on our Blessed Lord during the Mass ,to themselves.

Not only did the sacred ministers of Holy communion have a responsibility to not admit the instigators to Holy Communion, they did the instigators a favor by saving them from committing sacrilege. The instigators’ actions indicate that it is highly doubtful they really even had any idea WHO comes to them in Holy Communion. He is the Truth. If they had an inkling of that, they wouldn’t offend Him at the most inopportune time.

Don’t try to say those priests should shoulder any blame - they are the ones who are staying true to Christ.

Inclusion is not the requirement here - being rightly disposed is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The priest had a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse communion to whom he felt fit to refuse it to. His superiors, I imagine, will let him know if he did wrong.

But many many unrepentant sinners ask for and receive communion weekly. Priests all over the country give the Eucharist to unrepentant sinners. We all just wink at the fact that as long as the lack of repentance is hidden, then you can receive your Host.

When the priest does step in and (rarely) act as enforcer, his role is not to try to read hearts and make assumptions, but only to minimize publicly scandalous situations. Are there people silently unfaithful, disobedient, receiving in a state of sin? Undoubtedly. But hopefully there are not large numbers of them at any particular Mass, as sincere Catholics are quite aware of the implications of sacrilege of the sacraments. The percentage of practicing Catholics routinely receiving Eucharist as “unrepentant sinners” is not something any of us, including any priest, can compute with any accuracy. Nor is it any human’s job to try to control moral infidelity. And this is not the point of the story.

And if even the priest administering communion and acquainted with his parishioners cannot discern this, I would think even less can an “Agnostic, former Protestant” make even a broad quantitative reference to “many, many unrepentant sinners” receiving the Eucharist.

 

[larkin31]

When the priest does step in and (rarely) act as enforcer, his role is not to try to read hearts and make assumptions, but only to minimize publicly scandalous situations. Are there people silently unfaithful, disobedient, receiving in a state of sin? Undoubtedly. But hopefully there are not large numbers of them at any particular Mass, as sincere Catholics are quite aware of the implications of sacrilege of the sacraments. The percentage of practicing Catholics routinely receiving Eucharist as “unrepentant sinners” is not something any of us, including any priest, can compute with any accuracy. Nor is it any human’s job to try to control moral infidelity. And this is not the point of the story.

And if even the priest administering communion and acquainted with his parishioners cannot discern this, I would think even less can an “Agnostic, former Protestant” make even a broad quantitative reference to “many, many unrepentant sinners” receiving the Eucharist.

I simply made a broad generalization. If you want to deny the likelihood of truth in my remark, then go ahead. Otherwise, truth doesn’t matter from which mouth it comes, does it?

 

[Catydidd]

I’m glad that the Archbishop took a stand!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I simply made a broad generalization. If you want to deny the likelihood of truth in my remark, then go ahead. Otherwise, truth doesn’t matter from which mouth it comes, does it?

Truth and likelihood are two different things. They are not interchangeable, and there is no verification to “likelihood.” When you can’t back up a statement, it becomes a conjecture. That, combined with the public reality vs. the private possibility, makes your “broad generalizations” irrelevant in light of the particular single event being discussed.

 

[Hiskid1973]

The Bible clearly states that we must be in a state of grace before Communion and it also clearly states the consequences if we are not.
God bless,
Ed

Yes sheep/goats, hot or luke warm or cold are among us all…It’s us personally who choose to partake if we are unworthily or not…It is the individuals heart that will be judged…The church however is to purge itself of those sinning but refuse to change their ways…Immorality , drunkenness ect…Abortion takes alot more in as it’s an over arching principle that God chooses life…I think this is more of a maturity issue as one draws closer to the Lord and gets into His word they realize more the value he attaches to those he knew in before they even were born…I think in this day and age. That shall not kill is sorta disconnected from murder as we see it because of how we define “life”…

 

[larkin31]

Truth and likelihood are two different things. They are not interchangeable, and there is no verification to “likelihood.” When you can’t back up a statement, it becomes a conjecture. That, combined with the public reality vs. the private possibility, makes your “broad generalizations” irrelevant in light of the particular single event being discussed.

I wasn’t “interchanging” the terms, and this is why I used TWO terms.

Secondly, my point was merely to point out that ministers deliver the Eucharist to unrepentant sinners frequently. If you want to call this “conjecture,” well, of course it is. My point is that folks here sure make a big stink about unrepentant gay parishioners (however few they really are) when churches, I would wager, are loaded with unrepentant sinners of many types. But maybe I am being too cynical in my estimation of the level of true repentance in society…Maybe.

 

[edwest2]

I wasn’t “interchanging” the terms, and this is why I used TWO terms.

Secondly, my point was merely to point out that ministers deliver the Eucharist to unrepentant sinners frequently. If you want to call this “conjecture,” well, of course it is. My point is that folks here sure make a big stink about unrepentant gay parishioners (however few they really are) when churches, I would wager, are loaded with unrepentant sinners of many types. But maybe I am being too cynical in my estimation of the level of true repentance in society…Maybe.

That’s one of the problems of the internet. Some people post conjecture as if it were fact. It’s not. No one knows how many unrepentant sinners go and receive Communion. It is a big deal, however, when a gay political movement manipulates the Church or tries to. When this occurs, it is the well considered duty to deny the Eucharist as a means to a political end.

It is the Body of Christ, not a prop in a political drama. It should not ever be “used” in this manner.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Elizabeth502]

I wasn’t “interchanging” the terms, and this is why I used TWO terms.

Secondly, my point was merely to point out that ministers deliver the Eucharist to unrepentant sinners frequently. If you want to call this “conjecture,” well, of course it is. My point is that folks here sure make a big stink about unrepentant gay parishioners (however few they really are) when churches, I would wager, are loaded with unrepentant sinners of many types. But maybe I am being too cynical in my estimation of the level of true repentance in society…Maybe.

Priests don’t deal in wagers, but especially they don’t deal in wagers when they take the bold and extremely rare step of denying communion (or even speaking to someone privately about this). They have to have signficant evidence of direct opposition to a morally serious position held by the Church, and normally that opposition would also be public. (Because then you would have the dual issues of sacrilege and scandal.) I have heard from priests that they have also approached parishioners privately who have been a little more private (but equally adamant) about serious opposition, and again generally such sitiuations of opposition are made apparent not by some effort by a priest, but by willing and unashamed proclamations by the parishioner, who is generally the initiator of controversy.

Priests are busy men, but especially nowadays. They have better things to do then to spend time examining all possible examples of non-compliance. Again, it is hard to express with sufficient clarity, to a non-Catholic, how seriously the vast majority of believing Catholics regard the sin of sacrilege. Now, if we’re going to talk about disbelieving, but Mass-attending, Catholics, that’s a different thing. In this very narrow situation, when I refer to believing, I refer to unquestioning belief in the Real Presence. I have heard all kinds of unverifiable (and troubling) reports regarding percentages of Mass-attending Catholics who do not believe in the Real Presence. It is my understanding that there’s a significant correlation (anyway) between those who have this casual attitude about Eucharist and those with a casual attitude about Catholic moral conformity.

However, people might be surprised at the numbers of baptized, believing Catholics (both Mass-attending and not) who do respect the core of the faith despite being lapsed in their own practice. We don’t hear about these so much in official statistics, because they include both those who now disregard all Church teaching and beliefs, and those who retain respect but are not motivated enough to change their lapsed lifestyle. Many of these even feel guilty about their vairous lifestyles and will not approach Communion, even if/when they attend Mass – such as a favor for a relative, or a liturgical event such as a Nuptial Mass, funeral Mass, etc. Such Catholics definitely believe in the Real Presence and therefore are not approaching the Eucharist (since, for a variety of reasons, they decline to go to Confession, are not ready to yet, etc.)

By the way, occasionally a priest is in a dual position of, when talking to a parishioner privately, unearthing the fact that this parishioner is in fact not much of a believer in the Real Presence. In those cases, the priest corrects both as to theology and to acceptable practice or conformity.

 

[exoflare]

You’re entitled to do so. But I did ask you. . .IF you’re going to play along with the idea that ‘politics’ and ‘religion’ are separate, just exactly how do you spread the gospel? If you’re trying to bring the good news (which is all truth), how do you do so if you’re holding back on some of the truth because you aren’t ‘allowed’ to address it?

IOW, if Father X is trying to teach the gospel, part of that teaching involves the idea (as Scripture tells us) that one CAN 'eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily" and that to do so is a grave sin. The same Scripture tells us that we are to endeavor to keep our brothers and sisters from committing grave sin, by instructing them.

HOW is Father X supposed to tell those who deliberately and publically deny Christ’s teachings but expect to ‘take’ His Body and Blood just as though they were in a state of grace, if he is told to ‘deny’ the Eucharist (a teaching the Church upholds in cases of those in MANIFEST PUBLIC GRAVE SIN) would be a ‘political’ gesture? Isn’t the denial ABOVE ALL a RELIGIOUS and APPROPRIATE GESTURE? Wouldn’t PERMITTING them to receive be a sin itself? (The Church seems to think so based on its own teaching.)

IOW, do we teach truth based on whether people ‘perceive’ or THINK something is true (when it is not), or do we teach truth as truth WHETHER people think it true or not?

I don’t think he answered this, but I’d be curious to see his answer as well. It always amazes me how so many people now are conditioned to treat ANY idea as if it were sacred and untouchable, merely because enough people decided to label it a “political” view.