In this community two situations immediately pop into mind.
(1) A gay man living openly with his partner goes forward to receive communion regularly at a local Catholic church. Should he be turned away at the altar?
If the priest saying the Mass knows that the man is living in sin (i.e. the man habitually engages in homosexual acts), the priest has addressed the man about Church teaching on the matter–such that the man understands the Church’s teaching and the gravity of his sinful actions, then (assuming he has not been absolved from his sin in the Sacrament od Penance) the man should be refused communion–for the good of his own soul, preventing him from making a sacrilegious Communion and incurring more punishment.
(2) One of the key leaders (parish council member, usher) in a local Catholic Church is divorced. He did not remarry but he has been cohabiting with a woman for many years now, and they have a teenage son. Should he be permitted to receive communion? Should he be forbidden to hold such positions? He and his woman companion attend mass and other parish events faithfully, give generously, etc.
The same conditions would apply as given above. Receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is much worse for the couple than their facing embarrassment or having their “feelings hurt”–God help us!
These types of problems, really unnecessary “dilemmas”, stem from wishy-washy, cowardly priests and bishops who fail to address the problems.
By the way, what is the official teaching of the church re Protestants receiving communion? What I mean is, some churches announce that only Catholics may receive and some don’t. I know an older couple who attend his Catholic church on Saturday and her Protestant church on Sunday - an agreement they made when they married after they both were widowed. She comes forward with him for communion. What should be done, if anything?
The CCC provides specific guidelines for when a Protestant may receive Communion:
(1) Attendant conditions must be “grave”, e.g. in wartime, when a company of soldiers is facing immanent danger of death,
(2) The Protestant does not have access to his own minister.
(3) The Protestant believes what the Church teaches about the Eucharist.
(4) Typically, the local Ordinary must grant permission to the priest.
It doesn’t sound like the situations you describe meet any of the conditions. What you witness is confusion and people acting out of ignorance because they have either not been taught or, worse, the responsible priests and bishops are themselves actually promoting such scandal.
I have seen it myself, and have even had to talk to my brother and my sister-in-law about it because the priest was asleep at the wheel, as is so often the case. They, Protestants, were frequently making illicit Communions. After being presented with the Church’s teaching, they saw the truth in the argument and withdrew themselves from the practice.
If you haven’t already, please take the time to read Blessed John Paul II’s wonderful encyclical, “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, in which he solidly re-affirms the Church’s perennial teaching on the Eucharist in view of mounting liturgical abuse.
Refusing the Eucharist is very touchy. I recall weddings where the bride was given communion, but not the groom, the bride’s family but not the groom’s, etc. It seems to me that this is a poor way to start out a marriage.
Yes, it is touchy. But failing to teach the Truth of our Faith and promoting scandal and sometimes even sacrilege in the process is NOT the solution. Unfortunately, the U.S. clergy, by-and-large, seems to acting in precisely such a manner.
Jesus, in the Eucharist, is indeed a “sign of contradiction”. Read the “Bread of Life” discourse in John’s Gospel, chapter 6. After this teaching we are told that many of Jesus’ disciples no longer walked with Him. Nowhere do we read that Jesus, upset that He had hurt their feelings, watered down or retracted His “hard teaching” in an effort to smooth things over and regain their adulation.
At my wedding, most of the groom’s side did not receive Holy Communion (because they were Protestants). The priest unabashedly made it clear that Communion was reserved for Catholics who were in the state of grace.
The best way, in my personal opinion, is to let God decide such issues. I know many Catholics who do not believe in transubstantiation. Now, is there communion valid?
Sadly, according to recent polls, upwards of 90% of Catholics do not believe in the dogma–yes, it is a dogma of the Church–of Transubstantiation. Catholics are bound in conscience, under pain of mortal sin, to believe in the dogmas of the Church. (Not because the Church is full of big meanies who want to flex their hierarchical muscles, but because our denial of the truths of our faith puts us in danger of losing our salvation.)
Ignorance is one thing (and I think that most Catholics who deny Transubstantiation have simply not adequately been taught the doctrine), but formal heresy/apostasy is quite another. Deliberately receiving Communion in the latter state would constitute grave sin.
Very complicated. God certainly can figure it out far better than we can.
Code:
Oh, when a non-Catholic serviceman attends mass in Iraq and takes communion, what then? I know of such a circumstance. He explained later that this was the only communion available to him at that time, and he thought the normal rules were suspended.
True. Sometimes very touchy; sometimes very complicated. But that does not give us license to remain ignorant (and ashamed) of our Faith, nor to turn tail and run every time we encounter difficulty due to our attempts to genuinely follow the Gospel and to live holy lives.
