Should catholics who disagree with Church teaching receive the Eucharist?

[dshix]

So deporting immigrants, splitting families up in the process, and cutting food stamps that the most vulnerable in society depend on are in accord with Catholic social justice? :roll eyes:

What about those lawmakers who support disastrous environmental policies that promote anything but good stewardship of the Earth and our natural resources?

It would be a lot easier not to roll my eyes at you if you’d stop using superlative adjectives in the most ludicrous places.

Justice is an elusive thing. In the end, no one will be entirely satisfied, but the good lawmaker or judge will hopefully attain the result which has the most good for the most people.

You have brought up three issues: illegal immigration, welfare, and environmentalism. Seeing as they are all three off-topic to this thread, I cannot make too detailed a comment.

I will say, however, that I disagree with you entirely that the supposed “issues” on all three of these topics are paramount to world injustice.

Illegal immigrants are treated justly by deportation: they should not expect anything better, they having broken the law.
Welfare, a government function which has been ridiculously abused, is certainly not a problem of injustice towards the people receiving it, but rather a problem of injustice to the taxpayers.
Environmentalism… I can’t even bring myself to comment at any length.

The Church does not condemn opinions on these matters, because they are not serious moral issues. She does, however, condemn immoral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and other such things, and that is why you hear her speak on those issues, and not the former ones.

I wonder why I have even bothered to attempt reasoning with you, but perhaps it was more for the benefit of other posters here rather than an attempt to reason with a person who I know is close-minded.

 

[VicFerrari]

Wait a minute. You are looking at this from the wrong angle.

No one on planet Earth is worthy of receiving Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. No one. As a matter of fact, we are all ludicrously unworthy of such an honor, because we are all sinners.

God, in His generosity, goodness, and mercy, permits us to receive. This is a privilege. We do not deserve it, yet we are given it.

That all goes without saying and I did not suggest otherwise in my earlier posting nor did any other poster to my knowledge.

When a person directly disobeys and disagrees with the teaching of God’s Church, when that person says, “No.” to God in response to a command of morality, that person is rejecting Him. That person has forfeited the gift of grace that God has given him.

Be very careful in the language you use versus what I have used on this matter. If a person privately/internally struggles with a teaching of the Church it does not necessarily mean they cannot receive communion. A prime example would be abortion. If someone had an abortion, facilitated an abortion or publicly supported abortion that is one thing with very grave consequences including not being able to receive communion.

A person could even defiantly and obstinately embrace abortion and be in a state of mortal sin without taking any external actions.

On the other hand if a person struggled privately/internally (without any external actions) with this issue and truly wanted to accept the Church’s teaching on the matter then there is no sin that should keep them away from receiving communion.

Such a person, by receiving communion, is lying to himself and to God. He is receiving the Eucharist, and is saying by his actions that he is in “communion” with God when he is actually disobeying God by not believing His Church on such a simple matter or morality.

No.

That is a mortal sin on top of another mortal sin, and the reception of the Eucharist casts that person even closer to Hell than he was before.

No. No mortal sin.

 

[VicFerrari]

Thank you friend for your words. You were free to post as you wished, and you did not post Catholic or Catholic Christian. There are our brothers and sisters in Christ who do not have the Eucharist, they do not believe as we do, and so they would not understand that taking the Eucharist unworthily would bring condemnation upon themselves. As I said, it is a kindness to caution where necessary…

Your earlier attack cannot be explained away. You were wrong.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Your earlier attack cannot be explained away. You were wrong.

Thank you. I don’t mind being wrong.
God bless.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=LiberalPrincess;11396976]So deporting immigrants, splitting families up in the process, and cutting food stamps that the most vulnerable in society depend on are in accord with Catholic social justice? :roll eyes:

Leave it to big government to screw up immigration by splitting up families but letting criminals, child sex traffickers, drug smugglers and even terrorists run lose in this country.

Problem with food stamps is the American left is using them to buy votes from the poor. Is that something Jesus would approve? Doubtful, since the whole situation reeks of scandal.

I think the point that people are making is that the Church emphasizes abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and so-called gay “marriage” as major issues, and for good reason: they all relate to human life and the marriage issue is one a Sacrament not to be taking lightly and these are cornerstone issues of civilization.

Furthermore, the Church is also taking a strong stand for religious freedom.

What about those lawmakers who support disastrous environmental policies that promote anything but good stewardship of the Earth and our natural resources?

Could be a grave matter depending on the circumstances.

We’ve got lawsuits against the Obama-led EPA for poor policy practices in West Virginia regarding coal mining. Of course, West Virginia politics are neck-deep in the coal industry.

Climate change as a policy driver for renewable energy is putting more and more endangered species at risk of extinction.

dshix

The Church does not condemn opinions on these matters, because they are not serious moral issues.

They can be mortal sins under the right circumstances, but the Church prioritizes the sanctity of life and Sacramental Marriage.

I have a hard time seeing the logic in being dependent on the USA government which is in turn dependent on China and Japan and other foreign banks as a just moral cause to hand out food stamps and other benefits given that even our most poor are not only obese but also that the system is inherently abused.

The solution is for limited government and private charity.

 

[dshix]

Be very careful in the language you use versus what I have used on this matter. If a person privately/internally struggles with a teaching of the Church it does not necessarily mean they cannot receive communion. A prime example would be abortion. If someone had an abortion, facilitated an abortion or publicly supported abortion that is one thing with very grave consequences including not being able to receive communion.

A person could even defiantly and obstinately embrace abortion and be in a state of mortal sin without taking any external actions.

On the other hand if a person struggled privately/internally (without any external actions) with this issue and truly wanted to accept the Church’s teaching on the matter then there is no sin that should keep them away from receiving communion.

The question of this thread, as stated in the OP, is “if a catholic supports gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose and other hot button issues, but does not directly engage in such acts, would such a Catholic be able to receive the Eucharist worthily?”

We receive the Eucharist because we believe it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

We believe this on the authority of the Church. If we disbelieve the Church, and do not accept Her teaching, why should we receive? That’s called lying to yourself.

How can you say “No.” to God at the same time as saying “Yes” by receiving Him in communion? How can you possibly justify that to yourself?

Supporting homosexual acts or other “hot button” issues is a mortal sin. It falls under two of the nine ways of being an accessory to another person’s sin: consent to another person’s sin and defense of another person’s sin.

 

[OraLabora]

If one were to believe many posters on this thread, life would just be one long catechism or RCIA class and if lucky, we’d be allowed to receive the viaticum just before we die once we finally “got it”.

I like many others mistakenly received the Eucharist for some years after reverting, due to a marital issue.

At the risk of making myself unworthy to receive again, sometimes I think the legalistic arm of the Church has it all wrong. None of us are really worthy, all of us are obstinate in some sin or another, and thus all of us need grace to pull ourselves up. And as Catholics, surely we believe that the way God distributes grace is mainly through His sacraments. Surely too, we recognize that not understanding/privately not believing/following one’s conscience (I know, well-formed, but it is possible to believe it is well-formed when in fact we’re missing some crucial data) is quite different than a politician actively legislating in favour of abortion, same-sex marriage, etc.

Faith is something that grows. Read the 12 degrees of humility in the Rule of St. Benedict.

 

[ProVobis]

None of us are really worthy, all of us are obstinate in some sin or another, and thus all of us need grace to pull ourselves up. And as Catholics, surely we believe that the way God distributes grace is mainly through His sacraments.

Yes, that’s why Christ gave us the sacrament of Penance as well. I am of the old school, that you go to confession before receiving. Why go through the torture of wondering whether you received worthily or not? I’m not sure one receives enough grace through communion alone to overcome tons of venial sins, which technically don’t prohibit you to receive but how spiritually moving is it to be saddled with the added feelings of guilt? If people feel that venial sins are nothing to worry about, then I take back my comment. But one of the Church’s teachings is that venial sins can easily lead to mortal sin so the sooner the venial sins are dealt with, the better.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I find this ironic. How many Catholic lawmakers in the right wing who support unjust economic policies, cruel immigration proposals, and cuts to welfare have not been asked to excuse themselves.

Well, I suppose it depends on the intentions and the matter involved. If the matter is grave, such as being obstinately rich or causing massive pollution, the matter is grave. Simply being “right-wing” doesn’t entitle a person to Communion.

I don’t think American republicans have an unjust economic policy, I think they advocate for the best system possible, which is capitalism, and a reasonable safety net for those who are down or don’t always make it. Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws are a good example.

Also, members of the GOP have proposed reasonable immigration reform, but the entire party about to do it in a way that hands millions of votes to the democrats, who are even more egregious at violating Catholic principles. Republicans by far and away support LEGAL immigration, not a policy to legalize everyone right now just to help the democrats at the polls.

Cuts to welfare should be done carefully, but I’m sure the GOP just sees the corruption that the left is perpetrating for the purpose of getting people dependent on government. I will say to anyone who wants to cut welfare though to remember that when it comes to farm and football stadium subsidies.

 

[MorEphrem]

biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-29.htm

Peace,
Ed

How predictable. I knew you were going to link Corinthians. A bit uncouth of just posting a link as a response to a paragraph response and then not even trying to make it relevant, but whatever. Anyway, I will reiterate what I said: outward obedience is what is required, not internal alteration hence why someone can disagree with Vatican II in good conscience as a matter of a lack of prudence but they are nonetheless required to follow whatever has been mandated.

By the way, a point of catechism, the verse of Corinthians you provided is generally quoted by your Church to argue for not going to receive with a mortal sin; obedience, despite personal doubt, is not a mortal sin. Doubt does not equate to apostasy. But again, see the aforementioned, the only implication is a weak theology of the Eucharist.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Specifically, if a catholic supports gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose and other hot button issues, **but does not directly engage in such acts, **would such a Catholic be able to receive the Eucharist worthily?

Does this scripture below apply to what goes on in the heart, although not directly engaged in such acts?

You have heard the commandment, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ What I say to you is: anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his thoughts. Matt 5: 27-28