Should gay men be able to take communion?

[GloriousOrder]

On one level, we can say that a gay man living with his boyfriend and having sexual intercourse with him is the same as an unmarried male and female couple living together and having sexual intercourse. Both are unmarried, though the latter are at least capable of matrimony. Since neither situation is morally-licit, both are equally in mortal sin. Homosexuals are human beings, and the same laws apply to them as apply to normal people.

…] With all due respect, this seems like forked tongue doctrine.

We are told we are called to live chastely. How many Catholic heterosexual couples are chaste? Not a lot. They sure take communion though.

So how does it make sense to say, hey, some of us have SSA’s. You can be a vital part of the church community, but you must stay chaste forever! Whereas heterosexuals are told to stay chaste until married.

So a homosexual has the option of either marrying a woman or staying chaste forever.

This to me is the same as saying homosexuality is a sin, as it used to be described.

The only reason I can see for the Church clarifying its stance is to 1) make sure overly zealous Catholics don’t go around beating up gay people; 2) to protect itself as much as possible from lawsuits.

There is a difference between being “called to live chastely” and “living chastely”. Heterosexuals who live without chastity are just as much in a state of mortal sin as homosexuals who live without chastity. There is equal and grave sin in both acts. We’re not here to pleasure ourselves and put the focus on the self. The whole point of life is to find out truth by experiencing the other truly, not only in reference to the me. It seems, to me, that the Church’s present definition of S.S.A. is a way of stemming the tide of violence, hatred, and confusion - not necessarily a doctrine or deep dogma.

In my opinion: there is a sense that even marrying a woman is a sin for a gay man. He will always be living in total hatred and denial of his very strong feelings. The only right action for a gay man is to stay chaste. There is a double standard, yes, but who cares? It’s not that difficult to live chastely and to avoid performing sexual acts on every man you meet.

 

[Spirithound]

However, with all due respect, this seems like forked tongue doctrine.

We are told we are called to live chastely. How many Catholic heterosexual couples are chaste? Not a lot. They sure take communion though.

So how does it make sense to say, hey, some of us have SSA’s. You can be a vital part of the church community, but you must stay chaste forever! Whereas heterosexuals are told to stay chaste until married.

So a homosexual has the option of either marrying a woman or staying chaste forever.

This to me is the same as saying homosexuality is a sin, as it used to e described. Why not keep saying that?. The only reason I can see for the Church clarifying its stance is to 1) make sure overly zealous Catholics don’t go around beating up gay people; 2) to protect itself as much as possible from lawsuits.

Chastity is for everyone. Chastity means living purely according to your state in life. For married people, chastity involves sexual intercourse. For everyone else, it does not.

I know it seems unfair that “we all know” the church is full of people who are fornicating, contracepting, and aborting, and they’re all receiving Holy Communion, while that one guy who is known as a practicing homosexual is denied, however, this is a huge kindness being extended towards that one man.

There is a key thing that was helpful to me in really accepting that I was wrong about alot of the moral code I had constructed for myself throughout my mostly-secular, uncatechized-but-still-church-going life. The phrase that caused the difficulty was “The Catholic Church teaches…” Well, this phrase is imprecise. The Catholic Church, when it comes to faith and morals does not “teach,” as if she created these doctrines; rather, she proclaims what she has discerned to be the objective will of God. Only once we know this can we be happy following the rules proclaimed by the Church, because they are God’s rules.

Back from tangent… The Church proclaims that receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is a grave sacrilege, and a further mortal sin. This holds for people with opposite-sex attractions, and for people with same-sex attractions, and if the priest knows about a particular fornicating person, he should deny Holy Communion to that person. This action is a kindness because it prevents a mortal sin. The others are damning themselves further to Hell.

I know that the cross of celibacy can be difficult to bear, but God will give you the grace to persevere.

The Church does not say that having same-sex attractions is a sin because we recognized that a person who has those attractions but remains chaste does not sin.

 

[Spirithound]

Edited to add: What is chaste? If a heterosexual couple does nothing sexually except for closed-mouth kisses on the lips, I’m pretty sure they would be considered chaste in their dating and could take communion.

Probably, but they could have intentions even in the closed-mouth kisses that would exclude them from Holy Communion.

Can a homosexual couple date in such a chaste manner?

No

Can one even be a homosexual couple?

No

The truth is, no one wants to see homosexuals dating no matter how chaste.

Chastity is inherently absent from a homosexual romantic relationship.

Then why not just call homosexuality a sin and be done with it.

Because there is a difference between having the attractions and acting on them. By the very nature of the suffix, the word “homosexuality” is ambiguous as to its referent. It can refer to the feeling, or it can refer to the act.

 

[Singapore_Nick]

Spirithound - Hey ! I’m a gay catholic from SG too !

 

[Singapore_Nick]

Soulhunter182 - hey ! me a gay catholic from SG too !

 

[TrueLight]

There is a double standard, yes, but who cares? It’s not that difficult to live chastely and to avoid performing sexual acts on every man you meet.

On every man you meet? Do you really believe all gay men are that way?

 

[TrueLight]

Chastity is for everyone. Chastity means living purely according to your state in life. For married people, chastity involves sexual intercourse. For everyone else, it does not.

Oh okay. In my mind being chaste and being celibate were interchangeable.

. Only once we know this can we be happy following the rules proclaimed by the Church, because they are God’s rules.

Teaches or proclaims is the same thing to me because Jesus taught. Don’t get me wrong. Whatever the Church says, goes, but I do see it as unfair and I hope I’m allowed to say that.

Back from tangent… The Church proclaims that receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is a grave sacrilege, and a further mortal sin. This holds for people with opposite-sex attractions, and for people with same-sex attractions, and if the priest knows about a particular fornicating person, he should deny Holy Communion to that person. This action is a kindness because it prevents a mortal sin. The others are damning themselves further to Hell.

I know that the cross of celibacy can be difficult to bear, but God will give you the grace to persevere.

The Church does not say that having same-sex attractions is a sin because we recognized that a person who has those attractions but remains chaste does not sin.

Great points!

 

[Corki]

Just a follow up though. If a priest knew this person to be gay and living with his boyfriend. The priest would not know if they are living a chaste lifestyle or not right? what if they were and the priest assumes that they weren’t and due to this was refused communion?

It’s also important what the community knows. If the priest knows they are living together chastely, he might give them Communion privately but not publically.

It’s the issue of giving scandal. Giving scandal is not the same as causing scandal. If lots of people know the couple are living together but do not know of their committment to chastity, for the priest to give them public Communion would be to endorse a perceived sin. This might encourage other homosexual couples who are not living chastely to try to receive Communion. That’s giving scandal - an act that might encourage another to sin.

This is why, when a couple in an irregular marriage (civilly remarried after divorce - no annulment yet) agrees to live together as brother and sister while awaiting an annulment, they are advised to receive Communion only at a Church where their living arrangement is not well known.

 

[Spirithound]

Teaches or proclaims is the same thing to me because Jesus taught. Don’t get me wrong. Whatever the Church says, goes, but I do see it as unfair and I hope I’m allowed to say that.

Ok, teaching and proclaiming might not be the best, most nuanced words to use, but do you see what the Church says about morality being objective?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The plain and simple answer to the provacative question that you pose is yes.

A person’s sexual orientation does not prevent them receiving Holy Communion. Likewise, one’s sex, ethnicitiy, nationality, profession, etc. do not prevent you from receiving Holy Communion.

You do not receive Holy Communion if you are not a Catholic and if you are a Catholic you do not receive if you are in a state of grave/mortal sin or under certain canonical penalties. Being homoexual if not a sin. Engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same sex is sinful.

 

[rockerchar]

No one living in sin - man, woman, or child - should receive communion. That said, many sins are not readily apparent to others, so we must police ourselves. A person engaged in fornication or adultery of any kind shouldn’t receive communion. It may be that the gay person–openly living a sinful lifestyle–is the only one the priest knows about and notices. But the next man in line, who is sleeping with his girlfriend, should also not receive communion.

Someone attracted to the same sex, but who does not act on those attractions, is not living in sexual sin. Just as the man who is attracted to women, but is not sleeping with anyone but his wife is not living in sexual sin. They may both still be liars, thieves, or murderers and as such STILL shouldn’t receive communion.

If we all took our own sin seriously and didn’t present ourselves for communion when in a state of mortal sin (or even long-nurtured venial sin), we wouldn’t be so busy noticing or caring what everyone else was doing.

This raises a good point. If you take this further, it’s impossible to judge who is in the state to receive. The minister of holy communion should give all people the benefit of the doubt. God can judge for Himself the state of the recipient, and I don’t think anyone on Catholic Answers is as smart as Him.

 

[rockerchar]

Also, let’s take into account the claims of queer theology which argues that homosexuality is a valid expression of human sexuality.

IF homosexuality is a valid expression of homosexuality, then anyone who denies communion to an open LGBT person is in error.

Arguments against the dignity of LGBT sexualities are based on homophobia, reticence, fundamentalism, and other vices.

I’d say it’s God’s job to judge whether or not queer theology is right. Not the churchgoer.

 

[TrueLight]

Also, let’s take into account the claims of queer theology which argues that homosexuality is a valid expression of human sexuality.

IF homosexuality is a valid expression of homosexuality, then anyone who denies communion to an open LGBT person is in error.

Arguments against the dignity of LGBT sexualities are based on homophobia, reticence, fundamentalism, and other vices.

I’d say it’s God’s job to judge whether or not queer theology is right. Not the churchgoer.

And what of the CCC?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Should we just have open communion for everyone then?

That would be great because then I could take communion instead of withering in the pews.

 

[rockerchar]

1. Obligation of conscience overrules scrupulousity, and/or attachment to rules.
2. Given (1), How does a minister of holy communion know the interior state of the communicant?
3. Where is the citation for that CCC quote? Is it based on any infallible teachings of the Church? Last time I read it, there were no references to Council documents et al.

See the following points:

Q: What is the official Catholic teaching about homosexuality?
In the mid-1970s, the Vatican recognized the difference between being homosexual and engaging in homogenital (same-sex) acts. Catholic teaching holds that, as a state beyond a person’s choice, being homosexual is not wrong. But just as it is wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so, too, homogenital acts are wrong.

The Church also teaches understanding and compassion toward gay and lesbian people. In their 1976 statement, To Live in Christ Jesus, the American bishops wrote, “Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.… The Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care.” In 1990, in their instruction, Human Sexuality, the Catholic Bishops repeated this teaching, which is also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In 1997, the U.S. Catholic Bishops published Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers. Addressing lesbians and gay men, the bishops said, “In you God’s love is revealed.” The bishops encouraged families to remain connected when a member revealed his or her homosexuality and called for the establishment of ministries sensitive to the needs of gay and lesbian Catholics and their families.

Q: What is the basis for Catholic teaching about the immorality of homogenital acts?
All Catholic sexual ethics rests on this principle: procreation is an essential aspect of human sexuality, so every genital act must be open to the possibility of conception. For this very same reason, Catholic teaching forbids contraception, masturbation, and pre-marital and extra-marital sex as well as homogenital acts.

The Vatican insists that procreation pertains to the very nature of human sexuality. That is, the Church presents this teaching as natural law, the ordering which the Creator built into the universe.

Q: What other considerations about the morality of homogenital acts need to be made?
Besides appealing to Scripture and Tradition (Church teaching through the centuries), the Catholic approach to morality also relies heavily on human reasoning. The argument from natural law is a prime example. Other instances are the findings of the human sciences or the evidence of people’s personal experiences.

Arguments from natural law are inconclusive because the nature of human sexuality is debated. Procreation is certainly one aspect of sexuality. Yet the Catholic Church allows marriage between known sterile couples and sex between couples beyond child-bearing age. Moreover, Catholic teaching has recently emphasized the “unitive” aspect of sex—loving, caring, interpersonal sharing. Surely, the personal, not the biological, is the prime meaning of sex among human beings.

Similarly, the conclusion of the human sciences is that homosexuality is biologically based, a natural variation affecting about 10% of the population, often fixed by early childhood, and in no way pathological. (This 10% includes both the exclusively and the predominantly homosexual.) Likewise, while some may condemn practicing homosexuals as Godless and sinful, contemporary lesbian and gay Christians recognize their self-acceptance as a graced moment and report that, since coming out, they are happier, healthier, and closer to other people and to God.

Q: What options are open to a person who is homosexual and Catholic?
Official Catholic teaching requires that homosexual people abstain from sex. But the Catholic Church also teaches solemnly that people are obliged to form their conscience carefully and responsibly and to follow it as the bottom line in every moral decision.

Neither Scripture nor Tradition nor natural law theory nor human science nor personal experience convincingly supports official Catholic teaching about the immorality of homogenital acts. Accordingly, and after much soul-searching, many gay and lesbian Catholics have formed consciences that differ from official Church teaching and have entered into homosexual relationships. In this respect they are exactly like heterosexual married Catholic couples who cannot accept Vatican teaching on contraception.

Q: Can someone be involved in a lesbian or gay relationship and still be a faithful Catholic?
Certainly yes, not as a matter of public Church teaching but as a matter of conscience, as a matter of personal application of the whole of Catholic teaching to their particular case.

In 1975, the Vatican published a Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. One of those questions was homosexuality. A principal author of that document was Fr. Jan Visser, C.Ss.R. In an interview in L’Europa, January 30, 1976, he said, “When one is dealing with people who are so deeply homosexual that they will be in serious personal and perhaps social trouble unless they attain a steady partnership within their homosexual lives, one can recommend them to seek such a partnership, and one accepts this relationship as the best they can do in their present situation.” One of the very men who formulated the Vatican teaching that homogenital acts are wrong allows that in certain cases one may not only permit but even recommend a homosexual relationship.

 

[rockerchar]

Similarly, speaking about Catholics who dissent on Church teaching about contraception, the Canadian bishops wrote in 1968, “Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered nor consider themselves cut off from the body of the faithful.”

Q: How could someone do what (the Church says) is wrong and not be living in sin?
According to Catholic teaching, wrong and sin are not the same thing. Wrong is harm, disorder, destruction; it is in the objective or external world. Sin is self-distancing from God; it is in the heart. Sin is more a general attitude than any particular action. We sin when we deliberately do what we believe is wrong. Then in our hearts we opt for evil. Then we move away from goodness and from God, who is good.

It may well be that what you do is not wrong at all. But if you think it is and you do it anyway, well, you are corrupt. That’s sin! Or what you do may really be wrong. But if you don’t honestly think so and you do it, well, your heart is not really amiss. You may be uninformed, naive, or stupid, and even dangerous, but unless you neglected to inform yourself, you are not sinful.

The Church teaches right and wrong but never says who is a sinner. Only God knows our hearts. Many homosexual people simply cannot believe that gay sex is wrong. So they do what for them is “the best they can do,” though Church teaching says that homogenital acts are wrong. Still, according to the same Church’s teaching on conscience, they do not sin in their hearts or before God. Then they need not confess what is not sin, and they may participate in the Sacraments of the Church.

These are excerpts from the FAQ of the website of Dignity USA.
dignityusa.org/faq.html

 

[Elizabeth502]

Many homosexual people simply cannot believe that gay sex is wrong. So they do what for them is “the best they can do,” though Church teaching says that homogenital acts are wrong.

And many fornicators simply cannot believe that unmarried sex is wrong. So they do what for them is ‘the best they can do,’ even though Church teaching says that heterogenital acts outside of marriage are wrong.

Neither paragraph makes either homosexual acts or sexual acts between unmarried people, morally acceptable.

Still, according to the same Church’s teaching on conscience, they do not sin in their hearts or before God. Then they need not confess what is not sin, and they may participate in the Sacraments of the Church.

This is a completely erroneous interpretation of the conscience paragraph in the CCC.

And as you have been told elsewhere, DignityUSA is not an organization whose teachings align with Catholic moral theology.

Now to the OP’s question:
While you can find articles discussing such events, in the U.S. and elsewhere, generally clergy would prefer not to take the initiative to deny communion – and certainly not during the Eucharistic celebration. That involves any situation where there is controversy and even scandal, such as a public figure declaring he or she is cohabitating outside of marriage with someone of the opposite sex, for example. Even in such cases most priests, bishops, monsignors would prefer not to ‘make a scene.’ This is partly for practical reasons (the dignity of the worship; concern for the community of worshippers). But even more so there are theological reasons.

If in my example the live-in situation had been disclosed to the presiding priest previously, with no purpose of amendment expressed by the violator(s), the clergy would prefer to take such a person aside not during the liturgy, so as to counsel this person and remind him or her what the conditions are for receiving communion.

However, as a practical and theological matter, the State of Grace (condition for receiving communion) is up to the individual to know. That said, there is no such thing in Catholicism as merely deciding for oneself what is and is not a sin. It’s been decided for us, in Catholic doctrine handed down from Sacred Scripture, sacred tradition, and the body of teachings which are based on both of those and which derive from Catholic philosophy. It is well within the individual Catholic’s power, and responsibility, to discover what those doctrines are, if he is not familiar with them – not to rationalize convenient, comfortable, or preferred behavior based on a private moral code declared as “conscience-derived.” Not to become informed of what is objectively sinful behavior is itself a serious sin of omission.

Someone with homosexual attraction but living chastely is objectively free to receive communion if no other serious sin, either, is on his soul. (As is every Catholic.) Someone who is not living chastely will most often not be denied communion (whether homosexual or heterosexual). I have definitely known priests who have taken aside heterosexuals not living chastely and counseled them (outside of Mass) that they should be judging their own worthiness before proceeding to the communion rail.

The best way that sincerely spiritually striving homosexuals (those who have declared their orientation publicly) should approach this is to make contact with the priest, state the fact and intention of living chastely so that the priest is aware ahead of time. (This is naturally more of an issue with an actual living arrangement, since most couples of any orientation are going to find it challenging to live together chastely if they are truly physically attracted to each other, and thus it is more uncommon for such couples to attempt this.)

In parishes with really clear communication from both sides, the situation is self-regulating. Thus, people with SSA who know the prohibitions do one of two things: if they cannot live with the prohibitions, they voluntarily do not approach the communion rail, which is the way it should happen (vs. anyone else deciding that someone should or should not receive commuinon). OTOH, if they are succeeding in abstaining from sex (just as a single straight person must do) they do partake of communion.

soulhunter, I could not open the link, so I don’t know the circumstances in this story. If someone flaunts a sinful lifestyle of any kind, and makes that lifestyle and those unrepentant intentions publicly known, it puts a presider of a liturgy who knows such details in an awkward position. The short answer to your question is, Yes, technically a priest can refuse communion, but rarely do they choose to act on that power. Not just for the reasons I listed but also because it’s a bad precedent to set.

Having same-sex attraction does not disqualify a practicing Catholic from receiving communion, and no priest I know would assume that because a person has SSA (because he or she has shared that with others and/or with the parish priest), he or she is acting on that attraction. This would only become problematic if such a person declared he was acting on it and had no intention of following church teaching on sexuality but was receiving communion anyway.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

One thing that makes no sense to me is that we’re all sinners, right? And without a doubt, we all sin every week, at least in some minor way, right?

So in what way does this make sense? Are some of us not sinners?

Ok, let’s take something like a fornicator. He fornicates, then goes to confession, then goes to mass. Even if it was known, how could he be denied communion?

Is it, “you’re not repentant because you’ve been engaging in your sin too long!”

If so, could PAUL ever have received communion?

 

[Bezant]

I think if a gay person is living with another gay person, people and priests assume they are living unchastely, so yes, I believe Communion can be refused. But I also think if the priest knows a heterosexual couple is cohabitating, that also should be the case.

Good call.

However, if a person is known to be gay, and is known to be living a chaste life alone without a parter he definitely should be able to receive Communion.

I think that everyone should know the state of their soul, and the teachings of the Church. If there is any doubt that they are in Mortal sin, they shouldn’t receive Communion until they go to Confession. In the case of co-habitating couples, gay or unmarried heterosexual, they need to change their lifestyle first.

Really, if a priest has to refuse the Eucharist to any adult, educated participant (e.g., I’m excluding unsuspecting non-Catholics), I don’t sympathise much with the latter.

Priests generally aren’t legalistic about this issue – it’s really our responsibility to prepare ourselves, and the priests’ responsibility to be there when we need them – so when he has to act accordingly, I think he’s usually in the right.

 

[Corki]

The Church teaches right and wrong but never says who is a sinner. Only God knows our hearts. Many homosexual people simply cannot believe that gay sex is wrong. So they do what for them is “the best they can do,” though Church teaching says that homogenital acts are wrong. Still, according to the same Church’s teaching on conscience, they do not sin in their hearts or before God.

This statement leaves out one (name removed by moderator)ortant distinction.

Then they need not confess what is not sin, and they may participate in the Sacraments of the Church **as long as they do not act upon those beliefs. **

fixed.

Not to mention that Dignity is a heterodox organization and its members are excommunicated in some dioceses.

 

[soulhunter182]

Holy Communion is reserved to Catholics in a state of grace. If a man has a boyfriend, that is manifest grave sin and would be scandalous for him to be given and receive Holy Communion. More clearly, it is not chaste for a man to have a “boyfriend”. Men may be roommates without sin, but the boyfriend relationship is inherently disordered and sinful.

Hi, I have to disagree with you my friend, a man can be chaste even if he has a boyfriend as long as they know the limits. I have that information on good authority. The boyfriend relationship is not inherently disordered nor sinful. Homosexual couples can live chase and celibate lives. Even the church agrees on that. If a guy happens to have a boyfriend, you have no right to judge what their lifestyle is without knowing them. You wouldn’t know the struggles that they had to go through and things that they deny themselves on a daily basis to mark them as sinful and disordered. You would not even know if that gay couple were both striving to achieve christian perfection and a deeper union in Christ together.

There are different types, level and categories with homosexual relationships, please don’t judge us a whole that we are all sinful and all we do is gay sex. Numerous priest and bishops, here and abroad did not, instead they encourage us to strive to live chaste and holy lives through constant self denial. The cross that we carry is harder, the depravity that we inflict on our selves on a daily basis to suppress and deny our passions and desires is crazy. If you really are christian and catholic, please do not judge us as a whole. Jesus loves us, and Jesus himself would not have done so.