Should gay men be able to take communion?

[soulhunter182]

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.

“and to avoid performing sexual acts on every man you meet” —> This I would agree. But are you sure that it is not difficult to live chastely? Chastity is difficult, for both homosexual and heterosexuals, but not impossible. If chastity is easy? people would not be falling into sins against this virtue often. Chastity is difficult, but through God’s Grace, it is possible. Its a constant struggle.

 

[soulhunter182]

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

No No

Chastity is inherently absent from a homosexual romantic relationship.

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.

Hi, your wrong my friend. Chastity is not absent in a romantic homosexual relationship. I agree that kissing on the mouth is a mortal sin, but there are lots of things that aren’t. If you have never been into a homosexual relationship, I believe that have no real authority to advice things on this matters for the fact that you don’t know what it’s like. The stuff that you post for me sounds more like bigotry to me really. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking you or anything like that, all I’m saying is that if you haven’t really gotten into our shoes, or for any heterosexual person for that matter, I do not see them as credible to give advices on these things like chastity and stuff. They don’t know our cross and how twice as heavy it is to bear. It’s like your saying, that we me and my partner decided to watch a movie in our livingroom and held hands would be a sin, and if i gave him a hug would be a sin, or if i give him a kiss on the cheek or the forehead is a sin? Its actually not. Bad advise from people that did not walk our path could never really understand and bad and insensitive advices like these would probably be one of the reasons why there is a higher tendency for suicide from homosexuals.

I apologize in advance if I sound offensive to you, I just don’t see it right for someone to generalize homosexuals like we’re not human, we’re people too. And about the chastity thing that is absent in a homosexual relationship? If a bishop said that its possible for a homosexual couple to live a chaste and holy life, then I believe it would super exceed any authority you have on this.

 

[soulhunter182]

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

Hey Nick! What’s up bro? Im in sg too

 

[soulhunter182]

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.

Here here, I agree

 

[soulhunter182]

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.

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Hi, your wrong my friend. Chastity is not absent in a romantic homosexual relationship. I agree that kissing on the mouth is a mortal sin, but there are lots of things that aren’t. If you have never been into a homosexual relationship, I believe that have no real authority to advice things on this matters for the fact that you don’t know what it’s like. The stuff that you post for me sounds more like bigotry to me really. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not attacking you or anything like that, all I’m saying is that if you haven’t really gotten into our shoes, or for any heterosexual person for that matter, I do not see them as credible to give advices on these things like chastity and stuff. They don’t know our cross and how twice as heavy it is to bear. It’s like your saying, that we me and my partner decided to watch a movie in our livingroom and held hands would be a sin, and if i gave him a hug would be a sin, or if i give him a kiss on the cheek or the forehead is a sin? Its actually not.

Dear Brother in Christ, I also encourage you to live in chastity and self-denial, in communion with your bishop and priests. Please read what I have to say in a spirit of love and fellowship.

The natural purpose of a romantic relationship is to discern marriage. Friends can call each other to holiness, be confidants to one another, watch movies and have dinner together. These however, are not a romantic relationship. The only purpose unique to a romantic relationship is to discern marriage. If you are not free to marry a person, you have no business being in a romantic relationship with them. There are, of course, different cultural significances to things such as kissing, hugging, and holding hands, but the part of each action that transcends culture is the intention. If you intend to be romantic with someone who you cannot marry, you are being unchaste.

If you disagree, please provide Church documentation to the contrary.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

soulhunter182 you say that the same-sex relationship in which you live is not sinful. That is is not for you to decide. We could all decide for ourselves that our sins are not in fact sins. Taking that line would be harmful and destructive of our souls. We fool no one but ourselves. God is not fooled and sees everything in our hearts.

Bishops and priests, according to some of your posts, say that your state is not sinful. Their statements would probably not stand up under close scrutiny. Unfortunately, many bishops and priests give wrong or incomplete catechesis.

Before telling us any more that we do not, and cannot, understand it behoves you to show us where the Church teaches that your current state in life is not sinful.

 

[lisahiku]

if they are not having relations they should be ok.

 

[JerrySeibert]

Good for the Priest. So many would not refuse. Good for him.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Re: Should gay men be able to take communion?

Of course! So long as they are in a state of grace, i.e. Not having willfully engaged in fornication or sodomy since their last confession, as with anybody else; Has shown honest contrition for the last time that they DID break their chastity, and performed the prescribed penance in obedience, contrition and with a heart of gratitude.

I do have have to say that the term “gay” presents some challenges, however. It virtually implies that a person is NOT remorseful for past actions, and is more than likely proactively pursuing their earthly passions without regard for the Church.

Shouldn’t a more honest question be: “should persons afflicted with same sex attraction difficulties, but who are in a state of grace, and living as a conscious act of free will, without routinely engaging in fornication receive communion?”

 

[pnewton]

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.

Couples in an irregular marriage can not receive communion. This happens all the time. This is not a specifically gay issue but one many struggle with.

 

[OraLabora]

It really boils down to: do we think we belong to a rule-based religion, or to a conscience-based religion?

Jesus came to set us free from a “rule-based” religion. It would hardly seem congruent to found a rule-based Church.

I believe the Church teaches an ideal. It is up to each and every one of us to do our best to live up to that ideal, and to march closer to it. For some it is an incremental walk often with 10 steps backwards before we can make 11 forwards, and I consider myself among them. We are no less Catholic for it.

Those who claim to be able to follow the Church rules 100%, are living a Big Lie. There are of course those who became saints (but are by no means perfect). Most of them however, didn’t brag about it on Internet forums nor spent much time tearing down (or denying sacraments) to those less fortunate than they. Once again the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

We cannot know the state of the soul of the “gay” person going up to communion. For all you know, 10 minutes before Mass he may have gone to confession with perfect contrition vowing to not fall into sin again. So what if he fails during the week, and 10 minutes before Mass next Sunday is in the confessional again? I dare anyone here to say it is easy to overcome an ingrained habit.

More mercy, less judging, minding our own beeswax and working on our own faith walk rather than trying to critique that of others.

 

[pnewton]

More mercy, less judging, minding our own beeswax and working on our own faith walk rather than trying to critique that of others.

I agree. We are in no position to judge the actions of the priest. He had to do the best he could and acting in accord to the dignity of the Sacrament and the will of the Church. No one should judge him.

 

[soulhunter182]

Dear Brother in Christ, I also encourage you to live in chastity and self-denial, in communion with your bishop and priests. Please read what I have to say in a spirit of love and fellowship.

The natural purpose of a romantic relationship is to discern marriage. Friends can call each other to holiness, be confidants to one another, watch movies and have dinner together. These however, are not a romantic relationship. The only purpose unique to a romantic relationship is to discern marriage. If you are not free to marry a person, you have no business being in a romantic relationship with them. There are, of course, different cultural significances to things such as kissing, hugging, and holding hands, but the part of each action that transcends culture is the intention. If you intend to be romantic with someone who you cannot marry, you are being unchaste.

If you disagree, please provide Church documentation to the contrary.

I disagree and I don’t need to, I have raised this point to catholic answers apologist a few times and gotten answers that would contradict yours, and I think that they will be best ones to answer you on this since Im no expert nor a theologian. I suggest you raise this to them. a man and a woman is allowed to live together in celibacy if they not allowed to marry or waiting for an annulment etc, same situation applies to some of us, a male couple living together in celibacy, and according to them they did not see any problem on that, nor was it being unchaste. And honestly, that is enough for me to know. it keeps my hope alive that people like us can still be saved as long as we do not cross the line. You can ask Father Serpa.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

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?

That would be problematic. Presumably, the Priest would need to have something more than a vague suspicion to deny communion to anyone.

Note the following from the article:

“The big question is whether the church will then refuse offer the wafer and a sip of wine to any, or all, of its new visitors.”

Clearly the author doesn’t understand the significance of the refusal.

I didn’t read the article, but that was a good catch!

The answer to the question, of course, is:

“Of course the Church will refuse to offer a wafer and a sip of wine to any and all of it’s new visitors, as well as the regulars.”

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

Yeah, that was too broad of a generalization.

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.

That’s where the pastoral duties of the Priest kick in. If there is doubt or suspicion, he needs to get more information.

I do have have to say that the term “gay” presents some challenges, however. It virtually implies that a person is NOT remorseful for past actions, and is more than likely proactively pursuing their earthly passions without regard for the Church.

Shouldn’t a more honest question be: “should persons afflicted with same sex attraction difficulties, but who are in a state of grace, and living as a conscious act of free will, without routinely engaging in fornication receive communion?”

Agreed. “Gay” seems to have various degrees of meaning.

 

[soulhunter182]

soulhunter182 you say that the same-sex relationship in which you live is not sinful. That is is not for you to decide. We could all decide for ourselves that our sins are not in fact sins. Taking that line would be harmful and destructive of our souls. We fool no one but ourselves. God is not fooled and sees everything in our hearts.

Bishops and priests, according to some of your posts, say that your state is not sinful. Their statements would probably not stand up under close scrutiny. Unfortunately, many bishops and priests give wrong or incomplete catechesis.

Before telling us any more that we do not, and cannot, understand it behoves you to show us where the Church teaches that your current state in life is not sinful.

soulhunter182 you say that the same-sex relationship in which you live is not sinful. That is is not for you to decide. We could all decide for ourselves that our sins are not in fact sins. Taking that line would be harmful and destructive of our souls. We fool no one but ourselves. God is not fooled and sees everything in our hearts.
You’re right and I did not decide on this. I followed what they said on this matter.

Bishops and priests, according to some of your posts, say that your state is not sinful.
Yes, provided that I or we do not cross certain boundaries.

Their statements would probably not stand up under close scrutiny.
Really? How do you know? Are you a Bishop? I’ll take the Bishop’s answer over yours anyday.

Unfortunately, many bishops and priests give wrong or incomplete catechesis.
Well, I got my answers from catholic apologist here in the forums and form the CBCP, Catholic Bishop Conference of the Philippines. Who are now mainly fighting the evils of the RH Bill. I got my answers not form one nor two priest, but from a lot of apologist, theologian, priest and bishops. The CBCP supports me, that as long as we live in celibacy then we aren’t living sinful nor unchaste lives. If you say that the CBCP is wrong? Then it’s like your saying that the arch diocese of manila is in error, who for many years now are fighting social evils.

Before telling us any more that we do not, and cannot, understand it behoves you to show us where the Church teaches that your current state in life is not sinful.
Yes, unless you’re a homosexual man trying to live and strive a holy life, it be difficult for you to understand, unless you look at us with eyes and hearts of compassion instead of judgement. I am not equipped with the proper theological knowledge on these matters that is why I sought the advices of the experts on this subject matter. And these people did not judge us nor condemn our lifestyle as sinful, unlike what you’re doing. Like what I said earlier, you can ask the apologist opinion on this, specially Fr. Serpa. And contrary to popular belief, we are people too, created by the all mighty that was given a heavy cross to bear that we did not ask for, but because we love him, we are greatful for this cross and we try to bear the suffering from everyone with gladness and joy in our hearts, and most of all we try to bear them in silence. Its not between us and the poeple of the world who are always ready to judge and condemn us, but its between us and God anyways, He see’s in secret our suffering and injustice done to us and how we bear them

 

[soulhunter182]

if they are not having relations they should be ok.

Thank you, and yes, we’re not. Me and my partner, we are trying to avoid committing mortal sins. That’s our goal, we don’t even kiss on the lips, I just hope that some people out there who judge us outright could just try to imagine how hard this kind of life is. This is real.

 

[soulhunter182]

Re: Should gay men be able to take communion?

Of course! So long as they are in a state of grace, i.e. Not having willfully engaged in fornication or sodomy since their last confession, as with anybody else; Has shown honest contrition for the last time that they DID break their chastity, and performed the prescribed penance in obedience, contrition and with a heart of gratitude.

I do have have to say that the term “gay” presents some challenges, however. It virtually implies that a person is NOT remorseful for past actions, and is more than likely proactively pursuing their earthly passions without regard for the Church.

Shouldn’t a more honest question be: “should persons afflicted with same sex attraction difficulties, but who are in a state of grace, and living as a conscious act of free will, without routinely engaging in fornication receive communion?”

Shouldn’t a more honest question be: “should persons afflicted with same sex attraction difficulties, but who are in a state of grace, and living as a conscious act of free will, without routinely engaging in fornication receive communion?”

I think i hurt my head here a little thinking about it I’m not well verse with classification etc, but what I consider my self as is that, I’m gay/homosexual man, practicing chastity and celibacy, and im living with my partner, and we’re both on the state of grace (like we didn’t have any mortal sin on our soul after our last confession), striving to live a holy life together, where Jesus is the center of our lives. That would be how I would describe our situation.

 

[soulhunter182]

It really boils down to: do we think we belong to a rule-based religion, or to a conscience-based religion?

Jesus came to set us free from a “rule-based” religion. It would hardly seem congruent to found a rule-based Church.

I believe the Church teaches an ideal. It is up to each and every one of us to do our best to live up to that ideal, and to march closer to it. For some it is an incremental walk often with 10 steps backwards before we can make 11 forwards, and I consider myself among them. We are no less Catholic for it.

Those who claim to be able to follow the Church rules 100%, are living a Big Lie. There are of course those who became saints (but are by no means perfect). Most of them however, didn’t brag about it on Internet forums nor spent much time tearing down (or denying sacraments) to those less fortunate than they. Once again the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

We cannot know the state of the soul of the “gay” person going up to communion. For all you know, 10 minutes before Mass he may have gone to confession with perfect contrition vowing to not fall into sin again. So what if he fails during the week, and 10 minutes before Mass next Sunday is in the confessional again? I dare anyone here to say it is easy to overcome an ingrained habit.

More mercy, less judging, minding our own beeswax and working on our own faith walk rather than trying to critique that of others.

I apologize if my previous post where a bit hostile towards the two individuals. They hit a nerve. I did not ask to be this way, and i did not choose to be gay as well, meaning to like men or to have SSA. I believe that this was given to me. Being gay or having SSA is hard enough to live in this world of homophobia. Some time we find it more attractive to end our lives because it is more painful to continue living. What is harder though, is to try to live and strive a holy life, with people judging you, that doesn’t even know you, nor care to learn and understand the struggles and the heat that we take from everyone with every waking moments of our lives. I understand that I am not normal based on how the world defines it, and i will never be normal and I will always be excluded, me and the other people like me. One thing that people forget that from the GAY COMMUNITY we are also being excluded, attacked, rejected, criticized etc. For people like me who’s gay and accepted the cross, we belong no where. And I have accepted that fact and bear them and offer to God the sufferings that we bear to call back the homosexuals back to HIS Heart and save their souls. It it not always easy to pray for them.

I just felt hurt I guess with their post, specially when they judge. I believe if I were to live during Jesus’s time, and approached him, he would not have judged me like some of the people here have done. He would not have turned me away and asked to find proof of the teaching that my life is not sinful etc. I am not knowledge on these things, that is why i sought answers from people who are, and then gets criticized by people who thinks that they experts on the faith, and more knowledgeable than the official authorities of the church.

 

[soulhunter182]

soulhunter182 you say that the same-sex relationship in which you live is not sinful. That is is not for you to decide. We could all decide for ourselves that our sins are not in fact sins. Taking that line would be harmful and destructive of our souls. We fool no one but ourselves. God is not fooled and sees everything in our hearts.

Bishops and priests, according to some of your posts, say that your state is not sinful. Their statements would probably not stand up under close scrutiny. Unfortunately, many bishops and priests give wrong or incomplete catechesis.

Before telling us any more that we do not, and cannot, understand it behoves you to show us where the Church teaches that your current state in life is not sinful.

Hi Matthew, I’d like to apologize if my response seemed unfriendly, i was angry when i wrote it, but the contents are true. I’m sorry on how it sounded and I hope you forgive me.