Skipping Eucharist as a sort of protest?

[jmcrae]

So here’s the deal. Every now and then I attend a different church while visiting relatives. They have a priest rotation there, and there is one priest I just do not like.

He is very political – obnoxiously so in my opinion – and can’t seem to get through a single homily without taking a dig at liberals, feminists, the president, etc. I do not believe Mass is the place for that.

This weekend I was so frustrated with him that I decided not to take communion – partly because I was actively angry and didn’t think that was the right frame of mind, and partly because it occurred to me that if everyone who found his homilies offensive refused to take communion when he’s there, maybe he would realize how his diatribes are actually creating a rift instead of bringing the church together.

Just curious what people thought of that idea – either not taking communion when you’re angry or not taking it as a sort of silent protest.

Most people signify to the priest that they don’t like him, by withholding money from the collection plate, or arranging to attend a different Mass or a different parish.

My two cents, for what it’s worth, is that the priest is the priest - he is speaking with the voice of Jesus Christ when he is up there giving the homily, and when you hate the homily, that’s when you have to sit up and take notice - what message does Jesus have for you today, that the Devil wants you to miss?

Why is the Devil making this priest be so obnoxious? What is so important for you to hear, that the Devil wants to bury it in anger and offended hurt feelings?

That’s what I would look for, in this situation, if it were me.

 

[Elizium23]

I hate that most Christians feel they need to align themselves with the conservative parties over three issues – birth control, abortion and gay marriage – that only directly affect a relatively small portion of people, while ignoring the many other issues that affect EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US on which liberal policies are clearly more Christian.

The three issues you mention are, for Catholics, non-negotiables of grave matter indeed. You are correct that Republicans have certain undesirable traits that would prevent Catholics from embracing the party wholesale, but liberals have gone beyond the pale in so many ways. The Democratic party and especially its leaders wants to destroy religion, particularly Christianity. They feel it has no place in the public square and they are under heavy sway of militant atheism. The kinds of Catholics we find in the Democratic party are the likes of Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius. In case you haven’t heard, these are all eligible for Canon 915 in that their beliefs in no way represent the Catholic Church and are actually diametrically opposed to her teachings. In fact you will be hard-pressed to locate a faithful Catholic in good standing who is a politician in the Democratic party. Yes, there are pro-life Democrats, but they have a hard time of it and receive plenty of flak from people of their own party.

It’s pretty ridiculous to say that you are going to use the Eucharist as a weapon because you disagree with a priest’s political ideology, especially when that ideology comports precisely with what the Church teaches and holds dear. What exactly do you think Jesus would say about being used this way? Consider the very meaning of the word “Eucharist” - it is a thanksgiving. It is our expression of gratitude to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the Cross. The Sunday Mass is a celebration of that and the glorious Resurrection of Our Lord. If you want to debate this priest, fine. If you want to point out that liberalism can be embraced by Catholics in good standing, then do it. I would encourage you not to cite dissenting and heretical publications such as “US catholic” to do so. Perhaps the priest would be glad to hear an opposing viewpoint. But to forego the graces that we receive in the Eucharist because of a personal political objection to something a priest said, that is just sacreligious.

 

[TK421]

The priest could have an obnoxious way of conveying Church doctrines (opposition to abortion and revisionist forms of marriage are morally obligatory for Catholics and for all human beings). This is not a cause to not receive the sacrament. The priest could also be saying things that are objectively false, which, from the sounds of it, he isn’t. If he were, this is also not a cause to not receive the sacrament.

There have been multiple occasions in history where it was questioned whether or not the character of the priest somehow has an effect on his ordained purpose to administer the sacraments. The answer has always been the same: it doesn’t. A validly ordained priest can administer the sacraments and the congregation is encouraged to partake in Eucharist. It doesn’t matter if the priest gives the best or the worst homilies in the world. Jesus is still Jesus.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

**The three issues you mention are, for Catholics, non-negotiables of grave matter indeed. You are correct that Republicans have certain undesirable traits that would prevent Catholics from embracing the party wholesale, but liberals have gone beyond the pale **in so many ways. The Democratic party and especially its leaders wants to destroy religion, particularly Christianity. They feel it has no place in the public square and they are under heavy sway of militant atheism. The kinds of Catholics we find in the Democratic party are the likes of Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius. In case you haven’t heard, these are all eligible for Canon 915 in that their beliefs in no way represent the Catholic Church and are actually diametrically opposed to her teachings. In fact you will be hard-pressed to locate a faithful Catholic in good standing who is a politician in the Democratic party. Yes, there are pro-life Democrats, but they have a hard time of it and receive plenty of flak from people of their own party.

It’s pretty ridiculous to say that you are going to use the Eucharist as a weapon because you disagree with a priest’s political ideology, especially when that ideology comports precisely with what the Church teaches and holds dear. What exactly do you think Jesus would say about being used this way? Consider the very meaning of the word “Eucharist” - it is a thanksgiving. It is our expression of gratitude to Christ’s ultimate sacrifice on the Cross. The Sunday Mass is a celebration of that and the glorious Resurrection of Our Lord. If you want to debate this priest, fine. If you want to point out that liberalism can be embraced by Catholics in good standing, then do it. I would encourage you not to cite dissenting and heretical publications such as “US catholic” to do so. Perhaps the priest would be glad to hear an opposing viewpoint. But to forego the graces that we receive in the Eucharist because of a personal political objection to something a priest said, that is just sacreligious.

Taking advantage of the poor and defrauding a worker of his wages are also grave sins. And I would argue that far more people have been hurt by economic policies that fall into those two categories than have been hurt by abortion, for example.

I don’t think the Democratic party wants to destroy religion. I think many democrats are very religious. The difference, to my mind, is that we liberals are fiercely protective of the separation of church and state. Even though I’m Catholic, I don’t want Catholic morality to automatically determine legality for the same reason that I wouldn’t want an Orthodox Jewish person to try to outlaw non-Kosher food. We’ve seen how much damage theocracies can do in other countries.

Also, for the record, the priest in question essentially said that there was no room for feminist ideals in Catholicism and that the president should “go hang out with his friends in the Middle East.” I don’t think either of those statements is really church approved

 

[hope19]

The priest could have an obnoxious way of conveying Church doctrines (opposition to abortion and revisionist forms of marriage are morally obligatory for Catholics and for all human beings). This is not a cause to not receive the sacrament. The priest could also be saying things that are objectively false, which, from the sounds of it, he isn’t. If he were, this is also not a cause to not receive the sacrament.

There have been multiple occasions in history where it was questioned whether or not the character of the priest somehow has an effect on his ordained purpose to administer the sacraments. The answer has always been the same: it doesn’t. A validly ordained priest can administer the sacraments and the congregation is encouraged to partake in Eucharist. It doesn’t matter if the priest gives the best or the worst homilies in the world. Jesus is still Jesus.

That is, for me, the best answer that we could give.

hope19

 

[Wampa]

PS - to answer everyone’s question, I’m a recent convert. I picked my username while I was still in RCIA, but decided to keep it because I think there’s a lot to be said for acknowledging your roots and for having a different perspective on things.

People aren’t asking because of your username (which obviously you can’t change easily), they’re asking because you have your religion (which you can easily change) listed as “Kind of Catholic, Kind of Protestant”. You might want to change that to avoid future confusion. A lot of people use convert or revert in their description to give more of that flavor that you mention.

 

[Elizium23]

The priest is right that feminism, as practiced today in the United States by liberals, has no place in the Church. This is a bogus, militant feminism which seeks to destroy masculinity and indeed every distinction between the two complementary sexes. Authentic feminism, such as that espoused by Pope St. John Paul the Great, means joyfully embracing the differences between men and women and living out our vocation in loving service to God. Authentic feminism has nothing to do with calling orders of nuns “dirty” because they don’t accept contraception and abortifacients. It has nothing to do with demanding abortion on demand in any circumstances. It has nothing to do with uselessly lobbying Church leaders for the ordination of women. These things I mention are all features of modern militant feminism. How do you propose reconciling these behaviors and beliefs with the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church?

 

[Walking_Home]

The priest is right that feminism, as practiced today in the United States by liberals, has no place in the Church. This is a bogus, militant feminism which seeks to destroy masculinity and indeed every distinction between the two complementary sexes. Authentic feminism, such as that espoused by Pope St. John Paul the Great, means joyfully embracing the differences between men and women and living out our vocation in loving service to God. Authentic feminism has nothing to do with calling orders of nuns “dirty” because they don’t accept contraception and abortifacients. It has nothing to do with demanding abortion on demand in any circumstances. It has nothing to do with uselessly lobbying Church leaders for the ordination of women. These things I mention are all features of modern militant feminism. How do you propose reconciling these behaviors and beliefs with the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church?

---

Well – the priest by just saying – feminism-- it can come across as painting all with the same brush – and not differentiating between – authentic feminism and the radical feminism that pushes abortion etc.

 

[zab]

So here’s the deal. Every now and then I attend a different church while visiting relatives. They have a priest rotation there, and there is one priest I just do not like.

He is very political – obnoxiously so in my opinion – and can’t seem to get through a single homily without taking a dig at liberals, feminists, the president, etc. I do not believe Mass is the place for that.

This weekend I was so frustrated with him that I decided not to take communion – partly because I was actively angry and didn’t think that was the right frame of mind, and partly because it occurred to me that if everyone who found his homilies offensive refused to take communion when he’s there, maybe he would realize how his diatribes are actually creating a rift instead of bringing the church together.

Just curious what people thought of that idea – either not taking communion when you’re angry or not taking it as a sort of silent protest.

We have occasionally had a devout priest or deacon who meant well but their message was not delivered very well and could be misinterpreted. And we have also had occasions when a visiting priest would actually say a few things that were incorrect. Sometimes they manage to sort of dig themselves out of hole and sometimes not. My reaction is to pray for these priests/deacon and ask the Holy Spirit to assist him in finishing the homily and as was the case with the one, to enlighten and guide him in his faith. Refusing to receive Holy Communion out of protest would serve no purpose and would only deprive you of your communion with Jesus. And I doubt that your priest would get the protest anyway.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

---

Well – the priest by just saying – feminism-- it can come across as painting all with the same brush – and not differentiating between – authentic feminism and the radical feminism that pushes abortion etc.

Does it really matter? We only know from the OP’s post. Regardless protesting by not receiving the Eucharist is a bad idea.

Although considering their state of mind and obvious dislike…,maybe it was a good idea NOT to receive as it doesn’t sound like they were properly disposed.

It does sound like the OP has A LOT more to learn about the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The priest is right that feminism, as practiced today in the United States by liberals, has no place in the Church. This is a bogus, militant feminism which seeks to destroy masculinity and indeed every distinction between the two complementary sexes. Authentic feminism, such as that espoused by Pope St. John Paul the Great, means joyfully embracing the differences between men and women and living out our vocation in loving service to God. Authentic feminism has nothing to do with calling orders of nuns “dirty” because they don’t accept contraception and abortifacients. It has nothing to do with demanding abortion on demand in any circumstances. It has nothing to do with uselessly lobbying Church leaders for the ordination of women. These things I mention are all features of modern militant feminism. How do you propose reconciling these behaviors and beliefs with the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church?

Well said!

 

[Walking_Home]

Does it really matter? We only know from the OP’s post. Regardless protesting by not receiving the Eucharist is a bad idea.

Although considering their state of mind and obvious dislike…,maybe it was a good idea NOT to receive as it doesn’t sound like they were properly disposed.

It does sound like the OP has A LOT more to learn about the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching…

---

Yes – it does. It happens often enough – that all feminists are painted with the same brush as the radical feminists. So it must be pointed out that** Not **all who identify as feminist – fall into the radical feminist camp.

 

[Cat]

Well, in this case the Eucharist is sort of un-involved, if you get my drift. I know we can’t take communion if we’re not properly disposed, but is there any requirement that was MUST take communion if we are?

I realize a protest that the priest isn’t aware of probably isn’t very effective. How else could I, as a visitor, convey to this older, somewhat misogynistic priest that he is offending members of the church with his message?

Why don’t you make an appointment to talk with him during the week? You know, talk–that thing you do when you aren’t on a computer? I know a lot of young people don’t do that much anymore, but in this case, it seems like a good plan to me.

 

[Cat]

Taking advantage of the poor and defrauding a worker of his wages are also grave sins. And I would argue that far more people have been hurt by economic policies that fall into those two categories than have been hurt by abortion, for example.

I don’t think the Democratic party wants to destroy religion. I think many democrats are very religious. The difference, to my mind, is that we liberals are fiercely protective of the separation of church and state. Even though I’m Catholic, I don’t want Catholic morality to automatically determine legality for the same reason that I wouldn’t want an Orthodox Jewish person to try to outlaw non-Kosher food. We’ve seen how much damage theocracies can do in other countries.

Also, for the record, the priest in question essentially said that there was no room for feminist ideals in Catholicism and that the president should “go hang out with his friends in the Middle East.” I don’t think either of those statements is really church approved

I think you have a lot to learn about the political parties. When I first started reading this post about “taking advantage of the poor and depriving the worker of his wages,” I thought you were talking about the Democrat party.

You need to read and study more broadly instead of just listening and reading people who agree with you and don’t make you mad. I suggest that you listen to NPR shows like Planet Money for a more balanced perspective.

Another poster mentioned this, and I think it’s too important to pass over–a Catholic doesn’t “take” Holy Communion. A Catholic “receives” Holy Communion." It’s a very different mindset. IMO, this failure to understand basic Catholic teaching should sound a warning bell in your mind that perhaps, you are also failing to understand fully the political landscape in the United States.

Also, you mentioned that abortion, gay marriage, and birth control do not affect most people. That is so wrong. Every sin we commit affects a wide variety of people. If you are claiming to have Protestant leanings, you should know that. Calvinist doctrine teaches that everything we do affects everything else throughout history. In the case of abortion, we are seeing right now the effects of abortion, as there are not enough young people to work and earn money and pay taxes to help take care of the needs of the government, and this will only get worse as we baby boomers age and become dependent on others for our care. Gay marriage affects the social culture of our towns and cities, and especially the arts and entertainment industries, which influence not just millions, but billons of fans of all ages around the world. And birth control affects the mindset of men and women when it comes to sex–I assume you have read the Pope Paul’s Humanae Vitae and have a clear understanding of why artificial contraception is considered a grave sin.

Liberals claim to be more open-minded. I think you might want to practice this particular liberal claim.

 

[ProVobis]

Another poster mentioned this, and I think it’s too important to pass over–a Catholic doesn’t “take” Holy Communion. A Catholic “receives” Holy Communion." It’s a very different mindset. IMO, this failure to understand basic Catholic teaching should sound a warning bell in your mind that perhaps

I hear this from a lot of posters. Is there a Vatican document on this?

The Latin word is “Accipite” and the working English translation in the Mass is in fact “Take.” (“Take this …and eat of it…”)

Since the OP seems to be more of an anger management issue which I guess all of us have to work out for ourselves, I don’t feel qualified to comment further.

 

[AliR14]

I hear this from a lot of posters. Is there a Vatican document on this?

The Latin word is “Accipite” and the working English translation in the Mass is in fact “Take.” (“Take this …and eat of it…”)

Since the OP seems to be more of an anger management issue which I guess all of us have to work out for ourselves, I don’t feel qualified to comment further.

Accipio in Latin is the verb “to receive”, it is the Latin root for the English word “accept”. It can also be translated as “take”. There’s rarely a Latin word that only has one English translation, but there is usually a more common use that will translate to a certain English phrase. Accipite is the imperative (command) usage of this word, which sounds a little more natural as “Take this all of you” instead of “Receive this all of you.” OUR response to Jesus’ command is, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.” Just my armchair scholarly opinion…

 

[Frater_Bovious]

So here’s the deal. Every now and then I attend a different church while visiting relatives. They have a priest rotation there, and there is one priest I just do not like.

He is very political – obnoxiously so in my opinion – and can’t seem to get through a single homily without taking a dig at liberals, feminists, the president, etc. I do not believe Mass is the place for that.

This weekend I was so frustrated with him that I decided not to take communion – partly because I was actively angry and didn’t think that was the right frame of mind, and partly because it occurred to me that if everyone who found his homilies offensive refused to take communion when he’s there, maybe he would realize how his diatribes are actually creating a rift instead of bringing the church together.

Just curious what people thought of that idea – either not taking communion when you’re angry or not taking it as a sort of silent protest.

Hello Quasi Catholic. I was reading through the four pages of posts rather hurriedly, and so if I am repeating something that was said earlier, mea culpa.

Just some comments and observations that help me.

First, The Catholic Church is a giant extended family, and just like a family has people in it that we enjoy, and people we wish would just go away. But, since they are family, ideally, we live with the fact that they are family, and try to see Jesus in them. I have no idea of the content of the homilies of this priest, but he is part of your extended family - Jesus may be talking to you in a special way through him - and no I’m not saying Jesus wants you to turn your back on feminism and environmentalism.

Second, feminism and environmentalism, liberal, conservative, progressive, etc. - these are words with a lot of emotional baggage duct taped to them. Just like there is no such person as “average” that you can actually touch and talk to, there is no such person as a “liberal” or a “feminist”. These are labels that describe part of someone. The only such “label” that is accurate is “Child of God”. That is in fact something that we all are. So, once you get past the labels, what is the content of the commentary in the homily? Does it actually relate to the readings or to Catholic teaching, or not? Once you figure out what the priest is saying, you probably have what you need to decide if you want to talk to him face to face.

Third, regarding receiving Holy Communion - lots of comments have been made about being properly disposed and that of course is critically important. But, being angry is ofttimes a legitimate emotion - there are lots of examples in the Psalms and in Job for example. I wish I could remember the passage, but I had a Priest in a Bible Study class comment that the particular phrase uttered by the writer of God, that “you duped me”, was in the original language a much more, shall we say, earthy, phrase. Since God meets you where you are, and since in reality few of us are probably actually in a sanctified state for more than 15 minutes after Confession, I suggest your turn that anger over to God, ask him why you are so mad, and what is it that He wants you to know, and if you are otherwise properly disposed, please receive Communion. Jesus wants to be in Communion with you regardless of that priest’s homily.

Lastly, it is entirely unlikely that not receiving will have any impact, or it could even have the opposite effect. For example, I can see a scenario where the priest, coming from the position of “people are supposed to be free from mortal sin to receive the Eucharist” could see a sudden drop in reception as a sign that his homilies are reaching people and making them aware of personal sin. But more realistically, he’s not going to draw any correlation. If you really want him to understand how his homily affects you, then talk to him.

I know I said lastly, but for real lastly, since nothing God does is without content, what do you suppose God is talking to you about in those homilies? I mean God, not the priest who is after all a fallen human instrument.

I’ll just close with don’t skip the Eucharist for the simple reason is it’s just rude. Jesus took the time to institute the sacrament for you and your well-being - to pass on it because of something someone said is impolite.

FB

 

[ProVobis]

Accipio in Latin is the verb “to receive”, it is the Latin root for the English word “accept”. It can also be translated as “take”. There’s rarely a Latin word that only has one English translation, but there is usually a more common use that will translate to a certain English phrase. Accipite is the imperative (command) usage of this word, which sounds a little more natural as “Take this all of you” instead of “Receive this all of you.” OUR response to Jesus’ command is, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.” Just my armchair scholarly opinion…

Actually the new translation AFAIK removes that part: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

However you are right with the translation. *Accipere *falls within the family of capere verbs, some of which are interchangeable in translations. But they do have subtle differences in the Latin. Among them are accipere, concipere, excipere, incipere, praecipere, recipere, and suscipere. How I wish we had stuck to the Latin. We seem to be setting new Catholic doctrine in English.

 

[10gr8kids]

1 Timothy 4:12
Let no man despise thy youth

1 Corinthians 1:27
But the foolish things of the world God hath chosen that He may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that He may confound the strong.

Two verses that came to mind while reading through this thread.