US Bishops Conference on Homosexuality, Communion, Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
Per the the Communion Document Catholics who openly oppose the Church’s teaching on abortion should not recieve Communion. We’ll see how many Bishops actually enforce this.
Click to expand...
What about ABC? According to the USCCB, less than 4% of Catholics use NFP. Could be a short line for communion next week.

Nohome
 
Nohome said:
What about ABC? According to the USCCB, less than 4% of Catholics use NFP. Could be a short line for communion next week.

Nohome
Click to expand...
I suspect if someone gets to the front of the communion line and puts on a condom or takes the birth-control pill they will be denied communion. Document clearly states the one who publicly defies church teaching should not receive Communion. The key here is “public”.
 
estesbob said:
Per the the Communion Document Catholics who openly oppose the Church’s teaching on abortion should not recieve Communion. We’ll see how many Bishops actually enforce this.
Click to expand...
The document does not require the Bishop or priest to enforce the policy. This document is written on the responsibilities of the receiver. This is just “dodge ball” by the USCCB. I watched the conference on EWTN and some Bishops tried to make amendments that would require enforcement by the Bishop or priest but were rejected. :banghead:
 
CRW said:
The document does not require the Bishop or priest to enforce the policy. This document is written on the responsibilities of the receiver. This is just “dodge ball” by the USCCB. I watched the conference on EWTN and some Bishops tried to make amendments that would require enforcement by the Bishop or priest but were rejected. :banghead:
Click to expand...
I tend to bang my head over this also, but it is never wise to institute a policy that is virtually possible to enforce. This one would be – except in the most egregious cases.
 
I wish that it had been specifically listed. There is unfortunately just enough ambiguity, especially where in the document it states that those with “honest doubt” about the church’s moral teachings on various topics **may ** receive communion, that most contracepting people will think that they’re OK.

For the record, I myself understood, with respect to contraception and communion, that those who engage in contraception which is barrier or abortifacent (or who engage in NFP not to ‘plan’ but effectively to keep from having children because they do not wish to be open to procreation), are committing grave sin. Unfortunately, I don’t think that many people will believe the same. Time will tell.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
I wish that it had been specifically listed. There is unfortunately just enough ambiguity, especially where in the document it states that those with “honest doubt” about the church’s moral teachings on various topics **may ** receive communion, that most contracepting people will think that they’re OK.
Click to expand...
I have not read all of it yet. When honest doubt is mentioned does it say we still must obey?
 
fix said:
I have not read all of it yet. When honest doubt is mentioned does it say we still must obey?
Click to expand...
Honest doubt means that you disagree with the Church’s teaching but are open to learning and understanding the Church’s teaching in order to come into agreement.

Not having honest doubt means that you disagree and will cling to your disagreement no matter what the Church has to say about it. It means that you will not inquire, not read, not research but rely solely on your own bias.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
Honest doubt means that you disagree with the Church’s teaching but are open to learning and understanding the Church’s teaching in order to come into agreement.

Not having honest doubt means that you disagree and will cling to your disagreement no matter what the Church has to say about it. It means that you will not inquire, not read, not research but rely solely on your own bias.
Click to expand...
Does that mean one may have an honest doubt about the authority of the Church to bind consciences in these matters and disobey until one concludes they have proof the Church is right?
 
fix said:
I did not see contraception listed as an example of when to refrain from communion?
Click to expand...
No me neither, unless this would apply.

Engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of valid marriage. 17
 
fix said:
Does that mean one may have an honest doubt about the authority of the Church to bind consciences in these matters and disobey until one concludes they have proof the Church is right?
Click to expand...
No.
 
fix said:
Does that mean one may have an honest doubt about the authority of the Church to bind consciences in these matters and disobey until one concludes they have proof the Church is right?
Click to expand...
No. It has more to do with the reality that human reasoning is imperfect and therefore not always in perfect tune with the Magisterium. It has also to do with one’s intent. Is the intent to understand and reconcile with the Magisterium? Or is it to boldly defy the Magisterium no matter what information is brought to the table? There is a difference between point of view and bias. Bias is intractable. Point of view is open toward change as a direct function of understanding.
 
estesbob said:
I suspect if someone gets to the front of the communion line and puts on a condom or takes the birth-control pill they will be denied communion. Document clearly states the one who publicly defies church teaching should not receive Communion. The key here is “public”.
Click to expand...
Our church is filled with families that have two children neatly spaced in age. It is either a “public” example of perfect NFP or the use of ABC.

Nohome
 
fix said:
Does that mean one may have an honest doubt about the authority of the Church to bind consciences in these matters and disobey until one concludes they have proof the Church is right?
Click to expand...
No. That would only apply if the Church was (improbably) telling you to actively DO something and your conscience was telling you not to.

An example would be if the Church said that all Catholic couples MUST practice NFP. You could decide, based on your conscience to use no method of family planning, leaving it “up to God” instead. You could *not *decide, based on your conscience, to use artificial BC instead of NFP.

Another case that is often cited is slavery. At one point in time the Church did not actively oppose slavery as it does now. Had you lived then and chose not to own slaves because you disagreed with the Church, you would be exercising your “conscience” exception.
 
Ani_Ibi said:
No. It has more to do with the reality that human reasoning is imperfect and therefore not always in perfect tune with the Magisterium. It has also to do with one’s intent. Is the intent to understand and reconcile with the Magisterium? Or is it to boldly defy the Magisterium no matter what information is brought to the table? There is a difference between point of view and bias. Bias is intractable. Point of view is open toward change as a direct function of understanding.
Click to expand...
Yea, my problem with it all is that it may be too vague and allow many to nuance it. The amount of contraception and intentional sterilization is so large that it seems a disserivce to the faithful they chose not to mention those examples.
 
fix said:
I did not see contraception listed as an example of when to refrain from communion?
Click to expand...
One document says that married couples can’t use ABC and the other says one must obey all Catholic rules to receive communion. I think the the sum of the documents is that ABC would exclude you from communion. The document does give a list of examples but it is most certainly not intended to be an all inclusive list. Let’s face it, there isn’t enought paper to print such a document.

Nohome
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top