Vatican II: LAY FEMALE SEXUALLY ACTIVE EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS?

[Annabelle_Marie]

No but sexually active males should be treated differently since they have a history in the latin church clergy prior to the second lateran council…women do not.

Says who? I’m curious…as far as I know there is not a restriction against EMCH’s being female.

Now, I understand that you may not agree with it but that is your opinion, correct?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

notice i said “latin rite”. Not the byzantine or any other rite. The opinion that vaginal intercourse made a man unfit to handle the eucharist was not my opinion, but the opinion of our latin fathers.

Who are our latin fathers? Well here is a few of them:

St. Ambrose
St. Augustine…especially relevant
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Jerome
many others…

All you have to do is do a basic google serach on these saints and how they felt about sex and you can understand why mandatory celibacy was enacted at the second lateran council in the 12th century.

Can you show that what you say these saints taught was actually taught by the Church?

Saints are not infallible and not every utterance of a saint can be considered a Teaching of the Church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

well when an extraordinary minister of holy communion becomes pregnant, I think we can infer that she was sexually active with her husband.

And this is the proper use of sex within Marriage and not a sin, it is the proper practice of Chastity by a married person.

The Church does not Teach against that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How am I wrong? Ok since Im wrong maybe you can tell me why the latin church gradually shifted towards mandatory celibacy…

Br Jay has answered this in one of the many threads you have started on this topic.
edit: (feeling charitible today so I did the work for you) Here is a link to Br Jay’s reply Br Jay’s reply in Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

How many times must we repeat ourselves?

Is it until you get the answer you want?

Then just tell us the answer you want so we can stop having all these threads on the same topic started.

 

[malphono]

No but sexually active males should be treated differently since they have a history in the latin church clergy prior to the second lateran council…women do not.

What? There were EMHCs prior to the second Lateran council? Well, that’s news to me.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

well when an extraordinary minister of holy communion becomes pregnant, I think we can infer that she was sexually active with her husband.

So…doesn’t this infer that she is following Church teaching on a few things…

1. She is married…not unmarried and having sex
2. One would think that they are not using contraception if she is pregnant…

I would think that’s a good thing to have in an EMHC…not someone who is in a sinful state and doesn’t care.

 

[malphono]

Br Jay has answered this in one of the many threads you have started on this topic.

How many times must we repeat ourselves?

At the rate we’re going with these seemingly endless (and at their core, repetitive) threads, it could well be “per omnia saecula saeculorum” (or thereabouts )

Is it until you get the answer you want?

Then just tell us the answer you want so we can stop having all these threads on the same topic started.

Love it!

 

[Julianna]

why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?

You’re kidding me, right?

 

[Julianna]

No but sexually active males should be treated differently since they have a history in the latin church clergy prior to the second lateran council…women do not.

Come on, now…

Ask yourself…WHY weren’t women featured predominately in “history”??? Oh yeah, they were looked upon as second class citizens and/or property. Not able to get an education, read/write, have a thought in their head unless a man put it there.

Fast forward to this “century” please…and it will become clearer.

Sexually active males…should be treated differently??? really? even if they are sexually active and “single”?

 

[patsydtr]

This thread has to be one of the most ridiculous ones I have read! Up 'til now, I haven’t responded to any of them, but this one?..well, I just can’t help myself.

I have been studying to become a Nun for well over a year. At the moment we have no enclosure, save our own homes. Meanwhile, I have taken many courses, read every book I can get my hands on and providentially for me, I am being trained as an Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister and Sacristan within my Parish.
I am divorced, in good standing with Holy Mother Church and have been chaste for 20+ years. I have to say here and now, not once have I been asked from the church, if I am sexually active! This is between the persons’ conscience and our Lord, God.
I would think, EEM’s should be in a state of grace when giving the Body and Precious Blood to the parishioners. My question is…why is this even being asked?

May the peace of our Lord, Jesus Christ be with you, always.

 

[malphono]

This thread has to be one of the most ridiculous ones I have read!

I’ve been thinking the same thing from the first post

My question is…why is this even being asked?

Now that is the $64k question. Just a guess here, but based on the old wives tale, could it perhaps be that maybe, just maybe, the OP had too many eggs as a child?

 

[edwest2]

why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?

That was an alarmist statement. How do you know if any of them are sexually active? They are not ordained. They only have a permission.

God bless,
Ed

 

[puzzleannie]

why does vatican II allow lay female sexually active eucharistic ministers? Doesnt this defeat the historical rationale for mandating celibacy in the latin rite? By allowing this, don’t we basically have mini-female priests?

the Church does not allow lay female–or lay male–Eucharistic minister. The only Eucharistic minister is the priest or deacon.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

the Church does not allow lay female–or lay male–Eucharistic minister. The only Eucharistic minister is the priest or deacon.

You are quite correct, Annie, but you would not believe the number of parishes that I have seen personally which refer to extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion as ‘eucharistic ministers.’ I’m only one person and I could list off from personal knowledge alone over the last 10 years at least 70 different parishes in 9 different states which do so. Not only in the bulletins, even on the diocesean web sites, even words spoken by the priest himself as he asks for volunteers from his congregation to join up because there is a ‘need for eucharistic ministers’. . .it’s very disheartening. I can’t even list 5 parishes where I have personally visited in the last 10 years where the correct term "extraordinary minister of holy communion’ was used, and of the 4 I saw 2 of them actually used the term "extraordinary eucharistic minister’ instead!

When Joe and Jane Average Catholic are being force-fed the term in virtually every parish they attend, see it in most diocesean web sites, AND in dozens of Catholic forums, why wouldn’t they think it was the correct term? It’s virtually the only term they’d ever heard!

 

[maurin]

Kind of like “lex orandi, lex credendi”, huh?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Notredame_999,

And yes, “extraordinary minsters of communion” either male or female, do diminish the significance of cellibacy in the latin rite. The whole reason why celibacy was adopted in the latin rite was because vaginal intercourse was seen as making a MAN unfit to handle the eucharist. So when you have “extraordinary ministers” who are not celibate handling the Body of Christ, it is theological confusion.

I think the problem here is the idea that “vaginal intercourse was seen as making a man unfit to handle the Eucharist” is to be equated with celibacy. Continency for a period of time before and after the celebration of the Eucharst was expected of every priest in all the Rites, East, West and Orient. But such continency was by no means an indication that life-long celibacy was required in order to celebrate the Mass (though that discipline eventually developed full-bloom in the West).

So I think your argument is flawed because its premise is flawed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JReducation]

Let’s sort through the language here. I can see that some posters have tried to do this. The Eucharistic Minister is the person who consecrates. That is always a priest. I know that some people mentioned bishops. Technically, the bishop consecrates because he’s a priest. The Order of Bishop brings other sacramental powers. The power to consecrate is not one of them. He received that when he was ordained to the Order of Presbyter.

The person who distributes communion is properly called the Minister of Holy Communion. In the Roman Church the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those who are ordained. In the Oriental Churches it varies. In some, the deacons are and in others they are not. However, in the Roman Church, all three orders are ordinary ministers.

Those who are not ordained are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. They are not Eucharistic Ministers. That term came into existence because of our tendency to find the shortest way to say things. Notice how we often say “religious priests” for priests who are also religious. How many people go around saying that Fr. Mitch Pacwa is a priest and a religious? How many want to say that Fr. Benedict G. is a brother and a priest? People take shortcuts. They say that he’s a Jesuit priest or a Franciscan priest. These titles are canonically wrong. You’re a Jesuit AND a priest. We have done the same with the EMHC.

What many people do not know is how the secular man and woman were allowed to be EMHC. There was an ancient custom in religious houses, especially houses of religious brothers and monasteries of nuns. In these houses, the superior appointed a religious to bring Holy Communion to the sick religious. The religious who were assigned to this ministry were not ordained.

Until the code of 1983 was written, those religious who were not ordained were considered to belong to the “lay state”. However, they were not seculars. Seculars were people who did not belong to a religious community, such as diocesan deacons, priests, bishops and popes. After the new code was promulgated, following the guidance of Vatican II, a distinction was made. Those who belong to religious communities are not properly lay men or lay women. They are religious or consecrated men and women. However, to avoid the confusion, the new code explained that there can be clerics who are also consecrated religious. The new wording called for two definitions of the word “lay”. The first definition means those who are not ordained. The second definition means those who are not religious. Mrs. White is neither religious nor ordained. Therefore, Mrs. White is a lay woman, not a lay religious. Fr. Jack is not in vows, but he is ordained. Fr. Jack is a cleric, not a lay man. But he is a secular man, not a consecrated man, because he does not belong to a religious community.

Looking back, since there were people who were canonically lay who had distributed communion to the sick for centuries, even though they were not lay men or lay women, there was no theological reason why a others who are also canonically lay could not be ministers of Holy Communion in extraordinary situations. That’s how the term Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion was coined. What the Church did was to extend a practice from the religious house to the local parish. The Vatican authorized bishops to determine what constitutes an extraordinary situation, just as religious superiors had done in their own houses for centuries.

The difference between the Extraordinary Ministers in the religious houses and those in the parish are two: 1) the religious are consecrated, therefore not secular and 2) the secular laity may be married, where as the lay religious is always celibate. Nonetheless, celibacy did not play any part in the decision to allow religious to take communion to their sick brothers or sisters. It was an act of charity. The same applies to the EMHC in the parish who takes communion to the sick or helps at mass when there is a need. It’s an act of charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[notredame_999]

Br Jay has answered this in one of the many threads you have started on this topic.
edit: (feeling charitible today so I did the work for you) Here is a link to Br Jay’s reply Br Jay’s reply in Optional Celibacy in the Priesthood

How many times must we repeat ourselves?

Is it until you get the answer you want?

Then just tell us the answer you want so we can stop having all these threads on the same topic started.

My purpose for posting was to show how mandatory celibacy in the latin rite doesnt really make theological sense when you compare the traditions of the latin church with the new customs brought in by today’s conciliar church. That includes “extraordinary ministers of holy communion” although up until today I thought they were called “eucharistic ministers.”

Anthony T. Dragani points out this confusing change:
east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm

One more thing Brother- if you don’t like my posts fine don’t respond. Its not like someone is putting a gun to your head and making you type out a reply. When I see a thread I’m not interested in I don’t respond simple as that.

 

[JReducation]

My purpose for posting was to show how mandatory celibacy in the latin rite doesnt really make theological sense when you compare the traditions of the latin church with the new customs brought in by today’s conciliar church. That includes “extraordinary ministers of holy communion” although up until today I thought they were called “eucharistic ministers.”

Anthony T. Dragani points out this confusing change:
east2west.org/mandatory_clerical_celibacy.htm

One more thing Brother- if you don’t like my posts fine don’t respond. Its not like someone is putting a gun to your head and making you type out a reply. When I see a thread I’m not interested in I don’t respond simple as that.

Obviously, you did not read his last sentence. He answers the question whether clerical celibacy is necessary for the priesthood consistently with Church teaching. The Church has never taught that without clerical celibacy the sacrament is invalid.

Dragani, is writing an apologia for the Eastern Tradition. He is not out to bring down the practice and faith of the Roman tradition. Therefore, to use him as your resource to challenge the Roman tradition is to use his writings in a manner that is inconsistent with the intent of the author. This is intellectual dishonesty.

There are various branches of theology. Celibacy falls into a branch of theology known as Ascetical and Mystical Theology. Ascetical and Mystical Theology has variances from one tradition to another. Just look at what Eastern Mystical Theology says about Mary and what Western Mystical theology says. Look at what Mystical Theology says about the mass and what Western Mystical Theology says.

These variances are legitimate as long as they are not in conflict with Dogmatic Theology. Since celibacy falls under asceticism, because it’s an ascetical practice and since the ascetical theology behind celibacy is acknowledged as valid by all of the Catholic Churches, and since the ascetical value of celibacy is also acknowledged by all of the Catholic Churches, it is legitimate for the Roman Church or any other Catholic Church to adopt this ascetical practice and even make it a requirement for the reception of Holy Orders. Why? Because it is the adoption of something that is for the good of the Body. Theologically, anything that is for the good of the Body is legitimate.

Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion have nothing to do with this, since they are not ordained ministers. In addition, the use of non-ordained men and women to take Holy Communion to the sick has been in practice in the Roman Catholic Church since the birth of Western Monasticism when the monks and nuns of the monastery were delegated to take communion to the sick in their houses. This was later expanded to the mendicants, beginning with the Franciscans in 1209. In 1223 St. Francis and St. Clare founded the Order of Poor Sisters, known today as the Poor Clares. One of the charism of the nuns was perpetual adoration. The friars were not allowed to enter the monastery to expose the Blessed Sacrament. The Blessed Sacrament was exposed by the nuns and reposed by the nuns, such is the practice to this day among those religious communities of women whose charism is Perpetual Adoration.

The term “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” was coined in the Post Vatican II era, but the practice is very old. It just never had a name until it was extended to the secular laity for the same reason that it had been granted to the brothers and sisters in monasteries, as an act of charity for the benefit of the sick and the elderly who are unable to attend mass. The bishops were granted permission to extend the duties of the EMHC when extraordinary circumstances presented themselves. These extraordinary circumstances are to be defined by the bishops, who often delegate that duty to the local pastor. This is a separate ministry that has nothing to do with Holy Orders, much less, celibacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Marie5890]

Bro. JR, thank you as always for the education and insight you bring to various discussions and doing it also in a very charitable and truthful manner. It’s appreciated and helps us wade thru various issues with better understanding…