Vatican II: LAY FEMALE SEXUALLY ACTIVE EUCHARISTIC MINISTERS?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Chastity is refraining from sexual intercourse.

Not correct. Everyone is called to live chastely.

Chastity is not refraining from sexual intercourse, at least that is not the Catholic understanding of Chastity.

From the CCC

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church. (St. Ambrose, De viduis 4,23L 16,255A.)
​

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But how do you explain all the orthodox seminarians who were kicked out of some of these liberal/heretical/homosexual lead seminaries in “the spirit of Vatican II” as documented in GOODBYE GOOD MEN and other studies?

Did Christ really speak through the church when these men were kicked out because they had real traditional faith and didn’t want to put up with the gay subculture?

The church is still made up of men who can be falliable unless we are talking about faith and morals.

We have no true knowledge why these men, or any men leave the seminary or religious life other than what they chose to tell us. It is incomplete information as we only have one side of the story and it is also very anecdotal.

The book you bring up dealt with only a small number of cases at a few seminaries. One of them I know a priest who was attending at the time in question and knew the man who left. He told me that the book got it wrong, but then they only had the information of the man who left as no seminary or religious order will ever speak publicly on why someone has left.

I do have to ask though…

1. What does this have to do with lay women EMHC being sexually active and
2. what does this have to do with your opinion that sex is “dirty”?

 

[edwest2]

There is no “hang up” about sex in the Church. The Church teaches us the best way to express our sexuality. The world, on the other hand, tells us this: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!”

What does that mean? It means they are having fun and we’re not. That we have marital sex with fear as opposed to joy and love. They want to masturbate (which is why we have going on a zillion threads about it here), they want to have sex with their girlfriends, go to strip clubs, etc. We, meaning Catholics, are missing all the “fun.”

What we are missing are STDs, disrespecting a man’s daughter at a strip club and showing our wives how much we love them to the exclusion of all others. By love, I mean we show our wives through all of our actions, including sexual, that we respect them and what God has revealed to us about the marriage relationship. The world is made uncomfortable by this, which is why they created “alternative lifestyles.” And they expect Catholics to feel indifferent if not approving of such lifestyles.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JHow]

There is no “hang up” about sex in the Church. The Church teaches us the best way to express our sexuality. The world, on the other hand, tells us this: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You’re sexually repressed!”

What does that mean? It means they are having fun and we’re not. That we have marital sex with fear as opposed to joy and love. They want to masturbate (which is why we have going on a zillion threads about it here), they want to have sex with their girlfriends, go to strip clubs, etc. We, meaning Catholics, are missing all the “fun.”

What we are missing are STDs, disrespecting a man’s daughter at a strip club and showing our wives how much we love them to the exclusion of all others. By love, I mean we show our wives through all of our actions, including sexual, that we respect them and what God has revealed to us about the marriage relationship. The world is made uncomfortable by this, which is why they created “alternative lifestyles.” And they expect Catholics to feel indifferent if not approving of such lifestyles.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JHow]

Thank all you posters who clarified the “Eucharistic Minister” vs. “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion” difference. Like many (I suspect), I thought the latter term was correct, since I had heard people use it. I get the difference as someone pointed out between priests being “ordinary” ministers and the layperson being “extrarordinary”, but my question is that the EMHC seems to be quite common, not “extraordinary” in the plain sense of the word? Was the EMHC orginally intended for just situations like bringing communion to people in hospitals? Did it become more common as an efficiency measure somehow, to speed up reception of communion (long lines)? Forgive me if these are stupid questions, but I have only been Catholic for 12 years, and my mass experiences are limited to Polish churches (that did not seem to have EMHC) and one parish in Southern California, where we have many EMHCs most every mass.

 

[joandarc2008]

At confirmation we renew our baptismal promises; we do not make vows.

We do not promise chastity. It would not make sense for us to promise chastity at confirmation.

Chastity is refraining from sexual intercourse. That would be a strange thing to do, especially at confirmation, and that would contradict with the sacrament of marriage and the procreation of children. Of course sex should be limited to a man and a woman who are married to each other.

There seems to be a very big hang up about sex in the Church. If we all refrained from sex then the Catholic Church wouldn’t survive very long!

Actually you define chastity incorrectly - chastity is refraining from sexual activity that is not licit such as premarital sex. You needed to read further into my post. You have confused chastity and celibacy. So yes, when we confirm and we confirm as priest, prophet, king - or as some put it warrior of God - yes we do promise to follow the Law of God which includes chastity which if you had read my post - renewing our baptismal grace and further binding us to the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the Church should serve to do if we take these things seriously and truly understand what it is we are being called to do.

 

[joandarc2008]

Not correct. Everyone is called to live chastely.

Chastity is not refraining from sexual intercourse, at least that is not the Catholic understanding of Chastity.

From the CCC

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church. (St. Ambrose, De viduis 4,23L 16,255A.)
​

Thank you Brother David - I appreciate it - I answered before I saw your answer but you did a much better job. God bless.

 

[ProVobis]

… but I have only been Catholic for 12 years, and my mass experiences are limited to Polish churches (that did not seem to have EMHC) and one parish in Southern California, where we have many EMHCs most every mass.

My experience with Polish churches is about the same. Generally I see only about a half of those in attendance receive.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Actually you define chastity incorrectly - chastity is refraining from sexual activity that is not licit such as premarital sex. You needed to read further into my post. You have confused chastity and celibacy. So yes, when we confirm and we confirm as priest, prophet, king - or as some put it warrior of God - yes we do promise to follow the Law of God which includes chastity which if you had read my post - renewing our baptismal grace and further binding us to the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the Church should serve to do if we take these things seriously and truly understand what it is we are being called to do.

I haven’t got my terms confused. Chastity is refraining from sex, period. To say chastity is only refraining from illicit sex is misrepresenting its meaning. Celibacy is not marrying. I did read your post and if you believe chastity is promised in confirmation then please point out where. After all you posed the question is chastity promised in confirmation. We do promise in confirmation to obey God’s laws. They include chastity and celibacy where these are appropriate to our state in life. However, confirmation is not in itself specifically about promising chastity. If you knew the answer I don’t understand why you’d pose the question.

 

[Biedrik]

But how do you explain all the orthodox seminarians who were kicked out of some of these liberal/heretical/homosexual lead seminaries in “the spirit of Vatican II” as documented in GOODBYE GOOD MEN and other studies?

Did Christ really speak through the church when these men were kicked out because they had real traditional faith and didn’t want to put up with the gay subculture?

The church is still made up of men who can be falliable unless we are talking about faith and morals.

How is this relevant? As you said, the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals. If the Church is ok with married female EMHCs who have consummated their marriages, then isn’t that a decision in regards to a matter of morality, an aspect of life where the Church is infallible?

 

[Aramis]

I am talking about women not men because women have no apostolic tradition of approaching the alter in either the west nor the east.

Not true. The deaconess, at least during her ordination, (the process of which is spelled out in the Apostolic Constitutions,) approached the altar. She was ordained by imposition of hands, specifically to baptize and teach women. Specifically, she was a minister for women; it is known from other sources that, in addition to baptism and teaching, she also would carry the Eucharist to women who were housebound; deacons filled that role for men and families.

The Liturgical ministry of women was that of the doors and gates… the same as a porter… but the extraliturgical ministry was similar to (but not the same as) that of a deacon.

 

[JReducation]

But how do you explain all the orthodox seminarians who were kicked out of some of these liberal/heretical/homosexual lead seminaries in “the spirit of Vatican II” as documented in GOODBYE GOOD MEN and other studies?

Did Christ really speak through the church when these men were kicked out because they had real traditional faith and didn’t want to put up with the gay subculture?

The church is still made up of men who can be falliable unless we are talking about faith and morals.

Don’t confuse two things. The fact that there were problems at these seminaries does not mean that the men who were asked to leave had a vocation. The Church authoritatively says that Christ speaks only through her on matters of Holy Orders and religius life.

You need to give yourself a break on this. You’re going to drive yourself to drink, pop, I hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I haven’t got my terms confused. Chastity is refraining from sex, period. To say chastity is only refraining from illicit sex is misrepresenting its meaning. Celibacy is not marrying. I did read your post and if you believe chastity is promised in confirmation then please point out where. After all you posed the question is chastity promised in confirmation. We do promise in confirmation to obey God’s laws. They include chastity and celibacy where these are appropriate to our state in life. However, confirmation is not in itself specifically about promising chastity. If you knew the answer I don’t understand why you’d pose the question.

Your wrong, chastity is the proper use of the sexual act. That is what the Church Teaches and has always taught, just read the paragraph from the Catechism I posted.

 

[notredame_999]

We have no true knowledge why these men, or any men leave the seminary or religious life other than what they chose to tell us. It is incomplete information as we only have one side of the story and it is also very anecdotal.

The book you bring up dealt with only a small number of cases at a few seminaries. One of them I know a priest who was attending at the time in question and knew the man who left. He told me that the book got it wrong, but then they only had the information of the man who left as no seminary or religious order will ever speak publicly on why someone has left.

I do have to ask though…

1. What does this have to do with lay women EMHC being sexually active and
2. what does this have to do with your opinion that sex is “dirty”?

1. I admit it doesn’t really have anything to do with the original topic i brought up. It was just a response to Brother Jr. who said that Christ always confirms a true God-given vocation through the Church; I disagreed with him on that. Especially when you conisder the leadership that some of these American seminaries were being lead under in “The Spirit of Vatican II.”
2. My opinion is not that sex is dirty. I personally have an eastern christian view of clerical celibacy and marriage…we have discussed this at length However, the opinion of some of our most notable saints and fathers in the west did have a view that sex was dirty and a necessary evil. Even in the east this view was held. The difference was the interpretation. The west felt that complete celibacy was required in order to approach the alter, sacred vessels, and the eucharist, while the east felt continence on Saturday night and the night before feast days was sufficient. All of this thought goes back to jewish tradition which did require some degree of continence for its priests.

Furthermore, in both the east and west, women were from prohibited from administering the eucharist and entering the sanctuary. So I guess my whole point is that this conciliar practice of 1. Allowing married priests who refuese to practice continence with their wives, & 2. Allowing lay women to distribute communion goes completely against the writings and teachings of the western church.

Even though its an Orthodox website, it was very informative.
orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy.asp

 

[Ocarm]

How is this relevant?

Not at all.

And now for something else which is likewise tangential to this discussion, but kind of important in other respects:

As you said, the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals.

The church can be infallible on matters of faith and morals.

Most of her teachings don’t rise to the level of infallibility. Not every encyclical, decree, pamphlet or canon - or even the catechism - is infallibly proclaimed, not even all of those produced by a pope or an ecumenical council - although the teaching of a pope or a council may be infallible if it is identified as such and follows the proper forms.

See CCC 890-892 and canons 749-750 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

If the Church is ok with married female EMHCs who have consummated their marriages, then isn’t that a decision in regards to a matter of morality, an aspect of life where the Church is infallible?

And this would be one of those not-infallible areas. Allowing women to act as EMHCs is a disciplinary position, not a doctrinal matter. The fact that the church has not produced any doctrine relating to the issue indicates that she perceives that there are no doctrinal issues to be addressed, hence the OP’s concerns are spurious.

I have a suspicion you know all of this, but just in case some readers didn’t, I thought I’d comment. If people’s reading time has been wasted, I apologise.

 

[malphono]

Furthermore, in both the east and west, women were from prohibited from administering the eucharist and entering the sanctuary. So I guess my whole point is that this conciliar practice

With the exceptions that [post=7156383]Aramis[/post] correctly points out. But leaving aside the matter of the deaconess, it is the same for unordained males.

And I have to repeat that the business of lay EMHCs is not a “conciliar” practice, but rather a post-conciliar one. And yes, it’s a big difference.

1. Allowing married priests who refuese to practice continence with their wives

Where did this come from from? Did I miss something?

 

[ProVobis]

And this would be one of those not-infallible areas. Allowing women to act as EMHCs is a disciplinary position, not a doctrinal matter.

Here things get a little blurred. One of the functions of a priest (and the deacon, for that matter) is to administer the sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Since women cannot doctrinally be admitted to the priesthood, defining where the functionality of priesthood ends or overlaps cannot solely be just a disciplinary position.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[notredame_999]

1. I admit it doesn’t really have anything to do with the original topic i brought up. It was just a response to Brother Jr. who said that Christ always confirms a true God-given vocation through the Church; I disagreed with him on that. Especially when you conisder the leadership that some of these American seminaries were being lead under in “The Spirit of Vatican II.”
2. My opinion is not that sex is dirty. I personally have an eastern christian view of clerical celibacy and marriage…we have discussed this at length However, the opinion of some of our most notable saints and fathers in the west did have a view that sex was dirty and a necessary evil. Even in the east this view was held. The difference was the interpretation. The west felt that complete celibacy was required in order to approach the alter, sacred vessels, and the eucharist, while the east felt continence on Saturday night and the night before feast days was sufficient. All of this thought goes back to jewish tradition which did require some degree of continence for its priests.

Furthermore, in both the east and west, women were from prohibited from administering the eucharist and entering the sanctuary. So I guess my whole point is that this post- conciliar practice of 1. Allowing married priests who refuese to practice continence with their wives, & 2. Allowing lay women to distribute communion goes completely against the writings and teachings of the western church.

Even though its an Orthodox website, it was very informative.
orthodoxanswers.org/celibacy.asp

 

[Ocarm]

Here things get a little blurred. One of the functions of a priest (and the deacon, for that matter) is to administer the sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Since women cannot doctrinally be admitted to the priesthood, defining where the functionality of priesthood ends or overlaps cannot solely be just a disciplinary position.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Fair enough.

The distinction between discipline and doctrine isn’t always as clear-cut as I probably made it sound, inasmuch as the former is often based upon the latter. But since the issue here (and the focus of my comments) is not whether women can be priests, but whether they can be EMHCs, I stand by my initial point that if a doctrinal statement on the suitability of women to be EMHCs was required, it would already have been made. It hasn’t, hence the concern of the OP is unwarranted.

Best wishes.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

1. Allowing married priests who refuese to practice continence with their wives

Can you provide any Canons that support this?

I know it is a pious tradition but I have not been able to find any Canons within the Code of Canon Law that require this.

That is in either the Code of Canon Law or the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches.