Why don't people in Mexico go to communion?

[palmas85]

No, I don’t. Your comments reminded me of the guy who referred to Mexico as a “third world nation.” Or the one that refers to Mexico as being part of South America.

Oh I see. Sorry. But you see, I actually do come from a country, that shares a very similar background historically and culturally to Mexico.

We too have a view of Catholicism that is somewhat different and a bit more extreme than most other countries except for other countries that were also colonies of Spain. I’m not sure what it is about the Spanish influence that seems to promote such a thing, but it does. Perhaps I should have been more specific in my terminology. Perhaps I assume too much at times.

As far as being a third world country, I believe that given the massive institutionalized corruption that exists in Mexico, the tremendous gulf in the standard of living between the relatively small upper class and the overwhelming bulk of the population and the fact that millions flee there every year in order to earn a living elsewhere, much the same as many from my country, Mexico could be very well classified as a third world nation.

Still waiting on the more profound examples of cafeteria Catholicism that you said you had to share with us.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have been wondering why some people in Mexico don’t go to communion. Several weeks ago when I attended mass in Mexico City and at the basilica in Guadalupe this stood out…

most Catholic Mexicans in Mexico, and those of Mexican descent in this country, have been properly catechized on the need for proper disposition for the sacrament, and will not approach if they have not confessed, are in an irregular marriage etc. Since the law in Mexico requires civil marriage first, it often happens that a couple must wait for convalidation, and they do realize they cannot approach the sacraments until that is remedied. Bishops are making huge efforts to make that happen and to bring adults and older children to complete their Christian initiation.

In many parts of Mexico it used to be the custom to baptize and confirm at the same time for infants. As that custom died out, parents did not realize their children had to be brought for Confirmation at a later date, so many older children and adults missed Confirmation. Some are under the mistaken notion that they cannot convalidate civil marriages until they are confirmed. So this is another are the bishops are trying to actively reach out and identify people and families in need of sacraments.

and yes it is true that many people, especially the older ones, and we have to carefully instruct catechists on this issue, believe that one must confess before each and every reception of communion, that communion once a year during the Easter seasons is the only way to go, and that if you are divorced, but not remarried, you may not receive. There is still a lot of catechesis needed, but that is a perennial problem in all cultures.

we typically see the biggest crowds o the liturgical on Ash Wednesday, when most churches here distribute ashes almost continually from 6 am to 9 pm or later. Yet only a fraction of those people will be receiving communion or even coming to Mass.

i have never encountered any CAtholic, on either side of the border, including those with the strongest devotion to NS de Guadalupe, who worship Mary. ever.

 

[otjm]

Any references?

Yes, there have been articles in OUr Sunday Visitor, the National Catholic Register, and commentary by Ralph Martin in The Catholic Church at the End of an Age (I think I have the title correct; it is at least close). And that is just scratching at the surface.

 

[Paten]

Yes, there have been articles in OUr Sunday Visitor, the National Catholic Register, and commentary by Ralph Martin in The Catholic Church at the End of an Age (I think I have the title correct; it is at least close). And that is just scratching at the surface.

Then list them.

You are wrong when you suggest that “they respect the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is just that - a presumption.” It’s a well know fact that MANY Catholics do. So while this is not the single reason for this behavior it’s clearly the primary one, and no it’s not just a presumption.

 

[iamrefreshed]

As an example, I know a couple, both in their forties, from Mexico. They faithfully attend Mass every week, and the woman often several times a week. They never receive Holy Communion. Why? Well, they are not married and have lived together in this state for over twenty years. They confess this sin every year or so they say, but since they have no plans to stop living together or to stop having marital relations, they refrain from receiving.

We here in the western world by and large adhere to a much more lenient view of sin.

And this makes them better catholics?

Seems to me both are waaaay off base!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

And this makes them better catholics?

Seems to me both are waaaay off base!

Yes- It’s laudable that they don’t go to Communion, but why wouldn’t they want to correct the problem?

 

[otjm]

Then list them.

You are wrong when you suggest that “they respect the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is just that - a presumption.” It’s a well know fact that MANY Catholics do. So while this is not the single reason for this behavior it’s clearly the primary one, and no it’s not just a presumption.

Try reading what I have said in the context of the posts. I am not wrong; you just want to paint them as truly faithful Catholics. I am saying that many of them don’t know all that much about the faith, and they have their own set of problems in following it. Part of their problems stem not from respecting the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, but rather holding a more rigorous (and incorrect) understanding of the sacraments, Eucharist included.

Part of the Church’s teaching is that one does not have to go to Reconcilliation in order to recieve the Eucharist; one needs to do so only if one is in the state of mortal sin. Many Hispanics do not understand the distinction between the two, and as a result, ignore the Church’s teaching on the frequent reception of the Eucharist. And that is a result of minimal catechesis.

The short of it is that there are numerous reasons that Hispanics receive in such low numbers. I was simply saying that reducing numerous reasons to a comment that it is due to greatrer respect for the Eucharist is simplistic at best and presumptious. I stand on my statement.

And if they have such a great respect for the Eucharist, then how do you account for the large numbers who are converting to Protestant fundamentalist, evangelistic and charismatic groups? That is an oxymoron.

 

[Paten]

Yes- It’s laudable that they don’t go to Communion, but why wouldn’t they want to correct the problem?

I’m not at all sure there is a problem. Certainly not for those who have unabsolved mortal sins on their souls. Receiving Holy Communion in that state is a mortal sin in itself.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’m not at all sure there is a problem. Certainly not for those who have unabsolved mortal sins on their souls. Receiving Holy Communion in that state is a mortal sin in itself.

I think he/she was referring to a couple living together and fornicating, then confessing with the intent to continue in their sin.

 

[Paten]

I think he/she was referring to a couple living together and fornicating, then confessing with the intent to continue in their sin.

Mea maximo culpa.

 

[palmas85]

And this makes them better catholics?

Seems to me both are waaaay off base!

Indeed they are having lived in a near constant state of mortal sin for many years However, they do understand the sacrament well enough to KNOW that in their current situation they may not receive. They respect that and feel that even though they are sinners God will understand their situation. Many, and I know several myself, in the exact same situation do receive under the assumption that

1 being as the Eucharist is the summit of the Christian faith for them not to receive would be wrong and showing they are not in full communion with the rest of the faithful.
2 since the Eucharist itself is salvific, any reception at all is desirable and to be commended.
3 they are not in a state of mortal sin as they are in a committed monogamous relationship and as such, even though not married in the yes of the Church, they are in the eyes of each other. After all, marriage is just a piece of paper. It is what is in your heart that counts.
4 or the biggie

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MORTAL SIN

We actually had an associate pastor a few years ago who pointedly told them that they could in fact receive as it was better to be in a committed relationship than not to be in one. They well, basically read him the riot act and told him in front of the congregation that he was a false priest. They said they chose the life and took their chances with it.

 

[palmas85]

Try reading what I have said in the context of the posts. I am not wrong; you just want to paint them as truly faithful Catholics. I am saying that many of them don’t know all that much about the faith, and they have their own set of problems in following it. Part of their problems stem not from respecting the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist, but rather holding a more rigorous (and incorrect) understanding of the sacraments, Eucharist included.

Part of the Church’s teaching is that one does not have to go to Reconcilliation in order to recieve the Eucharist; one needs to do so only if one is in the state of mortal sin. Many Hispanics do not understand the distinction between the two, and as a result, ignore the Church’s teaching on the frequent reception of the Eucharist. And that is a result of minimal catechesis.

The short of it is that there are numerous reasons that Hispanics receive in such low numbers. I was simply saying that reducing numerous reasons to a comment that it is due to greatrer respect for the Eucharist is simplistic at best and presumptious. I stand on my statement.

And if they have such a great respect for the Eucharist, then how do you account for the large numbers who are converting to Protestant fundamentalist, evangelistic and charismatic groups? That is an oxymoron.

I can tell you why in large part. . Very simple. Many choose to convert to the pentecostal groups because of their moral codes and stringent beliefs. They see the Catholic Church as careening wildly off course in an attempt to be all things to all people. Simple. They see the Church as being unresponsive to its truest believers and pandering to fringe groups. Maybe an extreme case of the Prodigal son.

In Tijuana several years ago at the Guadalupe Cathedral, the Pastor had in attendance one day a large number of homosexuals, some of them in drag. He told the congregation, that they as Catholics had to accept their lifestyle as a valid lifestyle choice. At that Mass was my Lieutenant, a Mexican American male, very active in the Church in San Diego and a liberal that I have often butted heads with, He reported that about half the congregation got up, walked out and never returned.

I think that speaks volumes to the situation of the Church in Mexico losing members.

 

[mdgspencer]

Some of these posts raise interesting issues though they are on another topic from this thread. Perhaps it would be better to start new threads dealing with these new issues so that they could be dealt with fully. Personally, though, I would rather find out what people have to say about why many do not go to communion at mass in Mexico.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Indeed they are having lived in a near constant state of mortal sin for many years However, they do understand the sacrament well enough to KNOW that in their current situation they may not receive. They respect that and feel that even though they are sinners God will understand their situation. Many, and I know several myself, in the exact same situation do receive under the assumption that

Yes but still a mortal sin. And worse, they absolutely KNOW it. Many in America receive without knowing they are committing a mortal sin by contracepting for example. That is the fault of individual pastors.

Either way a mortal sin and a one way ticket south.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. Take side issues to new or existing threads. Thank you.

 

[puzzleannie]

returning to topic of thread title, OP states what he observed at the basilica of NS de Guadalupe in Mexico city. bear in mind that is both a piligrimage site for Catholics and a tourist destination for the general public, and in such a place it is not possible to assume who is and who is not Catholic in the crowd, so it is probably a good thing of those who are not Catholic don’t receive. same could be said of other large churches that fit that description.

 

[otjm]

I can tell you why in large part. . Very simple. Many choose to convert to the pentecostal groups because of their moral codes and stringent beliefs. They see the Catholic Church as careening wildly off course in an attempt to be all things to all people. Simple. They see the Church as being unresponsive to its truest believers and pandering to fringe groups. Maybe an extreme case of the Prodigal son.

In Tijuana several years ago at the Guadalupe Cathedral, the Pastor had in attendance one day a large number of homosexuals, some of them in drag. He told the congregation, that they as Catholics had to accept their lifestyle as a valid lifestyle choice. At that Mass was my Lieutenant, a Mexican American male, very active in the Church in San Diego and a liberal that I have often butted heads with, He reported that about half the congregation got up, walked out and never returned.

I think that speaks volumes to the situation of the Church in Mexico losing members.

I think that you are presuming that Mexico (and by derivation, non-US Hispanics in general) are being hit witht the problems the US suffers from. I am sure that in the largest cities, some of our problems may show there too. But again, the two biggest issues are catechesis and catechesis - the fact that the largest percentage of the population is not well educated and very poorly catechized, coupled witht he fact that for Central and South America, the largest problem within the Church (read: priests, bishops and theologians) has been Liberation Theology, something that really hasn’t scratched the surface here in the US. You are right that they are leaving in droves because the Protestants are preaching Christ, and Him crucified; Ralph put it another way: the Church (in Hispanic countries) opted for the poor, and the poor opted for Christ.

All of which gets back to my premises; the reason they do not receive has more to do with culture and poor catechesis than it does with a faithfulness to the faith. Too often they do not understand that a) they can recveive - the issue about having to go to Reconcilliation immediately before receiving, and b) they should receive when in the state of grace. Too often, what they have is a mishmash of Catholic teaching, very minimal and presented to people who have little education at all. In short, they too often have nothing more than a 3rd grader’s understanding of the faith. It should come as no surprise that mabny of the people we have in the US, legal or otherwise, from south of the border don’t even speak Spanish.

 

[palmas85]

I think that you are presuming that Mexico (and by derivation, non-US Hispanics in general) are being hit witht the problems the US suffers from. I am sure that in the largest cities, some of our problems may show there too. But again, the two biggest issues are catechesis and catechesis - the fact that the largest percentage of the population is not well educated and very poorly catechized, coupled witht he fact that for Central and South America, the largest problem within the Church (read: priests, bishops and theologians) has been Liberation Theology, something that really hasn’t scratched the surface here in the US. You are right that they are leaving in droves because the Protestants are preaching Christ, and Him crucified; Ralph put it another way: the Church (in Hispanic countries) opted for the poor, and the poor opted for Christ.

All of which gets back to my premises; the reason they do not receive has more to do with culture and poor catechesis than it does with a faithfulness to the faith. Too often they do not understand that a) they can recveive - the issue about having to go to Reconcilliation immediately before receiving, and b) they should receive when in the state of grace. Too often, what they have is a mishmash of Catholic teaching, very minimal and presented to people who have little education at all. In short, they too often have nothing more than a 3rd grader’s understanding of the faith. It should come as no surprise that mabny of the people we have in the US, legal or otherwise, from south of the border don’t even speak Spanish.

It is interesting though that in Mexico and other latin countries this poor catechisis results in a more strict observance than in the US lets say, where equally poor catechisis leads to almost everyone receiving. Would you argue along the same lines that most US Catholics think they can receive regardless, which is what it seems to be? Lets remember the education level in the US is much higher than in Mexico so all things being equal, we should be better informed.

But it doesn’t really appear that we are.

 

[otjm]

It is interesting though that in Mexico and other latin countries this poor catechisis results in a more strict observance than in the US lets say, where equally poor catechisis leads to almost everyone receiving. Would you argue along the same lines that most US Catholics think they can receive regardless, which is what it seems to be? Lets remember the education level in the US is much higher than in Mexico so all things being equal, we should be better informed.

But it doesn’t really appear that we are.

Absolutely. Moral theology was intended, by Vatican 2, to move from a rather legaistic, moralistic, minimalistic and negativistic approach (which was engendered in part by the Manual, the means of teaching Moral Theology to seminarians to prepare them to be confessors) to a more Scriptural approach (see, e.g. the Synoptics story of the young man who asks Jesus what he must do to obtain Heaven - obey the commandments - what else must he do…). However, at about the time that change was starting, from outside the Church in the area of Ethics we found a new twist, called Situational Ethics. Too many moral theologians got caught up in that morass, and we ended up with the bubble gum approach to Moral Theology that seems to posit that no one ever actually commits a mortal sin; they just make mistakes.

C’mon, folks! A mistake is wearing a polka dot tie with a striped shirt. That is a mistake. Adultery is not a mistake, it is a choice; and it is a choice for evil.

Moral theology got dumbed down to below the lowest common denominator, then thrown into the toilet, and someone flushed. It is turning around, slowly but surely, but it will be along time getting it turned around, particularly in a society as infected with indiviualism, a hyper sexuality, materialism, and moral relativism. Pandora’s box holds nothing on the mess we have now.

So yes, we should be better informed, but the information that we have been given makes sewage look fairly clean.