Wife asked why I didn't receive Communion

[TheLittleLady]

Sure, full list of all of the changes:

Library : List of Catechism Changes | Catholic Culture

1. The second sentence of this paragraph presently reads:

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”

This sentence will be modified to read:

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”

1. This paragraph will be changed to simply read:

“Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor.”

Corrections to the English text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to harmonize it with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the same date.

PUBLISHER & DATE
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, September 8, 1997

 

[mrsdizzyd]

somecanadian:

The two shall become one. There should be no secrets between spouses.

Two shall become one FLESH. Sexual marital union.

Not one soul, not one mind, not one heart.

The “no secrets” idea is an opinion, it is not Catholic doctrine nor part of the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of marriage.

Exactly.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I know what the current one says. I’m trying to confirm your contention that it used to be that way (“right to know”) and now the door is firmly closed.

Although The Little Lady has provided you with additional references, I note that the very article you quoted noted that the sentence with “Right to Know” was in the “initial edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.
In other words, the phrase about “has the right to know the truth” was in the initial edition of the Catechism. It was taken out for the current edition.

 

[somecanadian]

Right. I was simply saying I understand where people who argue for full disclosure are coming from based on what I have seen people teaching about Catholic marriage.

again, not what I personally believe but what I’ve heard and seen countless times.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t believe in full disclosure on all accounts. Nevertheless, I believe asking can be an act of good faith, and should be honored fitting to the particular offense.

 

[rondirect]

LOL are you kidding me right now?

Pup, I think this is probably the first time we disagreed on a topic. No offense, but any number of years of marriage does not matter. Just like the wife’s of the all those men who have had cheated that is on the news almost every day lately. They had trust too, and where did that get them?

 

[rondirect]

The “no secrets” idea is an opinion, it is not Catholic doctrine nor part of the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of marriage.

Secrets of a surprise party aside, keeping secrets of mature nature is not doctrine, nor does that matter. It’s a matter of respect and faithfulness. Sorry, but, what I am reading on this thread is rather disheartening to me.

Peace.

 

[LisaB]

You have made this thread such a fun read!

Do keep in mind, as people have mentioned, that one doesn’t have to have any reason at all to skip Communion. You seem to go under the assumption that abstaining is a big deal, and the person must have done something seriously wrong. I’m wondering if this is what many people think these days, as it’s become the norm for almost everyone to go up for Communion, and so if you abstain you stand out, and people start wondering what’s wrong.

If you do abstain due to sin, no one except the confessor has an inherent right to know your sins. You can choose to tell others - be it your spouse or anyone else - but they don’t have the right to know just because they are your spouse. The Church doesn’t have official documents on whether one has the right to ask - the Church can’t regulate every little aspect of our lives. I suppose if there is an understanding in a marriage that you share each other’s sins, it would be ok to ask since you already established this standard for the two of you. But in general, it’s a rude question, that’s all. It puts a person on the spot because they are now pressured to reveal something they have no obligation to reveal. If you don’t believe us on this, post a question in Ask the Apologist section.

 

[AHapka]

You wouldn’t tell your kids everything you do that you might tell your spouse? Why, because it’s a higher relationship and it’s not their business. They have no right to know.

Well, the relationship with God is higher than the marital relationship. It is something between them and God. If I had a right to know about it, then the Church wouldn’t prohibit the priest from telling spouses about what’s said in confession. Sorry, but in a marriage we are second to God. We don’t have a right to know everything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but do we not have a saint because a priest refused to tell a king what his wife said in the confessional?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

The “no secrets” idea is an opinion, it is not Catholic doctrine nor part of the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of marriage.

Secrets of a surprise party aside, keeping secrets of mature nature is not doctrine, nor does that matter. It’s a matter of respect and faithfulness. Sorry, but, what I am reading on this thread is rather disheartening to me.

Peace.

This is Not my quote. Something went wrong there.

 

[Wampa]

Although The Little Lady has provided you with additional references, I note that the very article you quoted noted that the sentence with “Right to Know” was in the “initial edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.
In other words, the phrase about “has the right to know the truth” was in the initial edition of the Catechism. It was taken out for the current edition.

Right, that initial edition being 1994 and the revised edition being 1997. It was only in there for three years. What I was looking for was some confirmation that it appeared prior to the catechism promulgated by Pope John Paul II (in 1992). That’s why I was interested in your assertion that the JP2 Catechism had “done away with the old exception for people who didn’t have a right to the information. Under the old information, one could argue that spouse didn’t have a right to ask you what you said in confession (as someone else said they were taught, back in the day). But now that’s gone out the window.” It was only there for three years. You painted it as a long-standing exception now finally done away with by JP2.

I guess I’m still leaning towards the understanding that the CAF article gives (and I just re-read the entire thing again) that we are moving towards the “right to know” exception, with the short, three-year fling as evidence that the magisterium is warming up to. As the article says: “I referred earlier to the difficulty of conceptualizing a perfect definition of lying that might reveal a solution to our [hiding Jews in Nazi Germany] dilemma. The magisterium of the Church has not endorsed any such definition, but it recently came very close to taking a small step in that direction.” Here he’s referring to the three-year usage of that language.

@TheLittleLady, thanks for the link. That is handy; I haven’t seen that before. Although it was of limited value to my specific inquiry, since that still only goes back to 1994, it’s a handy reference and I was glad to use it!

Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread any further and I’m down in the weeds on a topic only tangentially related to this thread. Perhaps I’ll start a new one on my topic. Thanks for the replies!

 

[rcwitness]

You have made this thread such a fun read!

Not sure how, but thanks.

Do keep in mind, as people have mentioned, that one doesn’t have to have any reason at all to skip Communion.

It’s none of my business why someone doest receive, and when I see someone refraining, I feel sorry and hope they are able to receive in a clear conscience someday.

We aren’t talking about anyone, or strangers, however. We are talking about a spouse who may have a number of reasons why it relates to their life. I would think if there is a rare situation where one is not receiving due to something other than serious sin, the spouse already understands.

If you do abstain due to sin, no one except the confessor has an inherent right to know your sins. You can choose to tell others - be it your spouse or anyone else - but they don’t have the right to know just because they are your spouse. The Church doesn’t have official documents on whether one has the right to ask - the Church can’t regulate every little aspect of our lives. I suppose if there is an understanding in a marriage that you share each other’s sins, it would be ok to ask since you already established this standard for the two of you. But in general, it’s a rude question, that’s all. It puts a person on the spot because they are now pressured to reveal something they have no obligation to reveal. If you don’t believe us on this, post a question in Ask the Apologist section.

Ok, so you don’t believe some can ask the question in good faith?

The Church doesn’t address this because a spouse does not have the absolute right to know every sin. Yet the church does not claim asking is a sin of some sort. Lots of Catholics think it’s rude, out of line, nosy, etc… But they cannot see that It’s only a question, and one that can be asked out of charity and good will.

The nature of a husband and wife is so closely interwoven, that there are many ways that sin can cause pain, hardship, harm, hurt, or damage to a spouse. And for a person to be concerned about their spouse and what is going on with them does not equate to negative intentions and motives.

A husband and wife share so much in life. Finances, goods, home, kids, last name, family and extended family. This, by the grace of the Sacrament, should compel a spouse to open up regarding their relationship with Jesus when the outward sign of refraining from Him is like the elephant in the room to the spouse, who may have never gone to receive without their spouse since marriage, or maybe they notice a string of poor behavior and refraining from Eucharist has been for months.

Sin has great potential to affect more than some people seem to acknowledge. And so that is how we learn to appreciate how much Jesus loves us. We will always receive Him knowing we cannot know the depths of His love.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The 1992 publication, the big book with a tan colored dust jacket, can be purchased used online. We have them turn up at the parish and do not put them back into circulation because of the changes. No need to confuse people!

Prior to 1992, there were various Catechisms published at a local level (for instance, the Baltimore Catechism) but there had not been one Universal Vatican publication.

There was not a 1975 Vatican Catechism or a 1956 Vatican Catechism.

Again, more for another thread…

Catechism of the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can buy the old one on line:

https://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Ca...eywords=catechism+of+the+Catholic+Church+1992

 

[rondirect]

You wouldn’t tell your kids everything you do that you might tell your spouse? Why, because it’s a higher relationship and it’s not their business. They have no right to know.

Well, the relationship with God is higher than the marital relationship. It is something between them and God. If I had a right to know about it, then the Church wouldn’t prohibit the priest from telling spouses about what’s said in confession. Sorry, but in a marriage we are second to God. We don’t have a right to know everything.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but do we not have a saint because a priest refused to tell a king what his wife said in the confessional?

You successfully twisted things that I said. Of course the kids are not involved in adult conversations and of course a priest would not tell spouses what the other said. The king and wife thing…what?

Peace

 

[LisaB]

Yes, the question can be asked in good faith if the person wasn’t taught otherwise and is genuinely concerned. But the other spouse has no obligation to answer, so responding that this is between me and God, and perhaps explaining why the question can put the other on the spot, is a sufficient response - no one is obligated to give the real reason unless they WANT to. All I’m saying is, if one is comfortable talking about their sins with their spouse, fine. If one is not, equally fine. No one should be pressured in any way to reveal their sins to anyone, not even the spouse.

 

[LisaB]

And, when you see someone not receiving, consider this before feeling sorry for them:

Sometimes I don’t receive because I’m getting sick or getting over a cold. Don’t want to get others sick.

Sometimes I don’t receive because I ate or drank something on the way to Mass.

If I see that the priest has a cold and I don’t want to risk getting sick, I won’t go up.

One of our priests told me that in the seminary they had a priest who without fail would touch everyone’s tongue when giving them communion, so many guys just never received from him.

If I’m traveling and go to Mass at a church where the liturgy is lacking reverence (my subjective perception) to the point that I’m distracted all Mass, I won’t go up.

So the point is, there could be lots of reasons someone may be obstaining that have nothing to do with mortal sin. No need to feel sorry for them.

 

[tafan2]

This, by the grace of the Sacrament, should compel a spouse to open up regarding their relationship with Jesus when the outward sign of refraining from Him is like the elephant in the room to the spouse

This is the problem. You admitted if you asked your wife and she refused to answer you don’t know how you would respond. Now you use words like “should compel” and “elephant in the room”.
You, who talk about having such an intimate Union and being one in the eys of God, yet you seem to feel an inherent distrust, such that everything has to be in the open, especially our sins.

The lack of trust, it seems to me, would almost always be on the person questioning, not tell person refraining from communion and not being able to talk about it. It may be asked in good faith, it still represents a lack of trust. Many of your own comments on this thread reenforce that in my mind.

It’s a simple concept, if you trust your spouse, you should be willing to let them decide if their sins need to be discussed between the two of you. If you don’t trust your spouse, asking them is not going to solve any problem, neither your lack of trust, nor their sinfulness.

 

[rondirect]

It’s a simple concept, if you trust your spouse, you should be willing to let them decide if their sins need to be discussed between the two of you. If you don’t trust your spouse, asking them is not going to solve any problem, neither your lack of trust, nor their sinfulness.

Not simple as you assume it to be. My wife is my soul mate. If either of us decide not to receive communion, we will undoubtedly ask why, in hopes to be helpful through dialogue. I trust her and asking her why WILL help solve the problem. That’s the simple concept. She nor I would never consider not asking for the sake of being helpful in whatever the case would be. Your responses are so foreign to me. It equates to her going to the doctor and receiving some bad news. She could choose not to tell me what the issue is, but she would not and visa versa. We are always there for each other no matter what.

 

[rcwitness]

Sometimes I don’t receive because I’m getting sick or getting over a cold. Don’t want to get others sick.

Then I am sorry you have a cold, and also that you feel you should refrain from Eucharist because of that. I don’t think the Church has Taught we should not receive the Body because we have a cold. This is your personal choice. It’s fine to refrain from the Cup, and still receive His Body. If you are well enough to sit next to people, it is fine to take the Bread.

Sometimes I don’t receive because I ate or drank something on the way to Mass.

I agree this is not a mortal sin. And im sorry if this is a problem of yours. Venial sins are forgiven in your participation of Mass, however. It’s not Church Teaching to refrain because of this, is it?

If I see that the priest has a cold and I don’t want to risk getting sick, I won’t go up.

I’m sorry that you have this
Anxiety over a possible cold. You must hate going into public places!

One of our priests told me that in the seminary they had a priest who without fail would touch everyone’s tongue when giving them communion, so many guys just never received from him.

Guess What? You can receive by hand! I prefer it.

If I’m traveling and go to Mass at a church where the liturgy is lacking reverence (my subjective perception) to the point that I’m distracted all Mass, I won’t go up.

Then I’m sorry again, for your anxiety and issues with perfection of all things for you to receive. This is also not something the Church Teaches as a reason why we shouldn’t receive. .

So the point is, there could be lots of reasons someone may be obstaining that have nothing to do with mortal sin. No need to feel sorry for them.

These would be your decisions, based on your personal preferences, and very little to do with the doctrine of His Eucharist. So yes, I am sorry you have these anxieties keeping you from freely receiving.

 

[LisaB]

Nope, these are not anxieties, I was just making a point that there are many reasons people may choose not to receive, and it’s no big deal. To address one of your comments. One must fast from all food and liquids with the exception of water and medicine for one hour before communion. Failing to do so and knowingly receiving anyway is a mortal sin. Yes, this is a teaching of the Church.