I have been barred from Communion

[Bert]

I have an aunt who was told by a priest that she was unable to receive communion b/c she got divorced.

 

The Catholic Church is beyond ridiculous at this point. I am not surprised by anything that comes out like this.

 

If she is divorced but did not remarry, that priest is in error.

[Bert]

Wow talk about timing. I am a member of 7 hills church right off of Turfway and our Easter service was about communion. Main message was that if Jesus himself sat with sinners and claimed in the bible that he was here to save the sinners, why would he exclude them. The way I see it if Jesus can sit with the sinners and share a meal with sinners or the "unworthy" so can I. The church has no right to say you can't sit at God's table when Jesus purpose on earth was to bring people to God.

 

True, Jesus did sit and eat with the sinners at His time. The thing that is always overlooked is that it is understood that those sinners were reconciled to Jesus and were commited to doing their best as humanly possible to turn away from their sinful ways and to follow Christ. If anyone had refused to repent of their past and had every intention of continuing their prior ways, my guess is He would have gently informed them that by THEIR choice (not His) they are not part of His flock but are always welcome back should they change their mind. The church is similar. ALL are welcome to attend church in the hopes that they will be reconciled but until they are reconciled, they cannot fully participate in the flock.

 

A friend of mine once told me that the church has never once excommunicated someone. I gave him a confused look. He then replied that the church has only informed people that they have excommunicated themselves. That made sense to me.

[Clyde]

I forgot asking Clyde questions, or for his opinions, was strictly forbidden on here. :banghead:

 

You need to pay attention. You must be the only person in this forum that doesn't know that I am the most open when it comes to being a faithful Catholic who struggles with the Church. If there is ANYONE who is not in lockstep with the Church, it's me.

 

Read any thread on abortion or the Church and you'll see that.

 

Come on, man.

[Qwerty1278]

True, Jesus did sit and eat with the sinners at His time. The thing that is always overlooked is that it is understood that those sinners were reconciled to Jesus and were commited to doing their best as humanly possible to turn away from their sinful ways and to follow Christ. If anyone had refused to repent of their past and had every intention of continuing their prior ways, my guess is He would have gently informed them that by THEIR choice (not His) they are not part of His flock but are always welcome back should they change their mind. The church is similar. ALL are welcome to attend church in the hopes that they will be reconciled but until they are reconciled, they cannot fully participate in the flock.

 

A friend of mine once told me that the church has never once excommunicated someone. I gave him a confused look. He then replied that the church has only informed people that they have excommunicated themselves. That made sense to me.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Jesus preformed many miracles for people who never deserved it. At the passover dinner, Jesus sat with Judas. A man who he knew was going to betray him and never once did he tell him to get up and leave. He sat with Peter who he knew was going to deny him 3 times, and never told him to leave. While on the cross, dying Jesus begged for forgiveness of those killing him because they knew not what they were doing. It seems to me that today a lot of churches are changing things from the way they were meant. Communion was meant to celebrate what Jesus gave up for all of humanity, so we could all be forgiven of our sins. It was not to be used as a power play by the church to allow non-members to have. When people made mistakes or sinned, Jesus embraced them and showed them ways to get better. He did not turn his back and exclude.

 

Another reason why this doesn't make sense that OP was barred from communion. If I read correctly he really is indifferent to the whole gay marriage thing and because of that he is not allowed to take communion. What of the story Jesus had when the Pharisee wanted Jesus to cast the first stone on the prostitute. He who is without sin can cast the first stone. I know I'm not without sin so I'm not passing judgement on anyone. That's not my job while I'm here on earth. My job is to do what I can to get people to find their path, or their calling not try and turn them from God. It's God who will be the judge and I will do my best to help people see that while I may not agree with what they are doing I will not judge them or condemn them but rather pray to help God have them find their way.

[mexitucky]

Call your bishop, vicar general or your judicial vicar. While the church does not agree with your view, I don't believe such a view would bar one from communion.

 

Look at the first page of the thread. I have linked a blog that has the Canons listed relating to supporting same sex marriage civilly.

[ThrillVille Cardinal51]

Honest question: Are these folks only divorced (legally have ended their marriage), are they divorced and dating/remarried, and did they go through the annulment process (having the marriage declared non-sacramental and null by the Catholic marriage tribunal)?

 

True story. I know a guy whose annulment process was a breeze because the priest that was responsible for "overseeing" the process was the uncle of the guys ex wife. Thank goodness, because it allowed the guy to marry the best woman on the planet, and for me to be baptized Catholic.

[ThrillVille Cardinal51]

But in any case, Mexi, I think that's a seriously terrible situation. I think the same way you do(or close enough) on the subject. I hate that I feel like I need to keep my mouth shut now though.

[ThrillVille Cardinal51]

How does one go about being able to receive communion again? go to confession?

[mexitucky]

In case you missed it on pg. 1, here are the Canon's regarding this issue. To answer Thrillville, I have no idea how you go about being ok again. I assume that confession would be step 1.

 

No matter which way the US Supreme Court rules in the “gay marriage” cases before it the international debate over the definition of marriage will continue because that debate is, at root, about matters beyond a civil court’s competence, things like the nature of human beings and the fundamental good of society. Because we Catholics are and will surely remain major participants in such a debate we should be clear among ourselves as to what our Church teaches in this area. I offer as a primer (I stress, primer) toward such better understanding my position on following points.

 

1. The Catholic Church teaches, through its ordinary magisterium and with infallible certainty, that marriage exists only between one man and one woman. CDF, “Considerations” (2003) passim; CCC 1601-1608; CCEO (1990) 776; 1983 CIC 1055 § 1; Rite of Marriage (1969) n. 2; Vatican II, Gaudium et spes (1965) 48; Pius XI, Casti connubii (1930) 6, 20, 23; Leo XIII, Arcanum (1880) 5, 24; Matthew XIX: 4-6; and Genesis II: 21-24. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical authority ever supporting any other definition of marriage.

 

1. Note. It is possible that this teaching is proposed as an object of belief (credenda, per Canon 750 § 1, doubt or denial of which assertion would be heresy under Canon 751 and thus sanctionable under Canon 1364 § 1); at a minimum, however, the Church proposes the man-woman assertion as necessarily to be held (tenenda) in order “to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith” (Canon 750 § 2), rendering those who “obstinately reject” the assertion liable to “a just penalty” if, having been duly admonished, they refuse to retract (Canon 1371, 2º).

 

2. The Catholic Church has the right and duty “always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.” 1983 CIC 747 § 2; CCC 2246.

 

3. Catholics who promote “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1369 for gravely injuring good morals.

3. Note. The situation of Catholic politicians lending support to “same-sex marriage” is to be assessed as above, with special attention being paid to the heightened responsibility that civil servants have to protect the common good. CDF, “Considerations” (2003) 10; CCC 2235-2237, 2244; 1983 CIC 1326 § 1, 2.

 

4. The Catholic Church would regard any attempt by persons of the same sex to marry, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, as null. CCC 1603; 1983 CIC 1055 § 1.

 

5. Catholics who attempt a “same-sex marriage” act contrary to Canon 209 § 1 and should not approach for holy Communion per Canon 916. Depending on the facts of the case, they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them under Canon 915, being rebuked under Canon 1339 § 2, and/or being sanctioned under Canon 1379 for simulation of a sacrament. Morevoer, Catholics who assist others toward attempting a “same-sex marriage” cooperate in the bad act of those others, which cooperation is liable to moral assessment in accord with the usual principles applicable to cooperation with evil and, under certain facts, according to the canonical principles applying to cooperation in crime per Canon 1329 and/or scandal per Canon 1339 § 2, etc.

 

5. Note. Catholics who have attempted a “same-sex marriage” or who have assisted another toward a “same-sex marriage” can be reconciled morally under the usual conditions by sacramental Confession (Canon 959) or by a ‘perfect act of contrition’ per CCC 1452; they can be reconciled canonically, if necessary, in accord with applicable law.

[Lawnboy13]

I agree and I actually think it's the most compelling conservative argument coming from any direction: that DOMA is a massive Congressional overreach over an area that the Constitution grants the federal government no power over.

 

But hey, put me in the camp that believes Catholicism will always eventually butt heads with practical governance in a democratic republic like the USA. Not sure where that leaves all of us, but nobody said finding a way to live a life in imitation of Christ was going to be easy.

 

Just one of many "overreaches" our lawmakers delve into.

[Lawnboy13]

As a practicing Roman Catholic I do not agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches but, I will always do my best to adhere to those teachings. However, if I am to fail in any way I pray that the Good Lord forgives me.

[Bert]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. Jesus preformed many miracles for people who never deserved it.

 

I would believe the performance of miracles was a way to reach out to the masses. If the person who benefitted from the miracle did not follow Jesus afterwards, not much else can be done.

 

At the passover dinner, Jesus sat with Judas. A man who he knew was going to betray him and never once did he tell him to get up and leave.

 

Again, the church is not forcing people from the pews, they are still welcome to attend. All that is being stated is that if you want to participate in communion, you need to be in communion with the church as a whole.

 

He sat with Peter who he knew was going to deny him 3 times, and never told him to leave. While on the cross, dying Jesus begged for forgiveness of those killing him because they knew not what they were doing.

 

The church, like Jesus knew people would stumble, that is just part of being human. It is when someone is actively and continuously promoting a position that the church contrary to a major teaching of the church, then the church says that the person should excuse themselves from communion.

 

It seems to me that today a lot of churches are changing things from the way they were meant. Communion was meant to celebrate what Jesus gave up for all of humanity, so we could all be forgiven of our sins. It was not to be used as a power play by the church to allow non-members to have. When people made mistakes or sinned, Jesus embraced them and showed them ways to get better. He did not turn his back and exclude.

 

I don't see it as a power play. The idea of communion is that a group comes together in the form of communion of beliefs and expresses this through the Eucharist. If someone actively has removed themselves from this communion of beliefs, the should probably refrain from the Eucharist. I am wondering if the OP has removed himself to the degree to justify refraining from the Eurcharist.

[mexitucky]

I would believe the performance of miracles was a way to reach out to the masses. If the person who benefitted from the miracle did not follow Jesus afterwards, not much else can be done.

 

 

 

Again, the church is not forcing people from the pews, they are still welcome to attend. All that is being stated is that if you want to participate in communion, you need to be in communion with the church as a whole.

 

 

 

The church, like Jesus knew people would stumble, that is just part of being human. It is when someone is actively and continuously promoting a position that the church contrary to a major teaching of the church, then the church says that the person should excuse themselves from communion.

 

 

 

I don't see it as a power play. The idea of communion is that a group comes together in the form of communion of beliefs and expresses this through the Eucharist. If someone actively has removed themselves from this communion of beliefs, the should probably refrain from the Eucharist. I am wondering if the OP has removed himself to the degree to justify refraining from the Eurcharist.

 

I guess the issue is, what is the purpose of the Eucharist? Is it a symbol, like you state in the bolded, of a communities shared beliefs, or is it literally the body of Christ, and those who truly believe in Christ partake to be granted eternal life? If it is merely a symbol, then I understand why I can be banned merely for saying that DOMA was Unconsitutional. If it is to partake in the body of Christ, and is an expression of my belief in him as the Son of God, then I don't see how my position has impacted that faith system at all.

[BlueFan]

Have you received some physical proof you can share to support you are being denied communion or is it just your understanding based upon the Canon Law you have been reading that you should not approach?

[mexitucky]

Have you received some physical proof you can share to support you are being denied communion or is it just your understanding based upon the Canon Law you have been reading that you should not approach?

 

My friend, a priest in Indy informed me of that during a debate.