Rules Governing Administering The Sacraments

[Napoleon]

I recently read an article regarding a decree from the Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield Illinois baring priests from administering the sacraments - including the eucharist in the form of Viaticum - to unrepentant married LGBT individuals. I am a non-religious LGBT person - though I have attended mass on rare occasions as I find it an environment conducive for reflection. I have no formal education in Catholic theology, but I have studied it privately and I understand this decree to be consistent with canon law (915 and 1007) - however I do not have an understanding of the basis on which the Church exercises the authority granted to Peter in such a way. Perhaps some practicing Catholics out there could help me with some questions I have regarding this.

I find it difficult to reconcile the words and actions of Jesus with canon law on this matter. Jesus invited Judas to participate in the last supper/first communion. According to the Gospel of John, he did so presumably in full knowledge of what Judas had done and administered the eucharist to Judas even though Judas did not actually confess to anything. Granted - whether Judas consumed it or not is not clear to me but it seems to have been his choice.

As I understand it, the authority to provide absolution was granted by Jesus to Peter, but the method the Church has chosen to discern how to properly exercise that authority seems to be based on what Paul - who presumably met Jesus only once as an apparition and was not explicitly granted that authority - said in his first letter to the Corinthians. Why is that? Why doesn’t mercy and compassion govern the administration of the sacraments - particularly as it relates to Viaticum - rather than a strict application of tradition as communicated by Paul? How does the Church reconcile the last supper and administering the eucharist to Judas with denial of the eucharist to unrepentant sinners?

 

[Angel]

You raise fair questions, Napoleon. I looked up the Canon Laws you reference, and I think this harsh and ostensibly unChristlike Church ruling is predicated on the concept of "those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin."

I'm only guessing here, but if the Church views homosexuality as "grave sin," the marriage makes it "manifest [part of the public record] grave sin," and the success of the marriage makes it "persevering" and since the attitude of the Church is widely publicized, it is considered "obstinate persevering."

In contrast to Judas, whose "grave sin" at the time of the Last Supper was not "manifest" and not a matter of "obstinate persevering."

I'm a non-practicing Catholic, what used to be called a "lapsed Catholic," but I still consider myself a Catholic, and certainly a Christian, and I regret the Church's involvement in the sexuality of its members, and have regretted it since I was thirteen.

 

[FastPace]

Interesting and good question, Napoleon. I also have to give you credit for looking up info yourself. I don't have the desire to read anything on canon law pertaining to this.

I don't consider myself Catholic and have looked to convert to Orthodoxy. Within the Oriental communion. But every time I've tried connecting with a small church here in the Oriental communion I can never reach anyone. And due to a few other coming changes in my life I may have to look towards Eastern Orthodoxy. But I kind of want a small branch.

Anyways... I have not been to confession in a long time. If I were to attend a Catholic Mass tomorrow I would not go up to receive the Eucharistic sacrament. I have too many mortal sins. I think differently than most lay Catholics. They are neo-Protestants that are certain they are saved and Jesus is like hippie-cool with them. Me? I live in great fear of the judgment of my God for deep down I know I sin and have and do willfully so. Like other Catholics I play around like it's a game.

But I (not Tom, Dick, Harry, or Sally. Me) worry about taking the Eucharist in what the Catholic Church regards as in a state of mortal sin. Why? I don't care if the Pope himself told me to come take the Eucharist, I won't, not until I'm confessed and absolved. Because I fear incurring greater damnation on myself.

I am not exaggerating when I say that most the time as an adult I spent as a Catholic going to Mass I rarely went up to take communion. I was on my knees in the pews. Eventually I would go to confession and for a short period I could take communion. But eventually I was back in mortal sin again. And a lot of my mortal sins were sexual. Eh, I probably committed mortal sins I did not know were mortal sins.

Some priests weren't too happy with me after confession. My confessions were hard. In my mind I'm perhaps the greatest sinner on earth. But thankfully and by the grace of God there are some wicked sins I have not committed, so, then I tell myself maybe I'm not the most sinful person. One thing is for sure: I'm about as far from a saint as I am from the moon.

So, I wonder, if a person is not worried about utterly and completely defying the Church and staying in a homosexual *relationship* then why are they concerned about taking the Eucharist? Certainly the Church must be lying about the Eucharist being the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus if it's *lying* about homosexual sex being immoral, no?

Some years ago a Catholic priest told me that the Church forbids them from giving holy communion or confession (I think he said confession too?) to heterosexuals living shacked up with the opposite sex. Because repentance and intent not to recommit the sin has to be present for the confession to work (to be forgiven). But apparently that never made mainstream American news.

In reality, I or any gay person can enter any Catholic parish church we are not known in and take the Eucharistic sacrament. The only way a priest is likely to deny a person is if they *know* the state of sinful life of that person for sure.






I have no idea if the Eucharist should be denied to me or not. I will keep it focused on me. I have greater confidence in the Orthodox and their teaching. So, I may learn from the Orthodox that even in whatever state of grand sinful life I am in I should still walk up to receive holy communion. Then I guess I would accept that. But as of now I'll follow the Catholic way just to stay on the safe side.

If it makes homosexual couples feel any better--and it probably won't--probably 95% of the Catholic lay population in the USA shouldn't be taking the Eucharist. But that's both a judgment and assumption on my part about other Catholics. Which is wrong of me really but I still have the judgement popping in my mind anyways.

Hey... the Early Church was way harder on baptized Christians than the Church today. Those people used to confess out loud in front of everyone. I think they used to stand in a circle and take turns confessing publicly their sins. The fasting and demands were greater. The Orthodox still have a more demanding Christian life than post-Vatican II Catholics.