• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would you take Eucharist from a priest who had sinned?

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I have already answered that question several times. fini

Yes. What did you mean behind " Now do you understand that civil and Church law, and also Jewish law, are not exactly the same, so the rules may differ at times?"

I do understand it. Why the question?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Since civil law and church law are not always aligned, I can't say there aren't any conflicts with each other's definition of morals.
Morals aren't a matter of law.

Regardless, in an ideal world (if you like), I would assume a catholic would only go to his or her church to find spiritual and ethical discernment of who is guilty and who is not in regards to who that catholic wants to take communion from.
Why would you assume that?

If I were catholic, and the priest committed say murder, I shouldn't have to "wait until he serves his conviction" before I take communion. The only way I would take communion is 1. he confessed to his god and 2 the church says he can continue his priest role there is no 3. he must have served his time.
I don't think it's even a matter of "serving his time." IMO, any person who has ever assaulted a child should never again be placed in any role that involves having responsibility for or supervision of children, including the role of parish priest.

Any church that continues to employ such a person is a church that is failing to respect or have proper regard for the safety of its parishoners. It isn't a matter of guilt as much as risk.

Would you attend a church where the roof of the Sunday school was in danger of collapsing? I wouldn't; and it wouldn't matter how sincerely contrite the contractor who messed up the roof was. Until the roof is repaired, I wouldn't set foot in that building... and I'd also wonder what other safety issues were there.

That's all I'm saying. There no three. But people feel hurt and betrayed and angered that they don't take communion from the very person who forgave them of a sin probably worse than the priest himself.
Wait - the people who boycott a predator are worse than the predator? That's a twisted view, IMO.

Aka. Civil law has become between them and god
It's not even a matter of civil law. Forgiveness deals with past actions; trust deals with future actions. They're separate matters.

I understand. My question was around the morality of whether a catholic should receive communion from a priest guilty by law but not the church (spiritually -not- talking about politics)
And my response is that it would be reasonable for them to have a moral problem with taking communion from a priest that had committed a crime if they felt the crime was serious enough.

I'm talking about catholics in the church in regards to taking communion. Why would a catholic withhold his trust in the priest (receiving communion) when the crime against the law is not the same as crime against the church.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at with the second part of your sentence, so I'll chop it off halfway at what I think is the most relevant portion: "why would a Catholic withhold his trust in a priest?" Lits of reasons.

The priest has already asked the church and god forgiveness for his crimes. Why does the catholic hold the priest guilty by not taking communion from him?
My ex would travel across the city, passing many other Catholic churches along the way, to go to one particular church because she liked its gothic architecture. Why wouldn't it be just as valid to go to another church to avoid pedophiles as it would be to avoid mid-century modern architecture?

(Now, as it happens, the church with the fancy architecture proved to have housed at least two pedophiles, but we didn't know this at the time)

Church and government law are two different things. I'm asking how government law has any say in church law regarding receiving and giving sacraments.
Then ask yourself that. I haven't said anything about government law. I've been focusing on personal conscience.

It's centered around forgiveness. When the catholic feels they can't trust their priest, they (as I mentioned) feel that not only does the priest need to ask forgiveness from church and god, they also need to do so by serving their crime to societal law.
As I said, forgiveness is about past behaviour. Trust is about future behaviour. Separate concepts.

In other words, not only the church needs to forgive them, but society. Once they both forgive, THEN the catholic will trust and take communion.
I'm not saying that at all. I think it would be reasonable to remove any parish priest who has victimized parishoners, regardless of if he confesses. I also think it's reasonable to avoid - forever, possibly - that priest if he continues in his role, even if he serves a criminal sentence for his crime.

In catholic teachings, does one need to wait for the priest to ask forgiveness (regain trust) of society in order for the priest's sacraments to be received?
AFAIK, there's no Catholic teaching that directs a Catholic to receive a sacrament from a particular priest, or that forbids a Catholic from avoiding getting sacraments from a particular priest (unless avoiding that priest would mean abstaining from the sacraments altogether).

Cause other than that, it sounds like "I won't trust you until you get what you deserve" I won't receive communion from you until you "legally" get what you deserve. (That and each country is different in its legal matters to throw that in)
Please don't put words in my mouth.

This is nothing to do with my question.
You asked for an example of a priest sexually assaulting a kid as if you weren't familiar with any cases.

On a side note, I don't look into priest pedophile issues.
Maybe you should.

1. There are millions of priests in the world that have no committed crimes. I can't hold them all responsible because they all follow the same denomination. That's like firing all the employees as if they All were part of its companies crime.
The issue with the institution of the Church is with its institutional response to the abuse. Predators and bad actors can be anywhere, but institutions decide how they're going to respond.

The classic case for how to respond to a crisis is the 1982 Tylenol recall: Johnson & Johnson became aware that somebody had poisined an unknown number of Tylenol bottles with cyanide. It caused 7 deaths, but because Johnson & Johnson were open and forthright from the outset and took immediate steps to address the problem, the company were hailed as heroes.

Untitled Document

OTOH, if Johnson & Johnson had taken tge Catholic Church's approach - hide the issue and not take proper action - then the company would share the blame for all the deaths beyond that initial 7 and it would be entirely correct to fire every employee who had a part in the decision to do a cover-up.

2. Pedophilia is attraction to children. (John is attracted to Jane does not mean John has sex with Jane)
Child abuse is an action that has nothing to do with who the prey is attracted to.
I'm talking about actual predators, regardless of attraction.

Side note (insight only). A gay person is attracted to someone of the same gender. He could be in straight relationships all his life, but he will always be gay. His attraction and his actions are not related (many christians see it that way. Medically. It's not a fact) https://www.cbc.ca/firsthand/features/four-misconceptions-about-pedophiles

It's a sad connection. I read up on different police point of views that mentioned that many people who commit child abuse do so for many other reasons and attraction if there was one doesn't fit in.
Not the right time to bring this up.

Regardless.

If a catholic trusted their priests, they would ideally receive communion from that priest knowing, because he is at Mass, he did his job, asked god and church forgiveness, and resumed his position as a priest.
Based on the recent history of the Catholic Church, that belief would be on some unjustified assumptions.

There is no "or" in this. No "other" to the multiple question. (Always been a pet peeve. That's why I hate polls)

The question is the same regardless the church that catholic goes to.
Of course there's an "or." Your annoyance at the existence of options that you decided not to consider is really your problem alone.

Be that as it may, my question wasn't about how "we" feel about the issue. It's not a personal question.

I just wanted to know why a catholic, being a catholic, would not take communion from a priest who has already asked his god and church forgiveness. Why does that priest need to "serve his civil duty" first before the catholic wants sacrament from him?

That's like saying "sorry, god. I don't trust you until your representative goes to jail first."

It's a moral question regarding Catholicism, catholic practice, and the spiritual church.
I still don't see why you're bringing criminal law into this.

Forgiveness for past wrongs and trust that there won't be future wrongs are completely separate matters.

My opinions on both arguments about this pedophilia crap would make me too upset to talk about.
Seeing how ~7% of priests are implicated in the scandal, it affects the majority if churches and almost every diocese. These days, it's one of the most common reasins for why a Catholic would feel uncomfortable talking communion from a particular priest.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
A church elder caught in a "big" sin should stop down from pastoring. Yes?

No. That's like a church member who committed a big sin shouldn't go to church. That's actually the time that pastor needs his congregation the most-when he does sin.

Anyone saying he shouldn't be there after he sinned, is basically thinking the pastor should be perfect. His role is different; and, he's still a christian.

Technicality sake, if it were a sin that put people in danger and/or have brings an issue between church members (sleeping with members, stealing from the church), I can see it. But any big sin?

On what grounds should a big sin give justification a pastor needs to leave his own church?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hm.
Morals aren't a matter of law.

Yes. I'm not speaking from my point of view but from a catholic's view in regards to discernment of whether he or she should take communion from any priest regardless his sin.

From a catholic point of view, they are one and the same.

Why would you assume that?

In an ideal world, I would assume a catholic would follow his faith in that all priests sin and the sacrament of the Eucharist isn't invalidated if that repented priest continued to give mass thereafter.


I don't think it's even a matter of "serving his time." IMO, any person who has ever assaulted a child should never again be placed in any role that involves having responsibility for or supervision of children, including the role of parish priest.

I understand that. I'm talking about the church not the law. I wouldn't want "that person" around my child if I knew he didn't make amends. He's a person too. The thing is, I wouldn't know him, so safety would be over my ethics in this matter. What I disagree with in the priest-issue is that people won't let their children go to priests in general because of a handful of silly ones and the church's cover up.

It's almost as if parish priests have some sort of influence in how the church deals with child abusers. (not pedophiles)

Any church that continues to employ such a person is a church that is failing to respect or have proper regard for the safety of its parishoners. It isn't a matter of guilt as much as risk.

Would you attend a church where the roof of the Sunday school was in danger of collapsing? I wouldn't; and it wouldn't matter how sincerely contrite the contractor who messed up the roof was. Until the roof is repaired, I wouldn't set foot in that building... and I'd also wonder what other safety issues were there.

If I knew that priest (or whomever) was at danger to others, sure. I wouldn't go. The stigma that once a criminal always a criminal has always bothered me.

Wait - the people who boycott a predator are worse than the predator? That's a twisted view, IMO.

I don't see the connection.

I know catholics would be betrayed. That doesn't exclude the nature of communion. Theoretically, the priest would have ideally repented to church and to the congregation. Ideally, he would have been convicted and served his sentence.

Unfortunately, regardless if he jumped hoops, not many would forgive him yet they want the priest to forgive them of their sins-as if one sin is greater than another (from a catholic point of view)

It's not even a matter of civil law. Forgiveness deals with past actions; trust deals with future actions. They're separate matters.

Yes. Once they change their actions, they are no longer predators, right?

And my response is that it would be reasonable for them to have a moral problem with taking communion from a priest that had committed a crime if they felt the crime was serious enough.

I can see why they'd feel betrayed or have a moral problem with it. Their feelings isn't what I'm getting at. I was wondering about church teachings on the matter and how a catholic would choose not to take communion (based on church teachings) regardless of his feelings on the matter.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get at with the second part of your sentence, so I'll chop it off halfway at what I think is the most relevant portion: "why would a Catholic withhold his trust in a priest?" Lits of reasons.

Oh.

Why would a catholic withhold his trust in the priest (receiving communion) when the crime against the law is not the same as crime against the church.

I was saying, why would a catholic not trust a priest giving communion when the crime that priest committed is not a crime against the church?

My ex would travel across the city, passing many other Catholic churches along the way, to go to one particular church because she liked its gothic architecture. Why wouldn't it be just as valid to go to another church to avoid pedophiles as it would be to avoid mid-century modern architecture?

Child abusers not pedophiles.

If he or she felt that the priest and child abuser was still abusing children and felt he couldn't repent for it, then yeah, that's her right.

I'm not talking about how catholics feel.


(Now, as it happens, the church with the fancy architecture proved to have housed at least two pedophiles, but we didn't know this at the time)

Tell me, why does the church get so special attention? There are thousands of child abusers in the world. It's fine not to have one's child around a convicted child abuser. Unfortunately, the stigma makes him "once a abuser, always an abuser." Of course, better safe than sorry. Though, I'm not talking about legal issues and how one feels. I have strong opinions one way or another but like some topics, I don't like discussing online.

Then ask yourself that. I haven't said anything about government law. I've been focusing on personal conscience.

I'm focusing on church law rather than a person's personal conscious. Of course, catholics can do whatever feels right to them.

I'm just wondering in church laws, would it be right for a catholic to withold taking communion from a priest because that priest committed a sin that catholic disliked?

If the priest forgives the catholic, why can't the catholic forgive the priest? (by church views)

I mean, i know in personal conscious, people wouldn't want to trust the priest anymore. I honestly disagree with the theology in that (the feelings are justified, just the religious ethics don't seem so-that's what I'm talking about)

As I said, forgiveness is about past behaviour. Trust is about future behaviour. Separate concepts.

But priests aren't going to continue with child abuse just because he did it once. Just we don't know him and we judge people we don't know.

Why would a person not let their child go to a priest when not all priests are child abusers?

I can see why you wouldn't the actual abuser, but that's like accusing innocent employees for the boss covering up their co-workers crime.

Then, if that co-worker wants to run his own business, no one would buy from him because of his ex-coworkers mistake and the boss involvement.

I'm not saying that at all. I think it would be reasonable to remove any parish priest who has victimized parishoners, regardless of if he confesses. I also think it's reasonable to avoid - forever, possibly - that priest if he continues in his role, even if he serves a criminal sentence for his crime.

Legally, yeah. I can see it. Religiously, no. I disagree. That's what I'm saying.

AFAIK, there's no Catholic teaching that directs a Catholic to receive a sacrament from a particular priest, or that forbids a Catholic from avoiding getting sacraments from a particular priest (unless avoiding that priest would mean abstaining from the sacraments altogether).

Thank you!

I know that catholics have personal conflicts and want their children to be safe. Religiously speaking, I would hope that doesn't prevent their religious roles of taking communion regardless the priest's sins.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. They're mine. "It sounds like" is making an assumption based on what you said.

You asked for an example of a priest sexually assaulting a kid as if you weren't familiar with any cases.

I'll have to look back.

Maybe you should.

Why? Priests are human too. I don't look at every other child abuser's crime on the news regardless of who he is and who he works for. I'd get sick over it.

I'm not addicted to accusing the catholic church. (generalized statement)

The issue with the institution of the Church is with its institutional response to the abuse. Predators and bad actors can be anywhere, but institutions decide how they're going to respond.

I know you have strong opinions about it. I see child abusers as humans just as anyone else. That's my abstract ethics. If my life is in danger, I'd have to break my ethics and save my life. I disagree with killing for any means. If I had to to save my life, that wouldn't change my morals about it. It just means I had to do what I had to do. (Example)

The classic case for how to respond to a crisis is the 1982 Tylenol recall: Johnson & Johnson became aware that somebody had poisoned an unknown number of Tylenol bottles with cyanide. It caused 7 deaths, but because Johnson & Johnson were open and forthright from the outset and took immediate steps to address the problem, the company were hailed as heroes.

Based on the recent history of the Catholic Church, that belief would be on some unjustified assumptions.

Of course there's an "or." Your annoyance at the existence of options that you decided not to consider is really your problem alone.

It's an justified annoyance. I don't like it. What more can I say.

I still don't see why you're bringing criminal law into this.

Forgiveness for past wrongs and trust that there won't be future wrongs are completely separate matters.

Religiously. If a priest asks for forgiveness for his past wrongs, religiously, why would a catholic restrain from receiving communion from him. I know there are personal issues but does that justify the religious morality that all priests sin and child abuse is no different in regards to that.

Seeing how ~7% of priests are implicated in the scandal, it affects the majority if churches and almost every diocese. These days, it's one of the most common reasins for why a Catholic would feel uncomfortable talking communion from a particular priest.

It's sad. The purpose of the church/christianity is to repent, live, and forgive others as christ did for them. Religiously speaking, it's a contradiction to leave the church (my words) etc which many do because they can't forgive the priest yet they want the priest (god) to forgive them.

Their feelings are justified. The logic (that's the right word Im looking for) sounds off.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No. That's like a church member who committed a big sin shouldn't go to church. That's actually the time that pastor needs his congregation the most-when he does sin.

Anyone saying he shouldn't be there after he sinned, is basically thinking the pastor should be perfect. His role is different; and, he's still a christian.

Technicality sake, if it were a sin that put people in danger and/or have brings an issue between church members (sleeping with members, stealing from the church), I can see it. But any big sin?

On what grounds should a big sin give justification a pastor needs to leave his own church?

On biblical grounds, for example, an elder must have an obedient family, otherwise "how can he manage God's church?" or an elder "must not be given to drunkenness and violence". Are you familiar with the elder qualifications lists in the Timothys and Titus?

Someone may be appointed a pastor, step down for a time to resolve some issues, and then be restored.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Yes. Once they change their actions, they are no longer predators, right?
But have they changed their actions? There's more to rebuilding trust than forgiving past wrongs.

For instance, I would never hire a financial advisor who had ever embezzled clients' money. Even if I forgave them, there are any number of advisors out there who haven't embezzled; even if I thought a former embezzler was reformed, why would I pick him over someone who had never embezzled at all?

The same principle applies with priests: if someone is in a large metropolitan area with many Catholic churches, why would you seek out the church with the known child rapist, whether he's reformed or not?

And if you did decide to go to that church, most churches have several priests and usually a few lay eucharistic ministers. When there are 2 or 3 lines at the front of the church, why would you choose to line up to get your host from the rapist?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If I knew that priest (or whomever) was at danger to others, sure. I wouldn't go. The stigma that once a criminal always a criminal has always bothered me.
If the parish or diocese sheltered the priest from justice or kept the danger to the parishoners secret, then the stigma should be with the parish or diocese until such time as they demonstrate that they've taken steps to make sure that similar things don't happen again, like institute effective anti-abuse policies, dismiss bishops that coordinated the secrecy, and hand perpetrators and all evidence in their posession over to the police.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Hm.
But have they changed their actions? There's more to rebuilding trust than forgiving past wrongs.

Anyone can change their actions.

For instance, I would never hire a financial advisor who had ever embezzled clients' money. Even if I forgave them, there are any number of advisors out there who haven't embezzled; even if I thought a former embezzler was reformed, why would I pick him over someone who had never embezzled at all?

Yes. Why, though, shun (why as a group) shun the rest of the advisors who have not embezzled clients' money?

Forgiving him, of course, doesn't mean you improve of his actions and want him to be part of your company. In the church situation, catholics and people in general don't want to take communion from any priests not just the guilty ones. What's the justification of not taking communion with priests in general (and everyone blaming all priests) because their church hides the ones who are guilty?

It's alright to dislike your boss for firing your co-worker for embezzlement. The action is wrong and the dislike is justified.

Then you have people who don't want to associate with any of the co-workers as if they represent their boss's actions. It's one thing not to do business with the company, it's another to treat the employees bad because you dislike their company's issues.

The same principle applies with priests: if someone is in a large metropolitan area with many Catholic churches, why would you seek out the church with the known child rapist, whether he's reformed or not?

It make sense not to take communion from that particular priest. If it were my faith, I would take communion because that is what the whole christian belief is about. This is just communion, though. It doesn't put the catholic and his children's life in danger. I mean, I can see why he would feel uncomfortable if his children when to confession with That particular priest. Even though criminals don't always need to be evil just because of one action. People can change.

But communion? Unless the priest put poison in the wine, I don't see how that relates other than it hurts the catholic's feelings. As a catholic, the feelings would be second and their love for christ would be first.

And if you did decide to go to that church, most churches have several priests and usually a few lay eucharistic ministers. When there are 2 or 3 lines at the front of the church, why would you choose to line up to get your host from the rapist?

Cause in Christianity, forgiveness for other people's actions is a must. It shows that despite his actions you still say "you are human and you're a child of christ. God forgives you."

I would take communion from a rapist. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking my child to confession with that particular priest. Although I shouldn't be uncomfortable with either, your point makes sense if it's applied to confession but the Eucharist?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If the parish or diocese sheltered the priest from justice or kept the danger to the parishoners secret, then the stigma should be with the parish or diocese until such time as they demonstrate that they've taken steps to make sure that similar things don't happen again, like institute effective anti-abuse policies, dismiss bishops that coordinated the secrecy, and hand perpetrators and all evidence in their posession over to the police.

The thing is, that's good in theory. In the church, I would assume the catholic would take communion regardless of what they do or do not know. Their feelings and distrust are second to their duty to the Eucharist/to Christ.

How does taking communion from a priest/rapist bad?

How does rape relate to giving communion?

I know you mentioned personal conscious; I agree that people would feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, unlike a company, christ is more important to a catholic than his own life. Taking communion from a criminal (ideally) shouldn't invalidate the nature of communion. If he can put his feelings aside "for communion" I don't see anything wrong with that.

If that same priest was giving confessions, THEN, yes, I see your point. I would feel uncomfortable; and, if there were no other priests, my duty as a catholic would let him hear my confession. I'm an adult, though. But with confession, I get.

But communion?
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Would you as a catholic take communion from a priest who committed a mortal sin?
The validity of a sacrament has nothing to do with the moral status of the priest who effects it. And for good reason. For if one's access to valid sacraments were dependant on the moral state of any given priest then one's own salvation could be jeopardised by no fault of one's own. Sacraments work ex opere operato.

So, like my last confession, I can rest assured my last communion was valid even if the priest is in his private life an unrepentant scoundrel.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The validity of a sacrament has nothing to do with the moral status of the priest who effects it. And for good reason. For if one's access to valid sacraments were dependant on the moral state of any given priest then one's own salvation could be jeopardised by no fault of one's own. Sacraments work ex opere operato.

So, like my last confession, I can rest assured my last communion was valid even if the priest is in his private life an unrepentant scoundrel.

True. I think the only way I wouldn't take communion is if the priest poisoned the wine. However, his "off duty" sins shouldn't invalidate the nature of the sacrament. Other than feeling upset, why would a catholic decide not to take communion from a priest because of his sin even though the bread is not affected by his sin but the nature of the consecration?
 
Top