Would you take Eucharist from a priest who had sinned?

[Unveiled Artist]

No. If a priest committed a moral sin and asked for forgiveness by church and god (confession) but was not (yet) convicted of his crime,

I'm confused. So you have a priest who committed a mortal sin who has confessed to his church and been forgiven... yet for some reason he has refused to confess to his crime in a court of law. If he hasn't been convicted in a court of law that suggests that he is fighting the charges, since if he'd confessed to the crime he'd be in jail awaiting his sentencing hearing.

Theoretically speaking. For example, say the priest did kill someone from self-defense (I'll use that). He is convicted but his conviction to prison is dropped (though he still has charges?)

Say he paid his charges. Would it be right to receive communion from him only when he paid off his charges or would it be moral just the same if they receive communion after the church forgive him before society has (yet) to?

This isn't a real situation. It's theoretically rather than legally speaking.

Does a priest's debt to society by taking his conviction influence the nature of the church giving the priest forgiveness to give communion?

Hard to rephrase since it's not a legal question but a moral one between catholic and priest and church

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think that refusing to take communion from a predator has more to do with ethics than it does with the effect of the sacraments.

Eh. I would think the sacraments would come before one's ethics. (And why would they be different)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eh. I would think the sacraments would come before one's ethics. (And why would they be different)

If you go to the church across town instead of your regular church and give confession and take the Eucharist there, then the sacraments are attended to.

Unless we're talking about an isolated community with only one church - or a community where every church has predator priests - we're talking about ethics vs. convenience, not ethics vs. the fate of your immortal soul.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Theoretically speaking. For example, say the priest did kill someone from self-defense (I'll use that). He is convicted but his conviction to prison is dropped (though he still has charges?)

Say he paid his charges. Would it be right to receive communion from him only when he paid off his charges or would it be moral just the same if they receive communion after the church forgive him before society has (yet) to?

This isn't a real situation. It's theoretically rather than legally speaking.

Does a priest's debt to society by taking his conviction influence the nature of the church giving the priest forgiveness to give communion?

Hard to rephrase since it's not a legal question but a moral one between catholic and priest and church

But killing someone in self-defense isn't a crime so the courts never convict anyone of it. Nor is killing in self-defense a sin, so there would be nothing for the church to forgive.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you go to the church across town instead of your regular church and give confession and take the Eucharist there, then the sacraments are attended to.

Unless we're talking about an isolated community with only one church - or a community where every church has predator priests - we're talking about ethics vs. convenience, not ethics vs. the fate of your immortal soul.

Unfortunately, one priest predator or two or three to people equals all priests are the same or have intention to. It doesn't make sense but that's their line of reason.

I'm not following (which is always the case offline) your last part.

If I go to three churches and take the Eucharist, I would assume the priests (any priests) who gives communion have been forgiven of their mortal sins if so committed.

A lot of people do not think this way. They feel unless the priest has paid his debt and consequence to society, it theoretically invalidates the nature of giving communion therefore they will not take it. I'm saying that does not make sense. Regardless which parish you go to, I wouldn't question whether the priest is in mortal sin. If anything, he knows his duties to confess his sins before Mass. It's a leap of trust and faith to receive communion despite his sins.

I'm wondering if it's just personal preference that catholics don't want to go to a priest who committed a mortal sin?

Why does his mortal sin (say killing) invalidate the nature of communion if he did not pay his debt to society (conviction) for his son?

I don't know how fate and immortal soul is involved though. One's ethics should be in line with one's belief system.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfortunately, one priest predator or two or three to people equals all priests are the same or have intention to. It doesn't make sense but that's their line of reason.

I'm not following (which is always the case offline) your last part.

If I go to three churches and take the Eucharist, I would assume the priests (any priests) who gives communion have been forgiven of their mortal sins if so committed.

A lot of people do not think this way. They feel unless the priest has paid his debt and consequence to society, it theoretically invalidates the nature of giving communion therefore they will not take it. I'm saying that does not make sense. Regardless which parish you go to, I wouldn't question whether the priest is in mortal sin. If anything, he knows his duties to confess his sins before Mass. It's a leap of trust and faith to receive communion despite his sins.

I'm wondering if it's just personal preference that catholics don't want to go to a priest who committed a mortal sin?

Why does his mortal sin (say killing) invalidate the nature of communion if he did not pay his debt to society (conviction) for his son?

I don't know how fate and immortal soul is involved though. One's ethics should be in line with one's belief system.

I don't think you need to necessarily think that a priest's sacraments are invalid to think that he's a bad person who you don't want to associate with.

"I want to express my displeasure with the fact that this church has kept a predator on staff by boycotting this church" does not necessarily imply "I think the sacraments administered by this predator would be invalid."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think you need to necessarily think that a priest's sacraments are invalid to think that he's a bad person who you don't want to associate with.

"I want to express my displeasure with the fact that this church has kept a predator on staff by boycotting this church" does not necessarily imply "I think the sacraments administered by this predator would be invalid."

It's weird people would think otherwise: I express displeasure that the church kept a predator staff by boycotting this church; and, because of my displeasure, I will not take the eucharist from the predator. He has to ask forgiveness by the church and god. He Also have to spend time for his conviction before I receive any communion from him.

That's the line of reasoning I heard from some Catholics on another site. I disagree with the connection; but, that's how they expressed it

 

[1213]

Not that I know of. There are many who old priests accountable more depending on the nature of the sin, though. They take communion from sinners all the time, but the nature of the sin invalidates the decision with whom they take communion.

Does that make sense?

Sorry, I am not sure about that. However, I when Jesus said:

Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.” He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

I think there is no limits who can participate, at least not by Jesus words. But it would be good, if those who participate, understand it correctly.

 

[Kenny]

I'm talking on this other forum-like website. It's not really for discussion. It's interesting people's views on confession, priests, sin, and the church.

I was wondering.

Would you as a catholic take communion from a priest who committed a mortal sin?

The other site, catholics said they would need the priest to make a public confession after being convicted to pay his debts to society before they take communion.

If the priest repeatedly sinned, I can see why one wouldn't take communion.

If it were one grave sin, wouldn't confession and forgiveness from the Church be enough to take communion; or, does the catholic want him to be convicted and confess to society first?

Is the forgiveness of a grave sin only forgiven (thus free to give communion) when the Church and other priest forgive the guilty or does the sacrament of giving communion also depend on the conviction and response of society and his sin?

For a protestant, we all have sinned including priests. We also believe that we can take communion at home if we want to like the first communion that was enacted by Moses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's weird people would think otherwise: I express displeasure that the church kept a predator staff by boycotting this church; and, because of my displeasure, I will not take the eucharist from the predator. He has to ask forgiveness by the church and god. He Also have to spend time for his conviction before I receive any communion from him.

That's the line of reasoning I heard from some Catholics on another site. I disagree with the connection; but, that's how they expressed it

Why do you disagree?

I think it's entirely reasonable to say that a priest who has sexually assaulted a child should never work as a parish priest ever again, and to avoid any parish that keeps a predator employed.

 

[metis]

In any case, is there ever a requirement for the public confession of sins?

In the very early Church, public confession to the congregation was the norm. However, that was dropped because it led to other problems.

On top of that, a person only had that sacrament once in their lives, but that policy ignored the fact that we still are going to commit sins at times even after joining the Church. Thus the Church made the decision to allow for confession anytime a person felt they needed it and/or if they committed any serious sin.

So societal confession to the church isn't needed as long as the bishop says it's okay? (theoretically speaking)

Again, there's a difference between civil law and Church law.

I ask because people say they relate. The bishop's "Okay" isn't enough.

Which is why a bishop may decide that this priest offering communion may not be the best way to go. Or the bishop may want to delay him offering communion until after a period in time had elapsed.

This kind of flexibility for the bishop is allowed since no two cases are alike.

 

[columbus]

Again, there's a difference between civil law and Church law.

This is a problem with the OP as stated. The church and state have different laws.
At one end of the spectrum could be an unrepentant child molester being protected by the church hierarchy. That's both against church law and civil law.

Then there's a priest who has a sexual affair with a competent adult parishioner. That's a severe sin according to the church, but not illegal by the standards of the state.

Then there's the far end of the spectrum. If a criminal confesses to a crime, under many circumstances, it's a legal requirement to report that to the authorities. It's also completely against church law. The laws of church and state are in opposition.
Tom

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why do you disagree?

I think it's entirely reasonable to say that a priest who has sexually assaulted a child should never work as a parish priest ever again, and to avoid any parish that keeps a predator employed.

I disagree with the connection that one needs to tell the priest to repay his debt to society in order for a catholic to receive mass from him. Theologically, a priest should only need to go to confession and amend his forgiveness with god and the church. When he does mass, it would be assumed he did his job (as other catholics would/should) and therefore, has right to give out mass as a catholic has a right to receive it.

Public confession and conviction of his sin is not needed to the public. That's like if the priest heard a confession about a crime committed (or being committed), he has the right to go to the police so the confesse will confess to the public before the priest absolves him.


Sexually assaulted a kid? An example?

Personally, it's the same line concept.

Priest commits mortal sin against the civil law
Priest is bared from the church
Priest ask god and church for forgiveness
God forgives (assuming the church does too)
Priest hasn't paid his debt for his crime

Catholic doesn't take communion.

I disagree with this. Once the priest is forgiven by the church and god (which we don't know until he gives Mass-if a catholic has enough trusts in their priests to do what they would do if sinned) they should theologically be able to receive mass.

As for the being betrayed (as another member mentioned) and the legal issues, I'm not talking about that. If receiving communion depends on the priests debt to society, I would not take communion. So, I'm talking about the church/catholic view. With abuse etc, "predators" (if you referring to abuses) sin just. as everyone else. The age of the person abused doesn't make abuse any more or less a sin.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In the very early Church, public confession to the congregation was the norm. However, that was dropped because it led to other problems.

On top of that, a person only had that sacrament once in their lives, but that policy ignored the fact that we still are going to commit sins at times even after joining the Church. Thus the Church made the decision to allow for confession anytime a person felt they needed it and/or if they committed any serious sin.

Again, there's a difference between civil law and Church law.

Which is why a bishop may decide that this priest offering communion may not be the best way to go. Or the bishop may want to delay him offering communion until after a period in time had elapsed.

This kind of flexibility for the bishop is allowed since no two cases are alike.

Do you understand the morality of the question?

1. Priest sins against the church and law
2. Priest ask forgiveness from god and church (bishop says he is forgiven)
3. Priest goes to serve Mass. Catholics don't receive communion from the priest
4. ...because he has not paid his debts to the law (yet), they will not go to that priest

Morally, that sounds off. How one feels aside, would it be wrong to deny that priest of giving communion because of how we feel about his consequences to society even though his consequences to the church and god has already been confessed and forgiven?

Piggy backing on Columbus.

Since the civil and church laws are not the same, why would a catholic feel priests serve his conviction first before receiving sacrament from him?

That sounds more, "I won't trust you until you get what you paid for" whereas in confession is, "I know you sinned, but now I trust you because you asked the church and god forgiveness" The civil law should have Nothing to do with this latter. Why does it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree with the connection that one needs to tell the priest to repay his debt to society in order for a catholic to receive mass from him. Theologically, a priest should only need to go to confession and amend his forgiveness with god and the church.

This is the sort of attitude that allowed the pedophile priest scandal to grow as large as it did.

When he does mass, it would be assumed he did his job (as other catholics would/should) and therefore, has right to give out mass as a catholic has a right to receive it.

I'd say that no priest has a right to any particular position. Priests get reassigned to new duties for reasons a lot more trivial than sexually assaulting vulnerable members of their congregation.

Regardless of whether the sin has been forgiven, a trust has also been violated. "Forgiven" does not necessarily imply "trustworthy."

Public confession and conviction of his sin is not needed to the public. That's like if the priest heard a confession about a crime committed (or being committed), he has the right to go to the police so the confesse will confess to the public before the priest absolves him.

Again: it's not about forgiveness; it's about trust.

Sexually assaulted a kid? An example?

About 7% of priests have been implicated in the pedophile priest scandal. I'm surprised you haven't heard.

Personally, it's the same line concept.

Priest commits mortal sin against the civil law
Priest is bared from the church
Priest ask god and church for forgiveness
God forgives (assuming the church does too)
Priest hasn't paid his debt for his crime

Catholic doesn't take communion.

Or Catholic takes communion at some other Catholic church.

I disagree with this. Once the priest is forgiven by the church and god (which we don't know until he gives Mass-if a catholic has enough trusts in their priests to do what they would do if sinned) they should theologically be able to receive mass.

As for the being betrayed (as another member mentioned) and the legal issues, I'm not talking about that. If receiving communion depends on the priests debt to society, I would not take communion. So, I'm talking about the church/catholic view. With abuse etc, "predators" (if you referring to abuses) sin just. as everyone else. The age of the person abused doesn't make abuse any more or less a sin.

Again: this attitude is part of the problem. If you treat all mortal sin as equally bad, then you're effectively saying that assaulting a child is no worse than, say, skipping mass on a day of obligation. This is ludicrous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is the sort of attitude that allowed the pedophile priest scandal to grow as large as it did.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aka. Civil law has become between them and god

I'd say that no priest has a right to any particular position. Priests get reassigned to new duties for reasons a lot more trivial than sexually assaulting vulnerable members of their congregation.

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)

Regardless of whether the sin has been forgiven, a trust has also been violated. "Forgiven" does not necessarily imply "trustworthy."

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.

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?

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.

Again: it's not about forgiveness; it's about trust.

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.

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.

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?

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)

About 7% of priests have been implicated in the pedophile priest scandal. I'm surprised you haven't heard.

This is nothing to do with my question.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

My personal opinions about the morality and legality of this issue is irrelevant to my question.

Or Catholic takes communion at some other Catholic church.

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.

Again: this attitude is part of the problem. If you treat all mortal sin as equally bad, then you're effectively saying that assaulting a child is no worse than, say, skipping mass on a day of obligation. This is ludicrous.

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.

My opinions on both arguments about this pedophilia crap would make me too upset to talk about.

 

[metis]

The laws of church and state are in opposition.

Sometimes.

 

[metis]

Do you understand the morality of the question?

Very much so, especially since I taught both a poli sci course and also Catholic and Jewish theology.

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?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Very much so, especially since I taught both a poli sci course and also Catholic and Jewish theology.

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?

It was more simple than that, actually. My point is "because" civil and church law are different, is it (I guess adding to the original question) part of the church that a catholic must wait for the priest to seek forgiveness by society (serving his time) before they theologically allowed to receive communion from him?

...despite him already getting forgiveness from god and from the church (before his sentence 'is' carried out).

 

[metis]

It was more simple than that, actually. My point is "because" civil and church law are different, is it (I guess adding to the original question) part of the church that a catholic must wait for the priest to seek forgiveness by society (serving his time) before they theologically allowed to receive communion from him?

...despite him already getting forgiveness from god and from the church (before his sentence 'is' carried out).

I have already answered that question several times. fini