You can't have your host and eat it
Sex outside marriage on Sunday morning, followed by a little spot of mass and holy communion
After Dun Gorg Dalli’s inane remarks on television – he said that cohabiting couples should be free to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist (but then he did also say in court that Noel Arrigo is a good and decent man who planned to take his family to Lourdes) – the Archbishop of Malta and the Bishop of Gozo have felt the need to make a very public statement.
You can’t have your host and eat it.
If you want to receive holy communion, then you have to toe the Catholic line. If you don’t want to toe the Catholic line, then you can’t receive holy communion.
Is that so bad? No, it isn’t. It’s obvious.
But you wouldn’t think so, from the reams of irate and largely incoherent comments posted beneath a report of the bishops’ timely reminder on timesofmalta.com
How dare the bishops tell people who live together in a sexual relationship that they can’t receive holy communion! Come on, who are they to speak? What makes them think they can learn us?
Given that I never went to a single one of those awful Muzew doctrine classes – back in the 1960s and 1970s they were only for peasants in villages (no offence meant….) and no one else would even have dreamed of sending their children – I’m surprised to see that my grasp of Catholic dogma and my understanding of the religion is rather stronger than that of what appears to be a rather large proportion of tal-Muzew’s doctrine class output.
You can receive holy communion only with a ‘clean slate’ – in other words, no sins however venial and certainly not mortal blotting your copybook as you walk up the aisle and part your lips. That’s why you’re supposed to go to confession first: to be absolved and to have your slate rubbed clean.
When we were children, the routine was to go to confession at St Patrick’s Church in Sliema on Saturday evening to be fresh and free for holy communion on Sunday morning. I’m guessing the powers-that-be worked out that there weren’t many sins a 10-year-old could commit between 6pm on Saturday and 10am on Sunday.
But you can’t clean your slate with confession when you’re living in sin. That is an ‘ongoing sin’ – not one you can confess to get rid of before you lope up for the Eucharist. You can’t go into that confessional, parrot the immortal words “Forgive me father, for I have sinned. It has been X weeks since my last confession” and then go on to say “I’m living with somebody to whom I am not married and have no intention of changing the situation. But please rub my slate clean for the next couple of hours so that I can swallow a consecrated host and after that I will just carry on as normal.”
95 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What is the difference between a couple are having a regular sexual relationship and are cohabiting, and a couple who are also have a sexual relationship, but are not cohabiting?
[Daphne – No difference. It’s the sexual relationship that’s at issue here, and not the shared roof. I suppose the bishops felt the need to spell out the special reference to cohabiting couples because the way the human mind works, the sexual relationship becomes ‘legit’ if they live together.]
Daphne, although I often argue with you this time I support your conclusions 100% although perhaps for a small detail- one may still receive the Holy Communion when one has un-confessed venial sins as long as one is repentant in their soul, at least that’s what the Frères thought me. When you belong to a club you follow the rules or leave, club statutes are not À la carte menus.
Having said that I do believe that in certain extenuating circumstances the church allows the cohabitated couple free to follow their inner spiritual feelings even though the church doesn’t publicly admit this exception. The church calls it ‘blessing of a union’, quite common in the Church of England.
“When you belong to a club you follow the rules or leave, club statutes are not À la carte menus.”
I agree 100%, Mr. Buttigieg, however keep in mind that in this particular club one is enrolled when just a few days old and if you are not enrolled you become almost a social outcast!
[Daphne – Rubbish. That may have been the case in the past, but it is certainly not the case now. And even if you were ‘enrolled’ at birth you are free to leave at any point after the age of 18. What you are not free to do is call yourself a Catholic and break every rule in the Catholic book, while insisting that Catholicism changes its rules to suit you so that you can continue thinking of yourself as a Catholic.]
Ok, maybe social outcast is a bit extreme so let’s call it a stigma. My wife is Italian who is baptized but with no communion or confirmation, you should see some of the falling jaws that causes!
As for the ‘enrolment’, personally I left before my 18th (well, I stopped practising, if that is how you ‘leave’) but having religion pumped into you for years on end it’s not easy to erase the way it affects you in your everyday life.
What are the ‘extenuating circumstances’ you are referring to? For the Roman Catholic Church there are no ‘extenuating circumstances’ to ‘bless a union’.
Gilian, once more I agree with Ms. Caruana-Galizia on this, you are either in or out and you are free to leave and return at anytime.
Personally I’m very skeptical about all religions and because I had a solid moral upbringing and rely on my spiritual feelings I stopped going to church because I don’t want to be a hypocrite.
God is everywhere and I don’t need to go to church to be party to spiritually meaningless rituals like incense, repetition of the same sermons and prayers and the rest that goes on.
[Daphne – Actually I love the rituals and the incense and don’t find them spiritually meaningless at all, but rather the opposite. They are about the only spiritually uplifting part of Catholicism, in my view. I love a good choral mass in an ancient cathedral. Anyone whose spirits don’t soar in that amazing vaulted, decorated space with a choir singing just has to be dead inside.]
So I’m dead inside, amen
Amen to that, Daphne. That’s exactly why John Tavener joined the Russian Orthodox Church.
From the bottom of my heart, I say: f**k guitars and 4/4th beats, f**k whitewashed concrete Maltese churches, f**k “rock masses”, f**k gospel-choir clapping and f**k gaunt bronze shapeless morphed crucifixes. What were they thinking?
When the church doesn’t speak the cultural language of its flock, there’s something definitely wrong.
Meta twelidt, ommi ddecidiet li taghmmidni. I had no say. Issa ma jfissirx li ghandi nibqa ghal ghomri Kattolika. Ghandi d-dritt li niddeciedi jiena. Dak is-sabih tal-knisja, li thalli lil kulhadd fil-liberta’.
Cohabiting couples are banned from Holy Communion because they fall under the heading “habitual sinners” – people banned from Communion because their sin is so public that it would be scandalous for the rest of the congregation to see them receive Communion.
You can check this out with the Vatican. People who have a sexual relationship but do not live together are not banned from Communion. Those who live together are banned because they are assumed to have a sexual relationship and hence to be a source of scandal.
I cannot understand why priests themselves cannot agree on this. I am baffled.
I am neither Catholic nor cohabiting (actually I am, with my wife . . . but you know what I mean) so I don’t give two hoots about what the bishops have to say on the subject. Still, I have to admit I find it a hilarious stance (to consider cohabitation as sinful).
Adrian, hemm bzonn li tirritorna ftit fuq il-bankijiet tal-Muzew ghax donnok insejt kollox.
It may be ‘hilarious’, but it is still sinful according to the doctrines of this particular religion. The good thing here is that you have a choice, unlike in the case of ‘hilarious’ state laws which apply to everyone.
Mercy me, Malta has fast become an island in need of fresh evangelisation. Where is St George Preca? How Malta needs him (and not some of our “popular” priests and monks) to teach us what our Catholic religion means.
Some of these comments are totally stupid, sarcastic, irreverent. Of course we were baptised when we didn’t even know what the world was. But I ask: who baptised us as Catholics? Our parents? Why? If our parents were not practising Catholics, why did they baptise us? To show one and all that they had a baby? Or was there some inner feeling of believe in God and in His commandments?
And if the parents were just cohabiting, why did they take all this hassle to baptise their child? To show off their sin? To defy the church authorities? And do they really bring up their child as they have solemnly sworn before God and Man to do?
We want to defy society with our OWN commandments, we want to belong to heaven (that’s why we call ourselves Catholics) to have a place reserved for us there, but here on earth we want to do as we please, ignore all covenants and have our own egoistic pleasures.
If needs be changing the guard and taking in second/third hand material to gratify ourselves. We can even receive the sacraments while in grave mortal sin. How can the priest know it?
But we would only be condemning ourselves to the deepest and lowest level on the spiritual side of our being. And someday we have to give an account of all our deeds to God. And this is no joke. we may laugh all the way to our damnation but at the end of the line, we have to face the consequences of our actions.
Dun Gorg Dalli tries to be popular by pleasing everyone. Either you are part of the Catholic Church and follow its beliefs and rules or you are not.
His statement is an insult to true believers and followers. Using his arguments, then what is wrong with secularism, which is fast growing in Malta?
Sometimes I believe that people like Dun Gorg are afraid to challenge the way the Maltese live in order not to lose more church-goers. I pitied the woman on the Xarabank panel who tried to defend the Catholic Church’s teachings, and she was also heavily surprised and lost by the priest’s declaration. He even stated that this woman is not sensible enough to the people’s sufferings and circumstances surrounding them.
“I suppose the bishops felt the need to spell out the special reference to cohabiting couples….”
Hmmm.
How else can you attract those thousands of “zaghzagh” to Sunday mass?
Sunday masses are more likely going to look like a mass exodus from the Church. I am anticipating more “fidili” (I just love that word) to hand in their resignation to Bishop Cremona, two at a time.
But on the other hand, I agree that with the Catholic Church: one must follow its rules.
Ciccio2010, darba Kristu lil-appostli qalilhom: “tridux tmorru intom ukoll!”. U tinsiex li beda bi tnax il-ragel . Xoghol il-knisja hu li tippriedka s-sewwa (fost hafna dmirijiet li ghandha), mhux li tkun popolari.
Il-knisja taf li n-nies se tonqos mil-attendenza tal-quddies.
Daphne you never miss an occasion to attack “tal-Muzew” , but let’s put that aside. In Malta there is a tendency to want things ‘a la carte’ when actually there is no choice.
Half of us wanted the EU advantages but without being members of the EU (as if Switzerland in the Med could exist), half of us want a power station which does not produce toxic waste but do not want to pay higher electricity bills, many of our representatives in parliament expected the Roman Catholic Church to recognise their ‘partners’ (I hate the word) by formally inviting them as couples for the mass of the Pope on the Granaries….. and receive Holy communion from the Pope himself.
Some priests like to be in the limelight and want the Church to be popular. On the other hand I don’t blame the politicians who want to be like these priests but it is a bit too much to go on Xarabank to air their opinions on how the Church should treat them as cohabiting couples.
Cohabiting couples can receive communion by going to any church, attend mass and receive communion, there is no tag on their forehead stating that they are ‘living in sin’ , but they cannot have the Church’s approval, which is what they are actually after.
Baxxter,this is how you write “zghazagh”. It seems that the Church is looking for quality and is attracting our young people to other places:
http://www.il-gensillum.com/news.asp?newscat=11&news=4199
Let’s have a shufty, Schembri.
Bloody hell! 71 nuns. One thing I tell you: I have nothing but admiration for these people. It requires balls. I only hope they won’t come to regret their decision.
Baxxter, there are some ex-army doctors who like to show off their language abilities on the internet, but sometimes they slip. The last weapon in their arsenal is always ridicule.
Mur xuf kif tikteb ‘zghazagh’.
X’ridicule? Ghedt “balls” fis-sens ta’ “kuragg”. Veru nammirahom dawn in-nies. U minhiex ex-army doctor. Jien unemployed, u qatt ma kont la fl-army u lanqas doctor.
I agree with you as regards those pogguti who want to receive the sacraments. They can double cross the priests, but they can’t double cross their own Creator.
They can receive the Holy Eucharist in some chapel or church where no one knows their status, but they will be condemning themselves to hell and damnation.
In his letter St Paul states that whoever eats the Body of Christ and drinks his Blood in an unworthy state, will be condemning himself to hell. It’s very clear, ain’t it.
You can receive Holy Communion as many times you want and in the state you want. But at the end you are sinning against God and yourself and damning your soul to eternal hell, if one still believes in hell. Someone said that religion is the opium of the people. Is it?
So why should these pogguti go through all this hassle to condemn themselves to hell? Why not ignore religion? Or is their conscience hurting them mighty rough?
As for Baxxter, I’m sorry for you but you don’t even know what you are talking about when you mention these nuns. These people know (unlike others) the true meaning of sacrifice, of working for the humble, of being of service to those in need. These are courageous people (men and women in the cloth) who give their lives to be of service to others either locally or abroad.
Families separate at the first hurdles, these people (nuns and priests) have to bear everything to keep on the vows they took, and believe me, I have seen many of them and have come to admire their humility.
Oh Christ. Having to explain it for the zillionth time: I admire nuns and priests for their brave choice of career.
Do I really come across as someone who despises the clergy?
One more thing, Daphne. I wonder if I can post this link on your blog. It sort of concerns the subject in very loose terms . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q2R7O-0WRo
I wonder how your readers will react . . .
Ok, I should set up my own blog, but hey, I’m not here to compete.
Mr. Buckle,
Unfortunately many a time in the Catholic world (especially in Malta) we only view the two extremes: the type of bigot (who happens to also be well into his parochial activities and a proclaimed Catholic) who shouts ‘ejja naharqu il-pufti’, and those hippy-type Catholics with a live and let live attitude.
Neither is right, and neither have (though admittedly I doubt anyone truly has) found the right balance of God’s love and God’s justice (to place it in cliche terms). The video you posted is a waste of time. The ‘love poem’ is an extract from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. After the first few lines quoted in the video, Paul writes in the clearest of language a condemnation of homosexual acts and partnerships (and throughout various other letters – not to mention the Old Testament). It is simply a case of the ”devil quoting scripture’, as most of us are so used to doing in order to justify our actions.
With regards to your previous comment, ”Still, I have to admit I find it a hilarious stance (to consider cohabitation as sinful)”, I am inclined to believe that you find it ‘hilarious’ because you are not aware of the reasoning behind it (as you indeed state ‘I am neither Catholic… ‘).
Disagreeing with the argument is one thing, but I think it is based on a well structured argument (which though might be rigid and impractical, is still logical and in sync with Christ’s teachings).
David g (and Mrs.Caruana Galizia to a certain extent): ”His statement is an insult to true believers and followers”
Whilst I too was shocked to hear Dun Gorg blurting such claims, in the five minutes I watched him speak, I do understand what he was getting at. However I believe he presented the argument in the worst possible way.
I believe Dun Gorg was trying to show that with a soundly formed conscience and a good knowledge of Christian (and to a certain extent Catholic) doctrine, one would eventually arrive at the same conclusion: of feeling unworthy of receiving the host, and if not he would face judgment for his mistake in the afterlife.
However I believe that kind of statement in the way that he said it was not to be uttered to such a vast audience so irresponsibly. The teachings of the Catholic Church must ultimately (as Catholic doctrine itself states), be in sync with the Bible (Christ’s teachings), and the conscience (provided it is well formed), thus whilst Dun Gorg tried to bring out the latter two, he forgot his duty as the representative of Catholic doctrine (in my opinion), and unfortunately gave too much credit to the average Joe’s intellectuality and spiritual maturity.
What Dun Gorg has to say, what the bishops have to say and what any other priest has to say is irrelevant to me. I have already said I am not Catholic and so their words are of no consequence to me.
I take what was hammered at us in duttrina lessons with a pinch of salt, too. My point about that video link is to see how people would react to see the words of the apostle put in a different context. After all, the bible is a book of conflicting views on many a subject.
Regarding the logic on which the bishops’ statement is based, yes, I find it hilarious and out of sync. I am not saying they don’t have a right to it. It’s their club and they make the rules. But as an outsider, I find it ludicrous, as I find their views on divorce, homosexuality and other different subjects.
What do you want, Adrian – gay marriage approval by the Church? Forget it. There cannot be procreation by a same-sex couple.
With love alone and a non-consummation, the marriage would be declared null.
Another one who wants his cake and to eat it too.
No, John. Not after any cake. I severed my Catholic ties some time ago and do not expect any bishop or priest to see the world as I see it. I posted the link to that video only to show how the words of the apostle, put in a different context, can be interpreted differently. To me it makes sense, to many more, it will not . . . but that is why I am not Catholic.
You’re not a Catholic but you choose ‘a la carte’ from Saint Paul’s letters… typically Maltese.
”What Dun Gorg has… ”
I mentioned Dun Gorg in reply to ‘David g’ as noted in my comment.
‘‘to see the words of the apostle put in a different context/can be interpreted differently”
I’m sorry, there’s a difference between a different context and a WRONG context or rather a purpose misinterpretation (as opposed to what you call a ‘different interpretation’). The video is also a play on the word ‘love’. St. Paul wrote in Greek, and in Greek there are 4 different types of love: agape, filia, eros and stroge. The meaning of each is often lost in translation and thus people misinterpret the sacrificial type/brotherly love/charity (agape, filia and stroge) with eros (sexual attraction/love).
‘‘After all, the bible is a book of conflicting views on many a subject”
To label the Bible as a book of conflicting views is ridiculous. You clearly have no idea of theology (you don’t have to a Catholic/Christian to have atleast a basic knowledge of theology).
”I find it ludicrous, as I find their views on divorce, homosexuality and other different subjects.”
You are clearly not aware of ‘their views’; you just disagree with the conclusion and couldn’t be arsed to consider the argument or logic behind it.
The bishops’ conclusion (which is the stance Daphne has taken unless you hadn’t realised) is that people cohabiting (as Daphne pointed out this refers to people living together and having sex with each other out of marriage) may not receive the host. There is nothing hilarious or ludicrous about it. If anything you find their view on cohabitation hilarious but not their statement that who is cohabiting should not receive the host.
”To me it makes sense, to many more, it will not . . . but that is why I am not Catholic.”
You make no sense at all. If you are against the Catholic view on cohabitation and homosexual marriage on the basis of that video it’s a very poor and misinformed stance.
whatever
@Another Mike
You say “‘‘After all, the bible is a book of conflicting views on many a subject”.
To label the Bible as a book of conflicting views is ridiculous. You clearly have no idea of theology (you don’t have to a Catholic/Christian to have at east a basic knowledge of theology).”
You’ve got to be kidding!
The Bible contradicts itself within the same passages (Noah’s Ark story), books talking about the same thing (the gospels contradict each other on what he said/did/went/was related to) and the old and new testament are starkly different in their general tone and on specific questions (divorce, separation, re-marriage). The contradictions are at all levels.
How can you dream of NOT considering the Bible to be conflicting? How can you possibly have the cheek to accuse someone else of not having a basic knowledge of theology?
Have you actually ever opened the thing?
In general, whilst I agree that if you want to be part of a club you need to stick to its rules, the a la carte label is hardly fair.
Christianity itself is an a la carte religion, picking and choosing from the bible as it suits it.
The Old Testament advocates child rape, slavery, genocide, oppression of women, murder of gays and other atrocities.
Yet they are not part of official Catholic policy are they?
I don’t see the archbishop rounding up adulterers and having them stoned to death. Is that not a la carte as well?
@ MikeC:
Unwittingly, you perfectly proved my point. A person who is ignorant of theology will consider the Bible to be a confusing book. The reason that it seems conflicting/confusing is because each book is a different ‘genre’ so to speak. So in the Bible you have a wide range of genres of writing which range from poetry to epic sagas, to odes, to reportage and so on.
You are right that at face value the book of Genesis will seem to be both conflicting and absurd, but the reason is that the Bible is not to be read as a Scientific text book and the book of Genesis (in particular the first two chapters on Creation) are written in the form of an ode, and in symbolic language which can be best understood in the context it was written. That is what theology will teach you.
”Christianity itself is an a la carte religion, picking and choosing from the bible as it suits it. ”
Here you are playing with words (deliberately or not). Firstly I shall refer to Catholicism rather than Christianity. In Catholicism, one may trace the line of Popes back to the early Apostles and Disciples of Christ (hence the term St. Peter’s successor).
For this reason, the Catholic Church claims the right and duty to pass on Christ’s teachings and to offer the apt interpretations of it (so as we should not fall into problems such as that put forward in the video Mr. Buckle posted).
I don’t see this as an a la carte religion at all. Also your view of Christianity is rather superficial, as you seem to consider it merely on an intellectual rather than personal level which gives your argument a superficiality in its implications.
”The Old Testament advocates child rape, slavery, genocide, oppression of women, murder of gays and other atrocities. ”
Oh, a Dawkins fan. No wonder.
”Yet they are not part of official Catholic policy are they?”
The reason being, that unlike Jews, Christians acknowledge the life and teachings of Jesus, hence why the Bible does not end at the book of Chronicles as with the Jewish Tanakh.
”I don’t see the archbishop rounding up adulterers and having them stoned to death. Is that not a la carte as well?”
No it is not. Mosaic law was replaced in the New Testament. Its tiring sometimes. It is precisely if the Archbishop were doing such things that it would become a la carte. Reading Dawkins alone is no good sir. As C.S Lewis once remarked: ”A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. ”
Ghaziza Daphne,
Gesu hafer lil mara midinba. U nemmen li Allu hu hanin u jahfer. Ikun sew jekk il knisja tifli u tibda tifhem il kobor u il bidu ta din il problema. hafna min dawn in nies ma jistghux jaghmlu mod iehor ghax il knisja qed tkaxkar saqajja biex hafna min dawn in nies jiehdu gustizzja fil Kurja u jirregolaw il pozizzjoni taghhom. kont nistenna li fl-istess waqt l-isqof isemmi kemm mexjin il kazi u it;tul li jiehdu fil kurja. Alla hu akbar min hsieb ta isqof. Ma naqbilx ma l opinjoni tieghek fuq il muzew ghax min hemm hareg hafna gid.
Veru Gesu hafer lil mara midimba siehbi, imma qalla ukoll, ” Mur u tidnibx aktar!”
@ Dudu 67,
Jiena minhiex poggut imma ma jfissirx li minhix midneb u forsi midneb akbar minn min hu poggut. Inqerr u nkompli nidneb bhal haddiehor. Irridu nammettu li l-Knisja go Malta mhix qed taghti kas ta’ dawn il-problemi. Saqsi ftit madwarek dwar in-nuqqas ta’ serjeta fil-proceduri tal-annulament u z-zmien twil biex tinghata gustizzja.
Alla hu mhabba u ma jridnix insoffru. Kont nistenna li meta il-Kurja titkellem fuq min hu poggut issemmi ukoll l-isforzi li qed taghmel biex tghin lil dawn il-Kristjani. Il-knisja qed tghin biex in-nies ikunu favur id-divorzju. Imma Alla hu kbir u fuq KULHADD.
Woah tal-Muzew, stenna ftit. “Il-Knisja tghin lill-pogguti”. Jigifieri? Tbierek ir-relazzjoni taghhom? Tbiddel ir-regoli taghha u tiddikjara li l-fornikazzjoni hija don ta’ Alla u ghandha tigi prattikata u allura mhix dnub etc etc?
Qed nara hafna ideat konfuzi f’Malta, l-iktar minn dawk li jistqarru li huma ta’ fidi Kattolika. (Mhux ta’ ‘kultura Kattolika’, ghax dik hag’ohra, li ma tantx ghandek ghazla jekk tkunx fiha jew le.)
For someone who professes to be non-Catholic, your commentaries on the Catholic world are by far the best I have read anywhere on the net or elsewhere. Very refreshing.
I don’t understand why you have to attack those very decent people you call tal-‘Muzew’ when you are explicitly admitting that you never went to any of their classes.
It may be of a surprise for you to learn that these people and their society are fully in synch with the public statement made by the bishops. Contrary to yourself, and though I never considered myself a peasant, I attended many of their classes and have always appreciated the manner in which tal-‘Muzew’ used to try to portray Christ’s teachings without making any undue pressures on any of us.
Just to update you, these people are highly educated individuals who dedicate their life to Christ’s teachings without expecting anything in return. The fact that their founder San Gorg Preca is the first Maltese saint to be officially declared as such by the church speaks volumes about your very poor impression about these people.
Alfred, you say that almost as if being ‘highly educated’ and dedicated is a requirement for teaching religious doctrine at ‘il-Muzew’.
That certainly wasn’t my experience – in fact, it was quite the opposite. My ‘teachers’ at ‘Muzew’ – where I was sent by my parents, who genuinely but wrongly believed it should be a central part of my upbringing – were invariably drones who recited, quoted and stated things for our dubious benefit without the slightest bit of interaction, passion or interest in getting us to think about anything. We were, essentially, talked at.
Thankfully, my ‘Superjur’, who happened to be the Superior General of MUSEUM at the time, was the one who lit the fire under my budding doubts by loudly proclaiming during one lesson that, unlike our blessed selves, children brought up in other faiths were unlucky and couldn’t be saved, even if they had nothing but chance to blame for their misfortune.
It was exactly the sort of preposterous, sweeping and self-serving statement that I needed to wake up and smell the coffee, even at that age (I must have been 11 or 12).
I never attended Muzew lessons, but many of my friends did and have fond memories memories of them. Sometimes I feel like I have missed out on something. Having said that, I still cherish the memories of having attended Christian doctrine lessons at the Birkirkara Oratory. More than the lessons, which in those days were a little too much about Hell and demons, it was the good examples we encountered that taught us so much …
I am not attempting any sanctimonious or self-righteous one-upmanship on anyone, as there is very much that is wrong and which I would like to correct in my own life. As such, I understand the part which human frailty may sometimes play in many transgressions of the universal moral law.
Having said that I must confess that I am firmly convinced that there exists a universal and objective moral law which condemns any sexually active relationship as gravely sinful if sex is practised outside of the context of marriage in which the total commitment of the married couple to one another must needs be life-long, unconditional and exclusive of third parties.
I stand by and believe in all the teachings of the Catholic Church without reservation. Therefore I subscribe to the official Catholic Church’s teachings which state unequivocally that sex between non-married people is grievously sinful and such persons cannot receive holy communion.
The body and blood of Jesus Christ should not be made to cohabit with a soul burdened with mortal sin.
By way of conclusion I would like to add that Christ came to teach all men of all nations across the board, till the end of time, and what he praised as right and condemned as wrong applies to all humanity. And anybody who refuses to accept even one of the teachings of the Catholic Church is not a Catholic and cannot in good conscience claim to be one.
No one complains that the Catholic Church rules demand a fast of an hour before receiving Holy Communion, so why should anyone balk at another rule that you must not co-habit outside marriage and present yourself for Holy Communion?
Even if you are only a member of the village band club you do not insist on being exempted from observing the club rules. Why should anyone expect to be allowed to participate in the sacraments without observing the corresponding conditions?
How on earth can one compare the constitution of a club to that of the Catholic Church? Unlike the Catholic Church, a club’s rules and regulations can be changed at any time, by its members, by means of a majority rule, during a general meeting.
Good thing no rules, rites and regulations have changed in the last two thousand years within the Catholic Church then….
Dear Pat, I didn’t quite understand what you meant, but if you meant that the Catholic Church should move with times in the sense that it should pander to societal whims just as civil governments do, I am sorry to disappoint you because wrong can never become right or acceptable just because a libertine and permissive society would like to adopt a certain lifestyle.
The Catholic Church’s doctrine, moral teachings (what is right/wrong) and interpretation of the divine natural law is never mistaken and invariable till the end of time.
The Catholic Church, not for it’s own sake, but for the sake of the salvation of her members, is not happy when some fall away. However, if you disagree, you are free to leave.
Moreover, why worry, about the Catholic Church rules and regulations and about their archaism, if it is ‘true’ that, those against, don’t give a damn about its teachings.
What about Dun Gorg Dalli, is he going to be allowed to challenge the Church on its teachings?
A polite way of saying “Issa daqshekk!” With the passage of time some thoughts get confused. The Catholic Church should introduce a short checklist for people to complete and sign before walking up to receive Holy Communion.
Honestly, from the sounds of things, even if I were the famous adulteress of Biblical fame who happened to be the first person to witness Christ’s Resurrection, Archbishop Cremona and his sidekick from Victoria would instruct their clerics to turn me away at the altar rail without so much as a “how-do-you-do!
And no doubt, the usual suspects on the comments-board at timesofmalta.com would promptly scribble copious amounts of drivel about this being exactly the way Christ (and San Gorg Preca) would have wanted things to turn out.
Frankly, I don’t give two hoots about what the Church says, or about the twisted, hypocritical existence that the Catolicissimi of Malta choose to espouse. I do, however, care about the irreversible damage that Maltese parents continue to inflict on their children and young adults, loading them up with rules that can never be met, guilt, feelings of inadequacy, and threats of punishment that have no basis in true Christian teachings.
A bewildering portion of these benighted Islands, from the Curia to the civil government and on down, seems to embrace a Sharia-like understanding of the world, where there are never, ever any shades of grey: only black and white, good and evil, practising Maltese Catholics on one side of the ledger, and the legions of the damned on the other.
How truly sad. How distant from the teachings of Christ.
This is a very bad move by our church and it will only steer people like me away from church who had the misfortune that their marriage fell apart and like me was left alone to cope with the after-effects and turned to prayers and church for strength.
Yes, it’s a big blow Daphne for people like me and unless one passes through a separation one can’t understand the remorse one feels for one’s failure.
Rest assured that it was not my move for my husband to walk out on me and where does that leave me if I found a decent person to love me and take me with my past and now even the church is pointing its finger at me like I’m a naughty girl.
And to round up my comment what about those thousands who go to mass and receive holy communion and all have a bit on the side? That’s allowed ehhhh?
[Daphne – Of course it isn’t. Essentially, and this is becoming ever more evident through some of the comments being posted here, this is not a question of religion or morality so much as it is of maturity. I am frequently dismayed to find, in various situations, just how immature and childish Maltese adults are generally. This is another case in point: the inability to accept that choices have to be made, and that responsibility for the consequences of those choices has to be taken even if the choices are forced on you by the behaviour of others.
You can’t reason like that: iss hej, it wasn’t my fault that my marriage broke up, so I want to have sex with somebody else and still be a practising Catholic. If you’re having sex with somebody else, then you’re not a practising Catholic, full stop. To be a practising Catholic, you would have to stay celibate for the rest of your life. You have a choice between being Catholic and celibate or having sex and being estranged from the Catholic Church. Those are the only two choices available to you. As a grown-up, you have to decide which you prefer, and then stick with it without whining and complaining that it isn’t fair. Who told you that life has to be fair? If life were fair, you would have married somebody who didn’t walk out. I know you didn’t come in here for a hectoring lecture, but really….]
‘Rest assured that it was not my move for my husband to walk out on me’. Would like to put forward one question.
How did you and your husband protect your marriage from the attacks of Satan?
By skipping the Sunday mass and instead going to Sunday lunches? By attending parties and discos till the early hours of the morning? By going out with friends? By watching TV all evening? How many hours a day did you and your husband spent praying together with your children?
Most of us do not believe that Satan exists for real and we walk through life disarmed. We take all sorts of insurance covers, but we fail to protect our most precious gifts – our life and our soul. We give Satan a blank slate and we offer him no resistance allowing him to wreck our lives. Our Lady is repeatedly warning us about this in Her numerous apparitions both present and past. She also gave us a very powerful weapon against the evil one which renders Satan completely powerless. It is the holy rosary.
Satan has an agenda, that of attacking families and priests. The reason is straight forward. Being aware that without priests we cannot receive sacraments he is doing his utmost to deprive us of priests. Any why does he attack families? Because he knows that there is less chance for new vocations to emerge from broken families.
So now, is it game over? It is up to you to decide. Either you grab your weapons and learn how to use them to defend your fortress, (or what’s left of it) or stay licking your wounds and watch it crumble even further. Sounds like a battle! Well yes, it is a battle. If you really have the guts to fight back you can call at the parish church of San Girgor in Sliema on 3rd June at 1830hrs. It might be your first true lesson in the art of war!
@another Steve
What drugs are you on? Very weird, attacks by Satan in the 21st century?
I’m off, Steve – I have to meet Humpty Dumpty.
I find all this non argument totally imcomprehensible. It seems to me that some people feel it is their right to “use” some sacraments of the Catholic Church while throwing others to the wind.
This is what is hilarious, in my opinion as a Catholic. Yes, indeed, for the Church of Rome cohabitation is sinful. It is a way of life that is diametrically opposed to its Sacramentum Magnum.
The problem is not so much about all these non-Catholics poking their noses where it does not concern them. My worry is that the media repeatedly take advantage of two or three bad apples amongst the local clergy to cloud the minds of the unwary. This I feel is not fair.
As are gay people and those married couples using contraceptives and so forth. The list is endless.
Kulhadd irida ta’ Kattoliku u kulhadd (kwazi) razzist jew kontra l-immigranti.
And hence it would follow that even if one obtains a divorce and eventually re-marries civilly he/ she should technically not receive holy communion either.
Agreed, though I have to say that MUSEUM was a nice time for me, even though I found the fundie doctrine frightening, but things seem to have changed a lot on that front. Does that make me a peasant? I have to say though that there wasn’t much else to do in town back then…
Nowadays, leaving the state religion carries no discernible social stigma or any real economic discrimination by society and state. I cannot understand why people still want to belong to an organisation and publicly flaunt its rules … do we need dissimulation anymore? Either these people want their personal Jesus and cannot find him outside the church they lived in or they conflate religious practice with state and society in general.
On the other hand, the greatest cultural and scientific achievements happened when fundamentalism got the boot. Consider the Mughals in India or the Moors in Al Andalus or France with the enlightenment.
Actually the Muwahiddun in Andalus were some of the greatest fundamentalists on the planet. (The movement is now called “Wahhabism”.)
Oh and MUSEUM should be disbanded pronto. Not much use for it when every school includes religious knowledge lessons.
The Sunday Times reports that an Emirates flight from Malta was delayed because Opposition leader Joseph Muscat was an hour late for check-in.
I’m a co-habiting atheist, so this issue does not trouble me; on the contrary, it gives me hope. Whilst in principle I agree that you should either abide by a club’s rules or leave it, the fact is that this pronouncement will annoy many people of faith, a la carte or not.
Every time the Catholic Church makes another one of its conservative, archaic, fundamentalist statements, it helps to push people away from it. And for me that is a good thing.
It is the first step towards using one’s mind in a rational fashion and away from superstition.
Also, since the comments have moved towards the Muzew, I’ll say that I’m not surprised that the term “doctrine” is used, because that is essentially what is going on, indoctrination of children.
Where do you think organisations like the Hitler Youth and the Comsomol got their inspiration, if not from similar religious youth organisations? What are fascism and communism, if not state religions? Why do they persecute established religion (the latter more than the former, the former being mostly a Catholic offshoot) if not to eliminate the competition?
The truth is that all religions depend on the indoctrination of children, and the Muzew is an instrument of this. No sane, rational person, if introduced to the concept of religion only in adulthood, would take religious belief seriously.
Some mentioned that there are a lot of good, well educated persons working within the Muzew. I don’t doubt it. The sad thing is that they could be so much more, as could the children they indoctrinate.
We lament the lack of enough science and mathematics graduates, and yet on the one hand we send children to school and try to teach them these subjects, based on logic and reason, and then we send them to the Muzew and tell them to throw that logic and reason away and believe in an imaginary all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible friend in the sky.
But the other imaginary friends, Superman, Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, we expect and demand that they grow out of, in a further twist of logic. That can only be a handicap to a successful education.
When you next drive over a bridge, ask yourself if the civil engineer who designed it used the principles of physics as guidance, or whether he used faith. I would hope he used the former, but can I be sure?
George Bush says God told him to invade Iraq. The sad thing is, he may well believe it.
If people declare religious faith to be their guidance, in preference to logic and reason, then perhaps we should no longer allow them to hold positions with responsibility over our lives and our safety.
As to the good things done by people in the Muzew (and countless other religious organisations), well, someone said, very aptly, that without religion, good people would still do good things and evil people would still do evil things, but it takes religion to make good people do evil things.
I agree with your article, Daphne, but it goes both ways. The Catholic Church can’t expect us to go to mass but not receive holy communion. You don’t invite people to your home and them tell them not to eat with the other guests. In Maltese we have a saying which goes “trida hobla w tredda”.
My girlfriend has been trying to persuade me to go to mass for months but I won’t go somewhere were I’m treated differently from other guests.
[Daphne – The Catholic Church doesn’t expect you to go to mass if you’re in an extramarital relationship. It just doesn’t ban you from going. I suppose it expects people to be rational (in these things at least, if not in matters of the virgin birth): why would you bother about mass if you don’t bother about the mortal sin of adultery? People who are in an extra-marital relationship, even if they are separated from their spouse, are regarded as adulterers, in a constant state of mortal sin. Whether we agree with this or not is besides the point: those are the rules. If you don’t like them, leave the church. The sky isn’t going to fall on your head, I can assure you. But to want to be a Catholic and also an adulterer – how childish can one be?]
I am an atheist today, and have been for a very long time so to me, all this talk of sin is little more than mumbo jumbo, but I was a practising devout Catholic until my mid-teens and attended Muzew.
I remember that MUSEUM seniors frowned upon the cinema and other entertainments (apart from football, hiking and other sports) and forbade us to talk to members of the opposite sex in the street … including our own siblings. Now I don’t call that healthy or natural by any measure.
What you say is very true Daphne, but wouldn’t you agree that it would be quite the farce if someone asks a higher ranking Catholic official abroad whether they allow divorced and subsequently remarried couples to receive the holy communion, and he replies in the positive?
Imagine the scenario, some state mass in Italy, attended by Silvio Berlusconi, he walks up the aisle to receive the holy communion, but is rejected.
Tal-Muzew should know better really, but at least they’re not as clueless as that Vatican lot! Sheesh..
[Daphne – The difference between Maltese Catholics and other Catholics is that other Catholics tend to be less childish about refusing to play by the rules and then insisting that the rules be bent to suit them.]
It is documented that Silvio Berlusconi once asked a high Vatican official to change this rule:
http://www.repubblica.it/2008/06/sezioni/esteri/benedettoxvi-22/ratzinger-eucarestia/ratzinger-eucarestia.html
He has lately started to receive the holy communion because he has sepatrated from his second wife:
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/articolo.php?id=98905&sez=HOME_INITALIA
Quando no si puo’ piu’, si ritorna al buon Gesu’.
I came across an article on an Italian magazine showing a picture of Berlusconi receiving holy communion from Pope John Paul II.
The accompanying article asked, in large letters in the title, how a divorced person could receive the Eucharist, and from the pope.
Ok let’s say that I hypothetically agree with what you have said, but at the end of the day, who are we to judge? If a woman was married to someone who abused her and hit her for several years, and finally she had the courage to leave him, who are we to condem this woman for maybe finding happiness with another man?
How can the church deny her holy communion? Or should she have a clandestine relationship just for the sake of saving face with the church?
[Daphne – Being grown up is all about making choices, and knowing that choices have to be made. Your marriage didn’t work out, that’s it. You decide to start another relationship, that’s it. There are consequences: one of them is being barred from receiving holy communion. Now what I wish to understand is this: if disobeying the strictures on extramarital sex means so little to a person, then why does receiving holy communion mean so much? Surely if one can’t be bothered about the religion’s laws, then one can’t be bothered about receiving holy communion?]
Yes life is full of choices but who is to know that a marriage will not work out? Everyone who gets married believes that they are making the right choice. Even a woman who has been involved in a violent marriage would agree.
I do agree with you though that if ‘one can’t be bothered about religion’s laws, then one can’t be bothered about receiving holy communion.’ But why put everyone in the same basket?
[Daphne – Why put everyone in the same basket? Because the rules are very clear. People who don’t like rules shouldn’t join clubs (I’m one of them). They shouldn’t go in for religion, either, or else stick with a more free-form version of Christianity, which is what I’m most comfortable with. Who is to know that a marriage will not work out? I suspect that at least one of the spouses always knows it, even as the vows are being said. But that’s irrelevant. How or why a marriage breaks down isn’t the point. The point is that once it does, there are decisions to be taken, and all of those decisions are life-changing, including where religion is concerned.]
Daphne, regarding your rhetorical question, I would say that the answer is simple: many would want to receive communion “ghal ghajn in-nies”.
Especially now that we are in First Holy Communion and Confirmation season !
About two decades ago Oliver Friggieri told me that on Sunday morning Maltese men visit their mother, go to church and buy two pastizzi, treating the three activities as one continuum and of equal moral import. We are still there.
Can somebody indicate where in the Holy Scripture is it written that one cannot participate in Holy Communion if separated from his husband/wife? Are we talking about a religion based on the Holy Scriptures or a religion based on centuries old traditions?
[Daphne – You’ve got it wrong. You can receive holy communion if you’re separated. You can’t receive holy communion if you’re having sex outside marriage – and that’s the case if you’re unmarried, married and still with your spouse or married and separated. Whether you’re married, separated or single is completely irrelevant, which is why the emphasis on cohabitation is misleading. It’s whether you’re having sex with somebody to whom you are not married that is the point at issue here: so you could cohabit with somebody without having sex with them and still receive holy communion. The assumption being made here, by the bishops too, is that if you’re living with somebody then you’re having sex with them.]
Whilst I agree with the Catholic Church that marriage should be lifelong, the church should also be sensitive to cases where in spite of all efforts and good intentions, the marriage breaks down. Jesus Christ had this contemplated for in Matthew 19. The church should teach about the whole of Matthew 19 and not just parts of it.
[Daphne – But why is this a problem? You and others in Malta speak as though there is but one religion in the world: Catholicism. You don’t agree with it and yet you think it is the true religion. Instead of trying to change the Catholic Church to suit you, why don’t you just go out and find a religion that does so already?]
Another matter: why is the focus on those who sin against the 6th and 9th commandaments? Sins related to sexual behaviour are not the only mortal sins. Setting bad example, illicitly taking one’s possessions, making somebody else’s life miserable, aborting a child, abusing one’s power etc. are pretty irreversible as far a long term consequences go yet somehow, these sins appear easier to deal with in terms of benefiting from the Holy Communion.
[Daphne – Stealing, abusing power and making people’s life miserable are not mortal sins.]
In the light of the foregoing, I tend to lean more with Fr. Dalli interpretation of the Scripture. And just in case one suspects that I have an axe to grind, I do happen to believe in a lifelong marriage.
Daphne – “Stealing, abusing power and making people’s life miserable are not mortal sins.”
“You shall not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments.
[Daphne – It’s not breaking any one of the Ten Commandments that constitutes a mortal sin, but the gravity of the offence. ‘Thou shalt keep holy the Sabbath day’ – failing to go to mass on Sunday is obviously not a mortal sin. Nor is stealing a packet of sweets from a shop. Nor is coveting your neighbour’s wife, though actually committing adultery with her would be.]
I would agree with you, Daphne, if the church did not have such a hold on this country. After years and years of brainwashing, starting when you are just a few months old, one cannot expect everyone to be able to think it through and realise religion is based on a fairytale.
The church has a disproportionate hold on people and I think it is wrong for this institution to encourage people to either stay in a broken marriage or else leave a person with whom they have found happiness.
Quote from The Times article: “The Bishops said they were urging couples who were cohabiting without being married to look at the teaching of the Church, renew their confidence in God’s mercy, and seek conversion.”
As I said, I would agree with you if joining the Catholic Church club is something that people choose. But in Malta a lot of people do not make this choice. It is forced to them at birth and reinforced by years of brainwashing in school and in their families and peer-group.
[Daphne – I disagree completely. All those years of supposed Catholic brainwashing from birth, and yet the Maltese are among the most unscrupulous and unprincipled people on earth. It is not the religion or its principles to which people are addicted but the social roles – the form, rather than the substance. They don’t want to be Catholics, they don’t believe in it, they break all the rules and are ruthless in looking after No. 1, and yet they don’t want anyone to tell them: ‘Look here, you can’t march up the aisle and receive holy communion’. In other words, they don’t want to feel excluded, even though they don’t believe.]
The conflict between “Eucharist” and “cohabitation” implied by the title of your article does reflect a fundamental theological position of the Catholic Church regarding the “communion” and “unity” in Christ that also is intrinsic to the “communion” and “unity” in Christian marriage.
Although the bishops may intend more than what they said in their statement published in The Times, that statement is specific to “cohabitation” and makes no reference to married couples who may not be married by the religious rite or who may have been previously divorced and re-married civilly; or to couples with their potential church annulment under review, etc.
The circumstances of individuals and their fundamental primacy of “good” conscience makes it impossible for us (as sideline judges) to impose the general “church rule” in “black-and-white” as many individuals may be inclined to do. In this regard, I believe that you are missing the point of Father Gorg Dalli’s compassionate position on this matter.
First of all, except for an assessment of one’s spirituality by a priest as an official representative of Christ and of His Church, we should not place our individual or personal views (along with our personal interpretations and understandings of what we think may be the Catholic Church’s positions, as superior to God’s mercy.
There may be many reasons for our bias against God’s mercy and grace, but as the Lord reminded the Pharisees and doctors of the law, even the prostitutes were entering the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of them.
While we don’t know how the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) resolved her specific relationship with her “non-husband” after five marriages, we do know that she was quite enthusiastic about her dialogue with the Lord, and we can presume that the Lord’s relationship with her was maintained by his friendship and grace.
As for receiving the Eucharist and its alleged incompatibility with sin, the incompatibility involves serious sin – and not just infractions against the sixth and ninth commandments, of course. None of us are perfect, yet: only the Lord’s mother was, and her first Eucharist, involved the Lord’s incarnation in your womb, his body and blood contained within her own.
The disciples were made clean by “the word” they had heard and received from the Lord (John 13:10). And by the reception of any “Sacrament” our sins also are forgiven–but not serious sins, which require a confession. The reception of the Eucharist is not possible for someone with some serious sin.
Are cohabiting couples living in serious sin? Appearances might suggest so – but the only way we can know if couples or anyone are true “disciples” of the Lord is if they “love one another” (John 15:12) and the love of the Father for the Son “with which you have loved me” is “in them,” and Christ is “in them” (John 17:26). And as individuals, we are not in a position to judge anyone except by their true witness of “Christ in them.”
I would suggest that this would be a serious problem for a number of cohabiting couples, whether previously married to someone else or not. By their lives, they may show themselves not to be “in Christ.”
One problem for our potential ill-judgment regarding a previously married individual is that that previous marriage may not have been valid, even if that marriage was “performed” in the church. A church annulment determines whether or not a marriage is actually valid or invalid; if it is invalid, it was invalid at the time the marriage was entered into, not just at the time or until the church recognizes that marriage as “invalid.”
The fact of validity for church annulments shows that a cohabiting couple may not be bound by a prior “marriage,” as eventually confirmed by the church.
In good conscience, an individual who may be awaiting the judgment of the Church on this matter may already “know” that marriage was “invalid,” but such personal judgment needs to be confirmed by the church before remarriage in the church. Otherwise, unless former partners in marriage are deceased, one cannot be re-married in the church.
Cohabiting “never-married” couples in a sexual relationship present a different situation: couples who have not made a marriage commitment. That presents a clear problem for receiving holy communion.
In Malta, we have the (nearly) unique situation of the absence of divorce. In this situation, “cohabiting” couples never have the chance to prove their commitment to marriage, since marriage is not an option. Without divorce, the bishops have an easy time of painting all cohabiting couples as those statistically without marriage commitment.
However, in countries where there is divorce, many persons want to commit themselves to another marriage, and they do so. Of course, as far as the church is concerned, if the previous marriage was a Catholic marriage, then remarriage in the church first requires that the non-validity of the prior marriage be established.
Without divorce, many people who actually love each other, but who have no hope for obtaining the civil or religious status of marriage, will be lumped with the group “cohabiting couples.” Divorce, at least, would allow a sharper clarification for couples about whether or not those couples may be willing or unwilling by their love to make the commitment to each other regarding marriage. At least civil marriage would be possible, even if annulment procedures take years or ages to complete.
As for church marriages, adequate assistance and reasonable time-frames for annulment processes may provide for the opportunity for re-marriage in the church. In the meantime, a great deal of compassion is required for couples in difficult circumstances who indeed love each other in Christ, but who may be forced to cohabit rather than being allowed to marry.
People with insufficient capacities for marriage at the time of entering into a church marriage should NEVER have been allowed to marry in the church originally. Perhaps, one-third of marriages would never get off the ground if the educational system, the culture, and the church were sufficiently sensitive to the necessary readiness for marriage. Perhaps many more marriages than one-third end in failure or separations. In some countries, divorce rates are over 50%.
Divorce does not make marriages fail, but divorce does make re-marriage and its success possible. The absence of divorce might even put destructive pressure on cohabiting relationships that otherwise might succeed.
There may be obvious cases where the Eucharist and cohabiting couples together would be absolutely scandalous. In those cases one cannot have his/her “host” and “eat it” too. But these matters cannot always be judged from their appearance.
When the priest is handing out the Eucharist he is not in a position to judge at that moment; and the Eucharist should be provided. But others should refrain from going to the Eucharist, if that is what their conscience provides. If their conscience is not true to the Spirit of God, then reception of the Eucharist unworthily is their sin–not the priest’s for providing the Eucharist.
So you are a cohabiting atheist, so what. You are not being persecuted for what you believe, so why did you bother to give Catholics a long sermon?
No I am not a cohabiting atheist. I am a practising Catholic whose first marriage was annulled; then I was married civilly in Malta, but we had to wait for 12 years before my wife and I could be married in church. I’m sorry for the “sermon,” but I was simply addressing the issues raised. You don’t seem to identify any disagreement with my position.
It’s not so much the rules of the Catholic Church that annoy people, but more the perceived hypocrisy of the Church when it comes to those who can and those who can’t receive communion.
There are two differences between a couple who live together (in sin) and a couple who don’t live together but still have sexual relations. The first is their address. The second is that the latter can get away with it. Their “sinful” living is not something that is known, and therefore something they can either deny or sit at the back of the church and should anyone ask if they have been to confession then they can easily say “No – but I m repenting”.
This is somewhat of a joke in my opinion. Yes – the rules of the Catholic Church say that you can only receive communion if you have confessed your sins. Fair enough, and there is plenty of logic behind that. However since it is not enforced, telling people who cannot lie about their breaking of the rules that they are not allowed suddenly makes it seem like those who are not allowed to receive communion are selectable, solely because their “ sins” are known.
[Daphne – But Edward, exactly what is the point of lying about one’s sexual life so as to be ‘allowed’ to receive holy communion? What would be achieved, exactly, by doing this? If it’s all for show with the rest of the congregation, then fine – one has achieved one’s aim. But cheating so as to be able to receive the host because you believe in it? That’s ridiculous.]
Forget the adulterers who cheat on their spouses, the people who spend hours sifting through all that porn which the Maltese apparently view more than any other website, the racists which exist in both the educated and uneducated crowds. Who cares about the liars, the corrupt, and the selfish. They can get away with it all, and, so long as they don’t get caught, then all is fine and dandy.
But allowing a couple, who have made the decision to live together first before they get married, to receive communion is out of the question. It is these double standards that make the Church’s stance on it all seem hypocritical, and, on some level, discriminatory.
If you go to church on Sunday it is usually fairly full. But only a handful, say six or seven, members of the congregation have actually gone to confession. Something a priest can easily know, and yet every member of the congregation receives communion, no questions asked. So much for “only those who have confessed their sins”.
[Daphne – The point is not whether you are ‘allowed’ or not, Edward, but whether you should or not and whether it means anything or not. Nobody can stop anyone from receiving holy communion. None of us wear T-shirts with slogans that say ‘I am an adulterer’ or ‘I stole a sackload of cash last week’. The point the bishops tried to reinforce, because apparently it wasn’t taught well enough at tal-Muzew – though the nuns at my school certainly made a better job of it, which is how I know this – is that receiving holy communion while in a state of sin is a transgression which compounds your state of sin. So, far from being a better person by receiving holy communion while you are committing, say, adultery, you actually become a worse person for doing it. This is a basic principle of Catholic teaching which people have forgotten or which they never learned in the first place.]
I think it is a mistaken idea that cohabiting couples are living lustful lives. Most cohabiting couples chose to live together before they get married because they want to make sure they can live together in peace, afraid of getting married to someone they just cannot live with.
This is not an unfair fear to have. Plus, you can know someone very well, but the moment you live with them you can end up having very serious disagreements which can result in the end of a relationship.
It’s the same with friends in that respect. You can have some great friends, but the second you share a flat together your friendship goes out the window. Living with someone can become very difficult. There is no reason why one shouldn’t try it out before they actually make the choice to go ahead and get married. I think it is a mature and sensible choice to make. It can help avoid many future problems that can have horrible results.
Cohabiting couples could just take a leaf out of everyone else’s book and just go to church anyway, not tell anyone they are cohabiting and then go for communion if they really want to.
[Daphne – But WHY? Who would they be deceiving, exactly? And what would they hope to achieve by doing this? Breaking Catholic rules to be Catholic? It’s illogical.]
Everyone else does that and the Church has no problem with it by the looks of things. But then it does add to the increasingly hypocritical image that is thrust upon the Church nowadays.
Expecting only the pure of heart to receive communion is a very unrealistic demand to make. In fact, it is impossible. I think the Church knows this and that is why it doesn’t deny communion to everyone who hasn’t been to confession before.
But then it s stuck with the problem of the grey area. Which part is black and which part is white? Which people can still go for communion despite their sins, and which can’t? It s a tough one to call.
With the numbers of people attending Mass on the decline I think the Church needs to re-evaluate what is important to it. Implementing the rules? Maintaining the image? Or having followers? Can it have all three?
Drawing that fine line between acceptable sinning and unacceptable sinning, which is what I believe they have done in this case, is just going to create more problems.
Where do you draw the line? And who is it that decides where the line is drawn? All very difficult questions, and finding an answer that is deemed acceptable by a generation that does not feel it needs to bend to anyone’s wishes is not going to be easy. However I don’t think the current action taken by the Church is doing anything to help.
I agree that the Catholic Church needs to make things clear. The issue is not cohabitation but the sexual relationships. A couple of friends can live in the same house there is no sin there.
On the issue of receiving holy communion it is good and proper that the Catholic Church says that if you are in a state of mortal sin you should not receive communion. As Daphne said, we do not wear T-shirts proclaiming ourselves to be sinners, so only the person walking up to communion knows in his/her heart if he should or shouldn’t receive the host. The rest of us on the other hand should mind our own business.
If someone is going up to communion in a state of mortal sin then he will have to answer to God and not to us. In this, I think that the church needs to be clear too. It is right to say what is and what is not acceptable but the bishops should be careful not to label people and to continuously allow sinners back into the fold in the hope that they might get closer to God.
The issue of sex seems to be the hottest one for the Catholic Church and Catholics in general, but I think this is completely wrong. There are graver sins which don’t seem to keep people from going to communion.
All fair points, Daphne. I don’t want to seem like I encourage people to be hypocritical. Far from it, in fact.
I just think that it is a shame that an establishment which has, essentially, a very good message to send goes about condemning people and focuses more on the sinful side of society – something they are never going to get rid of – when they should be focusing on the good in people. Inevitably, the Catholic Church pushes more and more of its followers away because of such double standards. Making a group of people out to be worse than others simply because their “sins” are known does not make sense.
There are many sins committed in this world. Cohabitation, by the sounds of it, is simply just one of many. So why make an issue of it? That’s what I mean by just doing what everyone else does, seeing as everyone else seems to live as they please, keep it secret, and still go to Church and receive communion.
If it’s a case of “should” and “shouldn’t” and not of whether or not they are allowed then I don’t see why it’s in the newspaper. There are lots of things Catholics should and shouldn’t do, but none of them make the headlines. Why then, does this?
[Daphne – Because of the growth of the belief among cohabiting couples that they are no different in the eyes of the Catholic Church to married couples. The bishops thought it opportune to remind them that yes, they are VERY different in the eyes of the Catholic Church.]
The Catholic Church is making Catholicism about rules, when in fact those rules are just guidelines and the faith is about love and acceptance for everyone.
[Daphne – You’re confusing Christianity with Catholicism. It is precisely those rules that you don’t like which make Catholicism what it is and different to other branches of Christianity. And that is precisely why the argument is so valid that those who don’t like the rules can leave Catholicism behind them instead of insisting that Catholicism turns itself into something that is not Catholicism to save them the bother of looking for another form of belief.]
At least that’s what I was taught at school. I can’t help but think that the leaders of the Church have forgotten this, or if they haven’t, then they have a very funny way of showing it.
[Daphne – It can’t have been what you were taught at school, Edward. Remove ‘the rules’ from Catholicism, and what are you left with? General Christianity. But even general Christianity has rules about sex outside marriage. Born-again Christians are particularly strict about that – more strict than Catholics, if at all possible.]
Fascinating contributions on this subject I must say. Most of these opinions go to show how hard it is to live the message of Christ. As if we did not know that already. It has been common knowledge for close to two thousand years now. It is not impossible although, very often, it seems like it.
To all you Catholics, lapsed Catholics and everyone obviously very interested in the tenets of the Catholic Church, may I be allowed to quote the historic exhortation of one of a myriad of great popes, John Paul II: “Non abbiate paura”.
The comments below the timesofmalta.com news item confirm what most Maltese are: a la carte Catholics.
Imma l-aqwa dik ta’ Lynn Zahra, specjalment jekk hi l-istess Lynn Zahra li ghandha tifla ma’ Joe Grima, l-ex ministru Laburist.
Not exactly. They prove that there are genuine practising Catholics trying to abide by the rules but there are also sham Catholics who demand to enjoy the benefices of religion while claiming exemption from the need to comply with the regulations.
Actually I was taught that at school, and 6th form, when I took religion at intermediate level. The commandments and any other rules of the Catholic Church are just guidelines and are not the be-all and end-all of being Catholic. It’s not about going to mass, saying your prayers and hey presto- instant saint. It’s about living as Jesus did, loving and accepting everyone, including your enemies.
But I am more than ready to admit that I may have got it wrong.
What I don’t understand is this. If it’s not a question of them being “allowed” but a question of “should or shouldn’t they” then why bother with all this in the first place?
Like I said, there is a lot that Catholics should or shouldn’t do and yet they still trot up the aisle every Sunday say amen and receive communion. So why hassle over something that isn’t going to be enforced in the first place? Or if it is, then why only this?
I guess my naturally liberal mind cannot understand such ways of thinking.
I was brought up to be a very devout Catholic, and I was one, until I turned 20, when I stopped going to Mass because I decided I didn’t want to be part of an establishment that thought I was sinning simply by having a relationship.
However my faith and belief in God has not changed much. Isn’t that what’s important? Why is it that the Church teaches unconditional love, compassion and acceptance, but then spends a lot of time trying to figure out how to judge a group of people, and then worry that numbers of church-goers are dropping?
Here we have a group of people who want to go to mass and who want to receive communion, which, let’s face it, is rare nowadays, and the Catholic Church thinks it should stop them just because they tick the wrong boxes.
But the Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is not about what the Church should do. It is about the Church standing its ground on things, and telling the rest of its followers “this is what the Church expects from you.” And followers have to do what they are meant to do – follow.
Someone summed it all up quite plainly on http://www.timesofmalta.com:
“S. Camilleri(1 day ago)What a joke all of you are!!!
Why on earth should you give a damn about receiving Communion if you don’t give a damn about following the rules that Communion demands!!!??? Nobody is forcing you to cohabitate; you live in a free country and its your (And your partner’s ) choice. However stop whinging about poor you not being able to go to church or receiving communion. Those are the rules of the game. If you hate getting wet don’t swim … but don’t complain if you opt to jump in the sea and ruin your clothes. Its YOUR choice and each choice has its consequences.”
OK then, I have another question that’s been dwelling in my mind and no clear answer was ever given to me. So I am living in sin because my husband decided to leave me for a younger chick, and after years alone and very down with grief, I met this man who made me come alive again and made my life worthwhile. I felt happy again and went to live with him.
Here is the question: what is the difference between my situation and that of my friend – who is also separated from her husband. and has a partner whose house she visits occasionally to do the obvious, returning to spend the night at her mother’s house? Is there a difference in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Oh come on.
[Daphne – Now I have a question that’s been on my mind for years: in a situation like that, why exactly are you bothering about what the Catholic Church thinks? You have more important problems (and pleasures) to be getting on with.]
The Catholic Church specifically states that ANY sex outside of marriage is a sin.
So if we accept that most young couples are having sex before they get married, this means that even they are committing a sin and shouldn’t go to communion.
However, I think it would be ridiculous for every priest, or lay person, asking each and everyone of us “Do you have any sin?” before giving us the host.
The Church says you should be in a state of grace to receive Communion, if you’re not then that’s just adding another sin.
When people see a couple who are cohabiting going up to communion people’s attitude is “Who do you think you’re kidding?”
If you don’t agree with the Church’s teaching and want to carry on going your way – no problem. Just do as so many thousands have done and admit it.
This is only one of many subjects in a large menu that Catholics pick and choose from whether or not they adhere to the teachings of their church. If the church were to deny sacraments to those who don’t live its teachings/beliefs etc, the queue will be short indeed.
I suppose no one who receives communion has ever used contraceptives and intends on continuing to use them? This discussion is a lot of bunkum – which is why Daphne liked to get involved in it!! Of course I agree – why should one care anyway – but my point is that if one argues down this path not many Catholics (priests and nuns included) should line up for anything!!
Daphne,
My apologies for the late reaction to your comments which as usual I appreciate. Yes you are right in pointing out that the greater difficulty lies with having sex outside marriage rather than separation itself. However there are issues with some purists even with separation as this goes against the grain of “what God has joined let no man put asunder” paradigm.
I take exception to your hasty conclusion that I was trying to find a religion that accommodates my needs. As related at the end of my modest contribution, the issue does not interest me directly but I am more interested from a philosophical point of view.
And how did you reach the conclusion that I believe that there is only one religion in the world. Whilst far from being an expert on other religions, I know a thing or two about some other religions and which in spite of many people’s beliefs, there are many commonalities.
The issue is not what the religion teaches but its interpretation. There is interpretation in each religion that has has more than one adherent. It is interpretation that has led, for example to the rift between Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox Church. That interpretation varies within the same church over time is well known.
In the earlier part of the last century, for example, it was considered sinful to participate in Holy Communion after having eaten less than an hour before Holy Communion. It was considered sinful not to fast (something to a similar effect is also narrated in the new testament and in a way Jesus rebuked it). It was considered most inappropriate to hold the Holy Host in a layman’s hand (a commonly accepted practice nowadays)
Therefore I have no problem with the religion, but I have some difficulty with the way it is sometimes interpreted. There are no efforts on my part to change the religion, my only intervention is to spur thinking on its interpretation. After all we must recall that the controversy and the bishops’ reaction was prompted by none other than a priest and not a layman like myself.
From all the religions that I have come across, the Christian faith is one of the most difficult to practise. Which is easier, to adore a deity of whatever shape of form or to bear one’s cross with dignity and turn the other cheek when savagely slapped?
What inspires me most about Christianity is that the Creator was humiliated to the extreme but in spite of the adversity and the power to have it otherwise, managed to forgive on the cross. Nowhere near easy to practice in real life. Christianity is a humane religion which indicated forgiveness towards the unacceptable behaviour of the adulteress and the tax collector.
It is a religion of hope to those who face adversity, whether self inflicted (like the prodigal son) or otherwise (the sick daughter of the centurion). It is a religion of love and tolerance. Intolerance was only exceptionally expressed by Jesus Christ towards hypocrites and those who exploit others, especially those who do so in the name of righteousness. He was a victim of such behaviour.
So yes, in the way that others have striven to adjourn practices to be more in line with the real Christian message, there is still scope for improvement within the church.
And whilst I would tend to agree that there are quite a considerable number of Maltese who in spite of professing to be Catholics, practice despicable behaviour, I think it is wrong to pigeon hole the whole Maltese Catholic population. I know quite a few people who are good Catholics and do their utmost to quietly and yet effectively practice the Christian faith.
If they genuinely love their neighbour and help out in all sots of dire adversity. I think that they go quite a long way to adhere to the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
It always amazes me how individuals think that they are theological experts and therefore able to second-guess two thousand years of thought, prayer, and tradition.
The subject matter is rich and complex even if you don’t believe in God. Council of Nicea, ousia, free will, there is so much to study and yet many Catholics think the Immaculate Conception is talking about Jesus’ creation.
I am humbled by the collective dedication of the clergy of today and all of those who have gone before them in their studies, prayers, and writings. If you want to understand, really understand, a particular teaching of the church then ask your priest about how you can learn more.
Don’t just sit at home and make up your own version to fit your own world view.
The question everyone seems to be avoiding is not whether one can receive Holy Communion or not but what happens after we go (as in dead). And to that my friends, no priest, no cardinal, no pope, neither Daphne or I can answer, because if we do – then we’d be God ourselves, wouldn’t we?
I personally picture God, like I do any loving parent, always forgiving and loving to his/her children. Thus, if your relationship has gone sour and you’re living with somebody who truly loves you and respects you (and you do the same) I doubt you will have any problems when you’re at the heavenly gates.
I tend to believe (or hope with conviction of a loving God) that you will be received with his/her hands wide open and loving hug from our heavenly father or mother. Irrespective of what the earthly (sometimes mistaken) church rules say or preclude you from receiving.
One has to remember that God is not some sort of monopoly of this or of that group.
Up to now I have been blessed and fortunate to have a long and (quasi – because everyone passes through bad patches) stable marriage, but for the other people who were not as fortunate as I am so far, and are genuine in their failed relationship and starting another one (with genuine intentions) I am sure that our creator loves you and is eager for the time when you meet up (for those that believe in God of course – those that don’t, I apologise if I hurt you in some manner with this note).
The Eastern Church offers a very sensible approach to the problem of divorce which involves individual pain and social risks.
The tradition of the early Christian church put the emphasis very strongly on two related points: firstly, the “uniqueness” of the authentic Christian marriage and secondly, its permanence.
In spite of this, the Orthodox Church does permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says (cf. Matt. 19:9).
In the words of Bishop Kallistos Ware, divorce is an action of “economia” and an “expression of compassion” of the church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.
In the tradition of the early church fathers, the unity of a married couple is not maintained through mere juridical obligation but through a unity that is “consistent with an internal symphony”.
The problem arises when this symphony is no longer possible (even if it at one time existed). Therefore “the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect”.
The Orthodox Church also recognizes that there are cases in which married life has no ‘salvation’ content or may even lead to loss of the soul. According to St. John Chrysostom in such cases it is “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.
(Excerpts from a presentation by his Grace Mgr. Athenagoras Peckstadt, Bishop of Sinope, Hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate made before the International Congress at the Catholic University of Leuven on 18-20 April 2005).