I repeat it is a relative right and not an absolute right. In the absolut way, the human has no right to anything!
I am afraid the Church does not take that stance.
it is matter of logic. If the human had an absolute right to have something, he was going to force God to give him this good, and not pray to God to have it.
We do not pray for what is our right, we demand it by right
All we need is to affirm the right of every person to his good name as laid down by the Catholic Church.:
CCC 2479. Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor . Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Boldface is mine.
Your absolute statements go too far, and are a burden the Church herself does not even impose.
Within this framework, one must admit that someone CAN receive Communion only on an act of perfect contrition, under limited circumstances, if this natural right is endangered. But in the same breath, I will not go around saying that this natural right is always endangered. For the most part, no scandal erupts when someone stays in the pew, and no good name is destroyed. This is not to say it CANNOT happen, but it would have to be very, very, very specific and limited circumstance. Quite honestly, I cannot figure out any circumstance wherein someone’s natural right to a good name is damaged by abstaining from Communion.
No, it is not. The contrition said at mass is really for venial sins only. And you are not forgiven at that time anyway. You are forgiven of your venial sins when you receive the Eucharist (with contrition for your venial sins)
I today’s world, I can barely think of a single reason why this would be the case.
The ONLY case I can actually think of would be a Pro Life Catholic, public official refraining from communion at a nationally televised mass (i.e. a funeral mass).
Or a public official refraining on at their Catholic Wedding Mass.
Otherwise, I can’t think of a real life reason.
Personally, I think if the Bishops would restore the communion fast from 1 hour to 3 hours, it would eliminate this. People with mortal sin could refrain under the cover of breaking the communion fast.
This is one major advantage of the three-hour fast, because if one is in a state of mortal sin, he can just drink coffee within that three hours and use that as an easy and truthful excuse.
Perhaps. I thought we were still required to eat no closer than 1 hour before? Is this regional?
I agree. When I have to stay in my pew, I also find it to be an act of penance and a good dose of humility too.
Yes, we have to fast for an hour. But honestly, this is very hard to break for most families. The fast is one hour before receiving communion, not 1 hour before mass starts.
So if you drive to mass on Sunday, the only way you are going to break this is if you are eating in the car on your way to mass and finish eating shortly before mass starts.
Often we don’t receive communion for 30 minutes (or more) after mass starts.
The only time I really come remotely close to breaking this is when attending daily mass. But rarely on a Sunday.
True, the hour really isn’t much of a fast. I try to keep it an hour before start time (at most, but often I avoid eating on Sunday morning until after). I feel weird trying to guess when Communion will be exactly … of course, I’m 10-15 minutes from Church, so not a long commute.
What are we worried about if we are not seen to receive Communion? That people might think we are guilty of mortal sin? What if we are guilty of mortal sin, would it be better then that we join the Communion line to effectively make a false statement about ourselves in order to avoid any potential embarrassment?
If someone notices the person did not receive communion and makes any assumptions of the reason whatsoever, then that person walked through that door of the church for the wrong reason.
There is no logic to what you are saying which is only your personal opinion.
We do have a right to a good reputation. The Church says we do.
People should not destroy that reputation without good cause. No one has the right to infer anything negative if I stay in the pew and not receive Communion. To do anything else is to jump to conclusions without evidence.
A lay-presider at a Liturgy of the Word with Holy Communion (in place of mass) would probably qualify, as would an extraordinary minister (who couldn’t get anyone to cover for them), a public figure (not just at a nationally televised mass), or just when there’s only two people at mass like I had this morning!
The purpose of this exception is to protect the good of the community - not just the individual. Granted, people should mind their own business and not speculate as to the state of others’ souls. However, our flawed nature being what it is, this will happen and so the Church provides a remedy for those cases where it’s needed for the benefit of the community,.
Correctly read again what you quoted, this CCC text refers to calumny , or gossiping, which is an unfair way of destroying a person’s reputation. But if we denounce a shameful crime committed, the reputation of the concerned will be destroyed in fact, the Church does not ask that the reputation of others be preserved absolutely, but it condemns the fact of unjustly destroying the reputation of others by the calumny or other sin of the same kind!
The human must be willing to sacrifice any of his natural rights (including the right to his reputation) to avoid a mortal sin. No human right can justify the commission of a mortal sin.
Again, you’re failing to recognize that the Church allows, in extraordinary circumstances, a person to receive Communion after having made an act of perfect contrition. This is what the thread is about, and this has been explicitly mentioned several times. By the Church’s own teaching, such a person who has achieved perfect contrition is not in a state of mortal sin, but has been restored to grace. Such a person, under limited circumstances, can receive Communion. I don’t see how you’re not getting this. No one, as in ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is talking about receiving in mortal sin, except, strangely, you.
But ordinarily, this is not allowed, because such a person, although forgiven, has not been absolved. That’s why in the same breath that I’m fighting you on your hard stance, I also just as fiercely state that one is hard pressed to actually find a grave enough reason to receive Communion after only perfect contrition. Other than some mentioned above, the most of which are even a stretch, the only real reason for receiving Communion after just perfect contrition is danger of death and no priest is available (e.g. an EMHC or deacon at the side of an imminently dying person).
I said: boldface mine. Emphasis on the Church’s teaching about a person’s natural right to a good name. It’s not so much about calumny or detraction, but I boldfaced what I did to emphasize that particular point.
But I think you’re refusing to consider all the facts in this discussion. Namely, this thread deals with perfect contrition and Communion, and the limited circumstances under which this is allowed under canon 916.