# Catholics: Let's talk second class church membership **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534 "2007-06-03T01:03:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/1 "2007-06-03T01:03:36Z")
Although I can burden you with my personal story, if you want, this post already contains a long enough quote. Excuse me for my brevity on my own contribution to the post. **In short, the question is: Can a catholic who is excluded from eucharistic communion be considered a catholic, at all?. What makes a catholic a catholic if he cannot participate in communion with Jesus and the Church?** The quote that follows is from Familiaris Consortio. It deals with people in second marriages. I have included the whole section for context, but the paragraph bolded is the one that is of interest to this debate. It is not unique in content. There are many other similar statements for many other situations which render a catholic unsuited for the eucharist. > [@](#): > > e) Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried > > 1. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation. > > Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid. > > Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope. > > **However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.** > > Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180) > > Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage. > > By acting in this way, the Church professes her own fidelity to Christ and to His truth. At the same time she shows motherly concern for these children of hers, especially those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned by their legitimate partner. > > With firm confidence she believes that those who have rejected the Lord’s command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/2 "2007-06-03T01:20:04Z")
I’m not the most practicing Catholic, but my paternal grandparents, my dad (to a lesser degree), and others are. My paternal grandfather married my (step)grandmother waay back in the '60s. She had had a previous marriage and had divorced. They still went to church every week, attended all church activities, participated, etc. Only they couldn’t do communion. This lasted 40 years, until my grandpa died. It is not that uncommon to see that only half or less than half the people at Mass get up to do communion. Not only are divorced not able to get communion, but also people like me, who seldom go to church, are not apt to participate in communion without getting a confession first. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/3 "2007-06-03T01:29:47Z")
The last I checked (which was admittedly a long time ago, and I could very well be wrong), you’re not even supposed to receive communion if you haven’t been to confession since your last communion. So yes, at any given service, probably half of the attendees won’t receive communion, and I daresay that three quarters of those who DO probably shouldn’t, for various and sundry reasons. That’s very different from being excommunicated though, which is essentially what being \*\*denied \*\* communion is. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/4 "2007-06-03T01:39:45Z")
[QUOTE=DianaG] That’s very different from being excommunicated though, which is essentially what being \*\*denied \*\* communion is. [/QUOTE] Isn’t that essentially what’s happening here, though? I mean, the divorced person hasn’t been fully excommunicated or anything, but they’re still being denied communion nonetheless. Why is the person just kind of left “in between”? LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/5 "2007-06-03T01:55:52Z")
That’s what I’m saying. If you \*choose \* not to accept communion, that’s one thing, but it’s wildly different from being \*denied \* communion, which is excommunication, and a Big Deal, contrary to **KarlGrenze’s** impression. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/6 "2007-06-03T02:02:42Z")
Huh, Diana, it is perhaps unclear or miswriting on my part, but I never said anything about excommunication! Excommunication IS a big deal, but being divorced is not being excommunicated!!! I wasn’t talking about being denied, or at least that wasn’t my intention. I was just talking about not taking communion because you shouldn’t (divorced remarried, haven’t been to confession). They’re not denied, but they know full well and like you said, chose not to do it. Perhaps I was being unclear, but no, I wasn’t talking about excommunication (which I know is a big deal). ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/7 "2007-06-03T02:05:22Z")
[QUOTE=DianaG] That’s what I’m saying. If you \*choose \* not to accept communion, that’s one thing, but it’s wildly different from being \*denied \* communion, which is excommunication, and a Big Deal, contrary to **KarlGrenze’s** impression. [/QUOTE] But it’s not really a matter of choice, is it? The text quoted by **Sapo** indicates that the Catholic Church doesn’t allow remarried, divorced persons to receive communion. I realize that there’s probably very little chance that the church would recognize the person, and actively deny them communion (and in this sense, it could be considered a choice for the person). I might just be getting caught up in semantics, though. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/8 "2007-06-03T02:20:37Z")
How does that even make someone a second-class Catholic? A divorced and re-“married” person has made a conscious choice to maintain a style of living in direct contradiction to the sanctity of matrimony and is actively living outside a state of grace, BY CHOICE. If you mean it makes a person a second-class Catholic because that person is outside communion, and thus cannot receive communion, perhaps it does, \*\*but it’s still by their choice. \*\* Just because the choice is more socially palatable than other “sins” doesn’t mean anything. God’s laws are not man’s. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/9 "2007-06-03T03:08:47Z")
Most other conditions that would exclude one from receiving communion are temporary conditions that one can choose at some point to “undo”, seek absolution and be ok for communion once again. It is true that it is by personal choice, that one is made not qualified for communion. That is not my objection, though. And let’s not make this about remarriage in particular (although it is the particular case that was relevant to me, at the time). My question is, why do they want the remarried to stick around if they don’t want them to be in communion?. The paragraph just above the one bolded makes the point that these people should not feel excluded from the church. Being welcome to come in, hear the word, sing the hymns, give some money and share the comradery but not being able to participate in the central aspect of the church (eucharistic communion) is, to me, a second class membership. How is one still a member of the church if one is denied what is, admittedly, the main focus of being a member of this church? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/10 "2007-06-03T05:12:18Z")
[QUOTE=Sapo] Most other conditions that would exclude one from receiving communion are temporary conditions that one can choose at some point to “undo”, seek absolution and be ok for communion once again. It is true that it is by personal choice, that one is made not qualified for communion. That is not my objection, though. [/QUOTE] Well, (and I know you said you didn’t want to make this about marriage in particular, but that was the only example you gave), isn’t the second marriage thing also a “temporary condition”. The person could get a civil divorce from his second wife, go back to his first wife, and get absolution. In other words, they need to be, “repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, [and] are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.” It’s just that as long as they don’t do that…as long as they participate in the illicit second marriage, they can’t receive communion. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/11 "2007-06-03T08:39:48Z")
Being prohibited from partaking of the Eucharist is not excommunication. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/12 "2007-06-03T09:21:48Z")
[QUOTE= Sapo] Being welcome to come in, hear the word, sing the hymns, give some money and share the comradery but not being able to participate in the central aspect of the church (eucharistic communion) is, to me, a second class membership. How is one still a member of the church if one is denied what is, admittedly, the main focus of being a member of this church? [/QUOTE] Your argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Church is about. Eucharistic Communion is reserved for those who are actually in communion with the church. Communion isn’t a noun, representing the Host; it’s not a verb, representing the act of taking the Host in one’s mouth. It’s a state of being. Without the state of grace, the eating of a wafer produced in Texas is simply snacking. When one chooses to live in a manner outside the bounds of Canon Law, one chooses to stand outside communion with the Church. The Church isn’t a Ponzi scheme. It does not rely on the money a divorce/e puts in the plate. The Church wants you at Mass because the path to salvation is through the church. You’re missing the main point. The lack of being in communion is not a punishment. **The point is for the person who is not in a state of grace to do what he must to return to that state.** It’s not a spanking, it’s a demonstration of one’s distance from God so that it might be corrected. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/13 "2007-06-03T11:12:01Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Well, (and I know you said you didn’t want to make this about marriage in particular, but that was the only example you gave), isn’t the second marriage thing also a “temporary condition”. The person could get a civil divorce from his second wife, go back to his first wife, and get absolution. In other words, they need to be, “repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, [and] are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage.” It’s just that as long as they don’t do that…as long as they participate in the illicit second marriage, they can’t receive communion. [/QUOTE] I don’t want to make too much of a point of it (and we can have an entire parallel debate about this as long as we keep starting our posts with that phrase 😉 ), but I would be surprised to hear that wrecking a second family is what is going to bring me to grace. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/14 "2007-06-03T11:23:17Z")
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup] The Church isn’t a Ponzi scheme. It does not rely on the money a divorce/e puts in the plate. The Church wants you at Mass because the path to salvation is through the church. You’re missing the main point. The lack of being in communion is not a punishment. **The point is for the person who is not in a state of grace to do what he must to return to that state.** It’s not a spanking, it’s a demonstration of one’s distance from God so that it might be corrected. [/QUOTE] The path to salvation is through the blood and body of the Christ. Hymns won’t save you, contributions won’ save you, going to mass won’t save you. Jesus will save you. The church is a tool, a community of people who share the road to salvation. I realize that denying communion is not a punishment. Still, the Catechism makes a very strong point about the centrality of the Eucharist to the church (cites available, but I am sure not necessary). My point is that a member that is not in Communion with the church, and is not in a path leading to it (no repentance, no intention to change), has no good reason to stick around. It is just as going on safari, looking at the natives but not participating in their lifestyle. And not only I don’t see why one would choose to do that, but neither why would the Church explicitly encourage that. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/15 "2007-06-03T12:23:10Z")
IIRC the words quoted at RCC are (paraphrased) ‘take this bread/cup, **all of you** and eat/drink)’ This is quoting Jesus at the last supper. By saying all of you it seems like the invitation is open to all - this invitation is made by Jesus Himself and denying anyone the body and blood is going against Jesus’ teachings. Even Judas, the one Jesus knew would betray Him, was offered the body and blood. Taking the body and blood of Jesus seems to be a condition of salvation (though it is uncertain if this means physically or metaphorically), but then again I see no reason for this to be more then a once in a lifetime occurance. The way of the church is to help it’s members become more like Jesus and lead it’s members to Him, along with spreading the good news to the unbelievers. The purpose of the church is really not to prevent sin, as even if they could that won’t save a single person, only belief in Jesus will do that. Making rules to exclude people from what Jesus freely gave is placing themselves in the place of God IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/16 "2007-06-03T12:31:59Z")
I have a nephew who is a Catholic priest and a Sister that is a nun;it is my understanding that a person not married by a Catholic priest is considered living in sin. One who goes to communion in such a state commits a sacrilege. There was a time that if one didn’t make their Easter duty( going to confession and communion at least once a year) they too could not go to communion. I have not been a Catholic for over 30 years and I do not understand why a person would want to go to communion. If one masturbates that is also a sin and the person shouldn’t go to communion with out first going to confession. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/17 "2007-06-03T12:35:14Z")
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup] You’re missing the main point. The lack of being in communion is not a punishment. The point is for the person who is not in a state of grace to do what he must to return to that state. [/QUOTE] I understand exactly what you have posted above, and I know that is the position of the RCC, but I do find some serious issues from it. We are already separated from Father God, and only can come to Him through Jesus, this is not just the person taking communion, but every person there (except Jesus Himself). You might say that that person is in a continual state of sin, be we all are, if we stole a candy bar as a child we incurred a debt, not against the store, but against God, there is no possible way we can correct it, the results of that sin persists, that small amount of money that the shop owner was out changed the timeline. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/18 "2007-06-03T12:40:28Z")
[QUOTE=monavis] I have a nephew who is a Catholic priest and a Sister that is a nun;it is my understanding that a person not married by a Catholic priest is considered living in sin. [/QUOTE] Do you know if there is any scriptural basis on this? It seems that pastor-teachers is one of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit and would be the closest to what we consider a priest. I don’t know anywhere where these spiritually gifted people were given the exclusive right to preform marriage ceremonies on God’s behalf. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/19 "2007-06-03T15:25:23Z")
Before this drifts into comparing the doings of the Catholic church against other Christian churches, I am curious about the internal coherence of the Catholic teaching. Although this was far from being the only factor on my fall from the church, it was an issue that greatly bothered me at the time. Other than some earthly comforts, what does the Church offer a person not participating in the communion of the church? It feels to me as having a membership at a private shooting range where one can use all the facilities but is not allowed to shoot a single round. You can look at the scenery, listen to the bangs, handle the guns, eat at the cafeteria and pee in the restroom, you just cannot do what people go there to do. Fire a weapon. ---
**Author:** ![Lissla\_Lissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lissla\_Lissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissla_Lissar)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2007, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534/20 "2007-06-03T15:44:12Z")
> [@](#): > > The last I checked (which was admittedly a long time ago, and I could very well be wrong), you’re not even supposed to receive communion if you haven’t been to confession since your last communion. You can receive if you haven’t been to confession, as long as you aren’t in the state of mortal sin. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, and consent of will. That is, it requires you to knowingly commit a sin. If all conditions aren’t fulfilled, you haven’t lost the state of grace. When I have committed a mortal sin, I do not receive, but I am still Catholic. I can still, while attending Mass, perform the act of spiritual communion. I am not separated from God except by my own will, and at Mass I can pray for true contrition and an opportunity to attend the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. So you can participate, you just can’t receive. The Church sees salvation and santification as an ongoing process aided by all the Sacraments, spiritual devotion, and fellowship within the Church body. Grace is not made available solely through the Eucharist. And weekly attendance at Sunday Mass is mandatory for all Catholics, whether or not they’re in the state of grace. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-lets-talk-second-class-church-membership/406534.md?page=2)