Categories
Mediawatch

Sacred Rights

So cohabiting couples should strictly speaking not be allowed to take part in the sacrament of holy communion. We were reminded that recently and suddenly there is a furore, a raising of the metaphorical ruckus and more by an indignated part of the populace. What do our Bishops think they are doing? Don’t they know that there are people who traipse up the aisle and swallow the wafer who are much less deserving than the poor cohabiting couples whose only crime is to love each other?

Say what? I could not believe my eyes as more and more people jumped on the anti-church bandwagon once again. Suddenly people were pontificating on a virtual classification of “communion merit”. Soon enougha ritual of a specific denomination on the island was discussed in the same manner as one would a universal human right.

Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter by Pietro...
Image via Wikipedia

Have I got news for the pseudo-libertarians: there is no universal human right to communion. On a scale of human interpreted religious ritual – one that strongly believes that what the earthly representatives of a divinity say is truly inspired by the aforementioned divinity – whatever anyone else has to add is pure balderdash. Communion is a religious ritual that has quite possibly existed ever since the man from Nazareth chose to ask is apostles to break bread and eat it in his remembrance. True, at that point in time there were no postillae or qualifications as to who could partake of this commemorative meal whenever it happened (neither did Haysus mention anything about wheat intolerance – something the Catholic Church would only solve in early years of the 21st century) but we must perforce presume that he left such work to Peter “the Rock” and his followers.

That last presumption is also crucial since the Catholic Church is now the supreme authority of what is kosher in communion. Which is why the sudden jumping and yelling when it was made clear that cohabiting couples should stay put on their church seats while the purer folk go about their queuing and communing is all very out of order. And what is all this nonsense about the Church being picky and hypocritical when it spares the more obvious candidates from wafer deprivation? I do not recall the church or any pointy hatted representative say that liars, thieves etc CAN have communion while cohabiting couples CANNOT. The rules are quite clear for everybody and there is also a mechanism for the repentant and the contrite – it’s another ritual which involves a sort of skype with God via his earthly rep.

Do we really need to get into the ritualistic details of Roman Catholicity to understand the difference between a rite and a right? But, they protest, the Church also has a social role and is a social example. Bollocks. Let the church deal with its own contradictions in its own time. Let it explain to its flock how sex before marriage, cohabitation, adultery, theft and murder are all on the same level in the “Does Not Qualify for Communion” point system. What the church also does is something very sly. It does not police its aisles with lie detectors and identifiers of premarital fornicators – it simply and very calmly puts it on your own conscience. It does not need a reminder from Mario & Cremona for a good catholic to know that sins and contrition are all part of the mechanism of personal development. Religion and spiritual development is all about rites in this case – and about the relationship between you and God – should you believe in her of course.

It’s a rite, not a right so stop harassing the catholic flock and if you don’t like it just do not go in there.

The Times of Malta. Debate rages on communion to cohabiting couples.

Not Only in Malta. In Holland controversy over a priest who refused to give communion to a gay person.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Facebook Comments Box

19 replies on “Sacred Rights”

I think the main argument is that many do not equate cohabiting as a sin and so there is no repentance. With being a thief, murderer etc you are not supposed to take communion until you admit that what you are doing is wrong and repent. Whereas for many cohabiting couples what they are doing is not considered “wrong”, so there is no repentance. More than the communion issue, I think what people are getting at is that it’s fundamentally NOT WRONG to live with somebody if you are not married.
And it is important to say that while the focus is on separated couples, I think that young people having premarital sex is the same argument… there is nothing wrong with it. Now if the church holds the stance that there IS in fact something wrong, then fine, but again it will lead to people making up their own minds and doing what they like anyway.

Wrong Anthony. The main argument is that it’s the church’s party and they cry if they want to. We cannot expect to tell the church what is “Wrong” or “not wrong” in its eyes. The “rightness” or “wrongness” in this case (i.e. qualify for communion) is religious and beyond the remit of the lay community. Now whether cohabiting is right or wrong in society is another matter – and I think practice is showing that the question is not whether it is right or wrong but whether the surrounding structure of legal rights is adequate.

Jacques,

I would direct those who feel themselves wronged by this denial of Magic Cracker privileges to their nearest eBay portal, where communion wafers can be had for a few dollars: a thousand per box. They might prove a good low-cal substitute for nachos during the World Cup, too…

Exactly Jacques I agree with you on that 100%… so basically practicing Christians have a choice to make- whether they want to keep being practicing Christians and follow the rules, or to do what they think is right.
But this also brings to light some of the biggest contradictions between religion and spirituality- if people feel there is nothing spiritually wrong with cohabitation then why are the rules there?

Well marriage is an important social construct that has been around for much longer than the Catholic Church- it provides stability and premarital sex was not allowed to avoid lots of pregnant teenagers without partners. Nothing very spiritual about that, the laws came from the church since they had the ultimate power- you go to hell if you don’t obey!
But nowadays, with contraception and empowerment of women these concepts have changed a lot (not for the worse in my opinion), but since there was no (or little) spiritual basis for these rules the church’s argument is that “this is wrong because it always has been”. If the church doesn’t want to face new facts and ways of life then people must simply obey… but if that always happened the world would still be flat!

“premarital sex was not allowed to avoid lots of pregnant teenagers without partners.”
I stand to be corrected on this but I’m under the impression it was not allowed because a woman was essentially seen as ‘property’ and ‘marriage’ was a contract between the groom and father of the bride.
Premarital sex = tainted goods = no sale…
And sadly this sexist attitude, towards a woman’s value varying according to her promiscuity, is still an issue in our society (Not to mention certain other cultures)

I also find it amusing that the father of the bride still ‘gives his daughter away’ to the groom in modern society. It might be perceived as a sweet custom but in reality it’s a sexist practice that feminists should be pouncing on.
But hey ‘it’s tradition’, right? so it cannot be wrong or changed if we’ve ‘always’ done it this way… heh

I stand to be corrected on this but I’m under the impression it was not allowed because a woman was essentially seen as ‘property’ and ‘marriage’ was a contract between the groom and father of the bride.

Wrong impression. Particularly the fact that one can draw these kind of generalities.

Have to agree with Fausto. Also have to disabuse you of the notion that having the father of the bride give her away still has some deep meaning which is greatly offensive to women….it’s a tradition which one is free to ignore….I know of a mother who gave her daughter away and several couples who have walked down the aisle together and nobody found it strange/offensive/particularly brave or outrageous or a deeply significant pro-feminist action.
As for the Church teaching, its prohibition of adultery is not something very new….I’m afraid that Moses got the scoop on that one….I can’t see why the Maltese media had to wait for the Bishop’s comment on the matter to pick it up…

I’m aware that it does not need to be enforced and that we have several exceptions but I was referring to what it could have originally represented rather than any deep meaning it might have today. Unfortunately tradition sometimes means practicing something long after you’ve forgotten what it originally meant or what purpose it served…
Anyways, wasn’t meaning to step on anyone’s toes here…

And why bride price and not the contrary and more prevalent practice of dowry (which was actually part of the Maltese civil code until the early 1990s)?

You say women were “seen as property”. You mean to say that when a man married a woman he acquired property AND was paid for it?

Sorry, for the mental masturbation. The Spanish parliament has just made EUR 15b worth of budget cuts (by one vote) and Malta can afford to discuss communion to cohabitants, hypothetical coalitions, Daphne Caruana Galizia, Lou Bondi and whether secularism is a disease. Damned lucky country.

@ Fausto…Lighten up….you forgot Thea…and even though coalitions have you coming out in hives, the subject is not being discussed as avidly as it is in Britain..

I didn’t forget Dowry: Isn’t dowry different from bride price? The dowry is given to the groom for setting up a family and not to the groom’s parents in exchange for the groom – as is the case with bride price. Plus we were looking at the roots of why pre-marital sex was frowned upon so it’s a question of how far back you’d like to go. Today “premarital sex not allowed to avoid lots of pregnant teenagers without partners” as Anthony Debono mentioned is probably more relevant although taboo’s vis-a-vis promiscuity are still an issue too.

The reaction is typical of societies used to a catholic church which sticks to doctrine while turning a blind eye on harmless non heretical deviations.
It is fascinating how Catholicism manages to be both a religion with strict doctrines and an expression of popular culture and an agency giving people access to community rituals like weddings, births and other rites of passage.
This translates in surreal situations of atheists or agnostics sitting for the cana course. I did it myself.
Perhaps this is the recipe for the enduring survival of the church….By not closing an eye, the church risks losing its highly diverse flock…
But i suspect that not even the church has made up its mind on whether it wants to be just another closed sect or an open cultural hub.
For the church’s vociferous opposition to the court ruling on the exposition of crosses in public buildings hinges on the idea that the cross is a cultural rather than religious symbol.
This shows that it has not made up its mind on whether it is a religion or an expression of popular culture.

If I’m passing out candy and my rule is that you have to wash your hand before you’ll get one, don’t expect a candy if you don’t wash your hand and don’t blame me for it either.

Some people need to get a life instead of always attacking the church and its leaders…if you don’t like its rules leave it….it’ll go on without you.

That exactly is the point Malta did not have a reformation…Catholicism is based on compromise with popular culture…lutherans and calavinists were the talibans of the early modern age whose take it or leave it approach and emphasis on a direct relationship with God paved the way for secularism… one of the ironies of history i guess

Actually the Church should be quite happy with the fallout from this story and the fuss that’s been kicked up. For it points to two things: 1) the Maltese still CARE enough to get passionately worked up about things like this. And, more importantly 2) the Maltese still view such things as NATIONAL issues.

It is Bingo!

Amen.

Comments are closed.