Wednesday, July 22, 2015


Stop the earth and let me off! I hate our modern slovenly tee shirt culture where beauty and human communion are reduced to crassness and ugliness!  Fast food and junk food lead to fast fat and junky waists! A cell phone or iPad command more attention than the people in your physical presence! I can't take Donald Trump's rhetoric any more although our modern culture loves it and eats it up! Just let off or put me in a time machine; I belong in the 1940's or '50's!

And then I need to ask, just which parishes and what priests are unwelcoming of divorced Catholics or Catholics divorced and remarried? Who prevents them from entering the church, praying, receiving a blessing in the Communion line (or for that matter actually receiving Holy Communion illicitly). Just what parishes and which priests don't already do what is good Italian Cardinal recommends? Answer me, what parishes which priests?????

Reflecting on the upcoming Synod of Bishops on the family, Cardinal Ennio Antonelli said in an interview that the Church can be welcoming to those who have remarried outside the Church without admitting them to Holy Communion. 
"They have to be part of the life of the Church with concrete gestures of welcome, friendship, and respect," he told Rome Reports. "For example, with separated brothers, with Christians who are not Catholic, they can be in line for Communion to receive a blessing." 
The prelate, who served as president of the Pontifical Council for the Family from 2008 until his retirement in 2012, recently wrote a short book strongly criticizing the proposal to admit persons in non-sacramental civil marriages to Holy Communion. 
"There are many reasons for why marriage is in crisis, but some of them that stand out: we live in a secular culture dominated by individualism, relativism, consumerism, and hedonism," Cardinal Antonelli continued in the interview. "God is marginal, as if He wasn't relevant." 
"The way society, the economy, or work is organized penalizes the family instead of supporting and promoting it," he added. "For proof we only have to see the married couples who spend lots of time far apart from each other because they must work."
FINAL COMMENT:  Just which parishes, what priests are not doing this already and much, much more?


Ivan said...

Correct me if I'm wrong Father, but isn't it correct that if someone who is civilly divorced and does everything in his power to correct it (tries to get back with the husband/wife, if he is living with someone else then they live like a brother and sister and similar) can licitly receive Communion (if he has confessed, of course)?

If so, how can we speak about "accepting" and all that blablabla? If what I have typed is true, then they are very much accepted, and anything that would bar them from receiving Holy Communion is themselves.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

True! If one is in a non sexual marriage and I would include homosexual civil unions and are living as roommates, a priest in confession can allow them to receive Holy Communion. However no one else knows the ate platonic so scandal could arise. Therefore the counsel should be given that they receive Holy Communion in a place where they are not known.

gob said...

Let's say that you are invited to a party at the home of some non-Catholic where dinner will be served. Everybody sits around in the nice living room...chats and enjoys themselves. Drinks are offered...oddly, however, not to you. Then, presently, the hosts say that dinner is ready...and tell you that you may come in for the blessing...then to make yourself comfortable in the living room, that they'll all be back later, when they finish dinner.

Would you feel part of the gathering...welcome. would you feel friendship and respect?
I decide.

Anonymous said...

Ivan, if he has confessed what?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Tanks for making it abundantly clear why Communion as a horizontal friendly meal is so damned heretical and flawed! The metaphor smells of the sulphur of hell! We receive Christ I because we have not broken Communion with Him through willful and often public mortal sin not because we are at a banal friendly dinner! Thanks for helping us to see how flawed your 1970's communion as meal ideology is!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Now let us hold Hans and sing kumbaya!

gob said...

Father, you totally, you chose to ignore the point...and I imagine you know it. The discussion is NOT about comparing the Eucharist to a dinner party. I'm talking about the unfeeling way that we Catholics think people could possibly feel welcome in our churches when we exclude them from the main...most important part.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Your damnable sense of entitlement which is today's ideology is what I condemn! Does every mother of a baby boy regardless of the fact they are not Jewish want their son to be circumsized at that lovely family ceremony and feel u welcomed when the rabbi threatens them with the razor when they come forward because little Johnny feels left out?

gob said...

A very pathetic reply.

John Nolan said...

Gobshite, nothing like as pathetic as your comments. No-one is ever turned away from a Catholic church if he wishes to attend it. But receiving Communion is not the same thing as attending Mass, and never has been. In the early Church the catechumens were admitted only to the first part of the service, that which in the NO is referred to as the Liturgy of the Word.

Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance and presumption.

Anonymous said...


Your hypothetical is a poor parallel, and at any rate fails to include the necessary background. Let's say that the person invited to the party but not dinner is the only one there who has refused the ongoing vaccinations necessary to prevent the spread of a widespread, deadly, incurable disease that is easily communicated. Everyone there wants the person to be able to come to dinner, but because he is voluntarily persisting in a course not only dangerous to himself and others, it would not be safe for either him or anyone else there for him to eat dinner with them. In fact, one purpose of the party is for the people there to persuade the person that he's doing something dangerous and to change his mind of his own free will. If he does, they'll gladly let him in to dinner. He may "feel" left out, but the disease is dangerous to him no matter what his feelings are. He'll feel a lot worse if he contracts the disease from the dinner (or from anywhere else).

While the above doesn't fully remedy your hypothetical, it gives a bit better sense of the situation.

Anonymous said...

Who is this "Hans" you want to hold? Does Hans want to be held? Is Hans a minor, in which case holding Hans might be a cause for reporting to authorities?

Is Hans given a say in the matter of his being held? If not, why not?

There are too many questions here that go unanswered...

Anonymous said...


The Mass is a sacrifice, an offering to the Father, a gift of propitiation.

We are at Mass not to get something but to give something: offering up the sacrifice: the Gift of Jesus' life for our sins to the Father which gift our priest, acting in persona Cristi, represents on our behalf.

We are at Mass to participate in offering the Gift to the Father even when we do not receive communion. One should receive communion when in a state of grace only, at least once a year at Easter time.

Receiving communion just to get something for showing up Sunday morning can get us in a great deal of trouble if at the same time we are not spiritually ready for that privilege.

If one feels entitled to communion one misses the meaning of the prayer just before communion: Domine non sum Dignus...None of us are worthy let alone entitled. Listen to Fr. McDonald and brush up on what it is to fully participate in Mass.

Victor said...

Christians talk a lot more than in the past about "Welcoming", particularly among the American mainline Protestants who have a tendency to water down their beliefs in order to be more "Welcoming" when their ranks are dwindling. Unfortunately this watering down is being seen more and more in the American Catholic Church too in order to be more "Welcoming".

Jesus' parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1–14 is important here, especially the conclusion, "Many are called, but few are chosen". This applies to the Mass too. You have to have the right "clothes" or habitus to share in the wedding feast. It seems everyone attending Mass feels entitled to the Eucharist. If I did not know better, I would accuse the Church of apostasy on this issue if one compares it to the Church of pre-Vatican II.

Since Vatican II the be all and the end all seems to have been relegated to the Mass. The Church wants God-alienated people to wander into the churches and be converted by the Mass. The Mass must be "Welcoming" to sinners and saints alike, where they can partake in the cozy meal. No more catechumens and faithful here with their separate liturgies.

Well, the Mass in the West has come a long way from the days of St Vladimir. In fact, the New Mass is lucky to keep some faithful attending it every Sunday because it is so "Welcoming".

Oh yes, and confessions are for the old folks or those with "grave" problems. (i.e. It is the individual that defines what is "grave" for him, not the Church.)

I think the Holy Father has the right take on this with his notion of going to the peripheries. The Church has to go outside the churches and be fishers of men. It has to teach and to show by example the Gospel. It is only when the "fish" have freely and fully given their mind, souls, and body to Christ that they are to be rewarded with a taste of heaven, the Eucharist, as it used to be. The Eucharist is a heavenly gift for those who merit it. But this is so un-"Welcoming" for today's Catholics, isn't it?

You can see why the Church in the "advanced" countries is in grave trouble.

David Roemer said...

Reasons to Believe in Jesus

Reasons to believe Jesus is alive in a new life with God can be found in quotes from two prominent atheists and a biology textbook.

Thus the passion of man is the reverse of that of Christ, for man loses himself as man in order that God may be born. But the idea of God is contradictory and we lose ourselves in vain. Man is a useless passion. (Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, New York: Washington Square Press, p. 784)

Among the traditional candidates for comprehensive understanding of the relation of mind to the physical world, I believe the weight of evidence favors some from of neutral monism over the traditional alternatives of materialism, idealism, and dualism. (Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, location 69 of 1831)

And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )

Sartre speaks of the "passion of man," not the passion of Christians. He is acknowledging that all religions east and west believe there is a transcendental reality and that perfect fulfillment comes from being united with this reality after we die. He then defines this passion with a reference to Christian doctrine which means he is acknowledging the historical reasons for believing in Jesus. He does not deny God exists. He is only saying the concept of God is contradictory. He then admits that since life ends in the grave, it has no meaning.

From the title of the book, you can see that Nagel understands that humans are embodied sprits and that the humans soul is spiritual. He says, however, that dualism and idealism are "traditional" alternatives to materialism. Dualism and idealism are just bright ideas from Descartes and Berkeley. The traditional alternative to materialism is monism. According to Thomas Aquinas unity is the transcendental property of being. Campbell does not even grasp the concept of monism. The only theories he grasps are dualism and materialism.

If all atheists were like Sartre, it would be an obstacle to faith. An important reason to believe in Jesus is that practically all atheists are like Nagel and Campbell, not like Sartre.

by David Roemer


David Roemer

Anonymous said...


How about if I come over for dinner to your house and spit in your face or your spouse's face? Will you still ask me to stay and fill my tummy? Do you understand the flaw in your logic now? You see, as a Catholic I'm expected to have enough decency to stay away from the dinner table when I've insulted the host, but it appears that you are a person who would have to be kicked in the ass and told to leave.


Anonymous said...


For further instruction see 1 Corinthians 11:27.

To translate in terms that would be more helpful for you to understand:

If you come to the dinner party smelling like a dirty urinal and farting in front of the other guests, it is entirely possible that you'll be asked to leave.

In your example you take on the role of the innocent victim as many lying liberals do. God does not punish us unjustly and neither does the Catholic Church.

gob said...

Would all of you geniuses please read my hypothetical story? I was responding to Father McD's remarks. It says "Let's say that you are invited....YOU....that would be Fr. McD.....not somebody who "smelling like a dirty urinal or farting or who has a disease or who spit in anybody's face. And I did not mention "turning away" anybody. Father was talking about being unwelcoming. So am I.

For example...I'm at an age where I attend quite a few funerals. There are often substantial numbers of non-Catholics there. When the priest recites his little instruction and prohibition about who's worthy and who's not worthy to receive Communion...I cringe a bit...sometimes see the looks that pass from person to person, I wonder if Jesus would say that....I'm not positive...but I don't think Popes do either.

George said...

There is a certain mentality prevalent today that evinces offense in those who possess it of feeling left out if they are denied something that others have and therefor they feel entitled to. This attitude has become endemic because it is not an easy thing to refrain when so many are not. This is not always the case however. I have seen Catholics remain sitting during Holy Communion. It doesn't happen that often, I will grant you. I have considered in a awe whenever I observe a Protestant visiting the Church who does not go up to receive. Apparently it would seem, there is something within that person, some realization that there is something different and holy going on, a recognition and awareness that what we are partaking of is not mere bread and wine, and lacking the necessary understanding and comprehension of what has taken place on the altar, the person refrains . This is not always the case I'm sure but there are some who by the grace of God know this.

Rood Screen said...

Holy Communion is Food for those traveling the narrow path of virtue. Why would someone traveling the wide path of vice want to receive such Food? Holy Communion has no value except for those on the right path.

Paul said...


What pleasant imagery of "friendly" family meals and dinner parties...

Whatever happens at these gatherings, God knows The Truth because He is Truth and cannot be fooled.

gob said...

Fr. McD......Have I been excommunicated?

Anonymous said...

I’m sorry I thought there was a deeper theological analogy that you were trying to propose. I guess you were just telling Father McDonald that he should feel bad when he advises people that the Blessed Sacrament is for people worthy to receive it. After all, how dare he, he’s only a priest and we're only talking about the Sacred Host.

Maybe you’re too old to understand that my comments are relevant to your thought regardless of how you think you intended yours. Whether the boorish guest I described is you or Father McDonald it doesn’t matter. People are not excluded from the banquet for no reason. You need to reread Matt 22:11. The King doesn’t appear to be too worried about hurting the old slob’s feelings in this passage.


Anonymous said...


BTW: You should be more concerned about what is offensive to the Lord and not what might be to some of your self righteous old friends who imagine that they are entitled to do whatever they want. You are an example of people who are embarrassed by their faith. That's not god. You need to develop a deeper devotion and love for your faith and not worry about making people uncomfortable.


rcg said...

gob, I bet that the only place you have ever heard a priest use the word "unworthy" in connection with the Mass is when he leads us all to recite that NONE of us are worthy that He should enter under our roof. Your portrayal of the priest advising non-Catholics that they are unworthy as a state of their Baptism is, otherwise, a damnable lie.

Paul said...


People excommunicate themselves, the most prideful and stubborn of those need the mercy of a reminder from a Priest or Bishop.

The Greek said...

I certainly can't speak for any Catholics, but if receiving the Eucharist is so important to a visitor, wouldn't they become Catholic? I don't understand your point. In your clarification, you state your point is:

I'm talking about the unfeeling way that we Catholics think people could possibly feel welcome in our churches when we exclude them from the main...most important part.

How important is it really to non-Catholics? If it is soimportant, then why aren't they Catholic? If becoming Catholic is not an option for them, then how important is the Eucharist to them? If the Eucharist is not of the utmost importance to them, why are they so offended and left feeling "unwelcomed?"

Consider your original question:

Would you feel part of the gathering...welcome. would you feel friendship and respect?

If it really were important to me, wouldn't I do what I could to eat with the other guests, after inquiring as to why I'd been excluded? If I didn't care, then why would I stick around? Why would come over in the first place if I didn't care? Your hypothetical situation makes the bizarre assumption that someone would feel offended about a situation they, for whatever reason, have decided not to remedy, despite being able to.

Anonymous said...

Well, Gob, to me what is said in Corinthians 11:26 should concern every Catholic so that we ensure that, as far as possible, we are worthy to receive communion and at a minimum that means not being in mortal sin:

"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep".

I am sure some priests and are most welcoming to the unrepentant sinner but what good will that do for the sinner on the day of judgment? Better to feel a bit embarrassed here on earth than to have to make up for eating and drinking unworthily either in hell or in purgatory don't you think?


gob said...

If Jesus visited the USA and celebrated Mass at Madison Square Garden, do you guess that, before Communion time, he would explain how non-Catholics could come forward with their arms crossed on their chests and receive a blessing...but not Communion?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

GOB, Jesus isn't a dead hero and our faith isn't a disembodied non incarnation all kumbaya event.

Through the Magisteriun the Risen Lord says quite clearly not to come to Holy Communion unless you are in Full Comminion with Him and have an Ommaculate soul like our Zblesded Mother's to receive so gray a gift.

Given your dead Hero approach to Jesus and what would he do if still alive today I guess you would invite even the non baptized to receive. Pitiful!

gob said...

Besides offering your patronizing lecturing....are you willing and able to give your opinion...answer on the very uncomplicated question I posed? I don't think you are. Your change-the-subject, smokescreen refusal looks a lot like avoidance and insecurity.

David Roemer said...

My understanding is that it is up to the local bishop whether or not a non-Catholic can receive Holy Communion. It is certainly not a sin to receive communion in a state of mortal sin if you have a good reason for doing so. A good reason would be to avoid having to explain to your parents why you did not go to communion on Sunday even though you just went to confession on Saturday.

Anonymous said...


In the first place, to reiterate an above comment, nobody is ever worthy to receive Communion. The proper way to consider it is whether someone is properly disposed. Not splitting hairs here--the question about who may and who may not receive Communion isn't something designed to give people complexes over being worthy.

In the second place, how is Fr. McDonald supposed to know whether or not you have been excommunicated?

Technically, if you are conscious of mortal sin, you are not supposed to receive Communion. Mortal sin involves 1) objectively grave matter (think Ten Commandments), 2) awareness that one has engaged in such act/omission, and 3) engagement in such act/omission of one's own free will. If all three elements are present, then it could be said that the person in question, by his own behavior, has excommunicated himself, i.e., is not in communion with God/the Church. If one is not _in_ communion, then one cannot licitly _receive_ Communion--it does nothing to remedy the state of mortal sin but only adds to it (absent perfect contrition).

As to whether these circumstances apply to you, again, nobody here knows. I've heard it said that one cannot unknowingly be in a state of mortal sin (aside from being in a state of denial about it). So take the above info, examine your conscience, and police yourself.

As for the Madison Square Garden hypothetical: Jesus would want everyone to come up for Communion, but only if they meant it. There's at least one famous example (in John 6) when some people couldn't accept what Jesus was saying. He let them walk away without changing/compromising his attitude or his position, because that's what they wanted. Again, it's been said that Sin is when someone says to God" My will and not yours be done," and hell is when God replies, "Sure, if that's how you want it."

But what if someone doesn't agree to or accept what the Church teaches about faith, morals, behavior, or the requirements for Communion but go up to receive Communion anyway? What's the point? To delude one's self? To delude others? To make a point that the Church/priest/pope/whomever is not the boss of one? Well, if those reasons are important to somebody, then there's no effective way for the Church to stop him from receiving, but if you ask the Church/Magisterium, then he's doing himself no good by receiving. He's free to differ if he wants. But he isn't in Communion.

To put this last sentence or two another way: Let's say you ask me if I'm dating Scarlett Johannsen. I tell you yes, absolutely I am. Maybe I even show you a photoshopped picture of Scarlett and me together. But when you ask Scarlett if she and I are dating, she tells you that she never heard of me. Further investigation proves that she's telling you the truth. Nevertheless, I continue to claim that she and I are dating. Maybe I even believe it. Are we dating or not? Likewise, just because the Communicant goes up and receives Communion and claims to be a good Catholic in the state of grace doesn't make it so. It may be gratifying for him for one of the above reasons, but even if _he_ thinks that means that he's in Communion doesn't mean anything if Catholic doctrine doesn't bear it out.