- Apr 11, 2005
- 72,844
- 9,381
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
You're taking an anonomous informant's information as fact and filling in the gaps with your suppositions, WA. You're also stating what a Bishop (who likely posesses information that you do not) should have acted differently than he did. You are on dangerous ground.
It isn't an either/or. Neither have a recent history of honest, ethical journalism.
We also dont know what the Bishop did or if he did too much at all.
BUT you explain to me, because i am not getting this around my head - how she knew for a fact he denied her Communion for being gay IF she didnt make it known to him...?
IF she is going around telling everyone he did this because she is gay - he had to have been privy to that info - and it is pretty much impossible for anyone to assume why a priest would not give Communion FOR THAT REASON if you had not in fact let him know.
That's logical. That right there is common sense.
She is not assuming he refused her Communion for being gay - she is saying boldly he denied her for that reason - and so we know that - she knows that he knew she is gay.
NOW how did that come about?
Obviously she let him know - apparently his reputation is being orthodox and for the Church teachings.
OTHERWISE if he wasnt orthodox he would not have refused her...and she would not be out to get him removed. Thats not the work of the Holy Spirit working in her... just saying.
So - it comes down to this - it does not take the sky to fall on our heads to see something is wrong here and it is not the priest.
The dangerous ground i see is actively chastising a priest who according to canon law [i study it in 2 years but still i read it now] states a priest may do this.
IF a priest did not have the prerogative to with hold the Eucharist it would not be part of canon law 914 and 915.
AND if they dont have that right - then why OR HOW would the Church protect and hold to a CLOSED Communion?
Upvote
0