Priest gets heat for denying lesbian Communion at mother's funeral

[WarriorAngel]

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?

 

[MikeK]

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...?

I don;t know, I wasn't there. Perhaps she mentioned that she was gay, or her mom mentioned before her death that she was gay.

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.

Maybe everyone knows she's gay. Maybe they don't. Being gay is not a sin.

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?

Why are you repeating yourself? I don't know how it came 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.

Rufusing people the Eucharist simply because you know them to be homosexual is not orthodox. I am not claiming the Priest did that, but if he did, he was in the wrong.

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.

Is it his Bishop?

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.

Where did you study Canon Law? Who chastised the Priest?

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?

There are circumstances under which a Priest can and should refuse the Eucharist to people. I do not have enough information at this time to know if he was on the right in this instance or not. You don't either. The difference between you and I is that you seem to have your mind made up as to what happened based on a very small amount of information given to you, all of it by somewhat questionable sources.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I don;t know, I wasn't there. Perhaps she mentioned that she was gay, or her mom mentioned before her death that she was gay.



Maybe everyone knows she's gay. Maybe they don't. Being gay is not a sin.




Why are you repeating yourself? I don't know how it came about.




Rufusing people the Eucharist simply because you know them to be homosexual is not orthodox. I am not claiming the Priest did that, but if he did, he was in the wrong.



Is it his Bishop?



Where did you study Canon Law? Who chastised the Priest?



There are circumstances under which a Priest can and should refuse the Eucharist to people. I do not have enough information at this time to know if he was on the right in this instance or not. You don't either. The difference between you and I is that you seem to have your mind made up as to what happened based on a very small amount of information given to you, all of it by somewhat questionable sources.

I am going to study canon law for the 3rd year courses.

Let me say it again Mike, you are missing it.

The woman told the priest -
HOW could she assume otherwise he knew and this was the EXACT reason in him denying it to her IF she didnt already KNOW for fact she told him..??

I repeat it because it is being over looked. The obvious and logical outcome is over looked because we want to cater to the squeaky wheel and give her the benefit of the doubt, but her own actions show she owns the fault in her actions afterwards.

IF she did not - she would not have had a complete story to run to the media and gay community with.
SHE would have however been questioning WHY.

BUT the thing is Mike - it is not just her sin that kept her from the Host - it is the fact she is NOT Catholic. She is Unitarian for all intents and purposes and does not attend Mass.

To receive the Eucharist one must profess their faith in what the Church teaches - [which includes avoiding being actively gay.] Actively as in having a lover. To do otherwise excommunicates the person by their own choice.

NOW my question is - why do you give her the benefit of the doubt tho you say you know nothing, but you put down the priest??

It would seem someone who truly claims ignorance would stand behind the priest until everything is understood.

Thats how it should be anyway. If i am wrong about her - i still hope to be obedient to the Church and the chosen man of God before i am of someone secular who would probably want the collapse of the rules of the Church and lead in progressiveness.

HOW dare she demand a priest be removed. How dare she..?

 

[MikeK]

To receive the Eucharist one must profess their faith in what the Church teaches - [which includes avoiding being actively gay.] Actively as in having a lover.

You do not know if she has a "lover" or not. All you know is that an anonomous source told LSN that they overheard her tell the Priest that she did.

NOW my question is - why do you give her the benefit of the doubt tho you say you know nothing, but you put down the priest??

You make me sick. Show me where I "put down" the Priest. I said over and again that I do not have the facts needed to form an opinion in this matter.

 

[WarriorAngel]

You do not know if she has a "lover" or not. All you know is that an anonomous source told LSN that they overheard her tell the Priest that she did.



You make me sick. Show me where I "put down" the Priest. I said over and again that I do not have the facts needed to form an opinion in this matter.

Your canon law quotes by someone claimed expert - were evidenced as disagreeing with the priest.If that wasnt meant as a disagreement of the priest then i dont understand what the point was.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Isnt this just a bit too personal...?

You make me sick.

 

[MikeK]

Your canon law quotes by someone claimed expert - were evidenced as disagreeing with the priest.If that wasnt meant as a disagreement of the priest then i dont understand what the point was.

A Canon Lawyer on a Catholic radio station stated that the Priest acted contrary to Canon Law. I merely mentioned that he made the statement. Just because another person says something does not mean I agree with it. I don't know enough to have an opinion on it.

 

[MikeK]

Isnt this just a bit too personal...?

Sorry. You actually do make me feel ill. Your posts are reminders of the state of humanity, of the types of people that populate the wold my children will grow up in. You claim Christ. You should be one of the good ones. The type of supposing and judging is exactly what we are called not to do. You don't know beans about the situation at hand, but that doesn't stop you from speaking as if you know the real story, who was right, who was wrong, who told who what and when, who's sleeping with who. I don't expect much of athiests. I expect better from Catholics.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sorry. You actually do make me feel ill. Your posts are reminders of the state of humanity, of the types of people that populate the wold my children will grow up in. You claim Christ. You should be one of the good ones. The type of supposing and judging is exactly what we are called not to do. You don't know beans about the situation at hand, but that doesn't stop you from speaking as if you know the real story, who was right, who was wrong, who told who what and when, who's sleeping with who. I don't expect much of athiests. I expect better from Catholics.

I am judging the situation at hand.
LGBT has an agenda and the Church is on the front line of the attack.
Faith in the 21st Century: UPDATE: It's not a "personnel issue."

Regardless - if i made this personal against you i apologize.

I dont apologize for disliking the whole story and see it is another attack on the Church and her priests.

She is not Catholic and non Catholics cannot receive. She had no business receiving nor complaining.

 

[Michie]

Sorry. You actually do make me feel ill. Your posts are reminders of the state of humanity, of the types of people that populate the wold my children will grow up in. You claim Christ. You should be one of the good ones. The type of supposing and judging is exactly what we are called not to do. You don't know beans about the situation at hand, but that doesn't stop you from speaking as if you know the real story, who was right, who was wrong, who told who what and when, who's sleeping with who. I don't expect much of athiests. I expect better from Catholics.

Are you any better? You keep pointing the finger at the so called idiots of the world while somehow removing yourself from that group. What makes you so sure you are in a position to judge? It's easy to see the faults in others. Not quite so easy when you display them yourself.

 

[truthHurts77]

Who here hasn't sinned though?

it is one thing to sin

another to LIVE IN sin

if she is not repentant she is not to receive Christ

one saint i read aboiut said that Jesus told her he is PAINED when he is forced to enter someone in mortal sin

or even in lesser sin sometimes

and also, in 1 Cor 11:20 it says that it is to our detriment to receive when we are not worthy

I'm sick of all the PC nonsense

 

[Michie]

It's the priest's job to see to it that communion is not given to those in a state of sin if he has knowledge of it. Which he obviously did.

He was put in an awful position by a woman that decided to use her mother's funeral as a platform.

Yes, the PC crap needs to stop.

 

[Veritas]

Hey, it's me Veritas Anyway, I think the priest was wrong. There are so many that go up for Communion that have no visible sin and yet receive. If only the perfect were allowed to receive, then no one could go up. For the priest to call her out by his obvious and public denial, he brought judgement down on her but not the many, many others who's sins are hidden. Since we all speak an Act of Contrition before receving, he would have been in the clear. Afterall, none of us are "worthy", are we?

 

[Anhelyna]

I'm really tired of all this.

None of us were there to know exactly who spoke to whom and when .

None of us were there in her bedroom - so we do not know with 100% certainty what was going on - if anything.

We are judging from reports - in newspapers and elsewhere - and when did they ever tell the whole truth ?

We all know , or should do , what the Church teaches - and we should obey that in OUR own lives .

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone .

Lord have mercy !

 

[Michie]

Hey, it's me Veritas Anyway, I think the priest was wrong. There are so many that go up for Communion that have no visible sin and yet receive. If only the perfect were allowed to receive, then no one could go up. For the priest to call her out by his obvious and public denial, he brought judgement down on her but not the many, many others who's sins are hidden. Since we all speak an Act of Contrition before receving, he would have been in the clear. Afterall, none of us are "worthy", are we?

Nice to see you.

Did you read the whole thread?

No, the priest did as he should.

If we take on that sort of attitude then we should just have open communion for all. Ditch a lot of our teachings &
shut down the confessional.

 

[Michie]

I'm really tired of all this.

None of us were there to know exactly who spoke to whom and when .

None of us were there in her bedroom - so we do not know with 100% certainty what was going on - if anything.

We are judging from reports - in newspapers and elsewhere - and when did they ever tell the whole truth ?

We all know , or should do , what the Church teaches - and we should obey that in OUR own lives .

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone .

Lord have mercy !

The priest as a shepherd had every right to do as he did.

 

[Anhelyna]

Michie

he has the right to guard the chalice - but were you there to hear what was said to him ?

Again - we do not know with 100% certainty as NONE of us were there at the time

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Keep forgeting to unsubscribe to this dead horse.

 

[Michie]

Michie

he has the right to guard the chalice - but were you there to hear what was said to him ?

Again - we do not know with 100% certainty as NONE of us were there at the time

I find it incrediby strange how everyone seems to side with this woman first. Do you think the priest would have taken this hard road if he did not feel he was obeying what the Church teaches about the Eucharist?

Seriously?

He would had been lauded if he just gave it to her.

Where do our loyalities lie anyway? I'm starting to wonder.

So just give it to her to her own destruction with full knowledge?

How loving.

 

[Anhelyna]

NO - I'm not on anyone's side

I do NOT know the facts any more than anyone else who was not there at the time .

If I do not KNOW with 100% certainty then I may not judge .

Do you know with 100% certainty that this woman is living with her lover in an active sexual relationship ? Have you observed their habits in the privacy of their bedroom/s ?

I am responsible for my behaviour and I cannot and will not judge her because I do not know .

For all I know she has confessed this sin

I repeat none of us were there , none of us have 100% complete knowledge about this therefore we should not make a judgement - leave this one to God - He and He alone is our judge.

We will have to stand before Him one day and wait for Him to tell us whether we may enter or not .