Gay Masses Continue in Archdiocese of Westminster

[jackangelo1]

Homosexuals are not a “class of sinners”.

Does the Church teach otherwise? Or does the Church teach that there are ANY “classes of sinners?”

We wouldn’t be having this conversation on “classes of sin” or of sinners being allowed at Mass ,if The Pope and his bishops OBEYED Canon Laws # 912,#915 ,# 1329 # 1398 and followed Church Doctrine by excommunicating all Christians,Catholics who AID,ABET, and Counsel abortions,and\or homosexuality? Remove evil from Roman Catholicism? PERIOD!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

We wouldn’t be having this conversation on “classes of sin” or of sinners being allowed at Mass ,if The Pope and his bishops OBEYED Canon Laws # 912,#915 ,# 1329 # 1398 and followed Church Doctrine by excommunicating all Christians,Catholics who AID,ABET, and Counsel abortions,and\or homosexuality? Remove evil from Roman Catholicism? PERIOD!

Well, let’s take a look at these canons before we start accusing the Pope himself of not obeying canon law.

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Nothing here about excommunicating anyone.

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Anyone already excommunicated or placed under interdict should not be admitted to communion. And anyone publicly and unrepentantly commiting grave sin should be denied as well.
I’m not aware anyone who has knowingly given communion to someone who has been formally excommunicated.
And these boards have many articles of bishops and priests who have refused “manifest grave sinners” communion. So this canon is clearly being applied.

Can. 1329 §1. If ferendae sententiae penalties are established for the principal perpetrator, those who conspire together to commit a delict and are not expressly named in a law or precept are subject to the same penalties or to others of the same or lesser gravity.

§2. Accomplices who are not named in a law or precept incur a latae sententiae penalty attached to a delict if without their assistance the delict would not have been committed, and the penalty is of such a nature that it can affect them; otherwise, they can be punished by ferendae sententiae penalties.

I’ll assume you’re lumping this in with 1398 so we’ll address it there.

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Politicians do not “procure” abortions thus this canon does not apply to them. This canon applies to the woman who had the abortion and the doctors and nurses who performed it. And based on 1329 anyone who directly participated in a particular abortion also suffers this penalty.
However, since politicians are not directly involved in any particular abortion these canons do not apply to them. Canon lawyers have been pretty consistent and clear on this interpretation since the code came out so this is nothing new.

These canons are appropriately applied in the Church on the issue of abortion. However these canons say nothing about excommunicating anyone over anything dealing with homosexuality as you claimed…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Well, let’s take a look at these canons before we start accusing the Pope himself of not obeying canon law.

Nothing here about excommunicating anyone.

Anyone already excommunicated or placed under interdict should not be admitted to communion. And anyone publicly and unrepentantly commiting grave sin should be denied as well.
I’m not aware anyone who has knowingly given communion to someone who has been formally excommunicated.
And these boards have many articles of bishops and priests who have refused “manifest grave sinners” communion. So this canon is clearly being applied.

I’ll assume you’re lumping this in with 1398 so we’ll address it there.

Politicians do not “procure” abortions thus this canon does not apply to them. This canon applies to the woman who had the abortion and the doctors and nurses who performed it. And based on 1329 anyone who directly participated in a particular abortion also suffers this penalty.
However, since politicians are not directly involved in any particular abortion these canons do not apply to them. Canon lawyers have been pretty consistent and clear on this interpretation since the code came out so this is nothing new.

These canons are appropriately applied in the Church on the issue of abortion. However these canons say nothing about excommunicating anyone over anything dealing with homosexuality as you claimed…

While the other canons do not appear pertinent to this thread I would suggest that Canon 915 is relevant. “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” (The emphasis is mine) (Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM accessed 7th November 2010). I would suggest that at the least the minister of holy communion is contravening this Canon. I would also venture to suggest that the priest-celebrant is also contravening the Canon. I am not sure if the diocesan bishop or the Pope could be held liable. Is there any penalty for contravening this Canon? And, just to be clear we know some of the congregants at these Masses are ‘obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin’ through their own admission.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

While the other canons do not appear pertinent to this thread I would suggest that Canon 915 is relevant. “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” (The emphasis is mine) (Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM accessed 7th November 2010). I would suggest that at the least the minister of holy communion is contravening this Canon. I would also venture to suggest that the priest-celebrant is also contravening the Canon. I am not sure if the diocesan bishop or the Pope could be held liable. Is there any penalty for contravening this Canon? And, just to be clear we know some of the congregants at these Masses are ‘obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin’ through their own admission.

Its relevant only if communion is knowingly given to someone who is manifestly committing grave sin. One may guess, presume, or think but unless it is “manifest” (i.e. public) then the minister of communion is not violating anything. Remember, when applying penalties canons are to be interpreted strictly.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Its relevant only if communion is knowingly given to someone who is manifestly committing grave sin. One may guess, presume, or think but unless it is “manifest” (i.e. public) then the minister of communion is not violating anything. Remember, when applying penalties canons are to be interpreted strictly.

I understand that penal canons are to be interpreted in the strictest sense. What is necessary then for something to be “manifest” (i.e. public)? Isn’t the fact the some of the congregants openly admit to being in same sex relationships and to living together sufficiently “manifest”. Some have registered civil partnerships as provided for by civil law. In these cases could we not use the same presumption that is used in marriage that if the parties have cohabited they have “consummated” their relationship. I don’t intend to sound sarcastic, but surely we don’t have to invade their bedrooms to find proof that they are engaging in homosexual acts. I know we should never presume that someone may be in a state of mortal sin but many of the congregants at these Masses in question are quite open about the fact they are in active same sex relationships.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I understand that penal canons are to be interpreted in the strictest sense. What is necessary then for something to be “manifest” (i.e. public)? Isn’t the fact the some of the congregants openly admit to being in same sex relationships and to living together sufficiently “manifest”.

To “openly admit” is not necessarily a manifest or public act. Living together raises issues, but who’s to say they’re not just roommates?

Some have registered civil partnerships as provided for by civil law. In these cases could we not use the same presumption that is used in marriage that if the parties have cohabited they have “consummated” their relationship. I don’t intend to sound sarcastic, but surely we don’t have to invade their bedrooms to find proof that they are engaging in homosexual acts.

I would agree that registering civilly would constitute manifest and public sin. But once again, that’s not always known so the minister of communion can’t always be blamed.

I know we should never presume that someone may be in a state of mortal sin but many of the congregants at these Masses in question are quite open about the fact they are in active same sex relationships.

Anyone who is active sexually outside of marriage should refrain from receiving holy communion. The problem is its not as easy to enforce as people think it is. Its not always practical to sort through the “weeds and the wheat” (Mt 13:29).

 

[Elizabeth502]

To “openly admit” is not necessarily a manifest or public act.

You mean that they would have to make love in public, as opposed to merely announcing in public that they indeed are actively practicing homosexuality and bringing those specific partners with them, to Mass, to receive communion?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I can understand the need to apply penal laws in their strictest sense. It seems though it is clearly difficult to determine that one has contravened such canons.

To “openly admit” is not necessarily a manifest or public act.

As penal laws appear to be so difficult to prove I would have thought that a confession (sort of in the ‘criminal’ sense rather than sacramental, obviously inviolable) would be one of the best ways of proving the case.

I would agree that registering civilly would constitute manifest and public sin. But once again, that’s not always known so the minister of communion can’t always be blamed.

I don’t know how much you know about these Masses. Civil registrations are announced and celebrated at these Masses.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You mean that they would have to make love in public, as opposed to merely announcing in public that they indeed are actively practicing homosexuality and bringing those specific partners with them, to Mass, to receive communion?

While public sex is sinful, if its a one time thing then it does not fall under canon 915. Merely telling people they know that they are in a sinful relationship does not mean that the situation is widely known in the parish or community. Here are some excerpts from the Canon Law Society of America’s commentary on canon 915:

A manifest sin is one which is publicly known by a large part of the parish or other community; if the sin is not publicly known, refusing communion would be a violation of a person’s right to a good reputation (c. 220). The sin in question is one which is repeated habitually. This canon would not, as a rule, apply to a single grave sin, even if manifest, since obstinacy must be evident.
Obstinate perseverance is indicated when the pastor or other church authority has expressly warned the offending party to cease committing the sin, but this warning is not heeded. If there is no advance warning before communion is denied, there is no way to be certain of obstinancy. A confessor may not himself refuse it unless he had knowledge of the sin from the external forum.
Since there is always some risk of injustice when this canon is applied it is necessary that there be some urgent need that pertains to the common good, in particular, the need to preclude grave scandal on the part of the community that would arise from the public sinner’s reception of communion.
The fact of actual scandal is, moreover, culturally relative. What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church’s denial of sacraments than by the sin that occasions it. Thus, this canon should be applied to cases of obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin only when the common good of the Church is truly being harmed . It is not the minister’s own scandal that must be precluded, but the scandal that exists, or would likely arise within the community.
The prohibition of the Eucharist by a minister in one community does not require that the person be barred elsewhere where the sin may be known only to a few. This canon is directed to the individual ministers of communion. Thus, it may not be applied by the diocesan bishop or other competent authority in order to prevent a person from receiving communion from all ministers. This may be done only through a penal process (c. 221, 3),

Its not a neat black and white issue when applying this canon.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I can understand the need to apply penal laws in their strictest sense. It seems though it is clearly difficult to determine that one has contravened such canons.

Agreed.

I don’t know how much you know about these Masses. Civil registrations are announced and celebrated at these Masses.

That, obviously, is problematic on several levels and should not be happening. My intent is not to defend this questionable Mass but was to respond to the poster jackangelo1 who threw out a bunch of canons and claimed that priests, bishops, and even the Pope wasn’t following them. The canons in question aren’t the cookie cutter solution that poster was claiming.

 

[Elizabeth502]

While public sex is sinful, if its a one time thing then it does not fall under canon 915. Merely telling people they know that they are in a sinful relationship does not mean that the situation is widely known in the parish or community. Here are some excerpts from the Canon Law Society of America’s commentary on canon 915:

Its not a neat black and white issue when applying this canon.

As Matthew said, Father, I don’t think you understand what either he or I is referring to. These are situations (the ones I’m personally aware of) in which homosexuals have declared to the Catholic community of their parish, that they are practicing a sexual lifestyle with the particular person they identify as the partner, and with whom they live (share an address). Are they invited up to the pulpit during Mass to make this declaration? No, of course not. But they are very open in conversation about it after Mass, before the next Mass, at parish gatherings. In my region it’s actually stronger than that, because this open discussion is often conducted with an air of aggression (to wit, “I dare you – any parishioners – to challenge us about this, and if so, we’re prepared to call you homophobic, and the pastor here has declared that he supports us”). Very often this last comment (about the pastor) is merely a duplicate for any hearers, because the pastor has in fact said from the pulpit, or in casual conversation within hearing of lots of parishioners, “We tolerate diversity here [insert other code words as well], and that includes those who are gays and have partners.”

And when such publicly self-identified gays and mutually identified partners attend Masses together, and approach communion together, from a priest who is the third partner in this triangle of complicity, I’m sorry, but in my book, there’s no way to apologetically define it as not scandalous.

And again let me be very clear, that when I talk about my own region, there is absolutely no ambiguity when a gay person talks about his or her “partner” (uses that term). That does not mean: my celibate friend, my best friend, my dancing partner, my bowling partner, my card-playing partner, my business partner. It is not a non-sexual term. Nor does it mean my previous gay lover. Because the terminology used then would be, my “ex-partner.” Just as a straight person divorced or annulled, does not refer to that previous partner in anything except the past tense.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I do understand the case put by NewEnglandPries. What I struggle with the most is the absolute silence from the hierarchy. I think a response along the lines of NewEnglandPries, while it would not satisfy everyone, would go some way to explain why the hierarchy might have difficulties stopping these Masses. Even a response saying there’s nothing we can do live with it would be something. But the total and utter silence is both bewildering and in my opinion just common ignorance. It would be quite easy to get some secretary to simply send a short letter to acknowledge receipt of the letters of complaint. I wouldn’t accept any excuse that the number of letters received cannot be acknowledged. It is a well documented fact that the Queen of the UK probably receives more post than anyone in the world and no letter, at all, goes unacknowledged. I cannot see how it is possible to infer anything from the hierarchy’s silence other than that they are condoning these Masses.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

As Matthew said, Father, I don’t think you understand what either he or I is referring to.

My original post was directed at a poster who threw out a bunch of canons and declared they weren’t being enforced. Only one of them was truly relevant and even then was not as clear cut as the poster claimed it to be.

And when such publicly self-identified gays and mutually identified partners attend Masses together, and approach communion together, from a priest who is the third partner in this triangle of complicity, I’m sorry, but in my book, there’s no way to apologetically define it as not scandalous.

It may very well be scandalous.

And again let me be very clear, that when I talk about my own region, there is absolutely no ambiguity when a gay person talks about his or her “partner” (uses that term). That does not mean: my celibate friend, my best friend, my dancing partner, my bowling partner, my card-playing partner, my business partner. It is not a non-sexual term. Nor does it mean my previous gay lover. Because the terminology used then would be, my “ex-partner.” Just as a straight person divorced or annulled, does not refer to that previous partner in anything except the past tense.

But here we end up in a situation where we have to question what is widely known, how does it become known, and how to address it. None of which are simple questions. I’m not saying that no one should ever be denied communion but we also don’t want to create an environment where parishioners are running to the pastor exposing the sins of those they don’t like in an attempt to get the pastor to deny them communion.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I do understand the case put by NewEnglandPries. What I struggle with the most is the absolute silence from the hierarchy. I think a response along the lines of NewEnglandPries, while it would not satisfy everyone, would go some way to explain why the hierarchy might have difficulties stopping these Masses. Even a response saying there’s nothing we can do live with it would be something. But the total and utter silence is both bewildering and in my opinion just common ignorance. It would be quite easy to get some secretary to simply send a short letter to acknowledge receipt of the letters of complaint. I wouldn’t accept any excuse that the number of letters received cannot be acknowledged. It is a well documented fact that the Queen of the UK probably receives more post than anyone in the world and no letter, at all, goes unacknowledged. I cannot see how it is possible to infer anything from the hierarchy’s silence other than that they are condoning these Masses.

I agree with you 110% that the lack of response is troubling. The only possible reason I can think of is that the diocese was caught off guard, doesn’t really know what’s going on and is in the process of trying to figure it all out before they respond. But then again, there could be someone in the “mail room” who is burrying the letters…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I agree with you 110% that the lack of response is troubling. The only possible reason I can think of is that the diocese was caught off guard, doesn’t really know what’s going on and is in the process of trying to figure it all out before they respond. But then again, there could be someone in the “mail room” who is burrying the letters…

I take your point. But so you are more aware of the situation, as I don’t know how much you know about it, it isn’t a recent phenomenon. So I’m not sure the archdiocese may be looking at how to approach the situation. Letters have been sent to the current Archbishop who has been there since mid-2009 and letters were sent to his predecessor. Due to the lack of response letters have now gone to Rome. They too have made no response. An early poster in this Thread said there was a similar situation in his diocese and that the Pope (then Cardinal Ratzinger) waded in and corrected the situation. So, it’s very puzzling why this situation has gone on in Westminster for such a long period of time without a response from the hierarchy.

I know a lot of the posts on here are about the scandal this causes to the faithful and the harm it causes the Church as a whole and I agree with these sentiments. I also think that the Church is failing in Her work to save the souls of those who are committing mortal sin of engaging in homosexual sexual activities and compounding this mortal sin by receiving Holy Communion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

My original post was directed at a poster who threw out a bunch of canons and declared they weren’t being enforced. Only one of them was truly relevant and even then was not as clear cut as the poster claimed it to be.

Sorry. My bad.

But here we end up in a situation where we have to question what is widely known, how does it become known, and how to address it. None of which are simple questions. I’m not saying that no one should ever be denied communion but we also don’t want to create an environment where parishioners are running to the pastor exposing the sins of those they don’t like in an attempt to get the pastor to deny them communion.

I agree with this, Father, on an individual basis. Yes, and I support that delicate position that pastors are in. I’ve spoken about this before on CAF, although I don’t expect anyone to remember all my postings. (!) It is not a pastoral thing to be going around chasing down those who are or are not receiving unworthily. Second, the sheer mathematics of it would be impossible to keep up with. Where would one start? With thoe who haven’t yet convalidated their marriage? (etc.) I don’t think that was Matthew’s concern, I could be wrong. And it definitely wasn’t mine. But most people who haven’t yet had their marriages convalidated are not necessarily announcing that, “proudly” after Mass, and pressuring the priest to agree that it’s a grand thing that they should be proud about it. There’s the difference, for starters. And there are no outside political pressures that I’m aware of to have Masses for fornicators and adulterers.

Second, we don’t have Masses for parishioners who are darn proud of (“celebrating”) their non-compliance (non-convalidation, or merely cohabitation, adultery, and other forms of deviation from chastity and fidelity. Mass is not a celebration of our sin; it is a celebration of Jesus’ sacrifice – or our liberation from sin, our redemption from sin --, which I hardly need to remind you of.

Third, setting aside personal judgment of others (not appropriate), the issue of justice, separately and combined with scandal, is. Because I struggle to remain faithful, too. Is there some kind of modern belief that only, or mostly, people with SSA struggle with chastity, with various kinds of attraction (some sexual, some not)? So for anyone who struggles, they are getting very mixed messages – that some Catholics are permitted to cease struggling, and that the Church will officially enshrine that fact by celebrating Masses just for them , but the rest of us, no dice.

Finally, if I were a person who did have SSA and were trying to live chastely, I would be major annoyed by a Mass wherein I knew that other people with SSA were attending, had been open about their lifestyle (not their attraction), the priest knew about it, also “celebrated” it, and was distributing communion to them.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Elizabeth502,
I think we’re basically on the same page. Sometimes in threads its confusing to figure out what everyone is replying to but I think we’ve straightened it out.

 

[John21652]

I’m not saying that no one should ever be denied communion but we also don’t want to create an environment where parishioners are running to the pastor exposing the sins of those they don’t like in an attempt to get the pastor to deny them communion.

Parishioners running to the priest exposing the sins of others would be nothing but hearesay. Any Priest worth his salt would tell the title tattle to go jump in the lake.

Elizabeth 502 was referring to openly, self admitted homosexual activity. That’s not hearsay. Any Priest who is aware of this is undermining the Church if he does not refuse communion. If he does otherwise, then the very foundations of Catholic moral theology are being abused and openly so.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Parishioners running to the priest exposing the sins of others would be nothing but hearesay. Any Priest worth his salt would tell the title tattle to go jump in the lake.

We were discussing what constituted “public knowledge” of sins as required by certain canons.

Elizabeth 502 was referring to openly, self admitted homosexual activity. That’s not hearsay. Any Priest who is aware of this is undermining the Church if he does not refuse communion. If he does otherwise, then the very foundations of Catholic moral theology are being abused and openly so.

A priest cannot refuse communion to someone simply because he knows they committed certain sins. Canon law does not permit that. He can try to convince them not to receive communion but he can’t outright refuse them unless they meet the requirements set forth by the canons and which have already been discussed in this thread.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We were discussing what constituted “public knowledge” of sins as required by certain canons.
…
A priest cannot refuse communion to someone simply because he knows they committed certain sins. Canon law does not permit that. He can try to convince them not to receive communion but he can’t outright refuse them unless they meet the requirements set forth by the canons and which have already been discussed in this thread.

I think that you realize that I do understand this, Father. I think John’s, and Matthew’s, and my point is that “celebrating” a “gay Mass” for homosexual couples who declare to the priest that they are living in sin is a different (affirmative and cooperative) step than is waiting until Communion (at that or any Mass) and then denying the communicant. It’s the overt invitation to scandal that I think is the issue here.

I’m not there; I don’t what it’s true origin was. But even if the priest is merely a passive player and did not initiate the idea, he would have the duty, I would think, to take aside such couples who have disclosed a lifestyle to him, at a time other than Mass, to correct them and ask for their compliance with sacramental expectations. (Parishioner: “Father, we’d like you to say a Mass for gays.” Priest: “I’ll do that, but I’ll need to remind you now what the Church expects of all communicants…” } Perhaps he has; perhaps he hasn’t.

There still seems to be an undertone, at least in this country – I can’t speak for other countries – that “being gay” means that you can, by yourself, exempt yourself from the same sexual prohibitions that other Catholics are not exempted from. It’s rarely overtly stated, but more subtly engineered: ‘The Church has persecuted gays,’ or “society persecutes gays,” therefore, the church owes gays compensatory privileges. But more frequently it is, “I can’t live without a partner, because being gay is so much more integral to my identity and wholeness and personal happiness than it would be for any heterosexual, that there should be a special sexual exemption for me.”

You think I’m exaggerating; I’m not. I still see it in a few parishes in my region. It’s very disheartening. The priests don’t have the stomach to stand up to the aggressive pressure.