J
johnnyc176
Guest
I think I would have to agree with you. Also you would think the Hospital’s “Department of Spiritual Care” would know what the Catholic Church teaches.
- Status
E
Elizium23
Guest
You would hope, but that seems like just reckless optimism in this anti-religious climate, especially in health care institutions. Even those which bear the Catholic name cannot be trusted to know and practice the Catholic faith.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Paul.
Glenda
I’m wondering where you got the idea that in Washington D.C. the Church has different rules to live by as in your idea that when in Washington, D.C. no priest can refuse Communion to anyone? Where is this rule written and who made it public and who enforces it? Why would you think that* any rule *that Washington, D.C. made regarding Communion would apply? HUH?
Glenda
E
Elizium23
Guest
Paul comes to this reasoned conclusion from the plethora of high-profile cases occurring in DC during recent years.
Fr. Guarnizo
Nancy Pelosi
The de facto situation in DC, and other dioceses of the United States, is that Canon 915 has no effect. If there is written particular law on this subject, I do not know it, but it would be improbable, as it would contradict this universal law in a bizarre way.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Z
zab
Guest
It is implied towards the end of the article when he says that another priest at the Basilica agreed with the chaplain and gave the following:
“Plishka said that a few days after the incident he called the Basilica of the National Shrine, where he has attended Sunday noon Mass for at least a decade. He didn’t know any priests but asked for one on duty to call him back, Plishka said. The priest agreed with the chaplain, Plishka said.
“He said, he can’t give you [Communion] if you continue that lifestyle, if you’re an active participant,” he said.”
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Not at all. I firmly believe that confession is a gift from God. I am in agreement with most of the posters in this thread (which may be a first haha). Personally I’m not comfortable discussing what goes on in confession unless I have a very good reason to share. I’m a bit shocked that the man went to the press with a story that took place in the context of confession. We’re talking about a personal conversation with Christ and His favorite thing to say after healing someone was to tell no one. There are certain things we should keep as a secret between us and God.
What I meant by the quoted part was that even if the guy feels like he was treated unfairly and should have been allowed to receive communion, God sees our intentions and would know if he was right and the priest was wrong and hence no need to make it public. It almost seems like a lack of faith in God but I may be overthinking it based on little info.
C
Coatimundi
Guest
The phrase “last rites” suggests that he was on his deathbed. If so, then he was unlikely to be sexually active. Certainly a priest can not grant absolution for a sin which someone refuses to confess. Knowing of this recalcitrance, can the priest grant absolution for the other sins? I don’t know, and welcome information.
If the patient was not on his deathbed, then the phrase “last rites” conjures up a false image. The actual implications of what the priest refused is not nearly as dramatic.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
I thought the prefered term nowadays is “annointing of the sick”? Last rites sounds a bit grim plus you don’t need to be dying to receive them.
E
Elizium23
Guest
From the fine article we read:
So the reporter has conflated the Sacrament with the Rites, a very common mistake. It seems clear to me that the patient was NOT requesting Last Rites and the priest was NOT refusing these, only the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Sigh 
.
I agree that the priest could not give him Communion; you must be repentant in order to receive it, and the man has been quoted as not being repentant. I also trust priests generally to be very cautious in denying Communion to anyone, especially with Last Rites.
However, please stop using the term “lifestyle;” it’s offensive (and will be taken by a gay person about the same as being called a f****t) and implies something much deeper than merely being an unrepentant gay or lesbian person.
.I agree that the priest could not give him Communion; you must be repentant in order to receive it, and the man has been quoted as not being repentant. I also trust priests generally to be very cautious in denying Communion to anyone, especially with Last Rites.
However, please stop using the term “lifestyle;” it’s offensive (and will be taken by a gay person about the same as being called a f****t) and implies something much deeper than merely being an unrepentant gay or lesbian person.
T
TCEL
Guest
What’s the best way to describe someone who is homosexual, and living out those feelings? I can’t see any way of saying it, aside from gay, that wouldn’t be taken offensively? What’s the best way to describe someone who is homosexual, but not living out those attractions? I’m so confused.
E
Elizium23
Guest
You are going to need to provide proof of that. I have never heard the slightest inkling that “lifestyle” is a pejorative term. I can find no evidence of that on the web. There are dictionary and Wikipedia definitions and a tag on Huffington Post. There are newspaper headlines with it. I honestly can’t find any stigma attached at all.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Broad term for anyone with SSA: “gay” or “lesbian”
Term for a gay person who is in a SS relationship or seeking a SS relationship: “actively gay” or a “practicing” gay person, though the former is better when evangelizing
Term for a gay person who abstains from SS relationships for Christ: a “chaste” or “celibate” gay person, though the latter is better for evangelizing, while technically not fully correct (since a gay person could still theoretically, if they wanted to, get married to a member of the opposite sex).
If you’re in a Catholic audience, you can also use “SS-attracted” to use a milder term; this isn’t taken as well when evangelizing though, as it seems like you’re discounting their identity. (Think about it as if you called a group of blondes “yellow-haired” and suggested they not identify as blond as that wasn’t a fundamental trait of theirs. They’d just think it was awkward and that you were trying to deny part of their person.)
However, saying someone is living the “lifestyle” or a “gay lifestyle” will make a gay person instantly think you think of them as a coke-snorting, heroin-injecting alcoholic who sleeps with 10 people a week and cusses out the religious (as that is typically what has been historically meant by “the gay lifestyle,” even if it’s not seen as strict of a usage nowadays), which is why I say it’s on the same terms as calling a gay person a “f****t.”
Edit: SS = same-sex, SSA = same-sex attractions, if you don’t know. Some people don’t know the acronyms.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Ah, I see now. The Wikipedia article has been scrubbed of any reference to homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. More revisionism from the “new normal”.
S
SMGS127
Guest
gcnjustin.tumblr.com/post/27909731175/no-im-not-in-the-gay-lifestyle-neither-is-anyone
canyonwalkerconnections.com/six-things-straight-people-should-stop-saying-about-gay-people/
baylorlariat.com/2014/02/20/letters-there-is-no-homosexual-lifestyle/
These were all on the first page of a Google search. You really couldn’t find any evidence that people take it highly offensive?
T
TCEL
Guest
Thank you. I never thought about the latter part, since I’m younger generation. I would be honored if someone said I was living the Christian lifestyle, so I didn’t understand.
M
manualman
Guest
This is silly. Clearly what we have here is a patient in the hospital who asked for Anointing of the Sick. When the patient is conscious, a good priest will also offer to hear his confession and give him communion.
It doesn’t take a genius at reading between the lines to see what happened. The guy made a confession and as part of that admitted certain sexual sins and also admitted that he’s not sorry for committing them and won’t resolve not to commit them again. At that point, the priest can’t give him absolution and it’s a matter of CHARITY that the priest then doesn’t give him communion. Giving communion to a person he KNOWS is in a state of obstinate sin would be like feeding him poison. It’s not a magic cookie, it’s Christ himself. The bible says clearly how harmful it can be to receive knowingly unworthily.
Now people are puzzled why the priest won’t tell his side of the story? He CAN’T, it’s part of the seal of the confessional.
This is very basic stuff! Try your own priest. Tell him it isn’t real, but hypothetical. Ask him if you confessed to being in an ongoing adulterous relationship, but admitted that you had no intention of breaking it off if he’d give you absolution, communion and anointing of the sick (assuming you were a hospital patient). He’d say “no.”
It doesn’t take a genius at reading between the lines to see what happened. The guy made a confession and as part of that admitted certain sexual sins and also admitted that he’s not sorry for committing them and won’t resolve not to commit them again. At that point, the priest can’t give him absolution and it’s a matter of CHARITY that the priest then doesn’t give him communion. Giving communion to a person he KNOWS is in a state of obstinate sin would be like feeding him poison. It’s not a magic cookie, it’s Christ himself. The bible says clearly how harmful it can be to receive knowingly unworthily.
Now people are puzzled why the priest won’t tell his side of the story? He CAN’T, it’s part of the seal of the confessional.
This is very basic stuff! Try your own priest. Tell him it isn’t real, but hypothetical. Ask him if you confessed to being in an ongoing adulterous relationship, but admitted that you had no intention of breaking it off if he’d give you absolution, communion and anointing of the sick (assuming you were a hospital patient). He’d say “no.”
J
JimG
Guest
The Anointing of the Sick, like all sacraments except Baptism and Reconciliation, is conferred upon one in the state of grace. If a person is conscious, then Anointing should be preceded by Reconciliation, and Reconciliation requires confession of sin, repentance, and a purpose of amendment.
I don’t know what happened between the two. The man says he ended up by cursing at the priest.
Let me give a somewhat different example. Suppose that a priest went to a patient who had been living in adultery. He wants to go to confession, receive communion and the Anointing of the Sick. If he makes it clear during the conversation that he has no intention of giving up the adultery, the priest cannot confer any of those sacraments, since there has been no contrition stated nor any purpose of amendment.
I don’t know what happened between the two. The man says he ended up by cursing at the priest.
Let me give a somewhat different example. Suppose that a priest went to a patient who had been living in adultery. He wants to go to confession, receive communion and the Anointing of the Sick. If he makes it clear during the conversation that he has no intention of giving up the adultery, the priest cannot confer any of those sacraments, since there has been no contrition stated nor any purpose of amendment.
E
Elizium23
Guest
It’s revisionism. It’s from a minority of a minority who say there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality throughout history has been a lifestyle of promiscuity, furtive sexual encounters, and secrecy. Why? Because it was frowned on by polite society. Now homosexuality is trying to make inroads into polite society and that means they have to excise that image of bathhouses, glory holes, prostitution, leather bars, and the like. It’s supposed to make us react by saying, “gee, they sure are nice people after all, why can’t they just get married?”
- Status