Lesbian woman denied communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter New_eve
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

New_eve

Guest
Recently in the news a lesbian woman was denied communion by her priest. The Bishop apologized to the woman. Who was right? I know that some Bishops don’t deny communion in a public setting. But was the priest right to do so?
 
No enough facts in the article I read about it. It was the lesbian woman’s mom’s funeral mass, actually (if we’re talking about the same thing).

Questions raised in my mind:
  1. If the priest new this person well enough to know of her defiant sinful lifestyle, why not discuss the problem with her BEFORE the funeral mass? Or maybe he did and the article author failed to mention that she defied him anyways and deliberately caused a scene? Can’t tell from the article. If he didn’t confront her beforehand, he should have.
  2. Did the priest know the deceased well and know that she would have been appalled that her daughter sacreligiously received and he honored what he felt would have been her own approach? We don’t know from the article.
  3. Does the daughter have a history of defiance? Not to say it’s typical, but it is hardly unusual for gay activists to stage ‘in your face’ events.
If she truly was innocent of scheming and the priest simply failed to plan ahead and counsel her ahead of time, he owes her an apology. But I see other possibilities, so I think we shouldn’t judge without all the facts.
 
I guess it depends on the situation.

If he knows she is a practicing homosexual (practicing… what a stupid term… but I can’t think of a better way to put it) then I can understand why he’d deny her communion. It’d be like if a known murderer walked in and tried to go for communion. Or if someone who is known to be having an affair went up… or if a known Protestant went up…

I think the priest does have the right to deny certain people communion… and I think we don’t know enough about the situation to cast any stones.
 
The priest was doing his job denying her communion as she is a homosexual concubine.
So many details were not given by what ever liberal journalist wrote the article, more then likely a homosexual himself with an axe to grind with the pope. I liked the part where the journalist put in the article, “she had been in a same sex relationship for 19 years,” as to make her sound more upstanding in society that gay relationships are normal and stigma is racism.
Why does this make national news? I say good job. Except for the part of not completing the funeral or what ever. If the woman was catholic she should have known she was not in communion with the church. Its not a democracy.

Cheers! 👍
 
First of all, there is more to this story than the reporters are reporting.

No, he wasn’t wrong, but he was wrong in the way he did it. He should have told her beforehand, not publicly. By talking to her beforehand, she would have a chance to defend herself also.

However, if they’re going to deny communion to one person for not being in communion with the Church, then they need to not only do it for her, but for everyone: all the adulterers, gay people, remarried people, cohabitating people, etc. It looked like he singled her out which isn’t right either. Of course they can’t presume to know who is in a state of grace and who is not. But if a priest is going to deny Communion to someone, he better find out beforehand.

His Bishop was wrong not to support him. But, if he was going to claim that the priest was wrong, he should have also reinforced that she was wrong too, and reiterate the teachings of the Church regarding the requirments of presenting onesself for Communion.

The priest was wrong to leave before the eulogy and not complete the task at the cemetery. Not sure what was up with that. Not sure if he was given additional trouble by the people there and just left, or was subjected to abuse by her friends, or whatever the case was.

Also, keep in mind: if she went to confession to him before and he found her to be unfit to present herself, he couldn’t defend himself with that information. She’s not a politician, she was just a lay person. We don’t know what happened between the two of them, and in what capacity and under what circumstances.
 
I am not familiar with the specifics of what you reference here.

However, I would propose that they could both be “right” and that it isn’t really an issue of “right” or “wrong”.

The priest is responsible for both the administration of the sacraments and the pastoring of his flock as is the Bishop. If the woman in question is living in a serious state of sin, the pastor may indeed have had reason to discuss refraining from the Eucharist with the woman.

Regarding the Bishop’s apology, without knowing any details, I can only speculate. Perhaps the Bishop apologized for the way it was handled?
 
1ke said:
I am not familiar with the specifics of what you reference here.

However, I would propose that they could both be “right” and that it isn’t really an issue of “right” or “wrong”.

The priest is responsible for both the administration of the sacraments and the pastoring of his flock as is the Bishop. If the woman in question is living in a serious state of sin, the pastor may indeed have had reason to discuss refraining from the Eucharist with the woman.

Regarding the Bishop’s apology, without knowing any details, I can only speculate. Perhaps the Bishop apologized for the way it was handled?
Click to expand...
This makes sense.

Also, the woman wants Father Guarnizo removed from his position which I think goes too far.
 
There is already a lengthy debate going on in Catholic News forum on this topic.
 
Think of it this way Catholics, our Priests and Bishops are becoming more vocal. This HHS nonsense, the lesbian from the article, what-have-you, if these events stand to vocalise our clergy, that will begin to galvanise lay Catholics as well. As far as the lesbian goes, who knows the whole story? If the news article did, they weren’t telling it. I read the article this morning on the way to my mail and the basis essentially was: lesbian denied human “rights,” oh the humanity, inflamed crusading family member, campaign against clergyman. If the Priest had contacted the lesbian beforehand, would it have mattered to the secular media? It strikes me that the author of the article I read, and I’m sure there’re more, didn’t care so much about Catholic doctrine as promoting what he envisions gay rights to be. …My two cents.
 
The issue of recieving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is between the woman, her priest, her bishop and God.

In the Old Testament they would have stoned the woman, and not only that, her accusers and witnesses would have been the ones to throw the first stones. But Jesus changed that.

“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (Matthew 8:7)

It is none of our business.

Let it go, worry about our own sins, and maybe we will all get to see the woman in heaven.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top