You’d think the offended man would have sense enough to know the position of the Church, and have sense enough to understand that his attempt to use this incident as a vendetta against the Church - as seems to be the daily mantra of news publications - will fail, because the Church is clear and a simple Google search can give any layman the teaching of the Church. Anyone, anyone, who sins and has not yet confessed it is barred from the reception from Holy Communion.
Well, you might think that, but you might be wrong. I’m not sure how old this son was, but if he was anything like my age (which he might well be, having a young son), he may not have received much catechesis as a child. I don’t think even the fact that he was an altar boy is a guarantee that he would have known how serious it is to receive in a state of mortal sin.
I myself, when I was away from the Church would have gone up to receive if I happened to be at Mass, even though I was married outside of the Church and had not attended Mass in years. It would have been seriously wrong, but like a lot of lapsed Catholics, I would have thought of it as “no big deal.” (OTOH, I wouldn’t have made a huge hullabaloo about it even if it had been at a parent’s funeral, and I never had the weird theology that thought “He expected that receiving communion would be an “intimate, intimate experience” because his mother is with the Holy Spirit, and he could connect with her through participation in the Eucharist.” (from the article))
But the priest may not have said anything before the Mass because it simply never occurred to him that a man who had not attended Mass in years, and also was living in a public state of sin, would present himself for the Eucharist. And that was an error in judgement, but not necessarily a purposeful sin against charity.
It seems to me that in the same way that it is a pity that the priest never thought to mention it before Mass, it is a pity that the son decided to tell the newspapers instead of likewise handling the issue privately.
Like many others, I also have some problems with the Church spokesmen mentioned in the article. They seem to think that because you can’t know the state of soul of everyone in line, you shouldn’t refuse communion to anyone. That’s like saying that just because you can’t know who at a party has a peanut allergy, you shouldn’t hold back from giving peanut butter cookies to even those you do know about.
I particularly have a problem with this part:
Diocese spokeswoman Donna Carville, a Eucharistic minister, said the diocese does not condone denial of communion to Catholics just because they are gay.
“That’s very surprising that he was denied communion. That just doesn’t happen. … We don’t deny people communion,” she said. “Who are we to judge whether they believe (the church’s teachings on the communion) or not? It’s between you and God.”
Being married outside the church should not be used to deny someone the Eucharist, said the Rev. Roger Keeler, executive coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America.
For the spokeswoman, I have to hope she was just misquoted. First, as someone has already pointed out, she is not a “Eucharistic minister,” she is an “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” If that’s too long to say, they should have just left it out, since whether she is an EMHC or not is irrelevant here, just that she is a diocesan spokeswoman. Second, nobody was trying to judge what anyone believed. What a strawman! She is implying that belief is the only thing required to be properly disposed to receive. He wasn’t denied the Eucharist because the priest had incorrect ideas about what went on in the man’s head, but because the priest had correct ideas about what publicly continues to go on in the man’s life.
As for the Canon Lawyer, I would really like to know the “why” of his statement. And whether the marriage outside the Church being public and obvious would make a difference. It would really cause scandal in the most complete sense to give the Eucharist to that man, because there were other gay people in the church for the funeral, and it would have told them that even being “married” to a same-sex partner isn’t really a mortal sin, or that mortal sin shouldn’t prevent you from going up to receive the Eucharist. That really could be a direct cause for them to sin in the future.
In addition, personally, to any statement a priest was going to make about being properly disposed to receive, I would very much like to add something along the lines of, “If you are a baptized Catholic, and you have not been to Confession since the last time you missed Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day, please don’t present yourself for Communion.” Whch should have been enough to keep the man in his seat without having to do with sex at all.
–Jen
I’m going to blame my youthful ignorance.)
