Married gay man denied communion at mother's funeral in Amite 'very surprising,' official says

[Richard_White]

I’m confused by the bishop’s apology. It seems to present more questions than it answers. Personally I think the priest did the right thing. Not only did the man marry another man, which he had to know was against church teaching, but kind of thumbed his nose at the church by acting against what he knows to be right.

I followed the link on the article where it said that the Archbishop (from a different diocese than the actual parish was located) supposedly made an apology, and the link was to a page on the Archdiocese of New Orleans website that was closed this morning because someone had hacked into their system and put up the page condoning same-sex “marriage” and other things against Catholic doctrine. Therefore, I am thinking that maybe the apology never actually occurred, especially because it was supposedly from an Archbishop from a completely different diocese.

Yet, the comments of the some of the other people are ridiculous. That lady saying that it is none of our business coming between people and the Lord Jesus in regard to Communion. But that is exactly what we should be doing!! We have to stand up for the Faith and make known that people cannot be receiving Jesus unworthily, and if there is a way to stop such acts in regard to people who are publicly acting in sin.

May God bless us all a abundantly and forever!

 

[R_H_Benson]

I think it’s a reasonable expectation on the part of priests to think that Catholics who present themselves in the communion line know (and will honor) the rules for receiving.

Why do you think that is a reasonable expectation?

 

[Indiana_Rocky]

I followed the link on the article where it said that the Archbishop (from a different diocese than the actual parish was located) supposedly made an apology, and the link was to a page on the Archdiocese of New Orleans website that was closed this morning because someone had hacked into their system and put up the page condoning same-sex “marriage” and other things against Catholic doctrine. Therefore, I am thinking that maybe the apology never actually occurred, especially because it was supposedly from an Archbishop from a completely different diocese.

That seems to be about a different issue. The article says that he received an apology from the Diocese of Baton Rouge and a personal apology from the Archbishop of New Orleans. He also declined to be interviewed for the story. I don’t think a personal apology would be given on a website, and, yes, it seems strange that the Archbishop would comment on a priest in another diocese.

I am more concerned about the statement from the Diocese of Baton Rouge spokesperson.

 

[cjforJesus]

Why do you think that that is a reasonable expectation?

Generally Catholics understand that the Eucharist is the heart of the liturgy. A lapsed homosexual Catholic would probably know this but could willfully choose to ignore it.

I believe he was trying to make a political statement in that he is validly married by the state so he should be able to receive.

I believe most all missals contain an insert as to who may receive Holy Communion.

 

[dans0622]

Has a synod in the past ever taught something against doctrine? Or they had to rescind?

Hello,

The basic purpose/authority of this kind of Synod is described in canon law:

Can. 342 The synod of bishops is a group of bishops who have been chosen from different regions of the world and meet together at fixed times to foster closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and bishops, to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world.

Can. 343 It is for the synod of bishops to discuss the questions for consideration and express its wishes but not to resolve them or issue decrees about them unless in certain cases the Roman Pontiff has endowed it with deliberative power, in which case he ratifies the decisions of the synod.

Generally, then, a Synod doesn’t actually teach anything. It “expresses its wishes.”

Dan

 

[EIF5A]

Hello,

The basic purpose/authority of this kind of Synod is described in canon law:

Generally, then, a Synod doesn’t actually teach anything. It “expresses its wishes.”

Dan

So it’s like “Dear Pope Francis, we would like such and such to be clarified for the faithful” and not like “We profess xyz” ?

 

[R_H_Benson]

Generally Catholics understand that the Eucharist is the heart of the liturgy. A lapsed homosexual Catholic would probably know this but could willfully choose to ignore it.

I believe he was trying to make a political statement in that he is validly married by the state so he should be able to receive.

I believe most all missals contain an insert as to who may receive Holy Communion.

If Catholics truly believed this, wouldn’t people be beating down the doors to get into the confessional so that they are properly disposed to receive Our Lord? I sincerely believe that many Catholics simply get up and receive Communion at any given Mass without any regard for the state of their souls. I am not being judgmental (but common sense can certainly discern a problem)- just making an observation that very few people tend to remain in the pews and refrain from Communion, while before Mass, the green light above the confessional is illuminated with no one taking advantage of the sacrament. We need to start acknowledging that there IS a problem with people receiving the Eucharist unworthily on a vast scale.

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!
Here 'tis life: and there 'tis death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

-From Lauda Sion, St. Thomas Aquinas’ sequence for Corpus Christi

 

[at9009]

I’m wondering why the priest didn’t say anything during the homily (ie explain shortly the significance of the Eucharist to Catholics) just to let know non-Catholics how stuff works in a Catholic Church (in a tasteful way not to distract from funeral service).

In a different situation when my brother got married, the priest gave an explanation about the communion just to make sure everyone understood its significance to Church teaching. He did it in a tasteful way and even cracked a joke (he was aware that my family has plenty of people in Protestant denominations and some non-religious friends of the bride and groom beforehand though).

So, I would assume that in these type of masses (weddings, funerals, etc.) the priest might suspect that some attending aren’t practicing Catholics (but there rather to offer support to friends and family) and he could say something so everyone can be respectful and hopefully avoid this type of media circus in the future.

 

[Regina7]

Generally Catholics understand that the Eucharist is the heart of the liturgy. A lapsed homosexual Catholic would probably know this but could willfully choose to ignore it.

I believe he was trying to make a political statement in that he is validly married by the state so he should be able to receive.

I believe most all missals contain an insert as to who may receive Holy Communion.

Most of my family are lapsed Catholics and they always receive communion (when they go to mass). And they see nothing wrong with it as I’m pretty sure no priest ever told them.

 

[cjforJesus]

Most of my family are lapsed Catholics and they always receive communion (when they go to mass). And they see nothing wrong with it as I’m pretty sure no priest ever told them.

I think it would be wise for you to discuss this with your priest.

The Marian shrine and basilica I often attend has an announcement before Holy Communion as to who can and cannot receive for those who do not notice the inserts on canon law.

 

[Phemie]

I’m wondering why the priest didn’t say anything during the homily (ie explain shortly the significance of the Eucharist to Catholics) just to let know non-Catholics how stuff works in a Catholic Church (in a tasteful way not to distract from funeral service).

In a different situation when my brother got married, the priest gave an explanation about the communion just to make sure everyone understood its significance to Church teaching. He did it in a tasteful way and even cracked a joke (he was aware that my family has plenty of people in Protestant denominations and some non-religious friends of the bride and groom beforehand though).

So, I would assume that in these type of masses (weddings, funerals, etc.) the priest might suspect that some attending aren’t practicing Catholics (but there rather to offer support to friends and family) and he could say something so everyone can be respectful and hopefully avoid this type of media circus in the future.

I’m 62 and I’ve heard that type of comment made ONCE in all my years at funerals and weddings. The interesting thing is that I heard it at Christmas by a priest who was only in our parish to cover during the holidays.

 

[at9009]

I’m 62 and I’ve heard that type of comment made ONCE in all my years at funerals and weddings. The interesting thing is that I heard it at Christmas by a priest who was only in our parish to cover during the holidays.

Oh. He explained that he would mention something in the homily during the rehearsal and was very professional about it. So, I just assumed it was the standard (it was the first Catholic wedding I’ve been too since I was a toddler though).

The Marian shrine and basilica I often attend has an announcement before Holy Communion as to who can and cannot receive for those who do not notice the inserts on canon law.

That’s a good approach. People might find be uncomfortable initially at first ,but it would definitely better address the Eucharist’s significance and show the Church takes it seriously (and encourage parishioners to reflect on their mortal state which maybe will encourage more confessions)

 

[maryjk]

I’m 62 and I’ve heard that type of comment made ONCE in all my years at funerals and weddings. The interesting thing is that I heard it at Christmas by a priest who was only in our parish to cover during the holidays.

Maybe it is based on location?

I’m not quite 50, and I have heard it at most funerals and weddings. When I attend a funeral or wedding and I don’t hear it; I find that unusual.

 

[Corki]

So it’s like “Dear Pope Francis, we would like such and such to be clarified for the faithful” and not like “We profess xyz” ?

YES, a hundred times “yes” and nobody in the media gets that.

The synod cannot change **anything. ** It cannot even change discipline, let alone defined teaching. The final result of the synod is a report to the Pope. The synod doesn’t produce anything for the faithful, not even for the Bishops. The Pope is free to do whatever he wants with that report, in full or in part, within the bounds of Church teaching.

Now the worrisome reality is that the report will undoubtedly be released to the public, either intentionally or leaked, and it will take on a life of its own as if it was a new set of tablets come down from the mountain.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Now the worrisome reality is that the report will undoubtedly be released to the public, either intentionally or leaked, and it will take on a life of its own as if it was a new set of tablets come down from the mountain.

The worrisome part is that we legitmately fear that a report capable of wreaking such havoc could be generated by our shepherds in the first place.

 

[dans0622]

So it’s like “Dear Pope Francis, we would like such and such to be clarified for the faithful” and not like “We profess xyz” ?

Well, it’s more along the lines of this: the Pope states, in general, what he wants the Synod to discuss. The leaders of the Synod put together a series of topics. The Synod discusses the topics and, eventually, formulates “propositions.” Then, the Synod votes on each proposition. The ones that receive a 2/3 approval are officially approved by the Synod. Then, a year or two later, the Pope tends to compose a “post-Synodal exhortation” where he takes what the Synod has produced (or at least certain parts of it) and puts his name on it.

Last year’s Synod was a bit odd in several respects: it did not, and will not, result in any official statement by the Pope. It’s purpose was basically to prepare for this year’s Synod. So, while it produced “propositions” (some of which weren’t approved by 2/3 majority), the Pope hasn’t done anything with them, except to say that they should be made public (which is also different).

Dan

 

[marymary1975]

If Catholics truly believed this, wouldn’t people be beating down the doors to get into the confessional so that they are properly disposed to receive Our Lord? I sincerely believe that many Cathcofessionary. get up and receive Communion at any given Mass without any regard for the state of their souls. I am not being judgmental (but common sense can certainly discern a problem)- just making an observation that very few people tend to remain in the pews and refrain from Communion, while before Mass, the green light above the confessional is illuminated with no one taking advantage of the sacrament. We need to start acknowledging that there IS a problem with people receiving the Eucharist unworthily on a vast scale.

-From Lauda Sion, St. Thomas Aquinas’ sequence for Corpus Christi

I absolutely agree with you. There is a massive problem specifically in the Unites States where people think that is perfectly OK to receive communion in a state of mortal sin and where people think that confession is necessary (I have heard people in the church in the US making both of these claims).

In other countries it is the opposite. While in the US everybody with no exception goes to communion while the concessionary is empty, in other countries very few people go to communion and instead the long line is at the confessionary. At my parish (which has quite a large Brazilian community) our priest has been fighting this warning people that you cannot receive communion in mortal sin state and inviting people instead to get a blessing; and he was mentioning to me that in the Brazilian mass is the exact opposite to the Americanass. In the Brazilian one a considerable amount of people won’t go to communion while in the American everybody goes.

Definitely there is a problem and priests do have to start taking action.

 

[EIF5A]

I absolutely agree with you. There is a massive problem specifically in the Unites States where people think that is perfectly OK to receive communion in a state of mortal sin and where people think that confession is necessary (I have heard people in the church in the US making both of these claims).

In other countries it is the opposite. While in the US everybody with no exception goes to communion while the concessionary is empty, in other countries very few people go to communion and instead the long line is at the confessionary. At my parish (which has quite a large Brazilian community) our priest has been fighting this warning people that you cannot receive communion in mortal sin state and inviting people instead to get a blessing; and he was mentioning to me that in the Brazilian mass is the exact opposite to the Americanass. In the Brazilian one a considerable amount of people won’t go to communion while in the American everybody goes.

Definitely there is a problem and priests do have to start taking action.

Maybe (American) culture of entitlement and feeling that we deserve this and that?

 

[utah_rose]

1. The proper term is Extraordinary Ministy (of Holy Communion) not “Eucharistic minister.”
2. The term GAY has become increasingly ambiguous, especially as it relates to Church teaching. Distinctions MUST be made between SSA and homosexuality in action. Nevertheless in this instance the person is in a same-sex marriage so frankly sexuality is not necessarily the concern as it relates to the reception of the Holy Eucharist.
3. Just as important to believing in the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is being in a proper state to receive it, which in this instance would be THE teaching to recognize. Frankly it disturbs me when someone wants to speak of a Church teaching that they themselves don’t appear to respect.

I think it would help at every Sunday Mass the priest should give guidelines on your state of worthiness to receive Communion. I think many are in ignorance of this! He should tell them if anyone is in the state of mortal sin, they need Confession first. Rather than emphasizing those in a SSS marriage, he should say this includes people in irregular relationships outside of marriage siuch as living together, divorced and remarried people unless they’ve been annulled. Then he should encourage all single people to be chaste in their relationships and then comment that if they aren’t they also could be living in sin. I know this is a lot of info. Maybe it could be posted somewhere at the Church doors but emphasize all are welcome, as we are all part of Christs body.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

I followed the link on the article where it said that the Archbishop (from a different diocese than the actual parish was located) supposedly made an apology, and the link was to a page on the Archdiocese of New Orleans website that was closed this morning because someone had hacked into their system and put up the page condoning same-sex “marriage” and other things against Catholic doctrine. Therefore, I am thinking that maybe the apology never actually occurred, especially because it was supposedly from an Archbishop from a completely different diocese.

The connection may be that the Archbishop of New Orleans is the metropolitan Bishop who has jurisdiction over the Diocese of Baton Rouge. I pray that an apology never occurred as it would bring scandal.