Our parish priest refused Communion to women churchgoers who wore pants

[Lujack]

f women in pants are by definition gravely immodest, then the priest is duty bound by Canon Law to refuse them admission to Holy Communion.

IF. Such a small word. Such an important word. Of course, since women in pants are not gravely immodest, the priest is simply being prejudicial and unfair in denying Holy Communion.

And actually, the entire sentence is not true, because even if we take the ridiculous position that pants are gravely immodest (and a ridiculous position it is indeed), that still doesn’t mean that the people wearing them are in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Sir_Knight]

He does in fact, by Canon Law, have a duty to deny Holy Communion to those who live obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin.
**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.It has been taught by the Church in both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition that people are not to dress immodestly. If women in pants are by definition gravely immodest, then the priest is duty bound by Canon Law to refuse them admission to Holy Communion.

So according to this line of thinking, an immoral woman who has sexual relationships outside of marriage regularly and never goes to confession but wears a dress to church would be permitted to receive our Lord but a moral woman who prays the rosary daily, goes to confession weekly and tries her best to lead a pious life would be denied Communion because she wore pants.

And before anybody chimes in that a priest can not read a person’s heart because that is between the sinner and God – that is the whole point! Since a priest can not read a person’s heart, he should not judge a book by it’s cover unless formally instructed by his superiors to do so.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just a note, this person is from the Philippines.

I don’t really see how that would change the pants thing, but for the Communion in the hand, it may. I couldn’t find anything official, but I found a number of unofficial references saying that Communion in the hand, at one time being ok, has been disallowed there now.

In the discipline of the sacraments, priests and laity alike are bound to follow the discipline in force in the diocese - not make up their own rules.​

They also need to avoid the vice of singularity. Obeying the law in force in the diocese is a good protection against this vice. (Providing always the law in the diocese is itself lawful - intentions are not laws.)

One form of it, is to be “holier than thou”, another, “more Catholic than thou”. Policing the reception of the Eucharist is another. Pretending to greater piety than others is another.

 

[Halos1n2Horns]

I wonder what the poor people are suppose to wear? Doesn’t Jesus say come to me all of you? I know were suppose to be in our sunday dress clothes for going to a wedding feast our banquet of the Lord, But lets get real, a nice pant suit don’t hurt nothing especially in sub below weather as in the northern part of usa.

My opinion Halos

 

[Sir_Knight]

I know were suppose to be in our sunday dress clothes for going to a wedding feast our banquet of the Lord, But lets get real, a nice pant suit don’t hurt nothing

That is exactly the point. A woman in pants can be more modestly and more appropriately dress than a woman in a short mini-shirt or a split dress that is less modest.

 

[Brooklyn]

I think a woman in pants is much more modest than a woman in a short skirt and halter top, as I have seen far too many times.

But that isn’t the point. A priest cannot make up arbitrary rules and actually deny communion to someone based on what he likes and doesn’t like. This can ultimately lead to schisms, as I’ve stated before. Please see the Society of St. Pius X. The Catholic church is governed by the Magisterium.

Who is this priest to decide on his own who should and shouldn’t receive communion and how communion should be received. For the record, I always receive on the tongue, but the Church has said it is valid to receive in the hand. Unless and until the Church changes its stand on this issue, it it not right for anyone, even a priest, to deny communion on this basis. And certainly communion cannot be denied based on someone’s dress. This is just wrong, and I actually find it scary.

Mary

 

[KarenElissa]

In the discipline of the sacraments, priests and laity alike are bound to follow the discipline in force in the diocese - not make up their own rules.​

They also need to avoid the vice of singularity. Obeying the law in force in the diocese is a good protection against this vice. (Providing always the law in the diocese is itself lawful - intentions are not laws.)

One form of it, is to be “holier than thou”, another, “more Catholic than thou”. Policing the reception of the Eucharist is another. Pretending to greater piety than others is another.

I think you misunderstood me. There were two issues brought up, being denied Communion for wearing pants and requiring people to receive Communion on the tongue. The first one sounds like an issue. As for the second, from what I read online, in the Philippines you are required to receive on the tongue, so the priest saying that is acceptable.

 

[yablabo]

Please show us where the the official authority of the Church has ever declared that women wearing pants is living “obstinately in a state of manifest grave sin.” I hardly think that your opinion of Canon 915 applies to such a simple and unimportant issue.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with what I posted.

I never gave my opinion of Canon 915 applying to anything.



– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

IF. Such a small word. Such an important word. Of course, since women in pants are not gravely immodest, the priest is simply being prejudicial and unfair in denying Holy Communion.

OK…what is the objective moral teaching of the Church which you use to judge this priest bad (i.e., prejudicial and unfair)?

And actually, the entire sentence is not true, because even if we take the ridiculous position that pants are gravely immodest (and a ridiculous position it is indeed), that still doesn’t mean that the people wearing them are in a state of mortal sin.

The sentence began with an “if” meaning that it is a premise on which the “then” statement is formed, not that it is a complete conclusion in itself. It is a simple statement of logic…if this be true, then this follows as true… You say my “if” statement is not true, I will respect that.

So according to this line of thinking, an immoral woman who has sexual relationships outside of marriage regularly and never goes to confession but wears a dress to church would be permitted to receive our Lord but a moral woman who prays the rosary daily, goes to confession weekly and tries her best to lead a pious life would be denied Communion because she wore pants.

If she is a manifest grave sinner…she must be denied Holy Communion due to Canon 915. It’s not opinion, it’s fact. If she is not a manifest grave sinner, then she can not be denied Holy Communion.

And before anybody chimes in that a priest can not read a person’s heart because that is between the sinner and God – that is the whole point! Since a priest can not read a person’s heart, he should not judge a book by it’s cover unless formally instructed by his superiors to do so.

He is instructed by the Pope’s law (Canon Law) to judge a man (or woman) as worthy or unworthy to receive Holy Communion by their public/manifest actions.

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

I wonder what the poor people are suppose to wear?

One could use the principle of double effect in such circumstances…

– Nicole

 

[Harpazo]

In the discipline of the sacraments, priests and laity alike are bound to follow the discipline in force in the diocese - not make up their own rules.​

They also need to avoid the vice of singularity. Obeying the law in force in the diocese is a good protection against this vice. (Providing always the law in the diocese is itself lawful - intentions are not laws.)

One form of it, is to be “holier than thou”, another, “more Catholic than thou”. Policing the reception of the Eucharist is another. Pretending to greater piety than others is another.

Would you consider Orthodox priests to be “policing the Eucharist” when the refuse to commune those who are not Orthodox or who have not confessed in 2 weeks? I’ve known of Orthodox priests to do the same thing as this one did in the Philippines. Some priests will tell a woman to wipe off her lipstick. Is that being holier than thou?

Receiving the Eucharist needs to be seen as less of a right and more of a privilege. In my opinion, priests have the ability to be custodians of God’s grace, (in a respect) as they dispense the Sacraments.

In my opinion, Roman priests need to be less “friendly” in giving the Sacraments to everyone and be more pastoral in limiting them when they need to be limited. In every Catholic church I have been to, there was never any announcement that non-Catholics should not receive and no one was denied communion. 50 years ago, they would. I believe this particular priest is in the right. This is just my opinion though.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Beachcomber]

That is very disturbing. With the information so far supplied here in the thread, it appears he is making things up and coming off as holier than the Church. If anything remotely like that happened at my parish, there’d be an empty church the next Sunday. Everyone would go elsewhere.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

That is exactly the point. A woman in pants can be more modestly and more appropriately dress than a woman in a short mini-shirt or a split dress that is less modest.

Mm, there are a number of cultures in which pants are part of a woman’s traditional form of dress. I’ve seen a number of Pakistani women at Mass clad in their traditional garb, which consists of a long, tunic-like dress with side-slits over loose-fitting pants. Very, very pretty! I myself am more comfortable wearing pants than wearing skirts, since I have had some bad experiences with strong gusts of wind catching under my skirts, and with immature young men finding ways to peek under my hemline.

 

[Lujack]

OK…what is the objective moral teaching of the Church which you use to judge this priest bad (i.e., prejudicial and unfair)?

My objective moral criteria is that there is no Church prohibition against women wearing pants to receive Communion. Considering the importance of Communion to our spiritual nourishment, Communion should only be denied when the parishioner is in violation of an actual Church guideline. Denying someone the Eucharist because of personal preference or distaste, or even pious practice, is a pretty serious abuse, because it denies the parishioner the single most important component of the Catholic faith.

The sentence began with an “if” meaning that it is a premise on which the “then” statement is formed, not that it is a complete conclusion in itself. It is a simple statement of logic…if this be true, then this follows as true… You say my “if” statement is not true, I will respect that.

Ok.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Would you consider Orthodox priests to be “policing the Eucharist” when the refuse to commune those who are not Orthodox or who have not confessed in 2 weeks?

Aren’t Catholic priests forbidden to use ANY information from the confessional outside of the confessional in ANY manner?

I’ve known of Orthodox priests to do the same thing as this one did in the Philippines. Some priests will tell a woman to wipe off her lipstick. Is that being holier than thou?

Depends on their Bishop. That’s why in my first reply, I suggested that the person get clarification from the Bishop.

Receiving the Eucharist needs to be seen as less of a right and more of a privilege. In my opinion, priests have the ability to be custodians of God’s grace, (in a respect) as they dispense the Sacraments.

In my opinion, Roman priests need to be less “friendly” in giving the Sacraments to everyone and be more pastoral in limiting them when they need to be limited.

Did Jesus turn anyone who came to Him with a sincere heart? Did He turn the poor away because they were poorly dressed? Shouldn’t priests, who stand in the persona of Christ, do the same?

I believe this particular priest is in the right. This is just my opinion though.

I believe that by judging by outward appearances, he is doing exactly what Jesus taught in today’s Gospel reading NOT to do. One is not unclean because of what one eats or drinks or WEARS but by the thoughts, words and deeds that come from the heart.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So according to this line of thinking, an immoral woman who has sexual relationships outside of marriage regularly and never goes to confession but wears a dress to church would be permitted to receive our Lord but a moral woman who prays the rosary daily, goes to confession weekly and tries her best to lead a pious life would be denied Communion because she wore pants.

And how can a priest draw a conclusion if a person is a “manifest grave sinner” base on her lack of wearing a skirt/dress?

And before anybody chimes in that a priest can not read a person’s heart because that is between the sinner and God – that is the whole point! Since a priest can not read a person’s heart, he should not judge a book by it’s cover unless formally instructed by his superiors to do so.

Not based on what they wear unless specifically instructed by his bishop to do so.

 

[Newbie2]

And how can a priest draw a conclusion if a person is a “manifest grave sinner” base on her lack of wearing a skirt/dress?

Yeah, I’m a little fuzzy on that logic too, SK.

 

[w_stewart]

Just a note, this person is from the Philippines.

I don’t really see how that would change the pants thing, but for the Communion in the hand, it may. I couldn’t find anything official, but I found a number of unofficial references saying that Communion in the hand, at one time being ok, has been disallowed there now.

In many parishes here, reception through the hands is not prohibited. The Bishops Conference has not prohibited it.

 

[Shin]

As the Orthodox fellow earlier said, it is in fact quite within Catholic teaching to refuse Communion to those who do not show a proper disposition to do so, which the priest is the judge of.

So, implementing a dress code for a parish is quite normal, and enforcing it in this way. And as you might also have noticed the code has been in that parish for quite some time and not overturned.

I am reminded of St. Padre Pio in the confessional. The similarity is exact.

If you become familiar with Catholicism truly and not just your local contemporary popularist (people and non-Catholic pleasing) variants of the type some apologists preach, you’ll find such Apostolic practices as penances for small sins including being stuck waiting for years outside the church while you do your penance, you are not permitted to enter… in penitential garb, and so on -sterner measures such as the Orthodox fellow described. These are -Apostolic- practices. God’s discipline.

People should be surprised at what they get away with today, and not pleasantly. If their shepherds were to enforce greater discipline, they know they would do it.

A few decades ago in America for example, no one would be surprised at the above dress codes and enforcement.

There’s objective sin, public scandal, and there is deliberate sin – regardless of the gravity of the problem interiorly either way a refusal fixes it, and that shows a truly loving shepherd, rather than one who lets you do what you should not do.

This is quite courageous because you are not going to change the world being a priest with the spirit of soggy wonder bread and not being a shepherd but rather being a flake for your flock.

Enough priests like this and the world changes, even one changes an entire parish.

So… a priest after God’s own heart… who is actually creating real change in the world and souls.

A real Father, who does not spare the rod and spoil the child, but chastises as needed for love’s sake, that takes a strong heart.

 

[Sir_Knight]

He’s either changing souls or driving them away.