[Practicing, Poorly Catechized] Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother's Funeral

[Cristiano]

How do you presume to know the state of that woman’s soul? She may have gone to confession with another priest. Same with an adulterer. How does the priest know that a person hadn’t gone to confession?

We should stop beating around the bush. If she told him then it was clear he was informed about the state of her soul and if he heard it from someone else he was not informed. We do not know how the priest got the information and so we can speculate either way and in these cases speculation can be harmful.

I think that the things could have been handled in a more gracious manner independently of the communion. There were other bad behaviors from the priest and the daughter of the deceased and those were just plain wrong.

 

[TMC]

The Archdiocese has said that the priest’s actions were not in line with diocean policy:

“In matters of faith and morals, the Church has the responsibility of teaching and of bringing the light of the Gospel message to the circumstances of our day,” the archdiocese said in a statement. “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”

washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html?hpid=z4

The article also says that the diocese is looking into the incident as a “personnel issue.”

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The Archdiocese has said that the priest’s actions were not in line with diocean policy:

washingtonpost.com/local/dc-archdiocese-denying-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral-was-against-policy/2012/02/28/gIQAlIxVgR_story.html?hpid=z4

The article also says that the diocese is looking into the incident as a “personnel issue.”

With all due respect: booooooooo.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

How do you presume to know the state of that woman’s soul? She may have gone to confession with another priest. Same with an adulterer. How does the priest know that a person hadn’t gone to confession?

1. I am assuming that she is still living with her “partner”.
2. By your logic, no one could ever be denied Communion, as we “do not know the state of their soul”.

 

[TMC]

With all due respect: booooooooo.

So priests should not follow the instructions of the Church and their bishops in these matters? Or what are you saying?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

So priests should not follow the instructions of the Church and their bishops in these matters? Or what are you saying?

I am saying that the priest obviously knew this woman, and chose not to give her Communion. It seems odd that the Bishop would undercut the priest’s “on the ground” decision. At best, it causes scandal.

NB The title says Practicing…Lesbian

 

[Edmundus1581]

Exactly - he does not know the state of her soul as he does not know if she attended confession or not without having a private, pastoral talk with her. Also, in a separate matter with a very knowledgable priest this is what I have learned on denying of the Eucharist, that there is a public admonishment required before simplying denying someone Eucharist. Many on these forums would have people believe that it is this simple; it is not. There are steps in place by Canon Law to be followed. These steps come from Scripture and Tradition. I am not sure which level that public admonishment needs to come from.

Of course.

The applicable canon is

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

There is an extensive commentary on this Canon by Bishop R. L. Burke, of the Pontifical University in Rome, in the Canon Law journal PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA.

Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, **it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion **. The commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, summarizes the point:

Likewise excluded are those <>. In this third case, unlike the first two, there has been no public imposition or declaration of the person’s state and so, before a minister can lawfully refuse the Eucharist, he must be certain that the person obstinately persists in a sinful situation or in sinful behavior that is manifest (i.e. public) and objectively grave. [75]

If there is any doubt about the authority of this publication please note that:

• Bishop R. L. Burke is an American bishop, and has been prominent in advocating denial of communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
• The publication was in 2007, and in 2008 Bishop Burke was named a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which authentically interprets Canon Law, and also became a member of the Congregation for the Clergy, which regulates the formation and training of diocesan priests and deacons.
• The publication provides extensive references to the history of Canon Law and Church practice on this issue.
• The section quoted cites the commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland

So, we don’t know the full story of what happened between the priest and the woman, but it seems that he was incorrect to publicly deny her communion without first ascertaining that she had been previously counselled by her pastor, and that the letter from the diocese of Washington is the correct interpretation of Canon Law.

 

[NYCATHOLICGIRL]

Well I certainly did not hear Miss Johnson tell the news reporter that she was not currently in a relationship with a woman. I did not hear her say that the Preist was wrong in his accusation. All I heard was her complaints about not being able to “take” communion (this is how it was reported, not about receiving). It is all about HER feelings. The Preist was 100% correct in what he did, Praise the Lord. Now when will we hear about Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sebulius, Johjn Kerry,etc…screaming to reporters that they were denied communion? I am praying for that day.

 

[utah_rose]

Either he heard it directly from the source and then I should have pulled her on a side for a few minutes or he did not hear it from the source and then he should have given her the benefit of the doubt because he could not know the state of her soul.

I’m wondering if the woman knew that she shouldn’t be receiving Communion but went up to receive to see what the priest would do, so the LGBT could get upset.

What he could have done instead was to bless her and then just go on to the next Communicant . I just can’t understand if she taught Catholic school that she didn’t know that her lifestyle was sinful. That’s why I wonder if she did this for “show” or if she was truly that ignorant. If so, no wonder many parents choose to homeschool their children.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

1. If he knew her then he should have addressed this privately with her prior to the funeral. If he didn’t know her then he probably should have erred on the side of caution and gave her communion. As previously pointed out, it is not mere manifest grave sin that triggers canonical refusal but rather obstinate persistence in that manifest grave sin. One cannot obstinately persist if the issue is never brought up to them.
2. Unless he was actually sick (which seems awfully coincidental) then there is zero excuse to leave during the eulogy or refuse to go to the cemetery for the committal prayers.
3. This story went viral over the last few days due to a facebook post by a friend of the family that was shocked at what happened. As of this time there is no evidence that the daughter of the deceased is the one to cause this to hit the news.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Of course.

The applicable canon is

There is an extensive commentary on this Canon by Bishop R. L. Burke, of the Pontifical University in Rome, in the Canon Law journal PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA.

If there is any doubt about the authority of this publication please note that:

• Bishop R. L. Burke is an American bishop, and has been prominent in advocating denial of communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
• The publication was in 2007, and in 2008 Bishop Burke was named a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which authentically interprets Canon Law, and also became a member of the Congregation for the Clergy, which regulates the formation and training of diocesan priests and deacons.
• The publication provides extensive references to the history of Canon Law and Church practice on this issue.
• The section quoted cites the commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland

So, we don’t know the full story of what happened between the priest and the woman, but it seems that he was incorrect to publicly deny her communion without first ascertaining that she had been previously counselled by her pastor, and that the letter from the diocese of Washington is the correct interpretation of Canon Law.

Wow! Thank you for rounding up the info and presenting it so well.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Of course.

The applicable canon is

There is an extensive commentary on this Canon by Bishop R. L. Burke, of the Pontifical University in Rome, in the Canon Law journal PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA.

If there is any doubt about the authority of this publication please note that:

• Bishop R. L. Burke is an American bishop, and has been prominent in advocating denial of communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.
• The publication was in 2007, and in 2008 Bishop Burke was named a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which authentically interprets Canon Law, and also became a member of the Congregation for the Clergy, which regulates the formation and training of diocesan priests and deacons.
• The publication provides extensive references to the history of Canon Law and Church practice on this issue.
• The section quoted cites the commentary on the 1983 Code of Canon Law, prepared by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland

So, we don’t know the full story of what happened between the priest and the woman, but it seems that he was incorrect to publicly deny her communion without first ascertaining that she had been previously counselled by her pastor, and that the letter from the diocese of Washington is the correct interpretation of Canon Law.

Then according to this unless she has had this proper instruction and counseled she could not be denied Eucharist. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

1. If he knew her then he should have addressed this privately with her prior to the funeral. If he didn’t know her then he probably should have erred on the side of caution and gave her communion. As previously pointed out, it is not mere manifest grave sin that triggers canonical refusal but rather obstinate persistence in that manifest grave sin. One cannot obstinately persist if the issue is never brought up to them.
2. Unless he was actually sick (which seems awfully coincidental) then there is zero excuse to leave during the eulogy or refuse to go to the cemetery for the committal prayers.
3. This story went viral over the last few days due to a facebook post by a friend of the family that was shocked at what happened. As of this time there is no evidence that the daughter of the deceased is the one to cause this to hit the news.

Thank you.

 

[aqu5dawk0]

Don’t some Catholic elected officials who not only facilitate…legalize…subsidize…encourage…justify…but revel in abortion, receive Holy Communion?

You’re cool.

 

[Dawnia]

To me, it appears that she thought she was entitled to communion because it was her mother’s funeral. She didn’t get her way so she’s going to whine about it.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

To me, it appears that she thought she was entitled to communion because it was her mother’s funeral. She didn’t get her way so she’s going to whine about it.

In all honesty, I think its more than just that one fact. I think its all the circumstances taken together.

 

[joanofarc2008]

In all honesty, I think its more than just that one fact. I think its all the circumstances taken together.

I think this whole thread has gotten rather uncharitable. I wish I were so sinless I felt I had a right to watch the Eucharist line.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think this whole thread has gotten rather uncharitable. I wish I were so sinless I felt I had a right to watch the Eucharist line.

Indeed, there’s a lot of rush to judgment. I originally got an email about the story a few days ago from someone who had seen the viral facebook post. The post was really bad and a pretty harsh attack on the church. All I could respond was “I think there’s more to the story…” However given the archdiocese’s essential silence in defense of the priest there really doesn’t seem to be more to the story. This really is a case of a priest not following canon law and, on surface appearances, refusing to do a corporal work of mercy.

Even if the priest had canonical justification (which he apparently didn’t) I don’t think we should ever be happy that a brother or sister has been excluded from communion.

 

[LemonAndLime]

How do you presume to know the state of that woman’s soul? She may have gone to confession with another priest. Same with an adulterer. How does the priest know that a person hadn’t gone to confession?

Its worth saying here that absolution could not be given unless she changed her living arrangements.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Indeed, there’s a lot of rush to judgment. I originally got an email about the story a few days ago from someone who had seen the viral facebook post. The post was really bad and a pretty harsh attack on the church. All I could respond was “I think there’s more to the story…” However given the archdiocese’s essential silence in defense of the priest there really doesn’t seem to be more to the story. This really is a case of a priest not following canon law and, on surface appearances, refusing to do a corporal work of mercy.

Even if the priest had canonical justification (which he apparently didn’t) I don’t think we should ever be happy that a brother or sister has been excluded from communion.