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

[_Abyssinia]

Not 100% correct. He should have followed the requirements of Canon Law. If he were 100% in the right as so many here believe, I doubt that the Archdiocese would have issued an apology and an explanation. I think the Archdiocesan opinion overrules that of a parish priest.

But where specifically did they say what the Priest did was wrong?

Maybe they were misled to believe the Priest did not tell Ms Johnson prior to Communion that she couldn’t take it, when in fact he did as a poster on here has said. I did not know that, just as likely the Archdiocese did not know.

 

[bellasbane]

What I found equally troubling was the fact that the priest could not bring himself to go to the cemetery with her mother’s body. I don’t know what a priest is supposed to do if he gets a migraine while laying someone to rest - but he shouldn’t have just bailed on the family.

 

[Cristiano]

With all due respect, I am not convinced he didn’t follow canon law properly. Even the statement from the diocese is very carefully worded. It doesn’t say Father was wrong to deny her Communion, only that he did not act with sufficient pastoral sensitivity.

I think that the priest was wrong and the Diocese with that statement has chosen not to throw him under the bus because he did the wrong thing for the right reason. It is also clear to me that the Diocese chose not to fall in the trap of political correctness by yielding to the complaints. If you read the statement correctly, it talks a lot about feelings and sensitivity and it makes it clear that the problem is with people not in communion with the Church and that is why he tells them to shape up and go to confession.

 

[meltzerboy]

No, if she actually went to confession and told him she’s an active lesbian then the priest cannot use that information to deny her communion. That is a clear cut case of breaking the seal of the confessional.

I find that really interesting! Is there no conflict of interest on the part of the priest in such a situation? IOW, the same priest would technically be required not to deny her Communion even knowing she is not eligible? Also, is Confession inviolable in ALL cases, even if one admits to murder, attempting suicide, etc.? I would presume it is but just want to make sure.

 

[Daralharb]

Right. That’s the way. Dump on the bishop. Call him a failure. Tell him how to do his job. Set yourself up as his judge and furthermore tell him what his seminarians are thinking (I’m sure you took a survey) and admonish him for “missing a teaching moment.”

I found this in snoopin’ and poopin’ around the archives:

Obedience to the Pope; but not blind obedience. --St. Thomas Aquinas

It is permissible to resist the Pope when he invades souls and troubles the commonwealth; and moreover, if he appears to be causing harm to the Church, it is permissible, I say, to resist him by not doing what he enjoins and by preventing his will to triumph. --St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice

Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations. --Melchior Cano,Theologian of the Council of Trent

Attempting to reconcile our Faith with the modern mentality leads not only to weakening of that Faith, but to its total destruction. --Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914)

When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.
–St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4

What goes for the Pope extends to his Bishops.

The priest did the woman a favor, nay, a supreme act of REAL charity, by not letting her profane the Eucharist.

Maybe this priest and Fr. Michael Rodriguez should start a support group for devout priests who refuse to kowtow to modernism.

 

[Khalid]

Not 100% correct. He should have followed the requirements of Canon Law. If he were 100% in the right as so many here believe, I doubt that the Archdiocese would have issued an apology and an explanation. I think the Archdiocesan opinion overrules that of a parish priest.

And how often is the American hierarchy known to bend a little to assuage the liberal media to avoid what seculars call “scandal”? I wouldn’t be surprised if the apology rose out of motives other than a strict compliance with canon law.

 

[Cristiano]

I found this in snoopin’ and poopin’ around the archives:

What goes for the Pope extends to his Bishops.

The priest did the woman a favor, nay, a supreme act of REAL charity, by not letting her profane the Eucharist.

Maybe this priest and Fr. Michael Rodriguez should start a support group for devout priests who refuse to kowtow to modernism.

Obedience is usually due unless we are asked to sin. The Bishop did not ask anybody to sin, on the contrary he asks his priest not to sin by disregarding the Code of Canon Law. What you are proposing here is relativism, we obey only when we feel that is right and we disobey when we think it is wrong even if we go against the Code of Canon Law. This is the same “supremacy of the conscience” stuff that a lot of people pull out to justify a contraceptive behavior.

With your statement you are telling me that you know that the woman was in a state of mortal sin at the time. Please to show to me how you manage to know that state of her soul. You are also telling me that the bishop also knows the state of that woman’s soul at the time and you should provide evidence of that. If not your argument is just a big straw man.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And how often is the American hierarchy known to bend a little to assuage the liberal media to avoid what seculars call “scandal”? I wouldn’t be surprised if the apology rose out of motives other than a strict compliance with canon law.

Sure. Again blame the" liberal media" for leading the Catholic hierarchy around by their noses. Our bishops can’t think for themselves, eh?

BTW, tell us, how often does the hierarchy bend? Have any hard data about that?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Obedience is usually due unless we are asked to sin. The Bishop did not ask anybody to sin, on the contrary he asks his priest not to sin by disregarding the Code of Canon Law. What you are proposing here is relativism, we obey only when we feel that is right and we disobey when we think it is wrong even if we go against the Code of Canon Law. This is the same “supremacy of the conscience” stuff that a lot of people pull out to justify a contraceptive behavior.

You have that right in my opinion.

Let everyone resist the bishops if we think them wrong. My wife doesn’t mind if I have a girlfriend. So, it’s okay to do it even if the Church frowns on it. Same with ABC. Isn’t my conscience supreme?

And, who is saying that the bishop was asking for blind obedience??

 

[seekerz]

What I found equally troubling was the fact that the priest could not bring himself to go to the cemetery with her mother’s body. I don’t know what a priest is supposed to do if he gets a migraine while laying someone to rest - but he shouldn’t have just bailed on the family.

Interesting you should say that. I’ve been wondering the same thing: how comes that part of the debate is not receiving as much attention? What did the dead woman do to disqualify herself from being laid to rest properly?

 

[joanofarc2008]

You have that right in my opinion.

Let everyone resist the bishops if we think them wrong. My wife doesn’t mind if I have a girlfriend. So, it’s okay to do it even if the Church frowns on it. Same with ABC. Isn’t my conscience supreme?

And, who is saying that the bishop was asking for blind obedience??

Please tell me there is an air of sarcasm that I am missing here???

 

[Publisher]

There is a " rest of the story" aspect…friend Barbara was given communion by an extraordinary minister of holy communion after the priest refused to do so and left the alter…the funeral director did get a priest who had retired to finish the funeral service at the cemetary.

 

[bellasbane]

Interesting you should say that. I’ve been wondering the same thing: how comes that part of the debate is not receiving as much attention? What did the dead woman do to disqualify herself from being laid to rest properly?

Exactly my thoughts. I can’t help but feel there is more to the story than is being told. If you ask me, it seems as if the priest were having some sort of mental break-down. Priests are only human after all. It seems as if this one couldn’t handle the situation. Fortunately, a retired priest was available to take over during the crisis. God bless him!

Of course, this is a much bigger story now that the conservative movement has co-opted the Bishops objection to the HHS mandate and because of all the stuff “Catholic” Rick Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. I do not trust these “religious right” folks who claim allegiance with the Church for political purposes, but do not recognize her authority with regard to faith.

 

[Elizium23]

I think that the focus of this controversy is indicative of a greater problem of perception of Church teaching and discipline. People are outraged not just because the priest was pastorally insensitive, but because someone was denied Holy Communion. In the view of the general public, and indeed in the view of liberal/cafeteria Catholics, reception of Holy Communion is not so much a sacred rite as an inalienable right.

Many Catholics, particularly in the USA, demand to receive Holy Communion unworthily, and they are unworthy not because they obstinately persist in grave sin, but merely that they are not in a state of grace when they approach Our Lord. We can all see this for ourselves in the disparity between the Confession lines and the Communion lines. Here in the USA, we require a team of ushers at every Mass just to hold the eager sinners back until it is “their turn” to eat and drink condemnation on themselves (1 Cor 11:29).

My concern is for the faithful priests and bishops who do indeed follow the law and teachings of the Church, and who rightfully withhold Holy Communion from those who obstinately persist in grave sin (i.e. Kathleen Sebelius), and still draw fire from outraged parishioners, media outlets, atheists, and what-have-you, because none of them realize that it is to protect the souls of the sinners, as well as to protect our Lord from sacrilege and profanation, as well as to protect other faithful from being scandalized.

I think that this one priest had good intentions, but his misstep is a very unfortunate setback in the struggle for acceptance and understanding that the American Church is undergoing in these days of persecution.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

What I found equally troubling was the fact that the priest could not bring himself to go to the cemetery with her mother’s body. I don’t know what a priest is supposed to do if he gets a migraine while laying someone to rest - but he shouldn’t have just bailed on the family.

You speak much truth here.

Luna

 

[He_Man]

So Jesus must have been irresonsible in giving Judas communion at the Last Supper. Sheesh! The real problem is this absurd notioin that we have to protect God from sinners by denying them the sacraments.

That absurd notion is Catholic teaching. If you disagree, so be it, but that doesn’t mean much. The Church is very clear on this matter.

Why is there more objection to the Priest denying communion, and not the woman for attempting to receive communion? The latter was clearly wrong and indefensible.

This could have been avoided if the practicing lesbian in question had enough respect for the religion she purportedly cares about to follow the teachings, and at a minimum, refrain from communion. We are all called to do that if we are not properly disposed, not just lesbians.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I agree with the priests’s decision-----but I also agree it was very insensitive of him to not at least stay during the service. He could even have made this a “teachable moment” during the service-------for the woman and for the rest of the congregation. The reprimand he recived was correct----he followed the rules, but he was not sufficiently partorally sensisitive.

 

[He_Man]

Is the onus on the person to prove a celibate relationship or on the priest to verify the nature? I don’t know if this person was openly gay; if she was she should have been familiar with Church doctrine before presenting herself fro Communion but I have a real question regarding what the priest knew. Since we are unlikely to be privy to that information, this is probably going to remain an incomplete story. I doubt the Archdiocese would have made a statement if the priest was completely not at fault, though.

Since I’m not a Priest, I’ll just say most people don’t identify as celibate lesbians who happen to live with other lesbians. Come on…

A Priest shows his reverence for our Lord, and is castigated for it. Shows how far society, and our Church has fallen.

 

[He_Man]

Respectfully, that is not at all what I said. To have asserted so in order to make your own opinion known, as is your right, is rather unfair. You could have simply made your point without erroneous referral.

Also, when did the betrayal of Judas occur? before or after Christ offered the bread and wine as his consecrated Most Pure Body and Precious Blood? Knowing that Judas would betray Him is not the same as having had already been betrayed. Yet in great mercy …

He also gave it to every apostle who abandoned Him, including Peter, who denied Him. Every one of those men had free will to not do what they did.

 

[anp1215]

Since I’m not a Priest, I’ll just say most people don’t identify as celibate lesbians who happen to love with other lesbians. Come on…

A Priest shows his reverence for our Lord, and is castigated for it. Shows how far society, and our Church has fallen.

And then the lesbian writes a letter stating that she will do everything in her power to have the priest removed from public ministry.

“You HAVE to respect and affirm my choice of lifestyle, but I refuse to respect your religion in any way.”

In the name of tolerance.