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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miserissima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He_Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
Two unrelated women living in the same house, not self-identifying as lesbian…how can you know what their relationship is, gossip notwithstanding? Not saying that this was the case, but do we know? I don’t see that we do.
 
seekerz said:
Two unrelated women living in the same house, not self-identifying as lesbian…how can you know what their relationship is, gossip notwithstanding? Not saying that this was the case, but do we know? I don’t see that we do.
Click to expand...
Except that she did self-identify as a lesbian, and brought her lesbian partner to the service.
 
I just read the apology letter. It doesn’t actually say that the priest was wrong in denying her communion, only that they were sorry about her hurt feelings.

Was there a public repremand? Or is there just a lot of rumors floating around?
 
OrangeOwl said:
lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-washington-reprimands-priest-for-denying-communion-to-a-lesb

I’ll admit that I didn’t go through 12 pages of posting to see if this article was posted already. It gives a bit more background as to what actually happened, as well as how it related to canon law.
Click to expand...
Now from reading the article I see that the woman not only choose to ignore the pastoral recommendation of the Bishop written in the letter of apology but she also tells him how to do his job! Who is dragging her Catholic mother’s good name in the mud?
 
OrangeOwl said:
lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-washington-reprimands-priest-for-denying-communion-to-a-lesb

I’ll admit that I didn’t go through 12 pages of posting to see if this article was posted already. It gives a bit more background as to what actually happened, as well as how it related to canon law.
Click to expand...
This is an anonymous internet post from someone who wasn’t there but claims to have heard what happened. It should be taken with a grain of salt. It should be noted that there is no mention of the priest being sick in that post which is strange because that’s just as big a part of the story.

And the canon law issue isn’t changed if these new facts are true. A few minutes conversation immediately prior to a funeral is not considered by anyone to fulfill the definition of “obstinate persistence” in canon 915.
 
When the priest left the alter, an EMHC moved immediately and served commuion to Barbara…and the funeral director of the cemetary found a retired priest to officate at her mother’s graveside…she received support from the parish…even though not the priest at the alter.
 
Dawnia said:
I just read the apology letter. It doesn’t actually say that the priest was wrong in denying her communion, only that they were sorry about her hurt feelings.

Was there a public repremand? Or is there just a lot of rumors floating around?
Click to expand...
The archdiocese did issue another statement stating the priest did not follow the archdiocesan policy on the matter.
 
Maybe the priest should have handled it differently. I know that a lot of priests are now reminding people of what their obligations are prior to Communion. One priest did this at the funeral of one of my uncles. Perhaps if he had done that, she would have been spared what she feels is personal embarrassment.

I feel for this woman, but I don’t see how- if she considers herself Catholic - she can be angered and "outraged’ over being denied.
 
The canonical basis for this discussion is canon 915: “Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.” That is, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted are not to be admitted to holy communion after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others who are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

The priest in question did not handle this matter properly. He definitely should have investigated the matter further before proceeding as he did. Finding out about a person’s sinful lifestyle from a single individual does not make that lifestyle “manifest”. Besides, the source may have been in error. And even if the person told the priest: “Ms. X is a practicing lesbian, and everyone here knows it”, he still should have confronted Ms. X directly to find out whether she was truly obstinate.

As for the comment that appeals to the example of Our Lord giving the Holy Eucharist to Judas, it should be remembered that Judas’s sin was not manifest at the time, nor had he been accused by any of the other Apostles. They hadn’t a clue of Judas’s intentions at that time. Hence, the comparison does not hold up.
 
pulchravera said:
The canonical basis for this discussion is canon 915: “Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.” That is, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted are not to be admitted to holy communion after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others who are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.”

The priest in question did not handle this matter properly. He definitely should have investigated the matter further before proceeding as he did. Finding out about a person’s sinful lifestyle from a single individual does not make that lifestyle “manifest”. Besides, the source may have been in error. And even if the person told the priest: “Ms. X is a practicing lesbian, and everyone here knows it”, he still should have confronted Ms. X directly to find out whether she was truly obstinate.

As for the comment that appeals to the example of Our Lord giving the Holy Eucharist to Judas, it should be remembered that Judas’s sin was not manifest at the time, nor had he been accused by any of the other Apostles. They hadn’t a clue of Judas’s intentions at that time. Hence, the comparison does not hold up.
Click to expand...
It has been reported that the lesbian in question told the priest HERSELF that she and her lesbian lover were both there. It was not hearsay.
 
joanofarc2008 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could you kindly cite the applicable Canon Law?
 
seekerz said:
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?
Click to expand...
How was she not laid to rest properly?

The priest left the Sanctuary during the eulogy - which is after the funeral Mass is over. Another priest did the graveside prayers. What was missing for the mother?
 
pulchravera said:
The priest in question did not handle this matter properly. He definitely should have investigated the matter further before proceeding as he did. Finding out about a person’s sinful lifestyle from a single individual does not make that lifestyle “manifest”. Besides, the source may have been in error. And even if the person told the priest: “Ms. X is a practicing lesbian, and everyone here knows it”, he still should have confronted Ms. X directly to find out whether she was truly obstinate.
Click to expand...
Granted there are varying accounts. However, in at least one account, the woman herself introdocued Father to her partner, calling the woman her “lover”. That would meed the criteria of it being manifest.

IMHO, the priest shouldn’t have said anything to her in the Communion line but not given her Communion either. My own pastor is sometimes approached by people who known to him to not be living according to Church teaching. In most cases, these are divorced and remarried individuals or those living together without the Sacrament of marriage. He doesn’t give them Communion, he just gives them a blessing and moves on to the next in line. You wouldn’t even notice it unless you were looking.
 
Even if not hearsay, the priest still must consider whether the sin is manifest or not. If it is not manifest, he may not refuse holy communion.
 
pulchravera said:
Even if not hearsay, the priest still must consider whether the sin is manifest or not. If it is not manifest, he may not refuse holy communion.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is any question that this is manifest. A woman living publically with another woman, calling herself a lesbian and and calling the other woman her “lover” has objectively already met that criteria.
 
meltzerboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
The seal of Confession is absolute. However, the priest can act on information he has learned outside the Confessional. In the case being discussed here, the woman is living publically in this relationship and not hiding it. It is not unlikely that he would learn about her situation outside the Confessional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top