Priest in lesbian communion controversy no longer works with DC archdiocese

[daisybee]

I’m a child of the 1990s…
Okay…if you believe you are worthy okay and if not than there you go, don’t come up for communion.

To each their own.

It sounds like what you may be getting at is that we generally can’t know the intentions of each and every person who is receiving Holy Communion, or whether or not they are in a state of grace. That’s generally true.

But in this case it was made public to whoever was in the sacristy (and elsewhere?) that the woman was not in a state of grace, which could have set a bad examples for others and could lead to scandal.

catholicexchange.com/the-definition-of-scandal/

It also was a profound demonstration of lack of respect for the holiness of our Lord.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

It sounds like what you may be getting at is that we generally can’t know the intentions of each and every person who is receiving Holy Communion, or whether or not they are in a state of grace. That’s generally true.

But in this case it was made public to whoever was in the sacristy (and elsewhere?) that the woman was not in a state of grace, which could have set a bad examples for others and could lead to scandal.

catholicexchange.com/the-definition-of-scandal/

It also was a profound demonstration of lack of respect for the holiness of our Lord.

Thank you, finally someone is trying to get what I’m saying. However, the priest could of made another effort to speak with the woman. I just find it troubling that someone would intentionally block the priests way. Maybe there was some sort of consuion. How about some pictures of the sacristry so we can get some prespective as to what transpired that day.

Apparently, from what I read…the Woman went to a Eucharistic Minister, so idk.

 

[daisybee]

Thank you, finally someone is trying to get what I’m saying. However, the priest could of made another effort to speak with the woman. I just find it troubling that someone would intentionally block the priests way. Maybe there was some sort of consuion. How about some pictures of the sacristry so we can get some prespective as to what transpired that day.

Apparently, from what I read…the Woman went to a Eucharistic Minister, so idk.

I don’t think it would have been prudent for him to try again with someone blocking his way. He would have had to force himself past the person blocking him. A physical confrontation could have resulted!

For me, what’s even more convincing than pictures of the sacristy would be, is that after Father did not distribute to the woman, she decided to go to the Eucharistic Minister. That’s defiant, and ugly. She did not respect his authority, or Who he was trying to protect. Obviously she knew Father did not deem it appropriate for her to receive communion, but she was determined to receive anyway.

May I recommend a book by Father Lawrence G. Lovasik, Basic Book of the Eucharist? He’s a very good writer and teacher; I’ve learned a lot from his writings.

shop.sophiainstitute.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=437

 

[aicirt]

What doesn’t make sense to me is how she can be surprised that having a live-in lover is a problem for someone who claims to be Catholic. It seems she has no understanding whatsoever of basic Church teachings. We do know she made certain decisions that are not in line with Church teaching…it seems a bit of a stretch to believe she didn’t have any idea she was doing anything wrong.

She knew exactly what she was doing.

 

[fix]

By embracing ones own beliefs but seperating personal beliefs from public policy and affairs.

So faith is a private affair? Why would one who claims to be faithful to Christ want to separate their faith from any aspect of life?

Being a strong supporter of seperation of Church and State.

You mean like not infusing democratic processes with morality?

 

[jwinch2]

By embracing ones own beliefs but seperating personal beliefs from public policy and affairs. Being a strong supporter of seperation of Church and State.

“Asking a Christian to keep his religion out of the public square is like asking a married man to act single in public.”
— Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

 

[Iaamiccwint]

So faith is a private affair? Why would one who claims to be faithful to Christ want to separate their faith from any aspect of life?

You mean like not infusing democratic processes with morality?

Did not Jesus say to not pray in public, but in one’s room.
A secular society is an imoortant aspect to religion.
If this were a religious society than it wouldn’t be fair to other religions.

How would you feel if a public school teacher was leading the class in Protestant prayer, you would say that saying Protestant prayers is unfair.

See.

My faith is deeply personal to me, I don’t believe in pushing it on others. That’s just me.

 

[Lochias]

Did not Jesus say to not pray in public, but in one’s room.
A secular society is an imoortant aspect to religion.
If this were a religious society than it wouldn’t be fair to other religions.

How would you feel if a public school teacher was leading the class in Protestant prayer, you would say that saying Protestant prayers is unfair.

See.

My faith is deeply personal to me, I don’t believe in pushing it on others. That’s just me.

We know that Protestants (by and large) are still Christian. I’d rather hear Protestant prayer in schools than no school at all.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

“Asking a Christian to keep his religion out of the public square is like asking a married man to act single in public.”
— Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

How does a single guy act in public that’s different from a married guy? Although I love the quote by the good Archbishop, it doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[Iaamiccwint]

We know that Protestants (by and large) are still Christian. I’d rather hear Protestant prayer in schools than no school at all.

Well, that’s why we have a moment of silence for a minute in public schools. I went to a public high school, and the teachers gave us a minute of silence right after the Pledge of Allegance.

So, if you want to pray in a public school, that’s when it happens.

 

[daisybee]

Did not Jesus say to not pray in public, but in one’s room.
A secular society is an imoortant aspect to religion.
If this were a religious society than it wouldn’t be fair to other religions.

How would you feel if a public school teacher was leading the class in Protestant prayer, you would say that saying Protestant prayers is unfair.

See.

My faith is deeply personal to me, I don’t believe in pushing it on others. That’s just me.

The verse about praying in one’s room has to do with Jesus’ discouragement of prideful exhibitions of religious observance; it’'s not a restriction on public expression of faith.

If all of our predecessors in the Faith had kept their faith private, very few of us would be Catholic today. I agree with you that faith should not be “pushed” on anyone, but it is meant to be shared. How do you view the Great Commission (Mark 16:14-18), “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. etc.”?

Interesting article from Peter Kreeft, “Public Square, Private Faith,” regarding examining from what principles elected officials develop policies. catholic.com/magazine/articles/public-square-private-faith

What do you mean by a “secular society is important to religion”? Today there is a trend among secular societies not to remain neutral toward religion, but rather, to make efforts to restrict and suppress religious expression. Societies that do that are not just secular; they are oppressive. Georgetown Professor Thomas Farr offers this perspective on the matter: blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/07/10/gtown-prof-obama-downgrading-religious-liberty/

 

[fix]

Did not Jesus say to not pray in public, but in one’s room.
A secular society is an imoortant aspect to religion.

You pluck out one line from Scripture and create a whole new theology that claims Catholics have no right to influence the public sphere.

If this were a religious society than it wouldn’t be fair to other religions.

How would you feel if a public school teacher was leading the class in Protestant prayer, you would say that saying Protestant prayers is unfair.

See.

My faith is deeply personal to me, I don’t believe in pushing it on others. That’s just me.

You have things a tad confused. No one is asking that Catholic prayers be made part of the civil law. What Catholics do support is:

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part.

Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign of the times”, as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. 88 But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable “majority” opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the “natural law” written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis. 89

 

[Iaamiccwint]

You pluck out one line from Scripture and create a whole new theology that claims Catholics have no right to influence the public sphere.

You have things a tad confused. No one is asking that Catholic prayers be made part of the civil law. What Catholics do support is:

I’m not saying Catholics sholdn’t have a say in the public arena, since that’s their right as American Catholics. If Catholic or other Christians want to have influence on public policy, than go ahead, that’s your right.

 

[fix]

I’m not saying Catholics sholdn’t have a say in the public arena, since that’s their right as American Catholics. If Catholic or other Christians want to have influence on public policy, than go ahead, that’s your right.

Great then you agree it is seriously evil to support any law that allows abortion of homosexual marriage?

 

[aicirt]

How does a single guy act in public that’s different from a married guy? Although I love the quote by the good Archbishop, it doesn’t make any sense to me.

A married man, asked to act single, would be removing his wedding ring and attempting to pick-up girls with the guys. He is being something other than he is. Correct behavior would require him to declare himself married either by words or deeds.

 

[Lochias]

Well, that’s why we have a moment of silence for a minute in public schools. I went to a public high school, and the teachers gave us a minute of silence right after the Pledge of Allegance.

So, if you want to pray in a public school, that’s when it happens.

Yup. Religious voices silenced, religious activities stomped, religious preferences swatted down.

God Bless America.

 

[Lochias]

I’m not saying Catholics sholdn’t have a say in the public arena, since that’s their right as American Catholics. If Catholic or other Christians want to have influence on public policy, than go ahead, that’s your right.

What exactly are you saying?

 

[Skeptic92]

I’m a child of the 1990s…
Okay…if you believe you are worthy okay and if not than there you go, don’t come up for communion.

To each their own.

I’m also a Child of the 90s, I’m pursuing a degree in Theology (I have two papers published in undergraduate journals one on Sacramental Theology and the other on Church History) and Philosophy. My main Professors in Theology are Orthodox and Catholic (who taught alongside the then Professor Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI and Hans Kung) so I think I will chip in.

Theologically what you are saying is heresy, the heresy of relativism. The Priest could openly see she was committed to her Sin and as Christ stated

‘Give not that which is holy [the Holy Eucharist] to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.’

but also more specifically as St. Paul said [BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:26-30[/BIBLEDRB]

If the Priest had allowed her to receive Christ himself in the Most Holy Eucharist, he would of allowed her to receive her own condemnation upon herself. The Priest had to look out for her soul and therefore had to refuse her Holy Communion.

Now on to your view points…

Liberalism has obviously infiltrated your faith, relativist ideas are heresy (part of the heresy of Modernism, as condemned by St Pius X) I can not be more charitable than to call heresy exactly what it is. Your opinions do not matter on matters of reception of the Eucharist and all matters of Faith and Morals, to paraphrase the great Doctor of the Church St Augustine (ora pro nobis), ‘Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est’ meaning Rome has Spoken the Matter is Finished. If you wish me to go in depth respond to my post and list the points you have of contentions (such as Eastern Philosophies, other religions and ‘separation of Church and State’ which all need to be addressed) and I will go through Orthodox teaching.

Also a note ‘progressive’ has no place in Catholicism you’re either orthodox or heterodox, meaning you are either in line with the teaching of the Church or you are not. You have different spiritualities within the Church such as: Franciscan, traditional, Benedictine, charismatic, Eastern (this is mainly a theological tradition, not a spirituality) etc

 

[april32010]

Don’t priests usually make a statement before distributing the Eucharist? I’m a Church volunteer and when I preside at funerals, I see people freeze in the communion line when they reach the priest. I also distribute communion.

your a extraordinary minister of the Eucharist ! does anyone at your parish train e.m.c.

 

[Skeptic92]

your a extraordinary minister of the Eucharist ! does anyone at your parish train e.m.c.

Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion* sorry too correct, but a Minister of the Eucharist would be the Priest as they are the only ones with the ability to consecrate. An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion are laity that help distribute the Holy Eucharist if the need arises (they are quite sadly over used at the moment), they are not Ministers of the Eucharist.

I know i’m being picky, but these terms do matter !