Priest who denied Holy Communion to lesbian placed on leave [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.
The archdiocese did a “knee-jerk” and made a bad call. It needs to own up to it and move on.
 
I guess he felt he was following the teachings of the Catholic church.If the lesbian did not announce she had a lover whom she was living with,maybe the Priest would have offered her communion.
 
Thank you, I was going to point this out. It is an all out war, and, we are taking sides, even on this forum. Faithful priests will need to move underground.
Faithful priests should not need to hide from the heirarchy of the church. The 4 priests at my parish are all strongly pro-life, but also have managed not to have an affair, play monopoly money with the books, or intimidate the staff. Truly orthodox, faithful priests can both stand up for life, and be in the bishop’s good books.

The priest in question apparently did speak to the woman before Mass, but we don’t know what they said to each other–especially what he said. I think Ed Peters has the best takeon that.

The Archdiocese of Washington has a very good statement that they print in the program at public Masses about who should receive Holy Communion. Something like that should be in all programs for weddings and funerals.

As in all these scandals, we do best to minimize the speculation and pray for all involved.
 
It would have been hateful to allow such a defiant, unrepentant sinner to receive communion. She would have been eating and drinking damnation unto herself. Hello?
 
Maybe in these situations an announcement should be made before the service begins that only Catholics in grace can receive communion. How is the Priest suppose to know when non parisheners are present and some people aren’t aware they are not to receive.

Also family members should let friends or relatives know if they are not to receive.

Saying that she should of not made such an issue of it, my gosh.
 
The issue is that so many Catholics live in sin, i.e. open cohabitation. Has anyone ever denied communion to one of these?
Our pastor does all the time. That and those who are known to him to be divorced and remarried. He simply gives them a blessing.
 
May God bless Fr. Marcel for being a faithful servant and following his conscience!
 
Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.
Exactly.

Although people even on this thread don’t seem to realise this despite your post.
 
That’s been my experience.

Our pastoral assistant had his faculties lifted and was sent packing back to his home country as soon as his affairs could be arranged. The bishop showed up on Saturday to inform him that his faculties had been lifted and to celebrate Mass that weekend since our pastor was on holidays. Fr. Y was on a plane on Friday. Nobody but the pastor, the Brother living in the house with them and one other person was ever officially told why.

He tried to save face by saying he was going home because his mother was ill but those of us who worked closely with him knew what had happened. Nobody else in the parish did, although a few suspected that his faculties had been lifted when for the first two weekday Masses (the bishop had left and the pastor was back) he stupidly opted to sit fully vested in a pew and not concelebrate as was the norm.
We had something similar happen with an inresidence priest who was at our parish while he went to school. Something or other happened with his student visa, school acceptance, or some other school related thing, and the bishop lifted his facilities. He was gone from one week to the next. No annoucements were made as to the reason, simply that he was leaving. That was 4 or 5 years ago and I know only what I have said here.

We are conditioned to want to know all the details of every incident. Reality TV and 24 hour news have made us all gossip-hounds. I disagree that the church needs to feed this desire for information we don’t have the right to know. There are other ways of counteracting sensationalistic news.
 
Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.
Behavior afterwards…that was directly related to the refusal of Communion.

Two witnesses were apparently upset that Fr. Marcel asked them if they would give statements about the episode, as many others had done. He had no idea they were “offended.” He goes into the Bishops office and sees the signed letter of suspension sealed and sitting on the Bishop’s desk before he can say a word.
Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.
He is helping himself a great deal by defending himself publicly against public calumny.

I doubt Father is too concerned about the archdiocese being “amused.” They’ve already found him guilty and threw him under the bus before he could defend himself. They gave Johnson, a practicing Buddhist, lesbian, and gay-rights activist, weeks on the air defaming their priest while not lifting a finger to defend him.

Indeed it is the Catholic faithful of DC who are not amused at the archdiocese.
 
I think the responses on this thread, and the level of sympathy with the Priest, would be completely different if he refused communion to someone who had commited a different sin.
 
Maybe in these situations an announcement should be made before the service begins that only Catholics in grace can receive communion. How is the Priest suppose to know when non parisheners are present and some people aren’t aware they are not to receive.

Also family members should let friends or relatives know if they are not to receive.

Saying that she should of not made such an issue of it, my gosh.
Another article stated that the priest did make a public statement about who may receive. The woman chose to approach communion anyways, and now damaged this man’s reputation needlessly.
 
I will pray for this Priest to stay strong through this episode. He probably needs all he can get right now.
 
Interesting. However the archdiocese is correct that this is not directly related to the refusal of communion, its related to his behavior afterwards.

Either way, he’s not helping himself with this public statement. The archdiocese will not be amused.
I think the priest did need to speak out. If he was suspended and condemned by the worldwide media for his behavior after the denial of communion, then it is extremely relevant to the public discussion that he had a migraine and could not finish the ceremonies.
 
He is helping himself a great deal by defending himself publicly against public calumny.

I doubt Father is too concerned about the archdiocese being “amused.” They’ve already found him guilty and threw him under the bus before he could defend himself. They gave Johnson, a practicing Buddhist, lesbian, and gay-rights activist, weeks on the air defaming their priest while not lifting a finger to defend him.

Indeed it is the Catholic faithful of DC who are not amused at the archdiocese.
To what end is he defending himself? He is not incardinated in the Archdiocese of Washington to begin with. He now has his facilities removed. His own bishop won’t be “amused” by all this either. If he is not able to function as a priest, what benefit will there be to his actions?

Priests are complained about and defamed in the media constantly. No diocese follows up on every story. This one was particularly ugly, but it would have blown over if someone hadn’t first leaked the private notice about his facilties, and then he hadn’t come out with public statements of his own.

It does us no good at all for faithful Catholics to be arguing with each other in the media about who is more orthodox. We sound like James and John arguing about who gets to sit at Christ’s right hand.
 
I think the responses on this thread, and the level of sympathy with the Priest, would be completely different if he refused communion to someone who had commited a different sin.
Based on what? If you have been on CAF a while you have seen lots of threads about denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians and activists as well as those who are divorced and remarried without annullment and those who are not Catholic. In all of those cases, most of the posters here choose the side of denying Communion to those not properly disposed. What sin (publically acknowledged as this one was) do you think would be getting a “pass”?
 
This one was particularly ugly, but it would have blown over if someone hadn’t first leaked the private notice about his facilties, and then he hadn’t come out with public statements of his own.
It was hardly a private notice. It was a letter sent to all the area priests and read at at least some Masses.
 
Another article stated that the priest did make a public statement about who may receive. The woman chose to approach communion anyways, and now damaged this man’s reputation needlessly.
I don’t think his reputation was damaged as much by the original news, as it has been by the follow up. The original story “priest denies communion to lesbian” was a very garden-variety hit on the Church by the Washington Post and other media.

The subsequent stories, “priest ‘suspended’, priest intimidates staff, priest has a bad headache” are specific to him and show him to be at odds with the archdioscese, causing the story to be about in-fighting rather than who should or should not present themselves for communion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top