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

[Catherine_S]

Great links Catherine. The one on points of worthiness to receive by Pope Benedict says it all.

God bless!

The same or simular situations as the one Father experienced may very well happen to other priests…
There is disrespect,** boldness**, and a** willfulness** out there that can very easily begin to express itself towards the Catholic Church in these ways…
. .
English Catholic congregation shocked as gay activist disrupts Mass with video cam
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/english-catholic-congregation-shocked-as-gay-activist-disrupts-mass-with-vi?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2504f00654-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_15_2012&utm_medium=email
.
The priest consulted well-known barrister and religious discrimination expert Neil Addison who pointed out that the priest had recourse to the law. It is an offense in England and Scotland to disrupt a religious service or intimidate or harass ministers of religion. Although Addison said that such laws were mainly drafted in the 19th century, and are widely “regarded as obsolete today” they can still be prosecuted as “religiously aggravated”* public order** or** violence** offences.*

 

[Catherine_S]

FYI We don’t “take” communion, we** “receive”** communion. God gives us communion as** a gift**, we do NOT “take” it from him, it is a gift that is received.

• Thank you, NYCATHOLIGIRL !!*

 

[hudson]

FYI We don’t “take” communion, we “receive” communion. God gives us communion as a gift, we do NOT “take” it from him, it is a gift that is received.

In his defense the definition of partake is not the same as take:
Partake
1: to take part in or experience something along with others
2: to have a portion (as of food or drink)
3: to possess or share a certain nature or attribute

 

[Ender]

Canon Law cannot be taken at face value. It is very complex, with many layers and many cross overs between one canon and another. The intent of the lawyers does not always come through in the wording.

Haven’t we covered this? Whatever deficiencies we may have in interpreting canon law ourselves is no longer relevant if we have the law interpreted for us by someone for whom it is appropriate to make such a determination. If anyone wants to understand Canon 915 all he has to do is read Archbishop Burke’s paper on the subject published in the Periodica de re Canonica (a quarterly publication by, among others, professors of canon law). We may not be capable of interpreting the law but we are surely capable of understanding what has been written about it by those who do.

That’s why Cardinal Wuerl and other bishops, who are scholars, knew that they needed more information, because they are not lawyers.

But … the lawyers have spoken. That issue has been resolved. Whatever else may be involved vagueness of the law is no longer a valid explanation.

At the end of the day, the only person who can interpret canon law without error is the pope. Without error because the pope is the Living Law of the Church; therefore, his interpretation of the law is final.

This makes it sound as if the the Apostolic Signatura has no real authority if it is the pope’s ruling and not theirs that must be obtained. Surely that cannot be the case. I really think this is the wrong kind of argument to make; it just looks so much like a member of the laity arguing that, because the pope hadn’t defined a teaching as infallible, we were free to decide for ourselves. The Church claims to know the Truth so it is more than a little distressing when they suggest they can’t even understand their own laws.

Again, let’s talk about perceptions. We are told we cannot understand a law consisting of but a single sentence because we are not canon lawyers. When this objection is overcome by the publication of an extensive, scholarly article by the man who (now) holds a position roughly equivalent to chief justice of the Supreme Court of canon law, the objection becomes a lack of implementation guidelines and “the pope hasn’t spoken.” How is that perceived by the laity and how different in form is it from the gyrations the laity employs to justify (e.g.) using birth control? The bishops cannot create the impression that the obvious is in fact vague or that it is OK to ignore burdensome regulations without the laity thinking the same thing. That perception may be totally wrong but the bishops should recognize their role in its formation.

All this may be moot in Fr. G’s case. He may claim justification from something other than canon 915 and he may well have interpreted it incorrectly but Fr. G’s actions are no longer the only issue. They are now inextricably intertwined with Cardinal Wuerl’s position on canon 915.

Ender

 

[Diana_Catherine]

Church law requires that the allegations be investigated. That’s why it’s very important that people be very careful what they say about priests and religious. Something said in anger can cause a tempest in a tea pot.

Wow, I agree. We really do need to watch what we say. It is very hard for priests right now with all the allegations out there and the work of the media on the Church, but there are multitudes of good priests doing very good jobs and we should speak well of them and pray for our priests and pray that God would raise up good priests and bishops for us.

Cardinal Wuerl has a reputation for zero tolerance of any kind of allegation of misbehavior by priests and religious. This is public knowledge. Google Wuerl and you’ll read that he’s tough on allegations. He will investigate every allegation. That’s what he did with the child sex abuse. He was running investigations since 1988, before the Vatican got involved. This is a man who rather err on the side of caution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for the explanation and it’s good to know that Cardinal Wuerl is being very cautious. We need to keep this incident, priest and all involved in our prayers.

 

[Tommy72]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/english-catholic-congregation-shocked-as-gay-activist-disrupts-mass-with-vi?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2504f00654-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_15_2012&utm_medium=email

Un-bee-leevable.
I’m glad I wasn’t in the pews at that Mass…

 

[hudson]

Catherine S.;9078462:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/english-catholic-congregation-shocked-as-gay-activist-disrupts-mass-with-vi?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2504f00654-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_15_2012&utm_medium=email

Un-bee-leevable.
I’m glad I wasn’t in the pews at that Mass…

The question is, would the Priest have been allowed to deny this person the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ???Seems unlikely according to many here. What if these people came dressed as they do in their parades or nude could they be denied then?

 

[sw85]

We should be cautious before jumping to conclusions about this. I think it’s unlikely that his suspension had anything to do with denying that woman communion, although the publicity around it may have brought other issues to the fore that caught the attention of his superiors.

I have read from a respectable source (Fr. Z.) that the priest in this case was probably not justified in denying the woman communion, as canon law only permits such refusals in cases in which the sin is manifest and obstinate – i.e., his inability to speak with her about it means there was obstinacy. Nevertheless, most priests are familiar with the ins and outs of canon law and I don’t think the Church can (or does) fault him for erring on the side of holiness.

 

[franch]

MaryJK,I think you missed my point.If underlying issues were the real reason for his dismissal,then the lead in to the article should have stated this fact.His response to the lesbian was the title,leading one to believe this was the sole reason for his dismissal.If the bishop was looking for a reason to act,this was it.I still believe this woman intentionally tried to receive the Eucharist,hoping she would be denied,to creat this firestorm of controversy.

One problem facing the Church right now is there are a lot of people who are prepared to do anything to discredit it. Dealing with people with hidden agendas is very difficult, as even if some people recognise it most will not. Denying a Christian sacrament to a non-Christian is not wrong. Unfortunately, this woman and others like her will try to exploit the media’s ‘report first and don’t seek the actual truth of the truth’ mentality which we all have to recognise as being a real problem in the world. We all have to guard against people with agendas and seek the real and full story before we believe any story. The sad reality is the bulk of people will not do this, but will accept any story at face value which is what the anit-catholics/anti-christians are hoping for

 

[franch]

MaryJK,I think you missed my point.If underlying issues were the real reason for his dismissal,then the lead in to the article should have stated this fact.His response to the lesbian was the title,leading one to believe this was the sole reason for his dismissal.If the bishop was looking for a reason to act,this was it.I still believe this woman intentionally tried to receive the Eucharist,hoping she would be denied,to creat this firestorm of controversy.

One problem facing the Church right now is there are a lot of people who are prepared to do anything to discredit it. Dealing with people with hidden agendas is very difficult, as even if some people recognise the hidden agenda most will not. Denying a Christian sacrament to a non-Christian is not wrong. Unfortunately, this woman and others like her will try to exploit the media’s ‘report first and don’t seek the actual truth of the truth’ mentality which we all have to recognise as being a real problem in the world. We all have to guard against people with agendas and seek the real and full story before we believe any story. The sad reality is the bulk of people will not do this, but will accept any story at face value which is what the anit-catholics/anti-christians are hoping for

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Good for Fr. G. It seems very clear to me that he’s a target of persecution, as many good priests are. Prayers for him that he’ll continue to courageously uphold the Faith.

 

[Santo_Subito]

There is a website available for anyone who would like to support Fr. Marcel:

supportfathermarcel.com/

 

[Phemie]

FYI We don’t “take” communion, we “receive” communion. God gives us communion as a gift, we do NOT “take” it from him, it is a gift that is received.

Nobody I know equates ‘take Communion’ with grabbing it except on these forums. The word ‘take’ has many definitions, two of which are “to accept something offered” and “to put into the body, as in food.” Both work in relation to Communion and no disrespect is intended.

 

[Robertanthony]

In his defense the definition of partake is not the same as take:
Partake
1: to take part in or experience something along with others
2: to have a portion (as of food or drink)
3: to possess or share a certain nature or attribute

Thanks hudson, I reread the offending post (mine) about 10 times trying to see the verb “take”, but it was nowhere to be found. But even it was to be found, I think it’s kind of pointless to even bring it up, this thread isn’t a university class in semantics… One has to look very hard in my post to find any disrespect whatsoever towards the Eucharist.

Thanks Phemie.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks hudson, I reread the offending post (mine) about 10 times trying to see the verb “take”, but it was nowhere to be found. But even it was to be found, I think it’s kind of pointless to even bring it up, this thread isn’t a university class in semantics… One has to look very hard in my post to find any disrespect whatsoever towards the Eucharist.

Thanks Phemie.

You did write “I too am in an irregular situation that keeps me from taking communion “lest I drink my own condemnation”.”

But this jumping on people for using the word ‘take’ has been a pet peeve of mine on these forums.

 

[Robertanthony]

You did write “I too am in an irregular situation that keeps me from taking communion “lest I drink my own condemnation”.”

But this jumping on people for using the word ‘take’ has been a pet peeve of mine on these forums.

Then how difficult was it for her to quote the right post ? I must admit though that I was never aware that people took issues with the verb “take”. Is that what we call “having too much time on one’s hand”? When I see someone write “seperate” instead of “separate” I still know what they mean, same with “it’s” when they mean “its”, same with "different than " when it’s “different from”. Anyhow, on with the thread, and let’s bring some substance, shall we?

 

[JReducation]

Haven’t we covered this? Whatever deficiencies we may have in interpreting canon law ourselves is no longer relevant if we have the law interpreted for us by someone for whom it is appropriate to make such a determination. If anyone wants to understand Canon 915 all he has to do is read Archbishop Burke’s paper on the subject published in the Periodica de re Canonica (a quarterly publication by, among others, professors of canon law). We may not be capable of interpreting the law but we are surely capable of understanding what has been written about it by those who do.
But … the lawyers have spoken. That issue has been resolved. Whatever else may be involved vagueness of the law is no longer a valid explanation.
This makes it sound as if the the Apostolic Signatura has no real authority if it is the pope’s ruling and not theirs that must be obtained. Surely that cannot be the case. I really think this is the wrong kind of argument to make; it just looks so much like a member of the laity arguing that, because the pope hadn’t defined a teaching as infallible, we were free to decide for ourselves. The Church claims to know the Truth so it is more than a little distressing when they suggest they can’t even understand their own laws.

This is what NewEngladPriest and I have been trying to say for several days. When the document came out from Cardinal Burke, several US bishops sent back questions about the application and the answer to their questions has not yet been received. These were questions generated by the document issued by Cardinal Burke.

As to the other point, the Signatura does not make law. It is a tribunal. Law is made by the Holy Father. Any bishop has the right to go directly to the Holy Father for an interpretation to a law, if he does not agree with or does not understand what the Signatura is saying.

Once you put it on paper, the issue goes on hold until you get a response.

If you read what canon lawyers are saying on the different blogs on the Internet, there is good reason to ask more questions of Cardinal Burke, because the different canon law societies do not agree on how the law is to be applied and interpreted. We’re talking about some of the most reputable societies of canon law.

No . . . the questions that arose after the document was issued have not been answered by the Signatura. What the bishops have is differing interpretations of what Cardinal Burke wrote, from different sources.

Go back to yesterday. Someone posted a link to a canon law blog, by a very reputable lawyer who says that the law was incorrectly applied. Then you have others who say, "Well it may have been correct, but . . . "

I agree with the problem concerning perception. That’s a whole other issue. Until the bishop’s get the answers to their questions, there are going to be differing interpretations about what Cardinal Burke wrote. The more often it happens, the worse the perceptions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[hudson]

Will they then ask for clarifications of those answers? Sounds like the problem Protestants have with sola scriptura. It also reminds me of the problem the SSPX has with the V2 documents. They are unclear and open to being interpreted in a way not in line with Tradition is what they say. Is that not the same thing?

 

[JReducation]

Will they then ask for clarifications of those answers? Sounds like the problem Protestants have with sola scriptura. It also reminds me of the problem the SSPX has with the V2 documents. They are unclear and open to being interpreted in a way not in line with Tradition is what they say. Is that not the same thing?

I’m not a canon lawyer. What I read after Cardinal Burke’s 50 page document came out was that a number of bishops felt that Cardinal Burke’s paper sounded different from the intent of the writer of the law. Those bishops who felt that way wanted to know what was the intent of the writer not what Cardinal Burke says. Apparently, these were not only American bishops. There were some from other countries who also said that Cardinal Burke had given his interpretation, but had not given the intent of the writer. In Canon Law, the intent of the writer is very important. It helps understand the interpretation that you’re giving it.

Will they ask again? I can’t say. I’m not at that pay rate.

I believe that they need to keep asking until they are satisfied that they understand what is being asked of them. Everyone has that right, including bishops. I also believe, as I learned in Canon Law, that the intent of the writer often sheds light on the law. Basically, you know why you said whatever you said. When you wrote it, it seemed clear to you. When I read it, it’s not so clear to me.

There was a post from someone last night with a link to an excellent blog by a canon lawyer. i say excellent, because he went all over the map and showed how this one canon does not stand alone and that’s what makes its implementation so difficult. While he did not answer my questions about the application of the canon, he certainly helped me see the complexity. It’s not a matter of quoting a canon and running with it. Some canons are linked to other canons in other parts of the code. I was fascinated last night, as I was as a seminarian, by how complex this whole canon is. Then there are canons that are very straightforward. What can I say?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hokomai]

Ok, here’s my assessment, as an outsider.

The woman should not have gone against the express request of the priest and gone up for communion.

The priest should have given it to her.

The woman should not have interpreted the priest’s absence in an uncharitable way.

The diocese should not have jumped in with decisions as rapidly as it did, without hearing both sides, and even then it should have treated it as a case for guidance, not discipline.

The priest should have taken better advice on canon law before he defended himself.

Everyone should have assumed that everyone else was trying to do good.

No one in the media should have thought this a genuine news story, because at best it is a dispute between a priest with a migrane and someone attending the church once, who got what she wanted anyway.

We should all recognise that the media ran with the story because they got to put the words “priest” and “lesbian” in a single sentence, and we should all consider whether this is what has got us interested too.