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.
I apologize for spelling canon wrong. That is really not my area of expertise. I’m just a Catholic that Loves God Too…🙂
 
[You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.
Friend, it appears that you and I both have gone on tangents. 😉 😊

I do not believe that homosexual celibate priests is the thread topic. My own reference, earlier, was not to same-sex-atttracted men who have a genuine calling to the priesthood, but rather to those in and outside of the Church who campaign for a non-celibate homosexual lifestyle in the priesthood, and who use sensational stories in the press (including confrontational events that occur in church settings, such as this thread’s story) as a springboard to refresh those campaigns. (Completely different effort, naturally!)

Glad to clarify for you 🙂

As to canon law, that is not the same thing as absolute moral law on which Catholic moral theology is based and which does not change. Canon law is jurisdictional and applies only to the universal Church proper; as NewEnglandPriest pointed out, that does not intersect with U.S. civil, constitutional, or criminal law.

A footnote about moral law: One would think, reading CAF ;), that moral law is restricted to matters below the navel, but naturally it involves far more than sexuality, which is just one aspect of it. Moral law derives from an ordered universe ordained by God, transparent in Scripture, and expounded in sacred tradition.

Welcome to CAF. 🙂
[/quote]
 
With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference. The fact is that Cannon Law is, and has been, written by flawed men as were the laws of men in the church in the days of the inquisitions.
  1. No one has said canon law isn’t written by “flawed men.” No one has claimed its infallible.
  2. I do not believe it is a “semantic difference” since canon law as we understand it today simply did not exist at the time of the Inquisitions. The idea of a unified set of laws compiled and enumerated for the universal Church that applied everywhere would have been foreign to them at that time. In those days Church laws differed from country to country, weren’t compiled, were just declared ad hoc, sometimes contradicted each other, didn’t have commentary, etc. Its apples and oranges.
Was our church any less of the one true church then? It is very easy for people to formulate an opinion, and then find a single line in scripture to support it. Via their interpretation of said scripture of course.
Canon law isn’t Scripture.
Cannon Laws were written in a similar way and have evolved considerably with the addition of knowledge that only the passage of time can provide.
Canon law as we know it today is a legal system comparable to any civil legal system around the world. There’s areas of “interpretation” and there’s areas of “settled law.” Ultimately there’s a court that enforces it and a legislator who defines it.

Yes, canon law has evolved over the centuries until it reached its modern form in 1917.
You cannot claim our faith as the one true church started by St. Peter and so cavalierly dismiss the early views and actions of our church.
Huh? Who’s dismissing views and actions of the early Church? I simply stated that the Canon Law system we know today would be a foreign concept 700 years ago.
You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.
Um, ok. What does this have to do with anything in this thread? 🤷
 
This is all quite off topic of the thread so let’s just leave it we’ll agree to disagree.
I hope I didn’t offend you, it certainly was not my intent. If i did, I sincerely apologize. As for being on topic, I believe what I wrote about is at the heart of this topic. I just could not imagine a priest in my lifetime making his own judgment, at the communion rail, so to speak, to refuse the Sacrament to anyone. I never saw that in my lifetime. That is until the country turned into this left is bad and right is good thing.

I feel it is particularly disingenuous in light of the important, ordained by God, work that homosexual priest have done in our Church today and for generations gone by. We are ever evolving and learning creations of God. He gave us the gift of thought and reason to use it, not to hide from the obvious related contradictions here.

Again I apologize if offended you, it’s not my style.🤷
 
It was not my intent to compare the inquisition to the priest’s refusal of the sacrament. I referred to that to illustrate that the Church has evolved in it’s thinking and actions over the years.
 
As for the canonical stuff, I’m in advertising. I haven’t the slightest skill set to be an effective advocate on any side of a canonical debate.😃

But who said you do not need to be a weatherman to know if it’s raining or not? 😉
 
Two things to consider: after she was denied the Eucharist by the priest, she walked around the to other side and received the Blessed Sacrament from a Eucharistic Minister.

Also, what sort of person would choose her own mother’s funeral as a venue to express her rage against a priest in particular, and Holy Mother Church in general?

May God ease the pain in her tormented soul…
 
In regard to the main subject, here’s an interesting article on Rorate Caeli.
A Canonical Contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair.
That’s a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:

Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?

Regarding the question highlighted above, I’m thinking the answer is yes.

Ender
 
That’s a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:

Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?

Regarding the question highlighted above, I’m thinking the answer is yes.

Ender
You’re welcome. And I’d have to agree with your own answer to that question.
 
More of the same type of refusal by Catholics who do not accept nor* follow** Church teaching! *
.
Archdiocese of Vienna
* supports priest who drew the line* on** homosexual** parish council members
Stangl told reporters that he made a point of living his homosexual relationship publicly in his small town. “After we* closed our partnership** before the** authorities**, we invited more than half the town to our home for a** feast**,” he said. *
Parishioners who voted for the openly homosexual young man say* they are ready** to fight for their election choice. Some parishioners have told reporters that** if their choice** of Stangl is not honored, then they are prepared to** provoke** an uprising. ***
Stangl is
already using
* the** discrimination tactic** with the Austrian public to** gain** their empathy and support. He nows says he feels “discriminated against” since Father Swierzek has asked him to refrain from receiving communion. “The priest has asked me not to go to communion. He said that he would not deny me, but he asked me not to.”*
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-vienna-supports-priest-who-drew-the-line-on-homosexual-paris?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc65cf6b50-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_23_2012&utm_medium=email
 
More of the same type of refusal by Catholics who do not accept nor* follow** Church teaching!
.*
Archdiocese of Vienna* supports priest who drew the line* on** homosexual** parish council members
Stangl told reporters that he made a point of living his homosexual relationship publicly in his small town. “After we* closed our partnership** before the** authorities**, we invited more than half the town to our home for a** feast**,” he said. *
Parishioners who voted for the openly homosexual young man say* they are ready** to fight for their election choice. Some parishioners have told reporters that** if their choice** of Stangl is not honored, then they are prepared to** provoke** an uprising. ***
Stangl is
already using
* the** discrimination tactic** with the Austrian public to** gain** their empathy and support. He nows says he feels “discriminated against” since Father Swierzek has asked him to refrain from receiving communion. “The priest has asked me not to go to communion. He said that he would not deny me, but he asked me not to.”*
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-vienna-supports-priest-who-drew-the-line-on-homosexual-paris?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+ Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc65cf6b50-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_23_ 2012&utm_medium=email
 
That’s a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:

Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?

Regarding the question highlighted above, I’m thinking the answer is yes.

Ender
It is surely beginning to look that way!!
This is more of the same type of refusal by Catholics who will not accept nor follow Church teaching! *
.
Archdiocese of Vienna
supports priest who drew the line* on** homosexual** parish council members
Stangl told reporters that he made a point of living his homosexual relationship publicly in his small town. “After we* closed our partnership** before the** authorities**, we invited more than half the town to our home for a** feast**,” he said. *
Parishioners who voted for the openly homosexual young man say* they are ready** to fight for their election choice. Some parishioners have told reporters that** if their choice** of Stangl is not honored, then they are prepared to** provoke** an uprising. ***
Stangl is
already using
* the** discrimination tactic** with the Austrian public to** gain** their empathy and support. He nows says he feels “discriminated against” since Father Swierzek has asked him to refrain from receiving communion. “The priest has asked me not to go to communion. He said that he would not deny me, but he asked me not to.”*
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-vienna-supports-priest-who-drew-the-line-on-homosexual-paris?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+ Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc65cf6b50-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_23_ 2012&utm_medium=email

 
It is surely beginning to look that way!!
*This is more of the same type of refusal by Catholics who will not accept nor follow Church teaching! *

But the response of the archdiocese was not the same type, fortunately.
 
NewEnglandPriest;9098740:
Canon Law didn’t exist as a unified single code until 1917. Until that point Church laws were kind of ad hoc
. So its useless to really make such comparisons. That’s kind of like wondering about the application of the Bill of Rights (1791) in the US Articles of Confederation (1777-1787).

With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference. The fact is that Cannon Law is, and has been, written by flawed men as were the laws of men in the church in the days of the inquisitions. Was our church any less of the one true church then? It is very easy for people to formulate an opinion, and then find a single line in scripture to support it. Via their interpretation of said scripture of course. Cannon Laws were written in a similar way and have evolved considerably with the addition of knowledge that only the passage of time can provide. You cannot claim our faith as the one true church started by St. Peter and so cavalierly dismiss the early views and actions of our church.

You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God’s people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.

Watch ‘The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition’ on Youtube before the tow the old party line about how wicked the Inquisitions were.
 
IWe make up 5% of the world’s Catholics but the point is that, when harnessed for good (not for dissident opinions, etc.) our reach can extend to far more than a 5% effect. But when any group senses that they are not valued, they will not come forward to be servants of the Church. I don’t know which “we” you’re referring to (above), but I’m not “demanding” anything, let alone

I’m referring to **making contributions of labor and support, **not “attention” and “resources.”
Highlighting a few things from this post. A bit OT. My take is that the expectation for a faithful Catholic is to come forward as a servant of the church and to contribute labor and support. That is in the precepts of the Church. No where does it say we should expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.

In fact, as those who are more blessed, we should be eager to help those Catholics in other parts of the world who are not, and happy that the Church’s (Vatican’s) attention is on them in their need.
 
Highlighting a few things from this post. A bit OT. My take is that the expectation for a faithful Catholic is to come forward as a servant of the church and to contribute labor and support. That is in the precepts of the Church. No where does it say we should expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.
And absolutely nowhere in my postings is there the slightest implication that Catholics who want to serve and who do now already serve
expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.
Nevertheless, the reality of involving people effectively – whether its on the secular level in volunteer organizations or in the religious realm via the laity – is that outreach encourages involvement. It’s strictly a practical matter and nothing else. Those of us who give regularly to causes both religious and non-religious, as well as give because our professions are those of service --not of acquisition-- don’t need ‘instruction’ in the value of giving. 😉

And there’s a two-way street that is the benefit: American Catholics who are not ignored are much more likely to deepen their fidelity to Church teaching than to remain ‘on the margins’ in terms of belief and practice. This is part of what underlies the ‘homecoming’ movements (locally and internationally) in the Church.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to correct an assumption which was never articulated or implied by me in the first place. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top