Same-sex couple says priest denied them communion due to relationship

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Um, that obit isn’t actually “irrefutable evidence that this couple was living in sin”; it didn’t say they were sexual involved and it didn’t claim they were married. Plenty of heterosexual pairs have been considered couples.
Click to expand...
In current American society, once one is with a “partner” sexual activity is implied.

It’s really not a big leap of logic.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Um, that obit isn’t actually “irrefutable evidence that this couple was living in sin”; it didn’t say they were sexual involved and it didn’t claim they were married. Plenty of heterosexual pairs have been considered couples.
Click to expand...
“Living in sin” is not defined merely by being sexually ‘involved’.

Here is what the obituary said
The obituary noted Parker’s mother was survived by a son, a daughter and her daughter’s** partner.**
Click to expand...
So, unless they were business partners, they were not in a “partnership” that is compatible with Catholic living.
 
Corki said:
“Living in sin” is not defined merely by being sexually ‘involved’.

Here is what the obituary said

So, unless they were business partners, they were not in a “partnership” that is compatible with Catholic living.
Click to expand...
In that obit what does the use of the word “partner” mean to you?
 
Lochias said:
What in the world do you think she meant by the term “partner”, then? Or are you just enjoying being argumentative, at this point?
Click to expand...
Lifelong companion? A relationship that could potentially blossom into something like friendship described in Cicero’s De Amicitia?
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Um, that obit isn’t actually “irrefutable evidence that this couple was living in sin”; it didn’t say they were sexual involved and it didn’t claim they were married. Plenty of heterosexual pairs have been considered couples.
Click to expand...
FWIW, in divorce courts, it is sufficient to show adulterous “behavior” to establish grounds for divorce.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Lifelong companion? A relationship that could potentially blossom into something like friendship described in Cicero’s De Amicitia?
Click to expand...
Lifelong companions with a deep friendship don’t refer to each other as partners, at least not in the 21st Century.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Lifelong companion? A relationship that could potentially blossom into something like friendship described in Cicero’s De Amicitia?
Click to expand...
Nope. That’s a “friend”, not a “partner.”
Corki said:
Lifelong companions with a deep friendship don’t refer to each other as partners, at least not in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...
This. I have never once referred to my best male friend (I’m also male) as my “partner.” Nor have I ever heard the term used in that way by anyone else.
 
ProVobis said:
FWIW, in divorce courts, it is sufficient to show adulterous “behavior” to establish grounds for divorce.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure what that post means in relation to what you quoted.
Corki said:
It’s generally two people in a romantic relationship. This isn’t really a hard concept.

The dictionary definition is find:
Click to expand...
And what is a “romantic relationship”?
Corki said:
Lifelong companions with a deep friendship don’t refer to each other as partners, at least not in the 21st Century.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you’d have lifelong companions without a deep friendship
Lochias said:
Nope. That’s a “friend”, not a “partner.”

This. I have never once referred to my best male friend (I’m also male) as my “partner.” Nor have I ever heard the term used in that way by anyone else.
Click to expand...
The word friend these days has been basically redefined to mean the same thing as acquittance did a century ago.

I’m sorry if my Medievalist thinking is too reactionary for you.
 
Ms_Manners said:
I had a friend who said he didn’t care about the Church, yet he went to a protest to make the Church accept gay people and their gay lifestyle.
He was (and actually is) very loud about gay rights, but refused to see the other side of this, he just felt that the government should force Chruch to stop this “discrimination” of gay people.
I guess if this kind of law suit is allowed, it will only be a matter of time until we are back in the catacombs like so many centuries ago. 😦 😦
Click to expand...
God help us all but that is exactly where we are heading.
 
I was not surprised when I saw the title of this thread and it only makes me believe more strongly that very very soon, the church is going to go thru something much worse than the sex abuse by priests scandal…

IMO, eventually once the gays have their rights given by the supreme court, some of them will go after the church and demand they be allowed to be married in a christian church…it will go to trial Im sure, and involve alot of lawyers, but in the end, I fear the US courts will side with gay rights.

What I wonder about though, is whether parishes around the country will abide by any new laws regarding this issue, and how they will explain this to their parish members.

I see this happening within 3-5 years, probably shortly after the supreme court decides on whether states have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top