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

[Corki]

And what is a “romantic relationship”?

Do you really not know or are you being deliberately obtuse? If the latter, shame on you; if the former, don’t worry, you’ll know it when it happens to you.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Do you really not know or are you being deliberately obtuse? If the latter, shame on you; if the former, don’t worry, you’ll know it when it happens to you.

The word has multiple definitions and those definitions have had different nuances from time to time.

 

[GraceSofia]

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.

I do not think the US courts can or will force the Catholic Church to give Holy Communion to people in public homosexual unions or to marry them. (Nobody has forced the Church to remarry divorced persons, for example, even though divorce is legal in the “the world”). BUT there can be lots of nuisance suits on employment and tax exemption and other things with the end goal being to impoverish, ridicule, and force the Church out of the public square and into the catacombs.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I do not think the US courts can or will force the Catholic Church to give Holy Communion to people in public homosexual unions or to marry them. (Nobody has forced the Church to remarry divorced persons, for example, even though divorce is legal in the “the world”). BUT there can be lots of nuisance suits on employment and tax exemption and other things with the end goal being to impoverish, ridicule, and force the Church out of the public square and into the catacombs.

Who would of thought that the government could try to force Catholic and other for-profit and non-profit organisations to pay for things they find morally objectionable, like contraception, sterilisation and the morning after pill? Considering that, is it so unlikely that what there may be in the future, is not direct force from the courts or government to make the Church give Holy Communion to couples in homosexual unions, but there may be other things, such as question over the tax exempt status of the Church, I have heard that.

 

[mikekle]

I do not think the US courts can or will force the Catholic Church to give Holy Communion to people in public homosexual unions or to marry them. (Nobody has forced the Church to remarry divorced persons, for example, even though divorce is legal in the “the world”). BUT there can be lots of nuisance suits on employment and tax exemption and other things with the end goal being to impoverish, ridicule, and force the Church out of the public square and into the catacombs.

Give it time.

Even the bible tells us the church will go thru such a period where it is almost illegal to be a Christian. We may religious freedom laws in this country, but if you watch the news, you will tend to see this is usually only applied to a few certain religions most of the time.

 

[Tigg]

The saddest point is that fellow Catholics sympathetic to this couple will not acknowledge that this priest acted in the most charitable way possible. As cries of foul reverberate, who among them will admit that the priest denied them for their own eternal good and courageously displayed true charity by doing so.

 

[Lochias]

The word friend these days has been basically redefined to mean the same thing as acquittance did a century ago.

So you say. My personal experience completely contradicts that statement, so on that merit alone you are incorrect.

Also, it’s “acquaintance.”

I’m sorry if my Medievalist thinking is too reactionary for you.

“Medievalist thinking”? I have no idea what you even mean by that, or by “reactionary”. I’m simply calling out the illogical thinking and purely emotional structure that your arguments are built on. A flimsy foundation makes for a flimsy argument, and yours is practically made of sand.

If this woman didn’t want to lose her job, she should have abided by her contract. Plain and simple.

 

[Lochias]

The word has multiple definitions and those definitions have had different nuances from time to time.

But we’re talking about now, here, today.

What the priest did was reasonable and logical, as well as loving; he ensured that they wouldn’t receive the Real Presence of Jesus in an unworthy manner.

Now, here’s a question for you: Has the fact that we’re talking about the Eucharist here actually entered your mind during this conversation?

 

[Ender]

The saddest point is that fellow Catholics sympathetic to this couple will not acknowledge that this priest acted in the most charitable way possible. As cries of foul reverberate, who among them will admit that the priest denied them for their own eternal good and courageously displayed true charity by doing so.

When I first saw this thread I put it in the category of “scientists discover water is wet.” I didn’t imagine it would get a dozen posts. That it is now approaching 200 is astonishing, and it appears that your post identifies the reason why. There are probably numerous reasons for this but the fact remains that the priest acted according to canon law and in the best interests of the couple involved … not to mention his own immortal prospects.*These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. *(St. John Chrysostom) Ender

 

[FollowChrist34]

Personally I think the priest did act correctly, but only because of the current climate.

Before this whole gay marriage thing started up a year or so ago, I was a lot more tolerant of gays. I looked on homosexuality as a cross to bear, similar to alcoholism, drug addiction, addiction to pornography, infidelity in thought or act, etc. Everyone has their sin. I bet a lot of people go to Communion unworthily, knowingly or unknowingly. I shudder at the thought of locking one person out like that, based on a surface assessment of his or her sin. Who knows what the person next to you in the pew has done or hasn’t done that is possibly worse? So many circumstances go into why people fall into sin, God only knows the gravity of it.

But given the aggression of the gay movement right now, the fact that the couple tried to take Communion in this political and social climate, where the Church has so definitively and justly taken a stand against gay relationships - it’s an affront to the authority of the Church (not to mention God) and the priest was right and very courageous to deny them.

 

[ProVobis]

But we’re talking about now, here, today.

What the priest did was reasonable and logical, as well as loving; he ensured that they wouldn’t receive the Real Presence of Jesus in an unworthy manner.

Now, here’s a question for you: Has the fact that we’re talking about the Eucharist here actually entered your mind during this conversation?

Good point.

The part about the encouragement of more frequent reception of communion seems to have had some unintended consequences.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So you say. My personal experience completely contradicts that statement, so on that merit alone you are incorrect.

Also, it’s “acquaintance.”

“Medievalist thinking”? I have no idea what you even mean by that, or by “reactionary”. I’m simply calling out the illogical thinking and purely emotional structure that your arguments are built on. A flimsy foundation makes for a flimsy argument, and yours is practically made of sand.

If this woman didn’t want to lose her job, she should have abided by her contract. Plain and simple.

The level of friendship people mean when they say “best friends” is what used to be meant when people simply said “friends”, and now “friends” means what people meant by acquaintance. Do note that this shift has largely happened over the last century and has been in part due to the overhyping of marriage so wouldn’t largely be seen by those who aren’t studying the past.

Sorry, I was conducting a simultaneous conversation on trials when I wrote that post and because acquittance is a valid word I failed to notice it.

My views on friendship, love and marriage are more formed by medieval Catholic thought than the nonCatholic milieu of the modern US. Once upon a time incredibly deep friendships were common, the kind where one would actually be willing to die for another instead of merely claiming it. And oh did they grieve, see Bl. Newman’s reaction to the death of Ambrose St. John.

Wrong thread, also in that thread it isn’t actually clear she has violated her contract as an isolated incident doesn’t prove a lifestyle.

But we’re talking about now, here, today.

What the priest did was reasonable and logical, as well as loving; he ensured that they wouldn’t receive the Real Presence of Jesus in an unworthy manner.

Now, here’s a question for you: Has the fact that we’re talking about the Eucharist here actually entered your mind during this conversation?

IMO we shouldn’t use the modern world where abortion is almost universally legal in the developed world as a guide for how things should be.

It would have been more reasonable, logical and loving for him to broach the subject much earlier.

Yes, yes it has.

 

[ProVobis]

It would have been more reasonable, logical and loving for him to broach the subject much earlier.

Yes but better late than never.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I do not think the US courts can or will force the Catholic Church to give Holy Communion to people in public homosexual unions or to marry them. (Nobody has forced the Church to remarry divorced persons, for example, even though divorce is legal in the “the world”). BUT there can be lots of nuisance suits on employment and tax exemption and other things with the end goal being to impoverish, ridicule, and force the Church out of the public square and into the catacombs.

The ongoing debates over the HHS mandate show us that the current government views religious freedom so narrowly as to remove nearly all of its meaning. If the government can force religious institutions – such as hospitals, schools and charitable agencies – to facilitate birth control against their beliefs, it can certainly force them to accept “gay marriages.”

catholicnewsagency.com/blog/why-the-catholic-church-and-gay-marriage-cannot-coexist

They may or may not try to force the Church directly to accept homosexual marriage. I am not 100% sure, but I may have read that maybe the tax exempt status of the Church could be in question.

 

[mexolic]

It reminds me of a sermon I heard recently on a local Christian radio program. The pastor asked: “Do you know what the newest sin is? It’s calling sin a sin.” I see that among Catholics today. How dare that priest deny that same-sex couple communion? Don’t call sin a sin or else. Sadly these are the times we’re living in. And many Catholics support SSM. I’m sure the priest was not comfortable about informing the couple of why he would deny them communion. But how could he not say something?

 

[Lochias]

The level of friendship people mean when they say “best friends” is what used to be meant when people simply said “friends”, and now “friends” means what people meant by acquaintance. Do note that this shift has largely happened over the last century and has been in part due to the overhyping of marriage so wouldn’t largely be seen by those who aren’t studying the past.

What in the world does any of that have to do with the conversation at hand?

Sorry, I was conducting a simultaneous conversation on trials when I wrote that post and because acquittance is a valid word I failed to notice it.

Gotcha.

My views on friendship, love and marriage are more formed by medieval Catholic thought than the nonCatholic milieu of the modern US. Once upon a time incredibly deep friendships were common, the kind where one would actually be willing to die for another instead of merely claiming it. And oh did they grieve, see Bl. Newman’s reaction to the death of Ambrose St. John.

Again, what does any of that have to do with what the modern meaning of “partner”, used in today’s context?

Wrong thread, also in that thread it isn’t actually clear she has violated her contract as an isolated incident doesn’t prove a lifestyle.

Reasonable assumption is perfectly valid, especially where the state of her immortal soul is concerned…or do you think everything, everywhere, has to proved beyond the barest glimmer of doubt before we can accept it as true? Is that something you think the Church does?

IMO we shouldn’t use the modern world where abortion is almost universally legal in the developed world as a guide for how things should be.

But we’re talking about a modern context of a modern word. Also, when did abortion EVER enter into this case? You’re really jumping off the rails, here.

It would have been more reasonable, logical and loving for him to broach the subject much earlier.

He waited until there was reasonable suspicion of their sin to act. To do any less would have been most judgmental and unloving.

Yes, yes it has.

And are you glad that our Lord is now no longer being abused under the virtually clear-cut auspices of being unworthily received? Are you glad that the pair is no longer being allowed to continue committing sacrilege?

 

[GraceSofia]

It would have been more reasonable, logical and loving for him to broach the subject much earlier.

You keep saying this (in different ways) and people keep answering you. (See posts 122 and 132 for example). You don’t know when he arrived in the parish, you don’t know the handover procedure, you don’t know when he learned of the situation, but you keep criticising the priest. It is probable that he learned of it from the obituary (that is what the reports said), and from then on he could not pretend he didn’t know without himself becoming complicit in sin.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

From The Catechism

 

[Corki]

The word has multiple definitions and those definitions have had different nuances from time to time.

Yes, when you are a teenager and aren’t quite sure if the boy you went to the movies “likes” you or “like likes” you.

Almost every relationship has a short period of time when it may or may not move into being a romantic one. However, this is not the case in the OP.

If the couple were friends but not a romantic couple, they wouldn’t have been listed as partners in the obituary and they would have been able to explain that they were not a same-sex “couple” but rather just two friends who both happened, by pure chance, to be lesbians, when they met with the priest.

 

[irishpatrick]

While it will be painful, and it might very well hurt many people who need help–the Church would be far better off it did not have a tax exempt status (those who hate the Church would have far less tools to attack if there was no connection to the state, and issues like who receives Communion would be an internal decision).

The only solution that I can see (and I grant that my vision is strictly limited as a creature of God), is for the Church to strictly adhere to its own teachings as Christ gave, while detaching itself from a dependency on the state for funds. Only then will the Church be similar to the early Church, and only then will it be freed to propagate the fullness of truth.

Let us face reality–a great majority (maybe as high as 80-90%) of Catholics do not adhere to all formal teachings of the faith and Church (think contraception, fornication, divorce, abortion, living together, etc.) and any attempt by the Church to water down its teachings will NOT entice those people to believe. People either see and follow truth, or they do not. This always reminds me of the Bread of Life Discourse (John Chapter 6), in which Jesus brings a harsh teaching (that the bread and wine are Real Food, and that they do become His Real Body and Blood)–that discourse was filled with important/critical truths, yet the majority of people following Jesus left Him because they could not handle what He was teaching, and Jesus did not stop them from leaving. The Holy Spirit can help guide us to the truth, yet God never forces it on us–we always have a choice.

The Church must break from the state and its dependency on the state–and the Church must, through loving kindness and mercy, support, defend, and teach the fullness of truth. If the Church does that, the Church will shrink in size as an immediate consequence…yet over time the Church will grow and flourish like never before.

There is only one truth–there are not many–and truth has a name: Jesus Christ. If we give souls anything less than the fullness of truth, we are cheating them of the very tools and Grace they need to one day enjoy the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven. We are not in a game–this all has eternal consequences.

We live in unique times, and these times require a serious faith–one that is well anchored to Christ, His Mother, and His Church.