Should a Priest Deny Communion to someone who looks like a Trans-Gendered Individual?

[BillP]

Yes I do see the need to deny until clarification is made that the woman has endocrine issues. The church looks to the priest as a role model.

Ok, so now everyone who wants Communion lines up before Mass and YOU (or the OP) sign off on their current status and women who have endocrine issues or especially visible LPs get to provide YOU with medical documentation? Really??

What about men being treated for testicular cancer or prostrate cancer who are receiving estrogen treatment and therefore developing “secondary sex characteristics” but insist on wearing suits and ties? DO you need their medical records as well, lest they be cross-dressing females???

DO the Highlanders consider themselves to be wearing women’s clothing?

Why is this important? You’re the one who apparently gets to make these determinations? Isn’t that what you’ve been telling us? You seem to be able to determine the difference between a “kilt” and a “skirt”. How exactly do you do that? Is it the plaid? the pleats? Tell us…

Again the OP said obvious male…obvious key word.

I do not think the word “obviously” means what you seem to think it means. Obvious doesn’t mean the “correct” or “factual”. It just means the person who claims something is “obvious” THINKS other people SHOULD think its true…

1 Thessalonians 5:22

1 Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Or am I to take this metaphorically as well

NEWS FLASH,

You’re not the one who gets to determine whether or not someone is to be denied access to Communion based on appearances.

 

[BillP]

If one cannot make a judgment based on what they see because they do not fully know at this point, then why turn anyone away? Serve all.

FINALLY a good idea!!!

And, co-incidentally, the way the Church actually does it.

Thanks God!!

 

[severus68]

I know there is a similar thread about denying communion to someone who is pro-choice and I considered asking the question there, but I think it deserves its own thread.

A friend and I had a friendly discussion about this and I thought it might be interesting to see where people stand.

So imagine someone who is obviously male, but dressed as a woman, approaches the communion rail.

We do not know whether he is a a cross dresser only, a transvestite or a hermaphrodite. We just know he is a man dressed like a woman.

My friend said she didn’t see how a traditional priest would give him communion. I said, I couldn’t see any priest making a fuss/scene.

What do you think should happen?

I agree with you.

 

[severus68]

There can be all sorts of genetic mutations which can make a femal look like a male and vice versa. Not to mention intersexed persons who are another story altogether. Do not judge a book by its cover. I don’t see how this could even be a question if it is just based on the looks of a person.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I said the priest should allow and not be judgmental. I haven’t read through the whole thread but I wanted to point out that I’ve known several people over the years that, unless you talked to them, you would have no idea they weren’t cross-dressers. This has gone both ways, with extremely masculine-looking women and extremely feminine-looking men. There were also two people I worked with remotely who I didn’t find out weren’t the gender I’d assumed until 1-3 years after I started working with them. In a couple of the cases, these people were gay or lesbian, and at least one was in the process of having a sex change. The rest were straight and just happened to look and sound very much like the opposite sex. I’d hate to think of a priest making an extremely unfortunate decision and denying any of them Communion based on an ignorant first impression.

 

[TrueLight]

Whoah! This thread lost like 40 posts!

 

[TrueLight]

A “femmy boy”? This is the kind of language you use to speak of God’s creation? I am really wondering about your theology and why you feel that the Eucharist is something that is to be used to ostracize those who might be different.

I wish you would remove this poll. It is so offensive.

By “femmy boy”, I mean a feminine boy. Yes, there are men who are feminine and there are women who are masculine.

I am really wondering about your theology and why you feel that the Eucharist is something that is to be used to ostracize those who might be different

Re-read post number one please.

Honestly, I didn’t expect such strong reactions from some of you. Thanks to those who answered charitably.

Mods, please feel free to delete this thread if you see fit.

 

[severus68]

IMHO my whole take on this is errantly disclosed in the title of this thread.
Why should a priest or anyone else judge another person by faculty of outer appearances?
Should a bum on the street in a line up in the Church aisle be refused Holy Communion because his clothes are dirty and smelly and his hair disheveled? If the priest believes their in a state of mortal sin he has the right to refuse them the Blessed Lord.

A Catholic Church most certainly is not a place to distinguish people by outer appearances.

 

[severus68]

This. Especially if all he is judging on is looks. Looks can be decieving. I’m going to be quite honest, I am shocked that so many people have said that he should refuse communion to someone because of an assumption that he makes based on their appearance.

So am I. When I receive commmunion, I do not look around to judge whether others should. I have never seen any priest judge.

 

[Hello_All]

i’ve been to different countries where transvestites ,transgendered are welcome to receive communion,especially when its part of their culture like brazil,mexico,philippines etc.

 

[CaptFun]

I’m sorry, I didn’t see this post before. Thanks for the detailed examples. Although I’m a little confused that you can make these kinds of decisions as a communion leader?

Well, we are not supposed to give Communion to those who don’t know what to do - such as not saying “Amen” to “Body of Christ” or standing there without opening the mouth or putting out the hand **(AND not saying “Amen”). **

In the one instance it was correctable (since I still had Eucharist, had not left to return it, and the child convinced me he had a blank moment). Maybe this was not right technically - but my job that day was to do the service and distribute the Sacrament (to those eligible who presented themselves properly).

**Talk about tough calls - this one got an Archbishop in hot water. And is germane to this thread.
**
The Archbishop hesitates, puts the Eucharist back, questions the cross-dressing costume make up gay activist (male dressed as a combination nun/kabuki troupe performer) then gives him Eucharist in the hand. It was caught on tape.

After some of the faithful objected strongly (see the link), the Archbishop apologized for
giving him communion.

youtube.com/watch?v=x_FDl1XX7js

youtube.com/watch?v=r1vbMiGBj3c&feature=fvwrel Drag queen “nuns” when not in church. Insulting to Catholics? Well - in CHURCH they are a disruption, and I can’t believe not a deliberate one. I think they caught the Archbishop napping a bit (most of communion is the honor system, yes?) - but he didn’t expect to see what he saw and there appeared to be more communicants waiting.

Was he wrong? Apparently - given the apology, which he did have time to think over.

Meanwhile, in an example of “communion denial” outgoing Bishop of Orange, Tod Brown
denied Eucharist to a kneeling woman (also captured on tape). Their disagreement was over proper posture to receive communion.

According to some, Rome allows kneeling as a proper option to receive Eucharist (as I did at a Communion Rail for my First Communion - the “proper position” for hundreds of years). Bishops can make rulings in their Dioceses and apparently in Orange Bishop Brown made a ruling (or adopted a Bishops’ Conference preference - not sure which) that
communicants should STAND when receiving.

youtube.com/watch?v=j0yfdbxr7qM&feature=related like the other video, it’s hard to see (though you can) the incident due to traffic of communion lines. The woman involved gives her version of the incident on the page. It looks a bit like Bishop Brown gave her communion once she stood up - I can’t quite tell.

 

[Ninian29]

I was just thinking of a Scotchman dressed in a kilt. During World War II, Scottish milatary were called ‘the Ladies from Hell’.

Completely different to wearing a skirt (cultural dress).However, for the record, Germans soldiers never saw the kilt before in war …so were bound to take flight!( Or get a fright!)

They named them Ladies from hell mostly due to their bravery- I bet the Highland charge did it,especially wearing the kilt.

No such thing as a scotchman-scotch is a drink.You call them Scots!

 

[CaptFun]

As far as I know, the only canon in the Code of Canon Law that speaks of a person being denied Communion is canon 915:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

So unless you’re going to say that a trans-gendered person qualifies as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” by virtue of their cross-dressing, I fail to see how a priest could make this judgment call on the fly while distributing Communion.

On my previous post, the former San Francisco Archbishop was surprised by a member of the radical “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” gay activist group who presented himself in drag (may not have been the only one that day - but the one captured on video). People complained as it seemed to them the Eucharist was outraged and the incident planned to be sacrilegious - and the Bishop should not have given the communion. The Bishop later agreed and apologized to the faithful.

On another front, relating to the canon you cite, a Rhode Island Bishop gave a warning to a prominent pro-abortion voting Politician that he should not present himself for Communion as his public acts (actual support for abortion) were mortally sinful and scandalous.

Bill O’Reilly, a Catholic news personality questions Bishop Tobin and gets details on “communion denial” (and when it is appropriate for a priest to do it). People who might be in favor of the “death penalty” are proposed by O’Reilly in his query on if this too would be cause for “denial”.

youtube.com/watch?v=xhxV8rkUR2I&feature=related

Worse than denying the Eucharist to a person would be to participate knowingly in a sacrilege - and a good “shepherd” tries to keep even an errant sheep from sinning more.

What’s more - the “denial” is precipitated by the offender, and can be remedied. It is a temporary denial in that (in most cases) simple confession, absolution and making amends puts one back in God’s grace - the proper prerequisite for communion anyway.

 

[ReapReason]

I know there is a similar thread about denying communion to someone who is pro-choice and I considered asking the question there, but I think it deserves its own thread.

A friend and I had a friendly discussion about this and I thought it might be interesting to see where people stand.

So imagine someone who is obviously male, but dressed as a woman, approaches the communion rail.

We do not know whether he is a a cross dresser only, a transvestite or a hermaphrodite. We just know he is a man dressed like a woman.

My friend said she didn’t see how a traditional priest would give him communion. I said, I couldn’t see any priest making a fuss/scene.

What do you think should happen?

No, such a person should not be denied communion. Also, i am not sure that dressing like a women is necessarily wrong. I mean, cloths are not objectively male and female; its simply because of our culture that we learn to make those distinctions.

As men we have learned that a flowery dress is not masculine, because culture has invented analogous or metaphorical distinctions between men and women. The problem is that not everybody falls in line with those metaphors or analogies. Its like the idea of pink being a women’s color. Many men won’t wear pink because they perceive it as a womanly thing to wear, and therefore do not want their masculinity to be attacked as a result of wearing it.

Personally its not my thing. I like the differences between male and female clothing. The most i could say is that it is unwise to wear woman’s clothing if you don’t want to stand out and be attacked for it.

Then again i don’t think its healthy for a man to want to be a woman, and if that’s the reason he is wearing dresses, then that person needs help.

 

[ReapReason]

femmy boy.

?

 

[ReapReason]

A “femmy boy”? This is the kind of language you use to speak of God’s creation? I am really wondering about your theology and why you feel that the Eucharist is something that is to be used to ostracize those who might be different.

I wish you would remove this poll. It is so offensive.

I am to surprised that this poll exists.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is this is another gray area where Church teaching is not clear.

I’m not certain it’s as confusing as you think it might be. Catholics have a right to the sacraments. Catholics are to be properly disposed prior to reception of the sacraments.

Unless a priest knows that a person isn’t properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, he is not to deny that person the Eucharist when they present themselves for it. The “greater sin”, as was alluded to, above, is on the part of the person who receives improperly, not the person who distributes Communion.

I’m sorry, I didn’t see this post before. Thanks for the detailed examples. Although I’m a little confused that you can make these kinds of decisions as a communion leader?

You can’t. That isn’t within the competency of an EMHC; if a person presents himself for Communion, you distribute it to him. (If, subsequently, he demonstrates otherwise, you might flag down an usher (to ensure the Eucharist is consumed), or mention it to the pastor (for his follow-up), but again, it isn’t your role to take action with the person himself.) A priest is a different matter… but even there, he is not to make presumptions about the state of another’s soul… even if their attire scandalizes him.