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

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And evidently it doesn’t matter if he is darn sure, an open lesbian with partner shows up and the priest does the right thing and denies the Eucharist and he is disciplined for upholding the teachings of the Church.

There is more to being a Christian than warming a pew and participating in the Sacraments as if it is just a motion you go through or because you feel deserving even when
you are not
There is more to that story than just a priest withholding communion from a lesbian. It is not a good example to use in this case because of that.

I absolutely agree that there is more to being a Christian than just warming a pew. However, if the example given by the OP, the only thing the priest has to go on is the appearance of the person. Appearances can be and often are deceiving. The Eucharist is not a weapon to be wielded, but a means of grace.

The proper process is for the pastor to ensure that his flock is well catechised. Then each person should be aware if he or she is properly disposed before presenting themselves for communion. If that is done, the priest doesn’t need to worry that someone is dressed oddly in the communion line.
 
The same rule should apply to the transgendered as anyone else. You must be free from mortal sin to receive.

No doubt if truly transgendered, the person involved has greater problems than most of us. It’s a huge cross to bear.

If (s)he is chaste and not in a state of mortal sin, on what grounds could communion be refused? The only one I can think of is mutilation (if surgery was involved) but even though that would be grave matter, the issue of full knowledge or full consent needs to be considered. Particularly full consent of the will, if a serious mental issue (or even genetic, i.e. intersex) is involved.

Surely this is an opportunity to show great sensitivity and pastoral care, not condemnation over a condition that it still poorly understood.
And this is all stuff that can not be known by just looking at them so the priest should not withhold communion.
 
If you’ll take a moment to actually read the poll question, it has nothing to do with “an open lesbian with partner.” It’s about someone who looks like they might be a transgendered individual.

There’s more to being a Christian than making judgments based totally on how someone looks.
Oh, wait – that’s not even part of being a Christian at all.
I did read…and I also commented on post of another that referenced this very thing…yes there is more to being a Christian than judging…however riding the fence or following the majority aren’t part of the Christian makeup either.

Revelation 3:14-16

14 And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.
 
There is more to that story than just a priest withholding communion from a lesbian. It is not a good example to use in this case because of that.

I absolutely agree that there is more to being a Christian than just warming a pew. However, if the example given by the OP, the only thing the priest has to go on is the appearance of the person. Appearances can be and often are deceiving. The Eucharist is not a weapon to be wielded, but a means of grace.

The proper process is for the pastor to ensure that his flock is well catechised. Then each person should be aware if he or she is properly disposed before presenting themselves for communion. If that is done, the priest doesn’t need to worry that someone is dressed oddly in the communion line.
It is the job of the priest that he not allow the Sacrament to be misused, and if to protect said Sacrament he must deny someone then so be it.

As for it not being a good example…what is a transgender…LGBT, all in the same class
 
It is the job of the priest that he not allow the Sacrament to be misused, and if to protect said Sacrament he must deny someone then so be it.

As for it not being a good example…what is a transgender…LGBT, all in the same class
Which he cannot determine based on how somebody looks.
 
And evidently it doesn’t matter if he is darn sure, an open lesbian with partner shows up and the priest does the right thing and denies the Eucharist and he is disciplined for upholding the teachings of the Church…
If you’re talking about the Guarnzino affair, he did NOT do the right thing. He violated Canon law, and although I have no doubt that his intentions were right what he did was, nonetheless, the wrong thing.
 
If you’re talking about the Guarnzino affair, he did NOT do the right thing. He violated Canon law, and although I have no doubt that his intentions were right what he did was, nonetheless, the wrong thing.
If we do not want priests to make judgment calls why have them at all.
 
If we do not want priests to make judgment calls why have them at all.
Earlier you said “Name calling will in no way deter me from my opinions…I have been called worse by better.”

Is it also the case that the chance to understand the applicable Canon law won’t do it either? Go back and read the blog post by the Canon lawyer. I think that it’s safe to say that he’s more qualified to speak to the matter than either you or I.
 
Earlier you said “Name calling will in no way deter me from my opinions…I have been called worse by better.”

Is it also the case that the chance to understand the applicable Canon law won’t do it either? Go back and read the blog post by the Canon lawyer. I think that it’s safe to say that he’s more qualified to speak to the matter than either you or I.
Please explain how saying priests should be able to make a judgment call, the same as name calling? Really.

As far as laws go…most people interpret them to fulfill their immediate agenda or split the law seven ways from Sunday so that the original intent of the Church is lost in translation.
 
My “I don’t know” on this was only due to my lack of a more accurate choice.

Another option I considered was:

He should absolutely deny communion.

I would agree with this “temporarily” - just as “I don’t know” is a temporary answer until you DO know something more.

You can’t DO an “I don’t know” if you are confronted with the situation, can you?

You MIGHT be wrong in either of the two options you DO decided to do as an EM or priest.

If you deny an eligible person - who just looked wrong - you’ve made a mistake.

If you give a person the Eucharist when it appears you might be participating in another person’s sin of sacrilege - perhaps this is an even GREATER mistake.

What to do.

Perhaps this: Quietly refuse the Eucharist – and ask to see the person after the service*

(*Thinking of myself here - I’m a Communion Service Leader Sundays at a County Children’s Home. When a children present themselves for communion and don’t say the required “Amen” I pause … if they remain confused I repeat “Body of Christ”.

If I get a nod of the head or a yes instead of an Amen (this has happened - I have given the communion). If they do not say the Amen and remain confused I ask them if they’d like a blessing (not a priestly blessing - but a brief prayer of encouragement, sometimes referencing the time when this person may receive communion).

Once a child came to me afterwards and wondered why he’d been “refused”. In THAT case he quickly established that he HAD received his first communion, and remembered to say Amen. I had reserved a couple of Eucharist (at the request of the Juvenile Hall Chaplain that oversees our ministry) for return in case that former group ran short. I told the child to prepare himself for a moment, then gave him the Eucharist instructing him to go into prayer as if he were still “in church”. He remembered his “Amen” the next week and received quite a bit more reverently. 🙂

THIS child wasn’t an obvious sinner as in the above example.

If I refused communion to the above person - reserving a Eucharist for him/her might allow the “I don’t know” of my answer to be resolved in the best possible way, shortly.

A person undergoing this proceedure would be in sin (and a bit publicly too) and would do well to get the counsel as to why they were being refused (mortal sin and danger of sacrilege on top of it).

A person who HAD been undergoing the proceedure - but claimed to have repented of the sin via confession - I would have to encourage. I might possibly ask them to wait until next time - and seriously consider whether they were really eligible. Then I suppose, the next week, if they presented themselves in a devout manner - I might give it to them, barring some interior signal to me from God. It’s the honor system after all.

Some people who look SO holy might be committing a sacrilege too. But it is not bad for a person with an office to discern how best to do it. Particularly when the office is a spiritual one and the consequences of a mistake could be eternal or VERY long lasting.

A good spirit for refusing the Eucharist to someone would be: respect for the Eucharist and concern for the person about to receive. A bad spirit would be just exercising power
for its own sake, picking a fight with someone at a public moment, or getting angry in front of everyone and disturbing the worship that is supposed to be going on.

“Looks trans-gendered” people in one way are in the same boat as the rest of us if we draw a suspicion of ineligibility to ourselves.

If a priest saw someone sneak a bite of a candy bar during mass - and knew the person had not fasted long enough due to the law of the Church - he should probably refuse communion to that person (until that hour is up). Even if he later found that the person was diabetic and felt faint (say).

(Due to length - I will post a second part of this reply, with ACTUAL cases on this issue) 🙂
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?
 
Please explain how saying priests should be able to make a judgment call, the same as name calling? Really.

As far as laws go…most people interpret them to fulfill their immediate agenda or split the law seven ways from Sunday so that the original intent of the Church is lost in translation.
A priest can make such a call when he knows. The key here is knows. It is not suspect, it is not a matter of guessing.

The case as laid out in the original post for this thread is not enough for a priest to deny communion.

Your opinion does not matter. No one’s opinion matters. What matters is the Church’s law as spelled out in the Code of Canon Law which was already posted in this thread and ignored by you for your personal opinion.

When one places their personal opinion over the Church’s law they are making themself the authority over the Church. You are in grave error here.
 
Even if it is it is not a mortal sin according to the Church.

You are way off base here.
Mortal sin or just plain wrong, name it what you will. But when you say it’s not a sin, you are giving someone a glimmer of hope that this is in someway welcomed or ok in the eyes of the church. Sorry, But if I should go to Mass on Sunday and suddenly find myself surrounded by cross dressers, I would find another parish.
 
Please explain how saying priests should be able to make a judgment call, the same as name calling? Really.
You indicated a circumstance that would not result in you changing your opinion.

I’m wondering if there’s a circumstance under which you would change your mind; for example, someone who knows a lot more about Canon law than you do telling you you’re wrong… like the Canon lawyer whose opinion you’re not interested in.
As far as laws go…most people interpret them to fulfill their immediate agenda or split the law seven ways from Sunday so that the original intent of the Church is lost in translation.
Most people, but not you, right?

I understand wanting to protect the Sacrament, but like it or not you’re way, way off base here. The bottom line is as I originally said: withholding the Sacrament is a VERY serious matter, it can be done only under very specific and limited circumstances and those circumstances don’t apply to the situation raise by the OP nor to the situation in the Fr. Guanzino case. THAT’S the law of the Church.
 
A priest can make such a call when he knows. The key here is knows. It is not suspect, it is not a matter of guessing.

The case as laid out in the original post for this thread is not enough for a priest to deny communion.

Your opinion does not matter. No one’s opinion matters. What matters is the Church’s law as spelled out in the Code of Canon Law which was already posted in this thread and ignored by you for your personal opinion.

When one places their personal opinion over the Church’s law they are making themself the authority over the Church. You are in grave error here.
Please explain the difficulty in making a judgment call as the original OP asked, an OBVIOUS MAN dressed like a woman approaches the communion rail? So if an alcoholic comes to communion 3 sheets to the wind, a priest should not make a judgment call on what he sees?
 
Mortal sin or just plain wrong, name it what you will. But when you say it’s not a sin, you are giving someone a glimmer of hope that this is in someway welcomed or ok in the eyes of the church. Sorry, But if I should go to Mass on Sunday and suddenly find myself surrounded by cross dressers, I would find another parish.
I am sorry that you hold this opinion but the cloths one chooses to wear is not a sin.
 
Mortal sin or just plain wrong, name it what you will. But when you say it’s not a sin, you are giving someone a glimmer of hope that this is in someway welcomed or ok in the eyes of the church. Sorry, But if I should go to Mass on Sunday and suddenly find myself surrounded by cross dressers, I would find another parish.
There is a strong probability that you are surrounded by sinners during Mass on Sundays…
 
Please explain the difficulty in making a judgment call as the original OP asked, an OBVIOUS MAN dressed like a woman approaches the communion rail? So if an alcoholic comes to communion 3 sheets to the wind, a priest should not make a judgment call on what he sees?
Comparing apples and oranges here.

How does not know for a fact that the person in question is a man in women’s clothing?

Do you stop and ask for a driver’s license? A birth certificate? A passport? Do you ask them to drop their pants?

You can not know for sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top