Wyoming Priest Denies Communion to Lesbian Activist Couple “Married” in Canada

[Brendan]

Interesting. I had thought canonically, such a refusal was reserved to the bishop.

Nope, the Canon may be inacted by any Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist, even a deacon.

In the case of the Deacon, the Pastor may override his decision and offer the Eucharist to the manifest sinner.

When a pastor enacts it, all Ministers of Holy Commujnion must abide by that decision ( if there is a deacon or associate pastor there, the manifest sinner cannot present themselves)

Of course, they could then go to another parish.

When the BISHOP invokes Canon 915, as Archbishop Burke did a few years ago, that applies anywhere in the diocese.

 

[mom2three]

**Wyoming Priest Denies Communion to Lesbian Activist Couple “Married” in Canada **

The News-Record, a Gillette newspaper, reports that Rev. Cliff Jacobson, pastor of St. Mathew’s Catholic Church, informed Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson by letter that “because of your union and your public advocacy of same-sex unions, that you are unable to receive communion.” (more)

What I find most shocking is that these “faithful” Catholic women feel they should be permitted to receive the Eucharist despite their obvious sinful behavior. The priest did not take this from them! Their behavior did… Since they view this as such an important sacrament, I wonder which they will choose: Christ or each other?

 

[bluerose]

“It’s surprising that it’s so specific and personal and being done through this letter,” Vader remarked, adding that the Church’s action “sends a big fat message to gay people.”

YA THINK???

The question is, are they listening?

 

[Fidelia]

Not that I disagree, but how does he know that they are not living chastely within their home? Yes, they are actvists, but perhaps they do so for legal protection, etc.

And second, does this guy also say the same thing to co-habiting hetero-sexual couples who are un-married, or to any hetero-sexuals who are engaging in sexual sin?

 

[Potato1]

About time, what is sad is that this is news and not the norm.

 

[mom2three]

Not that I disagree, but how does he know that they are not living chastely within their home? Yes, they are actvists, but perhaps they do so for legal protection, etc.

And second, does this guy also say the same thing to co-habiting hetero-sexual couples who are un-married, or to any hetero-sexuals who are engaging in sexual sin?

Perhaps, if he knew they were out there promoting pre-marital sex…

I don’t believe their activism, which promotes a sinful lifestyle, is simply done for legal protection… and even if it were, what message are they sending?

Simply put, they are “married”. To believe they sought out marriage and then decided to live chaste lives together, is not likely… I believe, if this were the case, they would have mentioned it when they were confronted with the situation.

 

[fix]

Not that I disagree, but how does he know that they are not living chastely within their home? Yes, they are actvists, but perhaps they do so for legal protection, etc.

Huh? They are providing scandal by such a “union” regardless of what they do or do not do in private.

And second, does this guy also say the same thing to co-habiting hetero-sexual couples who are un-married, or to any hetero-sexuals who are engaging in sexual sin?

I hope so if they publicly advocate such serious sins and provide scandal.

 

[Fidelia]

Perhaps, if he knew they were out there promoting pre-marital sex…

I don’t believe their activism, which promotes a sinful lifestyle, is simply done for legal protection… and even if it were, what message are they sending?

Simply put, they are “married”. To believe they sought out marriage and then decided to live chaste lives together, is not likely… I believe, if this were the case, they would have mentioned it when they were confronted with the situation.

No they are not married. civilly wed, probably. Not married. Unless they found some new-age religion to ‘marry’ them, but even then, is it even marriege if it is false?

 

[mom2three]

No they are not married. civilly wed, probably. Not married. Unless they found some new-age religion to ‘marry’ them, but even then, is it even marriege if it is false?

Hence, the reason why I put it in quotes… “Married” in their eyes only… The point is to show that since they sought such a union, it is not likely they would be living a chaste life together.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

that’s great, but all those who wish bishop’s and priests would be more forthright about denying communion to those activists, politicians etc. who espouse anti-Catholic teachings: pro-gay, pro-abort etc. take heed:
you are also asking, then, to be denied communion ourselves when we fail to live in accord with the teachings of the Church. by this logic, at every Mass the priest should announce: all those practicing ABC, cohabiting w/o marriage, divorced and remarried, hiring and exploiting illegal aliens, cheating on their taxes, etc. should remain seated and not approach communion. I only saw this once, and the priest was very courageous, it was a prominent member of an organized crime family who had boasted publicly about his crimes.

Puzzelannie,

In accordance with our Catholic faith only those in the State of Sanctifying Grace may take communion. What are you thinking? It simply doesn’t matter if the the person is a priest, thief, member of organized crime, adulterer, practicing gay, is divorced, etc. etc. - a persons job or station has nothing what-so-ever to do with receiving communion. People who are not in the State of Grace may not take communion…period. If they do take communion they commit another serious sin and also spread scandel, confuse other Catholics and non-Catholics about what the Catholic Faith stands for etc. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry other public figures or celebrities can go to church and claim to be faithful Catholics all they want…but their actions speak louder than their words.

Check out Matthew 23:1-7

Jesus was dishing out the word in these passages:

Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice, 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men

Jesus also said: Matthew 23:25-28

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. 26 You blind Pharisee! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean”. 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to me, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

It is easy to be Catholic on the outside but much harder to be Catholic on the inside. It’s time to quit bowing to the pop culture and defend our faith.

Iowa Mike

 

[emsvetich]

I am somewhat surprised at the number of posts that try to make excuses of one sort or the other to provide wiggle room for anyone who is in the state of mortal sin and receives communion. There is no difference as to the source of the offence that leads one to mortal sin. However, some rebellious Catholics choose to lay down the gauntlet by publically causing scandal. For too long, the clergy have chosen political correctness over Church law and have chosen to absolve heretics from any sanctions. As for those in the pews who harbor serious sin and choose to receive Holy Communion, Christ will deal with them.

I would not object to a sermon reminding the congregation of it’s responsibility. It has been ignored for too long.

 

[mom2three]

that’s great, but all those who wish bishop’s and priests would be more forthright about denying communion to those activists, politicians etc. who espouse anti-Catholic teachings: pro-gay, pro-abort etc. take heed:
you are also asking, then, to be denied communion ourselves when we fail to live in accord with the teachings of the Church. by this logic, at every Mass the priest should announce: all those practicing ABC, cohabiting w/o marriage, divorced and remarried, hiring and exploiting illegal aliens, cheating on their taxes, etc. should remain seated and not approach communion. I only saw this once, and the priest was very courageous, it was a prominent member of an organized crime family who had boasted publicly about his crimes.

All those in sin ARE asked not to take communion… And many of these sins are not being actively endorsed by those who commit them either…

I would hope, if I was repeatedly living a sinful life and, in addition, encouraging others to do the same, that a priest would come forth to tell me so and deny me communion until I repented with a fully contrite heart. In doing so, this priest is looking out for my soul, ensuring I do not take the body and blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner.

The priest has to trust that those who come forward have been to confession and are in a worthy state… He cannot police everyone. But if he knows for a fact that someone is actively promoting and living a sinful lifestyle, should he not keep someone from profaning the body and blood of the Lord?

 

[Dale_M]

No they are not married. civilly wed, probably. Not married. Unless they found some new-age religion to ‘marry’ them, but even then, is it even marriege if it is false?

I won’t get into the discussion of marriage as form vs marriage as substance. I just wanted to point out that the United Church, which is Canada’s largest denomination, does perform gay marriages. So the union of Vader and Huskinson does not necessarily involve a civil marriage or a new-age religion.

otjm:

I had thought canonically, such a refusal was reserved to the bishop.

Certainly it would be good to consult with the bishop before taking formal action. It wouldn’t be good to have your bishop caught unawares by the publicity.

 

[Tallon]

Thank God! Smart man!

 

[Fidelia]

Hence, the reason why I put it in quotes… “Married” in their eyes only… The point is to show that since they sought such a union, it is not likely they would be living a chaste life together.

I know you put it in quotes. You do have a point, that there is probably why they sought the union, but many people live in sin and seek no such union. So since no one knows their personal lives but them, there is a chance they wanted the legal union for the legal protection it offers.

 

[Fidelia]

I won’t get into the discussion of marriage as form vs marriage as substance. I just wanted to point out that the United Church, which is Canada’s largest denomination, does perform gay marriages. So the union of Vader and Huskinson does not necessarily involve a civil marriage or a new-age religion.

Certainly it would be good to consult with the bishop before taking formal action. It wouldn’t be good to have your bishop caught unawares by the publicity.

Oh, I didn’t know it said some church married them, and it wasn’t just a legal thing. I probably missed it in the article.
But that church isn’t a Catholic one, though, so wouldn’t that make them not Catholic, so they shouldn’t be reeiving the Eucharist at a Catholic church anyway?

 

[fix]

there is a chance they wanted the legal union for the legal protection it offers.

That would still be very wrong. Any legal matters can be handled without giving scandal like participating in a so called civil union.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No they are not married. civilly wed, probably. Not married. Unless they found some new-age religion to ‘marry’ them, but even then, is it even marriege if it is false?

The wouldn’t be advocating for homosexual unions if they were just merely friends living together.

Sex is the distinguishing characteristic of the difference between friendships and gay relationships.

No one is oppose to friendship.

Jim

 

[Dale_M]

Oh, I didn’t know it said some church married them, and it wasn’t just a legal thing. I probably missed it in the article.

No, I don’t think the article said how they were married. I was just pointing out that we can’t assume that the marriage was civil or via some new-age religion.

But that church isn’t a Catholic one, though, so wouldn’t that make them not Catholic, so they shouldn’t be reeiving the Eucharist at a Catholic church anyway?

This is seems like an important concern. I guess there were a number of reasons for them not to receive communtion!

 

[Fidelia]

That would still be very wrong. Any legal matters can be handled without giving scandal like participating in a so called civil union.

that is true.