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

[Fidelia]

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

Well, they can’t have sex. They can have sexual relations, but they cannot have sex, which is why it isn’t a true marriage, right?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, they can’t have sex. They can have sexual relations, but they cannot have sex, which is why it isn’t a true marriage, right?

True. But it’s what distinguishes between friendships and gay relationships. Friends generally don’t have sexual relations with each other.

In fact I’ve heard gay relationships described as being nothing more than deep friendships, with erotica thrown in.

Jim

 

[StratusRose]

Just goes to show how people think receiving communion is a right and not a priviledge.

 

[mom2three]

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.

Baloney.

It still sends a sinful message, regardless of their personal lives, which I refuse to believe includes chastity… (they didn’t even use this excuse in their own defense anyway).

If I was shacking up with a guy, it’s fair for people to assume I’m sleeping with him… Therefore, if I’m shacking up, I should expect my priest to deny me communion, especially if I’m promoting this lifestyle through public activism. This applies no differently to these women… especially since their “marriage” is not valid or licit…

 

[dafalax]

You are correct, but the only way it would be equivalent is if an individual were very vocal about their dissent. As the priest said…

Sean Hannity, anyone?
Also, confession is a sacrament that should also be engaged in frequently. I wonder how often this couple avails themselves of that sacrament?

 

[goofyjim]

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.

If a heterosexual couple is living together before marriage they are promoting that lifestyle just as homosexual couples are promoting theirs. So the priests should start making some announcement that they are in eligible to receive communion also as a reminder of true church teaching. It’s only fair to prohibit both.

 

[fix]

If a heterosexual couple is living together before marriage they are promoting that lifestyle just as homosexual couples are promoting theirs. So the priests should start making some announcement that they are in eligible to receive communion also as a reminder of true church teaching. It’s only fair to prohibit both.

I agree. I wish it would happen.

 

[mom2three]

If a heterosexual couple is living together before marriage they are promoting that lifestyle just as homosexual couples are promoting theirs. So the priests should start making some announcement that they are in eligible to receive communion also as a reminder of true church teaching. It’s only fair to prohibit both.

If a priest knows of such a union, yes… but often, they don’t. In which case, the responsibility lies with those committing the sin.

These women should not have been receiving communion to begin with… just as those living in a state of sin (heterosexually) should not.

 

[rlg94086]

Sean Hannity, anyone?
Also, confession is a sacrament that should also be engaged in frequently. I wonder how often this couple avails themselves of that sacrament?

A good example. I know Fr. Euteneuer said just that when he was on his show. Hannity said “wow…” The priest was being consistent…

 

[Fidelia]

Baloney.

It still sends a sinful message, regardless of their personal lives, which I refuse to believe includes chastity… (they didn’t even use this excuse in their own defense anyway).

If I was shacking up with a guy, it’s fair for people to assume I’m sleeping with him… Therefore, if I’m shacking up, I should expect my priest to deny me communion, especially if I’m promoting this lifestyle through public activism. This applies no differently to these women… especially since their “marriage” is not valid or licit…

That makes sense. but what if there was no activism going on? What about an engaged couple who for some reason needs to live together a few months before marriage but live properly, with separate bedrooms, etc?

 

[Fidelia]

If a heterosexual couple is living together before marriage they are promoting that lifestyle just as homosexual couples are promoting theirs. So the priests should start making some announcement that they are in eligible to receive communion also as a reminder of true church teaching. It’s only fair to prohibit both.

That partly answers my above question. But still, who is to know how exactly they are living in the home?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

That makes sense. but what if there was no activism going on? What about an engaged couple who for some reason needs to live together a few months before marriage but live properly, with separate bedrooms, etc?

How they live at home doesn’t matter they are still spreading scandel. Look at Mom2three’s post, she is right on. They are presenting themselves as a ‘married couple’. As such they are outside Catholic teaching.

Iowa Mike

 

[rlg94086]

How they live at home doesn’t matter they are still spreading scandel. Look at Mom2three’s post, she is right on. They are presenting themselves as a ‘married couple’. As such they are outside Catholic teaching.

Iowa Mike

Exactly. The other examples are just silly. The Church consistently has said you should not receive if you are in a state of mortal sin. This includes unrepentant, non-confessed adulterers, fornicators, birth control users, etc. However, unless you are blatant about it and/or live in a small parish, the priest is not going to know your state when you present yourself for communion.

The engaged couple who are living together, don’t generally go around Church saying, “we live together, we are having lots of sex, and I’m not going to confess or repent!” If they were, then the priest would most probably deny them communion, as well.

 

[Fidelia]

How they live at home doesn’t matter they are still spreading scandel. Look at Mom2three’s post, she is right on. They are presenting themselves as a ‘married couple’. As such they are outside Catholic teaching.

Iowa Mike

Oh absolutely right. I confused the train-of-thought somehow. I agree with what you just said.

 

[sanctamaria17]

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.

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

One of the women is Catholic, though, she points out that she grew up Catholic in the article, and that the Eucharist is important to her.

I’m glad the priest stood up to them. Moree should do that when someone is causing scandal like that.

 

[Fidelia]

What specifically is ‘causing scandal’? (in general i mean)
Is it acting contradictory to our beliefs and presenting something wrong as being ok (kind of like acting like a hypocrite)? or is it doing something that presents generally suspicious circumstances? or both?

 

[fix]

What specifically is ‘causing scandal’? (in general i mean)
Is it acting contradictory to our beliefs and presenting something wrong as being ok (kind of like acting like a hypocrite)? or is it doing something that presents generally suspicious circumstances? or both?

This is from the CCC:

Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

 

[elijahson]

And let’s also include all of the Catholics using artificial birth control. It would be hipocrital not to include them.

yes it would be hypocritical NOT to include them too, if they took out an ad in the newspaper or joined a formal group regarding thier immoral artificial controling of births…but to the best of my knowledge most people play those cards pretty close to the vest. What is at issue here in my opinion is do we really believe what the Church teaches as regards faith and morals. We cannot choose between truths, as one does at a salad bar at a restaurant. We must accept revelation, for that is what it in reality is, on the authority of the one who hands it down. in this case it is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the true teacher of faith!

 

[InnocentIII]

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.

Firstly Vader has been a parishioner since 1998 and presumably has been receiving communion all that time despite obvuiously living in a homosexual relationship. She brought her partner into the Church in 2000 - again while they were obviously in a relationship. Although I would argue that the priest should have raised this with them privately and pointed out that they were at the very least causing a scandal by their openly living in and promoting the gay lifestyle it cannot be said that they were not given every benefit of the doubt. Ultimately they were denied for going through a ‘lesbian marriage’ and publically and vocally opposing the Church’s position on marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

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?

Presumably they are not writing to newspapers publically promoting their lifestyle in direct6 contradiction of the Church’s teaching.

What I find interesting is that they have only recently come to this church and in the case of one is only a recent convert. Although it says Vader has been taking communion weekly it doesn’t mention any previous parish that she has attended. In 1998 the Church’s stance on the gay lifestyle was well known. And yet these two, described by themselves and the paper as activists insisted on joining this parish. It strikes me as hypocritical at the very least and as likely a stunt to gain anti-church publicity. The shock is only a put on for the media. I’d say the denial was long overdue.

PS I wonder if Vader attends confession weekly also.

 

[Fidelia]

This is from the CCC:

Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"90

Ok… I think I get it. I mean, I have understood the concept, whenever I see it mentioned, I was just unclear about the specifics/criteria for it.