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

[Beyrak]

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?

I actually have more respect for this gay couple than I do Sean Hannity. They are in sin yes. They expressed shock for being refused communion. Amazing.

But Sean Hannity put a priest on the air, belittled him, put down the Church by raising the issue of the child abuse scandal which had nothing to do with the issue of Fr Euteneuer correcting Sean for preaching in favor of artificial birth control.

Sean Hannity thinks he is a good Catholic and he has better sense of right and wrong over everyone of our church leaders including the Pope and he thinks the church is wrong so he continujes his heretic ways and preachings. And Sean was shocked when Fr Euteneuer said he would refuse communion to him.

Either you agree and support everything the Church teaches or you disagree and refuse it all. Those aren’t my words…

 

[otjm]

And the activist gay couple expressed shock over this. Amazing.

Now the same needs to be done to all the politicians that promote abortion rights as in Rudy Giuliani, and most of the democratic candidates that are Catholic.

Surely it is a sin for a priest to give the Eucharist to people he knows are no longer in God’s grace.

Most priests have no better a crystal ball than the local fortune teller, and do not have the power to look into men’s souls and tell if they are in sin. Not that the power is never given, but it is extremely rare.

It is a violation of Canon Law to deny someone Communion without the requisite knowledge. It is not an area that any priest true to his vows would trod rough-shod. In the particular case it appears that the priest was well within his authority to do so. It is, however, all too easy to presume that evey situation that we “know” fits the parameters does so.

 

[InnocentIII]

Most priests have no better a crystal ball than the local fortune teller, and do not have the power to look into men’s souls and tell if they are in sin. Not that the power is never given, but it is extremely rare.

But a priest does have a responsibility. He cannot simply pretend ignorance. We had a situation here in a parish where a devout Catholic was for various reasons living with a man. Though she confessed her sin to the priest she made it clear that she would continue to live with him. The priest then explained to her in private that she should not present herself for communion and that should she do so he would be obligated to refuse it. Now had the priest not spoken with this woman no doubt she could have continued to receive communion at great risk to her soul. But as the priest knew the situation he could not simply ignore it.

It seems to me that this priest also had an obligation to advise the two women after they made such a public issue out of their marriage that they should not present temselves for communion. He did not refuse them publically and it is they who have made public the priest’s letter. The fact that they want to make a public issue of it shows that their agenda has nothing to do with their dignity or good name but with attacking the Church’s teachings.

 

[otjm]

But a priest does have a responsibility. He cannot simply pretend ignorance. We had a situation here in a parish where a devout Catholic was for various reasons living with a man. Though she confessed her sin to the priest she made it clear that she would continue to live with him. The priest then explained to her in private that she should not present herself for communion and that should she do so he would be obligated to refuse it. Now had the priest not spoken with this woman no doubt she could have continued to receive communion at great risk to her soul. But as the priest knew the situation he could not simply ignore it.

It seems to me that this priest also had an obligation to advise the two women after they made such a public issue out of their marriage that they should not present temselves for communion. He did not refuse them publically and it is they who have made public the priest’s letter. The fact that they want to make a public issue of it shows that their agenda has nothing to do with their dignity or good name but with attacking the Church’s teachings.

If you read my post again, you should find that nothing I said disagrees with you. I am simply saying that what may be perceived by you or the person next to you is not necessarily perceived by the priest. There are too many people going around wondering why priests aren’t denying Communion widely. Part of that starts with the priest needing sufficient information that he is in compliance with Canon Law. Another part of that has to do with the process, which is not public. People presume too much.

 

[InnocentIII]

If you read my post again, you should find that nothing I said disagrees with you. I am simply saying that what may be perceived by you or the person next to you is not necessarily perceived by the priest. There are too many people going around wondering why priests aren’t denying Communion widely. Part of that starts with the priest needing sufficient information that he is in compliance with Canon Law. Another part of that has to do with the process, which is not public. People presume too much.

Then we are in agreement all round. And denying communion should never be done unless he priest has indeed spoken privately to the inidividual and informed them of a) the reason b) the necessity of a confession c) the necessity of the intention not to repeat the sin. If they persist he should again speak to them privately and adivise them not to present themselves for communion. Only then should he publically refuse them communion if they manifestly persist in error AND in presenting themselves for communion.

 

[Fidelia]

Then we are in agreement all round. And denying communion should never be done unless he priest has indeed spoken privately to the inidividual and informed them of a) the reason b) the necessity of a confession c) the necessity of the intention not to repeat the sin. If they persist he should again speak to them privately and adivise them not to present themselves for communion. Only then should he publically refuse them communion if they manifestly persist in error AND in presenting themselves for communion.

I think that those steps should be taken. And not just towards homosexuals. I think priests should regularly talk about communion, sins, and confession to the congregation as a whole. People need to be reminded what is wrong for a Catholic. So many people don’t even realize certain things are wrong.

 

[cathgal]

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.

If they give scandal by their action, it matters not what their reason is.

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?

If they flaunt their action to the public, heck yeah!

 

[Gnosis]

The major problem I have with this is that denying someone the Body and the Blood in Mass very much comes across as though they are being denied the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, which should be something that NO Church can withhold.

If this is the case, then the Church is blaspheming Christ.

However, if the Eucharist is the visible sign of doctrinal communion with the Church and the visible sign and extension of Christ’s eternal sacrifice in our temporal world, then I wouldn’t have quite the same issue with this.

Obviously, as a gay man myself, I disagree with the Church’s position here because I disagree with its position on homosexuality. If my second description of the Eucharist is more accurate, however, it might be a disagreement I can bear for now. But If living my sexuality leads the Church to quite deliberately cut me off from the salvific grace of Christ’s sacrifice, then the Church would simply be taking more power than is alloted to it.

 

[Dale_M]

The major problem I have with this is that denying someone the Body and the Blood in Mass very much comes across as though they are being denied the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, which should be something that NO Church can withhold…

I think this is why many priests (and bishops) have been so reluctant to deny communion to politicians.

 

[rlg94086]

But If living my sexuality leads the Church to quite deliberately cut me off from the salvific grace of Christ’s sacrifice, then the Church would simply be taking more power than is alloted to it.

By living in a state of mortal sin, you cut yourself off from the salvific grace of Christ’s sacrifice. Denying communion to someone in a state of mortal sin is not punishment, it is a recognition of that individual’s choice and prevention of sacrilege.

CCC:

2120 *Sacrilege *consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.52

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Amazing to me that these women were “shocked”. That speaks volumes about the lack of education in our Church.

I don’t believed that they were shocked. It’s just part of the agenda campaign. Don’t worry about it.

CDL

 

[Gnosis]

By living in a state of mortal sin, you cut yourself off from the salvific grace of Christ’s sacrifice.

Actually, thats not something you can actually say. How is saying that I am cut off from grace any different than saying that I am going to hell?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The major problem I have with this is that denying someone the Body and the Blood in Mass very much comes across as though they are being denied the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, which should be something that NO Church can withhold.

If this is the case, then the Church is blaspheming Christ.

However, if the Eucharist is the visible sign of doctrinal communion with the Church and the visible sign and extension of Christ’s eternal sacrifice in our temporal world, then I wouldn’t have quite the same issue with this.

Obviously, as a gay man myself, I disagree with the Church’s position here because I disagree with its position on homosexuality. If my second description of the Eucharist is more accurate, however, it might be a disagreement I can bear for now. But If living my sexuality leads the Church to quite deliberately cut me off from the salvific grace of Christ’s sacrifice, then the Church would simply be taking more power than is alloted to it.

The Church didn’t cut you off. You cut you off. Priests must be very careful not to intentionally cause you harm. There is great power in the sacrament. If you eat it profanely or unworthily you would most likely be condemned by God Himself.

CDL

 

[mommyof4]

Good for him! We need more priests like this!

I agree.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, thats not something you can actually say. How is saying that I am cut off from grace any different than saying that I am going to hell?

We can return to the state of grace anytime by confessing contritely and receiving absolution…IOW following Christ’s call to “repent.” However, my understanding is that if we die in a state of mortal sin, we will go to hell. This is not specific to homosexual acts - it applies to any mortal sin.

Note: I changed “you” to “we” because I’m not trying to judge you directly…I don’t know the state of your soul. I meant “you” in the general sense.

 

[mom2three]

The major problem I have with this is that denying someone the Body and the Blood in Mass very much comes across as though they are being denied the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, which should be something that NO Church can withhold.

If this is the case, then the Church is blaspheming Christ.

However, if the Eucharist is the visible sign of doctrinal communion with the Church and the visible sign and extension of Christ’s eternal sacrifice in our temporal world, then I wouldn’t have quite the same issue with this.

Obviously, as a gay man myself, I disagree with the Church’s position here because I disagree with its position on homosexuality. If my second description of the Eucharist is more accurate, however, it might be a disagreement I can bear for now. But If living my sexuality leads the Church to quite deliberately cut me off from the salvific grace of Christ’s sacrifice, then the Church would simply be taking more power than is alloted to it.

The Church’s stance on homosexuality is backed by God’s stance on homosexuality. Plain and simple, having homosexual attraction isn’t necessarily a sin while acting on it is. No different than heterosexuals engaging in sex outside of marriage. Living your sexuality causes you to cut *yourself *off from Christ’s salvific grace.

By refusing communion in this situation, the Church is keeping the person from making their sin even greater by taking of the body of blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner. The Church is actually doing these women a favor.

While their attraction is not wrong, the fact that they act on it, is a sin. If they separated and took a vow of chastity, they would once again be permitted to receive communion. As Catholics, they should already know this.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8 Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.[a]

9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

[Gnosis]

the Church is keeping the person from making their sin even greater by taking of the body of blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner

This is why I feel this situation has the potential to blaspheme the Christian faith. Christ died for all, he broke his body and shed his blood for an unworthy people. All of us who step up to the cross to recieve God through him are unworthy of Him, how can we possibly be too sinful to recieve it when it is recieved for the sake of purifying sin?

You can make all the judgments you want, I have my faith and I know my God and I keep strongly to what I believe in accordance with my conscience, so I know I have not been cut off from God’s grace- its how I manage to live from day to day!

Its going to be interesting to watch the issue of gay Christians and gay Catholics to unfold, no doubt most here abhor the idea of gay and Christian in such a union, but it is a trend regardless.

What does Christianity do with people who refuse to renounce their so called sin, especially when they can not point to the manners in which that sin is expressing itself negatively in their lives? How can we ask them to continue to call it sin when its not cutting themselves off from others and God expect in a hypothetical realm in which its so-called consequences are never felt here in the world.

The issue is considerably more gray then most would like to portray it.

 

[aimee]

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?

I was just thinking the same thing…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Finally a priest who is strong with his faith and doesn’t give him to the liberal media… w

 

[mom2three]

This is why I feel this situation has the potential to blaspheme the Christian faith. Christ died for all, he broke his body and shed his blood for an unworthy people. All of us who step up to the cross to recieve God through him are unworthy of Him, how can we possibly be too sinful to recieve it when it is recieved for the sake of purifying sin?

Yes, he died for all… and his body was broken for all but only those who have faith AND keep his commandments will enter the kingdom of heaven. We are made worthy when we confess our sins and are cleansed of them through the blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:27-28
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

You can make all the judgments you want, I have my faith and I know my God and I keep strongly to what I believe in accordance with my conscience, so I know I have not been cut off from God’s grace- its how I manage to live from day to day!

I am making no judgments here… I am merely stating that God through Scripture clearly tells us that those who sin and do not repent will not inherit the kingdom of God… sexual immorality is clearly one of those sins.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 12-20
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”** 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Romans 1:27
27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Its going to be interesting to watch the issue of gay Christians and gay Catholics to unfold, no doubt most here abhor the idea of gay and Christian in such a union, but it is a trend regardless.

What worries me is this “trend” becoming acceptable when God has made it clear that such behavior is sinful… Those who choose sin are not choosing God. To live for God, one must choose to love God above his sinful nature… to choose right over wrong, good over evil. Sin has no union with God.

What does Christianity do with people who refuse to renounce their so called sin, especially when they can not point to the manners in which that sin is expressing itself negatively in their lives?

I believe the better question is, “What does God do with people who refuse to renounce their sin, regardless of whether they believe their sin has negative consequences or not?”

2 Corin 12:20-21
20For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.

We all must continuously be repentent of our sins… not doing so puts our souls in grave danger. We cannot pick and choose what we consider sin and what we don’t. Regardless of how we feel personally, we must obey the Lord or we are putting our sin above him.**