Catholic priest denies communion to lesbian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:should the ACLU and the government mandate that all religious institutions must baptize and give communion to everyone? How about bah Mitzvah, weddings, circumcisions. What you are seeing is the reaction to pulling the country too far over the left and the right is trying to pull it back center to offset the craziness of the last few years.

I don't believe anyone but you is suggesting some sort of government interference in the church. People are merely shocked by this priest's cruelty.

[Anonymous]

None of the more Catholic than the Archbishop posters are even trying to explain why the priest refused to officiate graveside.

As for the decision to deny being private, that's BS. Every election season, there's a bishop or priest saying how they'll deny communion to [insert pro-choice Catholic politician.]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please do not talk about Catholicism if you know nothing about Catholicism. No one but the priest actually knows why he refused her the Eucharist. He knows that she is not in a state of grace he cannot give her the Eucharist. The assumption that it was because she is gay is a big leap. The priest cannot defend himself by telling how she is not in a state of grace. It is a sin under Catholic doctrine for anyone to receive the body of Christ if he/she is not in a state of grace and the sin is greater for the priest if he knowingly administers the Eucharist under these circumstances. That is why a priest cannot knowingly administer the Eucharist to someone who is divorce and remarried without an annulment. To be divorced alone does not prohibit someone from being n a state of grace and receiving the Eucharist. Without knowing why the priest acted as he did, and his inability to discuss his actions, everyone is jumping to conclusions based up the woman being gay.

This is nonsense. I'm an atheist and attended my first Catholic funeral a few years ago and when everybody lined up for Communion, I was swept up in the flow and didn't know what to do so I stayed in line too to be polite and not make a statement, and the priest didn't ask me any questions.
I can also assure you I'm not nor was ever in a state of grace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The priest has no way of knowing WHAT this woman does in her bedroom. So, no, he would not have sinned by giving her communion. Only if she had confessed to him and indicated that she had no intent to change her ways, could he be certain. This was not her home parish, so it is doubtful that he knew anything about her conscience. He assumed, and he publicly shamed her in the most inappropriate of circumstances. It was wrong, stop defending the behavior, you make Catholics look bad.

Yes because they've been looking lily-white pure of late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Church allows gay parishioners, but when it comes to communion, it is a different story.
I am Afric. Am. and when Mormons were not allowing non White priests, I did not feel that it was any of my business. Sure, if they asked ME, I would say it was wrong, but other than that, it was none of my business.
Agree that protest is OK, but they have the right to be Catholic and do things their way. I know that there are TONS of gay priests and nuns, but again, none of my business.

Yeah, and were you ever looking for a job in Utah? How'd you like to work for a Mormon boss in a heavily Mormon company knowing how they felt about blacks. Still none of your business?

Mormons do not believe this anymore. It was an old belief that has since changed. There are Black Mormons now, btw. I have met a few. I certainly do not understand why they will still join with a history like that but hey, whatever, logic doesn't have a place with religion does it?!

The Catholic Church really doesn't seem to care about their image. They do what they have always done. If you don't agree, don't join, but I doubt you're going to change any church doctrine.

Yes, I should have added that it has changed. Nevertheless, the point still holds if adjusted for the era. BTW, the pp doesn't seem to realize that all Mormon males are initiated to the priesthood at the age of 12 - so that not being allowed to be a priest in the Mormon church is quite different from not being allowed to be a priest in the Catholic church. In that era, any black man working and living alongside white male Mormons would have been considered not fit to be a priest - or a full member of the Mormon church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The priest could not knowingly give the Eucharist to a hetrosexual couple living in sin. It isn't a "gay" thing.

And yet our own archbishop says it's OK and does it. Somehow he has not been removed from his position by the pope, even though it was a very public position.

Yes, I thought there was all this emphasis on hierarchy and obedience in the Catholic church yet this local priest didn't follow policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would a priest do something, the church come out and say the priest was wrong and people STILL bitch

We get it. You aren't Catholic or you are a former Catholic, you think the Catholic church is horrible or you believe all priests are pedophiles.

Do you really think any Catholic cares what you think? Are you trying to change my religion? I think there is a song about this......

Well, there's a flip side to that - only on DCUM will a priest do something, the church come out and says the priest was wrong, and (numerous) people STILL kick and scream that the priest was right. Dogmatic, myopic thinking is everywhere.

You do have a good point (I am the PP).

I am a conservative Catholic and they scare me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was trying to goad the priest. Serves her right.

Really? She's burying her mother and her first thought is to "goad the priest."

REALLY?

Yup. When the Duggars were crying the loss of their unborn child what did you guys say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was wrong to ask for communion. He did not follow policy, he was wrong (he was to take her aside and speak to her privately is my understanding. I use birth control, I don't receive communion.

Ok, pp, I can respect you for that. It does make me wonder how many Catholics who use birth control continue to take communion. Anybody have an idea? And the folks who think it was okay for the priest to refuse this woman, would you be okay with the priest refusing communion to someone who takes birth control? I really would like to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The priest has no way of knowing WHAT this woman does in her bedroom. So, no, he would not have sinned by giving her communion. Only if she had confessed to him and indicated that she had no intent to change her ways, could he be certain. This was not her home parish, so it is doubtful that he knew anything about her conscience. He assumed, and he publicly shamed her in the most inappropriate of circumstances. It was wrong, stop defending the behavior, you make Catholics look bad.

Yes because they've been looking lily-white pure of late.

Well, that's beside the point, but true.

[Anonymous]

Yes, if some takes birth control and the the priest knows he should refuse communion. He should first privately tell the couple (yes both are held accountable) and if they persist in taking communion then he can refuse to give it to them at the alter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing to me is that, after years of supposed Catholic schooling and devotion, she has somehow missed the fact that a) you cannot receive the eucharist while in a state of mortal sin and that 2) actively engaging in a homosexual relationship is grave enough to be a mortal sin. Her agenda has blinded her to the truths of the very faith that she is claiming to profess. Bizarre. Receiving the eucharist is a spiritual, mental and physical demonstration that you are living - or attempting to live - in accordance with the truths of church teaching. Anyone who knows that they are not, should refrain from receiving until they have been to confession and made an attempt to amend their ways. That simple.

As for the priest, I think he should have had a conversation with her ahead of time - and we don't know, maybe that happened. However, waiting for the communion line was not the moment for this.

ITA. I am the OP, and a non Catholic. No one told this woman that she had to be Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing to me is that, after years of supposed Catholic schooling and devotion, she has somehow missed the fact that a) you cannot receive the eucharist while in a state of mortal sin and that 2) actively engaging in a homosexual relationship is grave enough to be a mortal sin. Her agenda has blinded her to the truths of the very faith that she is claiming to profess. Bizarre. Receiving the eucharist is a spiritual, mental and physical demonstration that you are living - or attempting to live - in accordance with the truths of church teaching. Anyone who knows that they are not, should refrain from receiving until they have been to confession and made an attempt to amend their ways. That simple.

As for the priest, I think he should have had a conversation with her ahead of time - and we don't know, maybe that happened. However, waiting for the communion line was not the moment for this.

ITA. I am the OP, and a non Catholic. No one told this woman that she had to be Catholic.

She was in the church because her Mom was catholic and she was attending her mom's funeral. I certainly don't read that article to think that was some devout catholic, but it's where her mom's funeral was, because, gee, it was about her mom. If your point is that she shouldn't be "using" the church to make some political statement which seems to be your sentiment, then the church shouldn't use her mom's funeral as a way to make a political statement either. And by leaving the area when she was eulogizing her mom and refusing to attend the services graveside is exactly what he did. Plus, it just makes him look like an asshole.

[Anonymous]

Someone defending this priest's actions please explain why he had to leave the alter when the woman went to speak about her mother and please also explain why he wouldn't go to the grave site to help the family.

Are those actions reasonable, in light of the fact that this woman is a lesbian And if so, could you please explain why?

I understand why he denied her communion, although the way he went about it lacked compassion, at a minimum. But please, leave that aside for a moment and explain his other actions.