Maryland Priest Denies Communion To Lesbian At Funeral

[homeschoolmom]

Yes, but if it's a question of "would many people know why she's turned away from Communion..." She was at a family gathering with her partner of 20 years. I don't think the fact that she's a lesbian was a secret.

The statement that bothered me most was this:

[quote]
A lifelong Catholic and former Catholic school teacher, Barbara says she hadn’t even considered that her sexual orientation would be a problem with Father Marcel until she stepped forward to take communion.
[/quote]

Um... really? It never gave you pause to think that maybe it would be inappropriate? Then I remembered that this happened in Gaithersburg, MD and yea, she probably didn't think anything of it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1330745620' post='2395554']
From the blog cited above: A few years ago, Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was[b] a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.[/b]

And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different.
[/quote]thanks

[Slappo]

nevermind

Edited March 3, 2012 by Slappo

[cappie]

It is always difficult and I think Peter's nails it. In my Opinion I thing Father perhaps confused zeal and prudence, Zeal must be a dominant note in every priest's life. We should always try to grow in it. But Prudence is of paramount importance in the exercise of our ministry: it makes us judge aright of the best means to carry out our apostolate and directs our conduct at every step we take towards that end.

Prudence is also needed in our ministry to prevent the message of God from suffering at our hands. It may suffer in the purity of its object: our mission is to bring Christ to souls, to make Him reign in all hearts; anything foreign to, or unconnected with, this specific aim is not a legitimate scope. . "Non enim nosmetipsos praedicamus sed Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum." ("For it does not preach ourselves but Jesus Christ our Lord."

Our message may suffer also from the manner in which we carry it to our flock. Prudence must save us from harsh­ness and undue severity as well as from compromising weak­ness, and from all indiscreet ways that may turn people away from our holy Faith: "Nemini dantes ullam offensionem, ut non vituperetur ministerium nostrum." ("No one is giving no offense in any, so that our ministry be not blamed.") 2Cor6:3

[4588686]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1330745620' post='2395554']
From the blog cited above: A few years ago, Bp. Ricken made exactly this kind of determination about, in fact, two Catholic lesbians who had repeatedly proclaimed their aberrant lifestyle in the local media. He contacted them and told them they were not permitted to approach for holy Communion. He acted entirely appropriately, in accord with canon law (and sound sacramental theology), and his action won support from neutral observers. But, notice, his conduct was[b] a far cry from a quick decision regarding ALL elements of c. 915 (not just one or two of them) made a few minutes before Mass one day.[/b]

And the fallout from the two cases has been night-and-day different.
[/quote]

I agree with the Father. When I first woke up I head that a Priest was under fire for not giving Communion to a active lesbian. My first though was something akin to: "I guess MSNBC wants to stir up a controversy." I viewed it as a non story. I still do. I really advocate a firm separation of Church and State. Something good for Churchs. Because I really don't care what the Church wants to do with regards to who they give their communion too. If she doesn't like it she can find another Church. Nobody is making her be Catholic.

But I did feel bad for the Priest. I felt like the bomb throwers on MSNBC was going to put him through the ringer for doing something perfectly fine. But as the details come in I really lost any sympathy for him. Not so much for the communion thing but I think walking off while she was giving the eulogy was really just out of line and just inexcusable. He was a complete arse to this woman why she was literally trying to bury her mother.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330749929' post='2395575']
Not so much for the communion thing but I think walking off while she was giving the eulogy was really just out of line and just inexcusable. He was a complete arse to this woman why she was literally trying to bury her mother.
[/quote]

I've read that he was feeling ill on other websites.

[4588686]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1330759261' post='2395600']
I've read that he was feeling ill on other websites.
[/quote]

I heard that with regard to not officiating the funeral, not for leaving during the eulogy.

[Slappo]

It could have been that some illness was also what necessitated his leaving the altar during the eulogy. Any sort of eulogy would be near the very end of a funeral mass, and in my very limited experience, the burial comes right after mass.

[4588686]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1330760125' post='2395602']
It could have been that some illness was also what necessitated his leaving the altar during the eulogy. Any sort of eulogy would be near the very end of a funeral mass, and in my very limited experience, the burial comes right after mass.
[/quote]

Interesting. If that were the case I'd have a significantly different opinion of the Priest.

[Jesus_lol]

I would too, if it werent for the "feeling ill" sounding like a lame excuse.

[Strictlyinkblot]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1330761763' post='2395604']
I would too, if it werent for the "feeling ill" sounding like a lame excuse.
[/quote]

I have to agree. Its a big coincidence and I can fully understand why the family are so upset. I think he should have behaved with more sensitivity.

However, if a person introduces someone to the priest as their lover or partner (gay or straight) and then approaches the altar they shouldn't be surprised if they are refused Communion. It would be interesting to read more about it.

[cappie]

The latest from Ed Peters is here it concerns an editorial on the website of the Archdiocese of Washington.
[url="http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/"]http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/[/url]

Perhaps the concluding remarks are the best: My other remarks:
I’m not sure what the point of this editorial was.
If it was to provide basic catechesis on holy Communion, then, with the glaring exception of the paragraph beginning “The two most notable examples”, it serves well enough. But if, as I suspect from the opening sentence of the editorial and its timing, it was meant to explain the norms (chiefly c. 915) for withholding holy Communion from a would-be recipient—norms that are distinct from those informing the would-be recipient’s decision to approach the Sacrament in the first place (per c. 916)—then the editorial fails to set out those norms correctly or to defend them vigorously.
Accuracy of content and clarity of presentation are always in season, of course, but these vexatious times seem to cry for both to be especially honored in setting forth the Church’s teaching and discipline on such crucial matters as administration of holy Communion. The Washington lesbian Communion case has been marked, in my opinion, by very poor explanations of too-poorly understood laws.
So, let me summarize the matter one more time.
There is not, and never has been, the slightest doubt but that a Catholic woman living a lesbian lifestyle should not approach for holy Communion, per c. 916. One so approaching risks receiving the Eucharist to her own condemnation. 1 Corinthians XI: 27. But, once any Catholic approaches for the public reception of holy Communion, a different norm controls the situation, namely, Canon 915. The only question in this case is, and has always been, whether the centuries-old criteria for withholding holy Communion from a member of the faithful were satisfied at the time this woman approached this minister. Unless all of those criteria were satisfied at that time, then, no matter what moral offense the woman might have committed by approaching for the Sacrament in her state (for which action she would be accountable before God), the minister of holy Communion acted illicitly. Period. End of paragraph.
Now, if the minister of the Church acted illicitly in this case (and the information available to me indicates that he did), he needs to be corrected (not punished, corrected). That said, his evident love for Our Lord in the Eucharist, and the conditions under which this decision seem to have been suddenly thrust upon him, suggest that there is no deep disrespect for certain members of the faithful at work in him, and the demands for him to be severely disciplined seem aimed more at exploiting the incident than at resolving it.
Almost every aspect of this case underscores, in my opinion, the crucial need for more rigorous training of ministers in questions of sacramental discipline. Perhaps never have the members of the Church been in greater need of sacramental ministration; perhaps never have they brought with them less understanding of the sacraments; and, for sure, never have they possessed more power to broadcast their misunderstandings of the sacraments to others, this, to their detriment, of course, but also to the Church’s. + + +

Possibly the best line is...[b][i]"Almost every aspect of this case underscores, in my opinion, the crucial need for more rigorous training of ministers in questions of sacramental discipline. Perhaps never have the members of the Church been in greater need of sacramental ministration; perhaps never have they brought with them less understanding of the sacraments; and, for sure, never have they possessed more power to broadcast their misunderstandings of the sacraments to others, this, to their detriment, of course, but also to the Church’s."[/i][/b]

[Slappo]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330760615' post='2395603']
Interesting. If that were the case I'd have a significantly different opinion of the Priest.
[/quote]
[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1330761763' post='2395604']
I would too, if it werent for the "feeling ill" sounding like a lame excuse.
[/quote]
[quote name='Strictlyinkblot' timestamp='1330764079' post='2395607']
I have to agree. Its a big coincidence and I can fully understand why the family are so upset. I think he should have behaved with more sensitivity.

However, if a person introduces someone to the priest as their lover or partner (gay or straight) and then approaches the altar they shouldn't be surprised if they are refused Communion. It would be interesting to read more about it.
[/quote]

We really don't know the full circumstances of why he left or if he was actually ill. I think many many people are reading "he left the altar when she began the eulogy" as "he was pissed at her and walked off", but we really don't know why he left. What if he was about to vomit right in the sanctuary, think he's gonna stick around or find a bathroom?

It's quite possible that the illness was all an excuse (that's what the liberal news media has made it out to be), but it quite possibly could have been a legitimate circumstance, and unless any of us has inside knowledge on the medical condition of this priest at the time, then it's probably best if we give him the benefit of the doubt at least in this particular circumstance of the ordeal.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Slappo

[4588686]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1330794994' post='2395705']
We really don't know the full circumstances of why he left or if he was actually ill. I think many many people are reading "he left the altar when she began the eulogy" as "he was pissed at her and walked off", but we really don't know why he left. What if he was about to vomit right in the sanctuary, think he's gonna stick around or find a bathroom?

It's quite possible that the illness was all an excuse (that's what the liberal news media has made it out to be), but it quite possibly could have been a legitimate circumstance, and unless any of us has inside knowledge on the medical condition of this priest at the time, then it's probably best if we give him the benefit of the doubt at least in this particular circumstance of the ordeal.
[/quote]

It could have been. He could have been sick. That just seems like a pretty big coincidence. Unless he has a history of sudden onsets of illness that out him out of commission. Even if it is an excuse, which I suspect, it's not really a story. If he had some pastoral failure then his superiors can correct him. It's really no concern of the secular world. And I think her attempt to have him removed is laughable.

The Catholic Church has made no secret of how it feels about homosexuality or homosexuals and nobody is forced to be a Catholic

Edited March 3, 2012 by Hasan

[inunionwithrome]

It has always been a given that the Catholic church does not support, nor do we promote this type of lifestyle. With that being said, if I was to walk into a Lutheran church and ask to receive communion, I would be refused. That is because our churches do not believe the same thing about the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, it is with the Lesbian lady as well, that we believe from the onset of Creation in Genesis that God formed both Man and Woman, because they were good for each other. He did not form Adam and Steve or Eve and Eve but instead Adam and Eve. So, for her to take communion would be a sacrilige. While I do not agree completely with the priests actions, I see how he would recuse himself from this as not to be led into tempation.