Maryland Priest Denies Communion To Lesbian At Funeral

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='cappie' timestamp='1330859504' post='2396071']
This is the last thing I will say in the matter.

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.
[/quote]

Would that "criteria" be that she obstinately perservered in manifest grave sin? I mean coming up to the priest and announcing her lover, then approaching the priest for the Sacrament, she confirmed her sin, asked for no forgiveness or promised no intention to avoid that sin in the future. I would assume she wanted the confrontation, she could have just went discreetly to the EMHC and received quietly, or not have bothered to announce her "lifestyle choice" to the priest to begin with, then the sin would have been hers alone, otherwise it seems the priest would have been complicent in her sin by offering her the Sacrament with previous knowledge of both her sin and then her intent to receive despite her sin.

ed

Edited March 5, 2012 by Ed Normile

[cappie]

A priest does not have the right to refuse Holy Communion arbitrarily. He must follow the requirements of Canon Law, which prescribes to whom he must refuse Holy Communion, and to whom he must administer it.

The essential part of this law is that a Catholic must be a public sinner, or publicly unworthy, to be refused the sacrament of Holy Communion. This is the case, for example, of a person who has publicly performed abortions, or voted for legislation in favor of abortion; or of a father who would have had his children baptized and raised in an heretical sect; or giving membership to the Communist party, or public concubinage; or of persons divorced and remarried outside the Church or convicted of civil crimes such as pedophilia.
However, the Church is very clear that Holy Communion cannot be refused to a person who is not a public sinner, that is if his sin is not sufficiently well known in the community at the present time. For to refuse Holy Communion to a person who is not known to many people as one who publicly breaks the commandments of God would be to defame his good name and destroy his reputation, which a person has a right to in justice, even if he is a hidden sinner. It is only by public sin that he loses this right, for he has lost his reputation. However, if such a hidden sinner were to ask the priest in private to receive Holy Communion, or whether or not he can go to Holy Communion, the priest would be obliged to forbid him to go to Holy Communion, and this even though he could not refuse him Holy Communion if he were to request it publicly at the communion rail. This is explained in the second half of Canon 855: “Occult sinners, who secretly ask for Holy Communion, shall be refused by the minister if he knows that they have not amended; if, however, they seek Communion publicly and the priest cannot pass them by without scandal, he shall not refuse them.” It is truly sad for a priest to be obliged to administer a sacrilegious Communion, but if he cannot convince them privately to abstain from going to Holy Communion, then he must do so.
The question can sometimes arise, not of hidden or occult sins, but of public attitudes that persons might take against the Church, but which are not public sins. There are some people who lack respect for their priests, refuse to follow their advice and counsel, who cause dissension in a parish by gossip and similar means. In general, they are not to be considered as public sinners or publicly unworthy, unless they openly promote teachings that are opposed to Catholic Faith and morality, or unless they incite other parishioners to direct disobedience and disrespect towards their pastors. On occasion, sedevacantists have fallen into this category.
Also, when parents obstinately refuse their very grave duty of educating their children in the Catholic Faith, as required by canon 1113, and instead educate them in a non-Catholic religion, they must be refused Holy Communion. Canon 2319 (1917 Code of Canon Law) stated that they are to be treated as excommunicated, and consequently refused the sacraments.

Edited March 5, 2012 by cappie

[emmaberry]

I know this response is late in terms of the event stated in the OP, but I was in discussion with someone about this and wanted to add my opinion. I have read the thread and enjoyed Father's (Cappie's) responses concerning Canon law, which I was unaware of. I especially liked the post which talked about zeal and prudence. As Cappie has stated, the prudence of the priest is up for debate, because none of us were there and knows exactly how 'it went down,' so to speak. It seems to me (just my opinion from this thread and media coverage) that he acted prudently, because surely the grave sin of the women was known 'publicly' by those who were close friends/family attending the mom's funeral. The 'publicness' of the woman' grave sin is, of course, up for debate, since no one attended the funeral. Now that this woman has whined to the media, i would say her grave sin is quite public, though that publicty occured after the initial incident.

Regardless of your private opinion on whether the priest followed canon law properly, i think we can all agree he had zeal for the Eucharist. When i hear stories like this, I try to ask, "What would the Servant of God Fulton Sheen do?" and on this, I am not quite sure.