Denying Communion??

Resa77

This article (click here) was kind of sad and yet interesting to me. 

Summary: a lesbian woman was denied communion at her mother's funeral.  The diocese said the priest who denied her communion was not in line with "policy." 

What do you think?  Some people think it's really wrong for a priest to deny someone communion.  Others feel very strongly that it isn't done often enough.  Bishops sometimes order their priests NOT to deny communion to people such as politicians who are pubicly known for grave immoral behavior.  What do you think about this case, and what do you think about this issue in general?

agapecarrie

Priests are the guardian of the sacraments. We do not know what went on before this. Perhaps she told him ahead of time that she was in a persistant sinful state and was not repentant and was going to approach for communion anyway. Maybe she was in an irregular marriage (and this article conveniently forgot to mention that part). Perhaps the girl left the church long ago.  

Mother's funeral or regular Sunday mass, it doesn't matter.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen communion given to someone who has no idea what they are doing, walking past my piano with it taking it back to their pew. Just last week it happened. It scares me terribly that any sacriligious actions might happen to the Blessed Sacrament. 

Whether the priest chose the right time for this, I don't know because we don't know the whole story. But by giving communion to people who are in PUBLIC states of sin (adultery, politicians for abortion, etc), it is most definitely scandalous because then others will begin to believe that the church thinks these things are ok. 

ElisabethJoanne

I think the problem here is it sounds like the Priest made no effort to work with the family before or after the Mass, but just got huffy. He knew she was the daughter of the woman for whose soul the Mass was being said, He knew she lived with her lesbian partner. He should have told the family ahead of time that she should not present herself for Communion, should not speak during the Mass, and that if she did, he would not stay with the family after the mass for the burial.

I know Priests are busy, but to arrange a Requiem, presumably this Priest had to be in touch with some member of the family. He could have handled things privately and pastorally instead of so publicly.

That said, denying Communion to those in public states of sin is usually the right thing, IMO, though I'm no canonist.

TeaForMe

I'm going to sound like a moron here and I don't ask this to be difficult or to imply the church is wrong at all - I genuinely am curious - but does denying communion constitue "judging" a person, which is the Lord's job alone? And does Jesus not reach out specifically to sinners? I know that sounds all hippy-dippy, "do whatever you want because God still loves you", ultra-liberal, but I didn't know if that is a valid point.

agapecarrie

No, it's actually protecting the person. One should not receive the eucharist while in serious sin, or " they are guilty of the body and blood of the lord". Which means they "eat and drink condemnation upon themselves". Again, we don't know te whole situation in this particular instance, but if there is a prevailing public scandal, this would be good move. Jesus does reach out to simmers.... In confession.

TeaForMe

Carrie,

Can you say more about "eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves"? I'm afraid I don't quite understand the concept. Or can you point me to the law or other sources/reading that speaks to this issue. Again, I'm not asking to be disrespectful, but rather to genuinely understand. Thanks!

ootmother2

Sorry, I think the priest owes this woman and her family a huge apology and perhaps address the issue from the pulpit himself.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin  if this priest makes judgements based on the idea that it is, he shouldn't be, ah. serving the Lord, as he is, As  a bigot.

The priest who was the Chaplain of the New York Firefighters was homosexual. 

You might remember him.  He died going up the North Tower on 9/11 to give absolution to those trapped too high up to get out.  Yes, he knew he wouldn't get out but he could help save some souls and give comfort in the final minutes.

NOT ONE single person in this city, including the Cardinal, had any objection to having an openly homosexual saying what he was, BEFORE OR AFTER.

If he committed sinful homosexual acts/behavior/talk, etc. he would never be in the high position that he held.. The same with a heterosexual priest. Celibacy is sworn and must be kept. On both sides.

This priest judged.  By any chance had the gay woman ask if she could confess and receive and was turned down?  I know one priest dumb enough to do that.
Care to tell me where the funeral was?

At any rate, my sympathies are for the family more than for the ignorant.

ootmother2

Unless there's a lot more to this story, the priest was judging.  God is capable of protecting His church.

well, with a little help here in there from the peons like us who wait patiently ;

ingeniousidea

@TeaForMe, Carrie is referring to 1 Cor 11:27-29: " Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. ²⁹For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves." (NRSV)

In a nutshell, the Catholic Church interprets "in an unworthy manner" to mean "in a state of mortal sin" or "likely to cause scandal among the faithful."  To be fair, there are precise criteria that determine mortal sin that ultimately can only be determined by the person who commits it.  On the other hand, if someone is publically and knowingly engaging in behavior that the Church considers sinful, and other members of the congregation are aware of it, a bishop or pastor may counsel the congregant not to receive (as has been the case with some Catholic politicians in the past).  I think the priest in this case handled the situation abysmally and with a complete lack of pastoral sensitivity, but the principle behind when it's appropriate or inappropriate to receive communion is pretty well-established.

mica178

Since I know that priests are involved in the planning of funerals (and other important ceremonies such as weddings and baptisms), I too wonder how this topic did not come up before the funeral.  The daughter should have been counseled prior to the wedding rather than denied communion on the spot during her mother's funeral. 

After all, in 1 Corinthian, doesn't Paul say that agape love/charity is the most important thing, over faith and hope?  Couldn't the priest have found the charitable thing to do for a grieving daughter, either by warning her beforehand that he was going to bless her but not give communion or by coming up with a compromise (for example, if she confessed beforehand and remained celibate until after the funeral she could receive)?

I noticed that OP mentioned that the daughter was a lesbian who lived with her partner, but I didn't see that the daughter was sexually active.  Homosexual orientation without homosexual sex is not a sin to my knowledge.

agapecarrie

I said this last night but my post was eaten...

We don't know that it wasn't talked about before hand.

AGAIN, she may have told the priest ahead of time that she doesn't believe in the real presence and is not a practicing catholic anymore, but went up anyway. She could have been in an irregular marriage. 

She could have even told him she was a satanist... we don't know any of this, therefore, none of US can judge that the priest was judging anything. 

lalaith50

I don't have time to read the whole article right now, but I agree we shouldn't judge anyone... the priest included. Like Agape keeps saying, how do WE know that in one of the pre-funeral meetings, she didn't say, "yes, of course I'm sleeping with my partner, and screw the Catholic Church's opinion." And he said, "Well, you do know that you won't be able to present yourself for communion tomorrow?" And she said, "I don't care, and just you watch me."

Especially given that the article comes from a completely secular source...of course they wouldn't find information like that relative to report!

Riss91

I agree with pp - you can't say the priest was completely wrong without knowing all of the facts. And you can't say the priest was completely right without knowing all of the facts.

Resa77

I totally did a post-and-run with that...but here are my thoughts..

A priest has the right to deny communion to anyone who is publicly sinning, or anyone  he knows for certain is in the state of sin.  As for this particular instance, there are a lot of details left out.  It being from the Post, I'd venture to guess they left those details out because it made it look not so bad.  Maybe the priest did talk to her prior to the Mass?  We don't know that. 

Someone mentioned "just living with her partner isn't a sin."  Isn't causing scandal a sin?  Can't priests deny communion to a couple living together outside marriage, whether or not they are actually having sex?  Maybe I'm totally wrong on that?

I think we have a HUGE problem with people receiving communion when they shouldn't.  I know plenty of people in the state of mortal sin who receive communion without confessing their sins.  It happens constantly. 

My grandmother eloped when she was 19.  She was publicly excommunicated by her bishop.  She wasn't allowed to receive any sacrements.  When she divorced a few years later, they had a ceremony welcoming her back to the Church.  That's unheard of today, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing.  But I do think it appears we've moved SO far away from the idea of excommunication for those publicly living in sin, that we're too far on the other side. 

chelseamb11

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_denying-communion?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:073b91ef-1242-44ca-8ee1-bee680a53961Post:372a3053-b781-4fc7-930c-001689332cb5">Re: Denying Communion??</a>:
[QUOTE]Since I know that priests are involved in the planning of funerals (and other important ceremonies such as weddings and baptisms), I too wonder how this topic did not come up before the funeral.  The daughter should have been counseled prior to the wedding rather than denied communion on the spot during her mother's funeral.  After all, in 1 Corinthian, doesn't Paul say that agape love/charity is the most important thing, over faith and hope?  Couldn't the priest have found the charitable thing to do for a grieving daughter, either by warning her beforehand that he was going to bless her but not give communion or by coming up with a compromise<strong> (for example, if she confessed beforehand and remained celibate until after the funeral she could receive)</strong>? I noticed that OP mentioned that the daughter was a lesbian who lived with her partner, but I didn't see that the daughter was sexually active.  Homosexual orientation without homosexual sex is not a sin to my knowledge.
Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

Isn't the point of confession, though, to actually be sorry for one's sins?  I'd find that priest really hypocritical if he allowed this TBH.

Without the whole story, I cannot say for sure who is to blame here.  We don't even know if she is Catholic to begin with, so it could all be a moot point.  I agree that the priest should not judge her actions and, if he didn't, should have let her know ahaed of time that she could not receive communion.  But she should also be aware of the rules of communion in a Catholic church (Catholic or not) and respect them, even if she doesn't agree with them.

Calypso1977

i have problems with this if the priest did not deny communion to straight couples living together for the same reasons.

one can be homosexual/lesbian and not act on it.  just as we can be straight and not act upon it outside of marriage. 

all that aside, if this priest has knowledge that this woman is indeed in a state of mortal sin, he has every right to deny her communion.

newlyseliski

I agree that it's tough to say what the background circumstances are and do think that he probably should have discussed the matter privately with the daughter beforehand to err on the pastoral side.  Scandal is definitely a challenge here... but unless she directly confessed her sin to the priest or he physically witnessed it (awkward??), how would he know for certain if she's sinning?  I definitely agree that many people probably receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin and don't realize it or care that is a grave concern!  As much as a parish may try to make sure that the people in the pews know what the sacrament requires of them... those parishioners still have that pesky free will to go up for Communion anyways.

A lot of ink was spilled over bishops denying communion or considering denying communion to Catholic politicians who publicly advocated for policies diametrically opposed to church teaching... I think the degree of scandal is a lot greater there than in the situation discussed in the article, but the fact that this woman has turned it into a media spectacle increases the degree of scandal.  I'm sure the issue is very difficult in D.C. due to the high concentration of scandalous politicians.  In most instances, a politician's bishop would try to privately address the issue directly with the politician... but the politician would go public with it and cry to the press about the oppressive Church hierarchy politicizing communion.

That said... I think the woman is approaching this situation as though she's entitled to Communion as a civil right.  I can understand that she would be embarrassed, hurt and confused if he had not privately discussed it with her beforehand and want to lash out using any means possible.  I know I'd probably react in the same way if I did not want to acknowledge sin or scandal in my own life and understand that it affects my worthiness of receiving the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.  The appropriate response on her part would have been humility and working out the issue in private with the priest and his superiors rather than finding the nearest WP journalist

newlyseliski

And relevant... a good article by Ed Peters (canon lawyer) on Canon 915:

http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/questions-over-canon-915-are-not-going.html

UPDATE:
He just wrote about the issue we're discussing...
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/note-on-the-lesbian-communion-case-3/ 

And someone else, too...
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/02/maryland-priest-denies-communion-to-lesbian-at-funeral/ 

ElisabethJoanne

The article says she was stunned to be denied communion. True, we don't know what family information the Priest had before the Mass. He may have learned things between the planning meeting/phone call and the Mass, but if he had an opportunity to warn the daughter, he should have. If he did, and she was still stunned, she's an idiot.

But it's not just denying communion. He walked out on her eulogy and refused to go to the cemetary. At the funerals I've attended, the family arrives early. It's hard to imagine he still had 0 opportunity to suggest a last-minute change in plans regarding the eulogy right before the Mass. And to not go to the cemetary, which involves the deceased and the rest of the family, not just the daughter, I don't see how that's excusable.

Of course, the family could be press-hungry fools. The Priest could have had extensive conversations with them about these issues well ahead of time, and they disregarded him, then dared to act surprised he followed through on what he said he'd do. But the Bishop has said the Priest didn't follow the propoer procedures, so...

agapecarrie

I knew there was more to the story. of course, this can't be confirmed either...

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/120301

I just wanted to let you know that there is a lot more to this story than has been published. I was in a meeting with Father Marcel and heard the whole story. The woman in question brought her lesbian partner into the vesting sacristy just before the funeral Mass and made sure to introduce her partner to Father Marcel, introducing her as her 'lover.' He told her then that she should not present herself for Communion...He speaks very softly when giving out Holy Communion, almost whispering 'Corpus Christi' — and did not publicly denounce her but rather said in a whisper that he could not give her Holy Communion.

ootmother2

ah, now we're getting right down to calling out the very best of the press, "Revew America"

Gossip is a sin btw

monkeysip

I don't understand this idea of a celibate but romantic gay relationship.

I mean, I totally get if two gay people want to be in a relationship that it more like a friendship, for companionship.  But if it is "romantic" (physical affection, calling each other romantic things, etc.) then I think it is still crossing a line.

Straight boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are supposed to be courtships--they are aimed at the purpose of marriage (if the couple discerns that marriage is their vocation).  To be in a romantic, but not sexually active relationship still seems like it violating the purpose of romantic relationships.  If they are not discerning marriage (because they can't), why are they being romantic?

You can have a lover and be "celibate" but not platonic.  I think that's the problem here.  

Like others have said, we still don't know ALL the facts here, but I still think the priest had a good reason for thinking that a gay woman with a "lover" is going against church teaching.

Resa77

I understand that homosexual people can engage in a romantic relationship while remaining celibate.  However, I think when you use the term "lover" about the person you live with, you have to know you're giving the impression that you're not celibate.

Someone mentioned something about homosexual priests. Why the heck would anyone know whether a priest was homosexual?!  Priests should be asexual, as in NOT sexual.  They are celibate.  I don't think they should be walking around like "I'm attracted to women" because that's just wrong.  And so likewise, why on earth would they be walking around talking about being attracted to other men?  I dont' get that at all.  It's not a big deal I guess, but I just don't think priests would have a reason to disclose their sexual orientation to the general public.  Seems weird to me.

lalaith50

[QUOTE]Unless there's a lot more to this story, the priest was judging.  
Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>[QUOTE] Gossip is a sin btw
Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE] </div><div>
You seem to be asking for more of the story (like many PP's,) so what's wrong with posting another news story that is simply TRYING to give more to the story?<div>
</div><div>If you think that the priest was "judging," then I think that YOU are judging HIM...which, btw, is just as bad as gossip...and it has yet to be shown how anyone in this thread has been "gossiping."</div></div>

lalaith50

[QUOTE]Why did the bishop speak out against his priest?  If he believed that what the priest did  was right, then he could have found a diplomatic way of explaining things. 
Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]
I wonder if the letter was sent ASAP (due to the awareness of potential media-explosion,) and so there was not time to get a completely thorough account from the priest and/or witnesses.<div>
</div><div>In any case, Fr. Z. has also now posted the letter sent to the woman from the diocese:</div><div><a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/the-lesbian-denied-communion-issue-some-posts-and-updates/" rel="nofollow">http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/the-lesbian-denied-communion-issue-some-posts-and-updates/</a> </div><div>It is most definitely not overly critical of the priest. I would not go as far as to call it "speaking out." It was mostly apologetic and it's only reference to the priest himself was "pastoral insensitivity."</div><div>
</div><div>It is important to be noted, (especially for those not clicking on all the links,) that there is definitely two versions of the story floating around! So...since we will probably never know the complete truth, while it's fine to attempt to find and read accounts and facts, let's all try to avoid passing judgement on anyone-- whether priest or lesbian.</div>

mica178

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_denying-communion?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:073b91ef-1242-44ca-8ee1-bee680a53961Post:d5facdc7-3a2c-458b-a02b-d7dac95fc2fc">Denying Communion??</a>:
[QUOTE]This article (click here ) was kind of sad and yet interesting to me.  Summary: a lesbian woman was denied communion at her mother's funeral.  The diocese said the priest who denied her communion was not in line with "policy."  What do you think?  Some people think it's really wrong for a priest to deny someone communion.  Others feel very strongly that it isn't done often enough.  <strong>Bishops sometimes order their priests NOT to deny communion to people such as politicians who are pubicly known for grave immoral behavior. </strong> What do you think about this case, and what do you think about this issue in general?
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

I disagree with that practice.  When we have Nancy Pelosi (or any other public figure, I just happen to have grown up in the SF bay area so know her hypocrisy best) on the record (not heresay and third-party gossipy stuff) with her political beliefs, it's hard to feel okay with her receiving Communion, especially publically, because it becomes an example that it's okay to go against the church. 

With the case of the lesbian being denied Communion, I think things are more up in the air because it's not like there are campaign posters endorsed by the woman saying exactly what kind of relationshp she has with her "lover" and her status on confession.

I will say that I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of weekly confession goers who confess to horrible sins, get absolved, receive their Communion, then go back to their sins as soon as church ends.  Is the priest any more right denying this woman who admits to being a lesbian than other priests who hear the same person admit week after week to spousal abuse or adultery or thievery, etc. giving them Communion when they know that that person has plans to commit the same sin that very night?

Resa77

I agree with so much of what you said, Mica!  Where I live, there are (obviously!) a ton of politicians.  Our priests are not allowed to deny them communion. 

I don't know what to believe in this situation.  There are several articles about it in the Washington Post now, and there are different versions of it all over the internet.  I do feel bad that this happened at the woman's mother's funeral, though. 

agapecarrie

Priests are not and should not be "asexual". Celibate does not equal "asexual". This is an attitude of puritanism that is a heresy.  Sexual attraction is not sinful or wrong. Priests are called (like we all are) to rise above the domination of concupiscience and fully live out their true sexuality. 

Consecrated celibates (men and women) do this by becoming spiritual fathers and mothers, loving as a woman or a man to whoever they are around. (Meaning as a daughter, sister, or mother/ son, bro, father). Celibates have not denied or repressed their sexuality, they are living in the next life already. Earthly marriage and the one flesh union is an icon that points us to the trinity-- Consecrated celibates are already accepting that has their reality now...fully living it in this life.

Same sex attraction is a disorder...some to varying degrees, just like we all have disorders of one kind or another, to varying degrees. By stating this truth, we are actually reminding ourselves that we all have dignity even higher than we act, and are called to rise up to that. 

mica178

The article you cited also said that homosexuals deserve respect and compassion.

ootmother2

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_denying-communion?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:073b91ef-1242-44ca-8ee1-bee680a53961Post:dd2c6fac-47b1-492f-b033-8d816a21992e">Re: Denying Communion??</a>:
[QUOTE]. Same sex attraction is a disorder...some to varying degrees, just like we all have disorders of one kind or another, to varying degrees. By stating this truth, we are actually reminding ourselves that we all have dignity even higher than we act, and are called to rise up to that. 
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

Homosexuals have "disorders"?.  I believe that the correct term is sexual orientation.

agapecarrie

It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. Nope----not catholic teaching. That is wha the secular world pushes. The word "homosexual" was a term invented in te past century to normalize the disorder. H-o-m-o means same, and "sexual" means difference. "hetero" meams different. So h-o-m-o sexual says "same difference" The term doesn't even make sense. To state it's an actual "orientation" or "who someone is" is pulling them below their dignity. God created everyone perfectly, and we are twisted Olin different ways by sin , by wounds, traumas, generational lines, etc. The correct term is someone who struggles with same sex attraction. What I'm saying here is actual church teaching. You can find more info out at the TOB healing center in Tallahassee