Catholic Weddings

more to the story

I promise I'm not trying to start anything up again, but I thought it a good idea to show this:

The woman "denied" commiunion was not even Catholic...she was buddhist.

«1

Re: more to the story

  • yikes. Why am I not surprised? 
    (Nor surprised with how the media was sooooo quick to jump on this one and blow it out of proportion...)
    Anniversary
  • newlyseliskinewlyseliski member
    1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited March 2012
    Another journalist fails to adequately research their subject... surprise, surprise. 

    Sometimes I think that anyone who received the sacraments of baptism and first communion feel that they've got a free pass to receive communion anytime that they want...  Admittedly, I don't think that I ever learned that I needed to be in a state of grace when I receive communion when I went through classes for either first communion or first reconciliation.  I went to a Catholic elementary school, too!  I didn't really learn about it until a homily I heard in my early 20's.  If most Catholics don't get it... chances are the secular media DEFINITELY doesn't get it.
  • Jasmine&RajahJasmine&Rajah member
    Knottie Warrior 100 Comments 5 Love Its
    edited March 2012
    Yikes is right.

    Thanks for sharing, agapecarrie (and for always standing up for the faith!)
  • ootmother2ootmother2 member
    Tenth Anniversary 5000 Comments 25 Love Its First Answer
    edited March 2012
    Riss closed the subject, I believe.

    Although I am not at all surprised that you have to have the last word.

    May I suggest reading more?  Huffington or the New York Times perhaps, Washington Post or some non religious paper?

    Truth is what is desired, no affirmation of another news article.

    tia
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:1ccb56d2-f198-41bb-827b-eef9977cb4ea">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]Riss closed the subject, I believe. Although I am not at all surprised that you have to have the last word. May I suggest reading more?  Huffington or the New York Times perhaps, Washington Post or some non religious paper? Truth is what is desired, no affirmation of another news article. tia
    Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]

    <div>And the papers you suggested are so truthful? Please.</div><div>
    </div><div>This wasn't about the last word. </div><div>
    </div><div>Back off.</div>
  • Riss91Riss91 member
    Knottie Warrior 1000 Comments 25 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited March 2012
    oot - you don't need to agree with carrie. It's clear that you guys will likely not agree on most things, so if you can't handle that, you should simply block her. Making comments like she's "not all there" or insulting her by saying she's commiting scandal by providing other sources of information is immature and unproductive. If you can't simply disagree in a respectful way, then do not partake in conversation. There is absolutely no reason for nastiness. That helps no one.
  • edited March 2012
    The argument that one news source or another is biased is completely ridiculous.  There is no such thing as objective reporting anymore.  Catholicvote.org has a Catholic-friendly agenda, just like Huffington Post has a very liberal agenda.  That's not a bad thing as long as a) people approach articles written about these very heated topics with that in mind and b) people don't throw out the "Oh, that's biased" argument whenever someone tries to report or refute facts.  Of course it's biased.  Like it or not, that is the goal of many of these reporters -- to convince the public to agree with a particular point.
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • Posting a Catholic news article?! On a Catholic message board?! Gasp! Will you stop at nothing agape?!(sarcasm)
    Lilypie Second Birthday tickers

  • newlyseliskinewlyseliski member
    1000 Comments Fourth Anniversary Combo Breaker
    edited March 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:f19763ba-8da6-4533-bb3b-7c34b92caf45">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]The argument that one news source or another is completely ridiculous.  There is no such thing as objective reporting anymore.  Catholicvote.org has a Catholic-friendly agenda, just like Huffington Post has a very liberal agenda.  That's not a bad thing as long as a) people approach articles written about these very heated topics with that in mind and b) people don't throw out the "Oh, that's biased" argument whenever someone tries to report or refute facts.  Of course it's biased.  Like it or not, that is the goal of many of these reporters -- to convince the public to agree with a particular point.
    Posted by professorscience[/QUOTE]

    <div>This.  I personally find objective journalism to be a rarity these days... hence the reason I no longer waste my money on a daily paper.  I also prefer to read the news through the lens of my faith and am fully aware of that "bias" and how it shapes my worldview.  It's no secret that printed daily papers are struggling with keeping subscriptions up... sadly, it seems that sensationalism is what is required to hold peoples' attention in both the printed and televised news.</div>
  • Bottom line to this story is this:
    The news consensus from all sides is that she was denied communion.
    She also was not in a state that she should be receiving communion at a Catholic Church.  Facts presented by both sides also support this.

    In the end, it's her fault for even putting herself in that situation.  I don't buy for one second that she didn't know she was disrespecing the Catholic religion by taking communion.  She doesn't have to agree with Catholicism.  But that doesn't mean she shouldn't respect it.  If she really is Buddhist, why the heck would she want communion anyway? It's a Christian thing, not a Buddhist thing.
  • A lot of people who do not view communion as the real body and blood of Christ think of it more as a community act, and therefore something that should be open to all (or at least all Christians).  My husband's SIL actually took communion every Sunday even though she was not Catholic for a very long time.  She used to say, "It was okay at my old church, it's okay here."  She eventually took RCIA with BIL, and while she chose not to be confirmed, she did stop receiving communion.

    Last month, when H and I went to North Carolina for H's cousin's funeral, we went to mass as a family.  During the preparation, H's grand-aunt leaned over and whispered to me, "It used to be that the Catholic church didn't allow nonCatholics to take communion?  Is that still true?"  When I nodded the affirmative she commented that her church "welcomes everyone" and then dropped it until we got in the car and then started complaining about it.

    The woman in question probably thought it was something her mother would have wanted, and while unwilling to put herself in the necessary state to receive, was willing to "go through the motions."
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • It was suggested that New York Times tells the truth.

    The New York Times printed this:
    http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/03/nyt-ad-quit-catholic-church.html
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:03059b57-d1a6-455c-a937-a40dcb6006fc">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]It was suggested that New York Times tells the truth. The New York Times printed this: <a href="http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/03/nyt-ad-quit-catholic-church.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/03/nyt-ad-quit-catholic-church.html</a>
    Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

    Wow.  That is a lot of hatred right there.
    Anniversary

    image

    image

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:03059b57-d1a6-455c-a937-a40dcb6006fc">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]It was suggested that New York Times tells the truth. The New York Times printed this: <a href="http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/03/nyt-ad-quit-catholic-church.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/03/nyt-ad-quit-catholic-church.html</a>
    Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

    That ad made me feel sick.
    PitaPata Cat tickers Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:554beda1-8c42-4f05-9569-ce7471cec356">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]Bottom line to this story is this: The news consensus from all sides is that she was denied communion. She also was not in a state that she should be receiving communion at a Catholic Church.  Facts presented by both sides also support this. In the end, <strong>it's her fault</strong> for even putting herself in that situation.  I <strong>don't buy for one second that she didn't know</strong> she was disrespecing the Catholic religion by taking communion.  She doesn't have to agree with Catholicism.  But that doesn't mean she shouldn't respect it.  If she really is Buddhist, <strong>why the heck would she want communion anyway</strong>? It's a Christian thing, not a Buddhist thing.
    Posted by chelseamb11[/QUOTE]

    Perhaps because her MOTHER had just freaking DIED she wasn't thinking as clearly as she might normally.  Perhaps she thought it would be a sign of respect to her mother or a show of solidarity in her mother's faith.  Maybe their different religious beliefs had caused friction in their lives and the daughter figured this was her last chance to do something her mother might have wanted.  Not everyone who attends a funeral (or wedding, or whatever) in a Catholic church understands the church's viewpoint on certain issues.  And you know what, if Jesus is everything the church says he is I think he would have more compassion for a grieving woman than you do.  Have a blessed freaking day.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:bfd31922-c0d7-4ea8-a031-276527917963">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: more to the story : Perhaps because her MOTHER had just freaking DIED she wasn't thinking as clearly as she might normally.  Perhaps she thought it would be a sign of respect to her mother or a show of solidarity in her mother's faith.  Maybe their different religious beliefs had caused friction in their lives and the daughter figured this was her last chance to do something her mother might have wanted.  Not everyone who attends a funeral (or wedding, or whatever) in a Catholic church understands the church's viewpoint on certain issues.  And you know what, if Jesus is everything the church says he is I think he would have more compassion for a grieving woman than you do.  Have a blessed freaking day.
    Posted by Bron&J[/QUOTE]

    Whoa. Hold on. No one here is trying to say that a grieving person shouldn't be cut some slack. If she was completely innocent in attempting to receive communion, then so be it. I think that would be upsetting to be turned away without knowing beforehand.

    To share a personal story - my MIL passed away last year, and certain of her relatives that were raised Catholic but have either become atheist, or are "cultural" Catholics, knowingly and spitefully took communion. Then after the funeral mass attacked the faith and the homily to my husband, who had just buried his mother. So, grieving people can be jerks, too.

    Since the facts are all over the place in this story, it is really difficult to know for sure. Everyone here is basing their comments on the idea that she knowingly did something just to make a statement. Clearly, if that wasn't true, no one would be as adverse to her actions.
  • I often oscillate between expecting everyone to follow the hard rules of Roman Catholicism and thinking that we should focus first on compassion and recognize that rules get broken.

    I agree that a sexually active person (homosexual or heterosexual) is likely out of grace with the church and isn't eligible to receive Communion.  So if the story that the priest told her beforehand and quietly reminded her that she could be blessed but not given Communion is true, then he did the right thing, and she was in the wrong for jumping Communion lines and complaining to the press afterwards.

    The Buddhist thing and the migraine thing, all those smack of back-pedalling to me.  And the face that Riss felt compelled to close the previous thread and that agapecarrie keeps linking more articles in a thread that she started after Riss closed the first one makes me feel like some people like keeping up the drama.

    Yet again, I'll remind everyone to re-read the Scripture, specifically the words of Paul:

    1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

     5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

     10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

       “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
    ‘every knee will bow before me;
       every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

     12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

     13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

     19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

     22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

  • THere is no "Drama" to keep up. I didn't create any drama. However I was accused of many things in the last thread. THAT is why it was shut down.

    I get so sick when people are so fast to attack priests, but any person in some kind of pseudo "minority" group that is affected in some way, people are ready to use such strong language (see above) in their defense. It is disheartening.

    Most of my friends are practicing catholics. They post the articles, I see them relevant to our discussion here so I post them here because so many were involved in the discussion. It's not about drama OR judging. I'm simply showing that there is way more to the story, and I am defending my beloved church. This isn't about judgement, its about information.

    There is no "compassion" in breaking the church's laws. The rules aren't arbitrarily made up, but based on natural/divine law and truth. They aren't existing for their own sake but to protect us from ourselves and harming each other.
  • Carrie - there is compassion in breaking the church's laws. That's why we have healing sacraments, the recognition that we aren't perfect and need to be redeemed. If you believe that the Church should not be compassionate to those who are not perfect you may seriously be mistaken on our faith. 

    "And finally, may you all be of one mind: compassionate, loving brotherhood, merciful, meek, humble, not repaying evil with evil, nor slander with slander, but, to the contrary, repaying with blessings. For to this you have been called, so that you may possess the inheritance of a blessing." 1 Peter 3:8-9


  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:8d70929a-b116-4c62-97b7-8fa0f94f5605">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]Carrie - there is compassion in breaking the church's laws. That's why we have healing sacraments, the recognition that we aren't perfect and need to be redeemed. If you believe that the Church should not be compassionate to those who are not perfect you may seriously be mistaken on our faith.  "And finally, may you all be of one mind: compassionate, loving brotherhood, merciful, meek, humble, not repaying evil with evil, nor slander with slander, but, to the contrary, repaying with blessings. For to this you have been called, so that you may possess the inheritance of a blessing." 1 Peter 3:8-9
    Posted by caradi[/QUOTE]

    There is not compassion IN sin. There is compassion in repentence, admonishing, etc. 2 different things.

    You misunderstand the premise. The pp was talking about following church laws or breaking them to be compassionate in the context of the discussion (Which I take to mean that the priest should have "broken" the church law to give communion to someone in a public state of sin/not catholic/etc)  Thius would not be compassionate to the person.

    This is not the same thing as someone's personal sin and reconciling with the church.
  • I think I see what you're saying - seems like there are a lot of pieces missing to the story in order for someone to really understand or be able to say if he was "right" in denying her communion - I thought I read the Archdiocese reprimanded him though, so maybe they know more. Had he been discussing with her? Had he known she was Buddhist? Who knows, the article you posted didn't say the Priest knew. One would hope she isn't really using the death of her mother to push a political agenda, but I suppose only God really knows what is in her heart. 
  • agape, the link below that you took from the New York Times is an ADVERTISEMENT placed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, not anything written by the New York Times.or any employee of theirs.

    Advertisement = one pays money to have something placed in the media.  This means that Freedom of Religion PAID the NYT to run that, it is not the opinion formed by the paper

    .  I actually haven't seen anything in the NYT on the subject but my guess is that if they covered the story, it will be with a liberal slant.  I'm also pretty sure that if the Wall Street Journal covered the story, it would be with a conservative slant.  Media is almost seldom just the facts, everyone slants, unfortunately.

    so you can back off and stop claiming to be the victim.

    Riss,  I was not calling any names there, I agreed in the first post that I wouldn''t yet agape still called me a monkey in the first post. That is not an insult?
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:689c816c-a425-4ef4-a760-d3bd08022970">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]agape, the link below that you took from the New York Times is an ADVERTISEMENT placed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, not anything written by the New York Times.or any employee of theirs. Advertisement = one pays money to have something placed in the media.  This means that Freedom of Religion PAID the NYT to run that, it is not the opinion formed by the paper .  I actually haven't seen anything in the NYT on the subject but my guess is that if they covered the story, it will be with a liberal slant.  I'm also pretty sure that if the Wall Street Journal covered the story, it would be with a conservative slant.  Media is almost seldom just the facts, everyone slants, unfortunately. so you can back off and stop claiming to be the victim. Riss,  I was not calling any names there, I agreed in the first post that I wouldn''t yet agape still called me a monkey in the first post. That is not an insult?
    Posted by ootmother2[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>I'm quite aware it was an advertisement. The fact that that kind of slanderous material is allowed at all is shameful. No way would that ever be printed about Jews or muslims in their paper. I showed the link because it proves the point that "truth" could not be found in your suggested sources. </div><div>
    </div><div>So now you are admitting there are slants...yet you were the one that orginally said the NYT is where I would find truth. </div><div>
    </div><div>I NEVER called you a monkey? Where are you getting this? Why do you continually hammer at me...I have NEVER called you a name, insulted you, or gone to another board and mentioned you, ever, yet you continue. 

    </div>
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:81781d29-2c20-42e9-9e75-f536b01e3e70">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]I often oscillate between expecting everyone to follow the hard rules of Roman Catholicism and thinking that we should focus first on compassion and recognize that rules get broken. I agree that a sexually active person (homosexual or heterosexual) is likely out of grace with the church and isn't eligible to receive Communion.  So if the story that the priest told her beforehand and quietly reminded her that she could be blessed but not given Communion is true, then he did the right thing, and she was in the wrong for jumping Communion lines and complaining to the press afterwards. The Buddhist thing and the migraine thing, all those smack of back-pedalling to me.  And the face that Riss felt compelled to close the previous thread and that agapecarrie keeps linking more articles in a thread that she started after Riss closed the first one makes me feel like some people like keeping up the drama. Yet again, I'll remind everyone to re-read the Scripture, specifically the words of Paul: 1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.   5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.   10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:    “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me;    every tongue will acknowledge God.’”   12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.   13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.   19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.   22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
    Posted by mica178[/QUOTE]

    Loveya Mica!  Sense at last

    Check FB
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_more-to-the-story?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:615Discussion:54419086-94bb-4ab8-9a3f-5667ef865f01Post:07043186-10c2-4124-b8c6-c51e1c6a5336">Re: more to the story</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: more to the story : I'm quite aware it was an advertisement. The fact that that kind of slanderous material is allowed at all is shameful. No way would that ever be printed about Jews or muslims in their paper. I showed the link because it proves the point that "truth" could not be found in your suggested sources.  So now you are admitting there are slants...yet you were the one that orginally said the NYT is where I would find truth.  I NEVER called you a monkey? Where are you getting this? Why do you continually hammer at me...I have NEVER called you a name, insulted you, or gone to another board and mentioned you, ever, yet you continue. 
    Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]


    second page of closed post may refresh what you called me.

    hth

    "Your reply will be.  "I just don't understand this. You're confusing me, mixing up what I said"

    tata
  • I think this story will eventually fade into news oblivion and only be revisited when a similar situation comes up. 

    Mica, I think you're right that we'll probably never hear a straight story about it from either side publicly...  chances are the diocese is going to try to mediate the disagreement and conflict in a private manner with both Barbara and Fr. Guarnizo if they are both willing to work towards reconciliation and understanding.  I hope that LifesiteNews, "exclusing inside sources," Huffington Post, New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, et cetera keep their nosy journalists out of it... that's really the only way to a peaceful resolution. 

  • I wasn't calling you "monkey". 

    I was talking about the person that responded whose handle is monkey.

    You didn't confirm what I said, SHE did. I was quoting catechism, as well as she did the same.


    Stop accusing me of insulting you. I did no such thing.



  • Lol! Wow, OOT, you really just want to pick on Agape for everything! Like she said, she was responding to/quoting Monkeysip!

    Feel free to assume the best of her (or anyone for that matter,) and not instantly assume that anything she says is directed at you and therefore *must* be a criticism.
    Anniversary
  • Riss91Riss91 member
    Knottie Warrior 1000 Comments 25 Love Its Name Dropper
    edited March 2012
    Just one last point.

    Let's assume that this woman wasn't aware of the rules and thought she was able to receive communion. Let's even say she has never engaged in a homosexual act, however is in a non-physical relationship with another woman. We will assume she is ready and free to receive communion. So, we assume the priest mistakenly denied her communion. He made the wrong assumptions about her sins (or lack thereof) and simply denied her.

    If she was truly innocent and was upset and being wrongfully turned away - why run to the media? Why not speak to the priest at another point in time, and try to understand what happened? And if he was wrong and unwilling to correct his behavior, then sure, report him to the Church officials.

    I guess I just don't see why anyone would run to the media with this if they loved the Church and were completely innocent in their intentions.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards