Wyoming Priest Denies Communion to Lesbian Activist Couple “Married” in Canada

[karrie]

Why did this thread continue. The hypocrasy pointed out by Durka should have rendered this thread 'null and void'. C'est domage.

If a priest was molesting children on a day to day basis, unrepentent of what he was doing, and saying that it was an okay way to live, I guarantee the church would refuse him communion, so I fail to see where the hypocrisy lies there. As vile as it is that they get to hide behind it, a priest will usually say "I'm sorry for what I've done, and I won't do it again", and the church considers it repented. They are no longer 'sinning', the have merely 'sinned'.

If this lesbian couple went and got their legal union dissolved, came to church, said "we're sorry and we've stopped engaging in lesbian relations", the church would treat them exactly the same as the priests who molest boys... they judge it from what they can see on the surface, and leave God to sort out all the rest.

Not very hypocritical really.

 

[eh1eh]

Sorry Karrie, I can't post links but there has been cases of preists molesting people and no action was taken by the church except to move them to a new place where they weren't known. It's not that simple. If the church denied all who went against them in that way there would be no church.

 

[AndyF]

He cannot give communion if he knows the recipient is in a state of mortal sin. He can also restrict members in this state from other Church activities as well. The priest as well has being forbidden to administer it, it is also for the good of the person. One who receives communion while knowing he's in a state of mortal sin creates a graver situation for himself.

Always was, always will be.

AndyF

 

[eh1eh]

He cannot give communion if he knows the recipient is in a state of mortal sin. He can also restrict members in this state from other Church activities as well.

Always was, always will be.

AndyF

Right, so if I have sex with a child after taking a vow of celabicy (sp) then I'm OK to be a preist, but if I have sex with someone of the same sex, no communion for me, ???

 

[AndyF]

Right, so if I have sex with a child after taking a vow of celabicy (sp) then I'm OK to be a preist, but if I have sex with someone of the same sex, no communion for me, ???

Priests don't act in their ordinary capacity as human beings, and the value of what they administer does not depend on the personal worthiness of the Priest. A priest commits a grave sin if he celebrates the mass while he himself is in a state of mortal sin. But that doesn't render the consecration invalid. He consecrates and administers in virtue of his priesthood, not in virtue of his being in a state of grace or sin.

But you say "to be". If you mean he intends to do this prior to taking his vows, then this attitude disqualifies him from the priesthood.

AndyF

 

[karrie]

Sorry Karrie, I can't post links but there has been cases of preists molesting people and no action was taken by the church except to move them to a new place where they weren't known. It's not that simple. If the church denied all who went against them in that way there would be no church.

Sorry eh1eh, but you're wrong there. I understand the public view of what happened with the molestation cover ups, etc... and I don't think what the church did was right. But, the action I explained was needed in order to keep receiving communion WOULD have happened... those priests would have gone into confession said 'I'm sorry and I won't do it again, I repent', and by Catholic dogma, they would from that point on would be able to receive communion, until they sinned again. Public apologies are not what is needed, and you would have no clue that the priest went to confession. It makes no sense from the public side of things, but, it makes sense according to the rules of the church.

 

[karrie]

Right, so if I have sex with a child after taking a vow of celabicy (sp) then I'm OK to be a preist, but if I have sex with someone of the same sex, no communion for me, ???

If you've been having sex with someone or something you shouldn't in the eyes of the church(homosexuals, kids, dogs), it's all the same thing. If you are STILL doing it, unrepentant about it, and feel it's an okay way to live, the church will not allow you to receive communion. If you say you're sorry, promise to stop, and repent, then you're no longer in a situation of committing mortal sin. technicalities, but crucial ones in this case.

 

[eh1eh]

Karrie and Andy F, You have clairfied. Thank you both.

 

[snfu73]

Well, to compare race to homosexuality in this instance isn't very.... hmmm... fair? not quite the right word, but, it's what my brain will come up with, so forgive me... black people aren't doing something to be black. Homosexuals are performing an action in order to be homosexuals in the eyes of the church. The church views the practise of homosexuality as a sin, not simply having the urge to be one. And it doesn't deny homosexuals from attending mass. But, to participate in the sacraments, such as marriage, or communion, if you are known to be living a sin (as the church sees it a sin), they can refuse you. Adulterers have faced the same denial of the right to participate in communion (if they are actively having an affair, and are unrepentant), as has a pedophile I have known, who was convinced there was nothing wrong with him, people were just overreacting.

Actually, I think comparing homosexuality and race is very appropriate. Just as one cannot choose the colour of their skin, one cannot choose their sexual identity. It just...is. So, to me, I look at it like this...if a white power group moved into a neighbourhood, publicly stating that whites are superior to blacks and that blacks are horrible, etc, then there would be a huge outcry by the community. However, when a catholic church exists in a neighbourhood and falsely states that homosexuality is a choice and that the acts are "evil" as the pope has stated, no one says a thing. Why? And why aren't more within the church questioning? Why is a group like the church free to preach such false beliefs that are so damaging to the community as a whole based on sexuality with no reprocussions? Why are they free to discriminate based on false assertations? If it was any other group, and any other organization they would be severly chastised.

Another issue is this. Say you grew up in the Catholic Church. You are told how all inclusive the Catholic church is, and how the Catholic church is the ONLY true church...Catholocism is the only true religion. Then, as you grow older and discover your sexual identity, you find that the church is teaching that who you are is wrong....if you be who you are, you are wrong. That can help mess up a person in a hurry. You are catholic, you believe in the faith, but you come to the conclusion that the concepts surrounding sexuality have some serious flaws that need examination. Why wouldn't you protest? Why wouldn't you be active against this? If you are taught that to be Catholic is the only thing to be...and then, when you follow who you are, you are denied rights, or presented with the ideas of going to other churches as others have suggested, what the hell does one do? They are caught in the middle. It is okay to question...after all, religion is based on INTERPRETATIONS of the bible. Do catholics really have it right? These people are challenging the way things have been...and I think that is great. Religions of all sorts should be questioned. And it is okay to question. You aren't questioning god...you are questioning the interpretations of the bible which is linked to god. What is wrong with that? I think it is important to do that.

 

[snfu73]

but, just a point, the church kinda thinks it is right cos the bible says we have to be in a state of worthiness to receive the lords body and blood so maybe they think theyre upholding that up??

Yes...they do. That is why they are questioning and challenging...and I agree with them. They should. Are the interpretations of the bible correct? Is god really going to not except them for being in love with eachother? Just because that is what some believe, that doesn't mean it is so. All kinds of people believe all kinds of wierd **** for whatever reason.

 

[sanctus]

I wasn't saying it doesn't happen but am not aware of a legal challenge.

So in the case of the Wyoming couple does the Priest expect them to divorce to unsin themselves, or are they condemned to hell for eternity?

He probably expects them to abstain from sexual relations. Divorce would not be necessary, since they are not "married" in the eyes of the Church.

Legal challenge, none that I am aware of. Rather shakey ground anyway, and would probably fail to achieve any ramifications. All religious orgnaizations are protected to practice the beliefs that are particular to their faith, as long as their actions are not illegal. Admittance and membership rules fall under this category. In other words, we are free to dispense our Sacraments or not as it suits us, legally.

I also think that Maple was on to something when she wrote that these women obviously must have known the reaction they would receive. It seems to me that they were baiting the priest in this situation. No one forced them to attend a Catholic Mass. If they had, in fact, been raised as Catholics as the article suggest, they knew full well the reaction the priest would have in advance.

 

[Kreskin]

If a priest knew everything about everyone in his congregation they would all be expelled. Anyone who professes to live lilly white lives at all times is probably lying. Our most religious family members are notorious tax evaders, yet they get the full meal deal every Sunday.

 

[sanctus]

If a priest knew everything about everyone in his congregation they would all be expelled. Anyone who professes to live lilly white lives at all times is probably lying. Our most religious family members are notorious tax evaders, yet they get the full meal deal every Sunday.

You're probably right

 

[karrie]

Actually, I think comparing homosexuality and race is very appropriate. Just as one cannot choose the colour of their skin, one cannot choose their sexual identity. It just...is. So, to me, I look at it like this...if a white power group moved into a neighbourhood, publicly stating that whites are superior to blacks and that blacks are horrible, etc, then there would be a huge outcry by the community. However, when a catholic church exists in a neighbourhood and falsely states that homosexuality is a choice and that the acts are "evil" as the pope has stated, no one says a thing. Why? And why aren't more within the church questioning? Why is a group like the church free to preach such false beliefs that are so damaging to the community as a whole based on sexuality with no reprocussions? Why are they free to discriminate based on false assertations? If it was any other group, and any other organization they would be severly chastised.

Another issue is this. Say you grew up in the Catholic Church. You are told how all inclusive the Catholic church is, and how the Catholic church is the ONLY true church...Catholocism is the only true religion. Then, as you grow older and discover your sexual identity, you find that the church is teaching that who you are is wrong....if you be who you are, you are wrong. That can help mess up a person in a hurry. You are catholic, you believe in the faith, but you come to the conclusion that the concepts surrounding sexuality have some serious flaws that need examination. Why wouldn't you protest? Why wouldn't you be active against this? If you are taught that to be Catholic is the only thing to be...and then, when you follow who you are, you are denied rights, or presented with the ideas of going to other churches as others have suggested, what the hell does one do? They are caught in the middle. It is okay to question...after all, religion is based on INTERPRETATIONS of the bible. Do catholics really have it right? These people are challenging the way things have been...and I think that is great. Religions of all sorts should be questioned. And it is okay to question. You aren't questioning god...you are questioning the interpretations of the bible which is linked to god. What is wrong with that? I think it is important to do that.

Okay wow... too many points to even be able to start addressing it all snfu.

race and sexuality aren't precisely the same, because being homosexual is not seen by the church as being a sin. Much like being of race, you can't just stop being that way.

It's the activities engaged in by homosexuals which the church perceives as sinful, not simply their orientation. One can't walk up to a black person and say 'Hey, stop doing that.', but you can walk up to a gay person and say 'Hey stop having sex.' That's all I was saying.. in the context of this situation, they're simply not the same.

I don't think the church's view is right either, and I bring it up with priests. I talk about it. I push. But, the church has a right to hold its views. All religions have the right to hold their views. If this was happening in public, say someone refused to serve these women in a bar, then yes... it's infringing on their rights. But, it's not public. This is happening within a religious service, regarding their holiest sacrament.

 

[karrie]

I also think that Maple was on to something when she wrote that these women obviously must have known the reaction they would receive. It seems to me that they were baiting the priest in this situation. No one forced them to attend a Catholic Mass. If they had, in fact, been raised as Catholics as the article suggest, they knew full well the reaction the priest would have in advance.

I have to disagree with you sanctus... I don't think they necessarily knew the reaction they'd recieve. Many Catholics I know go through the motions without questioning what's behind what they're doing. They don't stop to think about what they're reciting, what they're promising, what's expected of them. If you've gone to mass all your life, gotten up, walked to the front, taken the wafer, and nothing has changed for you, then why would you think you still couldn't? I guarantee you these women don't feel immensely different than they did as children, they don't feel that they have gravely changed somehow. To them, mass is what it always has been, and they are who they always have been, so why expect such a reaction, if you haven't thoroughly thought it through?

 

[hermanntrude]

communion's better in france. they give u a fresh-baked bagguette and a nice fruity beaujolais

 

[talloola]

He probably expects them to abstain from sexual relations. Divorce would not be necessary, since they are not "married" in the eyes of the Church.

Legal challenge, none that i am aware of. Rather shakey ground anyway, and would probably fail to achieve any ramifications. All religious orgnaizations are protected to practice the beliefs that are particular to their faith, as long as their actions are not illegal. Admittance and membership rules fall under this category. In other words, we are free to dispense our Sacraments or not as it suits us, legally.

This is what I needed to know, as it seemed sort of "grey" throughout discussion

 

[Zzarchov]

Sure...guides...yes...gotta keep those boys and girls seperated...teach the girls about sewing and other good girl stuff...while the boys build fires and tent. Yes indeed, gotta keep the genders in line...gotta keep them intrenched in their narrow roles!

Girls can join Boy Scouts, Boys can't join Girl scouts. Called a double standard.

 

[tamarin]

Well, if girls had joined boy scouts when I was a boy scout there would be a lot more boy scouts now.
We live in a mixed up world and none of us is sure of the formula to fix it.

 

[s243a]

Well, if girls had joined boy scouts when I was a boy scout there would be a lot more boy scouts now.
We live in a mixed up world and none of us is sure of the formula to fix it.

It might be a good idea to have girls in boy scouts but that is a matter for the boy scouts to decide not the courts. On a similar account if woman want to go to a woman’s only gym I am not going to put up a court case to stop them. Similarly if people don’t like co-ed dormitories, that is there business.