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

[Kreskin]

So, then, are you telling me that the government could force the catholic church to allow practicing homosexuals to be practicing catholics in their church?
And, if that is so, then why don't they.

Talloola, these people aren't going in there to have everyone practice or convert to homosexuality. They are being denied the simple event of attending church becuase of who they lawfully are. If a Priest in Canada stopped people from entering the building and participating in the service because they were homosexual I have no doubt the law would step in.

Has a Priest denied any Canadians? I'm not aware of any.

 

[talloola]

Talloola, these people aren't going in there to have everyone practice or convert to homosexuality. They are being denied the simple event of attending church becuase of who they lawfully are. If a Priest in Canada stopped people from entering the building and participating in the service because they were homosexual I have no doubt the law would step in.

Has a Priest denied any Canadians? I'm not aware of any.

I suppose most homosexuals "just" don't talk about their private lives, and also attend catholic church, OK with me, that is what I would do if I was a homosexual and a catholic. And, I suppose
most of the priests would just as soon that happen, so they don't have to deal with it. But, if the
occasion arises, then he has no choice, it is their law of the church, which I suppose is what happened in this case.
I had a long conversation on this board one day with Sanctus, as I was upset because of the
unfairness of the church, as I thought they would not allow homosexuals to attend church, and he
explained that the church does not allow "practicing homosexuality" amongst their parishoners.
But, if they abstain, they can be a practicing catholic. Many people can have certain practices
in their lives, because of "their" religion. Religious rights seem to have a strong position in this country, so, doesn't that apply to the churches as well. And, I'm sure there are other religions
who also don't condone homosexuality within their parishes. I wonder.
I also wonder why "huge" groups haven't sued the church, if it is illegal.
I don't really know what you mean in your first sentence above.
I have to go to bed, see what time it is?

 

[Kreskin]

I suppose most homosexuals "just" don't talk about their private lives, and also attend catholic church, OK with me, that is what I would do if I was a homosexual and a catholic. And, I suppose
most of the priests would just as soon that happen, so they don't have to deal with it. But, if the
occasion arises, then he has no choice, it is their law of the church, which I suppose is what happened in this case.
I had a long conversation on this board one day with Sanctus, as I was upset because of the
unfairness of the church, as I thought they would not allow homosexuals to attend church, and he
explained that the church does not allow "practicing homosexuality" amongst their parishoners.
But, if they abstain, they can be a practicing catholic. Many people can have certain practices
in their lives, because of "their" religion. Religious rights seem to have a strong position in this country, so, doesn't that apply to the churches as well. And, I'm sure there are other religions
who also don't condone homosexuality within their parishes. I wonder.
I also wonder why "huge" groups haven't sued the church, if it is illegal.

I think most people don't end up on the front page news or get "banned" by Priests. Like you said, most probably don't even say anything. How would a Priest know if someone is abstaining or not. Wouldn't everyone pretty much abstain from sex when they are at church? For those who have to deal with that attitude I'm sure most just go elsewhere. If push came to legal shove though I think Charter would protect the individual from blatant discrimination. They aren't asking for a ceremonial change, just access to participate in the regular service.

 

[sanctus]

Talloola, these people aren't going in there to have everyone practice or convert to homosexuality. They are being denied the simple event of attending church becuase of who they lawfully are. If a Priest in Canada stopped people from entering the building and participating in the service because they were homosexual I have no doubt the law would step in.

Has a Priest denied any Canadians? I'm not aware of any.

Happens all the time. If a priest is aware of someone who is in a state of mortal sin, he is expected to deny them access to the Sacraments. There are two people in my present posting I will not commune, as a matter of fact. They are not denied from attending Mass, but they are denied from receiving communion. Obviously, if the priest is unaware of the person's situation, he will commune anybody who comes forward to receive. But if he is aware of some impediment, he has complete authority to deny the sacraments to that person.

 

[snfu73]

Talloola, these people aren't going in there to have everyone practice or convert to homosexuality. They are being denied the simple event of attending church becuase of who they lawfully are. If a Priest in Canada stopped people from entering the building and participating in the service because they were homosexual I have no doubt the law would step in.

Has a Priest denied any Canadians? I'm not aware of any.

Paul Martin faced a refusal of some sort of holy something in his Catholic church after the SSM win. I was pretty disgusted.

 

[snfu73]

Happens all the time. If a priest is aware of someone who is in a state of mortal sin, he is expected to deny them access to the Sacraments. There are two people in my present posting I will not commune, as a matter of fact. They are not denied from attending Mass, but they are denied from receiving communion. Obviously, if the priest is unaware of the person's situation, he will commune anybody who comes forward to receive. But if he is aware of some impediment, he has complete authority to deny the sacraments to that person.

Mortal sin??? Oh, that's lovely. Two people being in love is a mortal sin. What horrible, horrible people they are. When love is vilified, then I question the church and it's interpretation of the texts involved. Again, I go back to it...if the church denied access to blacks...what do you think would happen? You don't think that people who have killed, people who have stolen, people who have coveted thy's neighbour go to church? Are they tossed out? Even when an affair becomes public, I have NEVER heard of adulterers being hoofed out of the church...and that is right in the 10 big commandments there.

 

[karrie]

Talloola, these people aren't going in there to have everyone practice or convert to homosexuality. They are being denied the simple event of attending church becuase of who they lawfully are. If a Priest in Canada stopped people from entering the building and participating in the service because they were homosexual I have no doubt the law would step in.

Has a Priest denied any Canadians? I'm not aware of any.

I don't recall the article saying anything about them being kicked out of the church.

They were refused participation in one of the church's sacraments, and that happens all the time. The church puts a lot of importance on the sacraments. They're not the firsts religion I know of to refuse someone participation in a practise they view as particularly holy, for reasons others might find odd, either.

 

[selfactivated]

Happens all the time. If a priest is aware of someone who is in a state of mortal sin, he is expected to deny them access to the Sacraments. There are two people in my present posting I will not commune, as a matter of fact. They are not denied from attending Mass, but they are denied from receiving communion. Obviously, if the priest is unaware of the person's situation, he will commune anybody who comes forward to receive. But if he is aware of some impediment, he has complete authority to deny the sacraments to that person.

Doll I of ALL people know the churches stand on things. I get that. I dont like it, I find it mean spiroted but I get it. I just wish the church would reread the verses in red.

 

[tamarin]

It's quite common for ministers and priests of all denominations to refuse to marry people who don't attend there or don't attend a church at all. Churches have rights of practice too.

 

[selfactivated]

It's quite common for ministers and priests of all denominations to refuse to marry people who don't attend there or don't attend a church at all. Churches have rights of practice too.

Just because its common doesnt mean its fair......

 

[karrie]

Again, I go back to it...if the church denied access to blacks...what do you think would happen? You don't think that people who have killed, people who have stolen, people who have coveted thy's neighbour go to church? Are they tossed out? Even when an affair becomes public, I have NEVER heard of adulterers being hoofed out of the church...and that is right in the 10 big commandments there.

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.

 

[tamarin]

But shouldn't fair also make sense? I agree with them. It's like the open borders debate going on at the moment. Don't nations have the right to choose?

 

[tracy]

I don't understand the anger at this one. I'm not a catholic because I believe that things like birth control, homosexuality and extra marital sex are not sins. These women clearly don't believe the doctrines of their church. Why should they be welcomed there given their stance? It isn't like the catholic church wasn 't clear on its beliefs regarding homosexuality. Besides, by calling themselves catholics they only make the catholic church seem to have more true members than it actually does. That lends more power to their opinions on homosexuality which is detrimental to their cause in the long run.

I don't think this is an issue of discrimination either because this is about behavior, not what someone is. It isn't about them discriminating against homosexual love because they also have rules for heterosexual relationships as well. My aunt couldn't be married in the church because her husband was divorced. That was just the church following their own rules. She could have made a big stink about it, but instead she realized that the church wasn't right for her and found a more accepting place of worship. This couple should do the same.

 

[tamarin]

Tracy, well spoken!

 

[Kreskin]

Happens all the time. If a priest is aware of someone who is in a state of mortal sin, he is expected to deny them access to the Sacraments. There are two people in my present posting I will not commune, as a matter of fact. They are not denied from attending Mass, but they are denied from receiving communion. Obviously, if the priest is unaware of the person's situation, he will commune anybody who comes forward to receive. But if he is aware of some impediment, he has complete authority to deny the sacraments to that person.

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?

 

[talloola]

OK, I realize now, that it is just the "sacraments", (communion/marriage, etc.), so that is a little
different than I thought. Don't know what the fuss is all about then. They can attend services.
Noone can interfere with the church then, so, in my mind, this is much to do about nothing.
I thought that "active practicing homosexuals" could not attend the services and be practicing catholics, so, I have learned something today.
I'm going for breaky, have a good one.

 

[westmanguy]

OK, lets have Clarification Time. YAY!!

#1) Kreslin this happened in the United States of America, are Charter has nothing to do with the issue at hand, unless you are spinning this to "if this happened in Canada" point.

#2) Someone clarify this for me? Was the couple denied JUST sacrements or we they booted from mass too?

If it was just the sacrements that is fine? Why should a priest be forced to give sacraments to somoeone he sees as committing a sin, because of the PC tone of the society?

But as sanctus said everyone is welcome to the masses. So many sinful people go to church (mostly out of remorse). Had people who lived together, had affairs, were gay, etc. attend a United Church her in my town.

But all practises within the church should be able to be denied.

So I will step away from my ego and say: if they are denied access to mass, that is wrong.

 

[eh1eh]

Does the church deny communion to priests involved in molesting boys?

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

 

[mapleleafgirl]

the church wasn't right for her and found a more accepting place of worship. This couple should do the same.

i like your post. i think you make some good points. lets face it, these women mustve known the reaction theyd get if they went to a catholic mass. especially if they were supposedly catholic. they know what the church laws are about homosexuals and its position on homosexual "marriage".so in my opinion they went into that mass looking to make a scene.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Doll I of ALL people know the churches stand on things. I get that. I dont like it, I find it mean spiroted but I get it. I just wish the church would reread the verses in red.

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??