FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "Who is the priest who denied a lesbian woman Communion?"
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(03-01-2012, 01:00 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]The article said that spoke to the priest before the funeral in the sacristy, telling him that so and so was her sodomite lover. From that point, her sin became public, and thus she was refused communion. Its quite simple.

That's a quote from an anonymous source.  There is no way to verify it.  You need to read more carefully.  Reading IS Fundamental.
(03-01-2012, 01:14 AM)wsxyz Wrote: [ -> ][size=12pt]Revexit: no doubt you support Archbishop Niederauer in this matter as well

Your postings on this topic make me sick.

WRONG.  I don't support those clowns at all.

A fellow Catholic talking about loving our neighbor, as Jesus taught us we must, makes you sick?  That says a lot more about you than it does about me, my friend.


(03-01-2012, 02:00 AM)Norbert Wrote: [ -> ]While I obviously don't support giving people who you "know" are going to return to their sodomy, or people dressed in mockery of mass, I have to say that no matter how firm my "purpose of amendment" is, there are certain sins I commit anon. 

If I was treated the way gays would be if all gays were refused communion, I'd likely be doomed to hell by virtue of sacramental denial.

An honest man speaks.
(03-01-2012, 02:14 AM)Norbert Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 02:03 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]There is a difference between private sin and public sin.

True.  In retrospect, she clearly had a pre-made agenda since she "introduced Father to her lover" before raising a stink over communion.

Except that that is a comment from an anonymous source so it can't be verified.  We don't know if the anonymous source even knows the priest, much less heard him say that.



Here is the "woman" in question.

[Image: PHpriest01_1330467240.jpg]

Not quite as good looking as Pat.

[Image: sweeney_pat.jpg]
(03-01-2012, 02:00 AM)Norbert Wrote: [ -> ]While I obviously don't support giving people who you "know" are going to return to their sodomy, or people dressed in mockery of mass, I have to say that no matter how firm my "purpose of amendment" is, there are certain sins I commit anon. 

If I was treated the way gays would be if all gays were refused communion, I'd likely be doomed to hell by virtue of sacramental denial.

You can't "return" to a vice if you haven't left it yet.  And in the case of gays or any unrepentent sinner, going to Hell by virtue of sacramental denial is better than going to Hell by virtue of recieving communion in the state of mortal sin. 
(03-01-2012, 12:58 AM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 12:50 AM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 12:42 AM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Even if she really said the woman was her "lover", if she then made a good confession, she should have been given absolution and allowed to receive Communion at her mother's funeral Mass.

How do you keep forgetting that a firm purpose of amendment is necessary for absolution?

Pheo, how do you keep forgetting that mere facts cannot cauterize a bleeding heart?

[Image: epicpost1.gif]
(03-01-2012, 08:43 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the "woman" in question.

[Image: PHpriest01_1330467240.jpg]

That's a woman?!?
(03-01-2012, 07:45 AM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:14 AM)wsxyz Wrote: [ -> ][size=12pt]Revexit: no doubt you support Archbishop Niederauer in this matter as well

Your postings on this topic make me sick.

WRONG.  I don't support those clowns at all.

A fellow Catholic talking about loving our neighbor, as Jesus taught us we must, makes you sick?  That says a lot more about you than it does about me, my friend.

You are equating "love' with admission to Holy Communion. They are not the same thing.
It shows a greater love for that misguided woman to refuse her Holy Communion and to admonish her for her lifestyle.

Your position is totally illogical. On the one hand you claim that a good orthodox priest must give Holy Communion to a public, "out" lesbian because he doesn't know that she has committed any homosexual sex acts since her last confession, but then say that a wishy-washy bishop shouldn't have given Holy Communion to two men wearing costumes?

The position you have been advocating is exactly why Catholics don't take Catholic doctrine on the objective disorder of homosexuality and the inherent evil of homosexual acts seriously. Because people like you are always waiting around to throw good priests under the bus for doing what is right. If this woman had simply presented herself for Holy Communion without letting anyone know that she is an practicing lesbian, then she would have been able to receive Holy Communion without a problem. But that isn't what she chose to do. She chose to make an issue out of it and was rightly denied.

All Catholic faithful have a right to receive Communion, unless forbidden to do so by law. In this case, the lady in question may have been a public and notorious sinner. Does anyone with knowledge of Canon Law think that she is a public and notorious sinner, and thus should have been denied? Infamy of fact may also apply.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11