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
The reason I post the above is so that we can avoid emotional arguments, and get down to the very bottom of this, applying the laws and teachings of the Church.
(03-01-2012, 12:52 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Excellent question, keeping in mind several things, such as 1) whether someone is a public and notorious sinner has nothing to do with whether the majority of the general public, or even the majority of Catholics, or even the majority of people at a particular mass believe that someone is a public and notorious sinner. Even if everyone present thinks that homosexuality is just fine and dandy, it is scandalous for a priest to give Holy Communion to a person openly living in a homosexual relationship because the priest thereby confirms everyone in their error. 2) Not everyone who presents themselves for Holy Communion is automatically to be counted among the Catholic faithful.
(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 wrapped up in the whole NO "hate the sin but love the sinner" bs.

(03-01-2012, 01:00 PM)wsxyz Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 12:52 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Excellent question, keeping in mind several things, such as 1) whether someone is a public and notorious sinner has nothing to do with whether the majority of the general public, or even the majority of Catholics, or even the majority of people at a particular mass believe that someone is a public and notorious sinner. Even if everyone present thinks that homosexuality is just fine and dandy, it is scandalous for a priest to give Holy Communion to a person openly living in a homosexual relationship because the priest thereby confirms everyone in their error. 2) Not everyone who presents themselves for Holy Communion is automatically to be counted among the Catholic faithful.

Hopefully someone knowledgeable poster can answer these questions, and thus we can stay away from emotions which have gotten us nowhere so far in this debate.
(03-01-2012, 12:19 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 08:43 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: [ -> ]Here is the "woman" in question.

[Image: PHpriest01_1330467240.jpg]

That's a woman?!?
[Image: RoyOrbisonFearnley.jpg]
Yes but she looks like someone I know.
(03-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 wrapped up in the whole NO "hate the sin but love the sinner" bs.

That's not bs.  It's actually a great axiom.  However, I would argue that Revixit is neither truly loving the sinner nor properly hating the sin.
(03-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]You are wrapped up in the whole NO "hate the sin but love the sinner" bs.

I think that goes back to St. Augustine.  The problem is the Novus Ordo's faulty definition of what "loving" someone is.  

Loving the sinner means wanting what is best for them, which is the salvation of their soul. so witholding communion is the loving act.  

Only the uncharitable would cater to a person's sins by knowingly giving them communion if they were not in the state of grace.  
In reply to Revixit, I would simply say, you're forgetting that the Church exists for more than one person.  The Church exists not only vis-a-vis individual sinners, but vis-a-vis society as a whole.

If you go too far in trying to help someone, not only will you fall off a cliff yourself, but you will lead others to do so as well.  That's what public scandal is all about.

This priest had no right to act in any way other than he did.  If we praise him, it's because in this day and age, standing up for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament is an unusual thing.  It should just be normal.

Of course, in any time period, this would be an act of virtue.  But it only seems like (and perhaps is) an act of heroic virtue because of the times we live in.

I'm really rather shocked that you sympathize more with this poor sinner (granted that her state is miserable) than with the lambasting this priest (who, whatever you may think, you have to agree that he was trying to do a good thing) is receiving for following his conscience.

Ah, the Church of Vatican II.  Freedom of conscience for everyone but the clergy.
(03-01-2012, 01:39 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 wrapped up in the whole NO "hate the sin but love the sinner" bs.

That's not bs.  It's actually a great axiom.  However, I would argue that Revixit is neither truly loving the sinner nor properly hating the sin.

The Lord loves us all - the sinners and the just. The NO theology *completely* denies the Justice if God that WILL befall those who remain sinners of their own free will - as this lesbian. 

Our Lord condemns the unrepentant sinner - regardless of His love for that sinner because the sinner brings on their own condemnation.

Do not be fooled by this stupid NO "axiom" which is designed to confuse.

God hates the unrepentant sinner - never forget that.............God loves the sinner who also hates the sin!
(03-01-2012, 01:51 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:39 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 01:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(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 wrapped up in the whole NO "hate the sin but love the sinner" bs.

That's not bs.  It's actually a great axiom.  However, I would argue that Revixit is neither truly loving the sinner nor properly hating the sin.

The Lord loves us all - the sinners and the just. The NO theology *completely* denies the Justice if God that WILL befall those who remain sinners of their own free will - as this lesbian. 

Our Lord condemns the unrepentant sinner - regardless of His love for that sinner because the sinner brings on their own condemnation.

Do not be fooled by this stupid NO "axiom" which is designed to confuse.

God hates the unrepentant sinner - never forget that.............God loves the sinner who also hates the sin!

Well, I think you are oversimplifying things and coming to an erroneous view in the process.  So long as one is careful to use the real definition of love, this axiom is spot on.  I don't think it can be said that God totally hates the sinner until the sinner has made their final choice and God places them in hell at their personal judgment.

When you argue against this axiom, you're actually hurting the argument that we're making.  True love demands that the priest withhold the Eucharist from this woman, and not just true love for Christ, but true love for the woman as well.  And we cannot deny that what is best for Christ is always best for humanity in general and every individual in particular.

So, I say again, "Love the sinner; hate the sin," but keep in mind that love does not necessarily mean being kind or unoffensive.  In this case, the loving thing to do was "offensive" and "exclusive", but loving nonetheless.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11