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
I couldn't either. Thus, I became a traditionalist.
(03-02-2012, 10:48 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2012, 07:21 AM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(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?

Very clever, but you have to admit Jesus was a bleeding heart, too.

Your condescension aside, no.  I'm 100% positive that Christ was not a fool.

If anyone was condescending in this exchange, it was you.  Calling someone a bleeding heart is typically intended as a derogatory remark but that's OK because I have a great devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and "Etymologically, the term ["bleeding heart"] originated as a Christ reference, originally the bleeding heart under a cross, representing the sufferings of Jesus crucified."

Christ was not a fool, and I didn't suggest He was.  A "bleeding heart" is someone who is unusually sympathetic and I think that can be fairly applied to Jesus because He cared about people others wouldn't go near: lepers, people with demons, Samaritans.  He saved the woman "taken in adultery" from death by stoning by telling the crowd of men "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."   Many people may have thought He was a fool because He associated with people who were looked down upon in the society they lived in, as homosexuals are today.  



About homosexuals never deserving absolution, as has been suggested…  I've been thinking and
to the best of my recall, only one person was ever killed by God for a sexual sin and that was Onan.
His sin has been interpreted by the Church as coitus interruptus (therefore making all contraception wrong) and as masturbation.  But Onanism is usually a synonym for masturbation.  Onan's sin is quite often committed today, and by Fisheaters, I'm sure.  Rarely does anyone give up that particular sin, either.  Should those who commit Onan's sin be denied absolution when they confess it and answer honestly how often they've committed it?  Should they therefore be denied Communion throughout their lives?

Think on that.  Think long and hard on it.



(03-03-2012, 08:25 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Christ was not a fool, and I didn't suggest He was.  A "bleeding heart" is someone who is unusually sympathetic and I think that can be fairly applied to Jesus because He cared about people others wouldn't go near: lepers, people with demons, Samaritans.  He saved the woman "taken in adultery" from death by stoning by telling the crowd of men "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."   Many people may have thought He was a fool because He associated with people who were looked down upon in the society they lived in, as homosexuals are today.  

Yes and but He also told her to sin no more. The lesbo in question is still living with her "partner".

If anything else, the priest did not want to offend our Lord by giving His body and blood to an active homosexual living in sin.
Fr. Guarnizo did the correct thing.
60 years ago, this wouldn't even be an issue. A priest doing his job. Period.  No need for accolades nor criticism.

Oh no, but now, it's a big agenda. Lesbo goes to the papers, makes a big deal about it. Father called a pig a pig. What is the big deal?
It's the homosexual perverted agenda that's making this a big deal.

The persecution has always been here.
Catholics that cannot see this, must think about this long and hard.


(I am laughing out of incredulity of the times ) I cannot believe we are arguing over this issue.
THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING TO ARGUE ABOUT.




 
Quote:only one person was ever killed by God for a sexual sin and that was Onan.

True, but God also expressly approved Phineas' killing of seductress Canaanites and seduced Israelites.

Not that numbers matter in the least here.

In any case, the person with whom you ought to be sympathizing here is the priest-- no question.  And of course, we should pray for both.
Revixit, with what has been revealed in the last few days, do you still stand by your op?  Just curious.
(03-03-2012, 08:25 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Onanism is usually a synonym for masturbation.  Onan's sin is quite often committed today, and by Fisheaters, I'm sure.  Rarely does anyone give up that particular sin, either.  Should those who commit Onan's sin be denied absolution when they confess it and answer honestly how often they've committed it?   Should they therefore be denied Communion throughout their lives?

Think on that.  Think long and hard on it.

It seems to me that you are completely confused.

If someone has masturbated and is truly penitent and sorrowful for having done so, and resolves firmly to amend his life and sin no more, then that person makes their confession, receives absolution, and then may receive Holy Communion. Similarly, someone who has committed homosexual acts, and is truly penitent and sorrowful for having done so, and resolves firmly to amend his life and sin no more, and who then makes their confession and receives absolution,  may receive Holy Communion.  Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with a homosexual partner or continuing to frequent gay bars and nightclubs would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment.

This really isn't that hard to understand. So I don't know why you are attempting to conflate the situation of an unrepentant, active, militant homosexual with that of a person who has truly repented and been absolved of a serious sin.

What is your real motivation?

(03-03-2012, 09:22 PM)wsxyz Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2012, 08:25 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Onanism is usually a synonym for masturbation.  Onan's sin is quite often committed today, and by Fisheaters, I'm sure.  Rarely does anyone give up that particular sin, either.  Should those who commit Onan's sin be denied absolution when they confess it and answer honestly how often they've committed it?   Should they therefore be denied Communion throughout their lives?

Think on that.  Think long and hard on it.

It seems to me that you are completely confused.

If someone has masturbated and is truly penitent and sorrowful for having done so, and resolves firmly to amend his life and sin no more, then that person makes their confession, receives absolution, and then may receive Holy Communion. Similarly, someone who has committed homosexual acts, and is truly penitent and sorrowful for having done so, and resolves firmly to amend his life and sin no more, and who then makes their confession and receives absolution,  may receive Holy Communion.  Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with a homosexual partner or continuing to frequent gay bars and nightclubs would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment.

This really isn't that hard to understand. So I don't know why you are attempting to conflate the situation of an unrepentant, active, militant homosexual with that of a person who has truly repented and been absolved of a serious sin.

What is your real motivation?

I'm not sure there are any truly repentant masturbators; I say anybody who's only confessed masturbation once or twice is a liar. It's really difficult for people to give up sexual sins because humans have such strong sex drives.  


And you're saying that for the homosexual "Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with a homosexual partner or continuing to frequent gay bars and nightclubs would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment."


In fairness, then, I'd say that for the masturbator "Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with your right hand (or left hand if you're a southpaw, both if you're ambidextrous), continuing to frequent bars and nightclubs, to watch T & A shows or movies, Victoria's Secret commercials, to look at Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, porn mags would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment."


(03-03-2012, 08:25 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Many people may have thought He was a fool because He associated with people who were looked down upon in the society they lived in, as homosexuals are today.  [And for the millionth time, Christ corrected sinners clearly and boldy spoke about what awaited the unreprentant.]

About homosexuals never deserving absolution, as has been suggested… [By whom?  No one here has suggested this.]  I've been thinking and
to the best of my recall, only one person was ever killed by God for a sexual sin and that was Onan. [First of all, the closer to the Garden, the more immediate the punishment.  Second, the inhabitants of Soddom and Gomora received deadly punishment for almost certainly acts that included homosexual sin.  Also, the Flood punished man for sins that likely largely included disordered passions of this sort.]His sin has been interpreted by the Church as coitus interruptus (therefore making all contraception wrong) and as masturbation.  But Onanism is usually a synonym for masturbation.  Onan's sin is quite often committed today, and by Fisheaters, I'm sure.  Rarely does anyone give up that particular sin, either.  Should those who commit Onan's sin be denied absolution when they confess it and answer honestly how often they've committed it?   Should they therefore be denied Communion throughout their lives? [If the person 'confessing' were to say 'I'm not sorry' or 'I don't agree that it's a sin' then the Priest is to instruct the penitent and if he remains obstinant not give absolution.  One must show some contrition for sin and if someone does not then there was no confession.  The woman in question chose to A) make her mother's funeral about her and in particular her disordered and intrinsically evil lifestyle B) did the former in a particularly rude and public manner C) appears to have had an agenda as this immediately got relayed to the media.]
Think on that.  Think long and hard on it.

Comments inset in maroon.
(03-03-2012, 10:41 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2012, 09:22 PM)wsxyz Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-03-2012, 08:25 PM)Revixit Wrote: [ -> ]Onanism is usually a synonym for masturbation.  Onan's sin is quite often committed today, and by Fisheaters, I'm sure.  Rarely does anyone give up that particular sin, either.  Should those who commit Onan's sin be denied absolution when they confess it and answer honestly how often they've committed it?   Should they therefore be denied Communion throughout their lives?

Think on that.  Think long and hard on it.

It seems to me that you are completely confused.

If someone has masturbated and is truly penitent and sorrowful for having done so, and resolves firmly to amend his life and sin no more, then that person makes their confession, receives absolution, and then may receive Holy Communion. Similarly, someone who has committed homosexual acts, and is truly penitent and sorrowful for having done so, and resolves firmly to amend his life and sin no more, and who then makes their confession and receives absolution,  may receive Holy Communion.  Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with a homosexual partner or continuing to frequent gay bars and nightclubs would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment.

This really isn't that hard to understand. So I don't know why you are attempting to conflate the situation of an unrepentant, active, militant homosexual with that of a person who has truly repented and been absolved of a serious sin.

What is your real motivation?

I'm not sure there are any truly repentant masturbators; I say anybody who's only confessed masturbation once or twice is a liar. It's really difficult for people to give up sexual sins because humans have such strong sex drives.  


And you're saying that for the homosexual "Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with a homosexual partner or continuing to frequent gay bars and nightclubs would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment."


In fairness, then, I'd say that for the masturbator "Of course this penitence must include separation from near occasions of sin and of scandalous living circumstances. Continuing to live with your right hand (or left hand if you're a southpaw, both if you're ambidextrous), continuing to frequent bars and nightclubs, to watch T & A shows or movies, Victoria's Secret commercials, to look at Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, porn mags would be evidence of a lack of penitence and a lack of firm purpose of amendment."

One's mode of masturbation isn't a near occassion of sin.  Right or left hand, whatever, lust is of the heart and instigated through many mediums-- not one's hand.  A person doesn't look at their hand all of a sudden become overwhelmed with horniness.  It's like saying if a person struggles with gluttony they should remove their stomach.

Of course to the other things you mentioned as being occasions of sin, yes.  What's your point?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11