Married gay man denied communion at mother's funeral
#21
(07-28-2015, 03:19 AM)xandratax Wrote: I'm confused about the refusing Communion thing. How can a priest even know, who to refuse and who not to refuse? Wouldn't it get silly for each person's state of grace to be tested beforehand? How can that even be done? In the end, it's the responsibility of each individual to know for themselves, if they should or should not receive. And it's the priest job to make that clear through preaching. Obviously, I can understand refusal in the case where it's known to the priest, but at funerals and other such events, where a lot of people from outside the parish tend to show up, how can the priest know? Wouldn't it introduce a kind of Stalinist atmosphere into the Church if priests were told to look on everyone who comes up to Communion with suspicion?

I think we can be assured, in any case, that people like the man in the article, will have to answer and pay for for their careless and blasphemous actions in the afterlife.

The priest does have the duty to protect the Eucharist. Back in the day deacons would actually drive out the profane (anyone in a state of mortal sin, etc.) from the Church after the catechumen Mass. How did they know? I suppose the person would kinda tell them they're not up to it or they would leave themselves, or they were public sinners.
In the case of a public sinner I don't think there's much to be debated.

(07-28-2015, 09:52 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-28-2015, 03:19 AM)xandratax Wrote: I'm confused about the refusing Communion thing. How can a priest even know, who to refuse and who not to refuse? Wouldn't it get silly for each person's state of grace to be tested beforehand? How can that even be done? In the end, it's the responsibility of each individual to know for themselves, if they should or should not receive. And it's the priest job to make that clear through preaching. Obviously, I can understand refusal in the case where it's known to the priest, but at funerals and other such events, where a lot of people from outside the parish tend to show up, how can the priest know? Wouldn't it introduce a kind of Stalinist atmosphere into the Church if priests were told to look on everyone who comes up to Communion with suspicion?

I think we can be assured, in any case, that people like the man in the article, will have to answer and pay for for their careless and blasphemous actions in the afterlife.

In many Orthodox parishes, a person will be refused communion if the priest has not recently seen them in confession.  This seems to work pretty well.

That might work if you're the only priest around, but many folks, due to the available hours, etc., do not confess with one priest in one parish.
Reply
#22
(07-28-2015, 10:04 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-28-2015, 03:42 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: If a "married" (in the eyes of the state) homosexual couple decides they would like to live chastely and become reconciled with the Church, would they be required to live separately and go through a legal divorce? Or could they remain extremely close friends with a co-living arrangement, and even remain legally married?

So, the boyfriend I mentioned a few years ago that caused many of the fake Catholics, who later fled over to WCF, to rip their garments and put on sackcloth and ash in true Pharisaic pomp, he and I are still together, living in the same apartment.  But we have not done anything sexual with each other in over a year, and don't sleep in the same room.  When I recently returned to the Church, the priest I confessed to, who is extremely traditional, said he has no problem with us living together if sexual activity is unlikely to occur.  So, I assume that people would be allowed to live together as long as they are trying to remain chaste and going to confession immediately if they slip up.  If they are legally married, I imagine the priest would want to know if they believed it constituted an actual marriage or if they recognized that it was only a binding legal contract that had no significance as far as the Church is concerned.
Did the priest approve this as a permanent living situation or as more of a transitional one?
Reply
#23
Maybe those parishes should be broken up into smaller parishes?  The Orthodox priest definitely has a more paternal relationship with his parishioners than many Catholic priests.  For these Catholic mega churches, it seems the pastors role is often limited to a bureaucratic one.
Reply
#24
(07-28-2015, 10:06 AM)Papist Wrote:
(07-28-2015, 10:04 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-28-2015, 03:42 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: If a "married" (in the eyes of the state) homosexual couple decides they would like to live chastely and become reconciled with the Church, would they be required to live separately and go through a legal divorce? Or could they remain extremely close friends with a co-living arrangement, and even remain legally married?

So, the boyfriend I mentioned a few years ago that caused many of the fake Catholics, who later fled over to WCF, to rip their garments and put on sackcloth and ash in true Pharisaic pomp, he and I are still together, living in the same apartment.  But we have not done anything sexual with each other in over a year, and don't sleep in the same room.  When I recently returned to the Church, the priest I confessed to, who is extremely traditional, said he has no problem with us living together if sexual activity is unlikely to occur.  So, I assume that people would be allowed to live together as long as they are trying to remain chaste and going to confession immediately if they slip up.  If they are legally married, I imagine the priest would want to know if they believed it constituted an actual marriage or if they recognized that it was only a binding legal contract that had no significance as far as the Church is concerned.
Did the priest approve this as a permanent living situation or as more of a transitional one?

There wasn't really a definition on that.  At first he asked me if it was possible for me to move or if I was stuck in the living situation.  This was before I told him that we had not been sexually active for over a year.  Then he told me he was ok with us living together if we are able to refrain from having sex.  He did not tell me I needed to move out as soon as I am able to.
Reply
#25
(07-28-2015, 10:10 AM)Melkite Wrote: Maybe those parishes should be broken up into smaller parishes?  The Orthodox priest definitely has a more paternal relationship with his parishioners than many Catholic priests.  For these Catholic mega churches, it seems the pastors role is often limited to a bureaucratic one.
Do you think we have enough priests to staff all of those smaller parishes?
Reply
#26
(07-28-2015, 10:10 AM)Melkite Wrote: Maybe those parishes should be broken up into smaller parishes?  The Orthodox priest definitely has a more paternal relationship with his parishioners than many Catholic priests.  For these Catholic mega churches, it seems the pastors role is often limited to a bureaucratic one.

In an ideal world, that'd be great.  This ain't an ideal world--far, far from it.  And, given the shortage of priests and priestly vocations, it just plain wouldn't work.
Reply
#27
Speaking as someone who never gets the Sacrament at Communion (because I'm not officially Catholic yet), I think that we should stop with this reactionary phrasing of 'refusing' or 'denying' someone Communion. It makes it sound a lot worse than it is. A person who doesn't receive gets blessed by the priest. I don't see how that's something negative or offensive. If the priest didn't even bless a person, but merely passed by as if he didn't exist, or pointed the person to the door, I could understand what the uproar would be about. But really, at the heart of this incident is that a person was blessed instead of being given the Sacrament. What's to get all flustered about it? This happens all the time.

And if there are clergy getting angry about public sinners claiming that they were 'refused' at Communion, they have only themselves to blame for not preaching clearly about the sanctity of the Sacrament. You would think that thinks like this would be a wake-up for them. Though the layman who started this is himself blameworthy, let's blame also the vagueness and lax attitude of the present clergy, for misleading people into making such mistakes, by neglecting to preach to the truth.
Reply
#28
(07-28-2015, 12:55 PM)xandratax Wrote: Speaking as someone who never gets the Sacrament at Communion (because I'm not officially Catholic yet)

I didn't realize that.  It's an exciting, yet frustrating, time isn't it?  I'll be praying for you!

(07-28-2015, 12:55 PM)xandratax Wrote: And if there are clergy getting angry about public sinners claiming that they were 'refused' at Communion, they have only themselves to blame for not preaching clearly about the sanctity of the Sacrament. You would think that thinks like this would be a wake-up for them. Though the layman who started this is himself blameworthy, let's blame also the vagueness and lax attitude of the present clergy, for misleading people into making such mistakes, by neglecting to preach to the truth.

That's what really got me angry about this whole story.  The Diocese not only didn't have the priest's back, they paraded out some laywoman to basically scold him publically!  The bishop has seriously failed to perform his duty.  Father Beard should have been held up as a model for what to do in this situation, not browbeaten.
Reply
#29
Perhaps this wouldn't be such a huge deal if less people were receiving Communion regularly. Up until fairly recently it was not that common in either East or West for everyone present at every Liturgy to recieve Communion. Maybe I'm just too Russian in my sensibilities but I rather like the idea of infrequent Communion and serious preparation beforehand. If it weren't so common for people to recieve people wouldn't feel left out in the first place.

Frequent Communion has led to everything from the abuse of having laity in the sanctuary,an entitlement mentality amongst congregants and the trivialization and banalization of the Eucharist. I know not all see things the way I do in this matter, but just my two cents. Pius X opened up a Pandora's box that he could not have foreseen in his own more conservative time. Perhaps it's time to revisit frequent Communion.
Reply
#30
(07-28-2015, 12:55 PM)xandratax Wrote: Speaking as someone who never gets the Sacrament at Communion (because I'm not officially Catholic yet), I think that we should stop with this reactionary phrasing of 'refusing' or 'denying' someone Communion. It makes it sound a lot worse than it is. A person who doesn't receive gets blessed by the priest. I don't see how that's something negative or offensive. If the priest didn't even bless a person, but merely passed by as if he didn't exist, or pointed the person to the door, I could understand what the uproar would be about. But really, at the heart of this incident is that a person was blessed instead of being given the Sacrament. What's to get all flustered about it? This happens all the time.

And if there are clergy getting angry about public sinners claiming that they were 'refused' at Communion, they have only themselves to blame for not preaching clearly about the sanctity of the Sacrament. You would think that thinks like this would be a wake-up for them. Though the layman who started this is himself blameworthy, let's blame also the vagueness and lax attitude of the present clergy, for misleading people into making such mistakes, by neglecting to preach to the truth.

Yep, this language of refusing is already the innovation of the meal, as if one had a right to the Eucharist—no, its pure, absolute gift. Absolutely no one has a right to Communion. In the Western Rite the One is Holy is sung at the Gloria (tu solus Sanctus), quite apart from Communion, but in the Byzantine Rite they sing it close to Communion to make it more explicit: Holy things for the holy, and One is holy.

Also, I don't mean to point out the little thing in my brother's eye, but precisely the same thing happened to some Orthodox gay fella: the priest (who before gave him Communion) said if he were to present himself for communion he would not receive it. The man made some trouble about it in the internet and a bunch of Orthodox bishops sent him letters saying he could receive communion in their diocese, etc., and the bishop overseeing this priest washed his hands of the whole issue.

So, this is becoming a pattern. We should actually be surprised if the bishop had the priests' back. Actually, we should be surprised for this good priest. Let's pray for him and the remaining faithful, eh.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)