Woman: Priest denied me Communion at mom's funeral because I'm gay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did this woman ever actually say that she was engaging in homosexual 'behavior'? Being a lesbian and living with another woman in no way proves that homosexual behavior is occurring. We only ASSUME, based on human nature, that they surely must be following their NATURAL tendencies. And if you admit that this is human nature then you have admitted that it is out of their control to have these feelings, that perhaps this is how they were 'created' by their creator! What gives this priest the right to make judgments based on his own assumptions and prejudices?!

Exactly. Imagine if the priest were to put on the same 'x-ray glasses' he used on this lesbian, in order to magically see just what grave sins she's committed to keep her from taking communion and used those glasses on straight, unmarried couples? Or why stop there - perhaps he could just tell by looking at you, that you stole a couple of grand from the company you work for, or that you got so sh!t-faced on Friday night, that you were still feeling the aftereffects during Mass on Sunday? For those who are Catholic and understand, there are a myriad of sins that a person can commit which the Church says that you should not come up to receive communion, however, it has never been the job of the priest to peer into the minds of the congregation and decide for himself, which are worthy of receiving communion and which are not.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Did this woman ever actually say that she was engaging in homosexual 'behavior'? Being a lesbian and living with another woman in no way proves that homosexual behavior is occurring. We only ASSUME, based on human nature, that they surely must be following their NATURAL tendencies. And if you admit that this is human nature then you have admitted that it is out of their control to have these feelings, that perhaps this is how they were 'created' by their creator! What gives this priest the right to make judgments based on his own assumptions and prejudices?!

She probably had one of those lesbo hair cuts. The hair never lies. I can spot them a mile off.

[xebec 195]

You keep equating the term 'homosexuality' with engaging in sexual activity, which is false. It is no more wrong according to the Church as heterosexuality. Being physically attracted to someone isn't the same thing as lusting after someone.

If you're not Catholic, I'm not sure why you insist on trying to defend the Church's position on homosexuality if you don't seem to know or understand what it is. There are Catholic clergy who are gay. There are even certain churches, like the Episcopalian Church, that not only accepts gay clergy, but allows them to marry. You seem convinced, like so many RWN's, that homosexuality is some kind of moral stain on humanity and it's not. It isn't a choice any more than you being heterosexual is. An unmarried, gay couple having sex isn't sinning any more than an unmarried straight couple having sex. That's how the Church sees it - whether you agree with that or not.

I understand and acknowledge your stance on this, and it's a legitimate point of debate (particularly if you drop the immature slurs like RWN from your responses. I'm hardly "right wing" and people who disagree with you aren't necessarily nuts). Whether you choose to recognize that others hold legitimate opinions on these issues that vary from your own makes little difference.....you hold a set of opinions which shapes your argument. Again, you continue to cling to this gay activist website as the final arbiter of Church doctrine. I wonder why you aren't more skeptical? I personally agree with your opinion about whether homosexuality is innate or a learned behavior, but I also recognize that it is simply that- my opinion. That wasn't the question here, however. And to your first point, of course I defend the Church's position on homosexuality....it is their self-evident right to defend their doctrine. And it is their doctrine, despite the fact that gay activists attempt to muddy the waters by trying to redefine homosexuality vis a vis the Church (which is exactly what your gay activist website does). And, for at least the fourth time here you have employed a strawman, trying to establish that I denied the equivalency of sin regarding sexual relations outside of marriage. Finally, you mobilize yet another red herring by introducing the Episcopal Church. It seems clear now that your real issue here isn't whether the actions of this priest were appropriate to his office with the Church, but the legitimacy of Church doctrine in general. Just like in another thread, you falsely accuse me of a behavior, while repeatedly engaging in the behavior yourself.

Edited March 3, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

Did this woman ever actually say that she was engaging in homosexual 'behavior'? Being a lesbian and living with another woman in no way proves that homosexual behavior is occurring. We only ASSUME, based on human nature, that they surely must be following their NATURAL tendencies. And if you admit that this is human nature then you have admitted that it is out of their control to have these feelings, that perhaps this is how they were 'created' by their creator! What gives this priest the right to make judgments based on his own assumptions and prejudices?!

That's a good question. But the priest obviously recognized (correctly, according to the woman herself) that she was a homosexual- I saw no denial that that he had accurately determined that she was, according to the Church, persisting in a state of sin. This brings up the obvious question: Why do people wish to selectively engage in the sacraments of the Church without accepting the Church's doctrine as a whole? It would seem that this woman would love to receive the sacrament of the eucharist, but isn't interested in confession, or penance and reconciliation. Perhaps too, she would like to receive the sacrament of marriage? If being a devoted Catholic is important to this woman, why would she reject certain sacraments? Maybe....just maybe, this is simply a matter of social trappings for her. I see no reason why a priest, who clearly recognized this woman's dubious commitment to the teachings of the Church, should be expected to deviate from the responsibilities of his office in order to accommodate this person's need for "social religion." Christianity is a big tent. There is plenty of room for her in many Christian denominations, including Catholicism- but any expectation that the Church will bend it's doctrine to suit her own understanding of right and wrong is just silly.

Perhaps she should join the Episcopalians.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

That's a good question. But the priest obviously recognized (correctly, according to the woman herself) that she was a homosexual- I saw no denial that that he had accurately determined that she was, according to the Church, persisting in a state of sin. This brings up the obvious question: Why do people wish to selectively engage in the sacraments of the Church without accepting the Church's doctrine as a whole? It would seem that this woman would love to receive the sacrament of the eucharist, but isn't interested in confession, or penance and reconciliation. Perhaps too, she would like to receive the sacrament of marriage? If being a devoted Catholic is important to this woman, why would she reject certain sacraments? Maybe....just maybe, this is simply a matter of social trappings for her. I see no reason why a priest, who clearly recognized this woman's dubious commitment to the teachings of the Church, should be expected to deviate from the responsibilities of his office in order to accommodate this person's need for "social religion." Christianity is a big tent. There is plenty of room for her in many Christian denominations, including Catholicism- but any expectation that the Church will bend it's doctrine to suit her own understanding of right and wrong is just silly.

Perhaps she should join the Episcopalians.

[james&olya 1,121]

That's a good question. But the priest obviously recognized (correctly, according to the woman herself) that she was a homosexual- I saw no denial that that he had accurately determined that she was, according to the Church, persisting in a state of sin.

Wait a minute. I thought it had just been acknowledged that BEING homosexual was not the sin, only that engaging in non-procreative and non-married sexual activity was. And how exactly did the priest determine this?!

[xebec 195]

Wait a minute. I thought it had just been acknowledged that BEING homosexual was not the sin, only that engaging in non-procreative and non-married sexual activity was. And how exactly did the priest determine this?!

No, that was not acknowledged by anyone except Mister Fancypants and his gay activist website. The question of what constitutes homosexuality remains-the question of action or thought.

[james&olya 1,121]

No, that was not acknowledged by anyone except Mister Fancypants and his gay activist website. The question of what constitutes homosexuality remains-the question of action or thought.

So homosexuals are toast? Unless you are under the delusion that it can be 'cured'! No communion ever! Why not just hang a sign on the door, no homosexuals allowed!

Your version of Christianity seems so ...un-christian!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So homosexuals are toast? Unless you are under the delusion that it can be 'cured'! No communion ever! Why not just hang a sign on the door, no homosexuals allowed!

Your version of Christianity seems so ...un-christian!

Ask the Roman Catholic Church. It's their rules and their policy. Write the Vatican and ask them why they see (as many others do), homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of God. You want the Roman Catholic Church to start being PC? It's an organized religion for christ sake that uses the Holy Bible as a reference to their rules. They aren't ACORN, they aren't the mayor of San Francisco or NYC, and they aren't the Democratic party. They are the Roman Catholic Church which is headed by the Pope who happens to live at the Vatican.

[xebec 195]

So homosexuals are toast? Unless you are under the delusion that it can be 'cured'! No communion ever! Why not just hang a sign on the door, no homosexuals allowed!

Your version of Christianity seems so ...un-christian!

Missed the point again. I'll give you mulligan.

And what is my version of Christianity? (If I am a Christian).

[james&olya 1,121]

Ask the Roman Catholic Church. It's their rules and their policy. Write the Vatican and ask them why they see (as many others do), homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of God. You want the Roman Catholic Church to start being PC? It's an organized religion for christ sake that uses the Holy Bible as a reference to their rules. They aren't ACORN, they aren't the mayor of San Francisco or NYC, and they aren't the Democratic party. They are the Roman Catholic Church which is headed by the Pope who happens to live at the Vatican.

I have no argument with any of what you say. Catholics are entitled to believe and practice their religion however they want as long as they respect the rights of non-catholics to not be subjected to their rules and policy.

[james&olya 1,121]

Missed the point again. I'll give you mulligan.

And what is my version of Christianity? (If I am a Christian).

If you want me to call it I would say you are most definitely not a christian. But since that is also one of those terms with different meaning to different people it really is irrelevant.

[xebec 195]

I have no argument with any of what you say. Catholics are entitled to believe and practice their religion however they want as long as they respect the rights of non-catholics to not be subjected to their rules and policy.

Bullseye! I knew you could do it! You deserved a second chance!

[james&olya 1,121]

Missed the point again. I'll give you mulligan.

And what is my version of Christianity? (If I am a Christian).

As to your point, your arguments contain within them so many contradictions that I believe you do not effectively make any point! Unless that, in and of itself, is the point!

[xebec 195]

As to your point, your arguments contain within them so many contradictions that I believe you do not effectively make any point! Unless that, in and of itself, is the point!

Point 'em out cowgirl....I'm listening.