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

[james&olya 1,121]

as long as they respect the rights of non-catholics to not be subjected to their rules and policy.

Voila! So Mr Xebec, we agree on this!

Edited March 3, 2012 by james&olya

[xebec 195]

Voila! So Mr Xebec, we agree on this!

We do indeed

[james&olya 1,121]

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

They really are not hard to find, I am sure you can do it without somebody holding your hand!

[xebec 195]

They really are not hard to find, I am sure you can do it without somebody holding your hand!

You made the claim. Back it up....it's the adult thing to do.

[james&olya 1,121]

You made the claim. Back it up....it's the adult thing to do.

No, I think you need to do this one yourself.

[xebec 195]

No, I think you need to do this one yourself.

So....you got nothing. Clear. This has been a blast, but I don't want to continue spamming Mister Fancypant's thread with this silliness..

Edited March 3, 2012 by xebec

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

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.

The Church has a history of being on the wrong side of the truth, only to admit so a couple of centuries later. There are modern Catholic theologians who have addressed the issue of whether a gay, monogamous couple's love for one another is holy, just as theologians over the centuries have had spiritual foresight long before the Church finally accepted such truths. But again, if someone isn't Catholic or hasn't studied the religion, trying to understand Church doctrine and how it applies to Catholics is almost futile.

As for accepting that homosexuality is not a choice, sorry, but that isn't just an opinion, that's an accepted scientific fact, just as heterosexuality is not something you freely choose. That's why the Catholic Church does not believe it is a sin. That website that I referred to - the author is a former priest and theologian. One of the greatest setbacks of the Catholic Church was when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and the Church become much more authoritative that it had previously been. Even among the Apostles, during the early history of the Church, they argued and bickered over issues, like whether certain meat is unclean (Jewish tradition), or whether male circumcision was necessary for someone's salvation. So, for modern Catholics such as myself, to openly question the Church's official position on such things like gay marriage is not some new trend - it's been going on since the Church first came into existence. I personally do not see any benefit for a follower of any religion to show blind obedience to dogma. The only true authority is God and ultimately, we must decide for ourselves where truth leads us. That doesn't mean we just decide for ourselves regardless of religion doctrine, but it means we intellectually grapple with what truth is and beyond God, no religion or person has solid grasp of truth (spiritually).

[james&olya 1,121]

So....you got nothing. Clear.

It will do no good for me to waste my time analyzing again your words and arguments, especially as you like to selectively re-define words when somebody pins you down. I don't have the time to waste as it will do nothing for me. If you want to say you win the argument I am sure you will do so and believe just that.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The Church has a history of being on the wrong side of the truth, only to admit so a couple of centuries later. There are modern Catholic theologians who have addressed the issue of whether a gay, monogamous couple's love for one another is holy, just as theologians over the centuries have had spiritual foresight long before the Church finally accepted such truths. But again, if someone isn't Catholic or hasn't studied the religion, trying to understand Church doctrine and how it applies to Catholics is almost futile.

As for accepting that homosexuality is not a choice, sorry, but that isn't just an opinion, that's an accepted scientific fact, just as heterosexuality is not something you freely choose. That's why the Catholic Church does not believe it is a sin. That website that I referred to - the author is a former priest and theologian. One of the greatest setbacks of the Catholic Church was when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and the Church become much more authoritative that it had previously been. Even among the Apostles, during the early history of the Church, they argued and bickered over issues, like whether certain meat is unclean (Jewish tradition), or whether male circumcision was necessary for someone's salvation. So, for modern Catholics such as myself, to openly question the Church's official position on such things like gay marriage is not some new trend - it's been going on since the Church first came into existence. I personally do not see any benefit for a follower of any religion to show blind obedience to dogma. The only true authority is God and ultimately, we must decide for ourselves where truth leads us. That doesn't mean we just decide for ourselves regardless of religion doctrine, but it means we intellectually grapple with what truth is and beyond God, no religion or person has solid grasp of truth (spiritually).

Modern Roman Catholic Theologians right? Homosexuality isn't a grey area in the Holy Bible. It's cut and dry on that issue. You can twist it and turn it anyway you want, but if your a Real Roman Catholic who abides by the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and the Vatican then you know as well as I do that the Roman Catholic Church see's homosexuality as an abomination.

You ever read the Holy Bible Steven? Try reading it and then get back to us on the homosexual issue with the Roman Catholic Church. There's only one Roman Catholic Church, and only one Vatican.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Why_Me

[xebec 195]

The Church has a history of being on the wrong side of the truth, only to admit so a couple of centuries later. There are modern Catholic theologians who have addressed the issue of whether a gay, monogamous couple's love for one another is holy, just as theologians over the centuries have had spiritual foresight long before the Church finally accepted such truths. But again, if someone isn't Catholic or hasn't studied the religion, trying to understand Church doctrine and how it applies to Catholics is almost futile.

As for accepting that homosexuality is not a choice, sorry, but that isn't just an opinion, that's an accepted scientific fact, just as heterosexuality is not something you freely choose. That's why the Catholic Church does not believe it is a sin. That website that I referred to - the author is a former priest and theologian. One of the greatest setbacks of the Catholic Church was when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity and the Church become much more authoritative that it had previously been. Even among the Apostles, during the early history of the Church, they argued and bickered over issues, like whether certain meat is unclean (Jewish tradition), or whether male circumcision was necessary for someone's salvation. So, for modern Catholics such as myself, to openly question the Church's official position on such things like gay marriage is not some new trend - it's been going on since the Church first came into existence. I personally do not see any benefit for a follower of any religion to show blind obedience to dogma. The only true authority is God and ultimately, we must decide for ourselves where truth leads us. That doesn't mean we just decide for ourselves regardless of religion doctrine, but it means we intellectually grapple with what truth is and beyond God, no religion or person has solid grasp of truth (spiritually).

You know, while I don't concede it as "accepted scientific fact" that homosexual inclinations are inherent (see this link on the ongoing debate http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html ), I do concede that there is much wisdom in the remainder of your statement. But it deviates from the original topic which was whether the priest in question was wrong for denying communion.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

You know, while I don't concede it as "accepted scientific fact" that homosexual inclinations are inherent (see this link on the ongoing debate http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html ), I do concede that there is much wisdom in the remainder of your statement. But it deviates from the original topic which was whether the priest in question was wrong for denying communion.

Roman Catholic priest have an obligation to abide by the rules and doctrine of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. That is why they are priest in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and not door knockers for Acorn. Steven can't seem to understand this obvious fact for some reason.

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

You know, while I don't concede it as "accepted scientific fact" that homosexual inclinations are inherent (see this link on the ongoing debate http://allpsych.com/...osexuality.html ), I do concede that there is much wisdom in the remainder of your statement. But it deviates from the original topic which was whether the priest in question was wrong for denying communion.

Because priests don't have x-ray glasses that allow them to peer into ones soul, to know whether a person is worthy or not of receiving communion. There are a myriad of circumstances when a Catholic is instructed by the Church not to come up to receive communion, but that is ultimately up to the individual and God. A priest making the assumption that some people are worthy to receive communion while others are not based on outward appearance runs counter to the Church's teachings. Jesus dined with prostitutes and tax collectors. If He were here today, who do you think he'd most likely dine with? The righteous or the sinners?

Edited March 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Because priests don't have x-ray glasses that allow them to peer into ones soul, to know whether a person is worthy or not of receiving communion. There are a myriad of circumstances when a Catholic is instructed by the Church not to come up to receive communion, but that is ultimately up to the individual and God. A priest making the assumption that some people are worthy to receive communion while others are not based on outward appearance runs counter to the Church's teachings. Jesus dined with prostitutes and tax collectors. If He were here today, who do you think he'd most likely dine with? The righteous or the sinners?

The Holy Roman Catholic Church see's homosexuality as a sin and an abomination in Gods eyes according the the Holy Bible, so why would a priest of the Holy Roman Catholic Church give communion to a homosexual?

[xebec 195]

Because priests don't have x-ray glasses that allow them to peer into ones soul, to know whether a person is worthy or not of receiving communion. There are a myriad of circumstances when a Catholic is instructed by the Church not to come up to receive communion, but that is ultimately up to the individual and God. A priest making the assumption that some people are worthy to receive communion while others are not based on outward appearance runs counter to the Church's teachings. Jesus dined with prostitutes and tax collectors. If He were here today, who do you think he'd most likely dine with? The righteous or the sinners?

That is not true. Here is an excerpt from the Vatican's own instructions:

[82.] Moreover, “the Church has drawn up norms aimed at fostering the frequent and fruitful access of the faithful to the Eucharistic table and at determining the objective conditions under which Communion may not be given”.[165]

[83.] It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should receive Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ’s faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter IV

And, for the sake of clarity, the reference to "indiscriminately" is not about organization, but about self-examination on the part of Catholics:

The Church’s custom shows that it is necessary for each person to examine himself at depth,[163] and that anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession, except for grave reason when the possibility of confession is lacking; in this case he will remember that he is bound by the obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, which includes the intention to confess as soon as possible

Edited March 3, 2012 by xebec

[Danno 1,228]

That is not true. Here is an excerpt from the Vatican's own instructions:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter IV

And, for the sake of clarity, the reference to "indiscriminately" is not about organization, but about self-examination on the part of Catholics:

Finally we got something posted here that goes beyond guesswork and in Steves Case "hope"....... hope that one day the Church will "get it right" by blessing an couple (or more) who really love each other.

After all "love" is the test right..... or is that more Hippy Jesus stuff?