Bishop, Canonist: Gay Unions Among Sins Barring Communion

Catholic News Agency ^ | 9/25/14 | Matt Hadro

[marshmallow]

Lewistown, Montana, Sep 25, 2014 / 04:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The denial of Holy Communion to a same-sex couple who obtained a marriage license is in line with broader Church teaching on public grave sin and the Eucharist, explained a prominent canon lawyer.

The provision that supports this pastor’s action is Canon 915, which “directs ministers of holy Communion to withhold the sacrament from those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’,” Dr. Edward Peters told CNA.

The case in question involves Fr. Samuel Spiering of St. Leo the Great parish in Lewistown, Montana, where a same-sex couple who volunteered at the parish had obtained a marriage license 15 months prior in Seattle.

Local newspapers had reported the details of the story, and CNA confirmed those details with the vicar general of the diocese.

After he arrived at the parish, Fr. Spiering met with the couple face-to-face to discuss their marriage license. When he confirmed that they had obtained the license, Fr. Spiering told them that they could not receive Holy Communion or continue to volunteer in the parish ministries.

[marshmallow]

Paging Cardinal Donald Wuerl.......

[NorthMountain]

Duh!

[Viennacon]

Okay, so its definitely time to excommunicate Dolan

[GonzoII]

"Gay Unions Among Sins Barring Communion"

Hey, what's up here?? You have to have a gloomy marriage to receive Communion now!!??

[Kolokotronis]

I am sincerely curious. Is it the fact that these two applied for a marriage license or that they cohabit in a gay physical relationship without the benefit of marriage or that they cohabit in a physical relationship without reference to the orientation without the benefit of marriage which caused the problem? Are the rules the same for straight couples?

For us, any cohabitation with a physical element outside of marriage is sufficient to bar one from communion, and the other sacraments for that matter, though from what I see around here that isn’t true for the Latins. I confess I do not know about gay cohabitating couples in the Latin Church in the area but gays are certainly involved in the Latin parishes as they are in ours.

[NYer]

FULL TEXT

Lewistown, Montana, Sep 25, 2014 / 04:50 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The denial of Holy Communion to a same-sex couple who obtained a marriage license is in line with broader Church teaching on public grave sin and the Eucharist, explained a prominent canon lawyer.

The provision that supports this pastor’s action is Canon 915, which “directs ministers of holy Communion to withhold the sacrament from those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’,” Dr. Edward Peters told CNA.

The case in question involves Fr. Samuel Spiering of St. Leo the Great parish in Lewistown, Montana, where a same-sex couple who volunteered at the parish had obtained a marriage license 15 months prior in Seattle.

Local newspapers had reported the details of the story, and CNA confirmed those details with the vicar general of the diocese.

After he arrived at the parish, Fr. Spiering met with the couple face-to-face to discuss their marriage license. When he confirmed that they had obtained the license, Fr. Spiering told them that they could not receive Holy Communion or continue to volunteer in the parish ministries.

Many in the town were upset and some left the parish. Fr. Jay Peterson, the Vicar General of the diocese, acknowledged that the couple was “extremely popular and deeply engaged” at the parish and in the town.

The diocese’s Bishop Michael William Warfel then held a meeting to discuss the matter, and around 300 attended. Fr. Peterson said the audience “was quite divided” with half supporting Fr. Spiering’s decision and the other half upset over the move.

“We uphold Catholic Church teaching on Matrimony,” Fr. Peterson told CNA, adding that Bishop Warfel is defending traditional marriage because “as a bishop, he’s bound by his office to speak the truth.”

Dr. Peters explained how the couple’s behavior met the conditions for Fr. Spiering to deny them Holy Communion under Canon 915.

Under Catholic teaching, there are many types of mortal sin that would prevent someone from being in the state of grace necessary to receive Holy Communion. These include the sexual sins of fornication, adultery, homosexual actions, use of artificial contraception, and civil remarriage after a divorce without an annulment.

However, Peters emphasized that the law only deals with “gravely wrong public behavior” and not cases where a priest must “read souls.” Obtaining a same-sex marriage license is both gravely wrong and public, he said.

“The public conduct in this case is two members of the same sex attempting what some states recognize as marriage,” Peters explained. “The Church teaches with infallible certainty that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. To act in this way against this core Catholic teaching is to fulfill the conditions laid out in canon 915, forcing the minister’s hand.”

But Canon 915 doesn’t apply only to cases of same-sex “marriage,” Peters insisted. Rather, it applies to a broader array of “gravely wrong public behavior,” like Catholic politicians supporting pro-abortion legislation and “Catholics who remarry civilly after divorcing” without an annulment.

In light of the situation going public, Bishop Warfel defended Church teaching on marriage in an article published in the September-October issue of The Harvest, the official Catholic newspaper for eastern Montana.

“Why does the Church insist upon upholding its teaching on marriage as between one man and one woman? First of all, Church teaching is never based on trends in society, but on truth,” the bishop wrote.

This truth is based not only upon Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition,” he added, but upon Natural Law.

“Marriage entails not only a unitive dimension between the partners but also a procreative dimension,” the bishop wrote. “It is about more than the emotional attachment that two persons may have for each other.”

Thus, marriage is also about the good of the children – who cannot come about through a same-sex union.

“While this certainly is not always what is found in society, a stable, loving relationship between a father and a mother is the best pattern for providing a stable and healthy society,” Bishop Warfel continued.

“Pope Francis spoke strongly against same-sex marriage when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires. He referred to it as an ‘anthropological regression’,” the bishop added.

“Standing firm that marriage can take place solely between a man and a woman makes an irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society.”
 

---

[Salvation]

Thanks for posting the full article.

[annalex]

See the full text below your post:

Under Catholic teaching, there are many types of mortal sin that would prevent someone from being in the state of grace necessary to receive Holy Communion. These include the sexual sins of fornication, adultery, homosexual actions, use of artificial contraception, and civil remarriage after a divorce without an annulment.

However, Peters emphasized that the law only deals with “gravely wrong public behavior” and not cases where a priest must “read souls.” Obtaining a same-sex marriage license is both gravely wrong and public, he said.

If two unmarried people (of any combination of sexes) share the same address, seem to stick together and show up in church, the pastor may suspect a sexual aspect to exist in their relationship but he would not know unless they confess it. If they are involved sexually and still come to Communion, they commit a grave sin but outwardly there is no scandal: the sin remains private; the priest does not aggravate the situation by allowing them to Communion since he "cannot read souls".

If the same couple make a public act that makes their sexual involvement a publicly known fact, then the priest must not allow them communion because otherwise he, the priest, would be contributing to a scandal for the Church.

It is said sometimes that a private sin excommunicates by itself, whereas a public and obstinate sin requires a formal excommunication in order to not only rescue the sinner but also to avoid additional sin of giving scandal.

[Kolokotronis]

Thank-you. I suppose it is usually easier for us. Most parishes are pretty much “the village” and we all tend to know each other’s situations. Even if we don’t as lay people, the priest knows. But again, our parishes tend to be small and very close knit, though even in big parishes it is expected that someone attending regularly will register and part of that process is social and religious history so the priest will know. I once watched a young fellow strut into church with his very pregnant, then girlfriend now wife, on his arm. At the appropriate time he approached for communion and the priest refused him. Saw a priest do it to an openly gay couple once also. I honestly don’t think “gay marriage”, licensed or otherwise has anything to do with it for us. Marriage is a sacrament of The Church. Everything else is at best adultery.

[annalex]

the priest refused him

Right, in a traditional localized parish things are easier. Note, however, that a "very pregnant" girlfriend is just as much a public scandal as a gay "married" couple, so you did not provide a contrasting example. But there are two peculiarly Western circumstances here: (1) Roman Catholics especially in metropolitan areas attend not the canonical district parish but rather the parish the parish that resonates with them; (2) when a Roman Catholic refuses communion for any reason at all, it's instantly in the media and a national issue.

[Kolokotronis]

Note, however, that a "very pregnant" girlfriend is just as much a public scandal as a gay "married" couple

In all honesty, the "gay marriage" part is no more (or less) a "public scandal" as we are using the term than an Orthodox person "married" in a non sacramental manner by some ecclesial community, at least insofar as The Church is concerned. Neither are marriage, Alex, and both bar one from communion.

I have a friend who has been a Latin priest I'd say 50 years. He always maintained that once a parish got to 200-250 families, it was time to open a new one otherwise the fact of "community" of the assembly of the People of God, gets lost.

[annalex]

Neither are marriage

There is a distinction. For sure, when an Orthodox or a Catholic is '"married" in a non sacramental manner by some ecclesial community' (or by some state functionary) it is not a marriage and should the question arise, the Church will annul the union.

However, a homosexual couple that is "married" under some legal construct cannot even ask for annulment.

In the first case the Church would presume a validity and working from that assumption will discover nullity. If the purported marriage was not sacramental, the discovery process would complete almost as soon as it started, but still it is a process of discovery that starts with presumption of validity. For example, if such spouse does not ask for annulment, the Church views them as married couple. If the canonical invalidity of their marriage comes to light, the Church will encourage them to consecrate their marriage. I don't think they will even be asked to separate for a while (correct me if I am wrong).

No such presumption can be made about a homosexual couple.

That is, of course, in complete accordance with the natural law. When a man fornicates with a woman, their sin is in yielding to a natural impulse, which is in itself healthy. When a homosexual act is committed, the sin is in the homosexual appetite itself, and secondarily in the lack of self-control. It is therefore a greater sin because it is a compounded sin.

[annalex]

Another aspect is not about the canon, but about the pastoral duty of the Church. The governments do not attack the Church for doing the sacraments (yet); they attack the mankind, really, and the Church at its forefront, for opposition to homosexual sin. Naturally, the Church responds to the particular attack that is underway.

[Kolokotronis]

We do not annul non sacramental unions. Let’s say a couple of protestants, “married” by the Rev. Billy Bob Jeff and his snake, want to become Orthodox. Among other things, it is likely that a period of continence and confession will be required followed by a sacramental marriage or perhaps a sacramental blessing of the existing union. At that point, the now Orthodox couple can be admitted to communion.

[annalex]

Right, the Eastern Church does not use annulment (or something analogous) because it allows remarriage anyway. If the Roman Catholic Church only looked at the canonical form it would not need annulment either. But we look at complicated cases, when the canonical form was present but the marriage was in some way flawed; for example, if an agreement existed to always use contraception, or to allow for adulterous affairs. It would be unfair to count such malformed marriages as binding.

[Kolokotronis]

Right, the Eastern Church does not use annulment (or something analogous) because it allows remarriage anyway.

Well, yes & no. We allow 3 marriages no matter how the first two end (been doing that for well over 1000 years; and while we do not have annulments, we do have, and require in the event that the separating spouses are alive, ecclesiastical divorces. Ecclesiastical divorces are not as easy to get as a civil divorce but it can be done by an exercise of economia by local hierarch.

[Zionist Conspirator]

We do not annul non sacramental unions. Let’s say a couple of protestants, “married” by the Rev. Billy Bob Jeff and his snake

That little ethno-cultural slur, worthy of Huffington Post or DU, was altogether uncalled-for.

You really don't like us rednecks, do you, Kolo? I suppose we're the only ethnic group excluded from "chrstian love."

American Fundamentalists, see what your "fellow conservatives" and "fellow chrstians" really think of you!

[annalex]

we do have, and require in the event that the separating spouses are alive, ecclesiastical divorces.

I stand corrected; my "allows remarriage anyway" was an unfortunate shorthand for a process that I knew to be quite elaborate.

[annalex]

Someone who intentionally mangles the name of Christ is surely in a good position to sort out “ethno-cultural slurs”. The above statement is an anti-Noachide slur.

On the subject matter of Protestant marriage I indeed meant to comment but somehow forgot. The Western Church considers all apparent (i.e. if by the behavior of the spouses they appear traditional) marriages, even by a justice of the peace, valid by presumption. If two Protestants had been married in their place of worship, and then for some reason seek a Catholic annulment, they won’t be able to use the argument that it was not a canonical Catholic sacramental marriage. The Church may annul their marriage or it may not; the fact that two Protestants marry in a Protestant church is, if anything, a statement of the seriousness of their intention at the time and may even make their annulment more difficult.

If, however, a Roman Catholic marries in violation of the canonical form, for example, in a Protestant Church or generally anywhere outside the Catholic Church, then the marriage is still presumed valid in the sense that he does not needs to confess fornication each time he shares a bed with his civil wife. However, should one spouse seek annulment it will be nearly instantaneous because of the lack of canonicity at its inception.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Someone who intentionally mangles the name of Christ is surely in a good position to sort out “ethno-cultural slurs”. The above statement is an anti-Noachide slur.

I am not objecting to "anti-Noachide slurs." I am objecting to the use of tired old elitist liberal cliches on a forum supposedly for conservative Americans. America's rural (especially Southern) Fundamentalist Protestants take enough guff from the mainstream media. There is no need for them to take it on Free Republic as well. Any reference to a "bead fumbler" would have been met with shrill cries of bigotry.

I myself disagree most profoundly with rural American Fundamentalist Protestants. But I respect them, and I don't engage in childish invective that belongs in a New Orleans "gay pride" parade rather than on a conservative web forum.

You were not the offender and I don't hold you responsible. It is disheartening, however, to see you acquiesce to such despicable language. Shame on you for that.