Posted on 03/13/2007 5:11:00 AM PDT by markomalley
GILLETTE, Wyoming(kath.net/LifeSiteNews.com) An activist lesbian couple “married” in Canada may no longer receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, after having been told by their pastor that their homosexual behavior and advocacy of same-sex unions prevent them from being Catholics in good standing.
The News-Record, a Gillette newspaper, reports that Rev. Cliff Jacobson, pastor of St. Mathew’s Catholic Church, informed Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson by letter that “because of your union and your public advocacy of same-sex unions, that you are unable to receive communion.”
Rev. Jacobson told the News-Record that Vader and Huskinson’s public advocacy of same-sex “marriage” created a public scandal mandating the church to take action with support from the Cheyenne Diocese. Vader and Huskinson, who attended St. Matthew’s since 1998 and later were “married” in Canada, wrote a number of newspaper articles advocating same-sex “marriage” and vociferously opposed a marriage bill that would prevent Wyoming from recognizing same-sex “marriages” from other states, such as their own.
“We’re not the bedroom police,” said Rev. Jacobson. “That ultimately comes between the person and God, but it puts it in a much different light with a public nature.”
“It’s the idea of scandal, we profess our faith and belief as Catholics on one level, and practice something else at a public level.”
The letter shocked Vader, who described herself as having “grown up” in the Catholic Church, attended Catholic school, and received Holy Communion every week until forbidden by Rev. Jacobson’s March 1 letter.
“This is the one food we all need,” Vader told the News-Record. “Of all the sacraments, it’s the one that should be taken frequently.”
“It’s surprising that it’s so specific and personal and being done through this letter,” Vader remarked, adding that the Church’s action “sends a big fat message to gay people.”
However, reception of Holy Communion is not a right in the Church, and the confusion created by the lesbian couple’s self-proclaimed behavior required Rev. Jacobson to enforce canon law 915: “Those [...] who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
According to the Catholic Church, same-sex “marriage” is impossible, because Divine law decrees marriage to be a permanent exclusive union of a man and a woman for their mutual assistance and the procreation of children. The Church also teaches homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and contravene God’s plan for human sexuality in marriage.
ping!
"Vader remarked, adding that the Church’s action “sends a big fat message to gay people.”
Why yes, yes it does, thank God.
Had a priest denied these lesbians Holy Communion in Canada, rather than Wyoming, he would likely have been indicted on hate crimes charges. Thank God for the First Amendment, and fight the homosexual agenda.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I'll bet her teachers are moaning right now.
Canada? Have they filed the lawsuit yet? I would expect them to claim a "right" to the Eucharist.
Do you suppose that this priest would refuse communion to an unmarried, living together couple who are manifestly sinning because they come to Mass with her pregnant? What about a Roman Catholic man or woman known to have been married in a civil ceremony? I am simply curious; I agree the priest did the right thing on three levels. First, giving the Eucharist to this woman would have caused a scandal among the faithful. Second, the woman, living in a state of grave sin, would be eating and drinking to her own condemnation and third, the priest must be the guardian of the Eucharist against profanation.
I'm sure that if this cohabitating couple were to publicly proclaim in the media and to their neighbors that they were cohabitating, and if they were demanding rights for cohabitating couples, then yes, the priest probably would deny communion.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
I find it sad and pathetic that I get so excited when any priest shows any signs of having a spine. Every priest and bishop should be doing so, and instead it seems that with ordination they have their spines replaced with jello.
*************
It appears that one of the reasons was the proselytizing of the couple in question:
"Rev. Jacobson told the News-Record that Vader and Huskinson’s public advocacy of same-sex “marriage” created a public scandal mandating the church to take action with support from the Cheyenne Diocese. Vader and Huskinson, who attended St. Matthew’s since 1998 and later were “married” in Canada, wrote a number of newspaper articles advocating same-sex “marriage” and vociferously opposed a marriage bill that would prevent Wyoming from recognizing same-sex “marriages” from other states, such as their own."
Such behaviour could be seen as an attempt to lead others astray.
“It’s surprising that it’s so specific and personal and being done through this letter,” Vader remarked, adding that the Church’s action “sends a big fat message to gay people.”
(Not to mention the message to big, fat gay people.) This reaction prompts me to speculate that at least for some people homosexuality is part of a more generalized psycho/ neuro-problem. Can it possibly have been news to her or is she just one of those people who think that Vatican II means that there are no longer any rules? I do know a former nun like that.
Yes. It's about time.
I know a priest who would refuse communion to people shacking up. I'm quite sure there would be a discussion before refusal or a letter.
"I'm sure that if this cohabitating couple were to publicly proclaim in the media and to their neighbors that they were cohabitating, and if they were demanding rights for cohabitating couples, then yes, the priest probably would deny communion."
Does it need to be that "public"? Is simply the parishioners and/or the priest knowing what's gone on sufficient? Isn't this situation far more likely in the real world than what you have suggested?
"I know a priest who would refuse communion to people shacking up. I'm quite sure there would be a discussion before refusal or a letter."
Do you think a discussion or a letter is necessary or just a good idea (which of course it is at a minimum)?
" It appears that one of the reasons was the proselytizing of the couple in question:" and
"Such behaviour could be seen as an attempt to lead others astray."
No doubt. I think that fact among others makes this an easy case. What about the unmarried pregnant couple or the civilly married couple, pregnant or otherwise?
Also, where I worship there are three priests and I'll bet close to 2k in attendance at all the Sunday Masses. It's hard to know the personal details of people when that's the ratio, unless they throw them in your face.
I think a discussion is necessary as well as a good idea. The priest needs to make certain that the couple understands the gravity of the situation. If after being made aware of said gravity, the couple persists in the sinful behavior, then the priest should refuse Communion to them.
File this under, "Well, duh!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.