Hey Leah: "I find your lack of faith, disturbing."
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.
"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."
Ah, well that's an entirely different matter. If the priest doesn't know, he simply doesn't know. But what if he does know, MD?
Yes. A discussion or letter is necessary. That said, we have no idea what was said or done before. The same thing happened when Archbishop Burke said he would refuse communion to the likes of Kerry.
"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."
The argument being that maybe the couple doesn't know the rules, I suppose or perhaps that they have now moved into separate bedrooms? Makes sense, especially the first, but if the priest is in fact aware of grave sin, what about his obligation to protect the Eucharist from profanation?
************
Good question. I confess I don't know. However, in the spirit of the thread, there is from The Holy See this:
Making homosexual relations equivalent to marriage is much more grave
(23) The truth about conjugal love also makes it possible to understand the serious social consequences of the institutionalization of homosexual relations: “We can also see how incongruous is the demand to grant ‘marital’ status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being. Another obstacle is the absence of the conditions for that interpersonal complementarity between male and female willed by the Creator at both the physical-biological and the eminently psychological levels”.[39] Marriage cannot be reduced to a condition similar to that of a homosexual relationship: this is contrary to common sense.[40] In the case of homosexual relations, which demand to be considered de facto unions, the moral and juridical consequences take on special relevance.[41] “Lastly, ‘de facto unions’ between homosexuals are a deplorable distortion of what should be a communion of love and life between a man and a woman in a reciprocal gift open to life”.[42] However, the presumption to make these unions equivalent to “legal marriage”, as some recent initiatives attempt to do, is even more serious.[43] Furthermore, the attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples adds an element of great danger to all the previous ones.[44] “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family and much less can the right be attributed to that union to adopt children without a family”.[45] To recall the social transcendence of the truth about conjugal love and consequently the grave error of recognizing or even making homosexual relations equivalent to marriage does not presume to discriminate against these persons in any way. It is the common good of society which requires the laws to recognize, favor and protect the marital union as the basis of the family which would be damaged in this way.[46]
In that case he should not give them Communion, of course. However, the Communion rail (or line, as the case may be) is not the place for a discussion or confrontation. If the priest is aware of the sinful behavior, presumably he became aware of it some time before Mass began. An attempt should be made to at least inform the couple that they should not approach the Communion rail/line when in a state of mortal sin. (This used to be common knowledge among Catholics, but the overall state of catechesis is dreadful.)
1 down, plenty left to go.
Maybe I should have said 2 down, but I was thinking in terms of couples, not singles.
The Cafeteria is Closed!
Our pastor in a recent Sunday bulletin very clearly outlined the marriage requirements and further stated that the civilly married couple were not to receive Communion until the divorce was annulled and they both were wed in the Church.
This was in response to a conversation of their status that eventually made its way back to him. Very clear and very direct. I applaud him.
Mark 14:46 "And they laid hands on him and seized him."
There have been various papers and statements about pre-marital shacking up. And I mean Pre-marital, in the sense of people who are in the process headed toward Matrimony, and all I've read is,"Don't let 'em do it, it's not right." A fortiori, cohabitation with issue would be a definite no-no that I think could lead to excommunication. I'd like to explore Baptizing the little one.
My attitude was if I thought the parents were not committed (or were, ah, committing) I tended to come on negative. But as long as there's no question of a re-baptism, I would always baptize infants. I can see me giving a line like,"Look: This sacrament imposes a responsibility on you to raise this child in the Church. That means you have to be working on our own life with Christ and His Church. In the course of this Sacrament I will be asking you to verbally make that commitment, and I"m here to tell you that it is NOT a good idea to say something you don't mean to God.
"I can't read your minds AND I want to Baptize your child. So I want you to get your stuff together and I want to help. And I caution you again against being anything less than completely truthful when you seek a sacrament. So, now, with all that said, what do you want me to do?
He said "Fishers of men" not "catchers of men." Some years ago at the request of my pastor I took under my wing a guy who wanted to be Baptized. He did all moves required in that Parish, and came to Mass about twice after his Baptism. Qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire? I gave it my best shot. He just wanted to get his ticket punched.
The teaching in the RCIA classes on sexual morality was as good as it could be given the constraints of time.
How say you?
AMEN to that priest! May God give similar intestinal fortitude to faithful ministers all across the Christian spectrum!!!
"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?"
Ours would.
"There have been various papers and statements about pre-marital shacking up. And I mean Pre-marital, in the sense of people who are in the process headed toward Matrimony, and all I've read is,"Don't let 'em do it, it's not right." A fortiori, cohabitation with issue would be a definite no-no that I think could lead to excommunication."
That's our attitude. When the priest is doing the marriage preparation counselling, if he finds out the couple is living together the rule is that it must stop immediately and the Orthodox must go to confession. The rule of thumb is no "relations" for at least 90 days before the wedding and then the couple has to look the priest in the eye and tell him they have been chaste. My understanding is that people usually comply and virtually always tell the priest the truth, or so they say. All of them say this is a good thing, but you know, I suspect its hard on young people, especially the young men, but then again, there seem to be more and more of the sort of girls we want our sons to marry who have committed themselves to chastity before marriage and the sons know that. I get the feeling that the guys are sort of proud of their girls and while not at all blue noses, a bit scornful, at least in terms of assessing a girl for a wife, of the "experienced" girls. Times have changed.
"My attitude was if I thought the parents were not committed (or were, ah, committing) I tended to come on negative. But as long as there's no question of a re-baptism, I would always baptize infants. I can see me giving a line like,"Look: This sacrament imposes a responsibility on you to raise this child in the Church. That means you have to be working on our own life with Christ and His Church. In the course of this Sacrament I will be asking you to verbally make that commitment, and I"m here to tell you that it is NOT a good idea to say something you don't mean to God."
I can't imagine a priest refusing to baptize an illegitimate child no matter what the circumstances of the parents are. There are always the godparent(s)/sponsor(s) and it is they and the parents who are responsible for the education and upbringing of the child in The Church. It is a grave responsibility which should not, though it often is, be entered into lightly. I don't know how it works these days with the Latin Church, but in Orthodoxy the godparent has to be an Orthodox Christian in good standing with The Church and that means that if the priest doesn't know you, you're going to be checked out with your home parish priest and you will need to get verification of your baptism and chrismation.
"Some years ago at the request of my pastor I took under my wing a guy who wanted to be Baptized. He did all moves required in that Parish, and came to Mass about twice after his Baptism. Qu'est-ce qu'on peut faire? I gave it my best shot. He just wanted to get his ticket punched."
It happens! I've seen it more than once in the context of what otherwise would have been mixed marriages.
"Ours would."
Ours does! :)
Godparents in the Catholic Church are required to be Catholics.
"Godparents in the Catholic Church are required to be Catholics."
Are their "bonae fides" checked out?
Yes! Finally, priests are starting to crack down on this.
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.