[Practicing, Poorly Catechized] Lesbian Denied Communion at Mother's Funeral

[VeiledPapist]

I have a question. This is more of a vague one, but it is sort of related to this topic.

I have a friend who is a strong, strong traditional, conservative Roman Catholic. He is also bisexual. He's never committed the grave sin of a homosexual act. He struggles heavily with this, but believes that the Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage is right. This guy has read much more into theology, Canon Law and eschatology than I have.
However, I notice one thing that some tend to disagree on. He's read the Catechism numerous times, and somewhere in there, there is a passage that says that, "It is alright to be gay, since that is how God made you." Is this really in the Catechism or supported by Canon law?

[domandcarols]

Originally Posted by Netty1

However, Johnson said that she will “not be satisfied” until Fr. Guarnizo is removed from his ministry. She wrote a letter telling the priest that he would “pay dearly” for “judging” her. "[/color][/i]


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/ne...es-discretion/

Wow! Who does she think she is?????

[Corki]

Originally Posted by VeiledPapist

I have a question. This is more of a vague one, but it is sort of related to this topic.

I have a friend who is a strong, strong traditional, conservative Roman Catholic. He is also bisexual. He's never committed the grave sin of a homosexual act. He struggles heavily with this, but believes that the Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage is right. This guy has read much more into theology, Canon Law and eschatology than I have.
However, I notice one thing that some tend to disagree on. He's read the Catechism numerous times, and somewhere in there, there is a passage that says that, "It is alright to be gay, since that is how God made you." Is this really in the Catechism or supported by Canon law?

It is not correct to say that the Church teaches that being "gay" is "alright". The Church teaches that homosexuality is a disordered attraction and is a cross for those afflicted to bear. "Alright" implies that it is good. The Church teaching is that it is something wrong but not at all the person's fault - unless he/she chooses to act on it.

Here's the actual Catechism quote

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by VeiledPapist

I have a question. This is more of a vague one, but it is sort of related to this topic.

I have a friend who is a strong, strong traditional, conservative Roman Catholic. He is also bisexual. He's never committed the grave sin of a homosexual act. He struggles heavily with this, but believes that the Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage is right. This guy has read much more into theology, Canon Law and eschatology than I have.
However, I notice one thing that some tend to disagree on. He's read the Catechism numerous times, and somewhere in there, there is a passage that says that, "It is alright to be gay, since that is how God made you." Is this really in the Catechism or supported by Canon law?

A lot of confusion can be avoided by taking the approach recommended by Father John Hardon, S.J. when you want to define gay or homosexuality . If you try and go by the definitions that particularl sophists demand or force you to use, it won't be long before you are unable to speak freely . Differentiating between the three levels (tendency, attraction and activity ) instead, permits things to remain a lot more clear cut in those areas where moral judgements may need to be made. Here's how Father Hardon puts it in his MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

HOMOSEXUALITY

In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

[Teelynn]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPriest

You're incorrect in what you're quoting. What you quote is the instruction that the homily is to be focused on the readings and the faith. However, the Ritual clearly states (#170) that following the prayer after communion someone may speak in remembrance of the deceased.

And if you want to blame someone for a perceived violation of Church procedure then don't blame the people who were allowed to violate, blame the priest who allowed the violation.

Maybe different Diocese have different mandates, but in mine, in recent years anyway, we have always been told to give the Eulogy at the Wake Service at the Funeral Home. No more are we allowed to give it after Communion in Church. It used to be that family members could give a short Eulogy after Communion but it was stopped about 5 to 7 years ago. Now they are told to do all this before going to the Funeral Mass.

[VeiledPapist]

Originally Posted by NeedImprovement

A lot of confusion can be avoided by taking the approach recommended by Father John Hardon, S.J. when you want to define gay or homosexuality . If you try and go by the definitions that particularl sophists demand or force you to use, it won't be long before you are unable to speak freely . Differentiating between the three levels (tendency, attraction and activity ) instead, permits things to remain a lot more clear cut in those areas where moral judgements may need to be made. Here's how Father Hardon puts it in his MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

Aaaah, okay. Thank you to you and to Corki. It's clearer, now. He does feel attraction at times, but he's condemning any activity that will result in grave sin.

[Elizium23]

I think that it is jumping to conclusions to say that the archdiocese threw the pastor under the bus. I believe in this case they did the right thing. A layperson was hurt by a misjudgement in a pastoral decision. The statement from the archdiocese just explained that the pastor did not follow the law in this case. That was the pastorally sensitive thing to do, in an attempt to save face for everyone involved. I think it is clear that the priest will not be disciplined for this kind of thing--no matter how much this woman or the mainstream media wants it. I think it's also clear that this smells like a setup situation. These people probably judged that the priest would react this way and forced him into a corner. Priests are of course held to an incredibly high standard of knowledge and conduct when it comes to these matters. The priest should have known exactly what canon law said and exactly how to handle the situation, but he showed concern for the woman's soul and reverence for the Eucharist in his decision to deny this woman the chance at desecration.

This woman made it a public issue by going to the media, and the archdiocese had no choice but to release a statement and to show their sensitivity to the layperson in this matter. However, I feel their statement is a far cry from "throwing him under the bus" and we should not allow ourselves to be emotionally manipulated by the anti-Christian mainstream media in these matters.

[anp1215]

Originally Posted by VeiledPapist

Aaaah, okay. Thank you to you and to Corki. It's clearer, now. He does feel attraction at times, but he's condemning any activity that will result in grave sin.

Your friend sounds like a strong and holy person. It's such a heavy cross to bear and we need to always remember to be supportive.

[VeiledPapist]

Originally Posted by anp1215

Your friend sounds like a strong and holy person. It's such a heavy cross to bear and we need to always remember to be supportive.

He may be enrolling in the seminary, but if he does change his mind, he'd become a lawyer. I wonder what would happen if he would become a Canon Lawyer. I hear that's rare nowadays.

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPriest;9030456 . . . Once again, what Bishop Tobin points out is that its really up to the priest whether or not to allow eulogies and its up to him to provide guidelines. [b

Seeing that no one has yet to point out anything that was said in the eulogy that was unCatholic then there is no apparent reason to complain about that particular aspect of the funeral.[/b]

Thankyou for supporting one of the points I was trying to make . You wished to point out an error in a member's previous post. I was simply pointing out how easy that error can be to make when we (yourself and Bishop Tobin included) use the word eulogy interchangeably to describe both what shouldn't happen during the homily and the words of remembrance which may be given on behalf of the deceased by a family member/friend. I said Bishop Tobin "uses wording similar to Catherine S's" .

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPriest

#170 says nothing about being "brief" nor does it give any guidelines. "Brief" in most quotes is in reference to the homily and not words of remembrance. Thus when the person speaks in remembrance their words are usually guided by what the priest has given them for guidelines . . .

I am aware of what Bishop Tobin meant when he used the word "brief" in his article. As far as I can tell, I don’t believe I was even inadvertently asking for anyone to interpret the document for me – it’s clear enough. I think you've possibly drawn an erroneous conclusion in the above. When I was stating that the words of remembrance "must not be drawn out" , I was stating the prevalent thought of the Church on the matter. My citing Bishop Tobin's article was to point out what has already been clarified in my previous post regarding confusion with the word "eulogy" , and to inform some of us how "problematic" these words of remembrance can be.

If my intention had been to cite Bishop Tobin's article to indicate that words of remembrance should be kept brief , I would have been more likely to use a quote from him such as [from the same article]

"Another time the eulogy rambled on and on, becoming almost as long as the rest of the funeral Mass."

, thereby providing a more congruent inference.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by VeiledPapist

He may be enrolling in the seminary, but if he does change his mind, he'd become a lawyer. I wonder what would happen if he would become a Canon Lawyer. I hear that's rare nowadays.

Well, if one reads thru this thread even casually, the argument for more canon lawyers becomes rather painfully clear.

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPriest

. . .
Once again, stating that the "remembrance" is to be "brief" is conjecture. The ritual says no such thing. And there's plenty of "big Catholic" funerals where there's a long eulogy so to pick this one out seems a bit strange. . . .

Maybe it might be better said that this is your own personal interpretation of # 170 of the ritual ; that is, if you remain unable to agree that words of remembrance in general (“big Catholic funerals” aside) are to be kept brief - so that what you’re saying isn't seen as conjecture. Granted these “big Catholic funerals” exist. Yet they hardly seem pertinent to the conversation at hand and would be considered an exception to the rule – otherwise, where is the rule ? As a priest you’re surely aware how each Christian funeral is somewhat unique in its own way. So some type of order is appropriate.

If it is recommended that a homily should be brief, it only seems logical that generally speaking, the words of remembrance should follow suit.

While you may personally claim that # 170 “says nothing about being brief nor does it give any guidelines” , an archdiocese in your own New England region finds it preferable to promulgate guidelines for Ecclesial Funeral Rites containing one item in particular which addresses this very matter. One of the differences , between what you’re saying about # 170 and what Father Austin Fleming says, is that

the Order of Christian Funerals envisions the remarks of remembrance being delivered while the priest and ministers are standing at the casket.

I can’t admit to seeing that happen too often myself. Usually everyone, including all personnel participating on behalf of the Church are seated when the words of remembrance are delivered . Perhaps that’s an indicator of what has been happening when we aren’t able to anticipate what the Church envisions. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons why the Archdiocese of Boston found it necessary to publish their Policy on Ecclesiastical Funeral Rites

. . . Upon recommendation of the Office for Worship and having heard the Presbyteral Council, I hereby promulgate the following Policy on Ecclesiastical Funeral Rites and Instruction on Ecclesiastical Funeral Rites for the Archdiocese of Boston:

. . .

18. Following the prayer after Communion and before the Final Commendation, only one speaker, a member or a friend of the family, may speak for not more than five minutes in remembrance of the deceased.

I additionally think “big funerals” can actually be a misnomer at times . For most families , there is no “bigger” funeral than the funeral of the mother or father of that family .

Because our pastor had been subjected to some liturgical nightmares in the past during the supposed words of remembrance, at my own father’s funeral Mass , I didn’t even request we give any words of remembrance, opting instead to have them inscribed on his gravestone. I did however at that same Mass, passionately assert to my (no longer Catholic nor Christian) elder brother at Communion time that his four (unbaptized ) children should not receive Holy Communion. He was okay with that and no one was offended by it . It had nothing to do with whether one was more worthy than another. It had only to do with guarding against abuses concerning the Holy Eucharist.

One month after my father’s funeral, at the wake of ( a man whom I consider to have been a very holy priest) , the Superior of this priest’s order asked me to give the words of remembrance (he actually said eulogy – well “éloge funèbre” in French) at his funeral Mass the following day , firmly iterating to me : “... not more than four or five minutes.” For this particular religious order (established well over 700 years ago) , the funeral didn’t get any “bigger” than that, with priests, brothers and sisters of the order in attendance – yet, I was clearly instructed to make the “eulogy” “no longer than four or five minutes.”

Of course, you’re totally free to hold as your own personal interpretation of # 170, that the words of remembrance during a Catholic funeral are not intended to be brief . Yet, I do have to seriously wonder whether conveying your personal interpretation to others here in a way in which it might be construed as being the purported prevalent thought of the Church is such a great idea, particularly in light of the preponderance of compelling evidence to the contrary.

[oneofmany]

Update---


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exc...for-denying-le


http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...ikR_story.html

[Dee S]

Originally Posted by Cristiano

I agree that the priest should have informed the woman of her inability to receive communion before the service. However, the woman knew very well her standing and the priest did part of what he was supposed to do.
What amazes me that such a little piece of news ended up on a TV station, this sounds like another GLBT shtick to support an agenda. If you do not want the name of your mother to be dragged in the mud you should keep the story out of the news.