Priest who denied Holy Communion to lesbian placed on leave [CWN]

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by JReducation

Communicating concerns must serve a purpose, otherwise it's not a very productive activity.

I could never agree with that. Thoughtful discussion which communicates concerns helps to shape purpose, often -- with regard to any issue or arena. It doesn't always have to equal immediate "results" or enacted steps. Sometimes it shapes, enlarges, individual purpose, and sometimes it builds a community of concern which indirectly does lead to productive results.

Elizabeth, you feel very strongly that the Vatican needs the USA, but the Vatican does not feel that strongly about it, because we make up 5% of the world's Catholic and we often demand 50% of the Church's attention and resources.

We make up 5% of the world's Catholics but the point is that, when harnessed for good (not for dissident opinions, etc.) our reach can extend to far more than a 5% effect. But when any group senses that they are not valued, they will not come forward to be servants of the Church. I don't know which "we" you're referring to (above), but I'm not "demanding" anything, let alone

50% of the Church's attention and resources.

I'm referring to making contributions of labor and support, not "attention" and "resources."

We need to solve problems at the local level working with our bishops rather than expend the Vatican's energy.

Naturally. And who's talking about "expending the Vatican's energy?" That cannot be implied by my statements. That's just an assumption.

I think that everyone always feels that their issues are important, because they're in the middle of it.

I don't understand why you keep implying that I, personally have "issues" which I feel are important and supposedly the Vatican should pay attention to them. I haven't said anything about that. I'm not talking about any personal issues of mine.

In addition, the Vatican has an agenda, which is usually set by the pope. Each pope comes in with an agenda. Pope Benedict's agenda is to recover Europe, enhance the dialogue between Catholics & Jews and Catholics & Muslims, bring more academic research to the table. For that reason he spend a good part of his day doing research and writing, dealing with the sex abuse issue, and trying to lead the Church to a middle ground between the Traditionalists and the Liberals. Those are big issues to the Vatican.

I'm quite aware of His Holiness' agenda. I understand it. I support it.

I'm very much in support of, and in touch with, my local bishop & his predecessor. I don't see why the Vatican and the local bishops are mutually exclusive. However, this subject is somewhat tangential to this thread, so I won't belabor it, except to correct any misimpressions of what I have already said, in case such come up again.

[NewEnglandPriest]

Originally Posted by Love God Too

I have noticed that many people quote Cannon Law throughout this entire thread related to this issue. I wonder how Cannon Law read during the days of the inquisitions

Canon Law didn't exist as a unified single code until 1917. Until that point Church laws were kind of ad hoc. So its useless to really make such comparisons. That's kind of like wondering about the application of the Bill of Rights (1791) in the US Articles of Confederation (1777-1787).

or when some Catholic Priests and Protestant Ministers were quoting scripture that supposedly supported opposition to interracial marriage in the 40's and 50's and so on.

AFAIK there's nothing in the 1917 Code that spoke directly to that issue. Segregation was a US matter and canon law addresses the universal Church throughout the world. Segregation would have never occurred to European Church members to write canons about since it didn't exist there or in most of the Catholic world.

I believe God Loves his Gay children too.

The Catholic Church teaches the same.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by Love God Too

[You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God's people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.

Friend, it appears that you and I both have gone on tangents.

I do not believe that homosexual celibate priests is the thread topic. My own reference, earlier, was not to same-sex-atttracted men who have a genuine calling to the priesthood, but rather to those in and outside of the Church who campaign for a non-celibate homosexual lifestyle in the priesthood, and who use sensational stories in the press (including confrontational events that occur in church settings, such as this thread's story) as a springboard to refresh those campaigns. (Completely different effort, naturally!)

Glad to clarify for you

As to canon law, that is not the same thing as absolute moral law on which Catholic moral theology is based and which does not change. Canon law is jurisdictional and applies only to the universal Church proper; as NewEnglandPriest pointed out, that does not intersect with U.S. civil, constitutional, or criminal law.

A footnote about moral law: One would think, reading CAF , that moral law is restricted to matters below the navel, but naturally it involves far more than sexuality, which is just one aspect of it. Moral law derives from an ordered universe ordained by God, transparent in Scripture, and expounded in sacred tradition.

Welcome to CAF.

[NewEnglandPriest]

Originally Posted by Love God Too

With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference.

This is all quite off topic of the thread so let's just leave it we'll agree to disagree.

[The Curt Jester]

Love God Too, I don't think we can compare what this priest did to torture. That may be stretching the situation a liiiiiiiiittle far. Plus, the inquisition is a whole different topic.

In regard to the main subject, here's an interesting article on Rorate Caeli.

A Canonical Contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair.

[peccant]

Two things to consider: after she was denied the Eucharist by the priest, she walked around the to other side and received the Blessed Sacrament from a Eucharistic Minister.

Also, what sort of person would choose her own mother's funeral as a venue to express her rage against a priest in particular, and Holy Mother Church in general?

May God ease the pain in her tormented soul...

[InSearchofGrace]

The Homosexual Movement Scores a Win in the Fr. Guarnizo Affair - Who Caused the Scandal and Why?

!

[Ender]

Originally Posted by The Curt Jester

In regard to the main subject, here's an interesting article on Rorate Caeli.
A Canonical Contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair.

That's a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:

Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?

Regarding the question highlighted above, I'm thinking the answer is yes.

Ender

[The Curt Jester]

Originally Posted by Ender

That's a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:

Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?

Regarding the question highlighted above, I'm thinking the answer is yes.

Ender

You're welcome. And I'd have to agree with your own answer to that question.

[Catherine S.]

Originally Posted by Ender

That's a very interesting article; thank you for posting it. I was especially struck by this comment:

Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?

Regarding the question highlighted above, I'm thinking the answer is yes.

Ender

It is surely beginning to look that way!!
This is more of the same type of refusal by Catholics who will not accept nor follow Church teaching!
.
Archdiocese of Vienna supports priest who drew the line on homosexual parish council members....
Stangl told reporters that he made a point of living his homosexual relationship publicly in his small town. “After we closed our partnership before the authorities, we invited more than half the town to our home for a feast,” he said.
Parishioners who voted for the openly homosexual young man say they are ready to fight for their election choice. Some parishioners have told reporters that if their choice of Stangl is not honored, then they are prepared to provoke an uprising.
Stangl is already using the discrimination tactic with the Austrian public to gain their empathy and support. He nows says he feels “discriminated against” since Father Swierzek has asked him to refrain from receiving communion. “The priest has asked me not to go to communion. He said that he would not deny me, but he asked me not to.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archdiocese-of-vienna-supports-priest-who-drew-the-line-on-homosexual-paris?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+ Newsletter&utm_campaign=fc65cf6b50-LifeSiteNews_com_Canada_Headlines_03_23_ 2012&utm_medium=email
__________________

[GraceSofia]

Originally Posted by Catherine S.

It is surely beginning to look that way!!
This is more of the same type of refusal by Catholics who will not accept nor follow Church teaching!
__________________

But the response of the archdiocese was not the same type, fortunately.

[Not Sure]

[quote=Love God Too;9098842]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPriest

Canon Law didn't exist as a unified single code until 1917. Until that point Church laws were kind of ad hoc. So its useless to really make such comparisons. That's kind of like wondering about the application of the Bill of Rights (1791) in the US Articles of Confederation (1777-1787).

With all do respect Father, I believe this is a semantic difference. The fact is that Cannon Law is, and has been, written by flawed men as were the laws of men in the church in the days of the inquisitions. Was our church any less of the one true church then? It is very easy for people to formulate an opinion, and then find a single line in scripture to support it. Via their interpretation of said scripture of course. Cannon Laws were written in a similar way and have evolved considerably with the addition of knowledge that only the passage of time can provide. You cannot claim our faith as the one true church started by St. Peter and so cavalierly dismiss the early views and actions of our church.

You above all should know of the wonderful gay, yet celibate, priests we have in the church whose mission certainly is ordained by God. In fact the ones that I know have a special capacity for the compassion of God's people that, I believe, lacks in some others due to the inner struggle they live with day to day.

Watch 'The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition' on Youtube before the tow the old party line about how wicked the Inquisitions were.

[Mrs Sally]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

IWe make up 5% of the world's Catholics but the point is that, when harnessed for good (not for dissident opinions, etc.) our reach can extend to far more than a 5% effect. But when any group senses that they are not valued, they will not come forward to be servants of the Church. I don't know which "we" you're referring to (above), but I'm not "demanding" anything, let alone


I'm referring to making contributions of labor and support, not "attention" and "resources."

Highlighting a few things from this post. A bit OT. My take is that the expectation for a faithful Catholic is to come forward as a servant of the church and to contribute labor and support. That is in the precepts of the Church. No where does it say we should expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.

In fact, as those who are more blessed, we should be eager to help those Catholics in other parts of the world who are not, and happy that the Church's (Vatican's) attention is on them in their need.

[Elizabeth502]

Originally Posted by Mrs Sally

Highlighting a few things from this post. A bit OT. My take is that the expectation for a faithful Catholic is to come forward as a servant of the church and to contribute labor and support. That is in the precepts of the Church. No where does it say we should expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.

And absolutely nowhere in my postings is there the slightest implication that Catholics who want to serve and who do now already serve

expect to be thanked for this, made to feel special, or recognized in any way as being out of the ordinary.

Nevertheless, the reality of involving people effectively -- whether its on the secular level in volunteer organizations or in the religious realm via the laity -- is that outreach encourages involvement. It's strictly a practical matter and nothing else. Those of us who give regularly to causes both religious and non-religious, as well as give because our professions are those of service --not of acquisition-- don't need 'instruction' in the value of giving.

And there's a two-way street that is the benefit: American Catholics who are not ignored are much more likely to deepen their fidelity to Church teaching than to remain 'on the margins' in terms of belief and practice. This is part of what underlies the 'homecoming' movements (locally and internationally) in the Church.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to correct an assumption which was never articulated or implied by me in the first place.

[Mrs Sally]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to correct an assumption which was never articulated or implied by me in the first place.

I was using your post as a spring board. No need to be defensive.