I find it incredibly interesting that she identified herself as budhist and calls herself a “natural born agitator.” Yet, she feels she has a “right” to the Eucharist? I try REALLY hard not to judge, but I am offended by this.
Why does a Buddhist so strongly want to participate in a ritual that she doesn’t believe in? I don’t yell kick and scream that I can’t go participate in Mormon temple rituals because…shocker I’m not Mormon!
I just don’t get it. Some people seem to have nothing better to do than stir up a fuss.
We shouldn’t be surprised by all this. Our spineless society makes it easy for the coddled “minorities” to get what they want, when and how they want it and if that doesn’t work, well, there’s always the lesser known fourth person of the secular trinity - Saint Legal Action. Thank God the Church authorities didn’t cave in or anything down there.
It appears to me that the appropriate people have been involved and the issue will now likely die a quiet death.
She has made stir, the Bishopric looks at the matter and says - the priest does nothing wrong…What is left for her to do??
The woman got the notoriety that she seeks, being a “natural born agitator” and so will likely continue to not respond to requests for comment - especially from any Catholic news source.
Of course she might continue to refer to the incident on her website or blog or whatever…such things are all chaff and very little wheat…
She’s really a gay activist with an anti-Catholic agenda. She presented herself to the priest before Mass with her “lover” (her words, not his), and he quietly told her she was not to present herself for Holy Communion. Well, she did anyway, and he quietly told her then that he could not allow her to receive Holy Communion. He was following Canon 915, I believe, in refusing her.
She, on the other hand, went public and has tried to make a huge scandal about this because it was her mother’s funeral (trying to pluck the heartstrings of the misty-eyed, weak-kneed liberals, I guess). It was she, however, who chose this venue to further her activist agenda, not the priest.
The Washington Post, ever ready to support the gay agenda and anything anti-Catholic, immediately printed a front-page scandal story about how the Church “hurt” this “poor” woman. The archdiocese immediately sent a knee-jerk reaction apology without checking the facts. Now, the archdiocese has suspected the priestly faculties of this priest and removed him from active ministry. They say it’s for something entirely unrelated, but it looks highly suspicious. This isn’t my first rodeo, as Dr. Phil says. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck…it’s probably a duck.
I thought I had read that the Bishop apologized for the priest’s actions and actually suspended the priest. I find it very sad that this woman has apparently gotten her way- at least so far. You know, I try to make it a point to respect other people’s religions and faiths- even though I don’t agree with them. I find what this woman has done to be, quite frankly, horrible. What’s even sadder is that I’m sure most of the mainstream media will agree with her in regards to how she views this priest and the Church in general…
I hadn’t heard that he priest was suspended (for whatever…:shrug:)
I fear that, as a result of the abuse scandal, the Church is tending to “over-react” in order to avoid any appearance of “cover-up”. it’s sad…
I do not think these two go together. She is a walking contradiction, among other things.
Great catch! I didn’t even see that.
already being discussed