Lesbian woman denied Communion at her mother's funeral

[Malcolm Wright]

A church is private property, a place with a specific mission where like-minded people gather.

That's not really relevant. The incident was rightly considered a public one because the woman was not able to choose who was witness to her humiliation. If I throw a party and insult your wife there, she and anyone else would rightfully call it a public affront. But I think you understand that and you're just being argumentative - which wastes everybody's time.

This is a ways off from you calling my wife a cunt at a public gathering.

Fine, then consider it a private party with say, 30 guests. Does that really make a difference? See above.

And by the way, she wouldn't cry. She'd ask me to hold her purse while she kicks your ass.

LOL. Sure, whatever. We're not talking about reality here, but sure, correct the example if you feel the need to.

A better real world (as opposed to fantasy world) example would be going into a local dive bar where you clearly don't fit in, and being called names or refused service because your existence rubs the owner the wrong way/you aren't a regular etc...

Um, no, that's a piss poor example. The woman was raised a Catholic, and has attended mass and received Communion throughout her life. Not always regularly, but throughout her life.

In such a case, I can cause a scene, or quietly walk out, but I can't make the owner not hate me; I can't force him to pour me a beer (a need, not a want). It's his call. All I can do is warn my friends off, Yelp them, and make sure they never, ever receive a dime from me in the future. Kinda like what this lady is (hopefully) doing with the church...

Well, entertaining the poor example for a moment - you're again mistaking this for an argument about rights, or law, or forcing people to behave a certain way. I don't know why you and others do that so much in this thread, but my only inkling is that you kind of agree with the treatment the woman received. Otherwise the normal reaction would be for you to first mention its a damn shame how she was treated.

So to entertain your example, this is a question of what YOU, Zordar, would do as a bystander. Would you look at that gay person, or that black person, and think: well, she's probably learned a lesson, and the bar owner is within his right? Or would you think: wow, the bar tender's a jerk, and maybe if I say as much, he won't do it again. Maybe he will, but I can at least voice it the way I see it?

Oh Christ. Patronize often?

If you feel patronized, you only have yourself to blame. You have failed to display any evidence that you understand how damaging this event was to the woman. If in fact you DO understand it and deplore it, don't expect me to know this without typing it. My mind-reading abilities are not that good.

From what I can see, you spent several posts talking about how the priest was within his rights, and the woman should never have expected anything different. Want to be perceived differently? Post differently!

[BooRadley]

You and others in the thread have repeatedly tried to make this about the law, or rights. Its odd, given that nobody here has claimed it should be about that, least of all me. I've said this already but the phenomenon continues.

Well, what, exactly, do you think should happen? What's your objective? If it's not to pressure clergy into violating sacraments to fit in with societal norms, what is it?

If it's just to point out that he's a screwball and it's unfortunate that this woman had to deal with him, there's no disagreement from me.

[Malcolm Wright]

Well, what, exactly, do you think should happen? What's your objective? If it's not to pressure clergy into violating sacraments to fit in with societal norms, what is it?

If it's just to point out that he's a screwball and it's unfortunate that this woman had to deal with him, there's no disagreement from me.

Perfect then - we're in agreement. That's my only objective - for us to respond to the news like human beings, with empathy. Everyone started out saying they didn't really care. The thread started off approaching this as a dry set of facts, and an academic question of whether the priest has a right. People forget online that what we see there is a reflection of a real world, with real humans in it. It took 4 pages to steer away from the academic arbitration, the religion bashing, etc... and get back to the reality - but I'm glad we made it.

Thanks man.

[Zordar]

The incident was rightly considered a public one because the woman was not able to choose who was witness to her humiliation. If I throw a party and insult your wife there, she and anyone else would rightfully call it a public affront. But I think you understand that and you're just being argumentative - which wastes everybody's time.

Of course she had a choice. Nobody put a gun to her head. Nobody forced her to go.

Fine, then consider it a private party with say, 30 guests. Does that really make a difference? See above.

Yes.

Um, no, that's a piss poor example. The woman was raised a Catholic, and has attended mass and received Communion throughout her life. Not always regularly, but throughout her life.

So? Someone mentioned Stockholm syndrome. This should be required reading on the subject.

If I were to attend some radical gender feminist group's meetings every now and then, usually without incident, there'd always be a chance that someone would raise a stink and demand I be kicked out of the meeting just for what I am. Now, hopefully my mother doesn't have her funeral in such a place, but if so, It'd be silly not to be prepared for such a reaction -- it's what groups like this do.

Well, entertaining the poor example for a moment - you're again mistaking this for an argument about rights, or law, or forcing people to behave a certain way. I don't know why you and others do that so much in this thread, but my only inkling is that you kind of agree with the treatment the woman received. Otherwise the normal reaction would be for you to first mention its a damn shame how she was treated.

Seek your group hugs elsewhere, Malcolm. I'm not here to pander to your hurt feelings.

[Malcolm Wright]

Of course she had a choice. Nobody put a gun to her head. Nobody forced her to go.

I never suggested anyone did.

Yes.

Actually it makes no difference at all - your wife would be as angered or distressed at a private party of 30, as she would be if it were on a public street. Probably more so because she'll never have to see the strangers on the street again, whereas people from her social groups... All of this is mere semantic bickering over what 'in public' means. On top of it being tangential to the actual discussion, its incredibly silly for you to be arguing this point when you understand very well what I meant by in public, despite being situated on private property.

So? Someone mentioned Stockholm syndrome. This should be required reading on the subject.

If I were to attends some radical gender feminist group's meetings every now and then, usually without incident, there'd always be a chance that someone would raise a stink and demand I be kicked out of the meeting just for what I am. Now, hopefully my mother doesn't have her funeral in such a place, but if so, It'd be silly not to be prepared for such a reaction -- it's what groups like this do.

Ah, now there's a good analogy. Thanks for that.
It is good in terms of describing the underlying risk you wish to underline in the woman's predicament of being a Catholic and a lesbian.
However where it falls over points us to where your views fall over.

As a man attending a radical FEMINIST group, you'd be placing yourself in the line of fire voluntarily: you know some members will have issues they'll take out on you because you are a man and represent the Patriarchy to them, a force they view as having held them back personally in their lives.

As a woman who was raised a Catholic and sincerely believes in God - going to Church is less of a tourist's activity than your sampling feminist meetings.
As you correctly pointed out: your mother won't have her funeral service in such a setting, so you have the luxury of not having to worry about it.

Prepared for such a reaction? What, like maybe rehearsed the scene in her head? Convincing herself that if a priest chose the day of her mother's funeral service to refuse her Communion because of her sexuality, she would be ok with it because after all, its a thing that could potentially happen? That's absurd. The day you lose a parent, be sure to ask yourself if you have prepared for the pastor to fondle your children during the service, because after all, its what people like that do, right? If you found that statement absurd, you'll appreciate what your argument sounds like.

The woman has every right to be in shock. You go further than not showing compassion, you don't even seem to allow for the legitimacy of her reaction! She should expect to be treated that way.

Seek your group hugs elsewhere, Malcolm. I'm not here to pander to your hurt feelings.

My hurt feelings? So somewhere here you understood that I'm the lesbian woman who's mother died? You can't be that stupid.

I'm not looking for a group hug. I'm here to get you to think about why exactly you are here. I'm not asking you to pander to anything, but rather to observe how you have taken a human story and approached it clinically, without emotion, as if it were some piece of entertaining fiction for you to apply your wits to. Is that why you post on DA? Is that how you relate to the unfolding human stories around you?

I feel sorry for you - because I know what it feels like to be out of touch with humanity to a degree. I am thankful that I am well connected to my emotions now, but there have been times in my life where I might have responded a little more as you have. My feelings might be hurt if you were my brother, but considering I don't know you from Adam, you might want to consider that my concern for your emotional detachment is merely kindness rather than pain.

I'll give you one last item to consider.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1316869.html

Here's an interview that might help you connect with the human aspect of this. Note how so many people have responded to her experience with compassion and kindness, including many Catholics and Catholic clergymen. Isn't it a little odd that the people you are saying she should expect abuse from are showing buckets more compassion for her than you are?

I don't think that's because you're a dick. I just think you have difficulty realizing this is a real story about a real human being. Its a common enough affliction these days, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it.

M.

[jwreck]

Really? Because now the sin is not just intercourse with another woman? Its even to be in her presence?
No wonder your stance is the way it is: seems like you and the priest think alike in this respect.

Did it cross your mind that her partner potentially also knew her mother and had every reason to be there regardless of whether or not they have a sexual relationship?

And from a purely logical perspective - them arriving at the service together does not imply she is unconfessed at all.

I don't know why you are lumping me in with the priest, I'm just telling you the Catholic perspective since you seem incapable of grasping it.

[jwreck]

Take the lesbianism out of it. If an adulterer shows up with his mistress at mass, do you think the church would be okay with that?

[Malcolm Wright]

I don't know why you are lumping me in with the priest, I'm just telling you the Catholic perspective since you seem incapable of grasping it.

I grasp what you hold to be the Catholic perspective, but you're wrong - there are many Catholic perspectives. And it turns out this woman has had Communion fairly regularly most of her life. She had no reason to expect being denied it on that day, of all days.

[Malcolm Wright]

Take the lesbianism out of it. If an adulterer shows up with his mistress at mass, do you think the church would be okay with that?

It should be. Because the fact they turn up together at church does not mean that their relationship is ongoing. And the technicality: it does not mean that they have not confessed their sins after the last time they sinned together.

[caddis]

Catholics believe her sexual orientation is a sin - but Catholics also believe we are ALL sinners, and God forgives our sins.
If he were to refuse communion to all sinners, communion would cease to exist.

His decision was utter bullshit. I'm amazed you guys don't see it.

Catholics and Communion

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[Malcolm Wright]

Catholics and Communion

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner.

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Thanks Caddis but I've already read that. Even posted about the 'worthily' part, because it infers that folks can receive Communion unworthily.

Look the bottom line that Boo, Zordar and Jwreck won't necessarily admit is that the priest should have taken up any concerns he had with the woman PRIVATELY. The archdiocese has said this about the matter, and I agree with them. If you want to go ahead and continue to believe the woman had this public humiliation coming because she should expect this sort of behavior from the Church, fine, but you're on your own since the Church itself has condemned the priest's actions.

[jwreck]

Don't forget that the act isn't actually required. Unclean thoughts are sins as well.

And no, Malcolm, there are not multiple catholic views. That's the nature of catholicism.

[Malcolm Wright]

Don't forget that the act isn't actually required. Unclean thoughts are sins as well.

And no, Malcolm, there are not multiple catholic views. That's the nature of catholicism.

Ok, if you want to consider there is only one Catholic view, consider the view of the archdiocese, as mentioned in my previous post.
Either way, you're wrong.

[jwreck]

Thanks Caddis but I've already read that. Even posted about the 'worthily' part, because it infers that folks can receive Communion unworthily.

Look the bottom line that Boo, Zordar and Jwreck won't necessarily admit is that the priest should have taken up any concerns he had with the woman PRIVATELY. The archdiocese has said this about the matter, and I agree with them. If you want to go ahead and continue to believe the woman had this public humiliation coming because she should expect this sort of behavior from the Church, fine, but you're on your own since the Church itself has condemned the priest's actions.

Says you. That's not consistent with church practices though.

[jwreck]

Ok, if you want to consider there is only one Catholic view, consider the view of the archdiocese, as mentioned in my previous post.
Either way, you're wrong.

LOL. Yeah, because this is about me somehow? I didn't deny this woman her magic cracker.

[Malcolm Wright]

Says you. That's not consistent with church practices though.

Jwreck - this is really simple so I'm hoping we're not going to waste too much time over it.
Its not 'says Malcolm'. It is 'says the archdiocese'.

Are we clear?

[Malcolm Wright]

LOL. Yeah, because this is about me somehow? I didn't deny this woman her magic cracker.

Saying you're wrong is making it about you?
Are you going to pretend that your position is not that she should have expected this?

[jwreck]

As Zordar says, its like being upset that you got bit by a snake. Yes, she should have accepted this. And the archdiosee is not the pope. Honestly, I don't care enough to get into some kind of cut and paste demonstration of church doctrine and policy with you. While you may think she shouldn't have expected it, you should at least be able to see that given the history of the church, she certainly shouldn't have been surprised by it. Furthermore, it DEFINITELY shouldn't be considered newsworthy, except for the fact that its another chance for the media to bash those mean ol' catholics.

[caddis]

T
Look the bottom line that Boo, Zordar and Jwreck won't necessarily admit is that the priest should have taken up any concerns he had with the woman PRIVATELY.

Explain please. How can a priest take this up privately when the woman walked up to receive communion publicly?

Was he supposed to give her communion then hear her confession later?

The archdiocese has said this about the matter, and I agree with them.

I agree also but it doesn't apply to this circumstance.

If you want to go ahead and continue to believe the woman had this public humiliation coming

Please don't try to tell me what I believe....I believe she put herself in this predicament and wishes to make the Priest and the Catholic Church look bad for it.
Did she have it coming? That implies I am passing judgement on her.
Should she have respected the Church and her mothers beliefs? Should she have expected the possibility the Priest would not give her communion? Should she have not turned her mothers funeral mass into a selfish act?

Yes

[Malcolm Wright]

As Zordar says, its like being upset that you got bit by a snake. Yes, she should have accepted this. And the archdiosee is not the pope. Honestly, I don't care enough to get into some kind of cut and paste demonstration of church doctrine and policy with you. While you may think she shouldn't have expected it, you should at least be able to see that given the history of the church, she certainly shouldn't have been surprised by it. Furthermore, it DEFINITELY shouldn't be considered newsworthy, except for the fact that its another chance for the media to bash those mean ol' catholics.

What I've seen of the media - your representation is off target. Follow the link I posted above in the post to Zordar and watch the CNN interview. Not even the lesbian woman is bashing Catholics over it, and the media seems to be following her dignified cue.

You don't care enough to see straight in this matter, is what it boils down to. Who cares what the Pope might say: the archdiocese has apologized and quite clearly delineated what parishioners should expect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1316869.html

Meanwhile, as The Washington Post is reporting, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has since apologized in a statement, noting that the priest has an obligation to "handle such a situation pastorally by discussing the consequences of such sin with the person privately before actually denying them Communion."

If you think your stereotyping of the Catholic church as a snake is going to somehow fly... it isn't. You are bashing the Church more than the media is. Just like Zordar.

M.