| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Woman denied Communion because she's a lesbian | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 1 2012, 08:38 AM (4,042 Views) | |
| Dewey | Mar 9 2012, 05:39 AM Post #201 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
If she was baptized as a child but has since given up the faith completely and converted to Buddhism, then she is no longer a "baptized Christian," and I don't think that she should be able to participate in the sacrament. If, on the other hand, she was baptized as a child and is greatly swayed by Buddhist thought, and may even identify herself as "Christian and Buddhist," as some people, like Knitter, do - in other words, if they have not renounced the Christian faith - then yes, she should participate in the sacrament. My mindset here is basically "if identifying as Christian, even if only in part, then yes; if identifying as completely other, no." I base that on the previous points I've identified, as well as Jesus' constant identification of his disciples as "you of little faith;" and even in the Matthean acount of the Great Commission - the disciples, in the presence of the risen Christ, both worshipped him and doubted, and yet Jesus not only accepts them but it is to exactly these imperfect and somewhat doubtful (even in his very presence!) followers to whom he then gives the great commission. If those of little and imperfect faith, and those who continue to harbor doubt in the face of what we would think would be concrete, modern, Enlightenment-era definition of proof of their faith, are acceptable to Christ, then people of similar characteristics should be acceptable to us as we practice our faith as well. I do not believe that it's our place to try to play "gatekeeper" to God's grace. But it's an excellent question, because it leads one step further: It is our vocation, as Christians, to be the "head, heart, and hands" of Christ to the world, agents of extending Christ's gospel and the reign of God to the entire world. We also believe that there are others who are part of the reign of God, both earthly and in heaven, who were not professing Christians. They are/were part of the true "invisible church," those whom Christ's atoning act made their justification/reconciliation possible, even though they never professed faith in Christ, either because they lived before Jesus, or they never heard of him, or even if they remained within other faiths due to cultural or other obstacles to their profession of Christian faith (again, see Jesus, "A man had two sons,..." Matt 21:28-32; and "I have other sheep..." John 10:16). If we believe that there are people who have never publicly professed Christ who are included in the reign/kingdom of God, past and present - and to be clear, I most definitely do - then it does actually become a question; should *anyone* who felt led to come to the Table to receive and participate in Communion, be turned away? We truly do not know the heart of the individual, all the concrete evidence that we have to judge their heart is the action of their feet in coming forward after the explanation and invitation to the meal. What if a person coming forward is, actually, a self-proclaimed Buddhist, or Hindu, or Confucianist, or Muslim, or atheist; yet they are actually part of the "invisible church?" Would it be improper for them to receive the sacrament? Or would it be improper for us to withold it from them? As I said, I've drawn a line in the sand regarding who I think should participate in the sacrament - admittedly, my line is drawn in a different place than yours - but even where I've drawn my line, I have questions, and honestly, will continue to think about it. Primarily, I wonder if we see the sacrament as being an event which intentionally defines Christians as an identifiable group over against others (indeed, one of the Protestant criteria for a sacrament is that it be practiced only by Christians; one reason why we don't view marriage as a sacrament), or if their primary purpose is in witnessing to, expressing, and bestowing, God's grace, made possible through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, to others - and if so, if we have traditionally been too stingy in extending it out to others. As I said, that's beyond my actual line in the sand, but I'm not opposed to considering and discussing that question in the abstract in the future (here I stress the future; the last couple free hours of my week are almost over ).
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 9 2012, 09:03 AM Post #202 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The sacrament which intentionally defines Christians as an identifiable groups [apart from] others is baptism. It is the sacrament of initiation into the Body of Christ. The celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist does not define Christians apart from others (no more than can it be said that sexual intercourse between a married couple defines them apart from others) rather it is something reserved to that relationship. Natural marriage is not a sacrament, sacramental marriage is only between baptized persons. Non Christians do all sorts of things that Christians do as sacraments -- they marry, they wash, they eat bread and drink wine, they use oils and salves for wounds. If that were the standard, then the baptismal washing could not be a sacrament, no? Your communion could not be a sacrament. (I realize there are other criteria such as instituted by Christ, but what you wrote seems no objection at all). The primary purpose of the sacrament of the Eucharist is to feed, heal, sanctify and strengthen us to live our lives as Christians. Which is why it is properly extended only to Christians who are actively trying to do that (that is a low bar -- showing up at Mass is an assumption of intent without evidence to the contrary). It is an objective source of this grace since it is Christ himself, and has nothing to do with the subjective disposition of the communicant (which is why Paul cautions against those who eat and drink unworthily and thus bring condemnation upon themselves). In the apostolic Churches any baptized person who is intent on conforming their lives to Christ in his Church and accepts the teachings of the Church can receive communion. As Justin Martyr wrote: "And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined." (I understand that is what you are trying to do as well, but you are doing so apart from the visible Church and not in communion with the apostolic teachings or the apostolic authority of the Church (Acts 2:41,42) though I also understand that in your view you do and are). But the three fold signs of unity: a unity of teaching, a unity of authority, and a unity of baptism : along with the requirement for striving to live a life in conformance with Christ, is the ancient Christian practice for communion. But obviously, we do commit sins and are not always in conformance with the Christian life. So if we are conscious of grave sin, we are called to go to reconciliation first. If that is not possible, we may communicate if we have true repentance and resolve to go to reconciliation as soon as possible. The only reasons that communion may be withheld is if someone is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" (which is basically, they have no evident intent of living to conform their lives to Christ) or there is a real concern of cause for scandal -- per 1Cor 5:9-11. Also, I think it worth noting that the Catholic Church positively teaches that in case of real necessity, ANY baptized person can receive Holy Communion provided 1) there is true and serious spiritual need; e.g., one is dying, or in cases of persecution; 2) they are unable to go to their own church for a long time; 3) they are intent on living their lives as true Christians and rejecting sin; 4) they agree with what the Church teaches about the Eucharist; 5) if possible, they get permission from their own Church to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 9 2012, 10:02 AM Post #203 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well I appreciate that recap, but as I said, the keyword in my last post was "future." Currently in the middle of my noon-9:30p work in-parish, before heading to the hospital for the overnight shift. At the moment, I think a 20-minute power nap is at the top of the to-do list.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 9 2012, 10:03 AM Post #204 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
A 20 minute power nap is clearly the right thing to do right now. Sweet dreams. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 17 2012, 04:45 AM Post #205 |
|
Finally
|
The priest speaks: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/special-report-fr-marcel-guarnizo-defends-himself-against-accusers |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 17 2012, 04:56 AM Post #206 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
So I suppose it comes down to what the witnesses say. Which is sad. Which story do you find more credible? Me, the priest's story is far more plausible. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Mar 17 2012, 05:04 AM Post #207 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Curious as to what Dewey has to say about the priest's take on the situation. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| somebody else's sock | Mar 17 2012, 05:30 AM Post #208 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Also wondering why he was suspended for reasons other than the communion incident: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/gaithersburg-catholic-priest-suspended-for-intimidating-behavior/2012/03/11/gIQAF4lk5R_blog.html
|
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 17 2012, 05:40 AM Post #209 |
|
Finally
|
Yeah. The timeline is interesting. In Guarnizo's letter he says, "On March 13, I asked Bishop Knestout about detail on this matter but he stated that he was not at liberty to discuss the matter. I would only add for the record, that the letter removing me from pastoral work in the Archdiocese of Washington, was already signed and sealed and on the table when I met with Bishop Knestout on March 9, even before he asked me the first question about the alleged clash." |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| somebody else's sock | Mar 17 2012, 05:56 AM Post #210 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
One more thing: Does anyone else think Fr Marcel bears a striking resemblance to someone else?![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 17 2012, 05:59 AM Post #211 |
|
Finally
|
The sunglasses are totally different. No resemblance whatsoever. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Mar 17 2012, 06:53 AM Post #212 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Mar 17 2012, 07:02 AM Post #213 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
My thoughts as well, Dave. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 17 2012, 07:10 AM Post #214 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Lots - but just woke up here, and just got invited to a birthday luncheon for "Fifteen for Another 24 Hours." After that, it's heavy sermon and adult ed prep; so I may not be able to offer my thoughts till sometime tomorrow. Sooner if I can.
|
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 18 2012, 04:45 PM Post #215 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, let's see:
OK, so now we've heard from the priest that it was the fact that she was a lesbian and living in a relationship with another woman which was the cause of his refusing to serve her Communion. This puts to rest the apologists for the priest's actions, claiming that there was some other reason at play, or that we don't know what the reason was. Good enough.
This is actually the crux of my issue with the news story. The "gay angle" is important, but still secondary, to the larger issue here of closed-table theology. I've discussed my strong feelings about this earlier in this thread and, you're probably aware, in a number of others. I believe that level of "protecting" the sacrament from those considered "unworthy" of it is inappropriate and a gross misapplication of ecclesiastical authority against what Christ himself commanded believers to do. And this isn't a Protestant-versus-Catholic issue; there are some Protestant traditions that place similar limitations on participants, including, in the past, my own tradition.
I believe that the priest was very much in a difficult position. In fact, I believe that to some extent, he's being used as a scapegoat in an incident that is embarrassing to the church. The priest was truly only carrying out the doctrine of the church. And if he agrees with that doctrine; or if he doesn't agree with it, but under (what at least we Protestants would refer to as the concept of) "bound conscience," he feels compelled to abide by it, then he must apply that doctrine. I also have no doubt that the priest refused the woman Communion quietly, and without a major "scene." I'm not sure that anyone ever claimed that he made a big, loud deal out of it. The feelings of guilt and shame that come about from having been deemed unworthy of participating in the sacrament resonate through a person's being with all the subtlety of a klaxon horn, regardless of the volume of the actual refusal.
Actually, I believe there was. I think the priest's definition of "scandal," apparently being dependent upon whether he yelled at the woman, is far too narrow.
If the priest presiding over my parent's funeral suddenly disappeared in the middle of the process without personally offering an explanation to me, I would be outraged. If the priest was suddenly incapacitated by a migraine, he should have explained his dilemma to the family, and not just the funeral director. Setting aside the issue of whether the woman should have received Communion momentarily - since my opinion would not agree with that of the priest's hierarchy within the RCC - this act alone represents the single most significant example of of pastoral incompetence, in my opinion. It demonstrates that the priest has a tin ear to the human aspects of his vocation; that he can't even sense the particularly delicate nature of the situation, given his initial meeting with the woman and his refusal of Communion to her. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Mar 18 2012, 04:49 PM Post #216 |
|
MAMIL
|
![]() Say what you like, I wouldn't want that guy doing the necessaries at my parents funeral, and I'm not even a practicing lesbian. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Mar 18 2012, 05:11 PM Post #217 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
You don't have the skills to be a lesbian. Or so I'm told. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 18 2012, 08:57 PM Post #218 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The only using the question of "worthiness" here is you. As Aqua already pointed out, the common Catholic position is that none of us are "worthy" -- so it has never been about that. Maybe that is an overreaction due to the problematic nature of Calvinist theology from the Reformation times. If so, then I encourage you to reject it (as you seem to be doing). But as long as you keep dwelling on that question of "worthiness" as a filter for understanding the priest's actions, you will keep getting it wrong. There are some (very orthodox) Catholic canonists who think he was wrong to withhold even under those circumstances. That view has to do (among other things) with what it means canonically to "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" (canon 915) -- with a particular challenge in the term "manifest". Secret and private sins, and even those the priest might know about only through the sacrament of Confession, cannot be deemed as reasons to deny communion. This is a matter of canon law well beyond my competence to evaluate, though I confess I am not convinced by the line of reasoning. I don't know if such matters interest you, but if they do you might find Dr Edward Peter's blog to be a solid glimpse into to how canon law operates. How so? How would you define scandal, apart from the woman herself who went to receive from another person, and then precipitated the scandal by publicizing it with the stated intention of the having the priest removed from ministry? This reads to me as if you are looking for nothing more than prosecutorial fodder. His heart cannot be black enough for you. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 19 2012, 01:21 AM Post #219 |
|
Cheers
|
I found D'Oh's version pretty compelling. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Mar 19 2012, 06:18 AM Post #220 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
On the contrary, given the fact that he and I share a common vocation, I begin my thoughts about what he did from a point of sympathy. Clergy often find themselves in delicate personal situations, magnified by the fact that their own situations often coincide with times of high stress and personal difficulty for the parishioner or other person being ministered to. The clergy's own response in those situations, then, become more critical in their handling. In other words, what might be an appropriate response for someone else - or even to the clergy person under different circumstances - is inappropriate in the particular setting. Every small word or action can get magnified in the emotions of the moment; that's a simple reality of the pastoral call, and a person has to be adept at working within that reality. The priest's actions are not a topic of abstract conversation to me, but something to which I can offer some degree of concrete professional opinion. And I can say that if his training was anything like my own - and I'm pretty sure that it was - his vocational training involved quite a bit of emphasis on this very point, and included working through many readings, discussions, case studies, and feedback from peers and supervisors in real-life interactions, in internship, clinical pastoral education, and other settings dealing with how to respond well in these kinds of situations. First and foremost, a pastor must be pastoral. In this case, I don't consider it to have been very inappropriate for him to have excused himself by simply saying something to the funeral director, and only having the family told, passive voice, by one of their staff, that he'd left. The pastor was there to minister to the family, not the funeral director. To think that it would be appropriate to leave without any personal word to the family members exhibits a seriously flawed fundamental understanding of his pastoral role in this situation. And to do so in full knowledge that tensions were already running higher than normal, even for a funeral, because of the confrontation with the daughter, makes his decision even more subject to criticism for lack of pastoral ability (read "tin ear"). To be honest, given the earlier confrontations with the daughter, I'd have personally fallen out of my chair in pain over the migraine before I'd have gotten up and walked out while she was delivering her eulogy. Or if I truly did have to excuse myself, I'd have *IMMEDIATELY* gone to see her to explain my actions as soon as I returned. I would not have just talked to the funeral director and disappeared again. To be very honest, I have doubts about the priest's migraine explanation/excuse. I have strong suspicions that, after his initial confrontation with the woman, he was allowing some of his own baggage and "stuff" to fester within him and he was inappropriately allowing it to overflow into his actions and responses to the situation. Been there, done that; it's easy to allow our human nature to get the better of us in emotional moments. But even if I grant him the benefit of the doubt here, his actions in light of the migraine were terrible from a pastoral point of view. To be perfectly honest, his level of perception and pastoral care here was so blatantly bad that, rather than your accusing me of a rush to criticize him, it seems more that the man wouldn't appear to be able to do anything that would rise to the level of you criticizing him.
Yes, and it is the common Protestant position that none are truly worthy, either. The problem comes in when, Protestant or Catholic, the church begins to belie that theology by placing itself in the position of deciding, de facto, that some actually are worthy and others are not, by allowing some "unworthy" to participate, and other "unworthy" not to. To say "I'm not worthy to participate, but I'm allowed to," and "You're not worthy to participate, and you're not allowed to," is just an example of the church engaging in word games to justify its own illogical and unChristlike theological position. To make detailed structural theological arguments that none of Christ's followers are worthy to participate in the sacrament that Christ nevertheless commanded his followers to participate in, and then to extend that theology to admit some, and exclude others, simply makes no sense. It's contrary to Christ's own actions, it becomes a huge waste of time, and it has only caused untold harm to the faith. And it does so every time it's engaged in, Catholic or Protestant. If we *truly* understood the concept of unworthiness, and meditated on the infinite, imponderable degree of grace that God has given us in spite of our unworthiness, then it should be laughable to us to imagine that we're in any position to claim any kind of superiority over another believer by claiming ourselves in a position to come to the Table while excluding them. To be honest, I believe the very act of excluding them from the table makes it even more of a mockery of God for us to participate. *That*, to me, is a sin for which one should confess and repent before participating in the sacrament ourselves.
And I would strongly agree with them. I don't believe that she should have been barred from the sacrament at all. But I'm trying to frame my response here strictly in light of the orthodox Catholic doctrine that the priest is ostensibly to obey. In one sense, of course, I might criticize him for denying her - in that I would personally that his conscience led him differently - but as I wrote earlier, the real issue in the denial of the sacrament to her is not the priest's carrying gout of the church's doctrine, but the church's doctrine itself, which I find extremely wrong-headed, unChristlike, and harmful.
I consider the church's doctrine that refuses the sacrament to her to be a scandal. I consider it to be scandalous when a person or institution does something worthy of criticism, and then complains when the light of public attention falls on them for it; claiming that the aggrieved party who brought the light of publicity on them is in some way the villian in the story. I consider it scandalous when a church institution claims the authority to be a more exclusive and limiting arbiter than Christ did himself. I consider Christ, and the radical way he revealed, taught, lived, and died the reign of God to be a scandal to any church who wishes to cheapen that revelation by imposing a burdensome, overly regulated, overly parsed, Pharisaic type of faith - which ends up missing Christ's whole point in the process - upon its followers. That is simply not what Christ called us to, in my opinion. I believe he has called us to better than that. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 19 2012, 10:33 AM Post #221 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
No Dewey, I withhold judgment because I was not there and do not have any objective knowledge of the case. You rush to judgment. On the contrary, I even pointed out to you the other side of the story from a strictly Catholic view point. I am considering both side of the scenario-- you only one.
Once again you cannot help but frame it in language and imagery that are completely of your own limitation. This might be insurmountable. Then you really don't understand how the Catholic Church's doctrine works, or how it is encoded in Cans 915 and 916. I gave you a link to a very good explanation of that -- 915 governs under what objective conditions a person may not be admitted to the sacrament, 916 under what subjective conditions the faithful may not present themselves for Communion. This is nothing more than a codification of the teachings of the Bible (Matt 18:15-17 and 1 Cor 11:28, inter alia). Are there no conditions in which a person might not be admitted to the sacrament for you? Even temporarily? Circular. The Church does not refuse the Sacrament to any baptized person who asks for it looking to grow in Christ. A public statement or a manifest pattern of life that one is not looking to conform one's life to Christ as Christ and the lived faith has established is subject to the standards Jesus establishes in Scripture. All one has to do, if conscious of grave sin that one wants to be reconciled of, is go to Confession -- and if Confession before Mass is not possible, one is obligated to go afterward as soon as possible. You judge the Church without even understanding what the Church teaches and how the Church treats the penitent. Circular. He did nothing objectively worthy of criticism, let alone demonization. He made a prudential judgment which took into account care for her own soul and the meaning of Communion itself. The Church -- in fact all of us -- must always act in love, truth and justice -- if someone thinks that these are separable, purporting to act in love, but not truth or justice, then love itself is harmed. Which is incorrect on your part, but you ignore Matt 18. ditto. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Mar 19 2012, 11:34 AM Post #222 |
|
Finally
|
I haven't been following this thread all that closely, but let me hop in and ask a question of those who are more knowledgeable than I in these matters. If a person came to a church to which he does not belong, and introduced him to the clergyman and then said, "And this is Susie, the woman (and not my wife) I'm sleeping with." Would the pastor/priest be obligated to administer communion? In the Catholic Church I grew up in, fornication was considered a sin, a mortal sin, in fact, and one was not worthy of receiving communion. Thanks. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Mar 19 2012, 12:54 PM Post #223 |
|
Shortstop
|
What if he said "This is Adolf Hitler, the fuhrer I'm genociding with"? |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 19 2012, 01:42 PM Post #224 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
George (and Copper): The Church's pastoral approach to such situations is to consider it an invitation to grow in Christ. Obviously the person makes a statement, with at least some cognition or intuition that he or she is not in right relationship with Christ and the Church. So the dialogue begins. The priest might well ask if they wish to receive the sacrament of reconciliation before Mass, or also invite them to meet with him later to discuss their relationship and how they might better conform their lives individually and together to the Gospel. The priest might well take it as an opportunity to remind them of the importance of properly preparing their hearts to receive Christ in the Sacrament, and of their obligation as Christians to live in the fruit of the Spirit and to seek the grace to become holy. All of this is done without judgment, but rather invitation to grow in love, holiness and healthier relationship with one's self, with others, with the community, and with God.
Edited by ivorythumper, Mar 19 2012, 01:43 PM.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Mar 19 2012, 02:16 PM Post #225 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Then I would hope the priest would have the good sense to refuse 'Dolfy the communion wafer on the grounds that he is a tad to the pathological wacky side and more than likely not at all clear as to whether his anus is punched or bored. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |




).








4:50 PM Jul 10