Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Woman denied Communion because she's a lesbian
Topic Started: Mar 1 2012, 08:38 AM (4,042 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
But she's also a baptized christian... so how do you not communicate her?


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 9 2012, 05:39 AM
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 ^_^ ).
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.

Quote:
 
(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)"
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Curious as to what Dewey has to say about the priest's take on the situation.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somebody else's sock
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

Quote:
 
Specific details about why the Rev. Marcel Guarnizo was barred from ministry – a severe penalty – were not immediately available. The Post learned of the action from a letter dated March 9 that is written to other archdiocesan priests.

The letter from Bishop Barry Knestout, a top administrator in the archdiocese, which covers Washington and the Maryland suburbs, says the punishment was for “engaging in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.”

The archdiocese on Sunday confirmed Guarnizo's removal, and noted that Knestout's letter was read at all Masses this weekend at St. John Neumann. The pastor there, the Rev. Thomas LaHood, added some additional comments, including noting -- and repeating -- that the removal was not related to the Communion standoff, but "pertains to actions over the past week or two." He did not elaborate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
somebody else's sock
Mar 17 2012, 05:30 AM
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

Quote:
 
Specific details about why the Rev. Marcel Guarnizo was barred from ministry – a severe penalty – were not immediately available. The Post learned of the action from a letter dated March 9 that is written to other archdiocesan priests.

The letter from Bishop Barry Knestout, a top administrator in the archdiocese, which covers Washington and the Maryland suburbs, says the punishment was for “engaging in intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others that is incompatible with proper priestly ministry.”

The archdiocese on Sunday confirmed Guarnizo's removal, and noted that Knestout's letter was read at all Masses this weekend at St. John Neumann. The pastor there, the Rev. Thomas LaHood, added some additional comments, including noting -- and repeating -- that the removal was not related to the Communion standoff, but "pertains to actions over the past week or two." He did not elaborate.
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
somebody else's sock
Middle Aged Carp
One more thing: Does anyone else think Fr Marcel bears a striking resemblance to someone else?

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
My thoughts as well, Dave.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Aqua Letifer
Mar 17 2012, 05:04 AM
Curious as to what Dewey has to say about the priest's take on the situation.
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
OK, let's see:

Quote:
 
On Saturday February 25th I showed up to officiate at a funeral Mass for Mrs. Loetta Johnson. The arrangements for the Mass were also not my own. I wish to clarify that Ms. Barbara Johnson (the woman who has since complained to the press), has never been a parishioner of mine. In fact I had never met her or her family until that morning.

The funeral celebration was to commence at 10:30a.m. From 9:30 to 10:20, I was assigned to hear confessions for the parish and anyone in the funeral party who would have chosen to receive the sacrament.

A few minutes before the Mass began, Ms. Johnson came into the sacristy with another woman whom she announced as her “lover”. Her revelation was completely unsolicited.


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.

Quote:
 
In the past ten days, many Catholics have referenced canon 915 in regard to this specific circumstance. There are other reasons for denying communion which neither meet the threshold of canon 915 or have any explicit connection to the discipline stated in that canon.

If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion....This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching.


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.

Quote:
 
In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so.


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.

Quote:
 
There was no scandal,...


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.

Quote:
 
During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson’s funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Posted Image

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 18 2012, 04:45 PM
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.
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.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
In all of the above circumstances, I would have been placed in a similar uncomfortable position. Under these circumstances, I quietly withheld communion, so quietly that even the Eucharistic Minister standing four feet from me was not aware I had done so.


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.
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.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
There was no scandal,...


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.
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?
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
During the two eulogies (nearly 25 minutes long), I quietly slipped for some minutes into the sacristy lavatory to recover from the migraine that was coming on. I never walked out on Mrs. Loetta Johnson’s funeral and the liturgy was carried out with the same reverence and care that I celebrate every Mass. I finished the Mass and accompanied the body of the deceased in formal procession to the hearse, which was headed to the cemetery. I am subject to occasional severe migraines, and because the pain at that point was becoming disabling, I communicated to our funeral director that I was incapacitated and he arranged one of my brother priests to be present at the cemetery to preside over the rite of burial.


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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Mikhailoh
Mar 17 2012, 04:56 AM
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.
I found D'Oh's version pretty compelling.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
This reads to me as if you are looking for nothing more than prosecutorial fodder. His heart cannot be black enough for you.


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.

Quote:
 
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.


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.

Quote:
 
There are some (very orthodox) Catholic canonists who think he was wrong to withhold even under those circumstances.


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.

Quote:
 
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?


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Mar 19 2012, 06:18 AM
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.

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.
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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.

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.

Once again you cannot help but frame it in language and imagery that are completely of your own limitation. This might be insurmountable.
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
There are some (very orthodox) Catholic canonists who think he was wrong to withhold even under those circumstances.

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.
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?
Quote:
 

Quote:
 
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?


I consider the church's doctrine that refuses the sacrament to her to be a scandal.
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.
Quote:
 

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.
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.
Quote:
 

I consider it scandalous when a church institution claims the authority to be a more exclusive and limiting arbiter than Christ did himself.
Which is incorrect on your part, but you ignore Matt 18.
Quote:
 

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.
ditto.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
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
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Copper
Mar 19 2012, 12:54 PM
What if he said "This is Adolf Hitler, the fuhrer I'm genociding with"?
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply