Obviously the priest had the right. But was it right? I am not Catholic so I can't say.

Denied Communion at Mother's funeral

Religious Liberty!

In order to receive the Holy Eucharist, a communicant must among other things be in the state of grace. This basically means that the communicant must not have committed a mortal sin, a grave matter, since his last confession. Grave matters include murder and sexual acts outside of marriage, including homosexual acts, and other transgressions.

Catholics believe that at Communion they are receiving the actual body of Christ. It is the most sacred, important and intimite of the Seven Sacraments.

Of course, people, who are not in the state of grace, receive the sacrament every day. But when the Eucharistic Minister knows that one does not fall under the state of grace, he or she has a duty not to administer the sacrament.

I only know of one instance where communion was denied for this reason. A local doctor worked in a clinic where he performed abortions actually thought he could receive communion in the Church.

It sounds harsh that this happened at her mother's funeral, and I'm not sure if the woman was a practicing Catholic, who had been receiving communion elsewhere. But if she hadn't been a practicing catholic and was present only because it was her mother's funeral, she should have just remained seated during communion. And the same holds true for the man or woman, who is having an extramarital affair.

Klyd is completely right. While it might seem cold that this priest refused this woman at her mother's funeral. However, the priest did exactly what the laws of the Church instruct him to do.

I am so sorry that this woman was put through this pain after losing her mother. And I don't believe that this is what Jesus would have done. Jesus taught that only those of us without sin may sit in judgment. Unfortunately, there is a big gap between what Jesus taught and what the Church teaches.

Klyd and Babe are right on the money with this situation. Now I'm the first one to admit that I wish the Church's stances on contraception and homosexuality were different, but it is what it is. Until things change (and they probably won't), there are other places to worship Christ outside the confines of the Catholic Church. In the case of gays, the Episcopal Church springs to mind.

While his failure to provide her with communion may be consistent with Catholic doctrine, the article cites his rather acerbic attitude that has been criticized by the diocese and other religious spokespeople. Prior to the service, he certainly could have advised her of his intentions and saved her the embarrassment.

Like if she were a public figure like Rudy Giuliani? Oh wait, that actually happened .

Yes, because one would assume that his calling would also mean that he is a caring and compassionate soul. However, we must remember above all that he is a man, with all the faults and flaws that every one of us has.

My father suffered from celiac disease, which means he could never eat wheat. Therefore, he couldn't receive communion. Since his diagnosis over 40 years ago, when the disease was relatively unknown, there have been more and more cases. The Church, while it could provide such patients with an alternative, often refuses to do so.

In the 1950s, my family's parish priest was one of the few that would administer communion to the developmentally disabled. Very often, churches would refuse because they often spit out the wafer, etc.

The Church's history and their inflexibility has been well-documented over the years.

I can never picture Jesus refusing anyone a bite of morsel or drink.

Okay, what movie?

"Hey faddah, I got this girlfriend, she loves the taste of Communion wafers."

Saturday Night Fever, DUH!

The Church says that wafers must contain some wheat. While they will offer a "low gluten" alternative, it depends on a patients sensitivity to gluten. They could offer rice wafers, but Church Doctrine says that's not allowed.

Mark's right. Jesus would never tolerate such behavior toward His followers.

Well, that's one of the primary reason that he's being criticized. He's either compassionate or he's not. We certainly do expect a religious man who is charged with looking after his parishoners to be compassionate, to overcome human foibles, and to minister unto his flock in the name of Jesus as Jesus would.

He can do those things without throwing the beliefs about the sacrament out the window. You don't need to be Catholic to see the priest was 100% right.

He never excused sinful behavior either.

If you look at the comments under the article of this incident in various places, many people bring up the "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" story from the New Testament. It never ceases to amaze me how many overlook the last part of that story. After Jesus told the woman that He did not condemn her, he told her to go her way and "sin no more."

Seems to me this woman in the article wants to take communion without making any changes in her life. In her mind, it's the church and it's beliefs who should change. Not her.

Yes, he was.

He followed Church doctrine to the letter. He did his job (as unpopular as it might be at times). The Catholic Church isn't a cult. The door is open if you want to leave. And as I posted earlier, there are places to worship Christ outside the Catholic Church.

Right again, Ivy. You're a pretty smart Mormon .

This woman wants it both ways. And to be honest, that's not how the faith works.

His refusal was not wrong. The way he did it was wrong. If he knew this family well enough to know that this woman was gay, then he certainly had opportunity to pull her aside before the funeral mass to tell her that she could not violate Church rule and receive Communion at her mother's funeral. Refusing her at the altar was not necessary. And that is where I believe he lacked compassion.

Does she have any responsibility in this? Shouldn't she have been aware of the problem with her taking communion?

Agree. She should've done something about her "gay problem."

Yeah, like know the beliefs of the faith she professes and not try to take communion in the first place.

Yeah, like the infallability of the Pope.

Because a guy with a funny hat can not be wrong.

~The Art Carney Rule.

Of course, the issue isn't about whether you believe in the Catholic doctrine. It's whether she does. And, for the record, it's doctrine based not just on current church leadership but also scripture.

Ivy, yes she does have responsibility for her actions. However, I've been to many funerals, and I've seen a lot of people receive Communion and I doubt that all of the attendees are in a state of grace. It used to be that the night before the mass, the parish priest would come to the funeral home and give a sort of group absolution to those in attendance so that they could all receive Communion the next day.

I think that what we're hoping is that the Church evolves as we do, as it often has. For example, I am Catholic, but my husband is not. His mother was Catholic, but his father was not. His grandmother was Catholic, but not his grandfather, We've all been married by a Catholic priest, but the rules have changed significantly from one generation to the next.

His grandparents had to get married in the rectory. His parents were allowed to be married in church, but not at the altar. My husband and I were married in Church, at the altar, at a full mass. We didn't even have to promise that the children would be Catholic.

I was taught that Jesus believed we are all God's children, that God loves us all. I can't believe that doesn't extend to homosexuals.

I agree, Babe. We can only hope that the Church will continue to evolve. My wife's nephew is openly gay. He's a great kid. He's a funeral director in Manhattan (I got him the job eight years ago, right after he finished at the McAllister Institute), so he's in Church constantly. He's quite religious, and to see how hurt he is about how the Church he loves views his lifestyle is heartbeaking.

"The church that weds itself to the culture of the day will be a widow within each succeeding age." - Samuel Callan



I'm familiar with the teachings of Jesus. I also happen to have two gay brothers. But I also haven't forgotten that Jesus saves us from our sins, not in our sins.

The Catholic Church has changed over the years, mostly after Vatican II, and it's still here. I don't think it's going anywhere. It may have some places to still go, but it's certainly not going to disappear.

The Catholic Church (at least) will never embrace homosexuality as a lifestyle. After all, Scriptures say it's a sin to "lay with men as with women." They do admit that it's not a sin simply being homosexual, and they don't have a problem with gays themselves (as long as they're celibate). I can't presume to speak for Jesus, but I would think that He would love homosexuals like all other "sinners" he's loved throughout the New Testament -- He would just never condone the sins themselves and would encourage them to "repent" from them. So, regardless of my views (people should be able to do whatever or whomever they want as long as it's between consensual adults), the Catholic Church will never be that progressive.

In any event, Kly is right, most of us are NOT in a state of grace when we receive Communion either -- and that's a sin in itself. The Priest was correct, but could have handled it differently. He could have heard her confession before the ceremony (tho with her "living in sin" he may have ruled that out), or simply explained the situation beforehand. (BTW, how did he even know that she was living with another woman??)

As I stated in a previous post, the priest's refusal to administer communion to her may have been consistent with Church doctrine. However, as the diocese rightly apologized for (and which other religious leaders have criticized that priest concerning), the priest in question did not render to her the usual and customary and expected solace and comfort that he is supposed to render.

The quote was suggesting the Catholic Church is going anywhere. The point is, any church worth it's salt won't simply change, or "evolve" as you put it, simply to stay with the times or to appeal to popular opinion.



+1

Are we keeping score now??