Gay Woman denied Communion at funeral

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??

If you're referring to the "+1," it means I agree with what he said.

I'm not surprised at this. After all, Mary Cheney was raised in an extremely liberal, atheistic household, in which the gay agenda was mercilessly promoted, and which espoused the destructiion of traditional marriage:

CNN) – Mary Cheney, the daughter of Dick Cheney, married her longtime partner Heather Poe Friday, according to a statement from the former vice president's office.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/22/report-mary-cheney-marries-partner/?hpt=hp_t2

This is actually a point to really knock Cheney himself on. He's to the right of Attila the Hun on just about everything. But, because his daughter is gay, that's the one issue he takes a liberal stance on? It shoots a giant hole in his credibility and just gives ammo to the pro-gay agenda.

A politician who's a hypocrite? Say it ain't so .

But all kidding aside, you're right. Cheney looks terribly inconsistent here. Because as you said, the guy is basically to the right of Attila the Hun.

By ETHAN BRONNER updated 6/23/2012 3:52:15 AM ET 2012-06-23T07:52:15

David Blankenhorn, a national figure in the movement against same-sex marriage, has recanted his opposition, saying “the time has come for me to accept gay marriage and emphasize the good that it can do.”

Mr. Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, wrote an influential book that argued against same-sex marriage in 2007, called “The Future of Marriage,” and served as an expert witness against the constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which limited marriage to heterosexuals.

On Friday, he said in an opinion article for The New York Times, published online, and in an interview on NPR that his concerns about same-sex marriage remained, but that “the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47930211/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Okay TIS and Babe, start typing:

Bisexuality is real, and most straight women are basically lesbians, according to a study by Cornell University. Their research measured the dilation of individuals’ pupils while watching porn to establish the subject's sexual preference. As you would expect, straight men’s pupils dilated more to images of women in states of arousal. Bisexual men responded to both, as did supposedly heterosexual women. "We can now finally argue that a flexible sexual desire is not simply restricted to women — some men have it, too, and it is reflected in their pupils," co-author, Ritch C. Savin-Williams concluded. Guess those "art films" had it right all along.

What an absolute crock of shit. Now I'm as open-minded as the next guy, and I support civil unions and courthouse marriages for gays. But this is ridiculous.

It's nothing but Far Left college campus propaganda. They won't be happy until they get it in writing that everyone is bisexual. If they were truly comfortable in their own skin, they wouldn't feel the need to make everyone else gay, too .

Silly, stupid and without basis.

The pupils are the windows to the soul ... and body parts.

I agree with you 100%, pizzaboy.

By the way, did anyone ever tell you how sexy you are when you're angry?

Just you, sweety .

Check his pupils! Check his pupils!

Ha ha ha ha LOL You guys are hilarious.


TIS

My pupils are in a frenzy!

Maybe the priest was too busy ogling the altar boy.

Unfortunately this woman did not know of her options at the time. The Roman Catholic Church does not like to admit it, but there are other Catholic denominations (i.e. the Ecumenical Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church) with entirely valid sacraments and in some cases even open communion for all those who wish to partake of it. Most of them will also give the Sacrament of Matrimony to any couple regardless of gender, and in areas where this is not legal they will perform same-sex blessing ceremonies.

Those offshoots aren't recognized by the Vatican. In the eyes of Rome, they may as well be Scientologists.

Yes, they are independent of Rome, but the point I was trying to make is that there are other forms of Catholic worship outside of the most popular Roman Catholic denomination.

http://www.oldcatholic.org/roman_church_views.htm

Or, maybe more appropriately, some Protestant denomination. I mean, if they want to go off and do their own thing so they can give gay people Communion, that's one thing. But they can't call themselves Catholic.

[quote=dontomasso]Maybe the priest was too busy ogling the altar boy. [/quote

And it's just the new posters who spew hate! Here is a sign of a mature sophisticated adult!

You know, if you peruse Leviticus, Romans, etc. in the Bible you will find quite a few passages that inveigh against homosexual practices between or with men, but hardly any references to such between or with women.

The Bible's stance on homosexuality, whoever is involved, is obvious.

However inappropriately the priest may have handled the situation in front of a grieving family, the Church's stance is clear on this. The woman should not have been able to receive Communion. That said, I've been to plenty of weddings and funerals and I've seen plenty of people receive who, according to Church doctrine, should not. Not once have I ever seen a priest refuse someone.

So do you believe that any Catholic who isn't in the "state of grace" should be denied communion, or just gays?

Whether one believes in the administration of communion or not, Catholic Canon dictates when it should be administered and when it should not be. A priest who administers communion to a recipient whose state is not in compliance with the Canon participates in the Canon's violation and also bears the sin and consequences of that action.

This only applies if there is public knowledge or priest is certain. Priests don't have esp, so it's up to the recipient to have their heart right.

So if someone who isn't in the state of grace and quite comfortable with not being in the state of grace goes to a relative's burial ceremony, what's the proper thing to do? Not going forward to receive communion? Isn't that douchy?

Maybe the priest was distracted by the altar boy.

All this anger toward priests must come from somewhere? And as I said above your always accusing the "new members" of immature and conversations above thier heads! To talk down about an entire group of men when a small portion of that group has made them look bad is about as classless as it gets!

And nothing for nothing DT your always posting like your the smartest guy in the room with this self perceived great insight and critical thinking. And that's all well and good, however a post like this shows your deep hypocritical thinking and like I said it must come from something? To give all these other vagrants a pass and to dump on priests with your cheap shots every chance you get is telling!

That's exactly what you're supposed to do - not go to the altar to receive. However, in the past, when the priest was saying prayers at the funeral home the night before the mass, he would also offer a group absolution to those in attendance so that everyone could receive Communion at the mass the next day. I guess they don't do that anymore??

Thanks SB, I'd have never guessed. I would have thought it would be rude not to do what everyone else was doing.

My husband was never baptized, so he has never received Communion. It's a little awkward when the pew empties and he's still there, but he knows it would be a bad thing to go up.

I know the feeling, especially after eating Mexican food.

SB, is there an age barrier for getting baptized in Catholic Church?

None

Thanks Kly.

I should add that adults, wishing to become Roman Catholic, have to go through months of instruction, before they can be baptized or confirmed.

My father-in-law was Italian, but raised as a Presbyterian. As long as I had known him, he didn't go to church. When he was dying of cancer, he asked if I'd take him to mass at the Catholic Church, to which I belonged. He wanted to receive Communion, but bad Catholic that I am, I didn't stop him. He was worried that the priest would say something, but I told him that while the priest was a pretty bright guy, he can't tell a Protestant from a catholic just by looking at them.

After he died, a funeral mass was held for him at my brother-in-law's catholic church in his hometown. The priest there had known my father-in-law casually through my brother-in-law and also by the fact that my father-in-law operated a popular restaurant in town. father Rick scheduled the mass, thinking the deceased was just a non practicing Catholic. When he asked my brother-in-law after the service where my father-in-law last attended church, he was surprised that it was the local Presbyterian church. My BIL asked if this was a problem, the priest said, "Not really, but now I have to explain it to them and the bishop."

DT is one of the most respected (and smartest if not the smartest) contributors to this Board and I as well as many other Board members appreciate and look forward to his posts.

It's important for posters to keep in mind that just as their posts about law and order should acknowledge statutes and due process, their posts about the Catholic religion should acknowledge the Church's laws (which are called the Canon) and their historical interpretation. Babe's and Kly's recent posts in this thread are an example of such acknowledgement.

Great he's the smartest if not the smartest! Cheers! I'm happy for him. Regardless of all his titles I find those posts tasteless, classless and whatever other plug in words some feel necessary to use to display there intelligence online. I will state this though, there's an effort made to display PC by many here however that goes out the window when it comes to the Catholic Church. I am a proud member of that church. And again you can pounce all you want on any group you choose, I felt the need to make note of the post and made an attempt to do so in a civil manner. Again, the PC police all hide when the Catholic Church is mentioned. And yet they are out in full force to defend everyone else.

Oli, what do Canon laws, Sicilian Babes and Kly's recent comments have to do with the constant bashing of priests?

And I like the little (Canon law) knowledge you grace me with! Thank you! If DT is number# 1 your a close#2!

Thanks for the story. Nice of you to expand on this. I'm not really sure what branch of Christianity was the church I was going, it was called a "Church of God." Any idea what branch that could've been?

My SIL converted to Catholicism last year and he did not have to be baptized. As I understand it, the Catholic church will accept a Christian baptism from another religion.

Kly's right tho about the process. It does take months.



TIS

TIS, your son in law sounds like a very smart young man!

DT is one of the most respected (and smartest if not the smartest) contributors to this Board and I as well as many other Board members appreciate and look forward to his posts.

And I've heard this explanation quite a few times. Is this an excuse for demeaning another's beliefs or religion? Had some made this statement about an ethnic group, religion or sexual preference how would that be received? We've gone to great lengths to protect the feelings of every other group and yet there's a constant attack on the Catholic Church. Is it perfect? Far from it! I'm just confused how when a particular belief is attacked it's ok and when other creeds, religions and/ or groups are there's such an outpouring of protest!

My husband wasn't raised in any religion. His father was Protestant and his mother was Roman Catholic, but she had a break from the Church, so refused to have him baptized although his brother was. His aunt said she baptized him in the kitchen sink, which does count in the Church, but he never received any other sacrament.

I was very surprised that the priest didn't pressure him to become Catholic when we went for pre-marriage counseling. He didn't even have to promise that he would raise our children Catholic, although that was our plan.

Anyone who isn't, obviously. The priest simply wasn't singling out the woman because she's gay.

For the record, in the LDS church, gays are able to take the Sacrament as long as they are not engaging in homosexual behavior. I don't know if the Catholic church makes that distinction or not.

I'll tell you why religion doesn't work nowdays, there are two reasons:
1) The times have changed drastically from the times when Christianity was started.
2) There's this shitload of idiots who don't understand the rules of the religion and manipulate them for their own gain.

For example sex before marriage. It's more or less there to have the children to have both parents and so their father doesn't bail out as without marriage he would have no responsibility or any relation towards the woman.

That's just one example. You obsessed people with religion do not really understand those regulations the church has made. You have just taken in mind the literal sentence that is written and memorized and praised it over and over again. Which is quite dumb.

So a religion is suppose to change with the times? Does that hold true for all rules and laws? Just change them when it suites the times? Quite dumb! Really, I have a ton of responses for that but for once I will be the one with class.

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



That's certainly true. Too many members of any given religion often don't really understand it. Those like that in my church make me want to pull my hair out.



Though not the only reason, the religious desire for a couple being married before they have sex certainly does have those social components to it. And nobody, not even the most die hard liberal, can argue that children being born and raised with their parents being married (assuming it's a loving, stable marriage) isn't preferable to anything else. Even a blind man can see the damage the loosening of sexual mores in society, including pre-marital sex, has done.



Are you referring to a specific church or churches in general?

Religion shouldn't change, it should accept the time it's at. Nowdays a very different life out there. As you see couples are having sex before marriage, there are a lot of homosexuals nowdays we do not cut off the thief's right hand for stealing candy from the local shop and there's many more other stuff. It's common sense. Such as cops years ago would more concentrate on bank robbers, nowdays their concentration is more on the drugs.

Another thing is the celibate, the main intention was to get the priest to be more dedicated to religion. All it has resulted is thousands of victims who have suffered molestation from these "god's workers" who are often helped by other priests.

And I'll tell you why there's all these problems. Just because religion wasn't adjusted to nowdays, it is stuck in those 2000 years back when it was started and that's a difference.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying religion shouldn't change but then you say it should accept the time it's in; inferring that it should indeed change with the times.

Generally speaking, true principles remain true, regardless of what time period we're in. Homosexuality is a good example. Just because it's become more acceptable in society today, that hasn't changed how it's seen in God's eyes. Something being common, socially acceptable, or legal doesn't make it inherently right.

+1. Great examples!

Okay, how do you know that God doesn't accept homosexuals? You'll say it's put like that by the church, priest or whoever the fuck. How do they know what God likes and what he doesn't like? I'll say it straight, they don't. No-one of us knows.

Just because some people are not tolerant against homosexuals that's how the concept of "God not loving homosexuals" was born. You're being manipulated right from the core.

You know, this has always hit a nerve with me also. When someone posts this kind of statement about another poster. Like they have a higher status then the rest of the posters here- which is bullshit.

I have seen more and more where newer posters are jumped on by the some of the so called "old guard" here. Almost coming to the rescue it seems.

and I also know for sure that this same type of old school thought has driven away a lot on new posters who didn't get the nod because their views didn't match some around here.
Sure, some did have real problems, but many have felt ganged up on by some who think they have some kind of upper status here.

and I would like this to noted and maybe advoided in the future so the board can grow and remain a special place for all not just a select few.

The more here the better! So let us all make sure our passion doesn't kill others enjoyment for this site.

Peace to all.

Satire is something other than making personal attacks on other posters.

May I suggest that you use a or another smile to show that it is satire vs an attack mode. There is nothing wrong with satire on a subject. God knows, I use it enough, but also use a so people know I am doing just that. Just a suggestion....

No personal attack! And I'd seen the "satire" several times so it seemed to be more of an attack than a joke. If you say it was satire then I missed the humor sorry.

Same principle, Ivy. In the Roman Catholic Church, the sin doesn't lie in the temptation or the inclination, but in the act itself.

The late Father Mychal Judge (killed on 9/11 during the rescue effort) was openly gay in that men were his sexual preference, and he admitted as much. But he didn't act on it, and he is one of the most revered priests in New York City history.

The scriptures are very clear on homosexuality. Of course,this is where advocates of homosexuality try to discredit the Bible but, time and time again, they show they've neither really read, let alone understand, it. If people want to be all for homosexuality, so be it. But they shouldn't try to argue against the Bible when they have, at best, a very shallow knowledge of it.

Another mistake you're making is, you assume because YOU don't know what God wants or likes, that must mean NOBODY does.

You're also assuming religious people must have been "manipulated" while you're the independent, free-thinker.

Stating the obvious doesn't make it an argument. I see no reasoning or the slightest effort in refuting those claims.

Would it do any good? Ultimately, there's a way for everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth about God but it's not in the way you, he, or others who think like you would have it. What's more, people like you and he really don't want to come to that knowledge. You're more comfortable in thinking you've figured it all out on your own. It's why the Bible, as well as other scriptures, are a closed book to you. You trust in your own judgement, and the learning of man, rather than looking to He who made you.

With your reasoning I doubt it. I was merely pointing out that what you said was just the repetition of what he said, not an argument.

Let me further explain what fault I find with your reasoning.

I say there is no God. You can't back your argument with scripture, when clearly I don't believe in God in the first place, let alone a God who you suggest has sent some sort of scripture. How do you know this is the same work of that said God? Then you say everyone knows there is a God. But here I am and I don't think there is one. The burden of proof falls upon the person who suggests there is a God.

I think we need to make a distinction here between the concept of "God" and the harsh reality of organized religions and so-called "scripture."

No one can deny that there are ultimate ideals such as Truth, Love, etc., but whether these ideals exist in the person of a "God" or for that matter in the persons of "gods," is something else.

There is no question that humans have always looked beyond themselves to find answers for the imperfections of life, and in doing so, most hope that there is a way to make sense out of senselesness. IMHO this has always given rise to stories and fables about greater powers which somehow fashion our destinies.

This search is demonstrated by the thousands of "god-stories" that have existed through history. The polytheists of the west, among whom the best known are the Greeks (followed by the Romans) and the Norse, had these gods who got themselves involved in human life to the extent they altered it to suit their purposes, sometimes in opposition with one another. With the development of writing I think these models became unworkable and we went from polytheism to monotheism, as exemplified by the beliefs of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Still, however we cannot ever totally escape our pagan origins, and thus we have things like the trinity (three gods in one) the veneration of Mary (a goddes of sorts) and various rituals including bodily mutilation (circumcision) and dietary restrictions which are considered to be "godly" and somehow a means to separate ourselces from the randomness of things.

All three major religions in the West have been through countless iterations and reformations, and thus claimants to the "true faith" within each of these belief-sets which are often at war with one another (See, e.g. Sunnis and Shiiites, Catholics and protestants, Reform and Orthodox Jews).

through this lens it is difficult to believe that the fairy tales we have had passed down from the ancient texts which form (but are not the Bible, Torah, or Koran) are to be taken literally. I mean talking snakes? arks with every species on board? flying horses from Medina to Jerusalem?

What I am saying is all these strictures of the various religions are created by people who all claim some special knowledge of "God," which I think is a lot of nonsense.

This business about the priest refusing communion to a gay woman is a perfect case in poinnt. Who is this priest to assume she is not in a state of grace? Maybe she went to confession the day before. In doing what he did he assumed he was god-like, which in and of itself is a sin under the laws of the Roman church (it is called "presumption."

As this and other similar threads go forward, I would hope people make a distinction between religious institutions and the eistence of some kind of divine being(s).

Very great post DT. However, I'm not sure why we need the distinction between two concepts that are equally at fault here. Believing in a divine being is ground for many injustices. For instance, people think others deserve their lot in life, because there's a divine being that makes sure people get what they deserve. Or that their good fortune is because they have been great human beings and equally whatever bad happens to them is some kind of test. It's that sense of righteousness that is not constructive for a society.

I agree ASF that no one has the right to say he or she is better off, or that someone else is worse off because of he nature of his or her faith. that is all preposterous.

All I am trying to say is we need to distinhuish between the faults of humans i.e. what you point out, or the existence of religions, and the possible existence of SOMETHING that is beyond us. Personally I struggle with a great deal of spiritual issues, and while I am prepared to renounce all organized religion, I am not prepared to renounce the existence of some kind of divinity. I personally believe such a renunciation is as idiotic as the sureness with which some people say there is absolutely nothing more what what we can see.

Ex-fucking-actly!!!!

The Atheists who are absolutely sure of the fact that there's no God are just as obnoxious as the holy rollers who insist there is. We'll all find out soon enough. I'm in no damned hurry, and arguing about it during life here on earth is pretty pointless.

Of course no one can be sure. But then again, as Russell pointed out, one can claim there's a very small tea pot somewhere in space that no one can see and they can't prove there's such a thing, but you just have to accept it faithfully that there is. Atheism is not the state of being sure there is no divine being that's responsible for our existence. It's the state that we need more than just blind faith to accept there is a God and until then, we have no reason to believe there is.

It is for some people, AFS (and you know I'm certainly not talking about you ).

But guys like Hitchens took it so far that in its own way, it was an extreme form of religion in itself. For some people, it's an almost politically extreme brand of Athesim, if you will.

Every group has their extremists, there's no denying that. I once heard him recite a poem that was certainly rude and he credited to an old persian poet/mathematician who sure was an atheist by the looks of his poems, but he certainly was not disrespectful of others. And that poem was not the translation of his works. What can you say, we all can be at fault no matter what our positions.

Absolutely right about the positions. My wife is always faulting me because I won't get on top anymore.

I did walk right into that, didn't I?

Wait a minute! You mean your wife will let you do any of that? My wife told me that we used up all of the positions and there's no use in doing that again.

Better you walked into it than backed into it, because some people here believe that that kind of lovemaking is a sin .

True that PB!

Ok, I get it, God personally called you last Monday and you both had a conversation for two hours how he hates them homosexuals.


Ok, take it like this. The bible says you are not allowed to eat meat for that time of the year. What you do? You don't eat meat, because the bible says. You practically do everything religion says you to do, that way you're being manipulated.

And this isn't about me thinking who I am. I respect religion, I take my mother to the church, because she wants it. But I'm not a part of it. I just think that we as a human are the only one in the whole world who can control our lives. Everything you do is your own fault, not because God wanted it to happen.

Just like you say religion is against homosexuals. So, what has a person done there wrong if he is in love with another person? That's not a sin in my eyes, no matter how'd you try to convince me what the bible says. As a sin I take murder or doing something bad to someone, that's a sin.

And religion should change first, as an example pursue and prosecute all those pedophile priests not cover them up. And even covering them up is a bigger sin than being a homosexual, in my opinion.

Just wanted to say something about that homosexuality matter.
I have always been neutral towards homosexuality in a sense that, even though I personally don't like it, I never forced my views on others and don't consider homosexuals as inferior people. But I once saw on a forum a Catholic 14-year-old user being ganged up, insulted and treated with extreme arrogance by homosexuality supporters (who are not homosexuals themselves, at least that's what they say) just because he stated he personally agreed with the statement from the Bible that homosexuality was a sin. It must be said they were headed by the admin of the site who proudly stated he didn't believe in God, but behaved himself in such an arrogant way, as if he thought he himself was God who can never be wrong under any circumstances, not just about homosexuality. I intervened, trying to be as polite as possible and said being rude to others is wrong under any circumstances as long as the insulted ones aren't rude themselves (and this user wasn't, believe me) and stated my position (more or less the same that I said to you in the first sentences of this post. The fact is that not only excrements were thrown at me and I was later banned, but the admin even started spreading rumors on the forum that I have been banned for continuously harassing another user through PMs (I have sent to this user only one PM in my life, which contained only a polite request to make peace after a previous argument).

So, imagine what can I think about the so-called "homosexuality supporters" now that I have seen what methods they use (at least those of them whom I came into direct contact with).

Why am I telling you this? Because I think that the modern society is falling into extreme just like in the middle ages, only in another aspects of life. While then the Church was often wrong in the past, many of the today's "human right advocates" behave themselves in the same manner. If they pretend to be right, they should use different methods from whom they despise.
Otherwise, it's would be like turning racism (or any other prejudice for that matter) backwards and start saying that whites are inferior than blacks just like before blacks were said to be inferior than whites.

I mean, everybody should have the right to stick to their opinion without being looked upon as an enemy. But no, many people want to be absolute winners and crush and humiliate the other side.
I don't know, maybe many people who proclaim themselves Christians are intolerant or even violent too, but if I speak from personal experience, I found the opposite side much more aggressive for the most part (I am not speaking about the users in this discussion on this forum).

Well, that's one of your main problems right there. Believing the burden is on others, if not God Himself, to convince you. Neither God, or believers, are on trial regarding your beliefs. You are.

To automatically reject scripture is another big problem. Especially when I'd be willing to bet you've never really studied the scriptures, let alone understand them.

But even if we set the scriptures aside for a moment, I'd argue that everything around us is a sign that there is a God. The uniqueness of life on this earth. How the planets move in their revolutions. The times and seasons. All things testify that there is a God.



This is one of the worst fallacies atheists believe - the idea that various Pagan beliefs predate Christianity. And that Christianity is just a rehashing, of sorts, of those old Pagan stories. This is completely backwards. It reality, it's the other way around.



Why is that nonsense? Sure, it may be untrue coming from some of them. Or a lot of them. But are all of them liars? And what are you basing this on? Simply because YOU don't have a special knowledge of God?



The priest knew that she was living with a woman. It doesn't take God to see she was certainly not within a state of grace. I think you would have just preferred he "wink" at her situation and let her take communion.

I don't think the burden is on God, remember, I don't believe in God. I said once and I say again, if I'm the one that claims there's something and then expect everyone to believe in that, it's I who has to prove such a thing exists before expecting others to take me and what I say seriously. I don't care if each and everyone in the planet say it is so. Saying doesn't prove much. I need tangible evidence.

You are trying to say that this apparent design and complexity in world needs a creator. I respectfully disagree. As for the movements of planets, you could see once in a while a stray asteroid colliding with another body. Things are in sync till they aren't. Once they are not, they either concur and bring about a new world order, or go extinct. Same goes for creatures that are born everyday. There were once dinosaurs, but then the earth's order changed and they couldn't cope or change their environment and went extinct. Or look at a kid that's born with two heads, there's no design in that. It's as random as a coin toss. Either it works with this order, or changes the order in its favor, or goes extinct. There's nothing smart about this design that make me think there's a creator. A million other people could've been born instead of me to my parents. I don't consider me being here a divine intervention. To me, it's a random incident. So is this world.

Funny how there's a thread about God up right now and we are discussing this matter in this topic.

No, not exactly like that. And nobody said God "hates" homosexuals.



Oh, how I do love when the non-believers misquote the Bible in order to make a point.

Where in the Bible does it say one shouldn't eat meat at a certain time of year? The law of Moses certainly forbade eating certain kinds of meat. But that was done away with with the coming of Christ. Catholics, from my understanding, do abstain from meat on Good Friday but that's out of tradition and not specifically commanded in the Bible.



I'd be the first to agree that we all have our free agency, and so are responsible for our own choices. But it's not like our free agency and the existence of God are mutually exclusive.



It may not be a sin in your eyes but you're not the one who gets to make the rules. Frankly, even God Himself doesn't make the rules either but also has to obey eternal law.



Agreed, though they're both sins.

Whoa! The bible's restrictions on diet were abolished by Christ? I think not. The Last Supper was a Passover Seder complete with the unleavened bread still used at communion.

The bible forbids the eating of pork, shellfish and it prohibits having a glass of milk with meat on the side. The New Testament never did away with that.

I mean show me in the gospels where it says "This is the New ovenant. Go have a ham sandwich."

I still don't understand what's the problem. Even it still was really strict about food, it's not like the Church forces anybody to join. And besides, as far as I know, if a person is ill or has lifelong health problems, they are allowed to eat meat no matter when. I am an Orthodox Christian though, so maybe in other churches it's different, I don't know. As I get it, some temporary restrictions on food were originally introduced to prevent people from being gluttons (not a bad recommendation for their health in my opinion).

Read the book of Acts chapter 15, especially the Jerusalem Council letter to gentile churches. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not but if you read the letter, there's restriction on food sacrificed to idols, blood, and meat from strangled animals. These were the only restrictions on food.

This is part of your problem. You say if God doesn't prove Himself to you in just a certain way, you won't believe. You narrow the goal posts so much as to basically excuse yourself and your disbelief because you know it won't happen like that.



The coming of Christ fulfilled certain requirements in the Law of Moses, including all the dietary ones. Many of the strict day-to-day things in the Mosaic Law were given as a lesser law to the Israelites after they had rejected the higher law (which Christ later brought) during the golden calf incident.

Christ participated in the passover, which had always been a type of His eventual sacrifice. But what did He do immediately after that? He introduced the sacrament. Once the sacrifice of the true Lamb of God was complete, there was no need for passover anymore. From then on, the observance of His atonement would be through the sacrament.



Yup. This is what I'm talking about. If people don't want to believe in the Bible, that's one thing. But it gets really old when these non-believers attempt to discredit the Bible by misquoting or misinterpreting it. The vast majority of them have never read it, let alone even have the most basic understanding of it. They simply have heard certain anti-Bible talking points from other non-believers and they regurgitate those.

I clearly said I don't believe in God, let alone expect him to prove himself. But if you need to say a nonsense in there as your last word, so be it.

And you said you won't believe unless you get tangible evidence.

Which means a concrete evidence, which again you failed to show me one as to why there has to be a God.

And I'm saying there's a way to know just as surely as anything. But it's not in the way you want. And it doesn't come to anyone who has the attitude you do.

What's my attitude has to do with this? If existence of God was a universal fact, my attitude would have been beside the point.

While your attitude has nothing to do with God's existence, you coming to a knowledge of that does.

If it doesn't, then please explain. It might help others with different attitudes. Only a charlatan would suggest something exists, but for others to know it, they have to change their attitudes. In other words, "Please be more gullible to not ask questions or challenge my claims and just know them by a blood pumping organ (heart) and feel it down your intestines (gut)."

Nobody is saying not to ask questions or even challenges. But God is not going to reveal Himself to anyone who isn't a humble seeker of the truth. You've convinced yourself, or so you claim, that God doesn't exist. So, you've made up your mind. He's not going to reveal Himself to somebody like that. Not because He doesn't exist, not because He's incapable of it, but because you shut the door.

Your argument makes as much sense as saying it like this:

Bigfoot is not going to reveal Himself to anyone who isn't a humble seeker of the truth. You've convinced yourself, or so you claim, that Bigfoot doesn't exist. So, you've made up your mind. He's not going to reveal Himself to somebody like that. Not because He doesn't exist, not because He's incapable of it, but because you shut the door.

You coming to a knowledge of whether Bigfoot exists has no bearing on your eternal salvation.

Hey buddy, slow down. You are yet to tell me a reason why you think there is god. Eternal salvation? Big foot salvation? All these discussions are pending on proving either of these things exist first.

I'm under no obligation to prove anything. In this life, God isn't on trial. We are. And I could go into how I know but that would be the classic case of throwing pearls before swine.

Of course you are not, until you keep your beliefs to yourself. But then you are telling me homosexual acts are wrong. Even then I still could live with that, until you come out and say society should not let them get married. At this point you are under the obligation to prove first there is a god, and that he has said so.

However if you live and let live, I could care less if you believe in bigfoot or god or whatever else you like. It's your first amendment right.

I'm an atheist, and I think gay marriage is sick thing for society to allow.

Yes, you already said that, but your claim is that homosexuality is a sickness, and pretty much is pedophilia, which science doesn't support your claim. So nice try.

I could put up link to science studies lie I did last week, and you would say they were wrong. I don't go strictly by science, I go by what most people still sane and not brainwashed go by.

The real fact is that naturally every living species were made to reproduce. By going into a homosexual act, the species doesn't reproduce. So it's an unnatural act.
However, homosexual relations have been practiced very long now, so they're just another part of the society that we live in. Just as there are the rich and the poor.
Homosexuals are not even near to pedophiles, and it's pretty damn idiotic to compare them. Homosexuals do not molest and force the other person into having sex with them(of course there is the thing called rape, but heterosexuals also have it).
By denying homosexuals to get married, you won't change anything. They won't disappear. And if a child is raised normally, I don't think there's anything wrong with an orphan to be raised in a family than being raised in an orphanage.

Disagree on this point. Natural means: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

The state of being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual, since being homosexual is not by choice. Plain and simple.

So in other words you go with prejudice and ignorance. Science is not brain washing. It's emancipating your mind from what is not based on facts. But if you choose to be brainwashed and be a slave of your old beliefs, It's your choice as well. Thankfully, times are changing. Your ways are not glorified anymore.

No need to be rude, not everything can be explained by science, at least yet. And some people use the "defense of homosexuals" argument just as an excuse to be high and mighty towards others to feed their own ego (I personally dealt with some of them and I know what I am talking about in this case). To me, that's no better than the behavior of the church towards "heretics" in the middle ages.

Whoa everybody!!!!!!!! We are getting into a debate, if you can call it that about gay rights, acceptance of gays and all the rest.

The Catholic Church is a private religion that can have whatever policy it wants about gays ot whatever else. This is the Church that used to come to the Americas from Spain, baptizee thousands of indigenous people en masse, and slaughter them, believeing they were doing them a favor because as newly baptized Christians (instead of pagans) they would go straight to heaven.

If you do not chose to believe the nonsense the Catholics teach, and most people dont, then don't be a member of the church.

If they say gays cannot receive communion, its their right to say that. Gays find other religions that are more tolerant.

To me this is a non issue.

I no more condemn this practice than I condemn Jews and Muslims from eating shrimp. I think it is all stupid, but I respect their reight to their beliefs, no matter how weird.

DT, obviously the debate digressed. On the matter of this topic, I agree with you, a homosexual can't walk into a church and expect the same treatment. But with everything else with the usual debaters of this issue, everything ends up being about gay marriage. From a certain point the debate is shifted toward gay marriage, not the treatment of that lady by that Catholic priest, which I don't dispute.

It was senseless actions of maniacs who labeled themselves as Christians, I think nobody of today's Catholics or other Christians will dispute the fact that an honest atheist (even gay) is more a decent person worthy of going to Heaven than a multiple murderer who kills in the name of religion.

I think it's time for all of you to agree to disagree. No one is changing anyone else's mind on this matter. Ever.

Since when has that made any difference?

Point taken.

Well, mine was changed. On many issues. I like debating, and typing keeps my nails in check.