Like all moron radicals, this Priest decided that only certain parts of the Bible were important, and others weren't. Off you go to early retirement!

Let's make something perfectly clear, communion is not to be used as a devise to reject and punish people. Some like to think that one needs to be "sinless" to receive communion, but in reality no one is sinless and Jesus did not reject those with sin. The Apostles were not even sinless at the last supper! Communion is there to bring one closer to God as an act of faith. Certain priests need to stop holding communion hostage by denying it to those they cannot accept. All are welcome at the Lord's table.

To partake in Communion one must be penitent when he or she comes to the Table of the Lord. Ask God to Forgive ones sins and try to stay away from temptation. Being in an adulteress relationship is not trying to stay away from sin. God will not allow temptations greater than the person can handle.

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. 1 Corinthians 10:13

So, if a person is well beyond normal temptation because they believe what they are doing is not a sin when the bible states it is, then that person cannot benefit from Holy Communion and would only get a little wine and dried bread.

If you don't agree with the Church, then don't ask them to preform your ceremonies. Duh!

Hire a circus clown.

It wasn't for the priest to decide that this woman's "sin" (quotes left in on purpose) was cause to deny her communion. It's between her and God.

since this was NOT related to his proper refusal to give communion to a person who did not meet the requirements ( ie she was living in sin and unrepentant according to their religion) it has nothing to do with the Church "eats its own".

The fact that she was shocked that she did not receive communion shows how little she knows or cares about her supposed religion. The priest could have been removed for many other reasons ( ie the fact he refused to go on with the service could be one of them as that was wrong of him). But not giving someone who doesnt meet the requirements communion was not wrong. And the fact that he explained it to her plainly and without leaving any doubt as to the reason was not wrong either. since she was publically a lesbian and most people there would have known she was, it was not private information.

regardless of whether you believe in their religion or not, they have the right to follow it and the right to act upon their religion. if you dont agree with the religion you have every right to not follow it.

Father Marcel is a kind and soft spoken individual and very thoughtful. The accused behavior is so unlike him.

I am a nominal Roman Catholic, but there is not more serious sexual deviation on the planet than so-called "religious abstinence." If the "purpose" of sex is for procreation as the Catholic Church maintains, then priests and nuns are sexual deviants of the highest order. But from a more practical psychological basis, the priesthood (including nuns) attracts a handful of people who see giving up such an integral part of theselves as a worth act of contrition. But the vast majority of priests and nuns chose the calling because of their own adolescent confusion around sex and sexuality and are, as a result, a breeding ground for child molesters and opportunistic sexual predators.

There is nothing in the Roman Catholic dogma that priests and nuns cannot marry. In fact, many smaller Catholic branches, such as Marionites, are encouraged to marry. There is a great deal to be said for the stability and real-life experience that marriage and children would bring to the priesthood. Without it, they are asea without a compass.

Two points. First, people should read the whole article. I am not a Catholic and belong to an open and affirming denomination. However, nothing that he did during the service was outrageous. Fr. Guarnizo made an announcement BEFORE serving the host that ONLY Catholics in good standing with the church should come to recived communion. Even someone who had not done confession should not have received communion. I would not have gone up. Second, maybe he was sick and that was why he didn't attend graveside.

Ultimately, I think the Catholic faith is wrong on the topic of the LGBT community. If it is a problem for you and your family, please seek out an Episcopal Church. You do not need to be an Episcopal to have a funeral through this denomination. Also, all baptized Christians may take communion. We do ask that non-Christians refraim from communion, but if you choose to take it, no one is going to challeng you. You may also come to the altar and simply cross your hands over your chest. The priest will most likely bless you, but it is a common thing even to see Christians not take communion this way.

While I think that doing so publicly was incredibly insensitive...the church has every right to deny services to people they deem unworthy. The priest should have told the woman during the preparations that she should not receive communion. If he did, then she was wrong to go up to receive it. But publicly humiliating her in this manner, while within their rights, was a big mistake.

The Archdiocese actually answered this whole issue.

It's up to the individual to decide if they are okay to accept the Eucharist, not the priest.

I think the issue here is not so much that the priest denied her communion as it is that he embarrassed her by reprimanding her publicly at her own mother's funeral when the matter should have been settled in private. At least that was my understanding of the article based on the statement issued by the Archdiocese.

Something about "Love your neighbor as yourselves" springs to mind. I don't recall He ever specified "but only of the opposite sex." The OT is against homosexuality, and IMHO Paul corrupted Christ's teaching about this particular subject. Christ never preached one thing against men loving men and women loving women.

Oh lesbians, you may not be accepted under biblical law but we love you!

Guys, while I have sympathy for this young woman, I also think she knew exactly what was going to happen. Everyone kind of knows what to expect when you go to a Catholic Chruch. Her outrage seems a little planned. Doesn't make the Catholic Church right, but geesh... If I go to a Jewish ceremony, I try to make sure that I don't violate their beliefs. The same when I go to a Buddhist or @!$%#o temple or even a Mosque.

Of course, I also don't require my guest at my home to say grace. I let them know in advance, that I do say grace and they are welcome to join or not. No one has ever gotten up and thrown a fit.

While I think that doing so publicly was incredibly insensitive...the church has every right to deny services to people they deem unworthy. The priest should have told the woman during the preparations that she should not receive communion. If he did, then she was wrong to go up to receive it. But publicly humiliating her in this manner, while within their rights, was a big mistake.

Isn't divorce considered a sin in the eyes of the church? How many divorced people do you think this priest has given communion to?

Steve, talk about selective reading. *sigh* You know I have issues with Biblicans. Those who make the bible their God and not God. They pretend to try and live by the letter of the law (the bible), forgetting the Jesus condemned those who did just that. Of course, the same can be said for those who selectively use the bible to condemn all religions.

Guys, while I have sympathy for this young woman, I also think she knew exactly what was going to happen. Everyone kind of knows what to expect when you go to a Catholic Chruch. Her outrage seems a little planned. Doesn't make the Catholic Church right, but geesh... If I go to a Jewish ceremony, I try to make sure that I don't violate their beliefs. The same when I go to a Buddhist or @!$%#o temple or even a Mosque.

I'm not sure you understand the context here. This was at her mother's funeral, if anyone was the guest, it was the priest.

lolfatty, how do you know he hasn't refused divorced people communion?! There really isn't enough information here to judge that. However, if you don't want to be a Catholic, don't be one. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to belong to any faith - at least not in the USA.

Oh my gosh... MSN.. took the word SHIN-TO (remove the hyphen) and made it a cuss world. Well, that's not good. Shin-to is a valid world faith.

lolfatty, how do you know he hasn't refused divorced people communion?! There really isn't enough information here to judge that. However, if you don't want to be a Catholic, don't be one. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head to belong to any faith - at least not in the USA.

There's a reason I wrote my post in the form of a question. You fail at basic reading comprehension.

lolfatty, does that work for you in real life? The minute a person ask you a question, you attack them? Do you go around in life looking for a fight?

Nothing will be done to this priest. He will just be sent to another church somewhere else in the world. The Catholic Church doesn't even get ride of the priests that touch little boys. They move them to a new community where nobody knows the priest's past and they do it all over again.

Maybe someday the Catholic Church will end their stupid practice of celibacy and that would hopefully get most of the pedophiles out of the church. I think some pedophile priests know something is wrong with them and they decide to become a priest thinking God will help fix them, but in the end it just gives them opportunity with access to little boys.

Where would Christianity be had Jesus Christ turned away all who sin????? Whether we are living in sin (and we all do) or not, we are all God's Children (if you are a believer). No one is turned away from worship or the simple rite of communing in Christ's Blood. As Christ said " let he who is without sin cast the first stone", were we all living by this, no one could chastise another. We don't want to live just our lives but we constantly want to tell others how to live. We aren't judges, we are all in the same boat and should row together for the benefit of all.

This is the problem with organized religion.... it's no longer about the teachings but the interpretations.

Again, with the attack lolfatty... I guess you have a lot of suppressed anger that you take out on strangers on the internet. I suspect, but could be wrong, that you don't dare do this in real life because then there would be consequences. I suspect in real life you are probably a pretty friendly person, but you feel a lot of anger and turnoil inside that you are afraid to let other see. I'm sorry. Best of luck with working things out for yourself.

Guarnizo “issued a strong admonition that only Catholics in a state of grace can receive communion,”

Difficult to be in a state of grace given that we are all sinners. How about non Catholics. God wouldn't do that to ANY OF HIS CHILDREN. Can't have your cake and eat it too. He needs to be defrocked for being a bigot.

The Church is running out of feet to shoot at.

Andrew - This is the problem with organized religion.... it's no longer about the teachings but the interpretations.

I think it's more about making (administrators) feel powerful.

No one is free of Sin, we all Sin, it's human nature..however, the severity of Sin, is a different scenario..No one s/b intimidated of their choices..hell, this is a free Country, let all the crazies be crazy..when it comes to breaking the Law, well that is more than Likely going too far..who has Not Sinned Cast the first stone..its fundamental, however; some end up MENTAL........

She should have slugged him right there with the Eucharist in his hand. A priest is not there to judge. The story book says "judge not least ye be judged". The second thing she should have done was immediately call her bank and but a stop payment on the check for the services she was CHARGED for. He should have had to stand at every mass that week and announce to the faithful his suspension himself not the way it was done by a letter from the bishop being read. He then should have had to apologise to the woman, her lover and their family in public at Mass. Almost every Catholic woman of child bearing years is sinning according to the church by using birth control. Are they denied communion? How do the priests think all those women remain childless for so many years? Vatican Roulette?

Wow, putting the Catholic Church in charge of judging proper moral behavior is like having the fox guard the hen house.

Linda, you must be counting around the world. The church in the US has been shrinking for years. The average nun is something like 80 years old unless she is from the Philippines. Even the priests are getting old unless they are from Ireland. In Ireland the number of priests being ordained has fallen like a stone due to sex abuse scandals that have rocked the country and church attendance in Catholic Ireland is down sharply. Many Parishes don't even have a full time priest in the US. Priests are doing several masses a day . That is something they never had to do when I was a kid. Catholic schools are closing their down in huge numbers in the US.

After reading all of the comments, about the only person to get it right was "Tseirpa-3456427".

If you are a practicing Roman Catholic then you know that you can not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when you are in a state of mortal sin. In the eyes of the Catholic Church having/or living in a lesbian or homosexual relationship is a mortal sin. Period. She knew she should not go up to receive holy communion yet she went any way. She must feel it is her "right" to do what ever she decides she wants to do. As for the priest not finishing the funeral service (unless he was really ill) that was wrong. He should have gotten another priest who was on call to replace him. One (communion) had nothing to do with the other (funeral service).

The man couldn't have just pretended to be a human being during someone's funeral, could he? That was just too much to ask.

1. It is common knowledge that a person has to be "in a state of Grace" to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

2. If she is Catholic, she knew she was not in a State of Grace, because they teach what it takes to all their members.

3. If she is not Catholic, then she is not in a State of Grace and cannot partake either. End of story

She choose to break the rule. She put the Priest in a bad situation. What will most likely happen is the Priest will be sent to a more conservative congregation where they follow the rules. If she wants to take communion, then she needs to go to another denomination that allows that.

P.S. If you are divorced, you are not in a state of grace until you pay the Church what they want after you give them all the gory details and they decide how much it will take to clear that away.

(No, I'm not Catholic, but I have family members who are.)

lolfatty, I cry quite easily. I cry for the homeless and the sick and the dying. I cry for children without a loving family. I cry for all the lost and dispossed of the world. And I have probably seen more and done more than you could imagine. Nasty words hardly bother me at all, at least when leveled at me. I do struggle with not giving back as good as I get, but I've discovered that it's generally not worth it.

I don't know which one is more worrysome. The fact that this even made the news or the fact that people on here want to remove this Priests abilities to practice his religion and dictate how his religion should do things.

If you don't agree with this priests religious views find a different one. He has the right to practice his religion as he sees fit. If denial of services are called for by his religion, get over it and find someone that will perform the service that meets your views. I don't care if you are a Priest, minister, rabbi... you have the right to interpret your religion as you see fit as long as it causes not physical harm to others. Last time I checked the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights was communion under any religious belief guaranteed!

differnet "while I have sympathy for this young woman, I also think she knew exactly what was going to happen"

im not so sure, I know plenty of lesbians who are catholic and when they do go to service I guarantee they take communion...and have never once been rejected.

might be because the church they are attending dont realize they are gay, or it might be that they suspect it - but understand it's not their position to question - it's up the individual to decide for themselves if they are in a state of grace to receive.

as such, we are asking priests to basically ASSUME who may or may not be in a state of grace, and what happens if they guess wrong and let some unholy take communion?

NOTHING HAPPENS!

so why not let anyone who chooses take it - and leave the rest us to god?

I suspect, because you all are actually...of so little faith.

Really Differnet, how does one properly plan to be humiliated and insulted at one's mother's funeral?

It wasn't for the priest to decide that this woman's "sin" (quotes left in on purpose) was cause to deny her communion. It's between her and God.

Actually, it's not between her and God when she chooses to live openly in a way that the church deems sinful. Then it becomes a matter between her, God, and the church. We had a situation at a protestant church I attended where the organist had left her family for another man. The Pastor counseled her and, although she thought was she was doing was okay and she had "every right to be happy", the Pastor removed her from her role as organist. He didn't want the church to be seen as, in any way, condoning the adulterous situation and having her up front in a position of prominence could have been construed that way. She left the church upset, but that was the price the pastor decided to pay. Better to strengthen the whole flock than than to reinforce the "anything apparently goes" mentality so prevalent in many churches today.

The church is definitely compromising it's core beliefs and values in the name of political correctness. Jesus DID forgive the adulterous woman in John chapter 8, "Neither do I condemn thee." However, we always seem to forget the VERY LAST words he said to the woman. "Now go and sin no more."

Such a sad day as to argue over what is such a simple matter.Freedom of choice,ie,sexuall orientation,religeon,the pursuit of happiness.The bottom line is,if the friends dont approve of your sexuall orientation get new friends if your religeon doesnt,get a new religeon.Please stop trying to change peoples minds or religeons to suit your purposes,or lifestyle,lest it be done to you.

Anyone who forgets LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, has forgotten Christianity.

If you are a practicing Roman Catholic then you know that you can not receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when you are in a state of mortal sin. In the eyes of the Catholic Church having/or living in a lesbian or homosexual relationship is a mortal sin. Period.

So you're saying God is stupid? God doesn't know she is in mortal sin and will accidentally give her his blessing? Seems to me that if she accepts communion and God really does believe that she is in mortal sin then she is taking is bread and wine, not the body and blood of Christ. Do you really have such a low opinion of God?

The catholic church is a cult, maybe things will improve when the current German retires/dies. For now, since they brought back buying one's way into heaven, by buying an "Indulgence", maybe the LBGT community can go that route. (rolls eyes) The Indulgence thing is what finally drove Martin Luther to break from the catholic church.
End the tax exempt status for all religions, leaving only the sincere to minister.

dizzykat he did, he warned that only those in a state of grace should receive the Holy Eucharist. The lesbian disregarded his warning, then she was told in her face.

If being gay is a sin for the Catholic Church, then don't go chasing communion at its altar.

dizzykat he did, he warned that only those in a state of grace should receive the Holy Eucharist. The lesbian disregarded his warning, then she was told in her face.

How could such an evil individual have any concept of a state of grace, let alone be qualified to judge another? The Catholic Church did the right thing in purging this cancer from it's ranks.

According to the rules of the CC, the priest was just doing his job... I wont go to the plumber convention and raise hell because their are no carpenters either. Sux, yea, but what could anyone possible expect? Just sayin...

At my own mother's funeral...I did not partake in Communion. I am no longer a practicing Catholic. Was this woman a practicing Catholic?

to all those who are supporting this priest for his sinful actions ... you must also agree, to keep it fair and "within the doctrines of the Catholic Church", he should also refuse communion (a sacrament denied only to those officially excommunicated by the higher ranking Catholic heirarchy like archbishops, with the approval from the vatican) to all those others living in sin:

1) all unmarried (that includes those married outside the church) couples and their "illegitimate" offspring. Unless you are married in the Catholic church by a priest, you are not seen as married and are living in sin and you offspring is considered illigitimate even though you have a valid marriage license from your state.

2) anyone having sex outside of marriage even though they are not living together

3) anyone who is either using birth control or utilizing abstenence as a means to "control" having kids. Yup, even abstence is a sin when used as birth control.

4) anyone who breaks the 10 commandments, which would include military who ever killed any enemy soldiers. Thou shalt no kill is quite important enough to have its own, separate listing.

5) anyone who reads any of those books on the banned list the vatican keeps current

6) anyone who doesnt practice birth control or abortion, but believes others have the right to decide for themselves (i.e. VP Biden)

7) anyone who believes that it is just as sinful NOT to take action to stop evil as it is to take actions that are considered sinful is considered an apostate - I know, I had this arguement with the priest who was going to marry my husband and I in the church to make my unborn son of ours "legitimate" in the church, even though I was already legally married by a JP. I guess that is the Catholic church's way of claiming "innocence" during the hollicaust they financially assisted the Germans with during WWII. The priest literally threw me out of his office and refused to marry us in the church because I felt non-action was just as much a sin as action is .... until my father gave him alot of moeny. At that point, he violated another Catholic doctrine - taking money in exchange for a sacrament. That is called sacrilige and is a mortal sin.

8) anyone who believes in the US Constitution and defends it ... since it allows for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equality for all (including women and afro-americans) and a secular government

and any new-fangled sins they may come up with at their whim to attempt to control the masses while they redefine other set-in-stone mortal and venial sins as no longer sins because they no longer work to control the massess. If a religion is indeed true and eternal, sin is sin and not up for revisionary interpretations to meet the current agenda at increasing enrollment.

It used to be a sin to talk to non-Catholics .... oh, how often my mother and I had to "confess" that sin and be forgiven to receive communion on Sunday.

It used to be a mortal sin to touch (desecrate) the eucharist if you werent a priest - oh how fast that changed when their priest count went down!!!

It used to be a sin to remarry after divorce without an annulment and was grounds for ex-communication - but only for American Catholics since they didnt have the influence here they wanted. They made my God mother and her husband wait almost 20 years to grant his annulment even though he never had any children with his first wife. Two months after granting that annullment in 1977, they decared it was no longer a mortal sin to remarry after divorce without an annullment. It cost them the ability to have their own children. I guess with them refusing annullments and not allowing divorcees to remarry without ex-communication, they were losing their tithings enough to "change the rules" about sin.

In addition to the sacrament of communion to all these "sinners", the other sacraments, such as baptism, first communion, confirmation, etc, should also be denied. That includes the "illigitimate issue" of those catholics attending mass every sunday with their kids without the benefit of a priest officiated, church wedding.

Lets all go back to the bye-gone days of the "Scarlet Letter" timeframe to ensure enough "grace" to meet the standards of the Catholic church.

I survived Catholicism ... and everyone can, if they follow the examples Jesus has set for us. He didnt accept the religion of his fathers ... he didnt accept the tyranny of it imposed upon the people to control them ... he lead us to a better way in search of Peace on Earth and Brotherhood for all mankind. Why have we thrown away his teachings to follow any established religion ... and in the case of the Catholic church, one emmersed in illegal money launduring for mobsters (be they nazi or russian), one that has a history of protecting pedifiles that goes back milenia to the days of the catacombs, one that denies 51% of the human population (women) their rightful, equal place within God's church, one that uses their "doctrine" to steal from "Cesare what is Cesare's" while denying "God, what is God's" - Peace, Love and Brotherhood of all men upon earth as Jesus preached.

While the woman should not have disrespected the Catholic Church to go for communion there .... the priest should not have disrespected the Catholic church by exceeding his authority in determining who should and shouldnt receive communion (that is left to the upper heirarchy of the church to do officially). Anyone not "in grace" when receiving the holy communion is answerable to only one entity --- God, Almighty, himself. And that is Catholic doctrine. Any excommunicated individual can go to any church they please and walk up and receive communion - there are no Vatican issued IDs for presentation at the alter to ensure only catholics receive it.

I have seen non-Catholics (my not quite yet sister-in-law's protestant family) at my niece's and nephew's church functions and my parents funerals go up and receive communion since "every one else did". I didnt ... not even at the baptisms of my own 4 kids (required as a condition, legally signed on paper documents, to marry my already husband and I in a church ceremony since he wasnt Catholic, even though the priest and I strongly disagreed on what constituted sin). It was then that I realized I had irreconcilable differences with Catholicism, hence, was no longer a Catholic.

cms5--yes, the woman who was denied communion is a practicing Catholic. Stephen A.-3970935--homosexuality is not a mortal sin. Even the Vatican says that--so please stop pontificating.

As the Vatican says, itself, homosexuality is a delicate matter--they do not care for people who say that all homosexuals are denied heaven. In fact, if this particular woman is a lesbian who lives with her partner but does not have sex with her (a situation so common that there is a word for it, Lesbian Bed Death), and this particular woman's priest knows this, and she did her confession with that priest and was in a state of grace--then, yes, she should have gotten communion.

Furthermore, in order for someone to commit a mortal sin, that person has to know before committing the sin that it is a mortal sin. If this woman does not believe active homosexuality to be a mortal sin, but perhaps a venial one or a carnal one, then she can commit what is actually a mortal sin without being guilty of a mortal sin. One must intentionally commit a mortal sin--one cannot commit one by accident or when one does not "know" that what one is doing is a mortal sin.

It is between this woman and her priest as to whether or not she is in a state of grace to the point that she is allowed to take communion. Many priests allow people who are GLBT to take communion just as they allow divorced and remarried people to take communion--heck, the Catholic Church now allows people who committed suicide to be buried in hallowed ground. If you are not up on your Catholic theology, and are just a casual Catholic who has a priest who oversimplifies (like this one) and is not himself up on theology and can't realize the problem, then you really should not speak.

The point is that the diocese apologized to this woman. Each bishop has a great degree of authority in the given diocese, and if he says that GLBT members are to get communion if they come up to do so, and if he says that any rebukes are to be done privately--then GLBT members get communion and rebukes are to be done privately. For the priest to disobey the bishop is a far graver sin than anything that woman might have been doing with her partner.

I would bet that the issue is more that this priest is not obeying the bishop than anything else--he probably was ordered to apologize and is refusing. That will get him suspended--he might wind up transferring to a different diocese or be sent out of the country--but one obeys one's bishop or else.

By the by, everyone, there is no higher of a percentage of Catholic priests who are pedophiles than in any other faith (it is precisely the same--around 5%), and the percentage of religious leaders who are pedophiles is lower than the percentage of pedophiles in the general population. Further, gay men aren't pedophiles at any signficantly higher rate than the general population. Have a great day.

I think people forgets that the civilized world had a sexual revolution during which all people, it seems to me, became more libertine, more inclined to do what feels good, no matter what is right or wrong.

How many of you have parents who never cheated on each other and never divorced? (For that matter, how many of you have never cheated or been divorced?)

How many people do you know who were molested by people in the past 60 years, priests or uncles, neighbors and even police officers and school teachers, when they were children? (How many of you count yourselves among them?)

Aside from sexual abuse, how many have suffered physical and emotional abuse by any number of adults in their lives? (How many of you grew up knowing your parents thought you were a person when they spoke to you--were you respected as a human being, or were you told to shut up and do because I say so?)

How many of you were raised by a nanny or daycare provider instead of a father and mother because money became more important than family? (For that matter, how many of you can say with absolute faith what the values of your own children are, because you're too busy to raise them?)

We're all products of this revolution, and personally I don't feel we're better for it. Frankly, I think we've grown out of control. We've a tendency to look at one pixel in the whole picture and forget there's a whole picture, that we're all massively flawed in our own ways and that each of us are on an independent journey to better ourselves. There are bad people among every group. Sometimes I believe that bad people seek out positions of trust in our institutions in order to take advantage of the weak. Does this make the institution itself evil? Of course not. But other people in their flaws would use that as a point of attack in order to destroy the whole institution. When a person finds out that their brother committed a crime, their first instinct is normally to rally around their brother in his denials and trust that he couldn't do the things he's accused of doing. It takes time to show those who also trust the brother the truth about his character. To pretend a church or a school or a police department isn't as much a family as those who are raised together in the dysfunctional homes we've cobbled out of a sexual revolution is wrong. To point the finger at the whole family for the brother's crime is also wrong.

Through that same sexual revolution that has made all civilized children voyeurs if not victims of the adults, who are meant to protect them, the gay and lesbian community has outed itself, wishing for equality. This woman went into a Catholic Church for her mother's funeral. She was not there for communion, she was there to remember her mother and commit her to heaven. Would her mother be happy with what she has done? Would her mother be proud of her for using her final rite of passage on this earth as a platform to seek equality in the church?

The priest preformed an uncharitable act by refusing her. It is between her and God as to if the communion would be accepted.

I agree that this was handled poorly by this priest. No doubt!! I agree that communion is between you and God. The gravity of the event is explained "every single time." You choose!

Now tell me again WHY this is national news...

Oh yeah, I forgot. Someone said NO to a lesbian!!!

Anyone who forgets LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, has forgotten Christianity.

So what is your point? The bible does instruct us to love our neighbor, but it also tells us to flee from sin, avoid all forms of sexual sins, and to go into all the world and spread the gospel. You can't just pull out one statement (love your neighbor) and say that is the essence of being a Christian (we are also told to love the sinner but hate the sin)....

If you read the New Testament in context and in its entirety, you will come to see that a Christian (by biblical definition) is someone who recognizes that Christ died for his/her sins, give his/her heart to Christ, and then seeks more than anything else in the world to live for Christ. It's not about fighting for justice or recognition (Jesus lived in a day where slavery was common, and he didn't go on a quest to overturn this obvious injustice). He was concerned with bigger things... The Kingdom of God (as he called it) and eternal things.

Those of you who think being a Christian is something just between you and God, I challenge you to read the New Testament (it doesn't take that long). When you are done, you may not agree with it (chances are you won't), but at least you will truly understand what real Christianity is supposed to be about.

Why does she care so much about taking bread and wine from a religion she has no interest in? Why does this have to be a national issue? She has a problem with the man and she doesn't have the courage to confront him?!? She runs to the news and wants him fired?!? If she weren't lesbian and was denied communion, no one would care. But she is a homosexual and she knows that gives her the clout to make this a national issue. Really? Has our society become this absurd.

Recycled Hope, you might have left the church because you didn't agree with it but perhaps you should have checked your facts first.

1. The catholic church recognizes marriages not held in the church as valid. Yes, they do. They do not accord it the level of sacrament but they do hold it to be legal and the children are legal too!

3. Abstinence is not considered a sin by the Catholic Church and is the only method they allow. What they do disagree with is the position of a married couple not being open to some children. However there is a couple from the middle ages held as saints who never had sex with each other at all so there are exceptions to even that.

4. They do not consider it a sin to kill in self defense or the defense of one's countrymen but they do consider MURDER to be a mortal sin. Some versions of the bible even say murder rather than kill.

5. The Vatican no longer (since the 1970's) keep a list of books a catholic is not allowed to read and they no longer give an "Imprimateur" to validate a books theological correctness either.

6. A catholic has the right to his own opinions on birth control and abortion but is expected to gather information to make an informed choice first and if that decision is not the church line then they expect you to not go public with your view with a Catholic persona. Biden is publicly Catholic and so should preface any remarks on abortion as that he is not in keeping with church doctrine.

8. Yes, we can believe in the Constitution and still be Catholic. Have you forgotten the very public figure of JFK?

Maybe you should have studied your faith a bit more.

it is so rediculous that everyone today is afraid of "offending" someone or group. one can't sneez in public without offending someone anymore. all the "political correctness" and so called "racism" that gets thrown in everytime someone opens their mouth. we can't even talk anymore without offending someone else or some group. we can't disagree or dislike the president anymore or we are labeled rasists. all of you who are badmouthing this Priest and his church and religion, who are you to judge ?

his church has rules and practices, what business is it of ours ?

the catholic religion is fairly strict, especially for today's standards. they are not allowed to use contraceptives, or get divorced, many many other believes and rules that they live by, homosexuality being a VERY BIG nono. I find it very hard to believe that all of you are not aware of this, but somehow you are surprised at this article. I find it amazing that this even made news, why ? duh.

do any of you even know what religion is anymore ?

put your "feelings" and "personal beliefs" aside and think about it. because you believe that people are born homosexual and that there is nothing wrong with it, especially under Gods eyes, you better think again.

Too many churches practice selective outrage. A local Catholic church I know of constantly offers up masses for those poor aborted fetuses, but never a mass for children killed in war. Do you suppose they will offer up a Mass for those Afghan women and children killed by a US serviceman gone amok? And when was the last time a priest refused communion to anyone because they had a htereosexual lover outside of marriage? Priests abused kids by the hundreds of thousands - literally - worldwide and were just shunted to the next parish to abuse more kids. And it's somehow harming the church to serve communion to one lesbian at her mother's funeral? Sheesh!

Recycled Hope, Can you show me where these rules are written in the Bible? I'm sorry but the catholic church is full of rules which are missinterpretations by priests made before people had access to the Scriptures. You should really try reading the Bible on your own and discover God's word on your own before believing everything you're told at the catholic church, or ANY church. Please look up all those "used to be sins" in the Bible and you'll see how mistaken the catholic church is.

Most of us don't care except those out there that searching for any excuses to put down fellow citizen religions.
Again, the main reason this is even make news is because she is gay. Sorry equalization on a governmental level doesn't mean automatic acceptence among the people or religious.

Okay I'll probably be the minority... but according to the Catholic Church it is a sin. (whether right or wrong it's their rules)... In order to receive communion your mind and spirit must be free from sin, it's why we go to confession. Therefore unless she went to confession prior to attempting to receive communion... she should have been turned away, and if she really is a practicing catholic.. she should have known this!

John Doe,

This is news because it is a current about the rights of a sector of people in teh USA which is topical at the moment. This is what news is about, the issues and events that are occuring today.

What really bothers me is people from the LGBT community decide to practice a faith that persecutes them. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but what religion you follow is. You would think that any rational person would come to the conclusion that they need to practice a different faith if the one they practice goes against their basic nature. I guess the problem here is putting 'rational' and 'faith' together, as the two things have nothing to do with one another.

Wow. For anyone wondering how the priest knew she was a lesbian - just take a look at her picture.

Why is this even being debated?

Oh, wait, I forgot. Because homosexuality is the preferred lifestyle these days. If we were to all choose that lifestyle and didn't seek assistance from the scientific and medical communities we would extinct the human race.

As someone once said, homosexuality is simply not normal because the parts don't fit. And as another someone once said the purpose of the act of sex is for procreation and the act of homosexual sex will never result in procreation.

Holy crow some of you people are long winded.

Let's just boil this down to it's simplest form.

1. If an individual is gay or lesbian, it is not for "the church" to detemine whether they are right in the eyes of the Lord. There is only one man who was qualified to "judge the living and the dead" - and he was nailed to a cross and died for our sins. If she's a lesbian then it will be up to God to determine whether or not she can receive communion.
2. Priests are not infallable. They are not God. Other than Him, nothing is "perfect". This will come as a shock to some of you Bible thumpers... but not even the good book is perfect. Why? Because it was written by man (granted, by men who were divinely inspired... but men nonetheless). Because we are human, we're given to interpretation. We filter messages (and yes, even those that are divinely inspired) through the context of our personal experience filters. This priest is no "less" or "more" divine than the person writing this comment or the person reading it. Because he was "called" to service, he may have a better understanding of what he believes to the be the Word. The Word is perfect. Once it's passed through the filter of man's hands, it ceased to be perfect and simply becomes "as it is". This priest can deny her communion - but he can't stop her reconciliation to the Lord.
3. Those of you on your high holy horses need a good slapping. According to his actions, Jesus obviously believed that not even whores were beyond redemption. Who are you to try and deny communion to a woman whom even Jesus - if he were physically manifest today - would probably welcome with arms wide open to His table? Sit down, shut up and quit making fools of yourselves.
4. I'm equally sick of those of you who insist that just because His tools aren't perfect, that the Catholic religion is "outmoded" and "outdated". I'm a Catholic and I believe wholeheartedly in the general mission of the Church. I am also a human being (not a leming) and I hold opinions which are separate from the main teaching of the Church. Those beliefs are for me to reconcile with God. But that doesn't mean I'm not a Catholic. Neither does it mean I need to go shopping for a new religion. No "faith" is perfect - and while there are tenents of the Catholic faith that annoy the crap out of me, by and large, it is a belief system to which I can agree. So, you too, need to climb down off your high "unholy" horses (or horses of a different holy).

'Nuff said.

The Catholic Church just sold outself out to political correctness. The priest was doing what he was supposed to be doing...administering communion to the faithful. Those who are in a deliberate state of sinfulness are not to be given communion, not are they to attempt to take communion.

The Catholic Church is really becoming a sad sack passing resemblence of itself...no conviction of faith at all.

As an atheist, I think it's pathetic when you are so inept at religion that you chastise publicly your own priests to assuage the non-believers. Time for someone to flush that turd...

FireBlade

I wish I could give you more than one vote up. I too am sick of hearing all of the apologizing lately. Seems we are no longer allowed to express an opinion, speak the truth, or call a spade a spade without someone else telling us to shut up. Well, I disagree and because of my right to free speech I will never apologize for expressing my opinion, p.c. correct or not.

It is my sincere hope that this incident helps this woman wake up from the delusions of Christianity. I believe this priest has done Barbara Johnson a favor. By demonstrating the true character of the Christian faith, Marcel Guarnizo is giving Ms. Johnson the opportunity to reevaluate her commitment to this vile ideology. I don't understand why anyone would want to be part of a community that marginalizes them in such a despicable manner.

suffice to say, thank JEBUS this catholic priest stopped this woman from making a mockery of the catholic church and it's magic tricks of turning bread and wine into the body of christ.

seriously, think of what COULD have happened if he just quietly let her take it?

I shudder to think...perhaps the end times could have began?

Wait...I'm confused. Is the picture of the lesbian or the Catholic priest? Can't tell.

If anything ends civilization upon this earth, it will be religion, the political establishments which breeds division, persecution and commands obedience for fear of the otherwise.....To believe in a supreme intellect and architect of all else is one thing, but to believe in man written and interpreted words from texts containing many unfinished short stories is another....Why do so many of short stories in the several religious texts always end, "and it came to pass?"

Why is this even an issue. I am not religious. I would have cremated her as I hope my wife will do for me and no one has to make a descision about anything like this. All religions have their quirks and no religion is totally right. Do what you have to do!!!!!!!!

KRESTOV, You might be right. However, there is some "missing" news. We have all read or heard about the priests who molest young boys; and, more likely than not, those priests do not consider themselves as homosexuals. Also, we never see or hear anything about lesbian nuns. That is kept very quiet.

If a priest denies communion based upon a person's sexual orientation, that should be a sin, due to the fact that the Catholic church does not punish same sex activity amongst the priests and nuns. When is the last time anyone heard of a priest or nun getting kicked to the curb for being a pedophile?

For the Rev. Marcel Guarnizo to deny communion based on sexual orientation is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Big Trouble

Just remember, substituting you own judgement for that of God is also a sin and will send you to hell just as fast as any other. I'm looking at you Lawence and Tseirpa - the two of you would be wise to mind your own business and seek your own forgiveness instead of spouting self-righteous nonsense and indulging your egos on the boards.

How absolutely ironic then that you are judging them...

Just saying.

Please stop putting the butch homosexual womans picture on every article associated with this event. When she stands before God on Judgement day, He will WIPE AWAY THAT SMIRK from her face.!!! Pray for her, I am.

This woman must have been raised Catholic to have her mother's funeral there. She would have been fully aware of the churches stand on her receiving communion. She defied them by going to receive and brought this on herself. Having to deal with this during a funeral mass is probably what gave the priest a migraine. I really don't care what people do but they have to realize that they cannot make others approve. They have no more right to attempt to foist thier behavior in our faces than we have to get in the busines of what they do.

The ignorance exhibited in a majority these posts is almost sinful.

Tired, Your post is well written and explained. I agree.

I think where most "christians" struggle with homosexuallity is what to do with it. The Bible is Very clear on the subject, so they don't know how to handle it when thrown in their midst. I believe they struggle between "sin" and "sinner." The bible says to hate the sin NOT the sinner, but christian people don't know where to draw the line as it relates to "condoning" the act. For example if I accept you here in my church then I am accepting that you are homosexual.

WWJD --Not sure, but he wouldn't hate.

Timaree,

Do not insinate your arrogance upon me ... or try and state you are a better catholic than I was while being raised in the Roman Catholic Church coming from an Italian ethnic background whose father immigrated from Italy and, with my mother, made sure that I attended parochial grammar and high school.

All I stated above is indeed true ... including the current "banned books" list that can be found on the Vatican's webpage. I will admit, I was amazed to see it there last year. I also thought it was a thing of the past once Vatican II ended .... it was not erradicated and is alive and well on the Vatican's website.

As for marriage, It may have changed since I had the church ceremony back in 1977. At that time, I had been married for 8 months .... was 5 months married .... and when my parents consulted with the priest, were told we were NOT married according to the Catholic church. To be considered married, it had to be proformed by a priest! The priest who "consulted" with us informed us that without a Catholic church marriage, our child would be considered ILLEGITIMATE even though we had been married for 8 months. I chose to elope with my husband since 1) he was Irish/English descent and 2) taller than my father (6'1" vs 5'9") and and 3) not Catholic (he was atheist) which meant there was no way in hell my father would let me marry him if I didnt elope. Luckily, 3 months later, I became pregnant - the only reason my father finally accepted him as my husband. That is when the pressure to have a church ceremony became unbearable, so for my mother's sake, we had the church ceremony. As a result forever there after, my parents refused to recognize my real wedding anniversary and I didnt recognize the church ceremony as my true wedding date.

You take your holier that thou version of Catholicism and answer to God, himself, for your outrageous righteousness. I know there is only 1 and only Catholic church, unfortunately, the priests do not and each Catholic church (on both coasts) practice different, personalized versions of Catholicism. Since I was bound by the written contract to baptize my children Catholic in exchange for a marraige ceremony to a non-Catholic, I did baptize them all. Anything further than that, I left to their own personal convictions.

When my son was baptized, it was done in my neighborhood church. 2 1/2 yrs later, that very same church, under a different priest's authority, refused to do so for my 1st daughter unless BOTH parents were Catholic (which would have required my husband to convert), so my daughter was baptised in my childhood Catholic Church 30 miles away who had no issues with it. When my 3rd born was born in CA, I had her baptized in my community Catholic Church who decreed that an active member must attend church every sunday to be considered active and only babies of active members would be baptized in that church whereas my, 4th born, born in CA, but then baptized in yet another Catholic church in MA since we moved back to MA declared that being active meant you had to attend on Xmas and Easter, and the rest was NOT mandatory, and dont sweat it if life intrudes if you at least attend on Xmas and Easter.

Obviously your sect of the Roman Catholic church differs from the one I was raised in (and totally submersed within for 22 years) even though no 2 Catholic churchs doctrines should vary on iota from what the Vatican decrees!!!!

Timaree, believe what you may .... and I shall believe as I shall .... and this is indeed the one place where all the sorting out shall be done by God.

I am a christian diest .... you are "catholic", whatever that may currently mean.

I'm not a Catholic but, the priest was correct in what he believes and has been taught.. He handled it incorrectly, he should have simply told the woman, 'I can not give you and your friend communion, if you wish I will explain in my chambers'... This should have been said in a whisper to them.. He should have went on with the funeral otherwise...

For those of you who will read this and think I'm actually Catholic and defending the priest, I'm not... I'm defending his belief... I personally think Catholicism is the biggest cult around... But that is for another BLOG...

I am not Catholic, but this shows blatant disrepect on the part of the gay community. How dare you go into everyone's church and think that you can challenge the laws of God and expect to be blessed by him. No wonder people don't respect gays. I have always stated in previous posts, that it is not enough to give them marriage laws, they want to infiltrate the church. The archdiosese SHOULD NOT have suspended that priest. It just goes to show you that there is more sin in the Catholic Church than what was previously known. The fact that he did that proves that was planning on saving his job more than upholding the laws of Christ.

Why even take communion if you are not a christian? There is no sin in not taking communion.

Recycled Hope - It's good to see you on the vines again, I have missed your wisdom.

Please SOMEBODY tell me where it says what state of ANYTHING you have to be in to accept communion. Is that a MANmade rule like Catholics are so prone to. I read that it says as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me. But I don't see anywhere that says what state of grace or anything else you are suppose to be in to partake in communion. Please enlighten me.

The picture says a lot, no fault of hers people are just born this way..She's still human and should be looked at as one.

Cburroughs,

The original article talked about them meeting in private prior to the funeral and she (he) was told then.

TxHorseman, "she" is a woman, not a transgendered person.

Recycled Hope,

To bad you do not know the 'Ten Commandments' as well as you think... For one, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', is misinterpeted... It should read 'Thou Shalt Not Murder'... You need to do alot more studying before you spout off... As in the 'Old Testament' of the Bible when the 'Ten' were written, the punishment for taking a life, i.e. Murder, was to be Put to Death, i.e. Killed...

Please go back to theology school...

After seeing the picture, I would have let the fella have his communion.

The priest had every right to act in accordance with his conscious. Why should he have to act otherwise? I can see politicians, conceding to gays and lesbians, but when a catholic priest has to something is wrong. Saying that the church doesn't permit something is completely different than that particular priest, in the office of a priest, is rendering a judgement for following a tenate of the catholic church. That's like saying that a Judge is abusive for imposing maximum sentencing. A catholic priest is supposed to be a servant of God, not a puppet of an organization.

In addition to being a lesbian, she was in church with her partner: I don't think so. If you're living an active homosexual lifestyle, why are you trying to partake in communion to begin with? Apparently, your main concern is symbolism rather than living right before God. Communion is symbolic of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Christians aren't even supposed to take communion with unforgiveness in their hearts.

Wow, so much hatred. But, if it were a baptist minister would you all being hating so much? How about an Methodist?, A Rabbi, or a Mullah? ALL of the worlds religions, with very few exceptions, have tenants against homosexuality. Some don't enforce them, some ignore them, but they are there none the less. This priest was following church law. He could have perhaps done it with more discretion, but, he was within his rights as a perish priest to deny communion to a person living in direct opposition to church laws and teachings.

If you don't like the church's law, IF she were catholic she would have known, why impose yourself upon it when you clearly know the church's view? Or was it this lesbians intent to embarrass the church? I think this likely. The Catholic Church has become the target of choice for anyone with a axe to grind. If they don't accept me, I will do all I can to create as much chaos as possible. If I don't believe in God, then no one should, hence, I will forward any nonsense argument to create maximum rancor. I am not an adherent to any organized religion, however, since it does not effect me and my life, I have better things to do than run around claiming it is nonsense, or God doesn't exist. I let people believe what they choose. And in my experience, they have not held me at the point of a sword or at gun point to force my conversion. You people seem to feel all the world institutions should bent to fit your needs? Isn't conceit a character flaw?

To the poster who stated, "Love is an emotion you can't control". I say nonsense. If that were true, then since Hatred and Anger are emotions, they then, are equally uncontrollable. Ergo, using your logic, murders that are hate or anger motivated are uncontrollable and unavoidable, Yes? You can't excuse one emotion and not the rest. Love is no different than any other emotion, If it were so uncontrollable, why is it you can love one person, then suddenly not love them anymore and love someone else? If you love uncontrollably, who then, is it possible to cheat on this person? This implies a choice was made. If a choice is made, then it is under your direct control.

To those who say you can't choose to by gay, I say this. IF it is a genetic disposition, then put forward proof. Show the DNA markers to prove this position. The human genome has been mapped, pin point the markers. Absent any such genetic marker, the simple answer would be choice. Some would say, "Why would anyone subject themselves to the treatment gays receive"? I would say perhaps they are looking for attention they lacked growing up. Perhaps, they are voyeuristic. Perhaps they are no different than those who suffer Munchhausen's syndrome. For those who don't know what Munchhausen's is, it is a syndrome in which people subject themselves to unneeded medical procedures and fake symptoms to get them. Or those who cut themselves. Or starve themselves. Until you can prove a genetic disposition, they "born this way" stance is completely without merit. Serial killers are not born, they are created. In other words, all these things that the human species morphs into has a physiological and/or psychological basis.

Sorry, sounds like more agenda forwarding to me. It's real simple, if you don't agree with the church's position on your life, find one that does or start your own, IF you truly feel you need a God in your life. Create a God in your own image. Should be easy, since the others view man as god, or there is no God, or God is an eight armed woman with the head of an elephant. You claim to be creative people, make up your own.

I am an EX Catholic... and there is a reason I am an EX Catholic,,, I don't agree with the doctrine!

However bottom line,,, yes in the Catholic church the priest does stand between you and God,,, it IS his place to decide if you are in grace NOT YOURS,,,, hence the EX Catholic thing! That is what being a Catholic is all about!

I would suggest to all of you who do not agree with this priest,,, then just like if you don't agree with the policies of any business,,, vote with your feet ... walk away! but DON'T try to change them! JUST as you would not want them to change you!

Leave the church alone! That is what makes this country GREAT you have options! excersize the options. If you choose to go to a church that stands between you and God and makes decisions for you great! but it is by choice.

If you are gay or lesbian than find a church that accepts you for who you are! hint; that is not the catholic church! That's ok,,, there are plenty more out there that beleive in the bible in Jesus as our lord and savior and will welcome you with open arms... just check them out! DONT go forcing it down someones throat it doesnt work for you or for them!

Wow - Did they get the right picture?! There is no way that is a woman...He looks like the kid from Christmas story all grown up.

I do agree that publicly denying her at a funeral was not the correct way to go about it, unless he had already spoken to her beforehand and she chose to ignore him.

The fact is that the Catholic religion does say that you cannot receive communion if you are a "practicing" (having sex) homosexual. They do have a right in every way to practice religion in their way just like everyone else. And if you are in the religion you are expected to adhere to the rules that come with it. For example, my sister has lived with the same man for 13 years and they have kids together and everything, but they aren't married, so they cannot recieve communion. They don't throw a fit, and involve the media over it. They recognize that that is the rule in the religion and they can either follow it or go to a religion that doesn't have a problem with their life situation if its that important to them.

To me I think this is more of a publicity stunt than anything else. She knew that she wasn't supposed to be recieving communion and chose to put that priest in the position of doing what was easy or doing what he felt was right. If anything I would say shame on her for making the funeral of her mother into something other than a time for mourning.

For all of the atheists and non-Bible believers here's your link of the day. Watch this and then tell me there is no God. If you can then you are guilty of either denial or being a liar to yourself.

http://youtu.be/4fWEYE7UjcY

FYI...this film is endorsed by the famous director James Cameron.

First off, if you don't feel that anything is wrong with homosexuality, that is your opinion, but in the eyes of the Catholic Church and this Priest it was. Here this priest was, at a funeral, which is considered a service and treated as such, as are Catholic weddings, and he had a person whom directly in front of his eyes and the entire attendance was in blatant objection of the scripture. Again, irregardless of your opinion of homosexuality, you don't get to dicate what does and doesn't happen in a church. To this priest it might as well have been the same as if an alcoholic was sitting in the back of the church downing drinks out of a bottle of Whiskey, and then stumbling down the aisle smelling of alcohol, asking for communion. It appears this woman was at one point an active member of the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic but was raised as one, and ANY person who has been at all active in the Catholic Church knows that only active and repentant members are to go forward for communion. Obviously the priest doesn't normally require you to prove this when you come forward, but if you are living a lifestyle that is in clear and ongoing violation of the faith, it is pretty clear that you are not fit to take part in the communion.

I read above someone saying she was "just a woman trying to take communion" and that she shouldn't be expected to "have read the whole Bible just to take it." Quite to the contrary, communion is a personal and outward affirmation of one's belief that Jesus died for their sin's. No we don't think that the wine magically turns into Jesus' blood in our digesitve system or anything like that, it is a symbolic gesture, practiced in Catholic and Protestant Churches, and very important to those who believe. If you don't believe you shouldn't go. In this case it is pretty clear that she knew what she was doing and knew she would be putting the Priest in a hard place to either look the other way about his beliefs in front of the congregation, or stick to what he believes is correct.

Now, refusing to complete his duties for the remainder of the funeral, even though this had happened, and not finding a suitable clery replacement if he was sick, or just didn't even want to continue, was not the best decision.

Jesus loves all of us, and all of us are sinners. But He did demand of us to recognize our sins, repent, and turn to Him for forgiveness. The practice of the Catholic Church has been that Publicly known sinners are not to receive Communion. I don't know how public the situation of the woman was, but the priest did admonish at the beginning. He might have not made a spectacle out of it if her life was not a public scandal. She should have been counseled beforehand pastorally, but we don't know the whole situation. The archdiocese did apologize, which many people here don't seem to recognize.

St Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11:27, "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the Body and Blood of the Lord." Paul says in Romans 1:26-27, "God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another". Homosexuality is condemned along with adultery, fornication, incest, prostitution, and bestiality among sexual practices in the Jewish scriptures (Lev 18) and the Christian.

Moreover, Jesus founded a Church when He said to Simon bar Jona, "I say that you are Rock (Kepha in Aramaic, Jesus' language, translated as Petros in Greek) and upon this Rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I shall give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19). In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus sent all 12 apostles to teach all nations all that He had commanded them, promising to be withe always until the end of the world. So the Church asserts her duty of teaching and binding and loosing as well as forgiving sins (John 20:22-23).

Lastly, those who still talk about the child abuse, that broke out in 2002, 10 years ago, and has been handled energetically by Pope Benedict. Analysis of the abuse during the period 1950 to 2002 by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice showed that about 4% of US Catholic clergy were involved. That's a tragic figure, but much lower than in the general population and in public schools, among others. It is said that 1 of every 4 girls is abused by the age of 15, so it's not Catholic priests. Furthermore, the majority (80%) of the clergy abuse was by homosexual priests with adolescents rather than with children, wherein the 20% remaining were both boys and girls. Also, the abuse was mostly from 1965 to 1985.

Some errors I saw in the comments were that it is OK to remarry after a divorce without the first marriage being declared null, that is, was not a legal Church wedding. If the first marriage was only a civil marriage, then after the divorce the partners could get married in Church. An embittered woman wrote that abstinence is a sin when used a birth control --Wrong Sex outside marriage is a sin: it is called Fornication. Catholics who publicly advocate abortion and homosexual "marriage", such as political leaders, are liable to be excommunicated. Giuliani had an agreement with the archbishop of New York not to receive communion because he was also divorced twice, but he went up to receive communion from the pope. He should have been Publicly excommunicated for defiance. No Catholic who is excommunicated or living in sin should receive communion until they have repented and confessed, as St Paul clearly said in 1st Corinthians 11 above.

Nicodemus1946

The most rational and realistic post of all.

@ A Veteran

Catholics and Communion

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

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

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

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10).

If the owner of a Ford Van went to the Honda repair shop and was turned away because they only work on Ford products is that a hate crime?

This story is just another example of someone promoting their agenda demanding tolerance from someone else they have no tolerance for. It's a double standard and nothing more than an attempt to bring attention to ones self. Sadly some people are under the impression that if enough people say an apple is an orange that it makes the apple an orange............sorry.

As for the priest and his decision, it's his call although he should have known there would be trouble in Marry-Land. If you don't like the way a man does business, don't ask for his services!

I agree with you, but, that part about being right with the Lord and partaking unworthily is between you and the Lord NOT what some church leaders sit and decide is right. And one sin is as bad as another, I didn't believe that mortal sin stuff way back when I was in paricial school in the '50's. I am a Christian only, although I am not the only Christian. There will not be Catholics or Episcopialians or Baptists in Heaven, only Christians, followers of Christ. He said let there be no divisions among you my friend. I am not impressed by rules of man. Could a pedophile serve communion to a lesbian?

Brittany######, I caught your post at 1.17 "Homosexuality is not a choice" I must have missed this news in the science and medical journals.....can you provide the link, document, Scientist, Medical Professional or whatever it is that relates this newsworthy find to the rest of the world.....there is a whole world of people waiting for this discovery and it seems you know about it....but no one else does.

I am not a Catholic...I could NEVER be a Catholic for MANY, MANY reasons but the main reason is that I believe I can talk to God personally and DIRECTLY. No "middle-man"! I believe God is a forgiving and loving God to all who ask. I believe God created the heaven and earth. It doesn't matter how long it took or how he did it just that he did. There seems to be far too many "do's and don't" and "middle-men" asking for money if you are a "sinner" in THEIR EYES.

lol, many one verse Bible scholars out today!

The priest did the right thing here. Good for him!

.

I disagree with the priest failing to attend her Mother's funeral though.

She knew exactly what would happen. She knew she would garner attention that people like her crave!

Good News....

?

Well, chad, I doubt you'll disagree but the religious people you'll meet, including Catholic Priests, who are to be admired, use their religious 'book' as a guide for their lives, and not as a piece of wood with words designed to beat people over the head with. Hey, you know, funny thing, every major religious book I know of even says to do this. But leave it to little minds to conveniently ignore that part of it....

@AG99, how should he have handled it?

Derek

This coming from the guy using a caricature from the crusades as his avatar?

How many women and children were slaughtered at this time? Sorry if I find no humor in your attempt a sarcasm.

@ErinNJ, according to scholars the translated Bible still holds the same meaning as it did when it was wriiten, nothing has changed. Where do you get your information? And what examples do you have that the Bible is in error, aside for your point of view. And if they are just fairytales, why does it bother you so much that others believe in the Bible? It doesn't bother me that children believe in Santa Clause and I know he isn't real.

I am not a Catholic, but I have to say that what this priest did seems to be in accordance with Catholic doctrine and the bible. I think the reason the church is apologizing is because of the way it as done, not because of what was done. This is certainly not the first time a priest has denied communion to a person because they are gay/lesbian, and I seriously doubt it will be the last. I neither agree nor disagree with this practice since I am not Catholic and in fact not even a christian, I am just going by my understanding from reading the bible. I do think that the priest's failure to accompany the deceased to the grave site and officiate over the interment was a mistake. The priest should not have refused to do his duty to the deceased just because he had an issue with one of mourners.

"The lady/gentleman had already been informed, in a private conversation with the priest, that he coulod not give her communion. But, she went up anyway!"

I can't find that information. All the articles I read had her finding out about it in front of everyone.

(And why is she a "lady/gentleman"? She's lesbian, not transgender.)

Matilda - The priest never had a private conversation with her. He made a general announcement about "being in a state of grace" before receiving communion. FYI - I am catholic, and have never heard a priest make this announcement - especially not at a funeral! It is a general understanding that an individual is supposed to be in a state of grace in order to receive communion, but unless the priest was checking with everyone receiving communion about their state of grace - such as the last time they made confession - then he had no business singling her out. This was her mother's funeral. She didn't go there to turn her mother's funeral into a political statement, the priest chose to make a political statement during a funeral.

"She didn't go there to turn her mother's funeral into a political statement"

Some of what I read implied she did. Apparently she's quite the activist and a Buddhist as well. Communion isn't something she would have wanted normally.

I think "ioh's" comment is a perfect example of how this cancer of the mind spreads.

It becomes perfectly normal for people to project their own insecurities and bigotries upon their peers whom they disagree. Never mind that their own holy book looks upon "judgment" as a sin. How precise and beautiful their subjugation becomes within the subtleties of their intolerance.

You really have to hand it to them ... the religious mind is one of the greatest social experiments we can ponder. It's a great lesson to us all. Reminds me of the abusive father I never really knew. He taught me much, but his most important lesson was to outline and define the very type of man I knew I didn't want to become. I'm forever grateful for that.

I don't know, maybe as our species hears more and more about instances like these ... how "ugly" we can be as people. Maybe that's the only way we really get better?

In my experience at Roman Catholic Funerals the priest clearly states before communion "Members in good standing with the Roman Catholic church are welcome to receive communion." I went to Catholic schools but I am Episcopalian, in our church anyone can receive communion as long as they are baptised. During my "rebellious" years in HS during school mass I would purposely come forward to receive communion just to piss off Brother Mike.

I don't agree with the Roman Catholic church on their stance for communion but I respect it now as an adult. But she knew that it was wrong in the eyes of the church for her to come forward; if she would have respected her mother's church and priest then this would have been avoided. She can not possibly be a "practicing Roman Catholic" and be openly gay. I would suggest that she switch to a very similar religion (Episcopalian) where she can be openly gay, priests can marry, priests can be woman and the service and teachings are almost identical.

When we don't have traditions we don't have any foundation and our culture is built on shifting sand.

KevNC... The priest may have made the comment because he knew that she was there, that she was living "in sin" with another woman and that she was outspoken. ( remember her mother was very religious and attended that church so he may have spoken to the mom previously about her daughter). The fact that she felt that she deserved communion even though she did not meet the requirements of it is what caused the problem. Would you expect a priest to ignore what they knew and allow someone to have communion to not make a scene? That totally disrespects their own religion and beliefs. She was informed, she chose to ignore it and she caused the issue.

also if the church removed him from active service because of this, they better be prepared for a lawsuit and for changing their entire stance about gays.

This priest was right. And he did not publicly humiliate her, she publicly humiliated herself. She knew full well that homosexual behaviour is contrary to the teachings of the church. She came forward knowing this. Shame on her for using her mother's funeral to make an anti-church statment. You can bet this was planned out in advance - come forward for communion when she shouldn't, then complain to the church and to the media. This was INCREDIBLY DISRESPECTFUL of her!

chad....look more closely....

You are forgiven for not having a sense of humor, but only this one time....

Matilda: I didn't see that in the information provided, can you point this out or provide a reference?

Thosic: you should have said some scholars, as not all agree and there are those that say the interpretations of the bible do not follow with the meaniong and ther are words thta have been put in and removed to better suit waht the church wants it to mean.

And I wouldn't say you believing in fairy tales bothers ErinNJ, I'd say what bothers her is when you try and use those fairy tales to tell others how they should live.

Hey Matilda from Tuscany you are so full of crap, read the article. There was no mention of refusing communion to anybody at the time of that conversation, the priest made the statement at the alter, When starting the communion. Another point is the Catholic Church recognizes private confession between God and the sinner, now I would like to know what the sinner and God talked About, not that I'm nosy. More to the point how does Lawrence or Matilda know what transpired. They don't know anymore than the priest knew.

I did look closely, that's why I said it was a caricature ... but it doesn't make it any less humorous.

Hello, everyone knows what to expect at a Catholic Church. Everyone knows their stance on the LGBT community. Why is everyone acting like this is a surprise?

"Never mind that their own holy book looks upon "judgment" as a sin. How precise and beautiful their subjugation becomes within the subtleties of their intolerance."

Actually, the bible refers to judgement of others as being a sin. If you see a woman in tight clothes, do you assume she has STDs? That's the purpose of "judgement" being a sin. Please read up a little more. THIS priest was not being Christ-like at all. "Christ" would have accepted anyone, even those who killed him. Anyone who is ignorant is general tends to be less tolerant, God or not.

"The actions of this priest should not be condemned."

Actually they should, seeing as he was not being as "Jesus" may or may not have taught.

"When we project fairy tales and superstitions over our lives and superimpose archaic traditions and relics over our basic human sovereignty .... what do we expect?"

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

It's strange how many see religion as black and white when they their own perspective can be ultimately the same. God or not, this is dangerous.

Well, chad, then get over yourself. Because if you have to get all hot over a picture of a crusader, especially when it is being made fun of, means you don't use humor as a weapon. And that to me means you not only lead a potentially very sad life (maybe you don't I don't care) but that you aren't effective at your causes. So here's my proposition. You tell me your cause and I'll pursue it much more effectively. In fact, you don't have to tell me your cause, because while I think you may have difficulty realizing who your friends are, I don't and I am already on the same side.

@Keithsn, some scholars do believe, as you say, that the text have changed. But the earliest surviving texts do not support that view. Were they different before the earliest surviving texts? No one knows. That is open to discussion between the scholars.

And I do not try to use the Bible to tell others how to live. If they don't believe it that's up to them, that is their freewill choice. But don't tell the church how it is to run. If you want to join the church, adhere to its rules. If you don't join the church, you are obviously not subject to its rules and can live however you want. But if you come in to the church and tell them they should tolerate and adhere to your rules, that is wrong, and that is what you and ErinNJ are saying.

typo: ignorant in* general

when their* own perspective

Actually, the bible refers to judgement of others as being a sin. If you see a woman in tight clothes, do you assume she has STDs? That's the purpose of "judgement" being a sin. Please read up a little more. THIS priest was not being Christ-like at all. "Christ" would have accepted anyone, even those who killed him. Anyone who is ignorant is general tends to be less tolerant, God or not.

I'm not sure how you misread what I said, as that was the point I was making. Christians tend to hurl "judgements" all the time, regardless of what is said in their book.

Actually they should, seeing as he was not being as "Jesus" may or may not have taught.

The entire church is not set up as Jesus would have liked (at least, judging by the words attributed to him.) Christ would look at the extravagance of the Vatican in utter disgust. So what's your point, this question should be addressed to the followers of the church, not me.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

If you're going to quote a scientist in your attempts at taking things out of context, you probably shouldn't use Einstein.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

Derek,

You're mistaking to think I have a side. I do not.

No one speaks for me, or shares my views 100% of the time, so I choose not to look for allies in reasoning. In reality, I think you looked to attack me as a "small-minded", militant atheist before you really took the time to consider what I was saying.

You were wrong in your assumptions, just like you are wrong in thinking there is a "cause" beyond common sense.

"If you're going to quote a scientist in your attempts at taking things out of context, you probably shouldn't use Einstein."

Well not really. "The word god is for me..."

A lot of people should learn to begin to express their views on god this way. Religious or not. One might find tolerance on all sides tends to be easier this way...

"Never mind that their own holy book looks upon "judgment" as a sin. How precise and beautiful their subjugation becomes within the subtleties of their intolerance. You really have to hand it to them ... the religious mind is one of the greatest social experiments we can ponder."

"You really have to hand it to them ... the religious mind is one of the greatest social experiments we can ponder."

If "their" and "them" are the same people, you may want to be more specific if you do not want to be misread. Just because one is religious, it does not mean they haven't thought about "their" religion. Of course, quotes on "religious mind" would have helped.

@Ryan, the Bible does tell us not to judge the world. But it says that if anyone claims to be a believer, but lives an immoral life, than we should not even eat with that person: 1 Corinthians 5:11. We are not to judge the world, but we are to keep those in our churches accountable for their actions. If you take communion that is reserved for members of the church, your are then claiming to be a member of the church.

"We are not to judge the world, but we are to keep those in our churches accountable for their actions."

No doubt, the priest was not being as Christ taught.

"But it says that if anyone claims to be a believer, but lives an immoral life, than we should not even eat with that person: 1 Corinthians 5:11."

I don't much like to associate with people who are continuously hypocritical as it is. That said person included.

"If you take communion that is reserved for members of the church"

If that's true for the church in this article, yes, Barbara Johnson could have known better. Either way, I do not remember the bible saying Christ denied anybody who asked for him

Its a phrase, chad, about the sides.

And there are causes beyond common sense, some worthwhile, some not.

Point being, get funnier. Really, you going to pick on a picture of a crusader that is being made fun of? Think about that. What is next, killing people if they put up a picture of the prophet? How about coming down on Mel Brooks for having Nazis in his comedies (not that I could ever even be on the map with Brooks)? Going to come down on the whole Comedy Channel? Because none of that reeks of common sense.

I really don't see your point. Not in a common sense way. About making fun of Crusaders. You tell me that some tin can man charging into the desert in the name of some mythological book isn't stupidly ludicrous, and in fact, absurdly so since it was the reason these 'men of honor' slaughtered people in the name of God. Yes, just like the morons who kill in the name of burned Korans.

If it hurts those murderers to laugh at them more than take them seriously, I'm going to laugh my ass off. No, sorry, you want to kill in the name of your book being burned? You get to be laughed at, humiliated, made fun of, and treated like the uptight, dangerous, horrible creature you are.

Derek,

You're completely free in your "attempts" at humor. I never said anything about your freedoms (or lack-thereof) to display whatever avatar you would like. I was merely pointing out the irony in calling me "small-minded", or in hinting that I was in some way guilty of the same intolerance ... all the while using a visual that represents one of the most intolerant time frames of the church.

I can't speak intelligently on Brooks as I've never "gotten" his humor, although there are some good parts in History of the World

The Priest was NOT acting in accordance with the Bible. The Bible distinctly says LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

It also says, that anyone wearing polycotton blends or a tattoo or shaves his beard is a sinner.

The Priest conveniently ignored those parts. HYPOCRITE.

@Bart: Exactly

Bart Conner

The Priest was NOT acting in accordance with the Bible. The Bible distinctly says LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

It also says, that anyone wearing polycotton blends or a tattoo or shaves his beard is a sinner.

The Priest conveniently ignored those parts. HYPOCRITE

#2.38 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:14 PM CDT

------------------------------

Derek-381097

@Bart: Exactly

How is he not acting in accordance with the bible?

Yes, the bible says a great deal of things he's obviously ignoring and yes, we can all agree he's a hypocrite. But to sit here and blindly omit all the things the bible does say ... and all the things adherents do do in the name of that book is facetious in deed.

The point here isn't that people pick and choose which scriptures to live by and which ones to ignore ... everyone recognises the hypocrisy in this. The point is, why in the hell, in the 21st century, are we using a book for moral guidance that was written at a time when slavery was condoned, children were sold into sexual servitude by their fathers, and people were systematically put to death for the trivialist of offenses.

How can anyone, with a shred of dignity, claim these principles are ones of moral code?

The Analects of Confucius, which long predates Christianity, serves as insight into more ethical prosperity than anything found in the bible.

I'll revert to my original point, as long as a modern society looks to unmodern modes of moral conduct, steeped in traditions held sacrosanct before our species truly understood the value of human-worth ... why should we expect any different?

What I find almost worse than the priest's behavior is the comment from Matilda Tuscany. It's ignorance like this that I find mind-boggling. All this referring to Barbara Johnson as "he" is just ridiculous. She's a lesbian; not a man. Matilda must be an "it."

Go to a church that supports homosexuality. I understand that this was this woman's mother's funeral, but the Cathtolic Church does not support homosexuality. They shouldn't have to change the practices and beliefs they teach for anyone. Don't agree? Take communion elsewhere. I am WELS Lutheran, which is very conservative and my pastor would do the same and I would support him. If I didn't, I would worship elewhere.

AG99

I think that was in the original article about this. I am nearly certain that it said she had met with the priest in private "prior to" the actual ceremony.

chad, I understand your ultimate point, but I really think lacking a sense of humor is just really sending this thing way over your head (from a humor perspective, I am not saying you are a dummy).

Here is my personal view judge it if you wish, I'll take communion where ever I want, the only being who has the power or the right to stop or judge me is god. If there is a god.

She also had the same right regardless of what mere men have said, god has the last word in this, not any of us.

Derek,

Opinions vary.

As for yours, I don't know ... I'm still waiting for you to say something funny.

TXHorseman: That sounds vaguely familiar, but my memory being what it is, I wanted to look it up to confirm it. Can't find it again.

Thosic "how should he have handled it?"

with kindess, love, compassion and respect...all the traits Jesus admired and lived by.

from the outside looking in...these are the traits I see the least out of christians.

this was her mothers funeral, her mothers church...

you'd think this would be the exact time the priest should just let it be and let her eat her bread and wine, which clearly in the eyes of the church would not have been the body of christ.

given his suspension/removal from the church - and the immediate apology from the archdiocese, clearly they arent as heartless as the followers who are commenting on here...clearly they understand a funeral is not the place to cast stones at sinners...not even close.

Kat - the good news?

I'll be seeing Matilda in hell.

The bad news?

I'll be seeing Matilda in hell.

Jessica,

Read Mathew 21:12 and see that Jesus himself could be more than as you describe when it was appropriate to do so.

The point here isn't that people pick and choose which scriptures to live by and which ones to ignore ... everyone recognises the hypocrisy in this. The point is, why in the hell, in the 21st century, are we using a book for moral guidance that was written at a time when slavery was condoned, children were sold into sexual servitude by their fathers, and people were systematically put to death for the trivialist of offenses.

Chad: The point here is that you too pick and choose the verses of the bible that you disagree with and forget about the ones in the new testament.It's obvious by your comments that you have never gotten out of the book of Leviticus. Slavery was never condoned in the bible, only recognized, a fact that atheists refuse to hear, because then they would have no excuse for their disbelief.

The Analects of Confucius, which long predates Christianity, serves as insight into more ethical prosperity than anything found in the bible.

Actually, in reading the the analects of confuscius, I get the impression that he copied out of the book of Proverbs, which was also put together around the time before he was born. So go figure.

Chad: The point here is that you too pick and choose the verses of the bible that you disagree with and forget about the ones in the new testament.It's obvious by your comments that you have never gotten out of the book of Leviticus. Slavery was never condoned in the bible, only recognized, a fact that atheists refuse to hear, because then they would have no excuse for their disbelief.

I'm curious as to why you would think slavery has any form of influence over my belief, or lack thereof?

I don't believe in your god, just as you don't believe in Posideon, or Thor. Why don't you believe in these gods (as well as the thousands of other gods you could potentially believe in)? I don't believe in myths and superstitions because, well ... they are myths and superstitions. This is checkers, it isn't chess.

As for your bible, I've read and studied many scriptures. I've also read and studied the Quran, but that's besides the point.

There's much in the bible of great beauty. There's quite a bit I rather enjoy to be honest. But again, as I've said on multiple occasions now (not really sure why it's not sinking in), that's beside the point. The funny thing about the New vs Old testament arguments, however, is the little fact that Christians are quite comfortable using the Old to justify their bigotries and intolerance towards homosexuals ... but then when you call them out on it, you get: "Ohhh, slavery, genocide, that's from the old testament. Christians are not bound by that."

In actuality, some could even argue that the New testemant contains more archiac notions than the Old. After all, we are not introduced to the concept of Hell and the eternal torture of our souls, until the meek and mild Jesus comes along. "Believe as we do, do what we say ... or, you are damned to eternal punishment and torture." I don't know ... not very loving if you ask me.

Actually, in reading the the analects of confuscius, I get the impression that he copied out of the book of Proverbs, which was also put together around the time before he was born. So go figure.

Hmmm, do you mean kind of like how the book of proverbs is a plagiarism of some earlier Egyptian (The Instructions of Amenemopetand) and Assyrian (Ahiqar) works?

Those non-believers who talk of the bible as a book of "fairy tales" just show their litterary Ignorance. The Jewish scriptures or Old Testament have a lot of litterary devices for teaching spiritual truths. Aesop's fables use stories to teach a moral or a truth. Many parts of the Jewish scriptures use the same method. In Genesis, there is talk of a Garden with a talking snake and a Tree of Life and another of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Does anybody with half a brain not see that these are symbols? The snake represents the spiritual enemy or devil, while the two trees are put within reach of the humans but subject to the humans not Grasping at them by themselves. Eternal Life and Full Knowledge have been given to humans, but at a time reserved by God for us. Jonah is the story of a typical chauvinistic Jew who doesn't want to help God save the hated foreign Ninevites repent from their sins, even though God wants him to do so. When they repent, God is happy, but Jonah is disgusted. Jesus sent His apostles to preach to "all nations", and in Acts of Apostles we can see local churches of the One Church in many different regions among different people, Jews and Gentiles together. It is true that some Christians are narrow-minded and judgemental, but so are most of the atheists and agnostics I read on comment pages. They ridicule and lambaste as if Superior, while they truly know Very Little about Christianity and the Bible.

Hmmm, do you mean kind of like how the book of proverbs is a plagiarism of some earlier Egyptian (The Instructions of Amenemopetand) and Assyrian (Ahiqar) works?

Nobody knows exactly the age of when Proverbs were written. Some say around the same time as your (Instructions of Amenemopetand) and Assyrian (Ahiqar), some archeologists say before. One thing all your books have in common is that they VERY similar to the book of Proverbs and all your books seemed to have been written around the same time. That goes for your Analects of Confucius too, since we know now that this was where he was plagarizing from.

@chad: Hey, you don't find me funny, fine. But I don't think that's really the issue of why you keep missing stuff here....

Derek,

Of course. Plausible deniability is obviously a potential ... or maybe I'm just looking for something a little more clever? I don't know, your guess is certainly as good as mine.

Unhappy

It's kind of strange though, isn't it. Only one claims to be "revelation".

Isn't that the point here? Some of our books (no matter how violent and archaic they seem to be) are claimed to be either authored, or divinely inspired by the creator of the universe?

I don't know bud. You're certainly welcome to believe this.

Derek & Chad........get a room!

A demented lesbian and her muff buddy going up to a catholic priest for communion......hmmmm......wouldn't that be like a black man going to a kkk rally to light a cross?

Derek,

See Ed ... that was "kind" of funny

ioh

The fairy tale is that it is normal human behavior to be gay. Sad to see the Catholic Church preach the Bible but when it comes to political pressure, they fold. Shame on the Church.

• 25 votes

#2.4 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:37 AM EDT

This is the kind of behaviour I do expect of christian leaders 9Grandfather was a Fundamental Methodist Minister). I believe if it were Jesus officiating he would have allowed the grieving daughter to take communion as one last honor to her mother.

Between making a public announcement that he wouldn't give her communion and then not attending the burial service this priest inflicted pain in the vanity of his rightousness.

One piece of stale cracker and some cheap wine and all this drama would have been avoided after all it was her MOTHER'S FUNERAL not a regular mass.

And the blind shall lead the blind.So many talk about what the Bible says but,they have never taken the time to study it,or even read it.

So what does it say in the Bible about a person who is about to take communion? what are they suppose to do? and if not what does God say about it? Who cares what anyones opinion has to do with it.

@Ralph (not ralphy) LOL!

"I don't believe in myths and superstitions because, well ... they are myths and superstitions."

In that case, so is everything else that hasn't been proven to exist. I mean after that is only protocol but I would admit it works quite well to officiate knowledge in science. And more odds for you. Of course ultimately things exist regardless of whether they have been proven by man or not, otherwise there would be no universe. It would be much different if science could explain why it's impossible for God to exist. It's also ultimately pointless for religion, man, and even atheism itself to even exist according to atheism. So when one comes down to a choice that is ultimately hypocritical, because it is pointless, to believe in God, or to remain undecided one could quite reasonably reject atheism as well. Especially if it's natural. It's much harder to discredit someone who admits they don't know then to discredit someone who claims to actually "know" something about the unknown without any evidence... no matter what your opinion may be. So yes, chad, you're technically right.

In that case, so is everything else that hasn't been proven to exist. I mean after that is only protocol but I would admit it works quite well to officiate knowledge in science. And more odds for you. Of course ultimately things exist regardless of whether they have been proven by man or not, otherwise there would be no universe.

I don't follow?

Science has nothing to do with "proving" anything ... it's not about facts.

Science is simply a mechanism and methodology for better understanding the natural world in which we find ourselves in. When scientists have "beliefs" about certain phenomenon ... it is because there is evidence for that belief. That doesn't mean it's directly "observable," ... or can be "seen and touched," or anything else like that.

In fact, if other evidence or data comes along that contradicts previous ideas and beliefs ... well, than, that new evidence and that new data is used to form a better, more complete understanding of the natural world in which we find ourselves in ... and so on and so on. Science is constantly adapting itself to better, more accurate, incoming information.

It's a tool.

And change? Change is a feature, not a bug.

It would be much different if science could explain why it's impossible for God to exist.

Actually science doesn't try to do this, nor should it. Science could never disprove god, no matter how much we learn about the universe. But what's the evidence for god? There isn't a shred. Does that mean there isn't a god? Of course not. It just means the more and more we learn about ourselves and the universe, the less and less we need to postulate a "god" within the equation in order to make it work.

I have absolutely no idea if fairies exist, okay? I can't prove they don't ... but is it a constructive use of my time to go about my day factoring-in their existence into the equations of my life; on the off-chance that they do? Of course not. But, I doubt you would call me an "a"fairiest ... right?

Why should I be called an "a"theist just because I don't believe in one (of thousands) of potential gods ... of which there is not a shred of evidence for?

This is checkers, it isn't chess.

"Science could never disprove god, no matter how much we learn about the universe."

I disagree, if of course there is no God. Chances are we won't. But I wouldn't say it's impossible if mankind happens to live long enough. One day science could explain the singularity, and everything it is and is not, as well as what caused it to become the universe. Science could answer fundamental questions about the universe like "Is infinite energy possible to harness?" Or "Is the universe infinitely complex?" then I'd imagine we would much closer to the absolute truth of existence if not at it, God or not.

If man knew everything about the universe, I would have no choice but to reject anything else. This should not be impossible.

"Science has nothing to do with "proving" anything ... it's not about facts."

I'm not following you seeing as science needs "proof" for anything within in to change at all.

"I have absolutely no idea if fairies exist, okay? I can't prove they don't ... but is it a constructive use of my time to go about my day factoring-in their existence into the equations of my life; on the off-chance that they do? Of course not. But, I doubt you would call me an "a"fairiest ... right?

True but a fairy, specifically, a fairy doesn't offer even a conceptual meaning for anything anyways. I sure hope could can differentiate. The concept of God does. Also, it's not like you have to go around constantly reminding yourself that you believe God exists. Should I give up believing there is "meaning" and a "why" to my place in existence, even existence itself for that matter, because a person who ultimately does not know about existence tells me so? Does belief alone really hinder anything?

"Why should I be called an "a"theist just because I don't believe in one (of thousands) of potential gods ... of which there is not a shred of evidence for?

Thousands? I think infinite. The concept itself is more or less a variable. Although, most go with "God, Allah, ect, created existence" at least. You don't have to "pick" any religion to believe in God. Yes, I would agree "atheist" should be used less disrespectfully as some tend to spout despite it being technically correct, but it is just a label. Being called "atheist" should not make you any less respected. It's ignorance of others that will do that for you. Do you have another suggestion for what you think you should be called?

"This is checkers, it isn't chess."
Ok, there's ultimately no point to atheism, just as there's no point to religion... according to atheism. Many chose to believe otherwise for that reason.

"Do you have another suggestion for what you think you should be called?"

I apologize in advance, Chad, I was not intending to seem disrespectful. Are you saying those of religion are the only ones who should be labeled?

typo:
"True but a fairy, specifically, doesn't offer even a conceptual meaning for anything anyways."

I disagree, if of course there is no God. Chances are we won't. But I wouldn't say it's impossible if mankind happens to live long enough. One day science could explain the singularity, and everything it is and is not, as well as what caused it to become the universe.

Sure, but there's no amount of knowledge one could attain to quench the infinite regression of hypotheticals. Even if we live another 100 thousand years and learn pretty much all we "think" there is to learn ... that's not going to stop someone from asking: Couldn't we all just be a conscious matrix running on some guys computer, or a simulation program in an infinite loop, or yada yada yada ....

My point is in "absolutes."

I don't believe in them. Saying we could disprove an all-powerful, first-cause creator that's beyond our realm of comprehension is a logical fallacy. At least in my opinion.

True but a fairy, specifically, a fairy doesn't offer .... >

You lost me on this paragraph. I stand by my initial point as it's meant more of a logical exercise than an attempt as establishing a relevance for fairies.

Do you have another suggestion for what you think you should be called?

That's a great question for the simple reason that I don't have an answer.

I don't. I really can't think of any single term that can express (or make lean) my philosophical ideals of life/existence.

I can't stand "atheist", as I find it one of the most meaningless terms there is. I'm not a fan of "humanist", as I feel that to be way too exclusive of a term. I care a great deal for the animal kingdom as a whole, why we should exclude a large population of it to appease our "human" egos is beyond me.

Maybe "secularist"? That's a pretty good term ... pretty universal, albeit boring.

I would have liked to hear his side of the story, but that does not seem to make a difference to anyone.

TheBossSaidSo, how do you come to that conclusion? Not even the Pope can say who is damned and who is not. In fact, many denominations believe in universal salvation, so even those who do not believe are already saved.

@ thebosssaidso - Christ preached "Love your neighbor as yourselves," and never specified "but only of the opposite sex." Paul twisted what Christ said as he was somewhat homophobic (based on his alleged writings.) Christ never said men who love men and women who love women would be "on the way to damnation." You cannot find one thing Christ said that even infers that.

Boss-I am so glad that we have people like you who are so close to God that they know his mind and can be his spokesman in determining who goes to hell. Personally, with the comments you made, I suspect you will also be on that Southbound train as well!

Why is it that those who claim to be the most righteous are the ones who tend to be the most judgmental?

If heaven is filled with those folks, send me to hell...please.

Bart, is the seat next to you taken?

Don't forget the heaven also fill with those involve in the Crusade and those priests who torture women, went on witch hunt and hold so much power that they scheme for more.

Sound heavenly, right?

derp

A little trivia may be in order. The word 'hell' in the biblical Greek language is translated as 'a town pit where trash and corpses are burned'.

@ thebosssaidso - Christ preached "Love your neighbor as yourselves," and never specified "but only of the opposite sex." Paul twisted what Christ said as he was somewhat homophobic (based on his alleged writings.) Christ never said men who love men and women who love women would be "on the way to damnation." You cannot find one thing Christ said that even infers that.

LaughingCat: Actually Christ did say something about homosexuality. A fact that most homosexuals refuse to hear. For one, unlike the other laws of the old testment, Christ never said anything that would repeal those laws. For example, woman caught in the act of adultery. According to the old laws, she would have been stoned. But according to Christ, she was told to go and sin no more. So Christ undid the old law with the new one....... Where are you getting the idea that the old law no longer applies if Christ has not said anything about it? It generally means that the old laws are still in effect about homosexuality.

There is another verse in the bible that Christ did say: Mathew 19:12

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way
by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The
one who can accept this should accept it."

So what is a eunach? A eunach is someone who was either castrated or failed to mature at puberty, giving rise to feminine features. So what exactly was Christ saying when he said this. Do you think it is possible that homosexuals are today's version of eunuchs?

Christ came to pay for sin with his life. Not to change what sin is. It's still sin but with Jesus we have a place to find forgivness because he paid the price. You make a mockery of his death to change wrong to right. He died for what is wrong. The picture of that person looks to me like death that wont quit until there is nothing clean or whole left on the planet

@LaughingCat: I guess you did not know why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed? Take a guess? Some statements are made through actions.

At "boss said so"--there are far more admonitions about judgment throughout the Bible, which by your definition would make you a good candidate for damnation as well (following your logic). Not that I wish that upon you.

To "unhappy"--Christ did not "undo" laws about shellfish, or about selling your daughter into slavery, or about many other items in the Old Testament that we don't take very seriously for one reason or another. If we use the logic you are using, then eating shrimp should send you straight to hell, but selling your daughter into slavery would be just fine.

If people spent more time applying Biblical principles to THEMSELVES rather than to others, the world would be a much, much better place.

@Mike--it's clear from your post that you are not completely clear about why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. There were several reasons, and different ways to interpret each of them, depending on the translation one is using. Mostly it had to do with excess in a VARIETY of forms. Read all the passages, not just one line. It's amazing what context can do for meaning (and what taking things out of context can do with respect to skewing meaning).

Christ came to change all that and he said that many times over. He also said that some of the places he visited that their mere lack of faith in him was a much worse sin than those from Sodom had been. It's not as grave a sin as some would like to make out especially when so many are born with chomezoidal problems making them freaks of nature. We should be humble and let God make the judgements and not be quick to judge as Jesus said many times over.

To "unhappy"--Christ did not "undo" laws about shellfish, or about selling your daughter into slavery, or about many other items in the Old Testament that we don't take very seriously for one reason or another. If we use the logic you are using, then eating shrimp should send you straight to hell, but selling your daughter into slavery would be just fine.

Kelly: Christ didn't have to say anything about the shellfish, that was given to Peter by a vision from God, so that it wouldn't stop christians from talking to others about Christ. Observe: Acts 10: 9-16.

⁹ About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. ¹⁰ He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. ¹¹ He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. ¹² It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. ¹³ Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

¹⁴ “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” ¹⁵ The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” ¹⁶ This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

This came in really handy in Ch. 11 when Peter had to go to the home of Cornelius ( non- christian) and Peter's friends were giving him trouble. It's also one of the reasons why christians have no problem eating with others from other religions.

¹ The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. ² So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him ³ and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

⁴ Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story:

It ends well too. In verse 18, after Peter explains:

¹⁸ When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

I'm for gay rights and i don't care if they get married but the church has the right to their beliefs and they make the rules on their property sure he could have shown a little class given that it was a funeral but if this woman was raised a catholic then she should know better than to try to take communion although most priests if they knew or suspected someone were gay would just pretend they didn't know "live and let live" everybody has to stop trying to force their beliefs on others.

You people don't get it. If you want to receive you must be in a state a grace, had went to confession and try not to repeat the sin again. It is the Prists right not to give the body of Christ if he feels that the any person is not in the state grace.

“I went up. I was standing next to my mother’s casket and he covered the bowl, and said, ‘I cannot give you communion because you are with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin.’ I stood there with my mouth open in a state of shock for – I don’t know how long,” she said.

^^^^^

Uh-oh, I thought god said it was a sin, but now we all know that church and religions make up their own rules, not the invisible man in the sky. this priest opened his mouth and exposed church for the fraud that it truly is. They make up the rules of the sheeple that follow these charlatans and then proclaim they are doing God's work, but now we all know they are making up their own religious rules to try and impose upon the rights of all others.

People need to walk away from all church and religions and let them all fall. They do more harm than good for the people or our communities.

TAX them all, or shut them down!

I do not agree with the most of the beliefs of the Catholic church, so I do not attend one. The priest SHOULD have sat down with the daughter PRIOR to the funeral and explained everything to her. Had he done that, the daughter could have then decided to whether to still have the funeral at the church or hold it elsewhere. He also SHOULD have attended the burial....... that is in his job requirements.

If you CHOOSE to attend a church, then you need to accept their beliefs. To go into a church and tell them what to believe is foolishness.

And more trivia: incidentally, the American Catholic Church; and the Liberal Catholic Church; are two modified denominations, if any are interested.

The bible is not the "word of God", it is the word of man; anyone can claim that they speak the "inspired word of God". The "good book" may be ancient but it's just a book that contains selected writings by men and only men wrote it because they had a special connection to God right?

Hmmm what i havent seen here is the fact that GOD created ALL of us....yes that does mean he created homosexuals! Another thing that has not really been stated is that the bible was written by MAN, yes its supposed to be according to GOd but lets face it people noone ever tells the same thing the same way. Prime example is the childrens game of well it was called telephone when i was in school where u whisper a word to the person next to u all the way around when it comes back its totally different? Personally the way I look at it GOD said he would give us everything we need in this life so maybe with the rise in people being open about their sexual choices could just be GODS way of trying to control the world population! I honestly do not think GOD much cares who your with as long as u love and are loved in return.

I'm still gonna have my house painted.

I was raised as a Catholic and I do not always agree with the beliefs/rules but I know what they are. I have my own mind, thoughts and beliefs. I was not allowed to have communion, either, at my mother's funeral--but because I am a divorcee. Ergo, not in a "state of grace". per the priest. Funny, I could have swung a cat in that church and without too much effort have hit several marital cheats, spouse abusers, and suspected child molesters among who knows what else, but I was the unacceptable one that day. It angered me but I turned it into a KMA moment (kiss my ***) and that is what I thought throughout that service. I did not let some stupid rules ruin my mother's service for me or some stupid jerk who didn't go to the cemetery--it was a blessing for that lady that priest didn't show up with his nasty attitude. I decided I'd let God take care of anyone who keeps communion like it is theirs to keep--whatever he wants to do with them once they pop their clogs is fine with me. I have gotten on with it and am just fine, thank you! So it isn't only gays and lesbians who are refused communion--divorced people, too. My advice is move on and find a church and people who accept you for who you are and where you can be happy. On that note, I wish everyone out there a happy and blessed day.

Helloooh, holy communion is not for everybody that attend church, you must be in a state of grace to receive. i support the priest, call a spade a spade. if he had given the communion people will equally complain. if she really know what she was receiving she would have stayed back. the priest should be called back immediately from the catholic point of view. holy communion is not a party cake.

The Catholic Church does not, as this article state, "hand out bread and wine". Priests, Deacons and Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion distribute the Body and Blood of the Lord.

As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. Johnson is not a Catholic and as such should have no desire to consume the body of Christ.

Also church teaching, which places the duty of each Catholic to examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive holy communion. It is not the role of the person distributing the body and blood of Christ. Therein the Priest should not have judged this person.

I do not agree with the most of the beliefs of the Catholic church, so I do not attend one. The priest SHOULD have sat down with the daughter PRIOR to the funeral and explained everything to her. Had he done that, the daughter could have then decided to whether to still have the funeral at the church or hold it elsewhere. He also SHOULD have attended the burial....... that is in his job requirements.

I agree blondeness. To do that to her in front of other people...what a load of crap. This guy knew beforehand, obviously, that she was a lesbian. If he can't give her communion, he should have explained it to her before she chose this church. Not all Catholic churches do funerals the same way. When my aunt died, there wasn't a communion.

I agree partly.. But the family should not have to jump through hoops for a funeral. Jesus didn't ever say that gay people are not allowed.. He died for them. And everyone..

I hate religious crap. I will never go to @!$%#ty churches.

glad that priest stood his ground. compromising christianity is fast becoming the new religion of this era.

We don't. Sleep in and make yourself some pancakes on Sunday.

We do. I pity the poor fool in that day of harsh reality when the truth comes to light and you find you failed the test. Just because you believe that there is no test doesn't make it any less real.

That's all well and good, Ron, but under that belief system, no one should be allowed to take communion, because no one is in a "state of grace" as we are all sinners. What peeves me is the hypocrisy of this priest. He has the audacity to deny this woman, but has no problem sharing his communion with an unknown number of adulterers, theives, abusers, etc, that undoubtedly also make up his flock.

no one should be allowed to take communion, because no one is in a "state of grace" as we are all sinners

Well, in Catholic dogma, if you confess, you are considered to be in "a state of grace" until you sin again, at which time, you need to go tell all your dirty personal gossip to the priest again. Original sin doesn't count if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savior.

We do. I pity the poor fool in that day of harsh reality when the truth comes to light and you find you failed the test. Just because you believe that there is no test doesn't make it any less real.

And just because you do believe there is a test doesn't make it real either.

The shame of this little man isn't that he denied this woman some little stupid piece of bread means something to people that want to believe in a fairy tale (and a dumb fairy tale at that), but that he spat his own pathetic belief system into the face of a woman at her mother's funeral.

Funny, I don't remember the Bible making any mention of Jesus laying out any conditions when he shared bread and wine with the Apostles at the Last Supper.

Seems to me if the bread and wine were given by Jesus with the intention of them serving as a reminder of the sacrifice Jesus was making for the sins of humanity, then having a "sinner" participate in Communion should be fully encouraged as a reminder not as some BS moralistic punsihment on the part of a priest who has supposedly dedicated his life to compassion and forgiveness.

Looks like the vow of poverty this clown took was one of personal character.

We don't need a church. Churches need us. Without members, they wouldn't make any tax-free income.

Pastor - You're wrong. Christ only preached "Love your neighbor as yourself," without conditions. Never said anything about loving only the opposite sex. The OT was against homosexuality, as was Paul. Christ never said anything about men who love men and women who love women as being "an abomination to God." You cannot find one thing Christ said that was against homosexuality. But he did say Love One Another.... Who are you to put words in Christ's mouth?

I always thought Paul was a closet homosexual. He was definitely a misogynist, and the original flip-flopper extraordinaire.

You are right, laughing cat. Jesus talked about loving people, being compassionate and merciful, and not judging others for their sins. I've always felt that anyone who presumes to judge another's sins is usurping a role reserved by God himself. I imagine all these self-righteous judges have a big surprise in store for them, and it won't be pleasant.

laughingcat,

When Jesus made statements that were against the religious leaders of his day, it was too show them how they missed the point of the Law. Since Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, one should assume that Jesus approved of the way the religious leaders of his day dealt with homosexuality. If He didn't, do you think He would have had any problem calling them out? If they were wrong, don't you think He would have shamed them like He did on may other things. His silence on the issue indicates approval of the OT, not disapproval.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

This in itself speaks the whole state of any religious members.

This in itself speaks the whole state of any religious members.

You mean that the great Gandhi was judgemental?

Cuong, there are 2 BILLION christians in the world. Some of course will not be good examples of Christ. I count myself among them.

We don`t need a church, we need Christ. The chuch wants people to think you need a membership to a church. Thats not so. God is everywhere. You can read the Bible in your home.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

Actually, this verse doesn't really exist. So many atheists keep quoting it wrong that it almost belittles Ghandi. Ghandi made mention of ( something like this verse) when he was referring to Money and God. He couldn't understand why christian countries( western, or this case Brittish not american) could be so wealthy, yet according to the bible shouldn't serve so much wealth. I guess he didn't understand the fact that there are atheists who live there too, pretending to be christians. Nowadays in Britain, they just don't pretend.

We do. I pity the poor fool in that day of harsh reality when the truth comes to light and you find you failed the test. Just because you believe that there is no test doesn't make it any less real.

Ah the old life is a test thing. I never understood why people think that their life is simply a test for god to determine if you are saved or damned. If god is all knowing like you Christians claim then he already knows who is saved and who is going to hell. How is it a test if he already knows the answer? Religion makes no sense. I can tell you right now what will happen when you die. Nothing!

Being a new Catholic I am paying attention to what is being taught in my RCIA class and one of the sins we are to confess is homosexuality. How can they suspend this priest when he is doing what the bible says by not condoning gays. She should go to RCIA class and see why she was denied. Its a sin to be gay!

Have you even tried to seek God with a sincere heart? I have and He graciously answered my call. If you think God does not exist, man, you got a big surprise coming to you. We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ one day and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, yes, even you, my friend...even you will do what the bible says, very soon.

If you think God does not exist, man, you got a big surprise coming to you.

Oh boy! What's the surprise?!

He already said, "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess, than Jesus Christ is Lord." And from your moniker, Satanick, you believe in Satan, but not in God? Interesting...

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, God breathed through man. Over 800 prophecies fulfilled through Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection which makes it much more compelling and easy to believe than to spend fruitless energy fighting against it. Aren't you tired from expending all that effort?

all in sin, short of Gods perfect standards--romans3:23;psalms51:5. Sin and all other works of the devil to be erased--1 john 3:8. so therefore we pay for our own sins. because only god can judge us. thats the only judgement that counts. jehovah god makes that last call not his son jesus, because only jehovah alone know when that day is coming. we need to pay attention to ourselves and ask ourselves( is this in reference to jehovah gods standards) so no matter how people in the world try to sugar coat homosexuality god doesnt approve of it, because its not bible standards. for all the people out there who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, you need to read Leviticus 20:13 and this goes for everybody. so all i have to say is pray hard and ask for Gods forgiveness and try your best to do right in Gods eyes. Be Blessed!! Love You All!!!!

I don't believe in satan. My username is just a play on words.
I am not tired because I do not expend any effort fighting anything. There is nothing to fight.

"...that Jesus Christ is Lord"

" I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Rev 1:8 I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead and behold I am alive for ever and ever! I hold the keys of death and Hades..." Rev 1: 17-18

He came first as a savior, He is coming back as a judge.

The proof of God's existence is through the changed lives of those who have encountered Him, like Paul on the road to Damascus, and the near death experiences of children and adults. Heaven is For Real by Colton Burpo, The Little Boy That Came Back From Heaven, Alex Malakey,and Closer to the Light by Dr. Melvin Morris

"heaven" is a MYTH promulgated upon the unsuspecting. It falls into the tooth fairy category.

You are quoting the bible to prove the existence of god? Are you familiar with the term circular reasoning?

The proof of God's existence is through the changed lives of those who have encountered Him
So the only proof is of god's existence is personal testimony? Forgive me if I don't buy into the wares of peddling charlatans.

Morality has little to do with religion. Just look at all the Catholic priests molesting little boys.

Who's to say that she wanted to be part of the catholic church? She was attending her mothers funeral, that happened to be at a catholic church. And part of that service included communion, so she participated... or at least tried to.

It would have disrupted the service if she'd opted out. So she decided to go with it. But the idiot priest decided that making a scene was more important than having respectable funeral.

It would have disrupted the service if she'd opted out.

No it wouldn't have. I've gone to a bunch of Catholic rituals (first communion, confirmation, weddings, funerals, etc.) for my dad's side of the family, and if you're not Catholic (or Christian), you just don't get up and get in line when everyone goes up for communion. Just make sure you pick a seat on the outer end of the pew so no one has to shuffle past you.

I don't understand why she wanted communion. It would not have disrupted anything if she did not walk up for communion. I don't get it.

snickerdoodle *** Since the priest scandal broke, many studies have been made by many persons or agencies, some of them hostile to The Catholic Church, and these studies have shown over and over again that the number of priest pedophiles are comparable to or lower than the numbers in other religions and/or others in secular society. Furthermore, The Catholic Church has taken steps to remedy the situation. There is some disagreement among observers as to just how effectively the Church has accomplished this, but that is a different question. If you, personally want to weigh in on this matter, go for it. But, do not do so unless you have evidence, either pro or con, rather than the broad brush you just used to defame thousands of mostly innocent men. A number of priests have been disrobed and turned over to the civil authorities. This, of course, does not excuse even one case. But, keep your criticisms in perspective. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW EXTREMELY PAINFUL MUST BE THESE CONSTANT UNJUSTIFIABLE HARANGUES TO THOSE INNOCENT PRIESTS WHO HAVE NEVER HURT ANY CHILDREN AT ALL???????????????

Catholics accept gays and lesbians in the church. Anyone can come worship with us. If you want to receive communion it is expected that you are in a state of grace, i.e. having made and examination of conscience that is based on the 10 commandments and confessing where you have sinned. If you receive communion when not in a state of grace then that is a sin and something we want to protect others from.

"I don't understand why she wanted communion. It would not have disrupted anything if she did not walk up for communion. I don't get it."

Perhaps it was her mother's wish. The "whys" aren't as important as the behavior of the priest. Almost as shocking was his abandonment of the family between church and grave site.

to Chris629698. I am amused that people such as yourself are not more intelligent enough to realize that whether you are straight or gay you have a right to believe in whatever you want and a priest of the Church does not have the right to use his personal feelings against people in the church. What makes you think you are the only one permitted to consider yourself "moral". The Catholic church allowed its priests to molest young boys for years and did not do anything but that is ok according to you and the Catholic church?

You're assuming it was her mothers wish. No one knows that at all. She knew that the Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge gay/lesbians. She knew that the Priest officiating over the Mass KNEW that she was a lesbian. Knowing all of this she made the choice to go up for communion. She didn't have to. No one would have said a word if she'd declined from communion, and she wouldn't have made such a public spectacle of herself.

I am on the Priests' side on this one. Whether you are for or against gays/lesbians is beside the point. The Church is against it. She herself created the situation. If she feels humiliated, it was her own doing.

The WHY is very important I think. I'd like to know what she was trying to prove in doing this. Was there some political statement?

She was raised Catholic and wanted to receive Communion at her mother's funeral mass. There's no big conspiracy here, at least, not on her part. The priest, on the other hand....

I would question all who are stuck on one church or one religion

WHAT WOULD YOU DO if when you got to the pearly gates and found the "big guy" standing there was Muslim or Hindu and was only letting in such that believe all men are equal

I think it says someplace in the "good book" to treat others as you would be treated and it seams to me that a lot of priests haven't got that far in the book yet

That's because sexual orientation isn't a choice, but religion is.

Sexual orientation may not be a choice, for those who feel they were born gay(or it may be a choice if you are bi), but engaging in sexual behavior IS a choice. The church doesn't approve of any sexual behavior outside of marriage, so I don't know why this story has any real shock value! People keep saying, "Well I was born that way..."

No you weren't born with another man's johnson all up in ya! No that came after you decided to act on your temptations!

I guess you think that people born left-handed should still try to life a "right-handed lifestyle." After all, it doesn't matter how they were born, they still choose to engage in left-handed behavior.

I masturbate with my left hand! Hey toasty, honey badger don't care! He just takes! Who cares what the catholic church thinks? why were they seeking communion in the first place if they obviously don't want to live by that creed?

The church doesn't only harbor pedophiles, but there are many practicing homosexuals who are priests, pastors, and even cardinals in the Catholic church. I have a family member who is one and has told me of many, many others. I cannot stand the hypocrisy and no longer consider myself a Catholic. Most of family still goes along with the charade but I refuse.

I find it abhorrent that the church will refuse communion to those who are gay/lesbian when a practicing homosexual could be the one celebrating mass and giving out communion. How's that for a slap in the face? It's ok for them, but not for anyone else.

Matilda dear, you really should stop roaming around here and making stuff up.

"I guess you think that people born left-handed should still try to life a "right-handed lifestyle." After all, it doesn't matter how they were born, they still choose to engage in left-handed behavior."

This response to Bud's perfectly rational, and spot-on, rebuttal of the whole born this way argument simply shows that the whole born this way argument is not a real argument but an attempt to justify one's actions. Being left-handed isn't a sin, engaging in homosexual sex is. A better analogy would be to pedophilia. Many of those who are attracted to young children claim they didn't chose that attraction. They say it is a natural attraction. But yet society rejects them, because we acting on the desire to have sex with an eleven year old girl is wrong. Adultery would be another example. Most men are born with the desire to have sex with as many women as possible. However, once a man marries a woman we expect them to be faithful, and if they aren't many people view their character suspiciously. Just because you were born with the desire to do x, y, or z, does not mean you should do x, y, or z.

I too had a gay friend who for a time was converting to Catholicism. However he was also banging the priest.

Kat,

The church doesn't only harbor pedophiles, but there are many practicing homosexuals who are priests, pastors, and even cardinals in the Catholic church. I have a family member who is one and has told me of many, many others. I cannot stand the hypocrisy and no longer consider myself a Catholic. Most of family still goes along with the charade but I refuse.

I have wondered from time to time based upon the problems we read about within the Catholic Church if it is the knowledge and subsequent shame some feel that brings them to this.

So the priest was in this woman's bedroom and knew she was acting upon her "temptations"..

I also don't understand why they want to pretend to be religious when they are clearly wrong by biblical verses. They seem to only want to justify their abuse of the religious system by cherry picking the bible to assert they are ok. The deluded will stay that way, they will find out they are wrong when the time comes, their paltry excuses will not be heard by the final authority and there is nothing they can do to counter it. They cannot call God a bigot for not agreeing with them, they cannot call him a homophobe either, they will wither under his glare and know they are totally wrong! Too bad homos!

Rick, darling! What am I making up? That very few priests are/have been pedophiles ????? If you disagree and have evidence, go for it !!! That the Vatican has made no attempt to remedy the situation??? If you disagree, etc., etc., etc. Or was it one of my other posts?

No you weren't born with another man's johnson all up in ya! No that came after you decided to act on your temptations!

That's right folks acting upon your "god" given sexaul urges is wrong. What a character, this christian god. He makes people gay, then says it is a sin to be gay. He makes us all horny, but we are only allowed to have sex if we are married. I do not understand how people can believe this stuff.

God didn't make gays, there is no gay gene. Homosexuality is arrested psychosocial development. If one is "made that way" how do you explain the thousands of people recovering from same-sex attraction?

Sex is a gift to be experienced in the safety of marriage to prevent the spread of disease and to protect the children if it leads to procreation. And the best, most fulfilling sex, based on research, is with in a monogamous marriage.

Satanick

"acting upon your "god" given sexaul urges is wrong..."

Cramming objects into one's anus, I guess, qualifies as a "god" given sexual urge...

My best friend is an ER doctor, and every month he has a new story about how somebody got something big stuck up their ass... they were all born that way right?

Point I'd like to make is that people tend to act on their temptations and desires, and it can sometimes get them into a fickle!

One of the purposes of religion IS to provide guidance to the lives of people.

Satanick

"He makes people gay, then says it is a sin to be gay. He makes us all horny, but we are only allowed to have sex if we are married."

Singling someone out as a sinner in the middle of a church ceremony is ridiculous. Then you would have to investigate the personal lives of all the people receiving communion. She was not provoking controversy - I have never heard of this happening EVER. My own mother married my father, a divorced non-Catholic man, and was not supposed to receive communion technically speaking because of that. She still went up, and no one ever questioned that. Do you have any conception of how many "shacked up" individuals (often with out-of-wedlock children) are receiving communion at your average Catholic mass? More than you can count on one finger, generally. In the modern-day Church, whether or not to receive communion once you have made your First Holy Communion is largely an issue of personal conscience and choice. Don't go reading anything into the victim's actions here - the priest was entirely out of line.

@JrzWrld, it says she was there with her girlfriend. According to Catholic rules, those other people shouldn't receive communion either, but they are harder to spot. What let the priest know she was a lesbian? Whatever it was, he knew and was acting according to Catholic rules. If he knows someone his "shacking up" and gives them communion, it would be just as wrong. It doesn't matter that she was gay, what is at issue is the rules.

Same applies to the divorced, etc. Why is this any different?

As a divorced woman who was raised Catholic, when the priest realized that I was divorced, he pulled me aside and we spoke. A divorced person CAN accept communion if they are not in a s e xual relationship with another person as this would be adultery and a known sin that you are not trying to receive redemption for. A Lesbian/gay can accept communion as long as they are not in an active relationship, she was because she brought her girlfriend. This woman was raised Catholic so she knows the "rules" so to speak and she went up anyways. To me, she was in the wrong. However, the priest not going and finishing at the burial was just wrong on so many levels.

Thosic - How would the priest know that she was with her girlfriend? She could have been a sister or a close family friend for all he knew. Also, it is a policy to not give communion to sinners, not a specific brand of sinner. The priest singled her out and publicly made it known that she could not receive communion. This was her mother's funeral and not the appropriate venue for him to address this. He showed absolutely no tact or sensitivity to the situation.

Lesbians can receive communion. I would not doubt that Father Marcel offered to hear a confession from her to allow her to receive.

Well if she is not living in a state of grace then no one should get it. Just because you see a man, woman and child at church doesn't mean they are a family unless you know for a fact that they are. How do we know a lot of women have husbands or do they have oow children? Is it okay for them to receive communion? Why is it that homosexual is a greater sin, than adultery or oow? do tell.

@KevinNC, I don't know how he knew, but he obviously did. The article states she was there with her girlfriend. It must have been obvious or the problem would not have surfaced and the article would not have been written and we would not be writing these comments.

KevNC, this was her mothers funeral and not a place for a place to bring her private lifestyle into a public setting. She made the choice to do that. Now I truly believe that the Priest might have taken her aside prior to the Mass and explained to her that he cannot give her Communion, but she should already have known this.

Jesus would have given her communion. He would have accompanied her mother's body to the grave, not begged off with a migraine. He would have comforted the grieving loved ones, not embarrassed them and turned them away. Today's Christians are a far cry from the teachings of Jesus. He hung out with sinners, healed the sick without asking if they had insurance, fed the hungry without checking to see if they were on welfare. It was the money-lenders he drove out of the Temple, not the beggars.

You can be a lesbian Catholic. Not a problem. How does this priest know she was "living in sin"? Or had not earlier confessed? He didn't. So he who should be pastoring his "flock," instead decided to act the bigot. Good riddance to him.

bob_1003 he knew because she introduced her as her lesbian lover before the mass. For a more complete picture try this link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292789/father-marcel-trial-john-o-sullivan

Thosic, I agree with you. There is more to this than what is said in this story. She had her own reasons for going up for communion before a Priest who knew she was a Lesbian. I don't know if was looking to make a statement or what.

There recently was a situation around my area of a lesbian couple trying to put their child into the local Catholic school. When the school found out he lived with lesbian parents they asked that the child leave the school. It's not the Childs fault for sure, but how would he feel if his teacher started talking of the sin of Homosexuality, etc. Why subject him to something like that?

I don't understand people insist on putting themselves into such situations, then whine when things don't go their way.

To JRZ your Mother should have never gone to receive communion. Just because no one ever said anything don't for a second think it was not said at all. I guarantee you that she was talked about behind closed doors by parishioners and preist alike.

Allthough you don not have to be sinless in order to take the holy sacrament you do have to be in a state of trying. These lesbians and gay men think that they can partake of anything they want and there is a gay exempt portion to these standards, well there is not. If your gay your living in sin. If you are gay and want to take the sacrament then put yourself in a position to be worthy of taking it. It is not a God given right, you have to more than show up the door and say here I am I want it. Im gay and don't care. If we all have to work for the same privledge by living within the rules of the faith why should you get a free pass. I am sorry about her mother passing but deal with it I have traveled that road. Truth is we all fall short of the glory of God. The difference is we have to keep trying.

Strange, I don't remember no homosexuality being among the Commandments, which is a list of God's Laws. Maybe it's an addendum?

Does everybody think that Soddom and Gommorah is a fairy tale? God does not accept homosexuality.

Does everybody think that Soddom and Gommorah is a fairy tale?

The more important question is, does anyone believe it isn't a fairy tale?

Edward: You do realize that Sodom and Gammorah was about showing hospitaltiy to your fellow man, not baout homosexuality. It has just been coopted to mean that since Sodom and sodomize are so close that the sheep can grasp the concept without much convincing.

If we were as ignorant today as we were 2000 years ago the tsunami in Japan would have also been attributed to god's displeasure. Then we'd have a new "rule" against eating raw fish or some such nonsense.

Were cities wiped out in ancient times due to natural disasters? Absolutely. Were they acts of god due to his displeasure? If you believe that you are nuts.

You don't "practice" homosexuality any more than you "practice" left-handedness. You're just born with it.

Here is the Catholic church's view on homosexuality.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Toasty, you must be on crack! You can "practice" homosexual behavior. Anybody can "practice" any kinda sexual behavior they want. Maybe people were born with a preference, but they can "practice" being right handed too! Free country!

So you admit that you're persecuting people because of how they were born. Over something they have no control over.

I'm going to spoil the end of the book for you here, but we've already seen what happens to a society that thinks like that. It led to lynchings and segregation.

"Strange, I don't remember no homosexuality being among the Commandments, which is a list of God's Laws. Maybe it's an addendum?"

Seventh Commandment, but also if you study the Mosaic Law, you would realize that the famous Ten Commandments are simply ten out of hundreds and homosexual activity is specifically mentioned in both Lev. 18 and Lev. 20.

Seventh Commandment

Is about adultery, not homosexuality.

and Leviticus... really, you're going to use leviticus. You know that is a slippery slope, and a terrible book to use... unless you want me to whip my bible out and list of all of the other things forbidden in Leviticus. Do you believe your sins are worth less than homosexuality?

BTW, homosexuality is mentioned maybe twice. But loving your neighbor, all the time. And yet which do christian fundies focus on?

BTW, homosexuality is mentioned maybe twice. But loving your neighbor, all the time. And yet which do christian fundies focus on?

Not to mention that homosexuals have been slanderd and lied about by Christians. Homosexuality doesn't make God's top ten, but bearing false witness does.

Have you ever SEEN a priest deny communion? I sure as heck haven't - as a kid in church I saw plenty of "sinners" who were unmarried but shacked up, raising out-of-wedlock children, divorced, etc. receiving communion. His selective enforcement reflected his bigotries, and not the will of his God.

You are incorrect. The priest was not "protecting" communion. It does not need protecting -- it cannot be tainted or ruined for others in this way. As the article states, the proper response (if he felt the need to respond at all) would have been to have a private conversation in a pastoral setting. The Church may not condone homosexuality, but even the Church is not set up to be blatantly cruel (though a growing number of individuals associated with it are going in that direction). When I was growing up Catholic, we were taught to hate the sin (whatever it is you may consider a sin) but love the sinner -- including homosexuality and gay people. What this priest did (and the direction many are taking at the moment as the church swings dangerously radical right) is very much against what I and everyone else in my Catholic Church was taught. It was not this man's place to publically shame this woman - as he clearly intended to do. Attending communion is up to each individual's conscience once they have completed First Communion. If they are "unworthy" - that is between them and god. I can guaruntee you there were many others in that congregation who were not in a "state of grace" at that time, but he chose to single her out. Shame on him.

I HAVE seen a priest deny communion... well, actually it was the church as a whole. Attended a service at St. Mark's Cathedral in Manhattan. They made an announcement before communion: "If you are not a catholic, please do not come forward."

As a Lutheran, I was sorely offended. I was like "How DARE they!" and "Who are THEY to say who does and doesn't deserve the body and blood of Christ?!"

On the other hand, I agree with this priest, in principle, if not in practice.

Great rewards - You and this priest are an excellent reminder for me of why I regard religion as the worst invention man has ever come up with, and I include nuclear reactions. I hope you have a full and rewarding day judging others while not recognizing your own faults.

JrzWrld

I am a non-practicing male catholic who was denied communion a few years ago. I went to a friend's wedding and my friend's cousin was the priest, who knew I hadn't been in a church for years.

Actually if everyone read and studied the bible then they would see that the Catholic Church does not represent True Christianity in any way. They have set up traditions of men ahead of the most basic of bible teachings. And upon learning that something is not right that the organization is doing they do not change but stick to it. The Catholic church is the easiest of those claiming to be Christian to show as not being Christian. But it takes an honest hearted person to admit it when someone shows them in the bible.

What difference does it make? They're all based on fairy tales.

Actually if everyone read and studied the bible then they would see that the Catholic Church does not represent True Christianity in any way.

The same goes for Protestant churches.

"...go and sin no more". John 8:11

He also said: go and sin no more lest a worse thing befall you.

This has nothing to do with administering a sacrament. The church would refuse to marry homosexuals as well. If you don't like the church's rules, go to another church. There are plenty who accept homosexuals who wish to continue living in a way contrary to scripture's teachings (Old and New Testament). Don't expect the Catholic church to change its rules because you don't like them. If I don't like the rules of a softball game, then I just shouldn't play the game....

If you want to bring Scripture into it, look at the whole counsel of Scripture! There is no defense of the homosexual lifestyle in either testament. It is declared an abomination in the old testament, and listed as a sexual sin in the new testament. Strong words. If you want to live that lifestyle, suit yourself. The world can accept it all it wants -God doesn't.

@ Mark

You must be referencing Catholic Tradition. I hate to break it to you, but the very early followers of Christianity didn't have the Bible, but they did have human leaders. Current Catholic Tradition is based off of what happened in the first century or so of Christianity. Unless you think they can't be saved because they didn't know the Bible, there is some legitimacy. You may not agree with everything the Church does, but it's not like they pulled all of this out of thin air. We practice both what the first Christians did, as well as use Scripture.

And over 30,000 varieties is a far cry from the "One Faith" that the bible talks about at Ephesians 4:5 " one Lord, one faith, one baptism" The bible is clear that everyone is responsible to learn the Truth and do Gods will. 1 Timothy 2:3,4 - "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. And it is clear that religious error is not acceptable but actually very harmful. 1 Thessalonians 2:9-12 - The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ---- So being attracted to the same sex is a difficult thing. And further the bible shows that there would be false religion at 2 Timothy 4:3,4 - For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

That doesn't mean we have to kiss their butts. They make me sick.

Totally agree with Mark 315734. Today there is a great spiritual battle going on. Satan knows his time is short and he is unleashing everything he can to destroy what is good. Think about this: What once was good is now considered bad; and what use to be bad is considered good. We are not here to judge because that right belongs to God. We can only pray for those who choose to be gay and/or lesbian because we hate the sin, not the person. I also agree with the priest for staying with his convictions and refusing the communion. If one really knows the true meaning of communion, it can be given only if one is without sin and has repented.

Has it occured to anyone here that there is no literal translation of the Bible's original language? Yes, that would be Hebrew. I suppose that's how we wound up with five (count 'em, five) different versions.

And how many more cases of child molestation are we going to hear about before somebody exposes these hypocrites?

BTW, Standing in church no more makes you a "Christian" that standing in a garage makes you a car.

Signed: A recovered Catholic.

Note to Pastor Daniel Cooper: You, sir, are the abomination. If you have issues with any of God's creations you should just jump off of the planet.

Sam-3910152 The bible makes clear statements against many things. It shows how God feels about many acts that people do. And there are many more than 5 versions of the bible. There are paraphrase bibles and bibles that have a more literal translation and so on. God has been fully capable of preserving his word intact no matter what men manipulated by satan have tried to do. The bible gives clear warning against homosexual acts. It is the taking action not the being one that the bible is against. A person may well be born with the inclination and attraction to the same sex. However the bible makes it clear that sexual relations are to be between a man and a woman in Marriage. The scriptures are at Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26,27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. You would be hard pressed to find a bible that is not very clear on Gods view of sex between people of the same sex. Yet many religions want to claim belief in the bible and yet condone homosexual acts. The bible addresses that also at Romans 1:32 - Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. ---- Those are very strong words. That is what many Religions that claim to be "Christian" are doing right now. They are condoning the actions as if they have found some scriptures that make it alright. There are no scriptures that make it okay though. Gods standard on that has not changed, but the people who claim to go by his rules as laid out in the bible have changed.

Boski you did not get it right. The priest knows who may or may not receive. She told him she was not in a state to receive prior to the service. This priest has never abused a single child to the best of anyone's knowledge.

You mean like the L.A. Public School System or how about the College Football types?

The woman was not entitled to communion until she renounces her sins. Sorry .... take it up with Almighty God.

Navyvet, that is the crux of the issue. Whatever the situation -- it is between this woman and god. The priest chose to act as god himself, and that is very wrong.

exactly. Leave the judgement to God. It was not the priests place to judge this woman. Doesn't this fall under the false idol idiom? as this priest was holding himself as god.. to pass his judgement???

saddened, the priest acted as a priest who knew she was not in a state of grace to receive.

The priest acted according to the rules of his church. I do not fault him for that. The woman was not eligible for communion and therefore should not have received it. Communion is a sacred thing to Catholics--not just a hunk of bland bread. He could have done what I have seen priests do for others who are non-practising or who have not made their first reconciliation yet is to place his hand on her jhead and offer her a blessing in place of communion. That would have been the tactful thing to do but perhaps she wouldn't accept that? You can't force the church to give you communion against its rules--even if it is your mothers funueral.

The Vatican is potentially the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth. It has been accused of bribery, extortion, money laundering, ties to the Sicily mob etc., etc., etc.......... there is even an unsolved murder within the walls of the Vatican.

Cannot go after the Vatican because it is considered it's own country, or some such nonsense.

Not to mention the protection of pedophiles.

Navyvet98,

This priest has lost his flock and will be allowed to retire. He will not be allowed to act unholy ever again and even those you support have sent him away. It seems even the other priests don't agree with you.

Refuse weddings? That's real nice. Taking out your frustrations on people who just want to share their special event with you.

My guess is that nobody misses you at these events.