Biological Ali: She didn't tell the priest she sinned

Yes she did.

Biological Ali: Remember, communion is only to be denied to people who are conscious of their sin, and not merely to people who probably did something that the priest considers a sin.

Agreed. Wouldn't it be really awkward...

Biological Ali: Once again, it wasn't the priest's place to do what he did. This much should be abundantly clear by now.

Wouldn't it be really awkward...

lennavan: Biological Ali: She didn't tell the priest she sinned

Yes she did.

Biological Ali: Remember, communion is only to be denied to people who are conscious of their sin, and not merely to people who probably did something that the priest considers a sin.

Agreed. Wouldn't it be really awkward...

Biological Ali: Once again, it wasn't the priest's place to do what he did. This much should be abundantly clear by now.

Wouldn't it be really awkward...

You must be reading some completely different articles then, because in neither TFA nor the other article linked within is there anything to indicate that Johnson believed she had sinned.

cman: hillbillypharmacist: cman: Christ, why doesnt Drew just already rename Fark to welovedems.com?

The facts of the situation have a liberal bias. That's not Drew's fault.

No, the fact is that mostly all greenlit political threads are pro-Democrat

It's so cute when conservatives argue for some sort of "fairness doctrine".

Some free advice, skippy: When 90% of the problems associated with politics come from your side, it's perfectly fair to portray reality that way.

godofatheist: I hate to defend the priest, but religious freedom does mean they have the freedom to follow their beliefs even if it means denying the lesbian.

And everyone else has the freedom to see what they do and judge them to be worthless sacks of meat.

Anywho, this is the Code of Canon Law on celebrating the Eucharist.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Sorry NRO, the sacrament of confession is not dependent on the confessional being present. "A few minutes before Mass starts" is before Mass starts. Unless they've hit Mass,it's still confession time! And the priest must fulfill his liturgical role in providing the sacraments.

The sacrament of confession works like this:
Become aware of having sinned
Confess your sins
Receive your penance

If the priest gave her no act of penance for her confession, then that's her penance.

Denying somebody communion with Jesus Christ and denying the sacrament of the eucharist isn't acceptable penance. In fact, it's strictly prohibited:

Dr. Mojo PhD: The sacrament of confession works like this:
Become aware of having sinned
Confess your sins
Be contrite
Receive your penance

you skipped a part

vygramul: The priest, had he taken her aside before the mass started after she introduced her "lover",

What's more the priest would have to ask every single person present if they've had sex, since according to the church that's just as bad. Which actually isn't particularly bad.

cman: Christ, why doesnt Drew just already rename Fark to welovedems.com?

0.5 points for being a candy ass. Let me fix it for you.

cman: Christ, why doesnt Drew just already rename Fark to wehateamerica.com?

cman: hillbillypharmacist: cman: Christ, why doesnt Drew just already rename Fark to welovedems.com?

The facts of the situation have a liberal bias. That's not Drew's fault.

No, the fact is that mostly all greenlit political threads are pro-Democrat

Look, every thread can't be Malkin, World Net Daily, Fox News, The Blaze, NewsMax, Hot Air, "some guy" who turns out to be Coulter, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, American Thinker, etc.

Sometimes, we have to get stories that are based in reality.

Yeah, being denied the sacraments in Catholicism generally requires excommunication, meaning that the Pope himself has specifically declared you irredeemable in the eyes of god. Denying the sacraments to people on the grounds that they're sinners violates basically every Catholic policy ever, the church is all about serving sinners, that's the entire farking point.

What happened to the Church's seminaries, their priests have been acting like farking Baptists lately.

Biological Ali: Once again, it wasn't the priest's place to do what he did. This much should be abundantly clear by now.

When did priests become suck dicks anyways? When I was growing up I have fond memories of the priests in the Catholic church I attended (not that kind of fondness - get your head out of the gutter). These priests would go out of their way to help even if the person they were helping didn't believe.

Now days - if you don't toe the Catholic party line 100% they basically tell you to fark off.

/at my god childs first communion - the priest came up to me after and asked me when he expected to see my wedding at his church - I told him he could do it right now if he wished - my boyfriend is standing right over there
//he curtly said "oh - goodbye" and wandered off
///arshole

Wow, this thread hath blossomed into a furious flower. Why does anybody give a damn whether the priest gave her her magic cracker? It's like arguing "why didn't Qui-Gon Jinn just use The Force to crush Darth Maul's lightsaber/head" or "why is it okay for Molly Weasley to kill Bellatrix with whatever she cast, but casting Avada Kedavra is unforgivable?" It's make-believe, people.

blahpers: Wow, this thread hath blossomed into a furious flower. Why does anybody give a damn whether the priest gave her her magic cracker? It's like arguing "why didn't Qui-Gon Jinn just use The Force to crush Darth Maul's lightsaber/head" or "why is it okay for Molly Weasley to kill Bellatrix with whatever she cast, but casting Avada Kedavra is unforgivable?" It's make-believe, people.

It may be make believe but its also family and tradition at a fark'n funeral.

vygramul: He's already asked all the Altar Boys if they like Gladiator movies.

You magnificent bastard.

cman: Christ, why doesnt Drew just already rename Fark to welovedems.com?

What does disapproving of what the priest did have to do with political leanings?

WhyteRaven74:
What does disapproving of what the priest did have to do with political leanings?

I think we're making fun of NRO, which is a political site, for supporting him. Or something.

godofatheist: I hate to defend the priest, but religious freedom does mean they have the freedom to follow their beliefs even if it means denying the lesbian. But hopefully they can find a more open minded church though.

Its the Catholic Church, the only thing less open minded is this:

cman: Christ, why doesnt Drew just already rename Fark to welovedems.com?

Christ here ... in answer to you question... because a more accurate name would be americaiswakinguptothefarkingbullshiattherepublicanshavebeenspewing.co m

/ btw nice shot man.. in at the very beginning with the smelly bait

I support full equality for gay people under the law, and that includes marriage. I think it goes against the average person's First Amendment rights to have any church dictate their morality over issues like access to affordable birth control. Frankly, it infuriates me that churches are tax free, and they don't even have to show any paperwork to prove their money isn't being used for political purposes.

But, you know what? Any clergy person gets to dictate who's allowed to do what at his or her pulpit. If the priest wants to be a total jerk, and his or her church's policy allows for jerkiness, that's allowed. What the young woman should do is have a memorial service for her mom at a better church, and she should invite the priest. You know, in the spirit of Godly generosity of spirit.

namatad: ummmm
are you talking about the catholic church here? and can you cite this in catholic law??

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Giltric: Corvus: Giltric: Seems like the lesbian went in there looking for trouble.

Yes because going to your Mom's funeral is trying to "look for trouble". You are such an ass.

No but flying your flag for some sort of reaction qualifies as looking for trouble.


I doubt the closet Nazi who gets invited to Seder announces his ideology while asking someone to pass him the Mandelbrot does so with no ill intentions.

Point, set and match.

theknuckler_33: I did go to 12 years of Catholic school, but I really don't know the answer to this. I don't know how literal the transubstantiation thing is as far as whether they believe the physical properties of the host change. I highly doubt that, so I don't think it would be heretical to refuse to take communion for health reasons.

What? 12 years of Catholic school and you don't know that the Catholic Church's official position on transubstantiation is? This is a part of doctrine so essential that to not believe it is to be a heretic.

I'm an atheist from birth and I know what the Catholic Church's position is on transubstantiation. That's because I learnt it in history class in my free public socialist government high school as part of the regular curriculum. It's not as if the emergence of Protestantism and the key doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants is unimportant in recent human history.

Your Catholic school fails for not only failing to teach you the fundamentals about the religion it is supposed to beat into your naive brain, but for failing to teach you about THE major upheaval that destroyed its power in much of the world and has caused millions of deaths.

12 years of daily indoctrination and still ignorant of the basic precepts of the religion your are/were a member of. I guess you're just another case that proves that adherents to a religion are often less knowledgeable about it than non-adherents.

Didn't really mean to make this personal. You're fairly typical of other 'Catholics' I've known. A Catholic school kid usually knows all the pretty psalms, and hymns, and knows when to sit and stand and kneel, and how to defer to authority, but very little about doctrine or the history of their own church. I believe this is part of the problem Protestants were trying to solve. Not that they succeeded.

As a practising Catholic, I'm getting a big kick out of so many posts by non-Catholics clearly hostile to the Church who have something to say about what we MUST believe (lennavan, I'm looking at you in particular)...

This woman clearly put the priest in an ackward position. Generally speaking, priests do not make judgement about whom is worthy of receiving Eucharist or not. However, if right before Communion, she let him know that she was unrepentedly in a state of sin, I can see that this created a dilemna. Why she didn't just keep her mouth shut, I don't know. Does she consider herself a practising Catholic? I don't know that either. I haven't yet seen a quote to the effect that she is. If she is not, well then, she shouldn't have asked for Communion, and apparently she has the background to know that.

Maybe the priest was an a-hole. God knows there are a-hole priests. However, pretend for a second that you were confronted by someone who wanted something valuable of yours, and they let you know at the same time that they were going to shiat all over it as soon as you gave it to them. Would you be so kind as to give it to them anyway?

As it turns out, we Catholics take that shiat kind of seriously.

LindyJohn: As a practising Catholic, I'm getting a big kick out of so many posts by non-Catholics clearly hostile to the Church who have something to say about what we MUST believe (lennavan, I'm looking at you in particular)...

This woman clearly put the priest in an ackward position. Generally speaking, priests do not make judgement about whom is worthy of receiving Eucharist or not. However, if right before Communion, she let him know that she was unrepentedly in a state of sin, I can see that this created a dilemna. Why she didn't just keep her mouth shut, I don't know. Does she consider herself a practising Catholic? I don't know that either. I haven't yet seen a quote to the effect that she is. If she is not, well then, she shouldn't have asked for Communion, and apparently she has the background to know that.

Maybe the priest was an a-hole. God knows there are a-hole priests. However, pretend for a second that you were confronted by someone who wanted something valuable of yours, and they let you know at the same time that they were going to shiat all over it as soon as you gave it to them. Would you be so kind as to give it to them anyway?

As it turns out, we Catholics take that shiat kind of seriously.

Well, now you've gone and spoiled the whole thread by being reasonable. I hope you're proud of yourself.

deschinc:
Well, now you've gone and spoiled the whole thread by being reasonable. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Sorry... [hangs head in shame]

///... And thanks.

DeaH: What the young woman should do is have a memorial service for her mom at a better church, and she should invite the priest. You know, in the spirit of Godly generosity of spirit.

It's a little late for that when you're actually at the service.

You can't predict that the preist is going to turn out to be a total sociopath and not even show up at the burial because you are gay and that somehow negates the priest's duties to your mother and her "soul".

namatad: Dr. Mojo PhD: namatad: ummmm
are you talking about the catholic church here? and can you cite this in catholic law??

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

so practicing gay people are permitted by canonical law?

The confession of sin passed from her lips to the priest; it then became his responsibility to tell her what penance was necessary to receive forgiveness for her sins. If, in this case, he wanted her to immediately separate from her partner, he should have said so -- it is his responsibility to do so. His abrogation of his clerical responsibility is not sufficient to deny her communion. Not giving her a chance to be penitent post-confession is not a failure on her part.

By that metric, any priest could effectively excommunicate any parishioner. Simply fail to instruct them, and then claim your failure is enough to justify denying communion. There's a reason the church finds that reasoning idiotic; because it is.

cman: No, the fact is that mostly all greenlit political threads are pro-Democrat

No, the fact is that mostly all greenlit political threads are anti-Retard.

FARK is populated by smarter than average news junkies who have a broad sense of humor. FARK is pro-Reality.

Thorndyke Barnhard: DeaH: What the young woman should do is have a memorial service for her mom at a better church, and she should invite the priest. You know, in the spirit of Godly generosity of spirit.

It's a little late for that when you're actually at the service.

You can't predict that the preist is going to turn out to be a total sociopath and not even show up at the burial because you are gay and that somehow negates the priest's duties to your mother and her "soul".

Yes, the priest is awful. Another priest in the very same religion could act differently. But it is his church. I understand this was a bad period in this woman's life. Her mom died. When my dad died thirty years ago, my mom and siblings did not like their parish priest (I had left the church about four years before my dad died). My sister got another priest to perform the ceremonies. By the way, my mom wanted me to take communion, and I did not want to do it. I spoke with the priest and clearly stated that I left the church because I disagreed with a lot of the tenets of the church, but I would go through the motions to comfort my mom. He said I was doing a good thing - even though this runs counter to the standard Catholic dogma. Different priests had different rules.

I am going to say this again: though the priest in the article is rude and heartless, he is within his First Amendment rights to deny communion to anyone he wants. His power ends at the doors of his church. He does not have any right to impose his religion on anyone not in his church. But the jerk was within his rights.

vygramul: The Church does not understand pragmatism, and it drives me nuts. They make statements like gay marriage being a threat to humanity itself NOT because it makes any kind of sense, but because they know emotional moral issues don't get traction. So they lie. First to themselves, then to the rest of us. The other thing that drives me nuts about the Church is that they believe we have Free Will but want to take away any choice, but only in SOME contexts. Want to save me from myself? Make sure I don't have access to porn, to alcohol on Sunday, and, oh, I dunno, make sure I don't fark up Matthew 25: 31-46 and make sure I help pay for health care for the poor. But, no, they feel only SOME obligations matter.

That and the child rape kind of lost ...

Listen, I'm not a proselytizer, so if you do not feel at home there, then you shouldn't be there.

However, I'm not sure about everything you mean in the first part of your post. I don't think the Church is very big on "no alcohol on Sundays", for example. I also don't understand that you accuse them of being non-pragmatic, but also claim that there is something (I gather) cynical about their playing of emotional issues. I don't always agree with all of their positions either, but I do see that they come from a pretty consistent point-of-view, and I respect that.

DeaH: I support full equality for gay people under the law, and that includes marriage. I think it goes against the average person's First Amendment rights to have any church dictate their morality over issues like access to affordable birth control. Frankly, it infuriates me that churches are tax free, and they don't even have to show any paperwork to prove their money isn't being used for political purposes.

But, you know what? Any clergy person gets to dictate who's allowed to do what at his or her pulpit. If the priest wants to be a total jerk, and his or her church's policy allows for jerkiness, that's allowed. What the young woman should do is have a memorial service for her mom at a better church, and she should invite the priest. You know, in the spirit of Godly generosity of spirit.

Sigh. I'm pretty sure no one is advocating the priest be thrown in jail or saying what he did wasn't "allowed". Just that he was an asshole for doing it. And he was.

DeaH: Thorndyke Barnhard: DeaH: What the young woman should do is have a memorial service for her mom at a better church, and she should invite the priest. You know, in the spirit of Godly generosity of spirit.

It's a little late for that when you're actually at the service.

You can't predict that the preist is going to turn out to be a total sociopath and not even show up at the burial because you are gay and that somehow negates the priest's duties to your mother and her "soul".

Yes, the priest is awful. Another priest in the very same religion could act differently. But it is his church. I understand this was a bad period in this woman's life. Her mom died. When my dad died thirty years ago, my mom and siblings did not like their parish priest (I had left the church about four years before my dad died). My sister got another priest to perform the ceremonies. By the way, my mom wanted me to take communion, and I did not want to do it. I spoke with the priest and clearly stated that I left the church because I disagreed with a lot of the tenets of the church, but I would go through the motions to comfort my mom. He said I was doing a good thing - even though this runs counter to the standard Catholic dogma. Different priests had different rules.

I am going to say this again: though the priest in the article is rude and heartless, he is within his First Amendment rights to deny communion to anyone he wants. His power ends at the doors of his church. He does not have any right to impose his religion on anyone not in his church. But the jerk was within his rights.

You sure do like fighting that Straw Man, don't you?

Ah, you people and your religious bickering. It's fun to watch from a distance.

Dr. Mojo PhD: The confession of sin passed from her lips to the priest; it then became his responsibility to tell her what penance was necessary to receive forgiveness for her sins. If, in this case, he wanted her to immediately separate from her partner, he should have said so -- it is his responsibility to do so. His abrogation of his clerical responsibility is not sufficient to deny her communion. Not giving her a chance to be penitent post-confession is not a failure on her part.

By that metric, any priest could effectively excommunicate any parishioner. Simply fail to instruct them, and then claim your failure is enough to justify denying communion. There's a reason the church finds that reasoning idiotic; because it is.

you still trying to pass this one off?

skullkrusher: Dr. Mojo PhD: The confession of sin passed from her lips to the priest; it then became his responsibility to tell her what penance was necessary to receive forgiveness for her sins. If, in this case, he wanted her to immediately separate from her partner, he should have said so -- it is his responsibility to do so. His abrogation of his clerical responsibility is not sufficient to deny her communion. Not giving her a chance to be penitent post-confession is not a failure on her part.

By that metric, any priest could effectively excommunicate any parishioner. Simply fail to instruct them, and then claim your failure is enough to justify denying communion. There's a reason the church finds that reasoning idiotic; because it is.

you still trying to pass this one off?

Why, do you know something the Vatican doesn't about canon law? You should probably inform them post-haste. You can find the number for the Vatican switchboard here.

eddiesocket: DeaH: I support full equality for gay people under the law, and that includes marriage. I think it goes against the average person's First Amendment rights to have any church dictate their morality over issues like access to affordable birth control. Frankly, it infuriates me that churches are tax free, and they don't even have to show any paperwork to prove their money isn't being used for political purposes.

But, you know what? Any clergy person gets to dictate who's allowed to do what at his or her pulpit. If the priest wants to be a total jerk, and his or her church's policy allows for jerkiness, that's allowed. What the young woman should do is have a memorial service for her mom at a better church, and she should invite the priest. You know, in the spirit of Godly generosity of spirit.

Sigh. I'm pretty sure no one is advocating the priest be thrown in jail or saying what he did wasn't "allowed". Just that he was an asshole for doing it. And he was.

Yes, we agree. He was a jerk. A heartless jerk at that. I am not, however, so sure that everyone wants him identified as a jerk and is willing to leave it at that. Are you?

Dr. Mojo PhD: skullkrusher: Dr. Mojo PhD: The confession of sin passed from her lips to the priest; it then became his responsibility to tell her what penance was necessary to receive forgiveness for her sins. If, in this case, he wanted her to immediately separate from her partner, he should have said so -- it is his responsibility to do so. His abrogation of his clerical responsibility is not sufficient to deny her communion. Not giving her a chance to be penitent post-confession is not a failure on her part.

By that metric, any priest could effectively excommunicate any parishioner. Simply fail to instruct them, and then claim your failure is enough to justify denying communion. There's a reason the church finds that reasoning idiotic; because it is.

you still trying to pass this one off?

Why, do you know something the Vatican doesn't about canon law? You should probably inform them post-haste. You can find the number for the Vatican switchboard here.

don't try to be cute. You don't do cute well. What portion of canon law is applicable here, in your ever so arrogant opinion?

skullkrusher: don't try to be cute. You don't do cute well. What portion of canon law is applicable here, in your ever so arrogant opinion?

Perhaps the portion I quoted previously. Do you have some critique of it, beyond the passive-aggressive (and woefully, hypocritically) arrogant cattiness you do unbelievably well?

Dr. Mojo PhD: skullkrusher: don't try to be cute. You don't do cute well. What portion of canon law is applicable here, in your ever so arrogant opinion?

Perhaps the portion I quoted previously. Do you have some critique of it, beyond the passive-aggressive (and woefully, hypocritically) arrogant cattiness you do unbelievably well?

what do you think the bit you quoted earlier means? Was she entitled to receive communion and the priest was wrong to deny her from a doctrinal perspective?

namatad: Canon 915 which states in pertinent part that "those who persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
she loses.

Huh. In "pertinent part", huh?

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Gee, I wonder why you left out the obstinately persevering part. You know what obstinacy is? It's being instructed against it and doing it anyway. He could have told her to stop and make an act of penance. He didn't, so she isn't obstinately persevering.

Oh, but don't take my word for it, here is, again the Vatican itself on the subject, from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts:

For example, since the text speaks of "grave sin", it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who "obstinately" persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor.

Go on though. Tell us how the Vatican knows less about canon law and the interpretation thereof than you. Tell us how the Vatican itself asserts that the Pastor must issue a legitimate warning to consider a baptized faithful in "obstinate perseverance", but you know better.

Dr. Mojo PhD: namatad: Canon 915 which states in pertinent part that "those who persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
she loses.

Huh. In "pertinent part", huh?

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Gee, I wonder why you left out the obstinately persevering part. You know what obstinacy is? It's being instructed against it and doing it anyway. He could have told her to stop and make an act of penance. He didn't, so she isn't obstinately persevering.

Oh, but don't take my word for it, here is, again the Vatican itself on the subject, from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts:

For example, since the text speaks of "grave sin", it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who "obstinately" persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor.

Go on though. Tell us how the Vatican knows less about canon law and the interpretation thereof than you. Tell us how the Vatican itself asserts that the Pastor must issue a legitimate warning to consider a baptized faithful in "obstinate perseverance", but you know better.

why are you leaving out Can 916?

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.