Here’s an interesting spin put on a story about the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality and the sacrament of marriage and suitability to receive Communion. Two Nova Scotian Catholic homosexuals had a civil same-sex marriage ceremony and then placed an advertisement in the local newspaper. Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Halifax then informed the men’s parish priest that they were to be denied Communion, presumably under the provisions of Canon 915: “Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
This is how the Chronicle Herald newspaper chose to portray the situation:
A Roman Catholic couple say they’re being driven from the church over the archbishop’s opposition to their same-sex union. ... “For seven years, we’ve been accepted by the people of the community and the people that go to church,” he said. “There hasn’t been a problem.” The archbishop is denying them something that’s integral to their faith because renouncing their way of life is out of the question, Mr. Murphy said. “We were born this way,” he said. “God has created us this way and the way that we live is blessed by God.”
For such “devout” Catholics they seem awfully selective in the aspects of Catholicism they embrace. In fact, a “devout” Catholic acknowledges that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in her teachings and does not lead individuals to revelation that is in opposition to that which has been revealed through the Magisterium.
The newspaper’s biased version of the story
Technorati Tags:bishops, Canada, Catholic, Communion, dissent, doctrine, homosexuality, Nova Scotia, same-sex marriage
“A Roman Catholic couple” in my mind was not homosexual. The paper has a bias from this first phrase.
You’ll note that one of the men has been serving as the parish’s choir director for some time.
It is probably inaccurate to say that the Archbishop acted after reading an account of the couple’s first marriage (before an Anglican clergyman, I believe; they now contemplate a second ceremony in the United Church of Canada)in the newspaper. A number of local Catholics were indeed scandalized by the couple’s behaviour and even more so by the indifference or tacit approval of their actions by the parish priest and the parish’s lay leadership, and they made their concerns known to the Archbishop.
I suspect, as well, that this story isn’t breaking news. It has been trotted out as part of the run-up to Christmas to attack the Church “authorities”. Perhaps the media have taken our lead from the Passion Narratives, wherein the disciples now move in fear of the “Jewish authorities”, who, no doubt, accepted Jesus and his disciples, knowing, most likely, that they had just been “born that way”.
Nobody is “driven from church” when he is denied Holy Communion; such a person still has the obligation to attend Holy Mass.
But then that newspaper story is impressive for the quantity of lies it packs into little space.
“The archbishop is denying them something that’s integral to their faith because renouncing their way of life is out of the question”
I was married outside the church, though Catholic I did not receive the Eucharist because of knew what the Church’s teaching was on this matter.
My wife and I corrected the situation with the Church, though it took three years (part of it because we moved to a different diocese and started the process over) of going through the process that included interviews and such.
I respected the Church’s position on marriage and our status with respect to it, so waited until all was taken care of before receiving the Eucharist. Throughout that period, I never thought that the Church was denying me anything.
I was very upset about hearing the decision by the catholic church. We have a small conversation on my site at http://bryan-henry.blogspot.com/2006/12/can-i-get-amen.html which may be of interest to you.
I personally thing this is an illegal move under the human rights act of Canada and I hope action will be taken
A pertinent quote for Bryan:
“Any future anti-Christian dictatorship would probably be much more subtle than anything we have known until now. It will appear to be friendly to religion, but on the condition that its own models of behavior and thinking not be called into quesiton.”
Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, p. 153. 1997.
Bryan, forgive me, but I think you’re just looking for comments. I read your entire thread and the people who have tried to correct you have done very well. (Albeit some have done so in quite a blunt manner.) The few who cheered you on have left the party.
I know little of the “Human Rights Act of Canada,” but I do know about the Catholic Church. No group of men can overwhelm her. You are in error.
As one who often is in error herself, I do ask for your prayers as I have prayed, and look forward to continuing to pray, for you.
Would Bryan’s words:“I hope action will be taken” lead to formenting retaliation against the Archbishop? Perhaps he would like to see the same thing happen as was related in “African Holocaust: the story of the Uganda martyrs” by J.F.Faupel. This is a detailed, true account of how, around 1887, the King of Buganda(now Uganda), Mwanga, retaliated against 22 boys and young men who were pages in his court,the head page being Charles Lwanga, who refused to agree with the King’s demand that homosexual acts be approved. The 22 youths knew that homosexual acts are against the beliefs taught by Jesus. King Mwanga asked:“Are you unshaken in your resolve to remain Christian?” They responded:” Yes,quite definitely! If you choose not to regard that as a crime, we shall be grateful to you,but we shall never cease to be Christians whatever the outcome.” Mwanga, then called the executioners and shouted,“Tie up all the Christians…I am going to burn you all!”(p.151) And that is exactly what he did.
Would Bryan want to see a repitition of this kind of retaliation take place today in our so-called “progressive” civilization?
Alice et al: Many Canadians would like to see the Catholic Church smashed to peices. Some have ‘legitimate’ greivances (the sexually abused, victims of the residential schools, Quebecois libertines), but most of it is the same nonsensical, adolescent pettiness you can see in Bryan’s post.
Bryan: Pray for me, I find myself unable to receive the Eucharist from time to time, and I too have struggled with accepting the Church’s wisdom on this manner.