Anonymous asked: Just clarifying, are you agreeing that he should have let her receive communion in a state of mortal sin?
No [ETA: This is like saying: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” I’m saying, as you’ll read below, that it was not his place to decide she was in a state of mortal sin. ]
First of all, his knowledge that she was living with another woman =/= knowledge that she was having sex with that woman. So his actions were presumptuous.
But even if they weren’t, his actions were unacceptable, uncharitable, and did not follow protocol. As the Archdiocese of Washington said in a statement they released regarding the incident, “When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person. Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”
To deny her communion AT HER MOTHER’S FUNERAL publicly, in front of all her friends and family, was unacceptable, uncharitable, unChristian, un-everything-good-in-the-world.
This was homophobia, plain and simple. There are plenty of young straight people having sex out side of marriage, remarried divorced people, people using contraception. I can’t imagine a circumstance where a priest would just assume that one of those people was in a state of mortal sin. It is their job to examine their own consciences. It is not the job of the priest to tell someone when they are in a state of mortal sin. He cannot know the state of her conscience.
When priests deny communion to politicians, that is a different matter entirely. It is an effort to publicly make clear the position of the Church. This woman was not a politician. This was not in line with protocol. This was a rogue homophobic priest who I have a lot of nasty words for.
