While I am usually supportive of much of
what Fr. Dwight Longenecker writes, I believe he’s off the mark with his recent
column ‘Welcoming Gays: How Do I Do That?’. The answer to his ‘question’ is
self-evident to me. I suspect it should be to him as well. Gays should be
‘welcomed’ in the same manner as we do everyone else! They are sinners just
like the rest of us who gather in our Catholic Churches Sunday after Sunday.
Why does he seem to think that gays should have to be treated differently than
anyone else?
This call for a unique strategy to accept gays into the communion
of the Church seems to be to be flawed in two ways. First, there is the
elevation of ‘sexual sin’ to a place where it is viewed as somehow far worse
than any other offence. Were this true, why then is the only sexual matter
dealt with in the 10 Commandments (Adultery) not at the top of the list? Does
Fr. Dwight think that he needs a ‘special’ approach for those who fail to
respect their parents, are envious of their neighbor’s goods, or those who fail
to keep holy God’s name and Sabbath? Are these commandments not at least as
important as are the sexual sins given such priority of place by Fr. Dwight?
Does he actually believe that he is incapable of knowing how to help sinners
feel welcomed as fellow adopted brothers and sisters of Christ within the
Catholic Church such that he requires special papal instruction on how to do
it? I find this hard to believe of any parish priest worth his salt.
The
second mistake I think Fr. Dwight makes is that he fails to recognize the
reality that all sinners will carry the responsibility for their own faults and
failings before God. It won’t be him as their pastor. Put another way, it is
the sinner who will stand before Christ as judge come the parousia, not the
priest who serves them in Church. If such a person steps forward to receive the
Eucharist possessing an understanding of Church teaching and is willing to
accept the responsibility for their actions before God on that day of judgment,
then who are we to say they don’t belong at the communion table? Are we not
committing a grave sin ourselves if we presume to judge who is or is not worthy
of participation in the Eucharist? Is that not an authority that’s reserved to
God alone? While I freely admit that we are capable of judging acts. Unless
however they have done in such a public manner that their public participation
in the Eucharist would engender serious scandal among the faithful, it takes an
exceptionally rare gift to be able to know the state of another’s soul before
God. If Fr. Dwight possesses such a precious gift, as a parish priest it would
seem to me he should be more adept than the rest of us in knowing exactly how
to reconcile souls alienated through sin with the greater ecclesial
community.
I do acknowledge that if someone tries to
purposely create scandal within the community through their partaking of
communion, then it could be right and/or proper to deny them the Eucharist. In
one parish where I served, someone sent letters to many of their fellow
parishioners to announce that he would publicly receive communion at a
particular mass one Sunday as proof that he had been given a special ‘personal,
spiritual dispensation’ directly from the Holy Spirit telling him that his
current irregular marriage did not need to be sanctioned or rectified with the
Church. (As opposed that is to the answer he had received previously from a
Marriage Tribunal informing him that he did not have sufficient grounds to
justify being granted an annulment for his first marriage.) It was his
contention that his personal and private revelation trumped the juridical
decision the Church thereby he was able to receive the communion offering
before everyone present to prove his point. He proceeded to enter the sanctuary
before I consumed the sacred species and demanded that he be allowed to receive
and consume at the same time that I did. (He went away disappointed, receiving
only a blessing from me.) I am happy to say that this was the first and only
time in my priesthood that I ever denied communion to anyone. If a gay activist
came forward in like manner and did the same, then I would think the priest
would indeed be right in denying the Eucharist. But if they privately,
reverently, and prayerfully came forward to receive without publicly announcing
the event as some sort of political statement that their lifestyle is
acceptable in the eyes of the Church, then I would certainly not presume to
deny him or her the Eucharist since they would be, like everyone else in the
Church - including the priest - a sinner in need of God’s grace and strength to
live according to the gospels’ commands.
So
Fr. Dwight, this is how you should ‘welcome gays’ into your community: by
granting them the same dignity and rights that every other sinner in the Church
deserves. The right to carry the responsibility for their own sins and be to
judged by God alone for their action... and not by their parish priest who
judges them as unworthy to receive or participate in the Eucharist.
Fraternally,
Fr.
Tim
Your comment and conclusion are spot on.The problem arose recently I think when the Synod went wayyyy off track and made it a discussion about homosexual life and practice and not about "family" as it was supposed to.I usually read Fr Dwight's comments but missed this one so will have to 'go back'.
ReplyDeleteFr. Tim, I think a well-known gay activist should be denied Communion. A public sin requires a public confession. If you have made a big deal of supporting gay rights and then you repent, that repentance can't just be a private affair. You have to make a declaration that you were wrong. Otherwise, (and this is the important part that is missed) people get the impression that it's okay to support gay rights.
ReplyDeleteIt's not JUST about the communicant. It's about the effect on the community. If you deny a prominent gay rights activity communion, you send the message that what he is doing is sinning. Too many Catholics get the idea that what the pope says is theory, in reality it's really fine to promote gay rights because the priests and bishops do nothing about it.
If he goes to Communion without confessing such a public sin, he is guilty of incurring more sin, and so are you, because you didn't deter him.
Suzanne: Public sin does not require a public confession. That principle died with the advent of the confessional and the seal of the sacrament. This said, we are not actually in any disagreement. Obviously a person must be in a state of grace to properly receive the sacrament and someone whose intent is to create a public scandal (like the one case I dealt with) cannot receive. A prominent gay rights advocate who publicly disputes the teaching of the Church would likewise create such a scandal. But this being said, I believe that gays shouldn't be treated any different than someone who commits any other sin which is to say, if they are earnestly seeking God in their life and turn to the sacraments to aid in that quest, they have as much right to be there as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAll that I am saying is that let's be honest and acknowledge that no one is worthy of the sacraments since we are all pernicious sinners. Yet the sacraments grant us the grace we need to come to God despite of human failings and sins. Given the provision re: scandal, no one should be publicly denied the sacraments if they sincerely and with devotion come forward to receive them. It comes down to this: Should a priest be too zealous in administering God's law or too generous in offering God's mercy? No priest (save for Christ, the High Priest) can do this perfectly. I would rather err on the side of mercy so long as it has no detrimental effect on the greater community. I suspect (and hope) you would believe the same.
Fr. Tim
P.S. One last point: People should neither define themselves or be defined by only one aspect of their personhood. A person's sexuality is one element (albeit an important one) of how a person is defined or judged. Gay activists are wrong in identifying themselves by their sexual orientation as if that is the be all and end all of who they are. We commit the same mistake when we elevate sexuality or orientation to the same degree in determining who should or should not receive the sacraments. We cannot (and I will not or do not) willingly fall prey to the same error that our fictional 'gay advocate' is committing by reducing any person down to one sin.
ReplyDeleteFr. Tim, if you're a politician,and you proclaimed your support of abortion rights,then the normal thing to do is renounce them publicly. Otherwise people will still think you support abortion. That's what I meant by public confession.
ReplyDeleteSuzanne: I do not disagree with you, but you are confusing politics with religion. What I mean by that is there may be a political obligation to publicly state that one has changed their position, but there is no religious or canonical grounds for such a public repudiation of a previously held position. Simply put, there would be no official grounds for denying such a person communion. A priest in such a situation would not be legally (canonically speaking) be able to refuse communion in the situation you describe.
ReplyDeletePastorally speaking, such a person should be made aware of their moral obligation to make public their change in position by his or her priest, but we cannot force a person to do it. It all comes from the seal! No sinner can be forced to identify themselves as a sinner. To renounce something would imply that they first were in a state of sin, therefore they cannot be forced to do so even if the priest thought it to be a good or necessary idea.
Please note: we are assuming that such a person actually went to confession prior to approaching the communion rail. I say this because such a step would be essential if a person truly wanted to put themselves at rights with what the Church teaches and preaches. This is the same though for everyone, not just 'public advocates' of something contrary to what our theology teaches. Given that most sin has a public effect, it would be a profound violation of the sacramental seal if everyone were obliged to make public their change of heart and/or previous acts. This is why I would think that it is more proper to say that if a public partisan of abortion started attending to communion that the assumption of the faithful should be that such a soul has indeed 'seen the light' and changed their position. In other words, we should think the best of a person in such a situation, not presume the worst.
But it is a difficult issues. I can see the merits in what you are suggesting. I just cannot see how it can be practically applied without the priest committing an offense that the Church sees as being so horrific that it would result in his immediate suspension, a penalty that could only be lifted by the Pope himself!!
Fr. Tim