"“In compliance with his ministry and following the rules of the universal Church on the reception of Holy Communion, [the priest] was forced to deny communion of same-sex people who live in a matrimonial way, which can also happen between heterosexual people without a matrimonial bond.”"
That's a fair statement. It's true. Homosexual relations is a grave or sin than fornication, but fornication by two people who are cohabitating out of wedlock, is certainly grounds for a priest, who decides, to refuse communion if it's public or if he knows.
Hopefully the church and the priest don't back down, but fully proclaim the gospel message in a loving way. Fantastic the diocese is publicly backing him up!
Among other generous provisions, such as Article 19 (the luckless Spanish taxpayer paying the salaries of all the clergy), Article 16 plainly keeps legal actions against the clergy out of the news. No wonder that the number of reported abuse cases is so low.
Saying it is simply because couples must be married before cohabiting, heterosexual or homosexual, merely moves the goalposts of discrimination from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to the Sacrament of Matrimony, which the Church (rightly) denies to homosexuals.
At some point, we are going to have to return to outlawing *unjust* discrimination, rather than trying to stamp out any discrimination whatsoever while irrationally pretending that objectively different situations must all be treated in the exact same way.
While many in this country are still obsessed with so called interference in the affairs of State by religion, this is a good reminder that the First Amendment was designed more to protect religions from interference from the State than to protect the State from interference from religions. In the end, the State has a monopoly on the legal use of violence to enforce its edicts, so interference from the State has far more impact.
"Separation of church and state" is not the opposite of "communist." Pro-tip: don't mix a disproven economic theory with a tenet of the U.S. version of personal freedom.
You might wonder, as I do, what the Spanish Constitution says about freedom of religion, in this case the priest's freedom to act as a Cathollc priest. You might also wonder, as I do, if there is any Spanish legal precedent on conflict of rights.
This looks to me like the start of an ongoing story, which will continue until there is a conclusion to R. vs. Malanza, if that's what the Spanish would call it.
"1. Freedom of ideology, religion and worship of individuals and communities is guaranteed, with no other restriction on their expression than may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.
2. No one may be compelled to make statements regarding his or her ideology, religion or beliefs.
3. No religion shall have a state character. The public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions"
CHAPTER IV Guarantee of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms | Section 53
"The rights and freedoms recognized in Chapter 2 of the present Part are binding on all public authorities. Only by an act which in any case must respect their essential content, could the exercise of such rights and freedoms be regulated, which shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of section 161(1) a)."
The long hangover from the Patronato Real is still biting and the liberal left is still clinging on to the fantasy that the church subjection to the king is still possible in the 21st century… but also, the Spanish Church needs to wash its hands of Franco.
Spain's current government will do anything to distract from it's corruption and if they can use the Church as the scapegoat all the better for them, doubly so if they can tie it in with their boogyman Franco who has been dead for 50 years.
To that end, while I appreciate the news story I think looping in Franco on this story (or most stories Scott Spain) via Valle de los Caídos is a way to muddy the waters and falls into the same trap of distraction. Notice how many comments are about Franco's Spain whereas the real issue here is the PSOE + Sumar + other communist and nationalist coalition parties that are rabidly anti Catholic will use whatever they can to discredit the Church.
its good Father has the support of the Diocese
In some places, this is an unusual thing!
"“In compliance with his ministry and following the rules of the universal Church on the reception of Holy Communion, [the priest] was forced to deny communion of same-sex people who live in a matrimonial way, which can also happen between heterosexual people without a matrimonial bond.”"
Now do heterosexual couples.
That's a fair statement. It's true. Homosexual relations is a grave or sin than fornication, but fornication by two people who are cohabitating out of wedlock, is certainly grounds for a priest, who decides, to refuse communion if it's public or if he knows.
I made my comment because I perceive that we hold hetersexual couples to a different standard, much to their detriment.
Dystopian
Hopefully the church and the priest don't back down, but fully proclaim the gospel message in a loving way. Fantastic the diocese is publicly backing him up!
I am amazed that this article does not mention the 1953 Concordat between Franco and the Vatican.
https://www.concordatwatch.eu/francos-concordat-1953--text--t34561
Among other generous provisions, such as Article 19 (the luckless Spanish taxpayer paying the salaries of all the clergy), Article 16 plainly keeps legal actions against the clergy out of the news. No wonder that the number of reported abuse cases is so low.
Saying it is simply because couples must be married before cohabiting, heterosexual or homosexual, merely moves the goalposts of discrimination from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to the Sacrament of Matrimony, which the Church (rightly) denies to homosexuals.
At some point, we are going to have to return to outlawing *unjust* discrimination, rather than trying to stamp out any discrimination whatsoever while irrationally pretending that objectively different situations must all be treated in the exact same way.
While many in this country are still obsessed with so called interference in the affairs of State by religion, this is a good reminder that the First Amendment was designed more to protect religions from interference from the State than to protect the State from interference from religions. In the end, the State has a monopoly on the legal use of violence to enforce its edicts, so interference from the State has far more impact.
I can’t believe the state interference! Last week we hear about making confession illegal for under 18. Now this. Incredible.
This Redondo... there's separation of Church & State, or are they communist over there? Oh, wait... Nuff said.
Actually, I'm more pleased his actual diocese stood by him; I was half-tempted to believe they wouldn't.
That this shouldn't be a test case is obvious, but i'm glad it is. here goes the clown show.
"Separation of church and state" is not the opposite of "communist." Pro-tip: don't mix a disproven economic theory with a tenet of the U.S. version of personal freedom.
You might wonder, as I do, what the Spanish Constitution says about freedom of religion, in this case the priest's freedom to act as a Cathollc priest. You might also wonder, as I do, if there is any Spanish legal precedent on conflict of rights.
This looks to me like the start of an ongoing story, which will continue until there is a conclusion to R. vs. Malanza, if that's what the Spanish would call it.
Thank you. Agreed. Wasn't mixing. Just marrying 2 questions/statements up side-by-side. Came off confusing. Yep, definitely two different things
Wonder no more:
CHAPTER II Rights and freedoms | Section 16
"1. Freedom of ideology, religion and worship of individuals and communities is guaranteed, with no other restriction on their expression than may be necessary to maintain public order as protected by law.
2. No one may be compelled to make statements regarding his or her ideology, religion or beliefs.
3. No religion shall have a state character. The public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions"
CHAPTER IV Guarantee of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms | Section 53
"The rights and freedoms recognized in Chapter 2 of the present Part are binding on all public authorities. Only by an act which in any case must respect their essential content, could the exercise of such rights and freedoms be regulated, which shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of section 161(1) a)."
https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/espana/leyfundamental/Paginas/titulo_primero.aspx
But in communism, there is no separation of church & state. That was my point... nothing more
The long hangover from the Patronato Real is still biting and the liberal left is still clinging on to the fantasy that the church subjection to the king is still possible in the 21st century… but also, the Spanish Church needs to wash its hands of Franco.
The citation of Fiducia supplicans by a diocese to support a decision to deny communion to a gay couple was not on my bingo card for 2025.
But a clever use of the document, especially since progressives claim to love it so.
Spain's current government will do anything to distract from it's corruption and if they can use the Church as the scapegoat all the better for them, doubly so if they can tie it in with their boogyman Franco who has been dead for 50 years.
To that end, while I appreciate the news story I think looping in Franco on this story (or most stories Scott Spain) via Valle de los Caídos is a way to muddy the waters and falls into the same trap of distraction. Notice how many comments are about Franco's Spain whereas the real issue here is the PSOE + Sumar + other communist and nationalist coalition parties that are rabidly anti Catholic will use whatever they can to discredit the Church.
Spanish socialists at it again. Good on the priest and good on the diocese for having his back.
Sounds like the Spanish bishops conference has finally decided the faith is worth suffering for.