# Catholics and Rainbow Sashes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2005, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053 "2005-05-16T12:19:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/21 "2005-05-16T19:32:43Z")
Well, I know what I would have done as a minister & as a layperson in various similar situations- If I were a pastor/priest serving Communion & a person wore something indicating disagreement with the Church’s moral teaching on sexual behavior, abortion, racial equality, or something- I would whisper to the person to remove the symbol of defiance before receiving. If they would not, I would not serve them. If I were a layperson or an usher or whatever, & I saw counter-protesters interfering with the protesters receiving Communion, I would assist the Church authorities in clearing the way. They are not the authorities tp decide who receives Communion. If in doing so, the original protestors were not only given Communion BUT the presiding minister spoke in support of their protest, I would then express my disagreement with that minister privately & if he/she indicated future support, I might take the matter up with his superiors &/or start looking for a new church. ---
**Author:** ![seosamh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@seosamh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seosamh)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/22 "2005-05-16T23:15:43Z")
Regular (fanatical?) churchgoing Left-Footer here: never seen such a thing in the UK or Ireland. But we tend not to give a monkey’s if you’re a shirtlifter: unless you’re the priest, that is… ---
**Author:** ![WeRSauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f19dbf/32.png) [@WeRSauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WeRSauron)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/23 "2005-05-16T23:43:56Z")
Bravo, **FriarTed**. I would like to quote the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ (bolding and italics added): > [@](#): > > Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. **The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and _tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings_**. (Article 1783; Part Three: Life in Christ, Section One: Man’s Vocation, Life in the Spirit, Article 6. Moral Conscience, II. The Formation of the Conscience.) As any traditionalist Catholic can remind one, the Catholic Church’s teaching with regard to homosexuality is abundantly clear. The reasoning and theory behind this is sound in the context of the Catholic Church’s theology of the body. Will the Church’s stance on this issue change? No. All these protests will do is increase the Holy See’s consternation at American Catholics who are attempting to enforce their judgments, theology, beliefs, and desires upon the entire Church. If there is change, it will come from the Vatican. Considering that only recently the venerated Pope John Paul the Great promulgated the theology of the body, and considering that the Princes of the Church desire his legacy to continue, any chance for change in the near future is extremely remote. As it is, inside a church building is not a place to protest. WRS - Santo subito! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/24 "2005-05-17T01:43:03Z")
> [@Douglas Quaid](#): > > Disagreeing with the church may not be “defying” its teachings, but causing a disturbance to prevent others from receiving communion surely is. Read the article again: the sash wearers were the ones who were being blocked from receiving communion. > [@](#): > > Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion. So THEY are not the ones “causing a disturbance.” ---
**Author:** ![coleridge78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@coleridge78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coleridge78)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/25 "2005-05-17T01:56:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’ve never heard of the practice, but it does not sound as though simply wearing one gets a person banned from Communion. Rather, a particular group seems to have made a deliberate and publicized choice to make a specific protest and the church authorities have decided that making protests _during the liturgical worship service_ are inappropriate. Correct. Henceforth, persons wearing a sash must remove it before being given Communion. This has been a particular issue at one church in Minneapolis, though it is not limited to that church. They were likely the first in the area to make it an issue. Background: my SO is a member of this church, or community in their own words. The basic rundown is this: they’re very gay-friendly, have been for a long, long time. The argument over acceptance of gays in the Catholic Church surfaced here early, as it was already a very inclusive group which tried to keep their ties to the papal hierarchy to a minimum. The local bishop (who happens to be the Archbishop, as well) is generally sympathetic. This is in no small part due to their extensive (and frankly impressive, though I’m no church-goer) community programs and wider activism on behalf of the poor and etc. They’re considered a model, by some, of what Christians should be. To others, of course, they’re apostates who are polluting the church. The Archbishop, under increasing pressure from Rome to crack down on any expressions of inclusiveness with regards to sexuality, has attempted a compromise. Namely, that the sashes will be allowed generally, but during Communion _no_ “acts of protest” will be allowed. I’ve asked her why they don’t just break ties with Rome, given all of this. The answer is basically what someone mentioned above re: Americans who don’t agree with Bush not fleeing to France. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/26 "2005-05-17T01:59:57Z")
> [@Douglas Quaid](#): > > I guess I just don’t understand the attitude. My parents switched denominations several times when I was a kid because they disagreed with some small point. But there are some rather LARGE point that are at odds with all the protestant denominations–I mean, if you disagree with the church’s position on homosexuality, but agree with it on transubstanciation, veneration of the saints, immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and bodily assumption of Mary, episcopal heirarchy, priestly celibacy, last rites, a formal sacrement of confession, etc,. etc.–that’s a lot to walk away from. It’s hard to find another church that has all that and agrees with your position on homosexuality. I grew up Catholic in the largely Protestant South, and one thing I always noticed was that switching denominations was a much more casual decision for Protestants–the preacher and the congregation were more important that subtle points of doctrine–in fact, there often seemed to be as much variation in the doctrine preached between two churches of the same doctrine as there was between two churches of different denominations This is NOT true for Catholics–one doesn’t leave the church, one leave The Church, and deciding to do so is a life-altering choice, akin to getting a divorce. As a reference point: I stopped attending Mass when I was 18. I celebrate no holidays. I am now approaching 30, and it is easier for me to say 'I don’t believe in God" and “I am not a Christian” than it is for me to say “I am no longer a Catholic”. It’s not something you just shrug off. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/27 "2005-05-17T02:36:48Z")
> [@WeRSauron](#): > > Bra > As any traditionalist Catholic can remind one, the Catholic Church’s teaching with regard to homosexuality is abundantly clear. The reasoning and theory behind this is sound in the context of the Catholic Church’s theology of the body. > > Will the Church’s stance on this issue change? No. Probably not, but it doesn’t hurt to try, does it? > [@](#): > > If there is change, it will come from the Vatican. Considering that only recently the venerated Pope John Paul the Great promulgated the theology of the body, and considering that the Princes of the Church desire his legacy to continue, any chance for change in the near future is extremely remote. Has any major movement for social change suceeded easily and without resistance from the major religious and/or political establishment for many years? Does that mean nobody should ever try at all? ---
**Author:** ![WeRSauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f19dbf/32.png) [@WeRSauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WeRSauron)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/28 "2005-05-17T04:20:25Z")
Trying is fine, if it’s productive. If all it does is polarize and divide the Body of God, then far from being good it is, indeed, sinful. The Catholic Church is not, never has been, and never will be a democratic institution. It is a theocracy of sorts. It is, from the beginning, a top-down institution. The people may agitate for whatever they want, but if it goes against what the Church has taught as doctrine for thousands of years, then it is futile to expect, let alone demand, any change. Catholics of all people should know how persnickety the Church is about its rules. Another matter to consider is the growing influence of traditionalist Catholicism. The Church gets is staunchest support from traditionalist Catholics (which is interesting, considering they are the ones who feel the Church needs to reel in its Vatican II efforts a bit). I feel the Church, in its heart of hearts, pays more heed to what the traditionalists say than to what more liberal Catholics say. This makes sense: a king will listen to his troops over what anti-royalist rebels say. Besides, what place or authority do the people have to demand what the Magesterium teaches and practices? God did not hand over the running of His Kingdom for every saint to bicker over but to His servants who have devoted their entire lives to serving Him and His people. The very people who agitate for change in this area are, in effect, desiring to throw out one area of theology that the world truly needs to hear: the theology of the body. If the Church believes this theology of the body is as God has determined, then who are the people or even the priesthood to demand a change to what God has promulgated through His servants? WRS ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/29 "2005-05-17T06:46:32Z")
> [@](#): > > The Catholic Church is not, never has been, and never will be a democratic institution. It is a theocracy of sorts. It is, from the beginning, a top-down institution. The people may agitate for whatever they want, but if it goes against what the Church has taught as doctrine for thousands of years, then it is futile to expect, let alone demand, any change. I beg to differ. In its earliest days, at least before Constantine, the church HAD to be more progressive-its survival depended upon it. And I believe that even after Constantine and Roman adoption of Christianity, in the early days there, bishops were elected locally, not appointed. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/30 "2005-05-17T10:46:41Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > What these people fail to realize is that _being_ gay is not a sin. > > Regardless of whether or not you want to accept the difference between\* being a homosexual\* (not a sin) and \*engaging in homosexual acts \* (a sin), the simple fact of the matter is this: > > 1. How exactly do you, Mr. Aisle Blocker, know the details of someone else’s romantic life well enough to decide who to block and who to let go? I don’t presume to know God’s Mind, but if I were forced to bet, I’d put money on Him disapproving of Peeping Toms, gossips, and busybodies. > > 2. Judgment is God’s right, not yours. Communion is made sacred because it is between the individual and God. For you to impose on that is not only rude, I’m reasonably sure that a good half of the book of Matthew comes out directly against such jackassery. > You’re supposed to love your neighbor, people. And your neighbor is everyone, regardless of religious, poitical, or any other difference you might have. Jesus knew what he was doing when he made the good neighbor in his parable a dude from Samaria. And the Samaritans had more legitimate gripes with the mainstream Jews than some uneducated moron has against his imagined great gay conspiracy. > Homosexual Catholics have enough to worry about given the warring natures of their attractions and their faith. It is certainly not a cross I would want to bear. The last thing they need is a bigot tripping them during a celebration. You’d win your bet. Gossip, malice, and slander are condemned in the same New Testament verses which are used to condemn homosexuality. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/31 "2005-05-17T12:40:44Z")
> [@](#): > > The Catholic Church is not, never has been, and never will be a democratic institution. It is a theocracy of sorts. It is, from the beginning, a top-down institution. The people may agitate for whatever they want, but if it goes against what the Church has taught as doctrine for thousands of years, then it is futile to expect, let alone demand, any change. I disagree. The church is, first and foremost, a business. If enough people hit them where it hurts (the collection plate), they’ll change. MHO, cynical though it may be. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/32 "2005-05-17T12:41:50Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Read the article again: the sash wearers were the ones who were being blocked from receiving communion. > > So THEY are not the ones “causing a disturbance.” Thanks for the correction, Guin. That was pointed out a bit earlier; I misunderstood the article at first but you’re absolutely right. ---
**Author:** ![WeRSauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f19dbf/32.png) [@WeRSauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WeRSauron)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/33 "2005-05-17T13:22:02Z")
> [@Douglas Quaid](#): > > I disagree. The church is, first and foremost, a business. If enough people hit them where it hurts (the collection plate), they’ll change. > > MHO, cynical though it may be. I don’t know about this. Your point does make sense and, indeed, is embraced by many, but I have read somewhere that the more American Catholics try to control the Church using their wallets, the more the Holy See will begin to ignore American Catholics. If I can find where I read it, I’ll post it here. WRS ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/34 "2005-05-17T16:09:43Z")
> [@WeRSauron](#): > > The very people who agitate for change in this area are, in effect, desiring to throw out one area of theology that the world truly needs to hear: the theology of the body. If the Church believes this theology of the body is as God has determined, then who are the people or even the priesthood to demand a change to what God has promulgated through His servants? But it is the Church that has thrown out the theology of the body by denying homosexuality, which is part of it. It is God who has determined the 3-4% of the population is to be gay; there is no other explanation for that’s what is in their heart of hearts. The truth of homosexuality is manifested in the person of homosexuals themselves and _no where else_. Look into their heart of hearts and you will see that it is moral and righteous (and of courese, causes no physical harm). And yet the Church has turned its back and demanded that the truth be taken from its door. Truth comes before tradition; justice comes before authority. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/35 "2005-05-17T16:44:27Z")
The Catholic Church does not deny homosexuality. Please stop pretending that it does. Until you are conversant with the facts of the matter and the reasons for the incongruent treatment of certain members of the Church by the Church, you have little base for your arguments. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/36 "2005-05-17T17:06:25Z")
> [@Happy Scrappy Hero Pup](#): > > The Catholic Church does not deny homosexuality. > > Please stop pretending that it does. From the[Vatican:](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM) > [@](#): > > Chastity and homosexuality > > 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. > > 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. > > 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. [More](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html) > [@](#): > > 1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1) Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element. The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society. > > Snip > > CONCLUSION > > 1. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself. [And more:](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html) > [@](#): > > 1. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”. A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that “are intrinsically disordered” and contrary to Natural Law. > > Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance. > > For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes a trial. “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition”. “Homosexual persons are called to chastity”. > > 1. Awareness of the positive significance of sexuality for personal harmony and development, as well as the person’s vocation in the family, society and the Church, always represents the educational horizon to be presented during the stages of adolescent growth. It must never be forgotten that the disordered use of sex tends progressively to destroy the person’s capacity to love by making pleasure, instead of sincere self-giving, the end of sexuality and by reducing other persons to objects of one’s own gratification. In this way the meaning of true love between a man and a woman (love always open to life) is weakened as well as the family itself. Moreover, this subsequently leads to disdain for the human life which could be conceived, which, in some situations, is then regarded as an evil that threatens personal pleasure. “The trivialization of sexuality is among the principal factors which have led to contempt for new life. Only a true love is able to protect life”. > > 2. We must also remember how adolescents in industrialized societies are preoccupied and at times disturbed not only by the problems of self-identity, discovering their plan in life and difficulties in successfully integrating sexuality in a mature and well-oriented personality. They also have problems in accepting themselves and their bodies. In this regard, out-patient and specialized centres for adolescents have now sprung up, often characterized by purely hedonistic purposes. On the other hand, a healthy culture of the body leads to accepting oneself as a gift and as an incarnated spirit, called to be open to God and society. A healthy culture of the body should accompany formation in this very constructive period, which is also not without its risks. > > In the face of what hedonistic groups propose, especially in affluent societies, it is very important to present young people with the ideals of human and Christian solidarity and concrete ways of being committed in Church associations, movements and voluntary Catholic and missionary activities. > > 1. Friendships are very important in this period. According to local social conditions and customs, adolescence is a time when young people enjoy more autonomy in their relations with others and in the hours they keep in family life. Without taking away their rightful autonomy, when necessary, parents should know how to say “no” to their children and, at the same time, they should know how to cultivate a taste in their children for what is beautiful, noble and true. Parents should also be sensitive to adolescents’ self-esteem, which may pass through a confused phase when they are not clear about what personal dignity means and requires. > > 2. Through loving and patient advice, parents will help young people to avoid an excessive closing in on themselves. When necessary, they will also teach them to go against social trends that tend to stifle true love and an appreciation for spiritual realities: “Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you” (1 Peter 5:8-10). [and more](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19831101_sexual-education_en.html) > [@](#): > > 1. Homosexuality, which impedes the person’s acquisition of sexual maturity, whether from the individual point of view, or the inter-personal, is a problem which must be faced in all objectivity by the pupil and the educator when the case presents itself. > > " Pastorally, these homosexuals must be received with understanding and supported in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their social mal-adaption, their culpability will be judged with prudence; but no pastoral method can be used which, holding that these acts conform to the condition of these persons, accord them a moral justification. > > " According to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts deprived of their essential and indispensable rule ".(62) ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/37 "2005-05-17T18:32:20Z")
So, you’re making my point for me. You made it for me in your first quote. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/38 "2005-05-17T18:42:57Z")
WTF. "Making your point? **stpauler** ’s posts makes it clear that homosexuality, according to the catholic church, is something that happen when people decide to attend [Crazy Go Nuts University](http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/CGNU) ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/39 "2005-05-17T18:43:34Z")
Well, I’m backing up part of your point with actual quotes from the Vatican. It’s a bit better than just sitting back and saying “since you don’t know, shut up”\*. \*to paraphrase of course. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053/40 "2005-05-17T18:46:48Z")
Hit “submit” too soon. I’m not sure whether you are arguing with me or not, **stpauler** , but you certainly aren’t addressing anything regarding the OP with your quotes. Being a homosexual is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. So I don’t see where these fundamentalists have any grounds to prevent sash-wearers from receiving communion, since these fundies have no way of establishing the state of grace of anyone approaching the altar. And there is no one I know who would compromise his dignity or his own grace by being so callous or cruel as to intrude into so private an area of another parishoner’s life in order to find out. If the celebrant does not want to extend Communion to _those engaging in an active protest_, that is his right. But the celebrants themselves are not basing that decision on sexual orientation. Anyone in the congregation who attempts to forcibly deny someone Communion \*based on the wearing of the sash as a protest \* is (from an organizational standpoint) undermining the authority of the celebrant to make that decision and is wrong from an organizational standpoint. Anyone in the congregation who attempts to forcibly deny someone Communion _based on the wearing of the sash because they believe that person is a homosexual_ is also wrong from a Church Law standpoint, since being a homosexual is not a sin. Anyone in the congregation who attempts to forcibly deny someone communion based on the wearing of the sash \*because they believe that that person is engaging in homosexual acts \* is wrong from a logical standpoint because \*\*I \*\* could wear one, and I am neither a homosexual nor do I engage in homosexual acts, and I am sure there are many like me who WOULD wear the sash for simple support reasons. Furthermore, anyone who would attempt to deny somebody communion based on such an assumption is making a dick move based on some pretty dumbass and nosy assumptions, and, while it’s not my place to call someone a sinner, I don’t know if I could keep a straight face while they insisted they _weren’t._ So if you’re arguing with me, please let me know where we disagree and how it relates to the OP, because I’m not sure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholics-and-rainbow-sashes/304053.md?page=3)