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.
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…
I would like to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church (bolding and italics added):
(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.
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.
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.
Probably not, but it doesn’t hurt to try, does it?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.