The person/people that befowled the church with their salts and oils. The Cathedral just went through some beautiful renovations and it’s a shame that what happened may damage it. They’re also bigoted assholes that aren’t really acting in a Christ-like manner. Hypocrites. And an exorcism? Really. :rolleyes:
The group Catholics Against Sacrilege, for rallying under a banner of exclusion and hate.
I also kind of want to pit The Rainbow Sash Alliance. There are other Catholic churches in the area that are much more accepting (The Basilica of St Mary’s, St Stephens, or St Joan of Arc are three off the top of my head.) “This is not a protest,” he (Rainbow Sash leader Brian McNeill)said. “This is a symbol of celebration of our gay sexuality, and we are just here as part of the community of faith, the people of God.” Umm, bullshit. It is a protest. You are openly acting out against the Church’s views on LGBT and only doing it on occasions when it is important for the faith and not just everytime.
I’ll never personally understand the need for religion. My BF, who’s religious and for the most part Catholic (although he won’t say that), has been taking me to church with him on occasion. I’m hoping to at least gain a better insight as to why he would go, what makes him want to go back, and what the whole religion thing is about, and why he conjoins himself with a religion that hasn’t been to happy to be dealing with the LGBT community. (I tease him that I feel like Jane Goodall when I’m there).
(Note: I’m not well-versed on all that is Catholicism, so if I’ve got some fact wrong, please correct it).
While I can’t help but chuckle that the Church’s emphasis on magic and ritual has backfired on it in a big way, the Rainbow Sash people are the main instigators. Mass is not an occasion to “celebrate our gay sexuality”; its purpose is to worship God. If the diocese has told them they are not welcome, they ought to take the hint.
I don’t quite understand your attack against the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral because they are contrary to the natural law and exclude procreation. Homosexual people are called to chastity. Homosexual people not practicing chastity are sinning, and if they obstinately persist in that sin, it’s unclear to me how they personally can feel they may approach Communion in accord with the laws of the Church.
Now, you may certainly disagree with the Church’s belief that these acts are sinful, and if that’s your beef, I understand.
But you cannot reasonably suggest that the Church does not have the right to set its own beliefs and practice them.
That’s the new name of my super hero group. I’m gonna be Crazy Communion Carl: a loner born in the desolate reaches of a confessional and raised by renegade nuns who’ve kicked the habit. Repeatedly. I shall be equipped with exploding communion wafers, razor-tipped wafers, square wafers and water-proof wafers (in case I have to fight underwater).
My battle cry will be: “Transubstantiate this, muthafugger!”
When the mask comes off, my secret identity will be a pew.
My beef with the Catholic Church is multi-fold, but a part of it is the fact that they while they are speaking out against homosexuality in a direct way in regards to its catechism, it’s not speaking out against the “Catholics Against Sacrilege” for their efforts to marginalize (oh, I hate that word) the LGBT parishioners.
It’s a really messy situation in which all of the parties from the Pope on down to the flock can be considered culpable. Were the Catholic church to change to (and promote) a more accepting doctrine, there wouldn’t need to be protesters on either side and exorcisms/consecrations to rid the church of the “evil” wouldn’t be necessary. From what I understand, getting the Catholic Church to move quickly is like pissing into the wind and that’s the appeal for some Catholics. (The slow move to change, not the pissing).
Of course, I’m not a Catholic or even a christian, so my dog in the fight is minimal (even if my SO is one). But, it’s still distressing to see these events unfold just blocks from my home.
Some threat. What do the exorcisors expect to happen? The evil gays will scream and writhe in anguish and pain and demons will be dragged down to Hell as their faces melt? Somehow I think they’ll be disappointed when all they get, is sued for the dry cleaning bills.
That’s a point. But the cathecism does point out that the determination of a person’s spiritual readiness to receive the Eucharist rests with the individual’s conscience and honesty.
Well, yes, the reason why the Catholic Church speaks out against homosexual activity is because it believes that it is, objectively speaking, a sin. There can therefore be no change to a “more accepting doctrine”, because to say that homosexual activity is no longer a sin would be as absurd as saying that water is no longer wet. If morality is something objectively and divinely revealed, then it cannot be changed to suit the whims of society. Disagree with them all you like, but the “Catholics Against Sacrilege” are acting completely within the bounds of historical Catholicism.
How can anyone who uses birth control feel entitled to approach Communion? They are obstinately persisting in a sin, are they not?
Personally, I would agree that Church can set whatever rules it wants. It can exclude people from Communion for wearing blue hats if it wants to. That doesn’t mean that the laity can’t agitate for different policies or that observers can’t mock policies which seem ridiculous to us.
FTR, I was raised Catholic, my wife is still a practicing Catholic and she is raising our daughter as a Catholic. We lived in sin before we were married. We’ve been known to use contraceptives. No one at mass ever tries to lie down in the aisle and prevent my wife from taking communion. I find the objections about “sin” to be disingenuous considering the fact everyone in the Church is a sinner and many of them are obstinate sinners, i.e. they still persist in using birth control.
There are plenty of sinful Catholics who take Communion at Mass. I don’t think it’s some group’s job to be decrying “practicing” homosexuals over, say, people wearing mixed fabrics or violating the seven deadly sins - like wrathful members of the CAS.
I was married in the Catholic Church - my husband was raised Catholic but within the last year has lost any faith in that church, while I was raised attending a couple different Protestant churches. During our “couples’ retreat” Pre-Cana weekend, at which a priest was present, the married couples of the church there talked to us about the days when they got married, how couples would “shop around” for a church that wouldn’t openly condemn birth control. They touched on … I forget the name of it, it’s the fairly effective “improved rhythm method” that involves basal temperatures and cervical mucus tracking, and said we could pick up pamphlets if we wanted to - and that was the end of the birth control segment of the weekend. And when we spoke to the priest and he took our information, he kind of embarrassedly suggested - upon noticing we gave the same address - that we abstain until the wedding date so as to allow us to concentrate on the meaning of the ceremony, something to that effect. Yup, we lived in sin.
I only know it by the book - Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni something. It’s apparently really effective - I know two women who’ve been using it for over a year as birth control and neither has gotten pregnant, whereas my one friend who did want to get pregnant was pregnant by the second month of using it.
IF CAS is simply repeating and promoting Church teaching that homosexual acts are inherently evil (notice I’m not saying ‘sinful’, which is a judgment about a person’s standing before God) then they are certainly within the bounds of Catholicism.
IF CAS is promoting that homosexuals can not receive communion, then they are outside the bounds of historical Catholicism. Only Canon Law or a pastor or a bishop may withhold communion from a person. And only in a way as stipulated by Canon Law (with due process and findings of fact). To use a legal expression: other lay members of the congregation have ‘no standing’ in the prohibition of homosexuals from receiving communion. To interpose themselves in this is a violation of Canon Law, since a baptized Catholic has a right to receive Communion unless a lawful authority lawfully finds that they can not receive. These lay Catholics can certainly alert the proper authority to investigate, but they should not publicly become judge and jury when they have no standing in the matter.
IF CAS is involved in the blocking of people from receiving communion or involved in the salt and oil incident, this is an infraction worthy of the proper authorities to investigate to see if CAS should be denied communion for their unlawful interference in the sacrament.
Peace.
P.S.: If I were bishop, I’d tell the rainbow sashers, “You’re welcome to receive, but not with that sash.” I’d then issue a statement to all the faithful, “No one receives wearing a symbol of political lobbying, whether it be ecclesial or secular.”
Ah, but were you wearing a giant condom on your head and holding a placard saying “yay birth control”? You average man in the pew, even if he is known to have a history of sinning, can’t be determined to be in a state of sin simply by looking at him. Even if he was seen committing the sin the previous night, it’s perfectly possible that he had a change of conscience and received absolution that morning. That’s different from wearing a rainbow sash or a giant condom, in which case it is evident that one is persisting in their advertising of sin up to the point of receiving communion. If you walk into a church and see somebody pry open the tabernacle with a crowbar and remove a host, it’s possible that they’re an authorized minister of communion, somebody nearby is about to die, and the tabernacle key was just flushed down the toilet, but it’s much more likely that they’re up to no good (to say the least).
I’ll be honest; I’m not exceedingly familiar with the nuances of Catholic canon law. Not being Catholic, I’ve only a splinter of a bone in this fight. Rather, what I was referring to is that there is historical precedent for laymen to take direct action to protect the faith when the hierarchy has been manifestly unable or unwilling to do so. And it’s not so much a matter of homosexuals per se receiving communion, but a matter of individuals who are openly and unashamedly committing mortal sin and exhuberantly proclaiming this fact to the world receiving communion. If it is a violation of canon law for this group to protest rainbow-sash-wearing protestors from receiving communion by kneeling in front of them, and they have been instructed to cease doing this by the bishop, then I agree, they should stop.
Those were points of discipline, and discipline can certainly change. They were not universally revealed points of morality. The sin in those actions would be that it was a deliberate disobedience to Church discipline. The prohibition against homosexual activity is on par with prohibitions against adultery or fornication, not things like abstaining from meat on Fridays (no longer required). As well, marrying a non-Catholic outside the church is still a sin, and associating with Protestants could easily still be a sin if the intent in doing so was to spite the church or to disobey any of its teachings.
How is sprinkling salt and oil around the church an interference with the sacrament? I would be curious to know exactly how much salt and oil was sprinkled; I have a hard time believing that the amount required for a purification of a building would require several thousand dollars’ worth of cleaining.
No, but the understanding of what is and isn’t moral can change as our knowledge increases–a changing understanding of morality doesn’t necessarily have to be attributed to subjective societal whims.
