I can’t exercise if I’m filled with spirits, too!!
First of all, being gay is not a sin. These people are not wearing buttons or stickers that said “I fucked my boyfriend in the ass last night.” They are just wearing sashes that say that they are gay/lesbian/transgendered which is not immoral!
All this is, is people saying “We’re here, we’re queer.”
I see nothing wrong with that at all. If, on the other hand, they were saying that they had gay sex right before they took communion, then I could see people having a problem with it.
It still is not the duty of the lay parishoners to take action into their own hands, especially considering priests were very much present. Only God and the person, plus perhaps a duly consecrated person should be involved in deciding worthiness to take communion. No others. I have many bones to pick with the faith I was raised in, but they have always been clear about that point.
We do not tolerate vigilantes on our streets and the Catholic church has never, as an institution, tolerated them in the pews. It is the duty of a member in the priestly hierarchy to enforce canon law and dogma, not random laypeople who decide they know better.
Associating with Protestants is no longer a sin, nor is marrying a non-Catholic so long as they both agree to raise any children in the Church. I know this for certain because my brother just got married to a nice Lutheran girl and they had to go through that song and dance.
The salt and oil was not interfering with the sacrament, though it could quite easily be considered vandalism. Kneeling in the aisle to prevent people from taking communion did interfere. Whether the Rainbow Sash people were in the right or in the wrong, the actions taken by these opposition groups were most definately wrong. It is the equivalent of witnessing a possible robbery while in the presence of a cop and deciding to tackle the guy you suspect instead of alerting said officer of the law.
If the officer takes no action, it is still not your duty to tackle the person. It is then your duty to report that officer and the incident to the police station itself. At no time unless you believe your life or the life of another to be at risk should you even consider intervening. Any other incident is not of such immediate urgency to take law into your own hands.
You can join my team, you know. You just need to come up with a special power or something. Wear a cape if you can.
[TheIncredibles] No cape![/TI]
“In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.” Redemptionis Sacramentum, §183.
Please note that I am not saying this group didn’t violate the letter of canon law, just that there is some precedent for what they did.
What I said was marrying outside the church was a sin, not marrying a non-Catholic – or are the Catholics these days letting the couple go to a justice of the peace and considering that a sacramental marriage? And are you saying that associating with Protestants would not be a sin, if it were done with the intent to disobey or otherwise spite the church?
I agree that they shouldn’t be “celebrating their gay sexuality” during mass (or celebrating any sort of sexuality). But clearly the other parishoners (shit! How do you spell that?) are way out of line by trying to prevent their taking communion. That’s a matter between them and God, and maybe the Church.
But yeah, if they’re wearing big ol’ “I’m a homo” sashes in church, they’re jerks.
Looking on my past few posts, I feel my main point may be a bit muddled. What I am saying is that if the sash-wearers had chosen to forego their sashes, there would be no excuse for what the protesters did. Whatever sins the sash-wearers had on their conscience would be between them, their confessor, and God. However, by wearing their sashes, they were publically displaying their disobedience and sin; they made their worthiness to receive a public issue. Faced with this, the protesters may have determined that the Body and Blood of Christ trumped what canon law might say, and felt obliged to take direct action to protect the Eucharist from defilement.
But, as I said before, they are not displaying any sin! Homosexuality != sin in the official view of the Catholic Church. And it hasn’t since I was in High School.
Homosexuality per se, no. I agree. Homosexual activity and disobedience to the church, yes, which is why I have been careful to distinguish between the two in my posts in this thread.
But the sashes don’t say that they are having gay sex. The sashes are just their way of announcing out loud that they are gay, lesbian or transgendered (or friends and family of such). A person could be transgendered and be straight and therefore, completely sinless even if they had sex.
As to the first part: I misunderstood your use of the word “church”, reading it as a reference to the Catholic Church rather than a particular building.
As to the second: to my knowledge, it falls in the same category as eating beef on a Thursday to spite the church, which would be the category labelled “stupid”. Its not a sin to eat beef on Thursdays and it isn’t a sin to associate with Protestants, so if you’re trying to spite the Church by doing so… well, you’re not. The Church couldn’t care less.
And as for your reference to Redemptionis Sacramentum, I have always understood that to mean bringing such acts before the Church hierarchy instead of ignoring them. A gray area, I will concede.
I avoid threads targeting the Catholic Church as a rule, unless I can say something in her defense – though I’m not Roman Catholic, I find misrepresentation of her beliefs to be rampant.
In this case, if you notice above, it was the self-styled “Catholics Against Sacrilege” who committed the exorcism/vandalism. And Catholicism, according to the official Catechism, makes the rather intelligent distinction between the individual and his/her sexuality, on the one hand, and the putatively sinful acts he or she may commit, on the other.
While homophobic Catholics may have a problem with the Rainbow Sash people as a group, what they are saying is that they are loyal and devout Catholics of gay sexuality, intent on claiming their place as sinners saved by God’s grace and members of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church.
While the CaS gang, on the other hand, may have the intent of defending the church’s moral teaching – but how they’re doing it is not in accord with Catholic teaching, by a long shot. (Note that it requires at minimum a priest or deacon with special faculties, or a member of one one of the now-extinguished minor orders, to validly exorcise.) And certainly they would not want someone in their church who hung out with adulterers, prostitutes, thieves, and the equivalent of I.R.S. agents, right?
Hmmmmm… I can muck out a stall one-handed (as I discovered when I broke my elbow) – will that do?
No cape, but how about a well-broken-in barn jacket?
Oh, and I have a flying horse. That should be good for something.
Monseignor Martinez?
“Vaya, con dios!” BANG!
If I were Catholic, there would be no way of knowing whether I’d had sex with a man before coming to mass, be it hours before or days before. No one would attempt to deny my communion because I’m a single, heterosexual woman, even one with a gentleman friend. To me, if you deny the Eucharist to a homosexual simply because he or she is homosexual yet allow straight people to take it, that’s ludicrous. This may be difficult for some people to believe, but it is possible to be aware of one’s sexuality without acting on it. It hasn’t been that long since I shared a dance and a talk with a lovely man with whom I shared a great sexual attraction, during which we agreed that if we actually did something about it, while it’d be a lot of fun for a night, it would destroy both of us. A few months later, I invited him to my hotel room and nothing happened, other than a hug, just as we knew it would.
I wonder, how do Catholics Against Sacrilege feel about gossips? I’ve gone to small churches and large ones, and I know they exist. How about someone who flaunts his wealth, whether in the form of the car he drives or how much he tithes? Why this sin above all others? Gordon Gecko said “Greed is good” back in the 1980’s, yet I don’t recall a great cultural outcry about it, even though greed is condemned right alongside sexual immorality and gossip in the New Testament.
I know this is not a comfortable topic, and I’m not sure it’s one I’ll bring up at Thanksgiving dinner with the family later today, but to me, how I treat my homosexual and bisexual brothers and sisters is a direct reflection of my life as a Christian, and treating them like this does not jibe with the Commandment Christ gave us. Then again, what do you expect from a liberal? :rolleyes:
CJ
Given that the Catholic Church once used to sit by and watch or even sanction the murder of thousands for the largely imagined crime of threatening the host (i.e., believing that the wafer litteraly turns into the body of Christ, various people were accused of trying to harm Christ’s body (I guess in ways other than chewing him to pieces and rending him with your teeth?) and put to death for the affront), them sitting by while a bunch of guys splatter oil all over the place is really some laudable progress, no?
Yeah but ya gotta figure, what are the odds of two women getting pregnant no matter what method they use?