Acbp Flynn & the Rainbow Sash Group

[HagiaSophia]

Archbishop Harry J. Flynn of Minneapolis-St. Paul spoke to Vatican officials about gay rights proponents wearing rainbow sashes to Mass and receiving Communion.

Unlike some other bishops across the country, Archbishop Flynn has allowed Communion to be given to members of the group known as Rainbow Sash. That has prompted criticism by some Catholics in his archdiocese, and at one Mass a group of lay people tried to block the aisles to prevent sash-wearers from receiving Communion.

Archbishop Flynn said he discussed the issue in a private meeting in early December with Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

He said Cardinal Arinze agreed that it was a complex problem requiring clear teaching and pastoral sensitivity. The archbishop said he was not asked to change his policy.

“I got the clear understanding that this is recognized as a very complex pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications,” Archbishop Flynn said in an interview in mid-December.

“It needs to be handled prayerfully and reflectively,” he said.

“There was encouragement to keep on teaching and also to be aware of the forces everywhere, including in the United States, that are against the long tradition of the teaching of the church,” he said.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0406824.htm

 

[Sola]

Archbishop Flynn said sash-wearers would not be denied Communion because members of the movement had assured him in writing that their presence was not in protest of church teachings.

Huh??? Isn’t the rainbow sash movement “in protest of church teachings” by its very existence?

“Gay rights” are antithetical to the Church!

 

[Brendan]

HagiaSophia:

He said Cardinal Arinze agreed that it was a complex problem requiring clear teaching and pastoral sensitivity.

Well your Grace, we’ve certainly seen the ‘Pastoral Sensitivity’ part, now when do we see the ‘Clear Teaching’ part?

 

[AmyS]

Sola:

Huh??? Isn’t the rainbow sash movement “in protest of church teachings” by its very existence?

“Gay rights” are antithetical to the Church!

What a weight they are now carrying on their shoulders taking their feelings above Gods teachings… I wonder if this ever hits their conscious?

 

[Island_Oak]

Mpls/St. Paul is a very liberal metropolitan area full of civic pride in its progressive attitudes on any number of social issues–some less offensive and challenging to accept than others. It also has a large (for its size) well-organized, vocal/visible gay rights constituency. It comes as no surprise to me that a “rainbow sash coalition” has taken root there.

I think that and similar challenges being made to the Church are just the beginning of a wave we will all be riding in fairly short order. I only pray the leadership of the Church fashions a response that respects the dignity and underlying faith in God of all sides while making clear that full communion in all aspects of civil and religious life may be beyond the grasp of even the most persistent gay-rights proponents.

 

[fix]

I am not sure which is more disappointing. Flynn not doing his appointed job, or Arinze not telling him to do his job. The homo sashers are in your face and intentionally and willfully dissenting from Church teaching. Instead of excommunicating these people all we ever here is the word pastoral which is almost always a code word for not correcting error. More scandal. Weak bishops are not in short supply.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

I am not sure which is more disappointing. Flynn not doing his appointed job, or Arinze not telling him to do his job. The homo sashers are in your face and intentionally and willfully dissenting from Church teaching. Instead of excommunicating these people all we ever here is the word pastoral which is almost always a code word for not correcting error. More scandal. Weak bishops are not in short supply.

What exactly do you propose? A show down at the communion rail? Or would you prefer that the rainbow-wearers be tackled at the front door of the church and either stripped of their offending banners or denied entrance? Let’s not forget that part of the goal of any deliberate disobedience is the hope of provoking a reaction. The lack of an immediate response is not equivalent to no response. The Church needs to be measured and thoughtful as well as compassionate in its response or risk losing its credibility and moral authority.

 

[fix]

Island Oak:

What exactly do you propose? A show down at the communion rail? Or would you prefer that the rainbow-wearers be tackled at the front door of the church and either stripped of their offending banners or denied entrance? Let’s not forget that part of the goal of any deliberate disobedience is the hope of provoking a reaction. The lack of an immediate response is not equivalent to no response. The Church needs to be measured and thoughtful as well as compassionate in its response or risk losing its credibility and moral authority.

This nonsense has been around for years. It is not some new item to deal with. They should be told if they wear the sash they will be refused communion. They have been catechized many times. They reject the truth. They deserve prayer, but they are a scandal and can easily lead others astray. It is a grave matter that has been not handled well.

In my diocese I have been at mass when they have gone to communion. It was at a leftist, dissenting parish. The bishop allows it. This is a problem in the Church today. Some are weak and some are traitors. Nothing new under the sun, but now there is a greater awarness due to technology.

 

[Island_Oak]

fix:

This nonsense has been around for years. It is not some new item to deal with. They should be told if they wear the sash they will be refused communion.

This sounds like a set-up for confrontation and an invitation to fill an entire church with banner wearing protesters.

They have been catechized many times. They reject the truth. They deserve prayer, but they are a scandal and can easily lead others astray. It is a grave matter that has been not handled well.

I’m not taking issue with your underlying view so much as the approach. We stand to fan the flames by erecting barriers. The Church has a tradition of taking on tough, controversial social/sexual issues and issuing teachings on them. However, it has thus far stayed away from scarlet-letter type shunning of certain categories of sinners. We’re all in the same soup in terms of our sinfulness and I think we need to carefully consider whether we really want to start publicly singling out selected sinners as more deserving of differential/exclusionary treatment.

 

[Brad]

Brendan:

Well your Grace, we’ve certainly seen the ‘Pastoral Sensitivity’ part, now when do we see the ‘Clear Teaching’ part?

In the “faxes from Rome” box, buried in the rectory office under a giant pile of “social teachings and inclusive language recommendations from feminists”

 

[Brad]

fix:

I am not sure which is more disappointing. Flynn not doing his appointed job, or Arinze not telling him to do his job. The homo sashers are in your face and intentionally and willfully dissenting from Church teaching. Instead of excommunicating these people all we ever here is the word pastoral which is almost always a code word for not correcting error. More scandal. Weak bishops are not in short supply.

We cannot be sure that Arinze did not tell him to do something that he is not passing on. This has happened before. Note Cardinal McCarrick’s neglect to pass on the actual Ratzinger memo to his fellow Bishops thinking it better to interpret the Communion for dissenting politicians memo on his own.

 

[jlw]

Brendan:

Well your Grace, we’ve certainly seen the ‘Pastoral Sensitivity’ part, now when do we see the ‘Clear Teaching’ part?

Amen!! Goodness gracious, AMEN!!

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

What exactly do you propose? A show down at the communion rail? Or would you prefer that the rainbow-wearers be tackled at the front door of the church and either stripped of their offending banners or denied entrance? Let’s not forget that part of the goal of any deliberate disobedience is the hope of provoking a reaction. The lack of an immediate response is not equivalent to no response. The Church needs to be measured and thoughtful as well as compassionate in its response or risk losing its credibility and moral authority.

What’s the rush to taking your time?

Canon law is quite clear on this. Anyone in grave sin is not to receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord in Holy Communion because it brings further sin on the individual. It is an act of mercy to deny such known mortal sinners communion. Also, it is quite easy to give a blessing when they approach and not put the Lord’s Body in their mouth or hands. I don’t see the complexity here.

 

[jlw]

Brad:

In the “faxes from Rome” box, buried in the rectory office under a giant pile of “social teachings and inclusive language recommendations from feminists”

And also under the stack of “homosexuality is a choice” memos…

 

[HagiaSophia]

Brad:

We cannot be sure that Arinze did not tell him to do something that he is not passing on. This has happened before. Note Cardinal McCarrick’s neglect to pass on the actual Ratzinger memo to his fellow Bishops thinking it better to interpret the Communion for dissenting politicians memo on his own.

Let me put it this way: when Flynn talked with Arinze he presented a case from his POV - anyone familiar with Flynn can readily ascertain what that was and how the case would be shaped… Arinze based on what he heard and was being offered would certainly want to help any bishop who was trying to be “pastoral” - remember Arinze is not based in the US - what he knows are from brief visits and what he is told by the person he is speaking with.

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

This sounds like a set-up for confrontation and an invitation to fill an entire church with banner wearing protesters.

Some churches have security guards to keep out the rabble-rousers. If they are coming in to protest rather than participate in the sacrifice of the mass, the guards have every right to kick them out.
Island Oak:

I’m not taking issue with your underlying view so much as the approach. We stand to fan the flames by erecting barriers. The Church has a tradition of taking on tough, controversial social/sexual issues and issuing teachings on them. However, it has thus far stayed away from scarlet-letter type shunning of certain categories of sinners. We’re all in the same soup in terms of our sinfulness and I think we need to carefully consider whether we really want to start publicly singling out selected sinners as more deserving of differential/exclusionary treatment.

Christ’s teachings are not barriers but liberating truths.

The issue here is not who is sinning and who isn’t. The issue is these protestors want the Church to declare homosexuality not sinful. I heard 2 things in the past 2 days.

First, from my local parish homily from a deacon:

There are not bad and good Catholics. There are only Catholics and non-Catholics.

Second, from a talk by Peter Kreeft:

There is no problem in not knowing all the truth. The question is whether you are seeking the truth or not.

The Church’s Truth is not up for grabs. It’s not up for grabs or pick and choose what you want. You can disagree with Her moral teachings but you cannot demand or promote Her modifying Her moral teachings. The Church is the Body of Christ.

Christ (God) is the same yesteday, today, and forever. These teachings cannot change.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Brad:

Some churches have security guards to keep out the rabble-rousers. If they are coming in to protest rather than participate in the sacrifice of the mass, the guards have every right to kick them out.

My understanding is that the issue has always been this: any individual may approach to receive Eucharist. They are responsible for the state of grace which entitles them to do so. But the Rainbow sashers have wished to wear their sashes and approach the Eucharist as a “body” protesting the church’s stand on homosexuality. Bishops have said that a protest symbol approaching the Eucharist is not proper, the Church’s stand on homosexuals vs. the practice is well known.

.

 

[Island_Oak]

Brad:

What’s the rush to taking your time?

Canon law is quite clear on this. Anyone in grave sin is not to receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord in Holy Communion because it brings further sin on the individual. It is an act of mercy to deny such known mortal sinners communion. Also, it is quite easy to give a blessing when they approach and not put the Lord’s Body in their mouth or hands. I don’t see the complexity here.

Simple and clear until you declare this policy and wait for the churches to fill up with protesters. And how exactly how do you identify all those “known mortal sinners” and deny them communion. This is an issue which to my understanding is left to the discretion of the individual upon an examination of conscience. When/where/how/why does big brother Church plug into the soul and effectively sort out all offenders? Don’t we need a test that applies to all and not one that simply waves a red flag in front of those committed to this particular protest/cause/lifestyle? What about all the fornicators, tax-cheats, adulterers, idoloters, gossips and liars randomly sprinkled in the assembly? Are we going to have a litmus test for communion for them? If not, why not. If so what is it?

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Mpls/St. Paul is a very liberal metropolitan area full of civic pride in its progressive attitudes on any number of social issues–some less offensive and challenging to accept than others. It also has a large (for its size) well-organized, vocal/visible gay rights constituency. It comes as no surprise to me that a “rainbow sash coalition” has taken root there.​

No kidding, in the St Paul school system, highschool girls can get birth control pills from the school nurse without parental consent.

 

[Island_Oak]

Brad:

Some churches have security guards to keep out the rabble-rousers. If they are coming in to protest rather than participate in the sacrifice of the mass, the guards have every right to kick them out.

I have NEVER heard of such a thing and God help us if that’s the best we can do.

There are not bad and good Catholics. There are only Catholics and non-Catholics.

Second, from a talk by Peter Kreeft:

There is no problem in not knowing all the truth. The question is whether you are seeking the truth or not.

The Church’s Truth is not up for grabs. It’s not up for grabs or pick and choose what you want. You can disagree with Her moral teachings but you cannot demand or promote Her modifying Her moral teachings. The Church is the Body of Christ.

Christ (God) is the same yesteday, today, and forever. These teachings cannot change.

We are largely in agreement on these solid insights. I think the goal needs to be finding that common ground that exists as well as defining boundaries. You can no more bully a person into being tolerant than you can into being faithful. All I am suggesting is dialog–not abandoning principles and certainly not erecting barbed wire around the churches.