Acbp Flynn & the Rainbow Sash Group

[Sola]

Island Oak:

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.

You are right, Island Oak, but there is more to it than just being sinners. The wearing of the rainbow sash is a political, deliberately provacative action in protest of Church teachings. Wearing it to Mass is taking a physical, visible action.

Of course we all sin, but we don’t see the adulterer come to Mass with spouse AND mistress; the thief does not come wearing a banner to give all thieves the right to steal; the animal abuser does not enter the sanctuary while kicking a dog. So when we see these people, we don’t know their sins, or else we trust that they have confessed. But wearing your sin across your chest is unrepentant and therefore subject to different treatment by the parish.

IMO.

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

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?

The fornicators and adulterers are not wearing sashes representing acceptance of their sin? If they did, they should be deinied communion too. See the difference?

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

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

God help us is right. But aren’t we there? When open dissenters protest and disturb the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass - and threaten the priests - are we not to defend them? It does happen you know.

How about when satanists take communion and do not consume it but leave the church - I saw this at a mass a week and a half ago. This is extremely dangerous and should not be allowed.
Island Oak:

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.

I agree. The problem is that there is no pluralism in the Church - as we just agreed - Christ’s teachings are the same forever - they cannot be changed. This is not bigotry - this is the fatih, this is the truth.

What about the faith of the 8-year olds that see the rainbow sashers taking communion in full pride? Is this not a scandal to their faith?

 

[Brad]

Sola:

You are right, Island Oak, but there is more to it than just being sinners. The wearing of the rainbow sash is a political, deliberately provacative action in protest of Church teachings. Wearing it to Mass is taking a physical, visible action.

Of course we all sin, but we don’t see the adulterer come to Mass with spouse AND mistress; the thief does not come wearing a banner to give all thieves the right to steal; the animal abuser does not enter the sanctuary while kicking a dog. So when we see these people, we don’t know their sins, or else we trust that they have confessed. But wearing your sin across your chest is unrepentant and therefore subject to different treatment by the parish.

IMO.

Correct.

 

[cestusdei]

I don’t know what happened to the Archbishop. He was very orthodox as a rector. No one wearing a rainbow sash will receive communion in my parish.

 

[Island_Oak]

Brad and Sola–great points and I guess I have to agree. There is fanning of flames on BOTH sides and appearing at a mass swathed in a banner of dissent is neither respectful nor a productive way of pursuing meaningful dialog. To me this is a tough issue–and a real challenge and cross for those directly affected.

 

[fix]

These posts are on target. When Catholics sin hopefully they recognize their sins, go to confession and have a firm purpose of ammendment not to sin again. The radical homosexuals commit sin and claim it is not a sin and then claim they are Catholic. They proceed to teach others they can act the same way and be right with Christ.

Remember the old saying? Error has no rights. How can one reject the 10 commandments and claim they are in communion with the church?

 

[Bob_Baran]

fix:

These posts are on target. When Catholics sin hopefully they recognize their sins, go to confession and have a firm purpose of ammendment not to sin again. The radical homosexuals commit sin and claim it is not a sin and then claim they are Catholic. They proceed to teach others they can act the same way and be right with Christ.

Remember the old saying? Error has no rights. How can one reject the 10 commandments and claim they are in communion with the church?

What we have today has been developed through secular moral relativism and situation ethics. Everyone has an opinion and no one is wrong because they are following their conscience.

 

[fix]

Bob Baran:

What we have today has been developed through secular moral relativism and situation ethics. Everyone has an opinion and no one is wrong because they are following their conscience.

Exactly. It is everywhere including the clergy. I think it is a mixture of poor formation and the attraction of pop culture. No one wants to stand out as “mean spirited” or “bigoted”. Bishop Sheen once said the world is sickening in its tolerance. What we need is more intolerance. Intolerance toward evil.

 

[Lisa_N]

Island Oak:

Brad and Sola–great points and I guess I have to agree. There is fanning of flames on BOTH sides and appearing at a mass swathed in a banner of dissent is neither respectful nor a productive way of pursuing meaningful dialog. To me this is a tough issue–and a real challenge and cross for those directly affected.

Could the priest diffuse the situation by giving a blessing rather than communion? Since I’m not through the conversion process I can’t take communion but I can receive a blessing. It would seem that wouldn’t make it such an issue.

I agree that engaging the rainbows in confrontation is probably not the answer but neither is meekly going along and not acknowledging that THEY are deliberately trying to provoke a response.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Island Oak:

Brad and Sola–great points and I guess I have to agree. There is fanning of flames on BOTH sides and appearing at a mass swathed in a banner of dissent is neither respectful nor a productive way of pursuing meaningful dialog. To me this is a tough issue–and a real challenge and cross for those directly affected.

Absolutely - much to be taken to prayer and fasting - most especially in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[Brad]

fix:

Exactly. It is everywhere including the clergy. I think it is a mixture of poor formation and the attraction of pop culture. No one wants to stand out as “mean spirited” or “bigoted”. Bishop Sheen once said the world is sickening in its tolerance. What we need is more intolerance. Intolerance toward evil.

It is particularly prevalent in the clergy that have “academic-asized” - those that have approached scholarship from the mainstream bent of our academic institutions - that which says that naturalism is all there is.

It would have been better if these clergy and religious were salt and light during their training but it seems they were drowned by the secular culture.

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

Could the priest diffuse the situation by giving a blessing rather than communion? Since I’m not through the conversion process I can’t take communion but I can receive a blessing. It would seem that wouldn’t make it such an issue.

I agree that engaging the rainbows in confrontation is probably not the answer but neither is meekly going along and not acknowledging that THEY are deliberately trying to provoke a response.

Lisa N

I agree with the blessing compromise - it is what is appropriate.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Lisa N:

Could the priest diffuse the situation by giving a blessing rather than communion?
Lisa N

Or better yet: Perhaps the priest could make a forehead cross and say, “Man, thou art dust and to dust though shalt return!”

OR…Even the usually ineffectual alternate Ash Wednesday phrase, “Turn from sin and follow the Gospel,” might have the desired effect in this case!

Well, those phrases would be appropriate, wouldn’t they?

Anna

 

[katherine2]

at one Mass a group of lay people tried to block the aisles to prevent sash-wearers from receiving Communion.

This is a grave sin to which these people put at risk their own eligibilty for communion. To phyiscally prevent a bishop of the church from ministering communion! Unbelieveable!

 

[Bob_Baran]

fix:

Exactly. It is everywhere including the clergy. I think it is a mixture of poor formation and the attraction of pop culture. No one wants to stand out as “mean spirited” or “bigoted”. Bishop Sheen once said the world is sickening in its tolerance. What we need is more intolerance. Intolerance toward evil.

I agree. Tolerance is only meaningful when we accept or tolerate what we know is good. Anything other than good, we must be intolerant.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

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.

Brad, I was about to post this to “fix,” because as soon as I read the article in the Catholic Spirit (the Archbishop’s newspaper), I had the same thought. I thought, "Oh boy! Here we go again. First McCarrick; now Archbishop Flynn. Have these people no shame? What do they take us for? (And, for that matter, what did they take the bishops for?) Fool us once, shame on you, etc… :

Then I “parsed” the sentences, looking for Clinton clauses, and they are there: "\

• “I got a clear understanding.”
• “a pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications”
• “be aware of the forces everywhere”
• “got no sense (that the Vatican was pushing for a single policy)”

And there are more.The only excuse I could find for believing all this is that Cardinal Arinze is going to need the votes of just such bishops as Harry Flynn “when the time comes.” Since the Church thinks in terms of centuries, perhaps we had better think at least in terms of years. Cardinal Arinze’s interesting experience at Georgetown last year has doubtless put him on notice that there are strange things afoot in the US.

Anyway, fix, I would withhold judgment for a while.

Anna

 

[asquared]

the so-called good Catholics who are catechists, Eucharistic ministers, lectors, parish council members and so forth, who are contracepting, divorced and remarried without annulments, taking their teenage daughters in for abortions and providing condoms to their sons, providing huge church weddings for their children who lived together for 5 years before marriage, cruising porn on the internet or satellite TV, hiring illegal aliens to clean their homes for less than minimum wage and no SS, cheating on their taxes, and all the others sins that beset us–what is Bishop Flynn’s take on barring them from communion? If their sins are hidden or of they are open causes for scandal, does it make a difference? Should he require everyone approaching communion to take a lie detector test to determine if they have confessed? Can we invent a “state of grace detetector” so ushers will know who to admit and who to turn away?

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

And one moere interesting thing: The headline in the Catholic spirit reads:

Archbishhop Flynn speaks to Vatican officials about Rainbow Sash protests

From this one would gather that the archbishop did the speaking (the initiating), and here, in his own newspaper, the events are referred to as “protests!” Hmmmnnn…

Anna

PS The subheading reads: “Cardinal Francis Arinze agrees issue requires clear teaching, pastoral sensitivity”
So?

A.E.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Please stop for a moment right now to pray for Archbishop Flynn. Bishops have a huge responsibility before God and they need our prayers! (While your at it, say a Hail Mary for those in the Rainbow Sash Movement and any other Catholics living in grave sin.)

I don’t like how the archbishop handles this group (and a number of other things for that matter), but for some reason God gave him this authority. I pray that God also gives him the grace to use this authority in a manner pleasing to God. He needs your prayers!