Chicago's Cardinal George Refuses Communion to Rainbow Sash Leader During Outreach Mass to Gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Midwest88 said:
Good for Cardinal George for refusing. He seems like a Cardinal we can count on whose faith is rock solid.

The church is in the Lake View community of Chicago, a community where a lot of the city’s LGBT community reside in or near. I passed by this church every time I visited my sibling (gay) when he lived in Lake View, which was about a 10-15 minute walk away. The church has a Sunday night mass for Catholic homosexuals. It’s a beautiful church; rather dark inside, though.
Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (AGLO) is the parish’s weekly Sunday night mass. The choir for that mass is compromised of mostly gays. My brother attended several masses when he sang in the choir. I believe that communion were administered, in good faith, to homosexuals that were chaste. That is my guess.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Cardinal George showed his love for his flock and the Catholic Church in the face of anger, hatred, defiance, arrogance and ignorance.The rainbow sash leader demonstrated his defiance for church teaching so he was not in a state of grace in which to receive the holy Eucharist and the Cardinal did not give him access to further sin by receving in an unworthy state.

In essence this heterodox group is demanding that the Catholic Church change its dogma to accept gay sex as normal and moral. This group is demanding that the Church change its position to accomodate their sin. That can never and will never happen. But they will continue to approach the Church as if it was a political party which could change its platform with enough political pressure. They will whine and shout and childishly complain that the Catholic Church is unfair. In reality it is only in the teaching of the Catholic Church that gays will ever find real truth and love and peace and good health. The Rainbow sash group claims to want the Eucharist but they do not want to pay the price of accepting God’s law in order to be worthy of the Eucharist. Jesus asked us to pick up our cross and to follow Him. All of us are required to do this. He also forgave our sins but demanded that we go and sin no more. The Rainbow Sash group said no thanks.

I also see no value in “special” masses for “special” groups and their “special” sins. We have all kinds of sexual sins and for example we don’t have special masses for adulterers and fornicators and porn addicts. We have confession and we have the holy Mass for all. What we do need desparately is adult catechisis so that all may learn what sins are and the need for frequent confession. I wonder if that special gay mass was preceded by an hour of confession?
 
I think that such a group is of value. The Catholic Church has not always been welcoming of this part of its flock. I had a gay friend in high school during the late 1990s and nice Catholic children who attended the parochial school were okay with using disgusting slurs about him. I could imagine what it was like in the late 1980s and early 1990s at the height of the AIDS scare. (When this outrreach was formed.). Even today I am dismayed at some of the vile language used on so called Catholic blogs. Rather than being fixated on this, perhaps these blogs should focus on resolving their own sins, such as their intolerance toward others.

I do feel for Cardinal George because it was a lose-lose for him with this Mass. However, I hope that the regular participants in the group appreciated the efforts. The man who filmed the outburst is a local conservative gay activist who runs a Chicago blog. I think that he does get way into conspiracy theories, so I cannot read through his political posts. However, I do go there for local Chi-town gossip once-in-awhile. He mentioned that he was unaware that such a group existed in his post on this and wanted to get involved.
 
kelvinf said:
But what the heck is all of this? What is an “Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach”?
Click to expand...
Precisely. Let’s start right there. The horrific aftermath (the behavior during the Mass, etc.) is another topic, and a good one.

I fail to understand the need for pandering in the first place. All of us major sinners, including all of us major heterosexual sinners, are always “reached out to,” and at every Mass. The Church calls sinners to itself because our Founder, Jesus, did and does. Anyone here want to start with which Commandments they have never broken? For most of it’s not many, if there’s even one.

The whole idea of Specialty Sins is absurd on its face. It’s also playing right into the Identity Politics assumptions of the modern secular media. Even when a physician treats, or concentrates on, a particular population, he or she does so by considering the patient as a whole person. The patient is not “an identity,” a demographic group, or anything of the sort. The patient is an individual who is ill and in need of medical care or preventative care. And a specific symptom, or set of characteristics, is never isolated from all the other conditions, because the physician needs to integrate those into the general condition of that patient in order to treat the particulars. And we are all patients of God.

The Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. will never regain the respect it deserves if it doesn’t start reclaiming its truly separate identity which gives it standing and credibility to evangelize in the first place. Continuing to adopt the rhetoric and the methods of the secular over-sexualized culture will only dilute the Church’s identity.
 
Midwest88 said:
Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach (AGLO) is the parish’s weekly Sunday night mass. The choir for that mass is **compromised **of mostly gays. My brother attended several masses when he sang in the choir. I believe that communion were administered, in good faith, to homosexuals that were chaste. That is my guess.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you mean to say comprised, not compromised? No, leave it the way it is written because I agree this whole thing is compromised!

:rolleyes:
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Precisely. Let’s start right there. The horrific aftermath (the behavior during the Mass, etc.) is another topic, and a good one.

I fail to understand the need for pandering in the first place. All of us major sinners, including all of us major heterosexual sinners, are always “reached out to,” and at every Mass. The Church calls sinners to itself because our Founder, Jesus, did and does. Anyone here want to start with which Commandments they have never broken? For most of it’s not many, if there’s even one.

**The whole idea of Specialty Sins is absurd on its face. ** It’s also playing right into the Identity Politics assumptions of the modern secular media. Even when a physician treats, or concentrates on, a particular population, he or she does so by considering the patient as a whole person. The patient is not “an identity,” a demographic group, or anything of the sort. The patient is an individual who is ill and in need of medical care or preventative care. And a specific symptom, or set of characteristics, is never isolated from all the other conditions, because the physician needs to integrate those into the general condition of that patient in order to treat the particulars. And we are all patients of God.

The Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. will never regain the respect it deserves if it doesn’t start reclaiming its truly separate identity which gives it standing and credibility to evangelize in the first place. Continuing to adopt the rhetoric and the methods of the secular over-sexualized culture will only dilute the Church’s identity.
Click to expand...
đź‘Ť đź‘Ť

Absolutely so! And another disturbing thing to me is that the Church in this particular instance, may have unwittingly left the door open to sacrilege. To clarify, I give kudos to Cardinal George and his courage in refusing communion, but really, was it not anticipated that there would be a great possibility for trouble with a Mass like this, and even worse, the possibility of defilement of the Blessed Sacrament? These people have an unrelenting agenda - it has been shown time and time again. Really, if you leave your naivete behind, you know that many of the Rainbow people claim they are married to their partners. I heard it was reported on Catholic radio that after Cardinal Dolan’s Gay Mass at St. Francis a while back, some of the men had wedding bands on.

Just sayin…🤷
 
Tigg said:
Didn’t you mean to say comprised, not compromised? No, leave it the way it is written because I agree this whole thing is compromised!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What’s with the emoticon?

Even with my grammar mistake you apparantly were to figure what I meant.
 
Midwest88 said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
Such as using the f-word… Please go over to some of the traditional Catholic blogs and please explain to me why that doesn’t offend you. Also, Voris’ language is quite offensive.

(Of course, they seem to be offended by everyone not them.)
 
I’m just going to say this and then I’ll duck for cover. At my wedding seventeen years ago, the priest who was our main celebrant offered communion to non-Catholics and Catholics alike. And people who were there *still *talk about it with admiration. For so many here, this is nothing but sacrilege. But the Church didn’t exist on Holy Thursday or Good Friday – at that time, His followers were just Christians. I can’t even fathom Christ refusing Himself to earnest Christians, no matter what my faith teaches. So paint me as a heretic (:rolleyes:) but the more who receive Christ, the better. He heals – surely Murray is in need of healing.

And regarding this specific story, how did the presiding priest know that Murray shouldn’t receive communion? How could he know that Murray hadn’t recently gone to confession? Or is rudeness in Mass a valid reason for denying communion?
 
kag1982 said:
Such as using the f-word… Please go over to some of the **traditional **Catholic blogs and please explain to me why that doesn’t offend you. Also, Voris’ language is quite offensive.

(Of course, they seem to be offended by everyone not them.)
Click to expand...
Now this is really sad …that we are such a fractured church - as if we don’t already have enough problems!
 
kelvinf said:
I am not sure if it’s America or Canada but can pro-life supporters also perform like this in front of an abortion clinic without getting arrested and sent to jail?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about Canada, but in America - pro-lifers can openly protest as long as they aren’t on private property.
 
holyfamily1 said:
I don’t know about Canada, but in America - pro-lifers can openly protest as long as they aren’t on private property.
Click to expand...
That depends. Many states have buffer or “bubble” laws that really require a minimum distance from the building or entrance and in some states from workers or those seeking “services” regardless of where they are. I believe there are similar laws in Canada also, but don’t quote me in that.

I seem to remember that there is at least one state that also has buffer laws for places of worship. What is sad is that those who profess a faith and love it so much that they would intentionally disrupt worship.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m just going to say this and then I’ll duck for cover. At my wedding seventeen years ago, the priest who was our main celebrant offered communion to non-Catholics and Catholics alike. And people who were there *still *talk about it with admiration. For so many here, this is nothing but sacrilege. But the Church didn’t exist on Holy Thursday or Good Friday – at that time, His followers were just Christians. I can’t even fathom Christ refusing Himself to earnest Christians, no matter what my faith teaches. So paint me as a heretic (:rolleyes:) but the more who receive Christ, the better. He heals – surely Murray is in need of healing.

And regarding this specific story, how did the presiding priest know that Murray shouldn’t receive communion? How could he know that Murray hadn’t recently gone to confession? Or is rudeness in Mass a valid reason for denying communion?
Click to expand...
Your post is a good example of why we need deeper knowledge of our faith through ongoing adult catechesis. Your post reveals you to be a warm and generous person and I understand why you would like everyone to be able to receive Christ through communion. So do I, however, I also understand that Christ has instructed that we be worthy of this magnificent privilege. We should have no mortal or venial sins on our soul and we must make good use of the sacrament of reconciliation prior to receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Receiving Christ into our bodies is an awesome privilege and we must carefully prepare ourselves. Non Catholics would not be able to prepare themselves. I suggest you consult the catechism and read the Diary of St Faustina where Christ made it quite clear to St Faustina that even some consecrated religious were offending Him by unworthily receiving.
 
Demetra2 said:
Your post is a good example of why we need deeper knowledge of our faith through ongoing adult catechesis. Your post reveals you to be a warm and generous person and I understand why you would like everyone to be able to receive Christ through communion. So do I, however, I also understand that Christ has instructed that we be worthy of this magnificent privilege. We should have no mortal or venial sins on our soul and we must make good use of the sacrament of reconciliation prior to receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Receiving Christ into our bodies is an awesome privilege and we must carefully prepare ourselves. Non Catholics would not be able to prepare themselves. I suggest you consult the catechism and read the Diary of St Faustina where Christ made it quite clear to St Faustina that even some consecrated religious were offending Him by unworthily receiving.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I was exceptionally catechized and I never claimed that the Church would sanction non-Catholics receiving the Blessed Sacrament. I merely stated that the act of doing so at my wedding gave those non-Catholics in attendance a wholly welcoming invitation to the Church. If Christ permitted Judas to partake, I cannot accept that He’d be quick to reject most.
 
gracepoole said:
Respectfully, I was exceptionally catechized and I never claimed that the Church would sanction non-Catholics receiving the Blessed Sacrament. I merely stated that the act of doing so at my wedding gave those non-Catholics in attendance a wholly welcoming invitation to the Church. If Christ permitted Judas to partake, I cannot accept that He’d be quick to reject most.
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly am not wise enough to decide who is worthy to receive which is why I am grateful for the catechism and church dogma. I don’t have to decide these things. I only have to learn my faith and be obedient to it. Makes life so much easier! Faith precedes understanding.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m just going to say this and then I’ll duck for cover. At my wedding seventeen years ago, the priest who was our main celebrant offered communion to non-Catholics and Catholics alike. And people who were there *still *talk about it with admiration. For so many here, this is nothing but sacrilege. But the Church didn’t exist on Holy Thursday or Good Friday – at that time, His followers were just Christians. I can’t even fathom Christ refusing Himself to earnest Christians, no matter what my faith teaches. So paint me as a heretic (:rolleyes:) but the more who receive Christ, the better. He heals – surely Murray is in need of healing.

And regarding this specific story, how did the presiding priest know that Murray shouldn’t receive communion? How could he know that Murray hadn’t recently gone to confession? Or is rudeness in Mass a valid reason for denying communion?
Click to expand...
Christ established a Church He speaks through with authority. To deny that is hardly consistent with the faith.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m just going to say this and then I’ll duck for cover. At my wedding seventeen years ago, the priest who was our main celebrant offered communion to non-Catholics and Catholics alike. And people who were there *still *talk about it with admiration. For so many here, this is nothing but sacrilege. But the Church didn’t exist on Holy Thursday or Good Friday – at that time, His followers were just Christians. I can’t even fathom Christ refusing Himself to earnest Christians, no matter what my faith teaches. So paint me as a heretic (:rolleyes:) but the more who receive Christ, the better. He heals – surely Murray is in need of healing.

And regarding this specific story, how did the presiding priest know that Murray shouldn’t receive communion? How could he know that Murray hadn’t recently gone to confession? Or is rudeness in Mass a valid reason for denying communion?
Click to expand...
He presumably was wearing his rainbow sash. The priest was being prudent. It’s like administering it to someone wearing a button saying “Keep Abortion Legal”.

And canon law prohibits open communion, and it should, because Protestants are not in sufficient communion to do so, denying the Real Presence. An Orthodox may do so, though, as they do believe in the Real Presence in the same way we as Catholics do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top