A rainbow sash isn’t the same thing as a “Keep Abortion Legal” button. This Mass was celebrating a Catholic outreach group for gays and lesbians – why should a rainbow sash indicate a rejection of Church teachings and not an affiliation with this Catholic group?
This:
I understand why you would want to extend the Eucharist to as many people as possible. But St Paul tells us that those who don’t discern the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist eat and drink judgment upon themselves. That includes about 99% of Protestants.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 hereticrolleyes
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?
In charity, I am intentionally assuming naivete.
How about Catholics for Choice?
I was just thinking the same thing. Though I don’t know if they have an actual affiliation with the Church or if they just use the name?
Why has a news article about gay activists disrupting a mass turned into a rant about traditional Catholics?
No more or less affiliated than the Rainbow Sash Movement, I should believe. Just a group of Catholics-in-name who think they are better authorities on morality than the Church and formed their own little flock of lemmings.
It always strikes me as strange than folks like Michael Voris are denied permission to use the word Catholic in something like the former RealCatholicTV, but something like Catholics for Choice doesn’t come under fire for doing so. I guess its diocese by diocese in terms of enforcement, butNo more or less affiliated than the Rainbow Sash Movement, I should believe. Just a group of Catholics-in-name who think they are better authorities on morality than the Church and formed their own little flock of lemmings.
Are they actually teaching that abortion is OK and calling for dogmatic changes?
Interpret as you wish – from Catholics for Choice’s web site:
“…if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” - Matt. 18:17
So they are relying upon the threadbare “conscience” thingee. (Curious how they always forget about the rest of the phrase: “well-formed”)
Exactly. The ‘fear and hatred’ line has gotten pretty old. And love…I didn’t see any love on display from them. If this movement were truly of God, we’d see more Christ-like behavior from them, behavior more like we saw from Gandhi and Operation Rescue.
Actually the US, Canadian and Mexican bishops have all stated that CFC is not a Catholic organization. The difference between Mr. Voris and CFC is that Voris is obedient to his bishop by not using catholic. The CFC has no regard for obidence to anyone but their poorly formed consciences.It always strikes me as strange than folks like Michael Voris are denied permission to use the word Catholic in something like the former RealCatholicTV, but something like Catholics for Choice doesn’t come under fire for doing so. I guess its diocese by diocese in terms of enforcement, but
Sounds pretty much what it is. They’re both in opposition to church teaching, but you’re right in the minor point that they’re not in the business of changing church doctrine, but that could be because they believe the Church has no authority to dictate this whatsoever and/or that the Church is too unflappable on the topic of abortion that it would consider changing its stance. What CfC generally does is focus on making abortion more widely available through legal and financial support.
I know the Church of LDS has actually sued groups that use the name “Mormon” but are unaffiliated or considered umbrellas for apostates. I assume the Church could do the same, but yet it doesn’t. ?
Agreed – although “well-formed” usually seems to be code for “read and discern all you like, but if you still end up questioning at the end of that exercise, you’re damned.” I can’t believe the Church’s teachings on conscience were meant to end up there either.
It might unintentionally create an ecumenical issue though, especially with the PNCC and Orthodox Churches (they do formally call themselves Catholic too by the way - just not in communion with us).
