G
gracepoole
Guest
Ah, good point. The Church is more complex than the Church of the LDS in this respect.
Chicago's Cardinal George Refuses Communion to Rainbow Sash Leader During Outreach Mass to Gays
- Status
M
markomalley
Guest
Maybe, but my interpretation of “well formed” is that it is each of our responsibility to study, understand, and accept the teachings of the Church as being truthful. Once we have done that, then our conscience will be able to guide us in the right thing to do when we have to apply that doctrine to individual situations in our day-to-day lives.
Take,** for example** (since we’re talking about “Catholics” for Choice):
- You study the Church’s teachings in regards to abortion. You know that the Church teaches that abortion is gravely evil. You know that the Church teaches that life begins from the moment of fertilization. (For the purposes of this example,) Maybe you have a little bit of a problem with that, as you went through public school where they taught that the baby was just a clump of protoplasm. But you work through that…see the logic behind the Church’s teaching, and come to believe that the Church is correct in the situation.
- You end up finding yourself pregnant at some really, really inconvenient time in your life.
- You have a girlfriend who, when you confide this to her, suggests that you go down to the clinic and have them give you a prescription for an abortion pill. She tells you, “it’s no big deal…just a little cramping and then you sort of feel like you have to go to the bathroom…and then it’s done.”
- Chances are, you will, because you have formed your conscience well, be utterly revolted at the idea and not even seriously consider it.
- Even if you do consider it, it will bug the heck out of you. All those second thoughts going through your head.
- If you don’t listen to your conscience and decide to make an appointment, you will have a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach when you are on the phone to make the appointment and as you are driving to the clinic. That is your conscience talking to you, saying “don’t do it.”
- And it will get stronger and stronger the closer you get to the clinic.
- And if you actually do go in and swallow the pill…your own conscience will convict you.
K
kag1982
Guest
I was pointing out from my experience why I think that a gay outreach group is important and necessary… Because the Church has not always been welcoming of this group and some corners are still really intolerant. I frankly didn’t even know such groups existed before I clicked on a link associated with the “great foot washing scandal” in March and was disgusted with what I found.
E
epan
Guest
My opinion is that the protest was inappropriate, and that the Cardinal was correct in refusing communion.
If what the protestors say is true, that the Cardinal used his influence to oppose anti-discrimination legislation, then it would appear that their allegation of bigotry is founded factually, and they have justification to protest his behavior. As I understand it, opposition to anti-discrimination laws is in opposition to Church teachings.
I watched the video of the outdoor protest, and I thought that it was absurd. There are much more effective ways to be heard, and to create change.
F
fix
Guest
What is sad is to see anyone defending these fringe groups. Not that long ago actions like this would have been universally condemned. It is a scandal.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
Brother epan, I believe you may be missing the woods for the trees. The fact of the matter is that homosexual acts are immoral, and a homosexual marriage basically enshrines it as acceptable. It is true that opposition to anti-discrimination laws is opposition to Church teaching, but DOMA is not anti-discrimination. One does not call it anti-discrimination if it is legalising what is immoral. If there was a law that legalised child marriage or polygamy, would you consider it anti-discriminatory? This is precisely the kind of issue we are confronted with.
What matters in the end is what is moral. We all use discrimination in some way - individuals discriminate between right and wrong; employers discriminate against the hardworking and the lazy; police discriminate between the suspicious and the innocuous; courts discriminate between the innocent and the guilty - however, nobody calls this discriminatory. It is only unfair and immoral discrimination that the Church opposes. However, legalising homosexual marriage and destroying the traditional institution of marriage is not moral by any standards of the Christian faith, and it is important for us to differentiate a true marriage between a man and a woman, from a union of two men or two women.
K
kelvinf
Guest
What exactly do you mean by intolerance? Because some people seem to have a different definition of that word.
T
Tigg
Guest
Why, indeed!Why has a news article about gay activists disrupting a mass turned into a rant about traditional Catholics?
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I wonder, if so-called same sex marriage becomes legal across the country (heaven forbid), will these protests against the Catholic Church (by gays) stop?
After all, if gays get what they say they want (legal civil marriage equal to all other legal civil marriages), then why would they care what the Church teaches? At that point it will be clear that the Church lost the cultural battle to save marriage…so the protests should cease at that time.
*
“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”*
After all, if gays get what they say they want (legal civil marriage equal to all other legal civil marriages), then why would they care what the Church teaches? At that point it will be clear that the Church lost the cultural battle to save marriage…so the protests should cease at that time.
Correct?
Cardinal George in 2011:*
“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”*
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
Brother epan, I believe you may be missing the forest for the trees. The fact of the matter is that homosexual acts are immoral, and legalising homosexual marriage basically enshrines what is immoral as acceptable. It is true that opposition to anti-discrimination laws is opposition to Church teaching, but DOMA is not anti-discrimination. One does not call it anti-discrimination if it is legalising what is immoral. If there was a law that legalised child marriage or polygamy, would you consider it anti-discriminatory? This is precisely the kind of issue we are confronted with.
What matters in the end is what is moral. We all use discrimination in some way - individuals discriminate between right and wrong; employers discriminate against the hardworking and the lazy; police discriminate between the suspicious and the innocuous; courts discriminate between the innocent and the guilty - however, nobody calls this discriminatory. It is only unfair and immoral discrimination that the Church opposes. However, legalising homosexual marriage and destroying the traditional institution of marriage is not moral by any standards of the Christian faith, and it is because of this that we must differentiate between a true marriage between a man and a woman, from a union of two men or two women.
Of course, if your question is why homosexual marriages are immoral to begin with, then that’s a different topic altogether, but I’d be glad to help you understand.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
On the bright side, it took 2000 years of Satan conspiring against the Church of the one true faith to produce this complexity. The Mormons splintered in less than 20.
T
Tigg
Guest
The mavericks do not listen to these words, or they are conveniently interpreted via their own subjectiveness. Those who reject authority and point to the dissidents as having validity, who soften teaching until it can no longer be recognized, who think they are right and the Church is wrong are the most insidious threat of all. They harm the Church with their continual sniping and stay, not because they believe in objective truth, but because they wish to bring Her truth down.
E
epan
Guest
I said nothing about the morality of homosexual acts. I get that, and I support the Cardinal’s decision not to give communion. It was stated by his representative that he refused communion because that is not the place to make a political statement.Brother epan, I believe you may be missing the forest for the trees. The fact of the matter is that homosexual acts are immoral, and legalising homosexual marriage basically enshrines what is immoral as acceptable. It is true that opposition to anti-discrimination laws is opposition to Church teaching, but DOMA is not anti-discrimination. One does not call it anti-discrimination if it is legalising what is immoral. If there was a law that legalised child marriage or polygamy, would you consider it anti-discriminatory? This is precisely the kind of issue we are confronted with.
What matters in the end is what is moral. We all use discrimination in some way - individuals discriminate between right and wrong; employers discriminate against the hardworking and the lazy; police discriminate between the suspicious and the innocuous; courts discriminate between the innocent and the guilty - however, nobody calls this discriminatory. It is only unfair and immoral discrimination that the Church opposes. However, legalising homosexual marriage and destroying the traditional institution of marriage is not moral by any standards of the Christian faith, and it is because of this that we must differentiate between a true marriage between a man and a woman, from a union of two men or two women.
Of course, if your question is why homosexual marriages are immoral to begin with, then that’s a different topic altogether, but I’d be glad to help you understand.
Regardless of the morality of the sexual act, it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation or identity. Speculating as to another persons sexual behavior, and then discriminating against that person based on speculation is wrong, in my opinion. If the Cardinal opposed an anti-discrimination bill, then I believe that he acted immorally. I have not researched the claim that he did oppose such legislation. I don’t think that it was unusual for clergy to do so, at one time, so I do not discount the allegation as improbably, either. One wrong action does not justify another one.
My statements have nothing to do with homosexual marriage. I think that topic has been beaten to death here, and just about everything there is to say on the topic has been said. I feel no need to read or discuss any more about that, except that the legal issues interest me. You will find that most of my posts on the topic are speculation on the legal ramifications of court action, and also the sweep of historic change that we are witnessing.
K
kag1982
Guest
The language that some of the traditionalist blogs use to refer to gay people is inappropriate. Such as the f word. There is something called loving the sinner. Even if only activists are being referred to they shouldn’t get down in the mud. I’m assuming that some of the language thrown around casually in some quarters will get people banned from this forum.
C
crenfro
Guest
Hello.
irishpatrick’s post bears repeating, and repeating again.
Also gets me wondering how well I’d bear up under persecution.
My two cents, please take or leave it.
irishpatrick’s post bears repeating, and repeating again.
Also gets me wondering how well I’d bear up under persecution.
My two cents, please take or leave it.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
As some have said before, the best way to reduce the chance of this happening again is to bring back Communion rails, and everyone must receive on the tongue…no more carrying the Lord (in the Eucharist) away to give to someone else. It is for the benefit and protection of souls, and for the honoring of our Lord.
We cannot stop people from doing vile acts, yet we can make it much more difficult to make profane actions against the Lord.
We cannot stop people from doing vile acts, yet we can make it much more difficult to make profane actions against the Lord.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
Amen to this.
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
People that have just gone to confession don’t act like this man did–especially at Mass.
But aside from that–receiving Holy Communion, the body and blood of our Lord, is not a right. The man’s blatant, obnoxious, and sacreligious behavior at Mass was easily full reason that the Cardinal should deny him Communion (as he did). This was for the sake of this man’s soul, to protect him from committing further sacrilege, as well as protecting the body and blood of the Lord.
The occasions where it is obvious that a person should be denied Communion are rare. But this was occasion was definitely one of them – a no-brainer.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I am not sure that the will is present to make that change. There used to be a day when people, no matter their issues, would not so blatantly profane the Lord for all to see, yet we live in a different world and bold action is required. Bringing back Communion Rails, and mandating reception on the tongue would help in many areas. It would protect the Lord from being profaned, it would help create an atmosphere of sacredness around Communion, it would require more time during Communion (which would offer more people time to pray after receiving the Lord), and it would require Catholics to kneel before the Lord–everyone except those with physical limitations would receive at the rail, and even those with physical limitations would still receive on the tongue.
- Status