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.
But does this Cardinal know for a fact that this person is having sex outside marriage?
And if he is having sex outside marriage, does he know for a fact that this person did not go to confession?
The man was being disrespectful and disruptive during holy Mass. He wasn’t behaving himself! Obviously he wasn’t in the proper state to receive Communion. Imagine if there were children at this Mass? How would they be affected by someone acting like this?
I’m becoming convinced that Communion only on the tongue is the way to go from here on out. I hope the church leaders will change the practice of receiving on the hand.
 
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 will add: while also protecting the faithful from scandal that might harm their faith.
 
But does this Cardinal know for a fact that this person is having sex outside marriage?
And if he is having sex outside marriage, does he know for a fact that this person did not go to confession?
That does not matter. He is promoting an evil ideology.
 
But does this Cardinal know for a fact that this person is having sex outside marriage?
And if he is having sex outside marriage, does he know for a fact that this person did not go to confession?
The problem is that this person is creating a public scandal by the wearing of that rainbow sash. He is publicly claiming allegiance to a group that is advocating heresy (see post #44 for details and substantiation).

This a a clear case of Canon 915.

A person who is fornicating and/or committing adultery, but doing so in an occult fashion, is not causing a scandal – people don’t know for a fact that he is doing x, y, or z. Therefore, Canon 915 would not apply; however, he should restrain himself, per Canon 916 (instead of being restrained per Canon 915).
 
Oh, I see…i missed the part in the article about the man standing up with his back toward the Cardinal during the mass. I had read the other part that said there were “no protests” inside the church and thought the man was denied only because he was wearing a sash…
I agree, that was not proper for him to do…had he not done that, he might have received the communion.
So indeed, he was protesting inside the church. It was silent, but it was there.
Yes. His behavior was reprehensible. But the sash in itself would have been sufficient grounds, as well. See below.
The problem is that this person is creating a public scandal by the wearing of that rainbow sash. He is publicly claiming allegiance to a group that is advocating heresy (see post #44 for details and substantiation).
He wasn’t at Mass to worship; he was there to make a scene and a statement and to thumb his nose at the teachings of the Church.
 
That does not matter. He is promoting an evil ideology.
If this is so, why did this priest cut a cake celebrating the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach group’s anniversary after Mass? Why did he refer to the group as “a good group” that merited celebration?
 
If this is so, why did this priest cut a cake celebrating the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach group’s anniversary after Mass? Why did he refer to the group as “a good group” that merited celebration?
I am not really sure. I don’t know anything about the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian outreach group, but I would assume (or hope, at least), that the object of such a group is to provide support for people with same-sex attraction to live chastely in a world where everyone is encouraged to do the opposite.

It’s confusing, though. If that is the object of their group, they should really name it something different, as the tags “Gay” and “Lesbian” imply a person who is living the gay lifestyle.
 
If this is so, why did this priest cut a cake celebrating the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach group’s anniversary after Mass? Why did he refer to the group as “a good group” that merited celebration?
AGLO is a successor organization to Dignity. Dignity promotes the idea that homosexual conduct is morally neutral (or morally good) and should be fully accepted by the Church.

From the AGLO website:

Dignity Chicago voted to reject the Cardinal’s plan as unacceptable. Officers of the Board resigned from Dignity Chicago to assume leadership in working with the Archdiocese to continue the Sunday evening Mass at St. Sebastian’s.
 
If this is so, why did this priest cut a cake celebrating the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach group’s anniversary after Mass? Why did he refer to the group as “a good group” that merited celebration?
Because the person protesting was not doing it as part of AGLO, which, as you state, is a legitimate and good ministry of the Archdiocese of Chicago, but on behalf of the Rainbow Sash Movement, which is, well, not a ministry of the Archdiocese.

Mr. O’Malley,
But the year after there was a memorandum of understanding reached on AGLO. We can charitably assume that they were convinced of Church teaching. In fact, going by a brief read-through of their resources, it seems to bear out.
 
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.
Consciences, even inadequately formed ones, are the reason why abortionists HATE pro-life protesters. Women inherently know that they are carrying a baby. And the function that those protesters have is to remind women about what their conscience is already telling them.
I know this is not exactly on topic, at this moment, but I wanted to tell you I think you’ve presented this, beautifully, and I’m keeping it and printing it for my daughter to read, someday. (She’s only four, but I doubt I’ll find “well formed conscience” better explained, by the time she’s ready for it.) Thanks for this!
 
I know this is not exactly on topic, at this moment, but I wanted to tell you I think you’ve presented this, beautifully, and I’m keeping it and printing it for my daughter to read, someday. (She’s only four, but I doubt I’ll find “well formed conscience” better explained, by the time she’s ready for it.) Thanks for this!
Thanks, gee…😊
 
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.

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.”*
Sadly the answer to your question is “No”. These pro gay marriage groups will not stop at legal civil marriage .In fact our struggle is just beginning because they will not be satisfied by the recent ruling. They will not stop until they can crack the Catholic Church and will insist on sacramental Catholic marriages for gay couples. Of course this can never happen but it makes me wonder what trouble lies ahead for the Catholic church. Fasten your seat belts because it is going to be a bumpy ride. Thank goodness we have the Holy Spirit on our side!
 
Because the person protesting was not doing it as part of AGLO, which, as you state, is a legitimate and good ministry of the Archdiocese of Chicago, but on behalf of the Rainbow Sash Movement, which is, well, not a ministry of the Archdiocese.

Mr. O’Malley,
But the year after there was a memorandum of understanding reached on AGLO. We can charitably assume that they were convinced of Church teaching. In fact, going by a brief read-through of their resources, it seems to bear out.
I can’t, out of respect for CAF rules, show any form of disrespect for Cardinal Bernadin.

I will grant that you will not see any materials on AGLO that advocate the Church changing their teachings nor will you see any explicit endorsement of homosexual activity. But compare AGLO’s “mission statement” to Courage’s

AGLO:
*We, the members of the Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach, as people of God, create a sense of community for those who wish to reconcile their sexual orientation with their faith; provide an accepting and affirming atmosphere in which to worship in the Catholic tradition; provide opportunities for integration of personal experience through spiritual growth; share our distinctive gifts with each other and the Church at large, and witness our Catholic faith to the gay and lesbian community.
*Courage:
  • Persons with homosexual desires have always been with us; however, until recent times, there has been little, if any, formal outreach from the Church in the way of support groups or information for such persons. Most were left to work out their path on their own. As a result, they found themselves listening to and accepting the secular society’s perspective and opting to act on their same-sex desires.
His Eminence, the late Terence Cardinal Cooke of New York, was aware of, and troubled by this situation. He knew that the individual dealing with same-sex attractions truly needed to experience the freedom of interior chastity and in that freedom find the steps necessary to living a fully Christian life in communion with God and others. He was concerned that many would not find this path and would be constantly trying to get their needs met in ways that ultimately do not satisfy the desires of the heart.

In response to this concern, he decided to form a spiritual support system which would assist men and women with same-sex attractions in living chaste lives in fellowship, truth and love. Knowing of Fr. John Harvey’s extensive ministry experience in this field, he invited him to come to his Archdiocese. With the help of the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R., and others, Fr. Harvey began the Courage Apostolate with its first meeting in September, 1980 at the Shrine of Mother Seton in South Ferry.
*You will note that there is no reference to chastity in AGLO’s mission statement. In fact, if you look on their website, you will have a really hard time finding “chastity” mentioned anywhere. (It is, in exactly one spot in a reproduction of a USCCB document)

Instead, they talk about “reconciling their sexual orientation with their faith.” Honestly, that can be taken in multiple ways.

Courage, on the other hand, addresses the need for chastity and living a chaste life throughout their site.

I will grant you that Courage is a national program while AGLO is an archdiocesan program, so Courage undoubtedly has more resources at their disposal…and that may be why the site has better resources.

On the other hand, since living a chaste life is so essential, particularly for a person with same sex attraction (considering that a major cross for them is sexual in nature), you’d think they’d bring up the topic a little more boldly.

You may also want to go to the OP and read through the whole article cited…and then go to the (homosexual) Windy City Times and read on there. You will find reactions from AGLO members (and leaders) that don’t really sound consistent with Church teaching.

For example,
*“One of my brothers, a member of my community, who is a full and equal member of the body of Christ, was denied communion. So I got back in line and I brought him communion, as I would for anyone else,” Cronin told Windy City Times after the Mass. Cronin, who is a lesbian, has been involved with AGLO for two years and is also a cantor.
*Jesus taught us to be “wise as serpents and simple as doves.” (Matt 10:16)

A lot of people are really, really good at being as simple as doves. That is great, tremendous on what they do. But maybe on the gullibility front, they should work on manifesting their “serpent” side a bit.

Bottom line is that I would “hope” they were teaching and acting in accordance with all the Church’s teaching on the subject…but I’d prefer to have that actually validated…and validated thoroughly…prior to believing it. And, considering peoples’ souls are at stake, I believe that to be the most charitable thing to do.
 
In reading postings on the Rainbow Sash Movement site, there is indication that efforts were undertaken on the part of RSM and Cardinal George for dialogue, reflecting that the only acceptable outcome would be on terms dictated by RSM.

Below is just one of the postings on said site, back in January. Notice the misstatements if not outright misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on the subject of homosexual relations and regard for homosexuals.
Rainbow Sash Movement responds to Cardinal Francis George’s pastoral on Gay Marriage.
Posted on January 1, 2013 by Rainbow Sash Movement
As Gay Marriage gains momentum in our society across the board, we have an opportunity in early January in Illinois to come down on the right side of history, by supporting Marriage Equality.
Perhaps the loudest voices of opposition lately have been coming from the Catholic Conference of Illinois under the leadership of Cardinal Francis George of Chicago. It is not surprising to us that Vatican’s Christmas media blitz of bigotry is followed by this recent pastoral by Cardinal George.
Like the Pope the Cardinal seems to think that the family is threatened “to its foundations” by attempts to evolve marriage’s “true structure.” Marriage first and foremost has always been an expression of love. This is an example of why reasonable people cannot buy into the Cardinal George’s reasoning that LGBT people as “intrinsically disordered” and thus lesser, unauthentic human beings is seeking their exclusion from society and marriage by whatever means necessary. This has more do with personal biases than Church Teachings, or the promotion of the Gospels.
The Cardinal is seeking our exclusion from society; seeking to scapegoat us for society’s downfall by promoting blatant untruths about the nature of gay people and their relationships. This pastoral is the most recent example of an out of control person seeking to demean the Chicago LGBT Community by pejorative terms when earlier attempts have failed. Giving the timing of this pastoral one can see the paw prints of the Vatican all over it. It is a more localized media blitz of bigotry.
The Cardinal claims that based on the complementarity of the two sexes that the love of a man and a woman joined in a marital union is open to life, and that’s how families are created and society goes along. … It’s not in our doctrine. It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of reason and understanding the way nature operates.”
This is certainly one of the options of marriage the others are adoption, or no children. Those decisions are in the hands of the respective married couple whatever sexual orientation they may be. Cardinal George speaks of marriage from purely sacramental platform, and that is his right; however, the state has the right to develop marriage from a legal perspective based on equality, fairness and the US Constitution.
Joe Murray the Executive Director of the Rainbow Sash Movement said “he seems to be backing away from Scripture and church teachings to explain his resistance to Marriage Equality and places the whole debate under the mantle of reason and natural law. If he is sincere about this I once again challenge him to a public debate at any Catholic College in Illinois. I am not afraid of reason or natural law, but bigotry is another matter.
The Rainbow Sash Movement would encourage law makers in Illinois to allow for the options to all communities of faith to either perform LGBT marriage or not perform such ceremonies in their houses of worship.
It is time for Gay Marriage in Illinois.
Rainbow Sash Movement Board of Directors
In September 2012, Mr. Murray himself submitted a post exoriating Archbishop Cordileone.

It is clear that RSM is moving towards the direction that New Ways Ministry and Dignity went. Nothing less than surrender of and capitulation on the teaching on homosexual practice will do.
,
 
The videos show just some of the outdoor demonstration. A large black banner with the word “Bigotry” prominent is stretched across the sidewalk at the base of the church’s front stairs.
So these protesters are upset and calling this Cardinal names while disrupting the Mass because he actually teaches what the Vatican teaches and is “politically active”? In other words he is exercising his First Amendment Rights and operating his diocese in ways they do not agree with. Oh, the HORROR!!! :rolleyes:

They keep on using the term “bigot”, but I don’t think it means what they think it means. These protesters actually remind me of a certain church group from Kansas always calling other people hurtful names and not trying to engage others with differing viewpoints in charitable conversations. These protesters also don’t understand the US Constitution or the legal doctrine of separation of Church and State - the People, including religious leaders, have always been free to use religion to advance their political arguments. The Cardinal is also free to run his own diocese the way he sees fit.

As for the communion issue. From an outsiders perspective I’ve never understood why these active gay Catholics, who obviously dissent from Vatican teaching, attempt to receive communion. If they sincerely believe all that the Vatican claims for itself regarding authority, infallibility, etc. then it logically follows that they would accept what the Vatican teaches on homosexuality, transubstantiation, Mass, etc. Last time I checked Christians in the West who don’t agree with Vatican are called Protestants.
 
As for the communion issue. From an outsiders perspective I’ve never understood why these active gay Catholics, who obviously dissent from Vatican teaching, attempt to receive communion. If they sincerely believe all that the Vatican claims for itself regarding authority, infallibility, etc. then it logically follows that they would accept what the Vatican teaches on homosexuality, transubstantiation, Mass, etc. Last time I checked Christians in the West who don’t agree with Vatican are called Protestants.
Yep… And the reason why most Catholic married couples have only two or three kids is Natural Family Planning. (If you believe this, there is a bridge I’d like to sell you in Brooklyn.)
 
They keep on using the term “bigot”, but I don’t think it means what they think it means. These protesters actually remind me of a certain church group from Kansas always calling other people hurtful names and not trying to engage others with differing viewpoints in charitable conversations.
Right. But RSM is worse than WBC since WBC at least stays outside and doesn’t go INSIDE to cause a disturbance.
 
Moving? MOVING?

REALLY?
Yes, I misspoke there. Based on stated mission and views, RSM has always been on the same page as NWM and Dignity are on the homosexuality issue, on gay partnerships and ‘marriage.’ RSM is using a current “strategy” of calling for dialogue (it appears only on their terms) at the same time maintaining visibility in the Catholic parish with a recalcitrant position against the teaching at issue. I meant to say that previously, NWM and Dignity went along a similar path of protestation, perhaps in varying form and focus, to communicate their common end goal: to reform Church teaching on immorality of homogenital acts. As if it is possible.
 
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.)
Wow! The F-word? I have seen a ton of traditional Catholic blogs, but never have I seen vile language in regard to homosexuals or their lifestyle. Maybe I have just missed it.🤷 No there is no reason for the Church to treat homosexuals any different than they treat heterosexuals, or to show any type of disrespect. I do think that the Church has not only a right but an obligation to define how both homosexuals and heterosexuals are to live chastely and within the tenets of God’s law. The Church is focusing now and understandably so on homosexuals because of the gay marriage push that is non stop within the culture at the moment. But they must also not forget about clarifying chastity for both single and married people in the Church. Chastity is to be adhered to and sought to be lived faithfully by ALL of us no matter what sexual orientation we are nor whether we are single or married. Chastity within marriage is every bit as important as chastity outside of marriage, which is a surprise to many Catholics. We all need to be reading John Paul’s “Theology of the Body”. It’s an eye opener.

Part of the confusion within the Church is that the Church has failed miserably in passing on to the laity what God expects from us. The last 40 odd years have been a complete disaster. And now we are ALL paying for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top