Clashes between laity and homosexuals

  • Thread starter Thread starter DonaNobisPacem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DonaNobisPacem

Guest
www.thecatholicspirit.com/archives.php?article=2542

This seems to me to be a hard issue…

Do the laity have the right to cause disruption at Mass like this and disobey their Bishop? Or is it the duty of the laity to “protect” (so to speak) the Holy Eucharist from what they deem “unworthy partakers”???

Just looking for your take on this.
 
DonaNobisPacem said:
%between%
This seems to me to be a hard issue…
Click to expand...

Not to me.
Do the laity have the right to cause disruption at Mass like this and disobey their Bishop? Or is it the duty of the laity to “protect” (so to speak) the Holy Eucharist from what they deem “unworthy partakers”???
Click to expand...
How were those Ushers able to look into the hearts of those others, who were strangers to them, and say whether or not they were unworthy to receive the Eucharist? Does even the Pope have such power and ability? I always thought that only God could read one’s heart and say for sure whether or not one was in the State of Grace.

How does wearing an Usher’s badge give one that charism? Frankly, I don’t think it does.
 
I don’t think it’s a problem for the Ushers to “kneel” down near communion, but they shouldn’t physically try to stop anyone. A passive demonstration is no more than what the “Sash Wearers” were doing.

Ultimately, the issue is between God and the individual and only God can judge the hearts of men and women. I can see where priests have a hard time with this one.

JoelMichael
 
40.png
Southernrich:
Not to me.

How were those Ushers able to look into the hearts of those others, who were strangers to them, and say whether or not they were unworthy to receive the Eucharist? Does even the Pope have such power and ability? I always thought that only God could read one’s heart and say for sure whether or not one was in the State of Grace.

How does wearing an Usher’s badge give one that charism? Frankly, I don’t think it does.
Click to expand...
I’m not Catholic so I’m just asking this to learn…

It seems to me that this is more that “looking into someone’s heart.” If I went to mass and took communion no one would know I was any different than any Catholic in good standing. This would truly be between “me and God” and only a mindreader would know that I was not a Catholic in good standing.

If I went to mass, however, wearing a bright red shirt that said “Proud to be Presbyterian” on the front and “Pope of a Church of One” on the back; it wouldn’t take someone being able to read my heart to know that I was dissenting from significant Catholic teachings and should not receive the host.

In the same manner, the rainbow sash is a sign of protest against (infallible) Church teachings. It is worn by those who either engage in a sexually active gay lifestyle or support those who do. It seems to me it wouldn’t take a telepathic to know that someone openly protesting in such a manner would be “eating and drinking judgement on themselves.”

“Denial of communion can be a sign of love because you are saving a person from hellfire.” I told that to a Catholic friend of mine who suggested I go up and receive the host one time at mass! LOL! I had to tell him his own Church’s teachings (that were clearly printed in the missal).

-C
 
DonaNobisPacem said:
www.thecatholicspirit.com/archives.php?article=2542

This seems to me to be a hard issue…

Do the laity have the right to cause disruption at Mass like this and disobey their Bishop? Or is it the duty of the laity to “protect” (so to speak) the Holy Eucharist from what they deem “unworthy partakers”???

Just looking for your take on this.
Click to expand...

The laity did not cause the disruption at Mass. The people who wore their disordered sexuality as a hairshirt did. In reading the article, I was struck by how disingeneous the leader of the Rainbow Sash movement is. McNeill doesn’t want to change the Church, yet they wear the sash as a “call to dialogue”. He refers to “current Catholic teaching” on homosexuality. Have we ever taught that it was OK?. To try to wrap it up under the cover of “the Gospel standard of love and justice” is a joke. Do they really think that Jesus suffered and allowed himself to be nailed to the cross so that people can freely defy his Father’s devine plan for human creation?

He asserts that there is nothing more to wearing the sash than identifying themselves as GLBT and calling the heirarchy to dialogue. However, the rainbow known as the symbol of gay pride just as the pink ribbon is a symbol of breast cancer awareness.

Using the Mass to celebrate their sexuality? Get real! I thought the Mass was a re-enactment of the sacrifice at Calvary. He calls the objective disorder teaching “offensive and disgusting”. I think those words could be applied elsewhere in the debate… To McNeill’s advantage is that most people view the gay lifestyle as just another variation of normal sexuality (to use his terms). However, the statistics available from the CDC provide details about what that “normal variation” entails.

One of the things that I find most bothersome about the gay agenda is its self-centeredness. It is all about their needs and feelings. To use the Mass to express this is reprehensible.
 
40.png
condan:
The laity did not cause the disruption at Mass. The people who wore their disordered sexuality as a hairshirt did.
Click to expand...
Amen! :amen: Amen!
 
Here is the setup:
The archbishop said his position on reception of the Eucharist by members of the Rainbow Sash Movement has not changed; because they have assured him in writing that their attendance at Mass is not in protest of the teachings of the church, the archbishop said he would be reluctant to judge them unworthy to receive Communion…“Members of this group have previously assured us, in writing, that their attendance at the annual Pentecost Mass at the Cathedral of St. Paul is not in protest of the church’s teaching.”
Click to expand...
Brian McNeill is the “Rainbow Sash coordinator”.
McNeill said wearing the sash to Mass is not meant as a challenge to Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Still sounding innocuous:
“Wearing the sash, we are identifying ourselves as GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender] people — Roman Catholics,” said McNeill. “We are calling the hierarchy to dialogue over the issue of human sexuality and homosexuality in the church."
Click to expand...
And that’s the extent of what the sash means, he said. Although people may read more into it, the act of wearing the sash is not a statement that the church should change its teaching that homosexuality is an “objective disorder,” he said…
Click to expand...
Yet he was lying straight through because he changes his story by the end of the article:
But McNeill admitted many gay people are “not very happy with the way things are.” That’s why the sash, in part, represents a call to dialogue with the church about its teaching.
Click to expand...
“Current Catholic teachings are hurtful to gay Catholics,” he said. “And it is incumbent upon all Catholics to change them because they do not measure up to the Gospel standard of love and justice.”
Click to expand...
… McNeill called the “objective disorder” language “offensive and insulting.” He disagrees with the curch’s interpretation of sexuality and said he believes Jesus’ incarnation embraced all forms of human sexuality, including same-sex attractions…
Click to expand...
So here is a guy claiming they should receive communion because they assured their bishop – in writing – that they are not protesting Church teaching.

Yet, in the same article he is quoted as saying the Church teachings are hurtful and it is incumbent upon all Catholics to change them.

What a liar.

To cap it off, why is it whenever I hear the phrase “keeping with the liberal spirit of Vatican II”, I simply know that we are talking about heresy.
Archdiocesan communications director Dennis McGrath said although some of the allegedly “heterodox” parishes were “more in keeping with the liberal spirit of Vatican II than other more conservative parishes,” there is nothing the archdiocese finds “dogmatically wrong” with them.
Click to expand...
 
As to reading a person’s heart, Calvin hit the nail on the head. The state of an individuals soul when they are ACTIVELY and PUBLICLY advocating the living of lifestyle that intrisiclly disordered and sinful is manifest by the admission made by their actions. When will these “who are we to judge” people going to realize that a person is in the process of making a public statement (I.E. wearing their “colors” if you will) is MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT! No Charism is needed!

If wearing a sash is not a statement that the church should change its teaching that homosexuality is an “objective disorder" then what is it? If the Rainbow Sash isn’t trying to change the ONE difference that distinguishes them from what the Church teaches about EVERYONE’s dignity, inclusiveness, place and participation in the Church (the acting out of deviant sexual behavior) then WHAT IS THERE TO DIALOG ABOUT!!!

The bottom line is the fact that their ACTIONS convict them and while we are not to judge the FINAL state of a person’s soul we are OBLIGATED to judge the morality of PUBLIC ACTIONS. A person who publically and unrepentantly claims their sin can only be considered sinful. For such a person to recieve the Eucharist not only brings GOD’s condemnation on the sinner (See St. Paul) it blasphemes the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Rightousness and sinfulness are objective realities that we can never take as assumed in the depths of a person’s heart. In this case, however, we are not talking about the depth of the heart but the public agenda of a group whose cause is intrisically evil.
 
The one that sticks with me is the statement made I believe about the abortion issue not the homosexual issue

“Who is the Church to decide who receives communion?”

Whaaaaaaaa??
 
DonaNobisPacem said:
www.thecatholicspirit.com/archives.php?article=2542

This seems to me to be a hard issue…

Do the laity have the right to cause disruption at Mass like this and disobey their Bishop? Or is it the duty of the laity to “protect” (so to speak) the Holy Eucharist from what they deem “unworthy partakers”???

Just looking for your take on this.
Click to expand...

It’s really up to the indivudal, if they want to drink to their own blood then it’s up to them, but I was always told to examine my conscience before receiving Holy communion. ( Confession)
Would we ever think of putting a drink into a dirty vessel ? likewise we shouldn’t expect Jesus to enter an unclean vessel, (US)
 
40.png
Calvin:
I found two interviews … that were interesting:
Click to expand...
40.png
hawkeye:
Glad you think it’s funny, but I have never heard of Ushers of the Eucharist, HEEEEELLPP !!!
Click to expand...
Boy, you have confused me, hawkeye. I didn’t read Calvin’s comments as trying to be “funny”. Actually, I thought both the articles he quoted were right on topic; each faction had their position clearly explained.
 
40.png
rfk:
Boy, you have confused me, hawkeye. I didn’t read Calvin’s comments as trying to be “funny”. Actually, I thought both the articles he quoted were right on topic; each faction had their position clearly explained.
Yeah I wasn’t trying to be funny. The original post was about a dispute between Ushers of the Eucharist and the Rainbow Sash group. I thought the interviews of the groups’ leaders would be “interesting” (relevant) for folks reading the thread…

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was being flip.

-C
 
40.png
rfk:
Boy, you have confused me, hawkeye. I didn’t read Calvin’s comments as trying to be “funny”. Actually, I thought both the articles he quoted were right on topic; each faction had their position clearly explained.
They were right on topic, but couln’t you sense a little tee hee hee 😃 like I told you so ?
 
40.png
hawkeye:
They were right on topic, but couln’t you sense a little tee hee hee 😃 like I told you so ?
Click to expand...
I didn’t intend to convey that, I’m sorry.

I thought it was “interesting” because we could read the leaders of both groups explain what they were doing in their own words.

-C
 
40.png
Calvin:
I didn’t intend to convey that, I’m sorry.

I thought it was “interesting” because we could read the leaders of both groups explain what they were doing in their own words.

-C/QUOTE

Ok cheers no problemo thanks 👍
Click to expand...
 
After reading the links and posts I can already see this subject is guaranteed to elevate my blood pressure. Does the laity have the right to intervene?

Can. 229 §1 Lay people have the duty and the right to acquire the knowledge of Christian teaching which is appropriate to each one’s capacity and condition, so that they may be able to live according to this teaching, to proclaim it and if necessary to **defend ** it, and may be capable of playing their part in the exercise of the apostolate.

Does this word “defend” mean physically or merely with words? Perhaps Karl can get an opinion on this canon. Personally, I would only trust the judgment of someone in the category of Colin Donovan or Bishop Burke.

If the word defend means guard, protect, or shield, I would say yes, but why should it be necessary? Why won’t the Bishop—who has been given custody of the Eucharist –tell his priests to deny them? Subject closed, period the end. He might even ask defenders be present to escort the offenders out or keep them from coming in. After reading the Michael Rose book a part of me questions if some in authority may not have issues of their own as it pertains to this particular topic.

For all the uncertainty, I am **sure ** this is the same Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ for which many before us have **died ** safeguarding. Common sense says the same canon would apply to this episode as with the Catholic politicians and Hoy Communion.

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and **others who ** obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

I agree with Father Angelus Shaughnessy, we need to call sin by its proper name. To heck with sweet sounding terms as “alternate lifestyle” or referring to them as them “gay” Gay always meant happy when I was growing up. These are **homosexual relationships ** (always disordered) and those involved are sodomites! It seems I remember something about such behavior in Gen 19.

If Bishops continue to allow profanity of the Blessed Sacrament every person in the diocese who is aware of these offences, and gives a care is obligated to protest to Holy See. Have misplaced the address. Can anyone find it and post? If not I will find it when I return from Mass…

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
 
THANK YOU MY FELLOW brothers and sisters in Christ, 👍 When someone makes an assault on Church teaching, we should never question “should we”, vrs." when will we". There is NO DIALOGUE on compromising ISSUES OF MORALITY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PERIOD. :mad: If you were baptized Catholic, “morality and grave sin” are well defined in Canon Law and the magisterium teaching. We (the CHURCH) are not a democracy by public demand nor do we reserve the right, to change what we personally think is right. These are not political issues to kick around… THEY ARE MORAL ISSUES. Haven"t we learned from history how these heresies and dissent wound the Body of Christ. Most of our bishops are too delicate in this “touchy feely” world with “grave moral issues”. Thank goodness we have a Pope to keep them in line. 😉
 
40.png
tomkp:
The bottom line is the fact that their ACTIONS convict them; and while we are not to judge the FINAL state of a person’s soul, we are OBLIGATED to judge the morality of PUBLIC ACTIONS. A person who publically and unrepentantly claims their sin can only be considered sinful. For such a person to recieve the Eucharist not only brings GOD’s condemnation on the sinner (See St. Paul) it blasphemes the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Click to expand...
I added the emphasis above. I agree wholeheartedly. To claim that wearing rainbow sashes represents ANYTHING other than their gay / lesbian agenda is, frankly, a lie. Imagine a group of adulterers getting together and demanding that the Church “dialogue” with them about how their “love for one another” is a part of the Gospel of Love… it’s absurd.

This quote from the original cited article hit me hard: “Current Catholic teachings are hurtful to gay Catholics,” he said. “And it is incumbent upon all Catholics to change them because they do not measure up to the Gospel standard of love and justice.” Like so many others, this group is thinking in terms of POLITICAL justice and SOCIAL standards of love, not spiritual and moral justice and love. The Church is entirely just in Her teachings on this, because all justice emantes from God and from HIS laws; and she is entirely LOVING, in seeking to bring each of Her children to Heaven, even if that means sacrifical celibacy for the rest of their lives.

This subject hits very close to home for me, as I have a dear beloved old friend who is a lesbian now (after ending her heterosexual marriage, she wants a same sex marriage) and a sister who dips in and out of bisexual relationships.I love both of these people but we have had some VERY heated discussions about this topic. 😦

To me, the bottom line is, Catholic Church = no homosexual actions allowed. Homosexual relationship = not OK with the Church. So, you choose: either be Catholic, or stay in your homosexual relationship. Don’t ask the Church to change to fit YOU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top