English Catholic congregation shocked as gay activist disrupts Mass with video cam

[Santi2]

English Catholic congregation shocked as gay activist disrupts Mass with video cam

ROME, March 15, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A homosexualist activist disrupted a Mass held in a parish in Teignmouth, Devon, with a video camera last week as a priest prepared to read a letter from the country’s bishops conference opposing government efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage.” The incident has prompted concerns that anti-Christian activists are becoming more bold and aggressive as the Church continues to oppose same-sex “marriage.”

…

The video has received hundreds of comments on YouTube, some by commenters whom appear to know the activist personally. One wrote, “Sorry David, whilst I fully support same-sex civil marriage, and strongly disagree with my Archbishops; I think you have only hurt your reputation and your cause.”

The commenter, identified as “rerum2novarum” continued, “The priest was not going to read out the letter anyway. Many members of the congregation (including someone who is gay) were very upset, and you caused grave offence. I know you are kind, caring man and may have acted in the heat of the moment.”

…

The priest consulted well-known barrister and religious discrimination expert Neil Addison who pointed out that the priest had recourse to the law. It is an offense in England and Scotland to disrupt a religious service or intimidate or harass ministers of religion. Although Addison said that such laws were mainly drafted in the 19th century, and are widely “regarded as obsolete today” they can still be prosecuted as “religiously aggravated” public order or violence offences.

The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, states that a person commits an offense if he “shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorised to preach [in a church], or any clergyman in Holy Orders ministering or celebrating any sacrament or any Divine service, rite, or office in any cathedral church or chapel, churchyard, or burial ground.”

lifesitenews.com/news/english-catholic-congregation-shocked-as-gay-activist-disrupts-mass-with-vi

 

[Dale_M]

Very rude and uncalled for. Its not as if the text of the letter wasn’t publicly available.

The disruption took place at the Church of Our Lady and St Patrick (All Saints Parish) in Teignmouth. The man who caused the disruption is a local composer and choirmaster, David Haines. He came forward to pose for a photo which appeared in the local newspaper.
teignmouth-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=9990&headline=Church%20protest%20film%20is%20internet%20sensation

If charges are possible, it doesn’t sound as if he is fearful of them. However, he did say that a parishioner at the church identified himself as a policeman and threatened to arrest him.

Haines appears in the photo to be about 60 years old. He really should know better at that age.

 

[Hokomai]

When the Church takes political stands, it can reasonably be expected that there will be political responses. This was one. Not a very good one, or a very effective one, or a very well-supported one, but that was all it was. No need to get excited. bad video too. Looked like he needed to manually set his white balance and forgot.

 

[Santi2]

When the Church takes political stands, it can reasonably be expected that there will be political responses. This was one. Not a very good one, or a very effective one, or a very well-supported one, but that was all it was. No need to get excited. bad video too. Looked like he needed to manually set his white balance and forgot.

There is a reason it is called a Pastoral Letter on Marriage. Operative word is “Pastoral” and I am sure you already know what the Catholic position is on marriage together with the respective roles of the laity and clergy in this matter.

He needed to blur images of members of the congregation because it is unlawfully intrusive. He would be setting himself up to civil litigation.

 

[Fiasco]

When the Church takes political stands, it can reasonably be expected that there will be political responses…

Its not a political stand. Its a** MORAL/SPIRITUAL **stand, based on The Ten Commandments which were given to us by God, Himself. No one can top that one. And, to remain faithful, the Church has no choice but to obey God`s Will.

The so-called “gays” (Hate that word!) can rage, and shake their fists in Gods Face as much as they like, and "......call evil good, and good evil......"[Isaiah 5:20]; but **TRUTH** is unshakeable! Its eternal.

 

[Hokomai]

Its not a political stand. Its a** MORAL/SPIRITUAL **stand, based on The Ten Commandments which were given to us by God, Himself. No one can top that one. And, to remain faithful, the Church has no choice but to obey God`s Will.

The so-called “gays” (Hate that word!) can rage, and shake their fists in Gods Face as much as they like, and "......call evil good, and good evil......"[Isaiah 5:20]; but **TRUTH** is unshakeable! Its eternal.

When you express an opinion in a democracy about what the law should do, or not do, you are involved in politics. Your motivation may be religious; you may attempt to invoke spirits to assist you; you may believe that you are morally correct; you may believe you have not choice; you may claim to be acting in the name of god(s); but you are involved in politics. Expect responses.

 

[Santi2]

When you express an opinion in a democracy about what the law should do, or not do, you are involved in politics. Your motivation may be religious; you may attempt to invoke spirits to assist you; you may believe that you are morally correct; you may believe you have not choice; you may claim to be acting in the name of god(s); but you are involved in politics. Expect responses

There is nothing that precludes the Catholic Church from expressing a political opinion where a proposed law will have an impact on members of its communities. At the same time, I draw your attention to the law as stated in the link in the OP:

"The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, states that a person commits an offense if he “shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorised to preach [in a church], or any clergyman in Holy Orders ministering or celebrating any sacrament or any Divine service, rite, or office in any cathedral church or chapel, churchyard, or burial ground.”

Whilst response to our position is expected, the venue and occasion was not the arena or the time to display that response.

 

[Santi2]

Very rude and uncalled for. Its not as if the text of the letter wasn’t publicly available.

Many thanks for the link, Dale. It was a very foolish stunt which drew similar comments from quarters outside of the Catholic community.

 

[Fiasco]

When you express an opinion in a democracy about what the law should do, or not do, you are involved in politics. Your motivation may be religious; you may attempt to invoke spirits to assist you; you may believe that you are morally correct; you may believe you have not choice; you may claim to be acting in the name of god(s); but you are involved in politics. Expect responses.

The Church would take the same stand, regardless of which political group was pushing it. No favourites, so:
**From Her perspective, its a**** MORAL/SPIRITUAL issue.** From your perspective, its political, because you chose to reject the Church.

im not going to change your opinions; and youre not going to change my on-the-Rock CONVICTIONS. Actually, “CERTAINTY” is more appropriate.

There`s no point in going on.

 

[pepipop]

Personally, I feel this type of behaviour and the UK government’s stance on SS marriage will actually backfire, and bring back homophobia to extreme levels. This is from my own observations, only, and based on secular websites / media and the comments made by unbelievers, that are very homophobic and nasty.

 

[Dale_M]

Many thanks for the link, Dale. It was a very foolish stunt which drew similar comments from quarters outside of the Catholic community.

It was foolish. The only purpose of what he did was to publicly declare “I am on the right side of this issue, and you all are in the wrong.” And the way he did it required that he be so wrapped up in self-righteousness that he was willing to go out of his way to give offense.

As Hokomai said, the issue is political (as well as religious) so political protests are to be expected. But what he did was no way to protest.

 

[PerfectTiming]

I saw this yesterday and I was horrified. His actions were disrespectful, rude and downright shameful. Invading the sacred celebration of the Mass like that is just disgraceful.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When you express an opinion in a democracy about what the law should do, or not do, you are involved in politics…Your motivation may be religious…but you are involved in politics. Expect responses.

No. You have utterly missed the point. A church service is not a political event. It was the event (setting) that was entirely inappropriate for “expecting a response.”

The moment was not some outdoor political rally, some public address to a legislative body, etc. So no, audible political “responses” – including from the Catholic congregation within the liturgical setting itself – were not at all to be “expected.” This is of a similar category as individuals and groups expressing political “opinions” at memorial services of political opponents, disrupting those events as well.

People who expect consideration for their opinions in a democracy restrict their free expression of those opinions to the multitude of legitimate opportunities for that expression, which do not include formal religious services.

 

[saveusfromhell]

it’s only starting, going to get a whole lot worse but in the end we know God wins.

 

[Tommy72]

Incredible arrogance displayed by this man in disrupting the Holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Do we need guards at the doors of our churches now?

 

[Farsight001]

All he had to do was go up to the priest a few minutes before mass and ask for permission to set up a tripod in the back of church and film the service, and he would have gotten the same footage without being disruptive.

 

[Hokomai]

No. You have utterly missed the point. A church service is not a political event. It was the event (setting) that was entirely inappropriate for “expecting a response.”

The moment was not some outdoor political rally, some public address to a legislative body, etc. So no, audible political “responses” – including from the Catholic congregation within the liturgical setting itself – were not at all to be “expected.” This is of a similar category as individuals and groups expressing political “opinions” at memorial services of political opponents, disrupting those events as well.

People who expect consideration for their opinions in a democracy restrict their free expression of those opinions to the multitude of legitimate opportunities for that expression, which do not include formal religious services.

I am not arguing that the actions were appropriate. I agree that the Mass was not a political event. However, the letter was political. When you do political things at non-political events, reaction, legal and illegal can be expected. It is nothing to get excited about.

 

[Hokomai]

There is nothing that precludes the Catholic Church from expressing a political opinion where a proposed law will have an impact on members of its communities. At the same time, I draw your attention to the law as stated in the link in the OP:

"The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, states that a person commits an offense if he “shall molest, let, disturb, vex, or trouble, or by any other unlawful means disquiet or misuse any preacher duly authorised to preach [in a church], or any clergyman in Holy Orders ministering or celebrating any sacrament or any Divine service, rite, or office in any cathedral church or chapel, churchyard, or burial ground.”

Whilst response to our position is expected, the venue and occasion was not the arena or the time to display that response.

I agree with you. My point was not that the action was legal, or appropriate, but that it was to be expected, and is not of the significance many posters seem to attribute to it.

 

[Hokomai]

The Church would take the same stand, regardless of which political group was pushing it. No favourites, so:
**From Her perspective, its a**** MORAL/SPIRITUAL issue.** From your perspective, its political, because you chose to reject the Church.

im not going to change your opinions; and youre not going to change my on-the-Rock CONVICTIONS. Actually, “CERTAINTY” is more appropriate.

There`s no point in going on.

Words mean something. If proposing changes to, or defending, a law, is not political, the that adjective has no meaning. If words cease to have meaning then you are right: there is no point in going on. I will continue to argue on the basis that words do in fact mean something, since most people seem happy to agree with that. by the way, I am not trying to change your convictions. I am merely expressing my own.

 

[Havard]

It is nothing to get excited about.

Please, do go on… clearly we Catholics don’t appreciate how little reverence is due during Mass.