Gay Masses Continue in Archdiocese of Westminster

[Corki]

The inclination then may not be fine. But the person is. So therefore there is no problem with having a Mass for the PERSON and for helping the PERSON with a Mass then.

Thanks for the resource man. I may go and check that out.

I never said there was anything wrong with the Mass as long as they are not using it to criticize the Church’s position or to minimize sinful behavior. In some neighborhoods, it might be a pastorally appropriate thing to do. I was just correcting the idea that there is no problem as long as there is no sinful acts.

 

[Michael6]

No. It comes from man’s fallen nature.

Catholicism IS Christianity.

Agreed.

You said “NO”. You should of said " I believe it comes from man’s fallen nature."

You have judged me. I am Catholic I do not judge people.

 

[Corki]

You said “NO”. You should of said " I believe it comes from man’s fallen nature."

You have judged me. I am Catholic I do not judge people.

I have not judged you. I only corrected a slight inaccuracy in what you posted.

 

[Michael6]

I have not judged you. I only corrected a slight inaccuracy in what you posted.

Please do not correct me, I am of GOD!

 

[Corki]

Please do not correct me, I am of GOD!

Evidently so, since in one of his posts he claimed to be Saint Michael the Archangel.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please do not correct me, I am of GOD!

WOW!! That reminds me so much of my seventh grade teacher (a sister) who said “Do not TOUCH me!! I am a HOLY person!!”

My parents pulled me out and put me in a public school.

How utterly arrogant!!

 

[Newbie2]

** You know people keeping bringing that up, but you have nothing to back up the reasons against having a Mass for chaste gay people except that you are at least slightly against and have ANGER towards gay people. Please tell me if I’m wrong though. **

Yeah, you’re quite wrong.

And the accusation that (I, we) have “ANGER towards gay people” is insulting and a really, really, really bad support for your argument that there should be “gay masses”.

The onus is not on us to “prove” why there should not be such masses.

Using your logic, we should maybe have a gay mass on Monday, an alcoholic mass on Tuesday, a pedophile mass on Wednesday, a drug addict mass on Thursday, and a sex-addict mass on Friday.

After all, these people probably feel marginalized by the Church, too.

Did I leave anyone out?

 

[Elixir]

I’m no theologian but it seems on it’s face that having Masses for special groups of people seems antithetical to the Church’s call to unity and could lead to splinter groups within the Church.

As if there aren’t already splinter groups but you get my point.

 

[po18guy]

** Why not proclaim it? It is who a person is. And just having those feelings is completely fine and sinless.
Please explain your reasoning on the desire to proclaim it points only to the nature of the disorder itself.
Why not control it AND be aloud to be who you are with out hate? **

Which other disorders have “pride” movements? Don’t hate the straight. We have our own disorders.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s not celebrating their sexual orientation because it is a MASS. It is celebrating who they are and the Catholic Church says it’s perfectly fine to be gay. Would you say it’s wrong for an Italian to go to an Italian Mass?

No. Because there’s no double-entendre to being Italian. The problem with a so-titled “Gay Mass” is that what’s understood in the culture as being gay (hence, the title, gay) is accompanied by an assumption of sexual activity. So a differentiation has to be made. I wouldn’t “asume” that a Catholic Mass for Fornicators, or Adulterers, or Bigamists, is only for those people in those categories that have foresworn those activities and are embracing the opposite. Why? Because people rename themselves when they have a Purpose of Amendment. Thus, we don’t have support groups for Alcoholics per se; in and out of Catholic Churches we have support groups (amd meetings) for Alcoholics Anonymous, and it is common knowledge that reform is the orientation; it is not affirmation of a permanent lifestyle that is the orientation.

And as I have said many other places on CAF, I think a Mass, especially, for a particular segment of reformed sinners (including those I mentioned above) is off the mark. Mass is the re-experience of the universal sacrifice for all peoples in all circumstances; Mass should unite us, not fragment us. Now, some parishes have Youth Masses (for example once a month), but that is mostly from a litugical impetus. It’s recognized that the style of the liturgy can be very important for youth, because an adult liturgy does not always reach them; and that sensitive period in their life is fleeting; it is hardly a permanent need for any young person. This is a style question not a content matter. But a “gay Mass” would not, and should not, deviate from any universal, generic Mass, so it would be redundant to have a Mass entitled “gay” Mass.

We all come broken to the sacrifice of the Mass. We all come with histories of our sins and our ongoing failings, temptations, and cardinal sins which are just as ‘forbidden’ and against which we struggle just as much as a person does who has SSA… The fact that our differentiated struggles are all united in Christ at the Mass is what makes the Mass such a powerful community experience. It just further alienates people with SSA from the rest of the community to give them a separate-but-unequal Mass experience, i.m.o. Since their non-acted-upon SSA is not what defines them as a Christian, but their continual attempt to live up to the Gospel, they should be assimilated into the community, not segmented from it, even self-segmented.

This continual push to sign on to “identity politics” has become an illness which rejects a cure - not just in our culture but now in the church as well. Our forbidden attractions are not what defines us. There are single women who are irresistibly attracted to bad men; should we have a special Mass for them? Give them a label to make them feel better? There are men who are irresistibly attracted to gambling; their attraction to gambling chains them. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t have a special Mass for them as well. Except that it is unChristian to label people by the vice or temptation that haunts them. Christ is the liberator, and we should be his instruments for the liberation of others.

For the purposes of a Mass, having SSA is not the thing that’s important: it’s sitting next to people who may or may not have SSA, but are not particularly thinking about that when they sit next to you at Mass. We all should be thinking about how we are brothers and sisters, about how fundamentally the same we are, not finding all the ways we are different from each other. It doesn’t belong at Mass.

 

[cjforJesus]

I’m no theologian but it seems on it’s face that having Masses for special groups of people seems antithetical to the Church’s call to unity and could lead to splinter groups within the Church.

As if there aren’t already splinter groups but you get my point.

good point.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m no theologian but it seems on it’s face that having Masses for special groups of people seems antithetical to the Church’s call to unity and could lead to splinter groups within the Church.

As if there aren’t already splinter groups but you get my point.

It is antithetical to Catholic sacramental theology, so thanks to the poster cjforJesus for responding to the above. (I hadn’t seen that.)

Mass is the unity hour, not the diversity hour.

 

[Adam1986]

I never said there was anything wrong with the Mass as long as they are not using it to criticize the Church’s position or to minimize sinful behavior.
Oh. I’m sorry man. I misunderstood your original post.

In some neighborhoods, it might be a pastorally appropriate thing to do.
I feel the same way.

I was just correcting the idea that there is no problem as long as there is no sinful acts.

 

[Adam1986]

Yeah, you’re quite wrong.

And the accusation that (I, we) have “ANGER towards gay people” is insulting and a really, really, really bad support for your argument that there should be “gay masses”.

The onus is not on us to “prove” why there should not be such masses.

Using your logic, we should maybe have a gay mass on Monday, an alcoholic mass on Tuesday, a pedophile mass on Wednesday, a drug addict mass on Thursday, and a sex-addict mass on Friday.

**That’s fine with me. I’m not saying only a gay Mass and nothing else. All of those people need the help of the Mass, so why not. **

After all, these people probably feel marginalized by the Church, too.

Did I leave anyone out?

 

[Adam1986]

I’m no theologian but it seems on it’s face that having Masses for special groups of people seems antithetical to the Church’s call to unity and could lead to splinter groups within the Church.

It’s not really a Mass FOR special groups as much as it is a Mass to help people who deal with a certain issue. Not trying to spilt hairs, but there’s a difference.

As if there aren’t already splinter groups but you get my point.

 

[Rocinante]

There’s nothing wrong with being gay according to the Catholic Church only acting on

i recall some recent proclamation that says will no longer be permitted to be priests. doesn’t that mean that there is something wrong with being gay even if one doesn’t act upon it?

 

[Adam1986]

Which other disorders have “pride” movements? Don’t hate the straight. We have our own disorders.

I never mentioned anything about gay pride. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “proclaim it”. Maybe you took proclaim as “shout it from the roof tops” which I didn’t mean. I meant “proclaim it” as not be in the closet and lie if someone asks if you are gay. Or not be afraid to go to a gay Mass. I think you misunderstood my wording.

I don’t hate the straight. Just because I’m gay doesn’t mean I’m against straight people or Catholics or families or anything like that. Sheesh.

I know that straight people have their own disorders. That’s why I’m not against a Mass for drug-addicts or sex-addicts or kleptomaniacs, etc.

 

[Adam1986]

i recall some recent proclamation that says will no longer be permitted to be priests. doesn’t that mean that there is something wrong with being gay even if one doesn’t act upon it?

No, but to be honest I think that may be in response to the Church’s sex abuse scandal more then anything else. Almost all the children who were abused were boys. I’ve only heard of 1 girl being abused.

Though it needs to be noted that GAY DOES NOT EQUAL PEDOPHILE! :tsktsk:

 

[Adam1986]

No. Because there’s no double-entendre to being Italian. The problem with a so-titled “Gay Mass” is that what’s understood in the culture as being gay (hence, the title, gay) is accompanied by an assumption of sexual activity. **That’s not always true. That’s just an assumotion.**So a differentiation has to be made. I wouldn’t “asume” that a Catholic Mass for Fornicators, or Adulterers, or Bigamists, is only for those people in those categories that have foresworn those activities and are embracing the opposite. Why? Because people rename themselves when they have a Purpose of Amendment. Thus, we don’t have support groups for Alcoholics per se; in and out of Catholic Churches we have support groups (amd meetings) for Alcoholics Anonymous, and it is common knowledge that reform is the orientation; it is not affirmation of a permanent lifestyle that is the orientation.

And as I have said many other places on CAF, I think a Mass, especially, for a particular segment of reformed sinners (including those I mentioned above) is off the mark. Mass is the re-experience of the universal sacrifice for all peoples in all circumstances; Mass should unite us, not fragment us. Now, some parishes have Youth Masses (for example once a month), but that is mostly from a litugical impetus. It’s recognized that the style of the liturgy can be very important for youth, because an adult liturgy does not always reach them; and that sensitive period in their life is fleeting; it is hardly a permanent need for any young person. This is a style question not a content matter. But a “gay Mass” would not, and should not, deviate from any universal, generic Mass, so it would be redundant to have a Mass entitled “gay” Mass.

We all come broken to the sacrifice of the Mass. We all come with histories of our sins and our ongoing failings, temptations, and cardinal sins which are just as ‘forbidden’ and against which we struggle just as much as a person does who has SSA… The fact that our differentiated struggles are all united in Christ at the Mass is what makes the Mass such a powerful community experience. It just further alienates people with SSA from the rest of the community to give them a separate-but-unequal Mass experience, i.m.o. Since their non-acted-upon SSA is not what defines them as a Christian, but their continual attempt to live up to the Gospel, they should be assimilated into the community, not segmented from it, even self-segmented.

This continual push to sign on to “identity politics” has become an illness which rejects a cure - not just in our culture but now in the church as well. Our forbidden attractions are not what defines us. There are single women who are irresistibly attracted to bad men; should we have a special Mass for them? **IMO that’s fine.**Give them a label to make them feel better? There are men who are irresistibly attracted to gambling; their attraction to gambling chains them. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t have a special Mass for them as well. **Again, I’m OK with that.**Except that it is unChristian to label people by the vice or temptation that haunts them. Christ is the liberator, and we should be his instruments for the liberation of others. I think most people are missing the point of this particular Mass is to help those who struggle with a certain thing. It’s not unChristian to offer someone something that will help then with their problems.

For the purposes of a Mass, having SSA is not the thing that’s important: it’s sitting next to people who may or may not have SSA, but are not particularly thinking about that when they sit next to you at Mass. **I agree. But being in a room full of people who are in the same boat as you can help you to not feel alone. It can give you courage and strength. **We all should be thinking about how we are brothers and sisters, about how fundamentally the same we are, not finding all the ways we are different from each other. It doesn’t belong at Mass.

 

[po18guy]

I never mentioned anything about gay pride. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “proclaim it”. Maybe you took proclaim as “shout it from the roof tops” which I didn’t mean. I meant “proclaim it” as not be in the closet and lie if someone asks if you are gay. Or not be afraid to go to a gay Mass. I think you misunderstood my wording.

I may very well have done so. Frankly, if someone asks if you suffer from SSA, it’s none of their danged business, is it? Exception: If they also suffer from SSA (just as I suffer from my disorders), it may be a pastoral opportunity for you.

I don’t hate the straight. Just because I’m gay doesn’t mean I’m against straight people or Catholics or families or anything like that. Sheesh.

My bad. Just another of my failed attempts to be witty.

I know that straight people have their own disorders. That’s why I’m not against a Mass for drug-addicts or sex-addicts or kleptomaniacs, etc.

Point being that the “average” everyday and weekend mass is the greatest channel of healing on earth. It does not need to be focused on a particular disorder, but it remains a blanket which covers any and all disorders.

Here’s how I see it: The desire for, or demand for masses which focus on a particular disorder are, by their nature, exclusive and not inclusive. As Newbie2 put it: if a mass is offered in conjunction with a retreat or seminar addressing SSA, perfect! But, the desire for recognition, for acknowledgment, for affirmation, tolerance or acceptance is pretty much associated strictly with those who suffer from SSA. I see the request for masses for those suffering from SSA as deriving from this aspect of the disorder itself.

Those who suffer from SSA often (but not always) must bear their crosses in a very public way. Does this make them superior to, or inferior to those whose crosses are painfully private? Certainly not! A cross is nothing to be proud of - it is the scar left by the branding iron of our failed human nature. It is our task to bear its burden in patient humility.