Gay Masses Continue in Archdiocese of Westminster

[po18guy]

Your posts are very good and true.

I think there is entirely too much information and interest about people’s sexuality in the media propoganda.

I don’t need to know what anyone prefers sexually. Hopefully, they can keep this to themselves and deal with it. I’d much rather know someone intellectually, spirtually or just have fun doing things together. Sex is a very private matter and it should only be discussed and practiced with one’s partner privately.

I really think sexuality of any kind should be placed firmly back into the closet.

The closet of matrimony, where both the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual union are properly and naturally experienced.

IMO, the rise in homosexuality coincides with the rise in contraception, abortion, adultery, fornication and all forms of disordered sexuality. It is in a package along with euthanasia, human cloning and other anti-life causes. The very meaning and intent of the reproductive action has been distorted by reflection in an amoral fun house mirror. The disorder now has mutated into the entire “GLBT” syndrome in which, instead of loving the self, many hate the self and mutilate it out of the disordered desire to be that which they are not. This hatred of life certainly has its source in the same one who hates all that is good and holy- the evil one.

Just how I see it.

 

[Hopemercy]

Ghettoes are bad and this is what is being created here. Here in Ireland, one of the Franciscan Friaries holds an LBGT meeting every month, Mass included and chakra dancing as well.

There is no chance of integration; no true sense of all God’s people in Him.

No real awareness of what Mass means.

And yes, it is to draw attention to what one person calls “sexual idolatry”. Creating distraction and disunity.

If there is a true faith, then there would be only awe and humility. Self lost in Jesus.

 

[jackangelo1]

I don’t see how one can have a dedicated Mass for the gay community and still maintain Catholic theology/doctrine.

Someone who is gay and chaste probably wouldn’t identify with this, would they? This Mass is obviously for people living the gay lifestyle, not the Catholic lifestyle. They are, at their roots, incompatible.

You can have Same Sex Attraction and live a chaste, virtuous, exemplary life. However, if you jump in and wallow in the homosexual lifestyle, that is rejecting Catholic teaching.

HOW in the World can a Catholic condone Gay Masses??Jesus Christ looking down on mass perversion in HIS house.???Forget about it! go get educated on the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[Hopemercy]

It is Multyfarham; they call the meetings “multifarious”… And no they are not seeking to change.

This site is… “enlightening”

thegoodhatchery.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/living-in-a-friary-two-weeks-in-multyfarnham-by-ruth-lyons/

It is hard to recognise this place as Franciscan now. .

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ll give the text of the link that was just referenced:

At one o’clock everyone meets for dinner in the dining room, a cook prepares the food for the whole bunch, for the first few days the conversation was polite and censored, but eventually we had very open discussions about lots of different stuff but often understandably surrounding the church and its role in society and the good and bad effects that it has had. The Franciscans do not take the same stand on every matter as the Catholic Church does and consider themselves to be more open to change. One very striking example of this openness is that one Sunday of every month Joe hosts a day in the Friary for gays and lesbians called ‘Multifarious’, the day involves discussion groups, a mass and most surprisingly an hour of Chakra dancing. The group are mostly men in their fifties and sixties who come from all over Ireland. Myself and Paul attended the chakra dancing at which we made the mistake of really dancing for the whole hour and doing all the energies until we felt a bit broken inside, it was only towards the end that we noticed that most people were just swinging their arms and shuffling a little. It was a whole day till I was right again and my heart didn’t feel broken. The friars at Multyfarnham do not discriminate against anyone and will happily celebrate communion with people of other religions also

The above is part of a blog-page authored by an artist in temporary residence at the friary. “Joe” above is a Franciscan priest, Father Joe. Naturally we are only taking the word of this artist as to the accuracy and to “every Sunday” this happening, as well as “happily celebrating Communion” with non-Catholics and “the Franciscans not taking the same positions on everything.” Depends on the context. Yes, the Franciscans are very open as an Order, very welcoming: that’s their “signature” to the community – welcome and acceptance. I have no way of knowing whether the discussion groups referred to above were just opportunities to air feelings, frustrations, shared needs, etc., or whether heterodoxy was being specifically taught or approved.

I’m not calling into question the veracity of the artist, just noting that I can guarantee the CAF readership that what I heard a couple of Sundays ago was indeed heterodoxy, and not from a Franciscan, either, but a different Order.

On a tangent, some readers may be scandalized by the 'chakra dancing" as treading on New Age eclecticism.

 

[diggerdomer]

HOW in the World can a Catholic condone Gay Masses??Jesus Christ looking down on mass perversion in HIS house.???Forget about it! go get educated on the homosexual lifestyle.

Probably the same way the Catholic church apparently condones what (in the U.S. at least) we experience: “Blue” masses (for those in the medical field), “Red” masses (for those in the judicial/legal field), and so on.

The Catholic Church does not teach that one cannot be a medical professional, a legal professional, or homosexual.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Probably the same way the Catholic church apparently condones what (in the U.S. at least) we experience: “Blue” masses (for those in the medical field), “Red” masses (for those in the judicial/legal field), and so on.

The Catholic Church does not teach that one cannot be a medical professional, a legal professional, or homosexual.

No, it’s not “the same.” There’s nothing questionable about being a medical professional or a legal professional – whether or not one is active in that field at any particular time. But “a homosexual” – vs. someone with SSA – implies activity, as society understands that label.

Further, homosexuality is not “a profession.” Frankly, it’s not even “an identity,” although that is the current political effort and rhetoric. Nor am I a heterosexual “by profession”; nor is my “identity” fundamentally, essentially, heterosexual. All sexuality is an important element of human experience. It does not permeate every atom of human experience, which is the rhetoric that the gay lobby likes to spin.

The Church does not teach, btw, that the core of our being is our sexual orientation. Far from it.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, it’s not “the same.” There’s nothing questionable about being a medical professional or a legal professional -

Really?

At masses for medical professionals…is there some litmus test to determine whether or not one cooperates with abortion? Contraception? IVF? Euthanasia?

At masses for legal professionals, is there some litmus test to determine whether or not one pursues the death penalty in accordance with Catholic teaching?

Your opinion (just that) about homosexual activity is equally valid to anyone’s opinion about medical staff and abortion, or legal professionals and the death penalty.

I never said, btw, that sexual orientation is core to our being nor taught by the Church as such.

 

[Santi2]

Really?

At masses for medical professionals…is there some litmus test to determine whether or not one cooperates with abortion? Contraception? IVF? Euthanasia?

At masses for legal professionals, is there some litmus test to determine whether or not one pursues the death penalty in accordance with Catholic teaching?

Your opinion (just that) about homosexual activity is equally valid to anyone’s opinion about medical staff and abortion, or legal professionals and the death penalty.

I never said, btw, that sexual orientation is core to our being nor taught by the Church as such.

The litmus test on Red and Blue Masses is that the Mass is in accordance with Catholic guidance i.e. members invoke the Holy Spirit for wisdom in the exercise of their professions.

The litmus test on the Masses for the homosexual community at the Church of the Assumption & St Gregory is that the Masses are not in accordance with Catholic guidance:

…same-sex couples at Assumption were congratulated in the course of the Mass for having recently contracted civil unions. The SMPC website includes a section of “bidding prayers”, or general intercessions for use at Mass that include one asking God for blessings “for all who have entered into civil partnerships during this past month, and for all who are keeping their first anniversaries around this time: that God will preserve them in love and faithfulness.”

 

[John21652]

Why wouldn’t someone who is gay and chaste identify with it? People who are a certain ethnicity sometimes go to a Mass that is dedicated to who they are. Why can’t a chaste Catholic except who they are and go to a Mass that shows them A LOT of other Catholics who are also chaste. It would help them not have sex because it would show them that they are not alone in this.

You can’t just say that anyone who is gay and accepts and embraces who they are are a rutting pig. There are some completely chaste gay men and women.

A Catholic Mass is not wallowing in the homosexual lifestyle. It is showing a side of Catholicism that is open and accepting.

A homosexual Mass is a great thing.

Oh give me a break. If homosexuals are not engaged in an active homosexual lifestyle, then what’s wrong with the ordinary Mass? Does the tag of ‘Gay’ suddenly make the Mass more relevant? I doubt it. However, the tag ‘Gay’ being used to attract Homosexuals will encourage all homosexuals to attend, whether or not they are chaste. It will give affirmation to even those who live an active homosexual lifestyle. And, of those who attend such a Mass, how are you going to tell who is chaste and who’s not? A questionaire perhaps? A physical examination?
A Mass is a Mass and it doesn’t need the word ‘Gay’ attached.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Really?

At masses for medical professionals…is there some litmus test to determine whether or not one cooperates with abortion? Contraception? IVF? Euthanasia?

At masses for legal professionals, is there some litmus test to determine whether or not one pursues the death penalty in accordance with Catholic teaching?

Your opinion (just that) about homosexual activity is equally valid to anyone’s opinion about medical staff and abortion, or legal professionals and the death penalty.

I never said, btw, that sexual orientation is core to our being nor taught by the Church as such.

You’re very confused about the premises of logical argument. The premise is, Mass for a professional as a professional. What is “not questionable” is whether that person, as a medical or legal professional, is by that very fact, entitled by tradition to attend a Mass that has as its theme the medical or legal profession. Nothing else. A homosexual is a different category, not the category of professional.

Correct, you didn’t say anything about sexual orientation as the core of being. Nor did I claim you did. That was my addition, because homosexuals like to come on to CAF and claim that homosexuality is the core of identity, and that “therefore” they’re entitled to separate, special treatment in the Church. That would be illogical also, since the RCC teaches no such thing, and the Mass is an RCC institution, not an LGBT institution.

 

[jackangelo1]

You’re very confused about the premises of logical argument. The premise is, Mass for a professional as a professional. What is “not questionable” is whether that person, as a medical or legal professional, is by that very fact, entitled by tradition to attend a Mass that has as its theme the medical or legal profession. Nothing else. A homosexual is a different category, not the category of professional.

Correct, you didn’t say anything about sexual orientation as the core of being. Nor did I claim you did. That was my addition, because homosexuals like to come on to CAF and claim that homosexuality is the core of identity, and that “therefore” they’re entitled to separate, special treatment in the Church. That would be illogical also, since the RCC teaches no such thing, and the Mass is an RCC institution, not an LGBT institution.

Comrade obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi ,Baraba Boxer,Harry Reid, The Democrat socialist Party, The Mainstream Media,The Catholic Church,The Atheist, The Planned Parenthood,The Pedophilist,The Courts , who Ruled ,that homosexual Rights TRUMPS Christian Rights. The National Education Association ALL are pro- same sex marriage, pro-special rights for homosexuals, and taking Freedoms of Speech and Religion away from the people to protect homosexuals… I’m voting for a Conservative\Republican especially after God told me " Why are these Americans BEGGING to DIE???

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re very confused about the premises of logical argument. The premise is, Mass for a professional as a professional. What is “not questionable” is whether that person, as a medical or legal professional, is by that very fact, entitled by tradition to attend a Mass that has as its theme the medical or legal profession. Nothing else. A homosexual is a different category, not the category of professional.

Correct, you didn’t say anything about sexual orientation as the core of being. Nor did I claim you did. That was my addition, because homosexuals like to come on to CAF and claim that homosexuality is the core of identity, and that “therefore” they’re entitled to separate, special treatment in the Church. That would be illogical also, since the RCC teaches no such thing, and the Mass is an RCC institution, not an LGBT institution.

Anyone is welcome to attend any Mass. The fact that the Church has certain votive or ritual Masses for particular needs/occasions (whether they be “professions” or other circumstances) does not contradict that. Of course “homosexual” is not a “professional” category. There is no such thing as a “professional” Mass, I merely cited some examples that I thought might further this discussion.

No one is entitled to “special treatment” at Mass, yet at the same time the Church has a Tradition of votive/ritual Masses, and the Church decides how and when to celebrate such Masses.

The Mass is not an RCC Institution, it was instituted by Christ for all.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Mass is not an RCC Institution, it was instituted by Christ for all.

The Mass has a Catholic theological context, not a secular LGBT context, with the premises that segment people by interest-groups. The Mass is not an occasion for political interest groups which have politically activist goals.

I agree with John on this page. Others have also said what I said earlier. Someone, or any “group” who sincerely wants to partake of the Mass can come and partake as a humble individual not drawing attention to himself or herself. At our parish there was preivously an LGBT support group, but never a Mass for them alone, as that would disunite, not unite. People who claim that really what they want is just to be accepted, are at odds with that idea if they then proclaim they want a private Mass. Absurd.

If you understand what the Mass is, as a Catholic, and you want that Mass to help in your transformation, you will want to attend with your different and differentiated brothers and sisters, so that you can commune with them as Jesus commanded us. You won’t try to skirt his commands by creating a separate Mass just for your fave folks. Otherwise you are at odds with the very purpose and universal theme of the Mass.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Mass has a Catholic theological context, not a secular LGBT context, with the premises that segment people by interest-groups. The Mass is not an occasion for political interest groups which have politically activist goals.

So the Church shouldn’t celebrate “Blue” or “Red” (or whatever) Masses?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If I may drawn attention back to the OP. The article cited is dated. However, these Masses continue to be celebrated twice per month. They are celebrated at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory, Warwick Street, London, UK (Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory).

Many of the people who attend these Masses are neither celibate nor chaste. This is not a presumption, it is a known fact as many of them are quite open about the fact. The priest-celebrants of these Masses call upon the congregation to celebrate occasions such as same-sex couples at the Mass who have had a civil partnership registered.

These Masses have their own website advertising them (Soho Masses). One of the priests who celebrates these Masses, Fr Timothy Radcliffe, O.P. has his own blog on these issues (queering the church).

The local diocese (Archdiocese of Westminster) and the Holy See are both aware of these Masses because numerous letters have been written to them both through a Catholic organisation that is attempting to prevent these Masses (Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice).

Thus far there has been no official response from the Church. It is quite difficult to draw any conclusion other than the Church is at least condoning these Masses even if it is not supporting them outright.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If I may drawn attention back to the OP. The article cited is dated. However, these Masses continue to be celebrated twice per month. They are celebrated at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory, Warwick Street, London, UK (Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory).

Many of the people who attend these Masses are neither celibate nor chaste. This is not a presumption, it is a known fact as many of them are quite open about the fact. The priest-celebrants of these Masses call upon the congregation to celebrate occasions such as same-sex couples at the Mass who have had a civil partnership registered.

These Masses have their own website advertising them (Soho Masses). One of the priests who celebrates these Masses, Fr Timothy Radcliffe, O.P. has his own blog on these issues (queering the church).

The local diocese (Archdiocese of Westminster) and the Holy See are both aware of these Masses because numerous letters have been written to them both through a Catholic organisation that is attempting to prevent these Masses (Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice).

Thus far there has been no official response from the Church. It is quite difficult to draw any conclusion other than the Church is at least condoning these Masses even if it is not supporting them outright./

^ Or hasn’t yet figured out a way to shut the ‘celebrations’ down without causing a public controversy morphing into international affairs and even into a riot. (I wouldn’t necessarily assume that the Church hierarchy is “condoning” them.)

On the rest, I do not at all doubt what you say, regarding the correctly assumed/publicized lifestyles of those attending. There is a parish in my area wherein gay live-in partners come up to Communion with their ‘designer’ children created with the help of science and/or by sleeping with female friends. (A common practice in the gay community locally.) They also have made a point of announcing that they intend to keep living their lifestyle and partaking of the Sacraments. As I said on another thread, this is a huge justice problem for the Church, that the Church had better confront sooner rather than later. Because in that case there’s no reason why people known publicly to be unmarried can’t bring cohabitating heterosexual "partners’ ( ) and similarly partake in the Sacraments with no censure from the pastor.

These are not rumors. I witness this myself, and hear the very audible conversations.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

^ Or hasn’t yet figured out a way to shut the ‘celebrations’ down without causing a public controversy

Persons known to be in a state of mortal sin receiving Holy Communion. Isn’t that sufficient public controversy?

morphing into international affairs

To what sort of international affairs do you allude?

and even into a riot.

That is somewhat of an exaggeration. Why would there be a riot? Perhaps those who stand outside this church during those Masses saying a Rosary of Reparation should themselves riot and perhaps then the Church will end this scandal.

(I wouldn’t necessarily assume that the Church hierarchy is “condoning” them.)

Condone means to overlook, forgive, or pardon. The Church is overlooking these Masses despite numerous complaints. They are not a new phenomenon; they have been going on for a considerable number of years. I cannot understand why people keep making excuses for the hierarchy while this sacrilege of the Most Holy Eucharist continues; faithful Catholics are being scandalized by these Masses; souls are being placed in mortal danger and by not addressing this issue the Church will be to blame for the loss of these souls.

The Church needs to act and it should act now!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Persons known to be in a state of mortal sin receiving Holy Communion. Isn’t that sufficient public controversy?

Of course it is. I’m on your side. I’m just reflecting on the real-politick of the situation. Things aren’t even, that’s the point. The political premises of the non-Catholic realm have invaded the worship inside Catholic churches. 'Rights" are inappropriately being superimposed on rites.

To what sort of international affairs do you allude?

I’m using the term loosely, for effect. I mean internat’l controversy: I mean headlines. It’s amazing how much internal stuff in churches becomes fodder for secular pressure. (Opinion is a different matter.) (“Mr. President/Mr. Secretary/Your Royal Highness…What do you think of the ___incident going on in the ___church over there…” Etc.) That actually happens with some frequency.

That is somewhat of an exaggeration. Why would there be a riot?

My, aren’t we being literal this morning? “Riot” loosely used, as in “controversial, difficult to ignore protest.”

Condone means to overlook, forgive, or pardon.

I know what “condone” means.

The Church is overlooking these Masses despite numerous complaints. They are not a new phenomenon; they have been going on for a considerable number of years. I cannot understand why people keep making excuses for the hierarchy while this sacrilege of the Most Holy Eucharist continues; faithful Catholics are being scandalized by these Masses; souls are being placed in mortal danger and by not addressing this issue the Church will be to blame for the loss of these souls.

I’m not making excuses. Remember, I’m on your side on this question. I’m trying to place the situation in context. I agree that the situation should have been addressed from the beginning. However, since it hasn’t, and since the Church obviously has its own housekeeping to do and has its own public relations trials out there, the issue is not so simple as just focusing on this problem alone. At least (again) from the viewpoint of public political perception. There might be a rally-cry of, “Well, pro-choice Catholics, invalidly married Catholics,(etc.) are partaking of the Sacraments; why pick on gays as the one ‘unfaitfhul’ or noncompliant group?”

I do think that more decisiveness is in order all around in the Church, about a number of issues. But I think, given my reading on the Liturgy & Sacraments forum (regarding reporting complaints & that whole process) – and with clergy weighing in on some of those threads in the past – the bureaucracy of the Church itself is also an impediment to swift decision-making & action. It’s not as simple and straightforward as a parent coming in and directly taking action and Laying Down the Law. (Not that it couldn’t happen; it’s a matter of how local clergy expect the hierarchy to respect the procedures and trust in local jurisdiction.) I think this is unfortunate. I think the whole cumbersome way that the hierarchy is structured has signficant downsides for the RCC as an organization, and for the laity getting its concerns heard.

There are internal politics in the Church – both local and broader; and external politics relating to the interface of the Church and the local & wider surround. As you know, the RCC is a government unto itself, and change can come slowly (therefore). I.m.o., the Church is far too “sensitive” and too self-conscious about how it is being, and how it might be, perceived. That often results in failure to take stands on a number of issues, i.m.o. And I don’t just mean of the sexual variety.

Also, while there is a spectrum to this, many officials in the Church are content to remain fairly insulated in the amount of information they receive and in the way they receive their informaiton. This is a problem. The Church can’t really have it both ways. If you do want to interact in the realm of modern moral issues, you have to get out more. They don’t do enough of that, i.m.o. When you have partial knowledge, or filtered knowledge, or selective knowledge, you dilute your own power, not to mention your own credibility.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Of course it is. I’m on your side. I’m just reflecting on the real-politick of the situation. Things aren’t even, that’s the point. The political premises of the non-Catholic realm have invaded the worship inside Catholic churches. 'Rights" are inappropriately being superimposed on rites.

Wouldn’t you agree that it’s high time we took back possession of the Church? I mean no ill-feelings to lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered, or even undecided persons. But, the Faith of the Church is what it is and any form of sexual relationship outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is considered to be a sin and in some cases to be against natural law. I firmly believe that one of the problems we face in the Church today is all this equivocating about worrying what others think. If we were strong and stood up for the Faith and did not water it down or try to present it to satisfy others then I think our churches might start filling up again. When things like this happen and we start saying we have to face the realities of the current political climate my thoughts always turn to those many martyrs who died for the Faith.

My, aren’t we being literal this morning? “Riot” loosely used, as in “controversial, difficult to ignore protest.”

OK, point taken but of course it’s one of the problems with cyber-communication. I can’t hear the tone of your voice, I can’t see your facial expressions, I can’t see your body language. Without these non-verbal communications it’s difficult to tell if you were being literal or not.

I know what “condone” means.

I wasn’t trying to teach you the definition of the word. I was pointing out that I do think it’s correct to indicate the Church is condoning these Masses because what they are doing fits into its definition.

I’m not making excuses. Remember, I’m on your side on this question. I’m trying to place the situation in context. I agree that the situation should have been addressed from the beginning. However, since it hasn’t, and since the Church obviously has its own housekeeping to do and has its own public relations trials out there, the issue is not so simple as just focusing on this problem alone. At least (again) from the viewpoint of public political perception. There might be a rally-cry of, “Well, pro-choice Catholics, invalidly married Catholics,(etc.) are partaking of the Sacraments; why pick on gays as the one ‘unfaitfhul’ or noncompliant group?”

I’m not personally picking on the gays per se but that’s what the thread’s about. I’m strongly opposed to pro-choice Catholics, people remarrying civilly after divorce, adulterers, in fact any group that abandons the Church’s teachings. (I’m not without sin and wouldn’t presume to cast the first stone.) Perhaps I am being naïve but I don’t think the public political perception should be the main concern here. There should have been no need to take the case to Rome. First, the priests involved know the teachings of the Church and they should be refusing Communion to those they know are in mortal sin. They should back this up with catechesis and preaching. This is not happening. The Archbishop has been informed so now he should be admonishing these priests and ensuring that these Masses are stopped. It shouldn’t be that difficult. And, I will keep coming back to the same point: these people in mortal sin who are receiving Communion are committing further mortal sin. While the Church stands by the souls of these people are in grave danger. What if one dies tomorrow? The Church is there to save souls!

CONTINUED …