Gay Masses Continue in Archdiocese of Westminster

[Matthew_Holford]

… CONTINUED

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.

You are quite right. The Church is far too slow to react to things. It is a huge bureaucracy and like any large bureaucracy it moves slowly and we all know the old adage about the Church thinking in centuries. However, as I keep repeating these Soho Masses are not a recent thing, they’ve been happening for years. They do cause considerable scandal which one would have thought the Church wished to avoid. The Most Holy Eucharist is being consumed by those in mortal sin. And, I’m going to say it again, their souls are in grave danger. The Church has a responsibility to save their souls!

May be there is one indication of how Rome may have reviewed. Archbishop Nicholls is not getting a red hat in November’s consistory. While I know no bishop is entitled to one, the Archbishops of Westminster have always been elevated to the cardinalate. It makes one wonder.

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ and to speed up the information campaign, so to speak, I think lay people should do whatever they can do to make their concerns known to their local pastors, and not wait for someone else to do so. Even if the pastor takes no action, makes no announcements, etc., it will not be a surprise to him later if the bishop also gets word of it; the pastor can’t reply to his bishop that he hadn’t heard about it or that only one person ever said anything.

The best thing, I’m told, is to put one’s concerns, charitably, in writing, so there is a record.

I’m actually considering doing that at the place where I heard the homily (political speech) about gays being superior to heterosexuals. (And that was supposedly the “meaning” of the Sunday gospel.)

 

[John21652]

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.

Well, I am starting to lose respect and even get angry about homosexuals because the homosexual lobby is pushing an “in your face” agenda. It is becoming very obvious even on CAF! They firstly wanted to be left alone, ‘understood’ and even empathised with. But it has gone way past that now. They want their disordered and unnatural sexual practices to be considered the equal of heterosexuality. The Catholic Catechism tells us homosexuality is deeply disordered. As a man I find it repugnant. I try to ‘understand’ their plight and even empathise with their affliction and I use those words having heard and read of them being used by homosexuals to describe themselves. However, the drive to make equal a disordered sexuality is wrong and the Church should enforce its own standards. Homosexuality is indeed against the Natural Law. Natural Law is the basis of Church doctrine and to give in to the homosexaul lobby in any way, shape, or form is tantamount to selling out the entire doctinal base of the Church.

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!

Many within the Church are caving in to the pressures of the secular world. It is a test of moral character and those within the Church who do not hold to the line are indeed failing the entire Church. People do not respect individuals or institutions that appear to not really believe what they preach.

 

[Elizabeth502]

They want their disordered and unnatural sexual practices to be considered the equal of heterosexuality. The Catholic Catechism tells us homosexuality is deeply disordered. …

However, the drive to make equal a disordered sexuality is wrong and the Church should enforce its own standards. Homosexuality is indeed against the Natural Law. Natural Law is the basis of Church doctrine and to give in to the homosexaul lobby in any way, shape, or form is tantamount to selling out the entire doctinal base of the Church.

Many within the Church are caving in to the pressures of the secular world. It is a test of moral character and those within the Church who do not hold to the line are indeed failing the entire Church. People do not respect individuals or institutions that appear to not really believe what they preach.

I can’t agree more. I’m sure you’ve noticed, but maybe others have not, that other moral absolutes are not up for (serious) reconsideration because of adoption of secular views, the language of the popular modern marketplace, and political movements. So I’ll say again: if homosexual activity is O.K., than surely heterosexual fornication is O.K., and the RCC should waste no time, then, in altering the CCC.

What the gays have done is lifted “discrimination” language and “discrimination” asumptions and sensitivities from the secular arena, and inserted those by force into the arena of Catholic worship and even theology. The reason I say this, is that the entire assumption, within the Church, (the way that they get some parish priests directly and indirectly, silently and vocally, to be enablers) is to have others agree that gays should be viewed as “an exception.” Exception-talk is the language of secular discrimination laws. It’s “protection” talk – a “separate class.”

For example, I recently heard a priest, in his homily (different homily than the one I’ve referenced on this thread – in fact a newer homily, at a different parish) say that gays have come to him saying they want to be part of church life and want to live as celibate, and would like help with that. (Perfect. Who can object to that?) But then he went on to say that other gays come to him, also want to be part of church life, but object to dispensing with a lover and tell the priest that “they feel incomplete without a lover.” (Don’t we all?) In the same breath, this priest was using “exception” talk: that gays have “their own spirituality.” (If so, where is that 'separate, special spirituality" described in any church document, or any Catholic-authored book with an Imprimatur?) The point is, that he didn’t ‘answer the question’ (about how supposedly essential a lover was to the peace & happiness of this other variety of gay seekers who approach him); the priest didn’t answer that (very important) question, but left it dangling, at least to the congregation. What he says to such lover-accompanying gay seekers I do not know, but it’s troubling, to me, that he didn’t provide an answer in the homily, and the congregation has every right to know how he does answer this group, when they protest about how essential it is to their identity that they remain actively with lovers while integrating into the parish.

The point is, You see the linkage here, made subtly: “feel different” + “discriminated against” – legally or socially – in the world = Special Class = Special Treatment = Special Rules.

This is why – although it may seem O/T in this debate, it is not – I sometimes bring up the importance of the Church having a No Tolerance policy within its own structure about confirmed cases of clergy sexual abuse (not mere accusations). Because this is where its clergy, I believe, are unconsciously reflecting a vulnerability that opens the Church to exploitation on the grounds of inconsistency in moral standards. Men wearing collars feel vulnerable; I’ve talked to many of them about this. And they feel vulnerable regardless of whatever new procedures & policies are now in place about clergy behavior. And I think this self-consciousness is influencing, passively and actively, how parish priests – even those not sympathetic with homosexual behavior or the ‘gay identity within the church’ movement – respond to these pressures, especially in populations with a large gay presence.

I agree with John, and with Matthew: the Church needs to come out with some in-your-face clarity about how assumptions, language, regulation and equality work in the Catholic vs. the secular arenas, and how Catholic liturgy is a Catholic arena, not bound by secular demands, definitions, and philosophy. It has to be made explicit, or this will just keep happening. It can’t be just ignored, because it will not go away, and clearly the inequality that is evident is creating a lot of feelings of injustice, confusion, and scandal within the faithful. Like clergy sexual abuse of the past, the phenomenon is not just “going to go away” if it is not addressed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So my opinion, Matthew and John, is that this is what should happen to rectify this and stop the cultural hemorrhage.

I think it is too much to ask individual parish priests to wage lonely battles. I’ve seen it happen on other issues in parishes, and it is of enormous cost to those priests when they have to Lay Down the Law for a congregation (or part of a congregation) that is running off the rails. Those priests end up besieged and semi-destroyed, often bitter, and with their vocations barely intact. (Remember that most priests are more sensitive than the average person.)

This is a job for bishops. What a priest’s responsibility is, however, is to communicate with his bishop about these pressing needs (and his need for “armor”). He may be the only priest in his diocese with this problem, or he may be one of several, but in either case he must petition his bishop for help. The bishop issues a statement, which gets published for an indefinite time period (maybe even permanently, through the assignment of that bishop, at least) in the parish bulletins. There’s just a permanent spot for it there on the inside flap. It is a message from the bishop, not from the parish priest, and the notice above that message is that this is being published in every parish bulletin of the diocese at the directive of the bishop. That completely lets the priest off the hook as far as individual confrontation goes. Yes, some parishioners will still challenge him, but his response is, essentially, ‘Take this up with the Bishop; as a priest in this diocese I am also bound by his policies, which naturally I support… The Bishop felt it was important at this time to clarify any possible confusion about Catholic Church policy, as you see in the message. But even if I did not support his policies, I am not at liberty to change them, so you and I have nothing to discuss unless you need some theological clarification on the message, if there’s something you don’t understand about Catholic Church policy as described in the bishop’s statement. In that aspect I will be happy to help you.’

And The Message is entitled something like “Children of God.” (I’d say All God’s Children, but I think that was a name of a soap opera!) That message states Catholic terms and Catholic definitions in the framework of dignity and equality, and how behavior and sacramental readiness relate to that. It states that ‘this parish, like all Catholic parishes, is a hospital for the many wounds, sins, temptations, and unhealthy habits and attractions we all have. No matter how many disorders and afflictions you have, or what their variety is, you are welcome in our church, no more than, and no less than, anyone else.’ (It’s important to put the “no more than” in there, to make it clear that gays will not be treated as a Special Class or ‘differently’ – positively or negatively.)

The reason for The Message is to accurately reposition the language (from a secular to a sacred context), and in doing so thus empower the priest, who can lift that language whenever challenged, and thus indirectly be repeating his own message that he is not at liberty to alter church teaching for the comfort of a particular region, political view, or sensibility.

 

[John21652]

‘Take this up with the Bishop; as a priest in this diocese I am also bound by his policies, which naturally I support… The Bishop felt it was important at this time to clarify any possible confusion about Catholic Church policy, as you see in the message. But even if I did not support his policies, I am not at liberty to change them, so you and I have nothing to discuss unless you need some theological clarification on the message, if there’s something you don’t understand about Catholic Church policy as described in the bishop’s statement. In that aspect I will be happy to help you.’

Well, this should be happening already. It’s called “leadership” and Bishops are supposed to be leaders. If a priest doesn’t discuss this with his Bishop, or vice versa, then there is a communication breakdown. If the Bishop wont facilitate such a discussion and give support to the Priest, or Priests, as the case may be, then the Bishop is not worthy of his position.

And The Message is entitled something like “Children of God.” (I’d say All God’s Children, but I think that was a name of a soap opera!) That message states Catholic terms and Catholic definitions in the framework of dignity and equality, and how behavior and sacramental readiness relate to that. It states that ‘this parish, like all Catholic parishes, is a hospital for the many wounds, sins, temptations, and unhealthy habits and attractions we all have. No matter how many disorders and afflictions you have, or what their variety is, you are welcome in our church, no more than, and no less than, anyone else.’ (It’s important to put the “no more than” in there, to make it clear that gays will not be treated as a Special Class or ‘differently’ – positively or negatively.)

Mathew wrote in his post that mathew wrote “I firmly believe that one of the problems we face in the Church today is all this equivocating about worrying what others think.” That is so true and has been so true for a long, long time. Originally, this problem arose because they were frightened of losing parishioners in a modernising, liberalising, secularising world. You don’t try and retain, or to win friends, by becoming something you are not, or pretending to be something you are not. That’s a falsehood in itself. The Church in some instances is now even bending some of its own rules to accomodate others. That is really selling yourself out. If people wish to rant and rave, march up and down waving placards, complaining that they are being excluded for this or that reason, then let them. You abide by the rules, and standards, or you leave. It is a simple and easy choice individuals can make. If the Church starts to make exceptions for certain classes of ‘sinner’, or ‘wrong doer’, then where does it stop? elizabeth, you write that anyone who is struggling with afflictions, temptatons, etc, are welcome in the Church like anyone else. To a certain degree that is true. However, if a class of person comes along peddling excuses and reasons for not making any attempt to deal with their sinning behaviour and so are actually seeking that their behaviour be condoned, then I say they are not welcome.

The reason for The Message is to accurately reposition the language (from a secular to a sacred context), and in doing so thus empower the priest, who can lift that language whenever challenged, and thus indirectly be repeating his own message that he is not at liberty to alter church teaching for the comfort of a particular region, political view, or sensibility.

I would suggest that the Priest can already do this. He just needs the moral fortitude to keep saying it. Backed by his Bishop, of course.

 

[John21652]

This quote can be found all over the Internet -

"We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable… We shall raise vast, private armies…to defeat you. The family unit…will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory…All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”

Supposedly written by a gay activist way back in 1987, but with tongue in cheek. However, it almost sounds as though they are desperately trying to make it come true. The encouragement for gays, by gays, to 'come out"; the push for school children to be taught that homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle and therefore its practitioners should not be discriminated against; the ‘in your face’ demand for normalisation of homosexuality; the scoffing at heterosexual ‘lifestyles’ by proponents of homosexuality right here on CAF, the push for acceptance within the church of an active homosexual lifestyle and for “special treatment” as discussed here, all point to the fact that this supposedly tongue in cheek article actually contained a large degree of truth about the homosexual agenda. It has been going on for quite some time, as this link demonstrates with frightening clarity. In 2002, in this case, “The American Civil Liberties Union… asked the Supreme Court to declare part of Kansas’s ““Romeo and Juliet Law”” unconstitutional because it gives gay teenagers much higher prison sentences than heterosexual teenagers who engage in identical consensual sexual activities.” It was, in effect, a decision about either elevating sodomy to the staus of heterosexual sex, or downgrading heterosexual sex to the same level as sodomy. It’s a wonder women haven’t kicked up a stink! The issue, of course, was about “equality”. What most people don’t realise is that some things can never be equal. The Church needs to make a decision on this point very soon. If it supports its own Catechism, the decision is a simple one.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, this should be happening already. It’s called “leadership” and Bishops are supposed to be leaders. If a priest doesn’t discuss this with his Bishop, or vice versa, then there is a communication breakdown.

I agree, but I think the main problem is the lack of initiative on the part of the parish priests. I am quite sure that my own Bishop would respond favorably and actively to any priest who requested support in this matter. The bishop has been outspoken on the subject of "gay marriage’ at the ballot box, and the Church’s position, and has done so in a politically hostile environment – one of the “hottest” in the nation. This was even recognized on EWTN about a month ago.

And, if something comes to his attention, he (and most Bishops) will respond. But the bishop depends on his priests to initiate such discussions. The bishop is not “on the ground.” The priests are. Again, as I said to Matthew earlier, much of this is a matter of respecting the local jurisdiction of the priest and assuming each priest is staying On Message. Bishops cannot be everywhere; I notice that when anything ‘experimental’ is going on, (a controversial homily, or lay preaching, or something unusual in the liturgy) it is usually at the least-attended Mass, not at the most-attended Mass. I do think that priests are not universally staying On Message, but I don’t think it’s quite as irresponsible as you’ve described. I think what is happening is more of a passive failure-to-take action…

(cont’d)…

 

[Elizabeth502]

Mathew wrote in his post that mathew wrote “I firmly believe that one of the problems we face in the Church today is all this equivocating about worrying what others think.” That is so true and has been so true for a long, long time. Originally, this problem arose because they were frightened of losing parishioners in a modernising, liberalising, secularising world. You don’t try and retain, or to win friends, by becoming something you are not, or pretending to be something you are not. That’s a falsehood in itself. The Church in some instances is now even bending some of its own rules to accomodate others.

The bolded part is where I agree with you. I think that parish priests are being cowered into accommodating to secular assumptions. Also, think about their role. The priest’s role is largely pastoral, and any man who becomes a priest knows that keeping peace iwthin his own congregation will be one of his main functions. His role is far more spiritual than as a moral aribter or bulldog in the moral arena. He’s a moderator and unifier more often than he is a lightning rod. If he did too much of the latter, many people would find him unapproachable. His tendency toward pacifism is going to unconciously (in some cases consciously) spill over into his relations with the community and its concerns, including when those concerns do not match with Catholic teaching. Do not think that I agree with that outcome. It’s just that I don’t see all of it as something that is an inevitable continuum from any active support for heterodoxy by priests in previous modern eras, including by those priests most enthusiastic about an independent moral view.

I think that now, rather than being a vigorous enthusiast, the typical parish priest is besieged by media messages invading the lives of his parishioners, and influencing some of them in an enabling way. But of course, not to take action is a decision, a decision which allows the opposition center stage and the ability to control the communication unopposed. That’s why it is my position that the first responsibility of those of us griping about this on CAF (all of us, self included) is to register our disappointment with these priests. If they hear enough from us, they will realize that we expect all parishes to reflect in their individual policies and practices the universal orthodoxy that should be visible regardless of what is politically correct in the surrounding community. We can’t just be the silent voices drowned out by what’s locally or nationally popular. Then, if our priests continue to be passive in the face of moral ambiguities being practiced, we must approach our Bishops.

I also see nothing wrong with a lay person directly writing to the Bishop at the outset if the concern is urgent enough and if that parishioner has evidence that the priest is not interested in conforming to an unambiguous message. (Such as one of the two “gay”-themed homilies I heard recently, where the priest’s voice was actually defiant and uncompromising and even angry.) That may actually be easier to deal with than the softer enabling homilies or statements. At least if a priest is clear, however bizarre the stance, there is something concrete that can be acted on or responded to. But again, that’s our responsibility: “Father, I was concerned about what you said during your homily: Did you really mean that today’s gospel could be interpreted as being an object lesson that gays are compassionate and heterosexuals are not?” Make him clarify & commit. Or, “You made an announcement that all are welcome in full participation, including gays; are you okay with cohabiting heterosexual partners approaching the Eucharist?” If he says Yes, ask him how that is any different from heterosexuals with invalid marriages, or no marriages, doing so.

And I wouldn’t just ask him after Mass when he’s greeting everyone. I would make sure to make an appointment & sit down with him to flesh this out completely, especially if it sounds like he’s creating novel theology.

You know, John, and Matthew, again it is not necessary for a pastor to be put in the uncomfortable position of being a bulldog – let alone getting unpleasant, which priests really hate to do, such as directly confronting others at communion, or face to face in some manner. Sometimes that is necessary, but usually not. I have seen that when a parish simply changes its tone (becoming more clear), changes the style of its liturgy, changes some internal policies and priorities, those who are comfortable only with open-ended looseness simply leave. That is even more true when moral borders are conveyed clearly. Iin that sense, John, I agree with you: There is no point in “making to feel welcome” those who are violating the terms of compliance. When they feel “unwelcome” to challenge – because they’re not in control, they’re in the minority & therefore uncomfortably conspicuous – 100% of the time, they leave. They either seek the same thing in another parish, or they worship in another religion. Because they are not willing to comply; that’s the point. Their lifestyle – or their warm, fuzzy theology – is more important to them than anything else. They simply have to be told where the borders are. Problem solved.

The “secular culture” is not in control inside any Catholic church unless clergy allow it to be. They just have to be convinced of that, and they may need some help with that.

 

[diggerdomer]

The bolded part is where I agree with you. I think that parish priests are being cowered into accommodating to secular assumptions. Also, think about their role. The priest’s role is largely pastoral, and any man who becomes a priest knows that keeping peace iwthin his own congregation will be one of his main functions. His role is far more spiritual than as a moral aribter or bulldog in the moral arena. He’s a moderator and unifier more often than he is a lightning rod. If he did too much of the latter, many people would find him unapproachable. His tendency toward pacifism is going to unconciously (in some cases consciously) spill over into his relations with the community and its concerns, including when those concerns do not match with Catholic teaching. Do not think that I agree with that outcome. It’s just that I don’t see all of it as something that is an inevitable continuum from any active support for heterodoxy by priests in previous modern eras, including by those priests most enthusiastic about an independent moral view.

I think that now, rather than being a vigorous enthusiast, the typical parish priest is besieged by media messages invading the lives of his parishioners, and influencing some of them in an enabling way. But of course, not to take action is a decision, a decision which allows the opposition center stage and the ability to control the communication unopposed. That’s why it is my position that the first responsibility of those of us griping about this on CAF (all of us, self included) is to register our disappointment with these priests. If they hear enough from us, they will realize that we expect all parishes to reflect in their individual policies and practices the universal orthodoxy that should be visible regardless of what is politically correct in the surrounding community. We can’t just be the silent voices drowned out by what’s locally or nationally popular. Then, if our priests continue to be passive in the face of moral ambiguities being practiced, we must approach our Bishops.

I also see nothing wrong with a lay person directly writing to the Bishop at the outset if the concern is urgent enough and if that parishioner has evidence that the priest is not interested in conforming to an unambiguous message. (Such as one of the two “gay”-themed homilies I heard recently, where the priest’s voice was actually defiant and uncompromising and even angry.) That may actually be easier to deal with than the softer enabling homilies or statements. At least if a priest is clear, however bizarre the stance, there is something concrete that can be acted on or responded to. But again, that’s our responsibility: “Father, I was concerned about what you said during your homily: Did you really mean that today’s gospel could be interpreted as being an object lesson that gays are compassionate and heterosexuals are not?” Make him clarify & commit. Or, “You made an announcement that all are welcome in full participation, including gays; are you okay with cohabiting heterosexual partners approaching the Eucharist?” If he says Yes, ask him how that is any different from heterosexuals with invalid marriages, or no marriages, doing so.

And I wouldn’t just ask him after Mass when he’s greeting everyone. I would make sure to make an appointment & sit down with him to flesh this out completely, especially if it sounds like he’s creating novel theology.

You know, John, and Matthew, again it is not necessary for a pastor to be put in the uncomfortable position of being a bulldog – let alone getting unpleasant, which priests really hate to do, such as directly confronting others at communion, or face to face in some manner. Sometimes that is necessary, but usually not. I have seen that when a parish simply changes its tone (becoming more clear), changes the style of its liturgy, changes some internal policies and priorities, those who are comfortable only with open-ended looseness simply leave. That is even more true when moral borders are conveyed clearly. Iin that sense, John, I agree with you: There is no point in “making to feel welcome” those who are violating the terms of compliance. When they feel “unwelcome” to challenge – because they’re not in control, they’re in the minority & therefore uncomfortably conspicuous – 100% of the time, they leave. They either seek the same thing in another parish, or they worship in another religion. Because they are not willing to comply; that’s the point. Their lifestyle – or their warm, fuzzy theology – is more important to them than anything else. They simply have to be told where the borders are. Problem solved.

The “secular culture” is not in control inside any Catholic church unless clergy allow it to be. They just have to be convinced of that, and they may need some help with that.

So it’s ok to celebrate Masses for medical professionals (regardless of their practice regarding abortion, IVF, euthanasia, etc.in accord with Catholic teaching) and legal professionals (regardless of their position regarding the death penalty in accord with Catholic teaching) but it’s not ok to celebrate masses for gay people (regardless of their position regarding Catholic teaching on homosexuality).

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[John21652]

So it’s ok to celebrate Masses for medical professionals (regardless of their practice regarding abortion, IVF, euthanasia, etc.in accord with Catholic teaching) and legal professionals (regardless of their position regarding the death penalty in accord with Catholic teaching) but it’s not ok to celebrate masses for gay people (regardless of their position regarding Catholic teaching on homosexuality).

Do I understand you correctly?

diggerdomer, can you please clarify something for me? When you mean "celebrate Masses for medical professionals, legal practicioners, etc, are you referring to actually inviting them along to a special Mass held in their honour, or are you simply referring to holding Masses where those professions are prayed for?

 

[Elizabeth502]

So it’s ok to celebrate Masses for medical professionals (regardless of their practice regarding abortion, IVF, euthanasia, etc.in accord with Catholic teaching) and legal professionals (regardless of their position regarding the death penalty in accord with Catholic teaching) but it’s not ok to celebrate masses for gay people (regardless of their position regarding Catholic teaching on homosexuality).

Do I understand you correctly?

First of all, once again you are mixing terms. People in particular professions, vs. people who not only have SSA, but who in fact have stated that they are not following the precepts of the Church? Got that?

Second, having a Mass for a particular position or function is the exception, not the rule, but again, when it happens legitimately, it happens under cover of clerical authority. For example, in one of the parishes local to me, there is a Mass (I think once a month, during an off-time of day – like midafternoon), for priests. I would not call this Mass anything unusual, however. Obviously lay people attend, and feel perfectly at home, as everyone in attendance has never stated a wish to be anything but in compliance with Church teaching. There are no off-beat liturgies associated with these Masses. There was a different Mass sometime last year which honored mothers and mothers-to-be, but not on Mother’s Day, I believe. It might have been something in connection with a particular saint or one of Mary’s feasts. In another parish, close to a University, there is an occasional Mass which especially features faculty, and sometimes a different Mass for all those graduating. Nothing controversial.

None of the three Masses have much of a theme at all. One barely notices it. It is simply announced ahead of time that there will be a Mass “especially honoring” (etc.) a particular function (not a class of sinners) within the Body of Christ. Not a particular disorder within the Body of Christ. Priests, and mothers, and university faculty all fight the same disorders we all do. (Maybe some faculty and some of those priests are afflicted with SSA; but the SSA is not being “celebrated” or endorsed by clergy.) The liturgy is the standard liturgy; the “theme” is closer to “an intention.”

There’s nothing in a disorder to endorse. I’m not sure what your point is, except apparently to be argumentative for the sake of argument, not for the sake of moral theology or sacramental theology. “Gay Masses” are not in accord with Catholic sacramental theology. If you were theologically trained in that area, you would understand that. Even many people not so trained understand that.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Just clarifying this last reply of mine. Yes, I realize that “gay Masses” have been held ‘under cover of clerical authority,’ but that doesn’t necessarily make them legitimate. There was also a practicing gay priest in a local parish here who gave “homilies” (racy talks) about enjoying sex with his gay partner. He wasn’t legitimate, either, and eventually was escorted out the door.

Not every suggestion, and every statement, that emanates from someone with a Roman collar is in line with Church teaching – even today, despite improvement from much more of a free-for-all during some periods.

That brings me back to a point I forgot to mention earlier: One of the key elements contributing to the ‘grey area’ that I mentioned in an earlier post – the part about priests not standing firm relative to popular positions in the community – has to do, I believe, with the lack of understanding by people both in and outside of the Church that priests do not create theology, nor do they change it. I think this is a very important but overlooked problem when it comes to clergy dealing with heterodox or scandalous positions and unaddressed assumptions. There is a casual, informal (and obviously inaccurate) view by an awful lot of political activists – and lay Catholics with a modernist bent – that theology varies by parish. The fact that this misunderstanding is not being addressed head-on has created an ongoing communications gap within and without the Church. And I think it continues to happen because it rarely crosses the mind of clergy that this is occurring, But i.m.o. it is one of the roots of the problem as to why continued inroads are attempted. That’s another reason I am very much in favor of a Bishop’s Message to The Children of God as something published permanently in parish bulletins where this is a repeated problem. That in itself is a message that there is something unchanging that is not a matter of populist opinion.

 

[diggerdomer]

diggerdomer, can you please clarify something for me? When you mean "celebrate Masses for medical professionals, legal practicioners, etc, are you referring to actually inviting them along to a special Mass held in their honour, or are you simply referring to holding Masses where those professions are prayed for?

From my experience and understanding, these Masses are celebrated with the specific intention of inviting those in these professions to attend/celebrate. This is very common in the U.S.

 

[diggerdomer]

First of all, once again you are mixing terms. People in particular professions, vs. people who not only have SSA, but who in fact have stated that they are not following the precepts of the Church? Got that?.

Yes, I “got that.”

But where in Masses for legal or medical professionals is the presumption made that anyone attending/celebrating is living their lives in accordance with Catholic teaching?

From what I know, no such requirement exists or is enforced. Right?

 

[diggerdomer]

None of the three Masses have much of a theme at all. One barely notices it. It is simply announced ahead of time that there will be a Mass “especially honoring” (etc.) a particular function (not a class of sinners) within the Body of Christ.

Homosexuals are not a “class of sinners”.

Does the Church teach otherwise? Or does the Church teach that there are ANY “classes of sinners?”

 

[John21652]

Homosexuals are not a “class of sinners”.

Does the Church teach otherwise? Or does the Church teach that there are ANY “classes of sinners?”

In the Bible, specifically at 1 Timothy 5:24, we are told that some men’s sins are obvious before they go to judgement and precede them there, whilst the sins of other men follow them to judgement. In other words, some sins are worse than others and quite obvious, whilst others are less obvious and of a lesser consequence, so we have two classes of sins just from the Bible!

The Church has “classes of sins”. There is Original sin, Mortal sins and Venial sins and there are also spiritual sins and carnal sins.

The Catholic Catechism states at 1853 -

Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.” But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

I found this list of possible mortal sins and it could be argued that each one would constitute a ‘class’ of sin -

Anger,
Adulterers,
Amending the words of the Holy Bible,
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (Eternal sin)
Carousing,
Cowards,
Defrauders,
Dissensions,
Disrespect towards parents,
Drunkenness,
Enmities,
Envy,
Factions,
Faithless,
False witness (liars)
Fornicators,
Greed,
Holy Communion received while in a state of mortal sin,
Idolatry,
Impurity,
Jealousy,
Licentiousness,
Love and practice falsehoods,
Male prostitution,
Murderers,
Polluted,
Quarrelling,
Sodomites,
Sorcery,
Strife,
Thieves (steal/robbers).

I suppose if you committ a certain ‘class of sin’, then you become a certain ‘class of sinner’!!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

In response to several of the last few postings I don’t think that it is wrong for any particular group whatsoever to get together and celebrate Mass. If that were wrong then we should never have say school Mass where a whole school: students, staff, and may be parents and governors all attend. It is not for us as individuals to judge if any one who attends such a Mass is in a state of mortal sin. Even if someone stays in the pew and does not go up to receive Communion we should never assume the reason why they are abstaining.

As for medical professionals it would be wrong to assume that if say a Mass was held for a particular hospital that any of the medical professionals attending were involved in abortion, IVF, etc. Of course, it would be a different matter if the Mass was being held for the staff of an abortion clinic; it would then be reasonable to assume that the staff of that clinic are involved with abortion.

Regarding the legal profession their stance on the death penalty is not relevant. The Church leaves it up to the individual’s conscience as to whether they believe in capital punishment or not. The catechism says that in some circumstances it may be used.

I do not believe that it is wrong to necessarily hold a Mass where a lot of the congregation may be in a state of mortal sin. Which of us are completely free from sin. Christ came to save sinners, not the perfect. The Church ministers to sinners. That is her role. What should not happen is that while those in a mortal state of sin may go to Mass they should not receive Communion.

Now, following on from the preceding paragraph is not so much that the Westminster Masses may be attended by those in mortal sin as to why these Masses are celebrated. First, they are being celebrated as occasions to celebrate lifestyles that the Church teaches are sinful. I’d have no objection to a Mass where the majority of the congregation were homosexual but I object to a Mass that openly celebrates the gay lifestyle. It is as bad as having a Mass that openly celebrated abortion.

While earlier in this posting I said we can’t judge whether someone is in a state of mortal sin we can know someone is in a state of mortal sin when they openly acknowledge the fact. The homosexuals who attend these Westminster Masses freely admit to the mortally sinful lifestyle they lead and yet they still take Communion.

So we can say these Masses are wrong as opposed to Masses celebrated for other sections of society. They are wrong on at least two counts. These Masses unashamedly celebrate the homosexual lifestyle, which the Church teaches is sinful. These Masses are attended by people who are openly admitting to being in mortal sin but they still receive Communion.

On a final note I will add, and I believe that I will say this every time I post on this thread. The people who attend these Masses are in a state of mortal sin. By receiving Communion while in a state of mortal sin they commit a mortal sin. The Church is failing these people. She exists to save souls but she is allowing these people to put their souls in grave danger.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’d have no objection to a Mass where the majority of the congregation were homosexual but I object to a Mass that openly celebrates the gay lifestyle. It is as bad as having a Mass that openly celebrated abortion.

While earlier in this posting I said we can’t judge whether someone is in a state of mortal sin we can know someone is in a state of mortal sin when they openly acknowledge the fact. The homosexuals who attend these Westminster Masses freely admit to the mortally sinful lifestyle they lead and yet they still take Communion.

So we can say these Masses are wrong as opposed to Masses celebrated for other sections of society. They are wrong on at least two counts. These Masses unashamedly celebrate the homosexual lifestyle, which the Church teaches is sinful. These Masses are attended by people who are openly admitting to being in mortal sin but they still receive Communion.

On a final note I will add, and I believe that I will say this every time I post on this thread. The people who attend these Masses are in a state of mortal sin. By receiving Communion while in a state of mortal sin they commit a mortal sin. The Church is failing these people. She exists to save souls but she is allowing these people to put their souls in grave danger.

I agree with all of this, as I believe my other posts also stated, but the institution of Masses attended by those unashamedly engaging in an immoral lifestyle is also the equivalent of the Church’s approval of scandal, which is intolerable. So it’s not just that the Church is failing individuals, by so doing; she is failing the entire Church body, as well as publishing contradictory messages to the public.

And the celebration of segments of society is not celebration of a disorder (temptations against chastity), which is a fairly universal temptation.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I agree with all of this, as I believe my other posts also stated, but the institution of Masses attended by those unashamedly engaging in an immoral lifestyle is also the equivalent of the Church’s approval of scandal, which is intolerable. So it’s not just that the Church is failing individuals, by so doing; she is failing the entire Church body, as well as publishing contradictory messages to the public.

And the celebration of segments of society is not celebration of a disorder (temptations against chastity), which is a fairly universal temptation.

I agree that it harms not only individuals but the Church as a whole. The crux of my argument was that some recent posters have said that if we can have Mass for one section of society then there should be no reason to have Mass for homosexuals. I would agree to that principle if the homily at Mass taught on the sin of homosexual acts and that the intention of the Mass was for homosexuals to preserve in celibacy, chastity, and continence. The Westminster Masses this Thread is devoted to though are not for that purpose. They celebrate, and I would even go as far to say promote, the homosexual lifestyle. That is why in these circumstances a Mass for a section of society, i.e. homosexuals, is wrong.