Homosexuality and the Eucharist

[Brian]

What to make of this?:

duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/10263482.htm

Is this an appropriately Catholic way of helping people who struggle with moral issues?

 

[buffalo]

Technically, if they were parishioners of that parish they own the property. They and other parishioners will end up paying for the cleanup anyway.

The question begs - what is an acceptable cost for an excorcism?
Was this action trying to purify the church? When newly built Church’s are consecrated they undergo a quite lengthy process.

I am not sure if this is an acceptable way, though.

 

[geezerbob]

From what I have read on other posts about the St. Paul area, it appear that if the bishop and priests had exhibited a little more backbone and addressed this issue properly, the “exorcism” incident may not have happened. This was not the church at the center of the controversy, though.

On the other hand, had they been firm in upholding the church’s teachings. the Rainbow Sash group may have done something even worse to the church.

This mess is like a cancer. Once it gets a head start, it is very difficult to stop.

Pray, pray, pray.

 

[sweetchuck]

Fact of the matter is, practicing homosexuals and all others in a state of mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist. But Jesus gave himself over to sacrilege in the first Eucharist when he gave himself to Judas. We should defend the Eucharist, and protect it from sacrilege when possible for the sake of their souls, but when someone is fully informed of their evil, and chooses to serve their pride rather than their Lord, it is their free choice to separate themselves from God for all eternity. We should absolutely pray that they turn from their evil ways and repent and make themselves worthy to receive the Lord.

 

[puzzleannie]

buffalo:

Technically, if they were parishioners of that parish they own the property. QUOTE]
no, they do not, the bishop owns all parish property in his diocese (unless it is owned by a religious order, or belongs to another rite)

 

[buffalo]

puzzleannie:

buffalo:

Technically, if they were parishioners of that parish they own the property. QUOTE]
no, they do not, the bishop owns all parish property in his diocese (unless it is owned by a religious order, or belongs to another rite)

Why is each parish incorporated? Why do they have different tax id numbers?

 

[puzzleannie]

no one in a state of mortal sin may receive the Eucharist, and commits the additional sin of sacrilege when they do receive without confession and absolution. that is true of pro-abort politicians, abortion doctors, active homosexuals, married Catholics who contracept, young adults who are cohabiting, divorced Catholics remarried civilly, or without annulment of the first marriage, employers who exploit sweatshop workers, people who cheat on their taxes, corporate execs who embezzle or manipulate their company’s stock for personal gain, and all the other permutations of mortal sin.

But the fact remains that the forum for addressing and absolving sin is the confessional, and the perogative for doing so belongs to the priest, never to a lay person, whether a Eucharistic Minister (no matter how extraordinary), an usher, a DRE, or an activist. The position of the Catholic lay person who sees a notorious public sinner approaching communion is ALWAYS to be guided by charity, and we must assume that the person has recently confessed and been absolved. The sin against charity and justice done by assuming otherwise is at least as bad as the sacrilege.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

buffalo:

Technically, if they were parishioners of that parish they own the property. They and other parishioners will end up paying for the cleanup anyway.

The question begs - what is an acceptable cost for an excorcism?
Was this action trying to purify the church? When newly built Church’s are consecrated they undergo a quite lengthy process.

I am not sure if this is an acceptable way, though.

Well, actually, I doubt that the parishioners DO own the property. That’s the case in many Protestant circles, but recently Abp Burke removed the priests from a parish where the parishioners were acting as if they owned the parish, through trying to administer its assets through a parish board, without reference to the Archdiocese.

But I’ve always felt that making any kind of political or social statement as part of the act of receiving the Holy Eucharist is nothing less than sacrilege, and it doesn’t matter what the statement is. If a mass is held for a particular group, then signs of affinity with that group are fine. But interjecting statements into the Eucharist is akin to the vile suggestions that we go to Mass to “build community” or whatever, rather than to give God the worship and praise that is his due.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Brian]

puzzleannie:

The position of the Catholic lay person who sees a notorious public sinner approaching communion is ALWAYS to be guided by charity, and we must assume that the person has recently confessed and been absolved. The sin against charity and justice done by assuming otherwise is at least as bad as the sacrilege.

Nice job annie. I concur. This “exorcism,” however well intentioned, is not under the purview of the laity. Unfortunately, I fear that these actions will only lead us further away from a resolution and understanding.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gerry Hunter:

Well, actually, I doubt that the parishioners DO own the property. That’s the case in many Protestant circles, but recently Abp Burke removed the priests from a parish where the parishioners were acting as if they owned the parish, through trying to administer its assets through a parish board, without reference to the Archdiocese.

But I’ve always felt that making any kind of political or social statement as part of the act of receiving the Holy Eucharist is nothing less than sacrilege, and it doesn’t matter what the statement is. If a mass is held for a particular group, then signs of affinity with that group are fine. But interjecting statements into the Eucharist is akin to the vile suggestions that we go to Mass to “build community” or whatever, rather than to give God the worship and praise that is his due.

Blessings,

Gerry

The Church is , however, built up by the sacraments - and in any case, the direct worship of God as conceptualised in the standard list of “the four ends of the Mass” would be a mockery if it were divorced from how we behave outside the time set apart for the Liturgy.​

We cannot love God, if we do not love our neighbour - and we do not discharge the “priestly service” we all share as Christians, if we confine that service to sections of each day spent in Church: our entire life should be an unceasing worship of God, with the Liturgy as a its summit: not as its only expression.

“Schnell said police have no leads, but several religious people familiar with the case said it is probably the work of fringe Catholics who advocate using sacramentals, or holy objects, to cleanse places where gays take communion.”

I don’t understand the thinking behind this: Jesus did not object to mixing with all sorts of people who were not “good Jews” - why should He mind living inside homosexuals, if He does not mind living inside those who curse, commit adultery, lie, defraud, cheat, bully, hate their neighbours, gossip, are cowardly, and so on ? He did not like lies: He said the devil was their father - something He never said of those who comitted sins of the flesh. If those who lie and hate can receive Him, so can homosexuals - “he who hates his brother is a murderer”, as St. John said.

Besides, the Eucharist is medicine for the sick - not a reward.

If homosexuals can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit - why can they not receive the Blessed Sacrament ? Jesus Christ did not hide in Heaven from sinners - He came down in humility and immersed Himself in our human condition, and was not afraid to mingle with sinners; nor has He ceased to do so. If Christ and His Church do not reject homosexuals - what do some people mean, by exorcising a church of the influence of homosexuals ? Are they more righteous than Christ ? Why not exorcise all churches ? - they are filled with sinners every day, after all.

There is nothing Christian at all about picking onm one group of Christians as uniquely evil. I think this tendency is a result of the Jansenist - therefore, semi-Calvinist - atmosphere which was a feature of early USA Catholicism. (Jansenist influence is one of the reasons for the harsh Puritanism of some French and Irish Catholicism.) To separate Catholics from Catholics, is to divide the Church of Christ

No one is fit to receive the Eucharist - no one at all. Jesus Christ alone, Who has no need of it, is worthy to receive it: a paradox wholly characteristic of the paradoxical faith in Christ. If others can - why not gays ? If they are so sinful - surely they, especially, need it. And why single out one group in this artificial way ? (BTW: no, I haven’t forgotten 1 Corinthians 11; but, it is not the only passage relevant to the reception of the Eucharist.)

We are all sinners: including our righteous brethren. Or have some forgotten that God has “[had] mercy on all” ? ##

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Good points, GoG.

To expand on the Eucharist as medicine, yes, absolutely it does build up the members of the Body of Christ. But there are some things that don’t go with taking that medicine, just like the ones we get at the pharmacy. Sin is NOT one of them, but the denial of sin is.

I’m not going to tell the heirarchy what to do in these cases, much less applaud an impromptu exorcism (something only to be done with the sanction of the diocesan Bishop, as it happens). But the problem is not giving communion to sinners, but to those who declare that what the church teaches is a sin is not a sin as they approach the communion rail. At that point, it really doesn’t matter what the sin is.

What seems needed most is prayer for those who so approach the Eucharist, and for those who must deal with the situation.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[aridite]

Gottle of Geer:

I don’t understand the thinking behind this: Jesus did not object to mixing with all sorts of people who were not “good Jews” - why should He mind living inside homosexuals, if He does not mind living inside those who curse, commit adultery, lie, defraud, cheat, bully, hate their neighbours, gossip, are cowardly, and so on ? He did not like lies: He said the devil was their father - something He never said of those who comitted sins of the flesh. If those who lie and hate can receive Him, so can homosexuals - “he who hates his brother is a murderer”, as St. John said.

Jesus did object to all of these sins. He does mind living inside all sinners (for the good of the sinners, he minds). He mixed with sinners in order to call them to repentance. If someone guilty of any sexual activity outside of marriage (which includes the homosexual kind) repents, and is forgiven through the ministry of a priest in confession, he or she may profitably and legitimately receive Communion. But, no one in a state of mortal sin (be it pride, envy, lust, sloth, etc) should present themselves to receive the Eucharist. Haters can’t legitimately (and should not) receive Communion, and so neither should active homosexuals. As was said before, Rainbow Sash wearers are declaring that they are commiting what the Church has identified as a mortal sin, but that they do not believe it to be a sin. It seems to me that the sash wearers have separated themselves from the Church by publicly rejecting the faith and authority of the Church; they are the ones who have broken the unity of the Church. Lay exorcisms are not a solution for this sticky pastoral problem, but it is a problem (not mere hypocracy on the part of faithful Catholics).
Gottle of Geer:

Besides, the Eucharist is medicine for the sick - not a reward.

Good point, but for this medicine to be of any benefit, one at least has to have not made a major rejection of God’s friendship (through mortal sin, falling from a state of grace [not a state of worth]).
Gottle of Geer:

If homosexuals can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit - why can they not receive the Blessed Sacrament ?

Being in a state of mortal sin, one has lost the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The question is not whether Our Eucharistic Lord can be present in them after they receive him. In faith, we know he is. The question is whether this presence would do the recipient any good, or rather further harm.
Gottle of Geer:

(BTW: no, I haven’t forgotten 1 Corinthians 11; but, it is not the only passage relevant to the reception of the Eucharist.)

What other passage is relevant to the reception of the Eucharist?

It should be noted that merely being a homosexual (having an sexual attraction to members of the same sex) is not considered a sin by the Church (though it is disordered – there is something wrong (in the sense of health) there). Only homosexual activity is considered a sin, ultimately because it is the use of sex outside of marriage.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

In reference to the article. It looks like vandalism.

A perpetrator might say his crime was religiously or politically motivated. Somehow vandalism seems more acceptable when the perpetrators make that claim. This just confuses things.

Vandalism is vandalism. The claimed motivation makes no difference.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

In reference to who owns parish property. This is governed by state law. Generally, the bishop owns the property.

 

[puzzleannie]

buffalo:

Why is each parish incorporated? Why do they have different tax id numbers?

each parish is not necessarily incorporated, it depends on the state and the diocese, tax ID numbers are for payroll puroses.

 

[JamesS]

I just cannot fathom this scurting of the homosexual issue.

Alot of people on here encourage the viewing of abortion photos to see just how disgusting, abhorent, and intrinsically evil it is.

Yet people keep splitting hairs on the homosexual issue…why? Perhaps we should encourage the viewing of homosexual pornography to drive the point home??

People keep pointing to ‘Courage’ or some other such group…when the forefathers of Catholicism (T. Aquinas specifically) *and *scripture **consistently **point it out to be an abomination, a sin in its own class.

Then we get legalistic over some poor souls who are obviously VEXED (as was Pilgrim in his Progess) that homosexualsare receiving Holy Communion. What? Perhaps we should be legalistic about Christ whipping the money changers?? Technically it was vandalism.

I pray for the Roman Catholic Church that this issue does not tear apart your Communion as it did my Church.

God Bless