Mo Rocca lector and open homosexual at Papal Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter rayne89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rayne89

Guest
torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/breaking-it-was-no-secret-us-bishops.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
I understand the idea of us all being sinners and inclusion and all that. I didn’t even know who this guy was but apparently protestants do. Please help me explain to protestants how an open homosexual who advocates for gay marriage can be a lector at a Mass broadcast around the world with the Pope and Archbishop Dolan sitting right there. This comes across as the sin of scandal because in their eyes this is pope openly endorsing publicly known sin -something this Mr. Rocca is unapologetic about. I would guess Pope Francis is unaware who this man is but I can’t imagine Cardinal Dolan and others around him do not know exactly who he is.
 
rayne89 said:
torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/breaking-it-was-no-secret-us-bishops.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
I understand the idea of us all being sinners and inclusion and all that. I didn’t even know who this guy was but apparently protestants do. Please help me explain to protestants how an open homosexual who advocates for gay marriage can be a lector at a Mass broadcast around the world with the Pope and Archbishop Dolan sitting right there. This comes across as the sin of scandal because in their eyes this is pope openly endorsing publicly known sin -something this Mr. Rocca is unapologetic about. I would guess Pope Francis is unaware who this man is but I can’t imagine Cardinal Dolan and others around him do not know exactly who he is.
Click to expand...
So, you claim Mr. Rocca is unapologetic, okay, but what about the fornicator or adulterer who is unapologetic because he has not even acknowledged his sinfulness; how do we know they are not standing before the assembly reading the word?

Are you advocating public confession, as was done centuries ago, so that for your benefit you will clearly know who the sinner is?

I’ve got news for you, we all are sinners, but thankfully God still sees each of us worthy to come to his house, even though our own lack of humility seems to compel us to make the decision if someone is worthy of God’s love and mercy.
.

Mr. Rocca’s (or anyone’s) participation in the Mass should not be, to us, a display of the piety of those attending or serving, but of the mercy of the one being worshipped and glorified.
 
rayne89 said:
torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/breaking-it-was-no-secret-us-bishops.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
I understand the idea of us all being sinners and inclusion and all that. I didn’t even know who this guy was but apparently protestants do. Please help me explain to protestants how an open homosexual who advocates for gay marriage can be a lector at a Mass broadcast around the world with the Pope and Archbishop Dolan sitting right there. This comes across as the sin of scandal because in their eyes this is pope openly endorsing publicly known sin -something this Mr. Rocca is unapologetic about. I would guess Pope Francis is unaware who this man is but I can’t imagine Cardinal Dolan and others around him do not know exactly who he is.
Click to expand...
I know Mo Rocca from his work as an interviewer and commentator on the CBS Sunday Morning Show. AFAIK, he has never once brought up the topic of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage. I have also seen him in the audience during the Christmas Mass with Cardinal Dolan. Apparently Rocca is proud of his Catholicism. If you are truly understanding of the Catholic Church’s being inclusive of all sinners, then don’t pay attention to what some Protestants may say about Mo Rocca. How do any of us know whether or not Rocca is apologetic or not about his gay lifestyle, that is, how many times he has gone to Confession to repent of his sins? Nor is it any of our business. Apparently he can be a lector at a Catholic Mass since all lectors have sinned and, presumably, are struggling with their sins and attempting to overcome them. That should be enough for you and anyone else.
 
Neofight said:
So, you claim Mr. Rocca is unapologetic, okay, but what about the fornicator or adulterer who is unapologetic because he has not even acknowledged his sinfulness; how do we know they are not standing before the assembly reading the word?

Are you advocating public confession, as was done centuries ago, so that for your benefit you will clearly know who the sinner is?

I’ve got news for you, we all are sinners, but thankfully God still sees each of us worthy to come to his house, even though our own lack of humility seems to compel us to make the decision if someone is worthy of God’s love and mercy.
.

Mr. Rocca’s (or anyone’s) participation in the Mass should not be, to us, a display of the piety of those attending or serving, but of the mercy of the one being worshipped and glorified.
Click to expand...
You are misreading what I wrote I asked in help in explaining this to protestants. This sin of scandal is taught by the church
The meaning and kinds of scandal, 1. Scandal is any word, act, or omission which is the occasion of another’s committing sin. For scandal it is not necessary: (a) that the thing done be really sinful, so long as it has the appearance of evil; (b) that the person scandalized be good and innocent; (c) that the person scandalized fall into the sin. 2. Scandal is of two kinds: (a) Direct when the scandal giver expressly intends to lead others astray, as when he counsels or commands what is wrong; (b) indirect when he does not wish to lead others into sin, but does or says what he knows will be an occasion of sin. Examples of this latter kind of scandal are: Immodest dressing in women who wish merely to conform to fashion, bad language, neglect of religious duties, and other evil examples on the part of parents and superiors.
Click to expand...
This man is known publicly as a promoter of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage according to the press. I have never even heard of him. It is quite possible he went to confession. But as far as I could find nothing is published that he has repented or changed his views. That does not mean I am for public confession. I have protestants saying to me the pope endorses homosexual behavior by having an openly homosexual man read the bible at Mass. They are scandalized. What do I tell them? I do not know how to explain this to them.
 
Before anyone misunderstands and thinks I am passing judgement or think I am better than others or not a sinner that is the furthest thing from the truth. If this man is struggling but trying to follow Christ thanks be to God! I firmly believe in meeting people where there are and allow the Holy Spirit to work on their conversion. I still would like help in explaining to those outside the church how a well known homosexual (as far as anyone knows active in the lifestyle) gets to read the bible at Mass. This is called Catholic Answers for a reason.
 
rayne89 said:
You are misreading what I wrote I asked in help in explaining this to protestants. This sin of scandal is taught by the church
This man is known publicly as a promoter of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage according to the press. I have never even heard of him. It is quite possible he went to confession. But as far as I could find nothing is published that he has repented or changed his views. That does not mean I am for public confession. I have protestants saying to me the pope endorses homosexual behavior by having an openly homosexual man read the bible at Mass. They are scandalized. What do I tell them? I do not know how to explain this to them.
Click to expand...
How is it that Protestants feel scandalized by this, given they are not Catholics? Indeed many of them don’t believe in the Catholic Mass which consists of transsubstantiation. I really don’t understand why you feel the need to explain this to Protestants, unless perhaps they are discerning Catholicism.
 
Obviously, the first answer is to attack the person who raised the question – who are we (i.e., you, me, the Pope and/or anyone else) to judge? And the second answer is to sidestep the issue entirely by asking about the possibility of secret sin (i.e., adultery, fornication, whatever) of others who also participated in the mass. Not! Not! Not!

Your Protestant friends are right to ask these questions. They raise a legitimate point to which there is no easy answer. It does appear as an endorsement of homosexual conduct and it does create the danger of scandal. I am not saying that it IS a scandal – but that it gives the APPEARANCE OF. Again, we are back to “credibility” issues.

I think there is a big difference between “secret sin” that no one knows about and that isn’t flaunted and advocated and “open sin” from someone who apparently is a public figure who is advocating for acceptance of something the Catholic faith teaches is morally wrong. The secret sin (say an affair) that no one knows about really isn’t the point here.

This is what I would answer: I don’t know how this situation came to be. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. What happened isn’t what should have happened. There are two options: either the people in charge of choosing lectors were unaware of the situation (it was a mistake) OR they knew and had an agenda to accomplish (it was deliberate).

The Pope will likely be able to deny any knowledge or involvement in the choice of lectors. The local priest and the bishop, not so much. It seems that someone on a local level should have known and should not have allowed this individual to be a lector at this high profile mass (or any mass – until repentance and reconciliation with the Church).

I suppose it is possible that the individual – moved by the messages of the Holy Father and his visit to America – felt sincere contrition/ sorrow for his sin, went to confession prior to the mass, and with a broken heart repented of his sin. We would never know that this had occurred or not. Obviously, each of us will answer to God as our judge.

I am saddened and disappointed that this sort of thing happened and that an explanation is needed. Perhaps some rejoice because they see it as a “welcoming message” (i.e., open, inclusive, inviting) to the gay community. Unfortunately, I think these types of situations give the Catholic faith a black eye and diminish the credibility of the Church.
 
Neofight said:
So, you claim Mr. Rocca is unapologetic, okay, but what about the fornicator or adulterer who is unapologetic because he has not even acknowledged his sinfulness; how do we know they are not standing before the assembly reading the word?
Click to expand...
They should not be doing so either. Because their sin is private, not known to their priest or bishop, they should regulate themselves and decline such a position.

For those committing public sins, those sins are known to others and therefore those in authority can and should step in if the person does not self regulate.

If a person has repented, and has firm purpose of amendment and is no longer living in the sinful situation, the all clear. Read away.
Neofight said:
Are you advocating public confession, as was done centuries ago, so that for your benefit you will clearly know who the sinner is?
Click to expand...
Those who sin publicly can expect public consequences. A person in the media who advocates for same sex marriage, barring a retraction of their public statements, should regulate him or herself. But alas, most do not.
 
I have no knowledge of Mo Rocca. If he is a public advocate for a homosexual lifestyle then I think it was a mistake to invite him to lector at a papal Mass.

One wonders what would have been the media reaction if Alex Epstein* had been the lector.

(*author of the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel)
 
JimG said:
One wonders what would have been the media reaction if Alex Epstein* had been the lector.

(*author of the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel)
Click to expand...
What if the reader had been a self professed klansman? I doubt the tolerance squad would be lauding that. I don’t understand how people think just because a grave sin is popular we can ignore it. It is easy and safe to condemn unpopular sins.
 
The problem here is the notion that readers are chosen for the sake of having lay readers–rather than choosing someone only when an Instituted Lector (who are also laymen) is unavailable.

I cannot see how, at a Papal visit, it was not possible to find an Instituted Lector to perform his proper ministry.
 
FrDavid96 said:
The problem here is the notion that readers are chosen for the sake of having lay readers–rather than choosing someone only when an Instituted Lector (who are also laymen) is unavailable.

I cannot see how, at a Papal visit, it was not possible to find an Instituted Lector to perform his proper ministry.
Click to expand...
Father,
How many dioceses even bother with these ministries outside of seminaries? Of course we all know that the intention of Vatican II was to cram as many laity into the sanctuary as possible :rolleyes:
 
twf said:
Father,
How many dioceses even bother with these ministries outside of seminaries? :
Click to expand...
But for large Masses where such seminarians actually ARE present ( or at least, should be), then it is right and proper to use them
 
3_Dog_Night said:
Your Protestant friends are right to ask these questions. They raise a legitimate point to which there is no easy answer. It does appear as an endorsement of homosexual conduct and it does create the danger of scandal. I am not saying that it IS a scandal – but that it gives the APPEARANCE OF. Again, we are back to “credibility” issues.

I think there is a big difference between “secret sin” that no one knows about and that isn’t flaunted and advocated and “open sin” from someone who apparently is a public figure who is advocating for acceptance of something the Catholic faith teaches is morally wrong. The secret sin (say an affair) that no one knows about really isn’t the point here.

This is what I would answer: I don’t know how this situation came to be. This is what the Catholic Church teaches. What happened isn’t what should have happened. There are two options: either the people in charge of choosing lectors were unaware of the situation (it was a mistake) OR they knew and had an agenda to accomplish (it was deliberate).

The Pope will likely be able to deny any knowledge or involvement in the choice of lectors. The local priest and the bishop, not so much. It seems that someone on a local level should have known and should not have allowed this individual to be a lector at this high profile mass (or any mass – until repentance and reconciliation with the Church).

I suppose it is possible that the individual – moved by the messages of the Holy Father and his visit to America – felt sincere contrition/ sorrow for his sin, went to confession prior to the mass, and with a broken heart repented of his sin. We would never know that this had occurred or not. Obviously, each of us will answer to God as our judge.
.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your answer and understanding my question. 🙂
 
rayne89 said:
torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/breaking-it-was-no-secret-us-bishops.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
I understand the idea of us all being sinners and inclusion and all that. I didn’t even know who this guy was but apparently protestants do. Please help me explain to protestants how an open homosexual who advocates for gay marriage can be a lector at a Mass broadcast around the world with the Pope and Archbishop Dolan sitting right there. This comes across as the sin of scandal because in their eyes this is pope openly endorsing publicly known sin -something this Mr. Rocca is unapologetic about. I would guess Pope Francis is unaware who this man is but I can’t imagine Cardinal Dolan and others around him do not know exactly who he is.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve been thinking this over. It’s a tough one for sure.

The question I keep asking myself is, “What would Jesus do?”

What do you guys think Jesus would do in this situation?

What about St. Francis of Assisi?
 
Most of the criticism seems to centre on the fact that he is gay. Given this, the following paragraph from the CDF’s Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons is worth noting:
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top