My Church has LGBTQ Vespers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TN_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not many churches hold vespers services and they are so wonderful to attend. I think it would behoove TN to just ask the priest whether the vespers service was open to all or to just LGBTQ people. The question alone would alert him to some confusion in the matter, which he can readily clear up, perhaps in the church bulletin.

My church has a regular Mass for those with intellectual disabilities, in order to meet their spiritual needs as they are capable. Area churches offer Masses in new immigrant languages. The women, the men, the young mothers, the seniors have prayer and activity groups, but I must say nobody has a special church prayer liturgy of the hours just for their group. Maybe it is so at other churches.

A broader question lurking in the background I suspect is one concerning just ministering to special needs within a parish vs. atomizing parish unity into separate communities. This happens at times within organizations including churches. It could be that this risk is what makes some of those who are posting uneasy.
 
Went to the Vespers tonight. Told the priest I just wanted to learn about how to treat LGBTQ people as a Catholic. There wasn’t a huge turn out.
The meeting started out with prayer that I found comforting and beautiful. But when we got to the conversation part the part I wasn’t very pleased. They were fairly crude in talking about sex (not pornographic levels but pretty out there for a religous meeting), and the priest condoned gay marriage (he’s attended gay weddings) and expressed hopes the Church will change positions on the matter. Also I had a member tell me not to listen to everything the Church teaches about morality. This isn’t everything I feared but it’s definitely out of line and supportive of homosexual actions/lifestyle.
What do I do? If I report they’ll know it was me because there were so few people and I even admitted to being a by-the-book Catholic.
 
TheLittleLady said:
You do realize that being gay is not a sin, right? Homosexuality is not a sin, to draw the parallel to “fornicator vespers” is just plain ole mean.
Click to expand...
Then if they’re not acting on their LGBTRSTUVWXYZ…there isn’t a problem. They can be in full communion with the Church, receive the Sacraments. No need for special Vespers.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
You are saying that SSA is “not okay” and “gravely wrong”. Are you familiar with what SSA means? Do you realize that you are saying something directly contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
CCC 2358 says the inclination (SSA) is objectively disordered. What does objectively disordered mean?
 
TN_Catholic said:
They were fairly crude in talking about sex (not pornographic levels but pretty out there for a religous meeting), and the priest condoned gay marriage (he’s attended gay weddings) and expressed hopes the Church will change positions on the matter. Also I had a member tell me not to listen to everything the Church teaches about morality. This isn’t everything I feared but it’s definitely out of line and supportive of homosexual actions/lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Leave and don’t go back. Do you have the means to go to another parish? I could look up parishes for you if you want to message me you zip code.
 
Debbie_Kono said:
CCC 2358 says the inclination (SSA) is objectively disordered. What does “objectively disordered” mean?
Click to expand...
The expression appears but once in the entire Catechism! I believe it means that the attraction is ordered inappropriately (ie. to a wrong/inappropriate object). SSA is not a good thing, given it is an inclination toward the intrinsically evil. But the experience of SSA is not in itself a moral wrong.
 
Last edited:
Debbie_Kono said:
CCC 2358 says the inclination (SSA) is objectively disordered. What does objectively disordered mean?
Click to expand...
Rau answered this pretty well. As Augustine said, something cannot be sinful unless it is voluntary. Thus, saying that SSA is “wrong” is false and unhelpful. Saying it is a thing that people would be better without is perfectly acceptable, although we never know what reasons God has for giving different people different crosses.
 
May I ask you to which other religion you feel close?

If your parish is big enough, are there other prayer groups you could attend?
A priest is important, yes, but the middle of the church is god, not the priest himself. Maybe he won´t stay forever. We had similar problems with a priest near my parish and lost many people, but, to be honest, his go away didn´t changed the basic organsisation and fauth of the parish at least.
 
If true unfortunately this priest is dangerous to souls. I’d not go back to the parish. I’d report him to the bishop. Publicly admitting to attending same sex ‘marriage’ and advocating for them is deeply disturbing, scandalous and greatly undermines the Faith.
 
You may not realize that the Church has special liturgies for groups all of the time. Mass for the women’s group, Adoration for Hispanic Charismatics, Mass or Rosary for those with Addiction, Vespers for the military, Adoration for the divorce support group, Mass for the St Dymphna Society (those with mental illness), Children’s Penance Service, White Mass, Red Mass, Blue Mass on and on and on.
 
TN_Catholic said:
and the priest condoned gay marriage (he’s attended gay weddings) and expressed hopes the Church will change positions on the matter.
Click to expand...
Yep. What did I tell you?
TN_Catholic said:
What do I do?
Click to expand...
You leave that parish, if only until the priest is replaced. Do you really want to entrust the care of your soul to such a priest? A lot of Catholics have to make sacrifices to find a suitable place to attend Mass. It may be that you need to drive further to a different Catholic church.
 
Last edited:
The priest either does not believe the Church’s teaching, or does not care about his parishioners. In the first case, he lacks integrity; in the second case, he lacks heart. Either way, this is not building so much a bridge as a precipice.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
saying that SSA is “wrong” is false and unhelpful.
Click to expand...
So then objectively disordered would have a different meaning? Rau says it’s (SSA) not a good thing and you say “saying it is ‘wrong’ is false”. What gives? Who’s got it right?

Perhaps if we could get the truth out that the vast, vast majority of people with SSA have been previously violated by a sexual predator we could truly help them. Telling them it isn’t “wrong” IS unhelpful.
 
I am sorry to hear that.

No one here can tell you what to do. Sure, it’s easy for us anonymous internet people to tell you that you must “certainly” do things that are very difficult. But you have to live with the consequences. If it were me, I’d view it in terms of several options pertaining to a couple of different questions.

First, there is the matter of whether to “report it” or not. I’m not the type to advocate writing the bishop every time a priest rubs you the wrong way, but a priest openly admitting attending gay weddings is a pretty serious thing. A letter to the bishop would not be out of line and I would encourage you to seriously consider it. And, yes, it would likely come back to you, whether it was anonymously submitted or not. I would never recommend writing a letter anonymously, though. Anonymous complaints are taken far less seriously. So you have to decide whether you can live with that. Obviously, if you were switching parishes, it would be easier to live with it because you wouldn’t be there anymore.

Second, there is the matter of where to go. Again, it’s easy for us to tell you not to go back to that parish, but you are the one who would have to drive to the next parish, which it seems from your previous posts is not that close by. I can understand not wanting to stick around, but I know that I would not allow myself to be easily scared away from my parish. A good pastor is a good thing to have, but even if he’s less than ideal, he is not the sum total of the parish.

Either way, I feel for you. It’s going to entail a bit of mortification on your part however you slice it. One thing that is not an option is to stay away from Mass on account of the priest. No matter what he is putting out there, the Eucharist is still there.

I’ll say a prayer for you.
 
Debbie_Kono said:
So then objectively disordered would have a different meaning? Rau says it’s (SSA) not a good thing and you say “saying it is ‘wrong’ is false”. What gives? Who’s got it right?
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between “bad” and “wrong”. Stale cookies are bad, but they are not wrong. Indeed, it makes no sense to say that cookies – or unchosen dispositions – could be wrong. Having same-sex attraction is an unchosen disposition. Does this help explain?
Perhaps if we could get the truth out that the vast, vast majority of people with SSA have been previously violated by a sexual predator we could truly help them.
Click to expand...
And that claim is unsubstantiated nonsense. People with SSA are more likely to have been abused, yes. But a large proportion of them haven’t been abused. I’ve talked with hundreds of them, and reports of abuse are the exception, not the norm.
 
Thank you and everyone else for the advice. I understand that this is a (more or less) anonymous internet forum, and I would never make a decision based solely on anything said here. However, it helps me weigh options.
I understand that there is a spectrum of acceptablity, with more traditional faithful on one side and more “modern” on the other. For example, in my home town, there are several different Catholic churches. The one my family first started going to when we went into practicing was led by a more modern priest who emphasized compassion, told a joke or two in homilies, added a stuffed lion to the nativity scence, and at the end of Mass sometimes brought up a secular matter such as football before dismissing us. He is a good man who some people have likened to Santa Claus, and his warmth helps bring people to the Church. There is another church in town that offers regular Latin Mass, and the priests there are much more traditional with more emphasis on the Cathecism and the Commandments. I personally prefer the more traditional church, but both are equally valid and can lead souls to heaven. In all my interactions with him (hearing his homilies, going to Confession through him), I have never had reason to worry the “Santa priest” would give the congregation advice or teaching contrary to the church. On the other hand, the priest in question has stepped off the reasonable spectrum of traditional-modern by saying and doing things that directly contradict official church teachings.
It’s scary because it weighs on me either way. This church is so close I can hear the bells when I’m in my room studying. Driving to another parish would be about a one hour roundtrip (not that I’m not willing if the situation calls for it to at the very least ensure a good Confession). As far as reporting, I’d probably wind up switching parishes if I did because they would definitely find out it was me no matter what, and I am very young and intimidated by authority figures. I already get a lot of scoffs from other Catholics for being “too traditional.” Being singled out as a whistle-blower is a very scary prospect. However, if I stay silent, this priest will continue to mislead others, even if it’s only one or two people. My friend who knows about this asked why I didn’t just leave it be and give the priest the benefit of the doubt. I told them that would be willful ignorance/turning a blind eye, which to my understanding is also a sin.
I’m any case, this is certainly a very difficult moral dilema.
When I go home for break in the next two weeks, I plan to talk to one of the priests from my preferred traditional church on the course of best action. I know I can rely on them best for the most orthodox yet 100% Catholic position.
 
Our God is a god of order. If Church teaching says something is disordered…it’s wrong. Bad. Not right. If I have an “unchosen disposition” to lust (after the opposite sex) even though I don’t act on it…it is disordered. Wrong. Bad. Not right. Telling someone their “unchosen dispositions” are not wrong can easily lead them to believe they can also act on them. Does this help explain?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top