Priest tells RH bill supporters to leave Mass

[Tsuwano]

As I have mentioned previously, we have to be careful that we do not impute a negative strain on priests who openly speak of the hypocrisy committed by anti-life and anti-family Catholics. How are priests being self-righteous when preaching what the Catholic Church teaches? When the priest in this case reminded the anti-life and anti-family Catholics that their disputes with Catholic teaching are incompatible with their worship of God, it was up to those Catholics to stay and reflect. That they chose to leave shows that the anti-life and anti-family Catholics were more concerned with their prestige than God’s. If they needed Him, they would have stayed notwithstanding the scolding from the pulpit.

We also have to be very careful to presume that dialogue is lacking between the Church and anti-life and anti-family Catholics in the Philippines. The Philippine Bishops and clergy have not been lacking in that respect and follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

First of all, I did not say that this priest was being self - righteous. I said that he opens himself up to the charge of being self-righteous, not because of his defense of the Church’s views concerning the bill, but because he abuses his authority when he tells parishoners to leave mass and not to return until they no longer support the bill in question. It is one thing to call on parishoners to reflect upon the sin they bring upon themselves by supporting the bill, and another to tell them to no longer attend the liturgy. If the parishoners are in sin by their support of the bill, the priest is compounding their sin by telling them not to attend the liturgy anymore. Note that I did not say that the priest does not have a right to refuse communion to these people. He does. But I do not think he has the right to throw people out of the liturgy and tell them not to come back. Isn’t it a sin to miss mass? Isn’t this priest telling people to commit further sin by encouraging them not to attend mass? Why shouldn’t all sinners be told that they should no longer attend mass? Doesn’t this strike you as somewhat different from the approach that our Lord took towards sinners? The priest, by kicking people out of the liturgy, was not preaching what the Church teaches. He was attempting to punish people. From what I read, the priest did not ask parishoners to stay and reflect upon their sin, but to leave the liturgy and not return. He did not offer himself or his services to those parishoners who left, but rather made himself inaccessible to his parishoners through his arrogant way of dealing with the problem. I hope there is dialogue taking place between the Bishops and those Catholics who are in support of this bill. Such dialogue and instruction is needed. But from the article above, there was no sign of dialogue between the priest and his parishoners prior to this liturgy. I hope this particular priest does strive to walk in the steps of our Lord, but I do not think his action of throwing people out of the liturgy are in line with what I think our Lord would have done.

 

[Tsuwano]

From the little I know of the circumstances, I am glad that he said what he said, and I would like to see similar boldness in the States. Did he perhaps act rashly? Sure, we can say that with hindsight. Perhaps he could have just stated the fact that those who support the bill are unworthy of communion, and would be bringing judgement on themselves, and then let each person take that to heart and make their own decisions. But I am happy that he was willing to speak the truth no matter the cost to himself.

It wouldn’t have hurt their feelings if it wasn’t true. I would rather see this happening than a priest who accomodates to the public whim.

It is not what the priest said that bothers me. It is what he did. He ejected people from the liturgy during his homily. This strikes me as mean and punitive and not very enlightened. The priest’s actions inflamed the situation and refocused the attention away from the pro life positions he upholds to his own behavior. This doesn’t strike me as a very positive way of teaching those whose own views separate them from the Church. All I’m saying is that the situation could have been handled more positively.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well-said

It is not what the priest said that bothers me. It is what he did. He ejected people from the liturgy during his homily. This strikes me as mean and punitive and not very enlightened. The priest’s actions inflamed the situation and refocused the attention away from the pro life positions he upholds to his own behavior. This doesn’t strike me as a very positive way of teaching those whose own views separate them from the Church. All I’m saying is that the situation could have been handled more positively.

 

[Santi2]

First of all, I did not say that this priest was being self - righteous. I said that he opens himself up to the charge of being self-righteous, not because of his defense of the Church’s views concerning the bill, but because he abuses his authority when he tells parishoners to leave mass and not to return until they no longer support the bill in question. It is one thing to call on parishoners to reflect upon the sin they bring upon themselves by supporting the bill, and another to tell them to no longer attend the liturgy. If the parishoners are in sin by their support of the bill, the priest is compounding their sin by telling them not to attend the liturgy anymore. Note that I did not say that the priest does not have a right to refuse communion to these people. He does. But I do not think he has the right to throw people out of the liturgy and tell them not to come back.

I did not imply that you did. And once again, I raise the same query. Why is it self-righteousness to preach of the righteousness of Catholic teaching? Further, why is it that the priest’s duty to preach is seen as an abuse of authority?

And, no, the priest was not compounding their sin where the intention was to change people’s mind. The tradition of the Church is to call people to repent and that when they have done so, they can come back and participate in the fullness of the Mass when they are prepared to accept Catholic teaching. That is the essence of the Liturgy of the Word. It teaches. It is not any different to parents who admonish belligerent children when they are told: “If you cannot live according to my rules, you might as well move out.”

Isn’t it a sin to miss mass? Isn’t this priest telling people to commit further sin by encouraging them not to attend mass? Why shouldn’t all sinners be told that they should no longer attend mass?

It is a sin to miss Mass. However, it is a greater sin to make mockery of the Mass, isn’t it? If at all, the priest has done the anti-life and anti-family Catholics a favour by not encouraging them to commit further sins. To come to Church without repudiating support for positions against Church teachings is grave scandal.

Doesn’t this strike you as somewhat different from the approach that our Lord took towards sinners? The priest, by kicking people out of the liturgy, was not preaching what the Church teaches. He was attempting to punish people.

The priest was in conformity with the manner Jesus preached about disguised decay and hypocrisy in Matthew 21 and 23.

From what I read, the priest did not ask parishoners to stay and reflect upon their sin, but to leave the liturgy and not return. He did not offer himself or his services to those parishoners who left, but rather made himself inaccessible to his parishoners through his arrogant way of dealing with the problem.

What the priest said at Mass was conjunctive, not disjunctive.

*Please, go out. It’s useless," the priest said.

“What is this mass for if you are pro-RH bill? What is going to Church for if you’re pro-RH bill?” he asked.*

Unfortunately, those who walked out reacted to the first part. And, that is not the priest’s fault. The priest also did not say “not return”. I am sure he is aware of the tradition of reconciliation and would be most welcoming of those who have mended their ways. If there is anyone who bears the burden of arrogance, that would be the anti-life and anti-family Catholics who walked out. By walking out, they have made their hearts and minds inaccessible to the truths that the priest was teaching them.

I hope there is dialogue taking place between the Bishops and those Catholics who are in support of this bill. Such dialogue and instruction is needed. But from the article above, there was no sign of dialogue between the priest and his parishoners prior to this liturgy. I hope this particular priest does strive to walk in the steps of our Lord, but I do not think his action of throwing people out of the liturgy are in line with what I think our Lord would have done.

The links below are one of many which helped me understand what Catholicism is like in the Philippines as well as an insight into the dialogue between Church and people. There are other references which I am certain you can google.

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/37/OPTaGIQp0ns

youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/u/39/2EI0vNdV4FA

Pastoral Letter of the Philippine Bishops
cbcpnews.com/?q=node/14472

Media coverage.
gmanews.tv/story/211922/cbcp-rh-bill-a-form-of-moral-corruption

Then perhaps, it might also help to understand that “throwing people out” is also at grassroots where the anti-life and anti-family Catholics promote their support within the Church.
youtube.com/watch?v=eQisx1yt198

 

[sulkow82]

Did Jesus lack imagination and charity when he overturned tables at the Temple of Jerusalem? We have to be careful that we do not impute a negative strain on priests who openly speak of the hypocrisy committed by anti-life and anti-family Catholics.

The difference is they had tables for Christ to overturn. There was no mistaking what they were doing.

He could have approached the issue in a less confrontational way, allowing those members of the community who are in error to reflect on their mistakes and, with dignity, approach the issue from a different perspective. He could have started a dialogue which would have allowed the entire community to understand why those who supported the bill are wrong.

Yes. instead of kicking people out, what about clearly saying that taking Communion while supporting the bill is a mortal sin and therefore should not receive Communion. Then, call the supporters to conversion away from endorsing it and back to the Church and Christ.

 

[Santi2]

The difference is they had tables for Christ to overturn. There was no mistaking what they were doing.

What do you mean by “they had tables for Christ to overturn”?

 

[stmike38]

It’s about time! This priest is absolutely correct. This is what priests used too do; protect the eucharist from being profaned and protect those who’ve excommunicated themselves from committing another mortal sin. Bishops and priests here in the US please grow a set and follow suit! We are with you and this IS what the FAITHFUL want.

 

[stmike38]

The difference is they had tables for Christ to overturn. There was no mistaking what they were doing.

Yes. instead of kicking people out, what about clearly saying that taking Communion while supporting the bill is a mortal sin and therefore should not receive Communion. Then, call the supporters to conversion away from endorsing it and back to the Church and Christ.

Because that’s been tried over and over and over and it does not work. We have too many people who are Catholic in Name Only who are hard hearted hard headed and won’t come to the truth. The time for handling the hard headed Luke warm with kid-gloves is over. The teaching of The Church is clear and prominent. People can’t say they didn’t know. The Church is A hospital for sinners,yes. But, no hospital would let a patient go about killing themselves while in their care. That’s what unworthy reception of The Eucharist is. A blasphemy, suicide of the soul.

 

[Teelynn]

Except for those who have committed public Scandal that the Priests know about,
the Priest will have done his job if he clearly states prior to Mass that supporting the RH bill is a Mortal Sin, and the reasons why it is a Mortal Sin.
Then he must state that recieving Communion in the State of Mortal Sin is a Sacrilege which is an additional Mortal sin. And that no one in the State of Mortal Sin may receive Holy Communion.
If anyone in the State of Mortal Sin receives Holy Communion anyway, they take their chances with God’s justice.
The Priest will have done his job. No one expects the Priest to be a mind-reader.

This sounds like a sensible approach. It would be nice in situations as these to see some “fire and brimstone” from the pulpit. Here in this country firey homilies are nonexistent. I think most of our politicians that are pro abortion have been allowed to receive communion without a word of warning. This priest had the right idea but carried it a little too far. I personally would have gone so far as to refuse communion to anyone who I knew was a supporter of the bill. This hasn’t been done enough in this country.

 

[sulkow82]

What do you mean by “they had tables for Christ to overturn”?

My comment there was to say that it was clear who was doing what. Objectively, when you go into Mass, the person sitting in front of you could be a strong advocate of birth control or could be a strong critic of birth control. You don’t know.

Someone had compared the priest calling for advocates of birth control to leave the building. You don’t know if everyone who fell under this category complied.

In Christ’s time, however, it was easy to tell who was turning the temple into a den of thieves. It was not the person walking through the courtyard (with one turtledove in hand) to get to one of the sacrifice alters; it was the person behind one of the tables (with animals in cages all around him) saying “come buy my stuff.”

 

[sulkow82]

Because that’s been tried over and over and over and it does not work.

Then let me ask you this… how would you verify that everyone who does advocate birth-control complied with the directive?

 

[mdrummer5]

I give the priest credit for calling out the lax catholics

That’s not really his place is it? The way I understand it, God alone will judge us and nobody, not even a priest can rightfully judge whether or not we are lax in our faith.

 

[TBolt1000T]

I don’t opt for either. Surely there is a way of approaching this issue without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It seems to me the priest in question lacks both imagination and charity.

He could have said something like, “If anyone here supports the RH Bill, then please do not go up to receive holy Communion, since the RH Bill promotes grave sins.” Throing them out of Mass may have caused them to not fulfill their Sunday obligation, which is another mortal sin.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I opt for overkill than silence from the pulpit.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

That’s not really his place is it? The way I understand it, God alone will judge us and nobody, not even a priest can rightfully judge whether or not we are lax in our faith.

A priest or you or I can judge a person’s actions and support of this perfidious program is judgeable.God will judge their souls-the priest merely charitably disciplined them least they be damned for supporting this initiative which is CLEARLY contrary to Church Teachings.Please God send us Filipino priests to evangelize our congregations!

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

He could have said something like, “If anyone here supports the RH Bill, then please do not go up to receive holy Communion, since the RH Bill promotes grave sins.” Throing them out of Mass may have caused them to not fulfill their Sunday obligation, which is another mortal sin.

They committed no mortal sin as they were in effect dispensed,but they do have mortal sins on their souls(conditionally upon the 3 prerequisites-it matters not whether they consider it not to be a grevious matter-they have been INFORMED that it is) for supporting this initiative and thus spared them the consumption of condemnation through the Eucharist.He was doing them a favour as there would not have been a person among them who would not present themselves for communion and you know it.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

As I have mentioned previously, we have to be careful that we do not impute a negative strain on priests who openly speak of the hypocrisy committed by anti-life and anti-family Catholics. How are priests being self-righteous when preaching what the Catholic Church teaches? When the priest in this case reminded the anti-life and anti-family Catholics that their disputes with Catholic teaching are incompatible with their worship of God, it was up to those Catholics to stay and reflect. That they chose to leave shows that the anti-life and anti-family Catholics were more concerned with their prestige than God’s. If they needed Him, they would have stayed notwithstanding the scolding from the pulpit.

We also have to be very careful to presume that dialogue is lacking between the Church and anti-life and anti-family Catholics in the Philippines. The Philippine Bishops and clergy have not been lacking in that respect and follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Except for those who have committed public Scandal that the Priests know about,
the Priest will have done his job if he clearly states prior to Mass that supporting the RH bill is a Mortal Sin, and the reasons why it is a Mortal Sin.
Then he must state that recieving Communion in the State of Mortal Sin is a Sacrilege which is an additional Mortal sin. And that no one in the State of Mortal Sin may receive Holy Communion.
If anyone in the State of Mortal Sin receives Holy Communion anyway, they take their chances with God’s justice.
The Priest will have done his job. No one expects the Priest to be a mind-reader.

EVERY Catholic should know this.Period.We must catechise our children and OURSELVES-that is NOT the priest’s job.EVERY Catholic has a responsibility to know and understand his Faith.EVERY Catholic should have the full and abridged copies of the Catechism and read each and every page…EVERY Catholic should read Scripture.EVERY Catholic who has a question about Faith should see an orthodox priest.Catholicism does not just "happen"to you.We must continuously grow in Faith and knowledge.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Well leaving and walking out on the first place is an admission that you are the guilty party. The truth really hurts. Egos got in the way.

One thing is sure you can’t be Pro life and Pro death at the same time. The message is clear no lukewarm Christianity for this priest. Its either you’re hot or you’re cold.

 

[Holly3278]

Good! We need priests like this to stand up for what is right. You can’t support moral evils such as this reproductive health bill and still be a Catholic in good standing. Why? Because things like this lead to abortion and contraceptive use and both of those are morally evil.