Same-sex marriage supporters denied communion (at the Cathedral of St Paul)

[markomalley]

From Minnesota Public Radio,

St. Paul, Minn. Church officials denied communion Sunday to a small group of Catholics who wore rainbow sashes to mass at the St. Paul Cathedral. The sashes were meant to send a statement of support for same-sex marriage. The protest has been an annual event for a decade. Each year organizers ask the archbishop in a letter for permission to participate in the eucharist while wearing a rainbow sash.
A St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese spokesman said it would be sacrilege to give the eucharist to people who are using communion to make a political statement. “There’s no question that they’re free to receive communion without the sash. But they’re wearing the sash to advance their own protest,” said archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath. “And communion time must never be used for a political or protest statement. It’s that simple.” Bravo to Archbishop Nienstedt!!!​

 

[wardrandolph]

Thats a start.I don’t think he went far enough.Holy Communion should be denied also because they support the homosexual (and promote)life style.And before I get acused of singleing out this group,the same should apply to Doctors,Lawyers or anyone who provdes,promotes or approves abortions.

 

[Silyosha]

The fact of the matter is, no one should ever think to use Holy Communion as a tool to bring across their political statements. To do so is incredibly disrespectful.

 

[Holly3278]

Praise be to God forever! :extrahappy: I long for the day when ALL churches, including liberal ones wake up and smell the coffee and start denying ALL pro-gay-“marriage” and pro-abortion advocates communion, baptism, and every other Sacrament (except for PENANCE of course!!!)!

 

[Saint_Castulus]

Praise be to God forever! :extrahappy: I long for the day when ALL churches, including liberal ones wake up and smell the coffee and start denying ALL pro-gay-“marriage” and pro-abortion advocates communion, baptism, and every other Sacrament (except for PENANCE of course!!!)!

I agree…amen!

 

[Christopher68]

From Minnesota Public Radio,

St. Paul, Minn. Church officials denied communion Sunday to a small group of Catholics who wore rainbow sashes to mass at the St. Paul Cathedral. The sashes were meant to send a statement of support for same-sex marriage. The protest has been an annual event for a decade. Each year organizers ask the archbishop in a letter for permission to participate in the eucharist while wearing a rainbow sash.
A St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese spokesman said it would be sacrilege to give the eucharist to people who are using communion to make a political statement. “There’s no question that they’re free to receive communion without the sash. But they’re wearing the sash to advance their own protest,” said archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath. “And communion time must never be used for a political or protest statement. It’s that simple.” Bravo to Archbishop Nienstedt!!!
​

The last paragraph actually works both ways. By refusing to give Communion, the priest is making a political statement, just as the diocesan spokesman said should never occur. I actually blame both parties in this instance.

We must remember that our religion is very noble. Yet politics is most often the oppostive of noble. When religion gets involved in politics, the smarm of politics often makes its way into religion.

After reading your post I searched the internet for other articles on this topic, and found the related article, which I found to be quite an interesting read:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635​

 

[markomalley]

The last paragraph actually works both ways. By refusing to give Communion, the priest is making a political statement, just as the diocesan spokesman said should never occur. I actually blame both parties in this instance.

We must remember that our religion is very noble. Yet politics is most often the oppostive of noble. When religion gets involved in politics, the smarm of politics often makes its way into religion.

After reading your post I searched the internet for other articles on this topic, and found the related article, which I found to be quite an interesting read:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635

As it stands, Fr Beal stands in opposition to the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and the Holy Father.

I think I’ll stand with the latter two on this issue.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The last paragraph actually works both ways. By refusing to give Communion, the priest is making a political statement, just as the diocesan spokesman said should never occur. I actually blame both parties in this instance. Not exactly. The thing is, the ‘political statement’ is made by the sash-people. Now. . .if the priest just sighs and lets these people, who are publicly defying the teachings of the Church, ‘take’ communion as though they were in as much as state of grace as people receiving the Eucharist are supposed to be, according to that same Church’s teaching– then isn’t THAT** a political statement too?** Kind of “Oh, we **dare not look political by insisting on maintaining a teaching that the secular society has deemed a ‘political’ issue as though it were NOTHING ELSE BUT. **”

So NO the priest is not making a political statement in refusing. He is upholding the teachings of the Catholic Church. That some wish to CLAIM this as MERELY political is wrong.

We must remember that our religion is very noble. Yet politics is most often the oppostive of noble. When religion gets involved in politics, the smarm of politics often makes its way into religion. So again I ask you–is religion separate from politics? WHERE did you get that idea? There are not issues that are ‘ONLY’ religious or “ONLY” political; rather there are issues that address HUMANITY which some ‘claim’ as ‘only’ one or the other in order to make it look as though we can, for example, “ONLY” speak of what is deemed as ‘religious’ in a religious place AND NOWHERE ELSE, or that we can ONLY speak of what is deemed as ‘political’ but NOT attempt to discuss it in the ‘religious’ sphere etc.

---

POPPYCOCK.

After reading your post I searched the internet for other articles on this topic, and found the related article, which I found to be quite an interesting read:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635

 

[runningdude]

You know, whether the state is going to legalize gay marriage is a civil political issue. The church doesn’t have to take any stand on that.

Our poor Church.

 

[Christopher68]

Tantum_ergo:
Tantrum ergo, you are entitled to your opinion. I will stand by my original post as well.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Tantrum ergo, you are entitled to your opinion. I will stand by my original post as well.

You’re entitled to do so. But I did ask you. . .IF you’re going to play along with the idea that ‘politics’ and ‘religion’ are separate, just exactly how do you spread the gospel? If you’re trying to bring the good news (which is all truth), how do you do so if you’re holding back on some of the truth because you aren’t ‘allowed’ to address it?

IOW, if Father X is trying to teach the gospel, part of that teaching involves the idea (as Scripture tells us) that one CAN 'eat and drink the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily" and that to do so is a grave sin. The same Scripture tells us that we are to endeavor to keep our brothers and sisters from committing grave sin, by instructing them.

HOW is Father X supposed to tell those who deliberately and publically deny Christ’s teachings but expect to ‘take’ His Body and Blood just as though they were in a state of grace, if he is told to ‘deny’ the Eucharist (a teaching the Church upholds in cases of those in MANIFEST PUBLIC GRAVE SIN) would be a ‘political’ gesture? Isn’t the denial ABOVE ALL a RELIGIOUS and APPROPRIATE GESTURE? Wouldn’t PERMITTING them to receive be a sin itself? (The Church seems to think so based on its own teaching.)

IOW, do we teach truth based on whether people ‘perceive’ or THINK something is true (when it is not), or do we teach truth as truth WHETHER people think it true or not?

 

[Corki]

The last paragraph actually works both ways. By refusing to give Communion, the priest is making a political statement, just as the diocesan spokesman said should never occur. I actually blame both parties in this instance.

We must remember that our religion is very noble. Yet politics is most often the oppostive of noble. When religion gets involved in politics, the smarm of politics often makes its way into religion.

After reading your post I searched the internet for other articles on this topic, and found the related article, which I found to be quite an interesting read:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635

It’s an interesting article but not related to the topic at hand. The America article is about the issue of denying Communion to politicians who take positions against Church teaching.

The OP is about what happens “in the moment” when someone goes up to receive Communion. The priest’s giving or not giving Communion is not a political act in any way. To deny Communion to someone using the Church to make a statement against the Church itself would be appropriate even if there wasn’t anything on the ballot. It’s moral teaching not politics.

 

[Wampa]

The last paragraph actually works both ways. By refusing to give Communion, the priest is making a political statement, just as the diocesan spokesman said should never occur. I actually blame both parties in this instance.

Except that the sash-wearers consciously chose to walk into Mass and make their reception (or lack thereof) a political statement in the media. The priest has no choice in the matter. He is forced, by them, to make a decision. And either way he chooses, you might argue it was a political statement. It should be apparent to most people who is to blame here, given who intentionally setups this situation every year here in my diocese.

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635

I’m assuming you’re using this piece to back up your conclusion, especially Rev. Beal’s conclusion that “Zeal to protect the Eucharist from profanation by sinners can unwittingly lead to an even greater profanation by transforming the eucharistic celebration into a continuation of politics by liturgical means.”

The problem with that is Rev. Beal is not talking about this situation. He’s talking about when a politician goes into Mass, makes no statements or protests of any kind, and the priest decides to withhold the Eucharist based on statements or votes made outside of Mass. That it not analogous to this situation where the person seeking the Eucharist is specifically using their reception as a political protest of Church teaching.

EDIT: looks like Corki and I were typing up the same point at the same time

 

[cheese_sdc]

The fact of the matter is, no one should ever think to use Holy Communion as a tool to bring across their political statements. To do so is incredibly disrespectful.

This.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Christopher, I agree that the mingling/overlap of religion and politics in modern life can be a two-edged sword: i.e., resulting in sometimes the inappropriate interjection of politics into religion, and vice-versa. In this case, the inappropriate act was that mentioned in the OP.

The incident was not a moment for exchange of ideas/disagreements about current issues. It was a liturgical rite being conducted. That’s the inappropriate part. I would also have found it inappropriate for someone to come up to the communion rail with a very conspicuous badge or message that said, “No gays in Church,” or something to that effect.

Eucharist is not a political moment or event. It should not be subject to manipulation by a “cause” or “group.” St. Paul warned about the manipulation and perversion of Eucharist in other respects, but his warning and condemnation about that can also be applied more generally.

Eucharist is sacred, and the Mass is neither a circus nor a political rally.

 

[Christopher68]

Christopher, I agree that the mingling/overlap of religion and politics in modern life can be a two-edged sword: i.e., resulting in sometimes the inappropriate interjection of politics into religion, and vice-versa. In this case, the inappropriate act was that mentioned in the OP.

The incident was not a moment for exchange of ideas/disagreements about current issues. It was a liturgical rite being conducted. That’s the inappropriate part. I would also have found it inappropriate for someone to come up to the communion rail with a very conspicuous badge or message that said, “No gays in Church,” or something to that effect.

Eucharist is not a political moment or event. It should not be subject to manipulation by a “cause” or “group.” St. Paul warned about the manipulation and perversion of Eucharist in other respects, but his warning and condemnation about that can also be applied more generally.

Eucharist is sacred, and the Mass is neither a circus nor a political rally.

Elizabeth, thanks for your comments. I agree completely that the group acted inappropriately. It is the priest’s action that I found disappointing. If he would have provided communion to the ‘protesters’ then the onus would have been completely on the protesters, and I suspect they would have been roundly repudiated on all sides for misusing a sacrament. Instead, the priest opens himself up to praise by those who think he took the correct action, as well as sadness by those who think he stooped to the level of the protesters by participating in the politicization of the eucharist.

I think several of the posters on this thread interpreted my initial post as thinking that I somehow thought what the protestors did was acceptable. I would like to again clarify that I found their actions inappropriate.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I agree completely that the group acted inappropriately. It is the priest’s action that I found disappointing.

So you think the priest should have not responded to the manipulation of the sacrament, that Paul in his Epistles cautioned against and disapproved of? (The Church does take its sacramental theology from Scripture, as well as its moral and systematic theology.)

If he would have provided communion to the ‘protesters’ then the onus would have been completely on the protesters, and I suspect they would have been roundly repudiated on all sides for misusing a sacrament.

I definitely disagree with this. Do you have any history to give us that demonstrates public “repudiation” of similar behavior in similar circumstances?

As I’ve said and implied elsewhere, it is true that the priest’s role is more pastoral than anything else. However, he has a secondary role as enforcer; he tries not to resort to this unless absolutely necessary, because it is the character of the sacraments to draw the individual and/or the congregation together, not to create confrontations and divisions. But it was the sash-wearers who forced a confrontation, not the priest.

 

[Christopher68]

So you think the priest should have not responded to the manipulation of the sacrament, that Paul in his Epistles cautioned against and disapproved of? (The Church does take its sacramental theology from Scripture, as well as its moral and systematic theology.)

My opinion (and I’m qualifying this as just my opinion), is that the priest in a sense lowered himself to their level.

I definitely disagree with this. Do you have any history to give us that demonstrates public “repudiation” of similar behavior in similar circumstances?

As I’ve said and implied elsewhere, it is true that the priest’s role is more pastoral than anything else. However, he has a secondary role as enforcer; he tries not to resort to this unless absolutely necessary, because it is the character of the sacraments to draw the individual and/or the congregation together, not to create confrontations and divisions. But it was the sash-wearers who forced a confrontation, not the priest.

Thankfully this is not a common practice - at least to my knowledge - so per your question I am unaware of other circumstances. I am only giving you my opinion in how I see the issue, in that I cannot envision how anyone - even those who are sympathetic to their cause - would be able to rationalize making a political statement out of the eucharist.

 

[larkin31]

The priest had a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse communion to whom he felt fit to refuse it to. His superiors, I imagine, will let him know if he did wrong.

But many many unrepentant sinners ask for and receive communion weekly. Priests all over the country give the Eucharist to unrepentant sinners. We all just wink at the fact that as long as the lack of repentance is hidden, then you can receive your Host.

 

[edwest2]

The priest had a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse communion to whom he felt fit to refuse it to. His superiors, I imagine, will let him know if he did wrong.

But many many unrepentant sinners ask for and receive communion weekly. Priests all over the country give the Eucharist to unrepentant sinners. We all just wink at the fact that as long as the lack of repentance is hidden, then you can receive your Host.

Unless you can read minds, there is no factual basis for your statement. The Bible clearly states that we must be in a state of grace before Communion and it also clearly states the consequences if we are not.

God bless,
Ed