Threats against Mass. Church for Anti-Gay Marriage Sign

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
markomalley said:
What do you want to bet that, if the Attorney General does investigate, no one will be held accountable for a “hate crime”. Instead, the parish will be accused of being the hateful actor in this despicable round of threats and intimidation.
Click to expand...
Not long ago I posted something from Life News about a case of church vandalism in Portland claimed by a group called “Angry Queers”.

We are going to be seeing a great deal more of this.

Have you also the impression that what is going in the press about the same-sex and what is rising up right now across every sphere of life, is more than just the usual media feeding frenzy after someone chums the waters?

It is almost as if a signal has been given and a plan is being implemented by an organized community, as it were. (read the rest at the link above)[/INDENT]

JL: I wouldn’t want to bet you would win hands down. I wouldn’t be supprised if a few months before the election a new Church scandal pops up.
 
sw85 said:
Get that, folks? Everything’s political now. So get with the totalitarian zeitgeist or you’ve got it comin’ to ya!

You can’t *buy *that level of honesty from the average lefty atheist.
Click to expand...
No, not everything. But political signs erected in the midst of a political argument about legislation are.
 
Farsight001 said:
I would bet money that it has, in fact, put up a sign about the trinity. It’s just that people don’t hate the church for that belief, and so no one calls in threats to them because of it. Churches put up all sorts of signs about all sorts of beliefs all the time. People don’t like this particular belief, and so they cry hatred while themselves committing acts of hate.
Click to expand...
This is more or less what I said, although I think from reports the response is not as intense as you suggest.
 
The decision to put up the sign apparently was in reaction to President Obama’s announcement of his support for gay marriage
The head of pastoral services put it up because,“he thought it’d be a good chance to make sure everyone knew where the Catholic Church stands on the issue of same sex marriage,” explains Monsignor Gerard O’Connor.
Click to expand...
He says it was a response to President Obama going public with his support of gay marriage. “That’s what the church teaches,” says O’Connor. " We understand people disagree with us, but we do it out of love. We never said we hate anybody."
Click to expand...
wtsp.com/news/watercooler/article/255573/58/Church-threatened-after-posting-anti-gay-marriage-sign

I am not sure whether putting up the sign was a necessary, or even pastoral, thing to do. But certainly the church has a right to voice its opinion without being threatened. And we wouldn’t be discussing this incident if the violent threats had not been made.

The article mentions that the woman who organized a peaceful protest in front of the church earlier in the week also plans a similar protest for this weekend.
 
Hokomai said:
The Church believes a lot of things. It believes the Father and the Son are consubstantial with each other. But this church did not put up a sign about that belief. It chose to put up a sign singling out a highly-specific moral position on an emotionally-charged debate using informal language designed to provoke. I know the gift of prophecy is not overly-used in the Catholic Church, but the Holy Spirit would not have been needed to predict the outcome of this action.

I hope, by the way, that you are not right about what ‘literally’ happened to the protesters. 😃
Click to expand...
Ah, shame on the victim. I get it. Mind going to the rebuilt [had to rebuild do to bombings and burnings] black churches through out the south and inform them that it’s their fault their places of worship were burned and bombed? After all, they should have known better then to take a highly specific moral position on an emotionally charged debate issue.
 
Interesting to me that a Catholic Church would even have such a sign. I was just corresponding with an Episcopal priest yesterday about hers and her congregtion’s beliefs in regard to homosexuality. She explained believers do not have to agree on this issue in order to worship together. If each believes in God and Jesus they are on the same page. And they are ok with letting people be who they are even though they don’t wave a rainbow flag outside.
 
Yes!

This would be my Parish…😃

There will be a peaceful protest going on tomorrow morning outside.

Meanwhile, my husband, my daughter, my mother-in-law and I will be attending Mass.

Steve, the pastoral director and Monsgr are both very, very conservative and I wasn’t surprized at the sign.

Not going to lie, I was upset about the response. It felt like my own home was threatened.
 
Kelfa28 said:
Not going to lie, I was upset about the response. It felt like my own home was threatened.
Click to expand...
Yes, I imagine most of us would feel similarly it it happened to our parish.

Thank you for joining us, Kelfa, in this discussion. I hope the protesters tomorrow remain both peaceful and polite. I worry that shouted comments could get ugly.

Please, let us know how everything goes, if you can find the time to do so.
 
Hokomai said:
The Church believes a lot of things. It believes the Father and the Son are consubstantial with each other. But this church did not put up a sign about that belief. It chose to put up a sign singling out a highly-specific moral position on an emotionally-charged debate using informal language designed to provoke. I know the gift of prophecy is not overly-used in the Catholic Church, but the Holy Spirit would not have been needed to predict the outcome of this action.

I hope, by the way, that you are not right about what ‘literally’ happened to the protesters. 😃
Click to expand...
So basically a local Catholic Church cannot affirm its teachings on its own property, then, Hokomai?:rolleyes:

Once again-----------

“We are for freedom of speech----as long as you agree with us.” 🤷

Yep.🤷

Indeed. 😦
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
So basically a local Catholic Church cannot affirm its teachings on its own property, then, Hokomai?:rolleyes:

Once again-----------

“We are for freedom of speech----as long as you agree with us.” 🤷

Yep.🤷

Indeed. 😦
Click to expand...
I have not said this, and nothing I have said can reasonably be taken to imply this. Instead I have opposed the attempts to restrict the church’s freedom of speech, but commented on the faux outrage, or alternatively, naivety, of the reaction to the utterly predictable response. I have also pointed out that the response has been consistently exaggerated. A single nutter making a phone call is not suppression of freedom of speech. It is a sign that (surprise) there are people with little self-control in our communities.
 
JimG said:
Freedom of speech for everyone. Well, except for some churches who are not allowed to say certain things.
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech does not translate into a freedom from a response to that speech. Controversial responses are to be expected when making public statements on controversial issues.
 
Dale_M said:
Yes, I imagine most of us would feel similarly it it happened to our parish.

Thank you for joining us, Kelfa, in this discussion. I hope the protesters tomorrow remain both peaceful and polite. I worry that shouted comments could get ugly.

Please, let us know how everything goes, if you can find the time to do so.
Click to expand...
Will do! 👍

I really hope the crowd will be minimal and without fuss. Afterall, I have an infant who has always been a joy at Mass and I would rather not have a frightened baby walking into the church.

Just so you do know. My husband went to the Saturday vigil and reported that the Mass was packed as usual. Even better, Thursday Monsgr does Latin Mass and what normally draws 20-30 people…had over one hundred this time. Outstanding! 😃

I’ve been flooding Heaven these past few days with prayer for all my fellow parishoners and for Monsgr, Deacon Dave and Steve. They are all wonderful people and it pains me to hear anything hateful about them.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Freedom of speech does not translate into a freedom from a response to that speech. Controversial responses are to be expected when making public statements on controversial issues.
Click to expand...
Threats of violence, however, are not protected speech.
 
Hokomai said:
I have not said this, and nothing I have said can reasonably be taken to imply this. Instead I have opposed the attempts to restrict the church’s freedom of speech, but commented on the faux outrage, or alternatively, naivety, of the reaction to the utterly predictable response. I have also pointed out that the response has been consistently exaggerated. A single nutter making a phone call is not suppression of freedom of speech. It is a sign that (surprise) there are people with little self-control in our communities.
Click to expand...
A reasonable person would not respond with a threat of violence, so it is quite an unpredictable response. Especially since the left in this situation constantly claims the higher moral ground and better reason and logic in the matter. None of US are advocating violence against gays, but we’re the crazy ones? Riiiiiiight.
 
I am in fear of speaking my views. On of my coworkers was fired for telling another employee he didn’t agree with gay marriage. I live in the SF bay area. It is more ok to be Gay then to be Christian.
 
tonild said:
I am in fear of speaking my views. On of my coworkers was fired for telling another employee he didn’t agree with gay marriage. I live in the SF bay area. It is more ok to be Gay then to be Christian.
Click to expand...
It is possible to be both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top