What are your thoughts on this?

[beegirl]

On the subject of the flag, I don’t really understand its purpose. I’m all for being loving, kind, and compassionate to homosexuals. But isn’t a pride flag a little missleading?

The gay-Catholics at St Gerts obviously feel very accepted there (or else they probably wouldn’t be kissing right before the eyes of the priest and the entire congregation)…but are they aware that - even though some courts are now allowing gay marriage - the Church can never allow them to be married? (Correct me if I’m wrong there!)

Lets say the state of IL passed a law legalizing gay marriage. I’m sure the people at St Gerts would be happy…but were two gay parishoners (or any other gay couple) to actually wed, the marriage wouldn’t be accepted by the Church. How happy would they be then?

 

[Hokomai]

A kiss at a public place is one thing, a make out session at Mass is something completly different and just wrong! Espcially if it’s same-sex couple.

My concern was at Lazlo comparing people to dogs, not the expression of objection about the kissing. Gay people are not dogs.

 

[laszlo]

Is there a real need to express your opinion in such a way? A couple who kiss are not dogs. They are a couple who kiss. By all means object, but I see no need for the abuse.

Expressing one sexuality with explicit acts is dog-like behavior. Humans in the Western cultures live their sexual life in privacy. Naturally dog-like act does not changes the nature, only qualifies it. The Church already condemned it et declared it abusive ibn the 16th Century related to heterosexual people.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My concern was at Lazlo comparing people to dogs, not the expression of objection about the kissing. Gay people are not dogs.

Sadly, they invite the comparison by their behavior.

 

[laszlo]

My concern was at Lazlo comparing people to dogs, not the expression of objection about the kissing. Gay people are not dogs.

My post was explicitly about open sexual behavior regardless of the sexual orientation. Being homosexual does not justifies bad behavior.

 

[odile53]

@ Brother JR–I fully understand how a priest or bishop can’t possibly micromanage people’s behavior (unless he had a fire hose stashed behind the altar, that is!–LOL!) and yes, I’ve cringed when I’ve heard such things as proper dress, etc., mentioned from the pulpit. Not because I dress inappropriately for Mass, but because it’s embarrassing to realize that there are people whose behavior precipitates such remarks. There was a time when such things didn’t have to be said publicly, people knew how to dress and how to behave in church! At least most people seemed to “get it,” anyways.

If the gay couple in question is in a spousal type relationship, doesn’t that make it a matter of a “notorious and public sin,” similar to the position a non-sacramentally married heterosexual couple occupies? Therefore, ought not the priest exercise a pastoral duty to at least talk privately with them and inform them that they will be denied communion if they keep it up?

Maybe they should forget about putting missalettes in pews, and put etiquette books in them instead!

 

[LoyalViews]

The Church has historically been a source of discrimination and misunderstanding in this area (and others such as Judaism). I wonder if the pride flag is meant as a statement to try to redress that historic wrong. It is possible to advocate for other civil rights, while opposing gay marriage or sexual acts. Gay people have heard the message loud and clear that they are not welcome in the Church. A church in a gay neighborhood would not be remiss in changing that message pro-actively.

As for the kiss, of course, in the state of Illinois, the legal right would be the same regardless of gender. However, a prolonged kiss by any two people during a church service seems out of context and inappropriate to me.

Regarding what’s in italic, no, you’re wrong. The Church never has.

Regarding the underlined, God’s law is above ANY earthly law. Therefore, no one should be showing something, which is meant for private moments, in a Church. Yes you’re right, it IS very, extremely, inappropriate.

 

[JReducation]

A large ruler lol

That’s what you give to the Catholic school teachers.

To show you how this is not a purely gay issue, a few weeks ago our Bishop wrote a column in the Diocesean newspaper on the decline of good behavior and such at Mass.
Among other things, he himself witnessed a teenage couple necking in the back of a church where he was saying Mass

The Bishop is not happy with what he is seeing around the Diocese. And apparently he has approached people who are doing things such as texting, wearing inappropriate clothing, etc. himself, and he gets the answer “I forgot I was in Church!”

I think I would curl up and die if the Bishop himself approached me to correct my behavior or dress

You’re right. We’re losing our minds. Our society has lost its sense of good manners and discretion.

A pride flag on a church? That’s odd. Sorry Brother JR but if you are a priest at a parish you should at the least be aware of what is hanging around. I’ve even seen these pride flags in the sanctuary! But yes sadly, it doesn’t have to be schismatic. You can find these kind of things in Catholic churches. I know people cannot be micromanaged but priests and bishops are ultimately the ones who are in charge of the parishes. They should at least try and keep trying because if people do what they want who will tell them it’s wrong? Seems like a cop out if you just say people are going to do what they are going to do. It starts with the laity and their leaders working together but let’s face it…many of us hold the priest and bishop to higher standards. They are generally more level headed when it comes to church matters, faith and morals.

It is just like a business except the Church is in the business of saving souls. The employees will act according to their bosses personalities and views. In the same way, the laity will reflect the “tone at the top.” If you have priests and bishops who don’t care about the liturgy or teach heterodoxy, then more than likely the laity too will share the same views. Whatever you promote will trickle down in a hierarchy. It’s contagious.

Wait a minute. Don’t misread me. I never said that one should never address these issues. I’m saying that the person who sees this should not blame it on the pastor, because pastors can address this and it will stop for a short period of time and happen again. In other words, it’s not the pastor’s fault. He can and should speak to the issue again and again it will stop for a short period of time and again it will happen again. That’s what I was trying to say.

It is important to let the pastor know what you saw or see. There are many things that happen that a pastor does not catch. He cannot keep an eye on everything nor does anyone expect him to do so. He deals with problems as he becomes aware of them. However, there is no promise that it will not happen again. Therefore, we cannot blame pastors, because people don’t get it right the first or the tenth time. All they can do is repeat it over and over.

@ Brother JR–I fully understand how a priest or bishop can’t possibly micromanage people’s behavior (unless he had a fire hose stashed behind the altar, that is!–LOL!) and yes, I’ve cringed when I’ve heard such things as proper dress, etc., mentioned from the pulpit. Not because I dress inappropriately for Mass, but because it’s embarrassing to realize that there are people whose behavior precipitates such remarks. There was a time when such things didn’t have to be said publicly, people knew how to dress and how to behave in church! At least most people seemed to “get it,” anyways.

If the gay couple in question is in a spousal type relationship, doesn’t that make it a matter of a “notorious and public sin,” similar to the position a non-sacramentally married heterosexual couple occupies? Therefore, ought not the priest exercise a pastoral duty to at least talk privately with them and inform them that they will be denied communion if they keep it up?

Maybe they should forget about putting missalettes in pews, and put etiquette books in them instead!

Etiuqette books are beginning to sound better and better. How can a person not remember that you don’t play with a cell phone when you’re at a public function? Yet, people do it in churches, classrooms, meetings and even at movies. That one always blows my mind. Why would you pay $10 to see a movie and sit through the movie texting?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rock_Happy]

The bold is mine. Regarding the first bold, people in general, not a sole organization, have discriminated and misunderstood people who have same sex attractions. We can only speculate the intentions of the flag but I highly doubt those who have the flag wave it because they want to live in accordance with Catholic teaching on homosexual tendencies. Many exhibit the character of those who partake in “gay pride” parades which are going on right now as a matter of fact. Which brings me to the second bolded point…these people also have pride in practicing homosexual acts and it is the ONLY thing the Church does not welcome. There has never been a message “loud and clear” that gay people themselves are not welcome in the Church. This is a grave misconception and you do harm in falsely promoting it. If you are Christian but not Catholic I would suggest you leave this to Catholics who know better inside the Church than you who is outside.

I can provide you with 700 years of papal proclamations promoting antisemitism, and not mildly so. Severe discrimination and persecution. Don’t trust my word for it, the list I refer to was compiled by the Secret Society. Until I revealed that little fact, I was accused of making the list up because the statements were so outrageous. It turns out that the Nazi’s got their ideas on how to treat Jews, in terms of badges, ghettos, and starvation, from the Church. Right now, the Church misrepresents the nature of human sexuality by declaring homosexuality to be “objectively disordered.” The Church has and still does promote and encourage falsity and prejudice. I don’t believe that this is intentional or malicious. It is simply ignorance, and prejudice resulting from ignorance.

If you fail to see what the role that the Church has played over the past years in persecuting people, then you are naive indeed. I will accept that the Church is imperfectly trying to become a more moral organization than it has been historically, but please don’t insult even the most average student of history by representing it as an organization which can escape its well documented history.

 

[DianaCC]

Gay people are not dogs.

Then why do they go around wearing dog collars and even leashes at Gay Pride festivals?

 

[Seamus_L]

The idea that one Catholic Church is as good as another just as know validity anymore. You’ve really got to be careful. By all means go to St John Cantius. You’ll never regret it.

 

[Hokomai]

Then why do they go around wearing dog collars and even leashes at Gay Pride festivals?

well, they are not the only people who wear dog collars!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

On the subject of the flag, I don’t really understand its purpose. I’m all for being loving, kind, and compassionate to homosexuals. But isn’t a pride flag a little missleading?

It is. Being compassionate and helping peole who suffer from same sex attraction is a completely different thing from displaying a flag that stands for supporting a homosexual lifestyle, that the church warns against. I wonder if the bishop knows about this and if he is willing to do anything about it. The priest there is obviously ok with it.

 

[JoyIsLikeRain]

Don’t bother with St. Gertrude’s if you can. It’s been a thorn in the side of the Archdiocese of Chicago for years.

It’s actually a small church in an obscure neighborhood, but nearby are Loyola, St. Ignatius and St. Gregory churches that aren’t nearly as crazy as St. Gertrude’s. St. John Cantius downtown is on the other end of the spectrum because most masses are in Latin and you’ll see people wearing chapel veils, etc. You’ll also see people going to confession in the middle of mass there; that parish isn’t perfect, either.

Their current pastor is a bit less liberal than old Fr. Kenneally, but the stuff Kenneally did still is with the parish (as he is as well). St. Gertude’s used to make the news quite frequently until not too many years ago; be it women giving the gospel, provocative plays, former priests celebrating the mass, threats from cardinals and millitant groups of lay parishioners on the verge of excommunication.

I’m hoping the reputation for little St. Gertrude (again, I’ve always been amazed that it’s a small parish in a residential neighborhood…) has and will continue to improve from it being its own papal state.

Here’s some articles that outline what we Chicagoans have experienced with St. Gertude:
alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=5846618

articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-15/news/0409150167_1_abortion-catholic-church-catholic-parish

 

[TrueLight]

In the Time of the XIX Ecumenical (Trident) council the rite of peace was abolished for such scenes, on that time between heterosexual people. Only dogs prefer to show their sexual desires in open places. Human sex needs privacy. Apparently the human pride is replaced with some more animal like prides. This is deterioration. The priest should talk about that

If you drive some 8 miles south on the Lake Shore drive and then West on the Chicago Ave you will find the St John Cantius church (825 North Carpenter Street,) with the true Catholic spirituality.

Laszlo! Where have you been?