Priest denies communion to protesters (Minneapolis)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7865403/

A Roman Catholic priest denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.

Before offering communion, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread.

A group called the Rainbow Sash Alliance has encouraged supporters to wear the multicolored fabric bands since 2001 on each Pentecost Sunday, the day Catholics believe the Holy Spirit came to give power to Christians soon after Jesus ascended to heaven. But Sunday’s service was the first time they had been denied communion at the altar.

Archbishop Harry Flynn told the group earlier this month that they would not receive communion because the sashes had become a protest against church teaching.

[autorank]

1. How "xtian" of him.

[InformedSource]

104. Can a revival of the inquisition be far behind? n/t

[davidinalameda]

2. sorry not surprising

and well within the rights of the church to deny anyone they want communion

[Tesla]

3. The church is seizing control.....

[Debau2005]

86. Oh MY!

That is a tad too eerie for me this morning! YIKES!:rofl:

[Zynx]

4. They don't have a right to make a political statement at Communion

That's contrary to the entire idea. They're saying "Look at me!"

You don't do that and anyone who tries should know better.

[Tux]

6. Why not?

It doesn't matter what you wear when you get the wine and cookie.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. Your disrespectful attitude towards a Holy Sacrament is noted.

As was the disrespectful attitude of the protesters, shown by making a spectacle of themselves during a worship service.

[sonicx]

28. You don't care that the church is against human rights for all.

noted.

[struggle4progress]

37. The Catholic Church is not "against human rights for all."

The Catholic Church is a large institution with a long history and a number of different tendencies.

While I (as a non-Catholic) have been bitterly disappointed by the conservatism of the Church hierarchy on a number of issues, I have also been most pleasantly surprised by some traditional Catholic teachings.

Painting with too broad a brush is a mistake ...

[sonicx]

38. I'm talking about the leaders

Most individual Catholics are for civil unions or gay marriage, believe it or not. Most also disagree with the church on condoms, female priesthood, and many are pro-choice.

But the leaders are behind by about 2 centuries.

[barb162]

42. Actually , I think you have the number of centuries incorrect

They are not about to keep up with "modern" society and I doubt they ever will but I find going into a church or other place of worship (the Catholics, Moslems, Jews, etal) to make a political statement when others are trying to practice their religion beyond tasteless at best. The church is about the spiritual and not about what modern society wants it to be. Let's face it, the church isn't gonna change for gays, abortion, women priests, etc. And neither are the mosques, temples, etc., of other religions.

[sonicx]

49. forget gays and abortion

there's no excuse not to allow female priests. No sane one at least. What is spiritial about that? There are other churches that have progressed on female priests/pastors.

What's spiritual about no condoms (other religions are fine)? What's spiritual about calling homosexually evil (other religions don't do that)?

[hughee99]

98. Yes, other religions do that...

Some Jewish demoninations do (others don't)
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/judaism-homo.html

As does Islam
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm

Buddhism isn't big on it, either...
http://www.zip.com.au/~lyallg/Homosex.htm

Not to let the Catholic Church off the hook, but they're not the only Religious group to oppose homosexuality.

[sonicx]

112. Sorry, what i meant was...

There are some religions that are progressive on gay rights and that "Others do it too" is a lame excuse.

[hughee99]

114. I agree

It is pretty lame.

[barb162]

103. I don't agree with the church's attitude on many things

but I find other religions are the same. See any women in Islam leading any religious services?

[sonicx]

110. no, and that needs to change.

Do you agree? "They do it too" is not an excuse.

read post 93, btw.

[BadNews]

113. Why try to change them? Just join a church that you agree with. N/T

[barb162]

123. I think they should change and at the same time I firmly believe

they (read that as many religions) won't. So yours is an excellent idea...not supporting any religious institution when one doesn't agree with their stances

[barb162]

122. absolutely

[Zhade]

58. Why not? They changed their stance on gays before.

Hell, there used to be RCC-sanctioned gay marriages centuries ago. Not common, but they happened.

[Tweed]

61. got a link or a resource?

It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious.

[Zhade]

63. I read it on a thread here, I'll have to dig it up.

May take a bit.

[struggle4progress]

93. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe

John Boswell
NON-FICTION
PUBLISHER: Villard
DATE: 1994
Paperback ISBN: 0679751645
1997 Review by Elisabeth J. Davenport

Some States Trying to Stop Gay Marriages Before They Start," blared the New York Times headline on the day that I first began reading John Boswell's then recently published Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (March 15, 1995). Referring to the attempts then being made in some state legislatures to forestall the local acceptance of same-sex unions should Hawaii come to sanction such unions, the article surveyed legislative developments in Utah, South Dakota and Alaska. South Dakota State Representative Roger Hunt, Republican sponsor of a (failed) bill which would declare "null and void" any same-sex marriage, was quoted as saying, "I believe, by and large, that would be counter to what, in this state, has been the sanctity of families for the last 100 years." The informed reader will notice instantly the irony in his words. It would indeed be counter to generally accepted practice in South Dakota, and in the entire Western world, for the last one hundred years or more for persons of the same sex to be united in marriage. But prior to that? Representative Hunt's words leave one aching to ask whether he is acquainted with the research of John Boswell! For the clear and substantiated conclusion of that research, presented in painstaking detail in the book under review, is that until modern prejudice founded upon ignorance, fear and hostility caused the celebration of same-sex unions to fall out of favour, such unions were a widespread occurrence in Europe, sanctioned and blessed by religious authorities for many hundreds of years.

In a book widely criticised even prior to its publication by those who found cause for displeasure in its thesis, Boswell gathers together the research findings of the last twelve years of his tragically foreshortened life. Published just weeks prior to his death, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe contains his meticulous account of his discovery and translation of not one but dozens of liturgical manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Slavic and Russian honouring and sanctifying relationships between two persons of the same sex (generally, but not quite exclusively, male). The manuscripts, stored for centuries in archives as diverse as the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, the Vatican Library, the Monastery of St Catherine at Mount Sinai, and the National Library of Belgrade, witness to a continuity of liturgical tradition across the great divides of church, state and language over many centuries. The following words or close variants, for example, appear in manuscripts printed in full in Boswell's appendices dating from the 10th to 16th centuries in Greek, the 12th century in Italo-Greek, and the 11th to possibly 17th centuries in Slavonic:

O Lord our God, who madest humankind after thine image and likeness, and gavest them power of life everlasting, who approved it when thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew were united..., and who didst approve that thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus should be united, bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined not by nature but in the way of faith.... (329).

Boswell begins his study with a presentation of the vocabulary of love and marriage. Noting wryly that the sharpest criticism, and the most difficult to refute, comes from those who say, "But it doesn't mean that!", he explores the way in which even our own language shies from direct reference to sexual behaviour. How, for example, might his critics translate the common English phrase "to sleep with" into another language? Linguistic pedants might possibly say it should be translated at face value; scholars would prefer to render it with some variant in the translated text indicating the act of intercourse to the average reader. "If the result of a 'literal translation' is that readers misunderstand what happened," he observes, "it is a mistranslation, no matter how 'accurately' one might claim the words correspond to the original" (19). <snip>

http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/oneigla/onepress/reviews/pre_Europe.html


Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
By John Boswell
Villard Books
412 pp. $25

Ancient in origin, same-sex unions blessed in the Church occur quietly to this day. So says John Boswell, Professor of Medieval History at Yale University and the author of this new and lavishly publicized book. It may surprise readers of this journal to learn that he is probably right- depending on what the ceremony means.

This is a subject about which I have the good fortune to speak not merely as a scholar or an observer, but as a participant. Nine years ago I was joined in devout sisterhood to another woman, apparently in just such a ceremony as Boswell claims to elucidate in his book. The ceremony took place during a journey to some of the Syrian Christian communities of Turkey and the Middle East, and the other member of this same-sex union was my colleague Professor Susan Ashbrook Harvey of Brown University. During the course of our travels we paid a visit to St. Mark's Monastery in Jerusalem, the residence of the Syrian Orthodox archbishop. There our host, Archbishop Dionysius Behnam Jajaweh, remarked that since we had survived the rigors of Syria and Eastern Turkey in amicable good humor, we two women must be good friends indeed. Would we like to be joined as sisters the next morning after the bishop's Sunday liturgy in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Intrigued, we agreed, and on a Sunday in late June of 1985, we followed the bishop and a monk through the Old City to a side chapel in the Holy Sepulchre where, according to the Syrian Orthodox, lies the actual tomb of Jesus. After the liturgy, the bishop had us join our right hands together and he wrapped them in a portion of his garment. He pronounced a series of prayers over us, told us that we were united as sisters, and admonished us not to quarrel. Ours was a sisterhood stronger than blood, confirmed in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, he said, and since it was a spiritual union, it would last beyond the grave.

Our friendship has indeed endured and flourished beyond the accidental association of two scholars sharing an interest in the Syriac-speaking Christianity of late antiquity. The blessing of the Syrian Orthodox Church was a precious instance of our participation in the life of an ancient and noble Christian tradition. Although neither of us took the trouble to investigate the subject, each privately assumed that the ritual of that summer was some Christian descendant of an adoption ceremony used by the early church to solemnify a state-that of friendship-which comes highly recommended in the Christian tradition ("Henceforth I call you not servants . . . but I have called you friends." ). <snip>

But any such modest claim is not what Boswell has in mind. He claims that the "brother/sister-making" rituals found in manuscripts and certain published works are ancient ceremonies whose cryptic (or, in current argot, "encoded") purpose has been to give ecclesiastical blessing to homosexual or lesbian relationships, thus making them actual nuptial ceremonies. This startling claim is certainly far from the reality of the ceremony in which we participated nine years ago. Is it perhaps just as far from the real meaning of such ceremonies in the distant past? According to his publisher, Boswell "irrefutably demonstrates that same-sex relationships have been sanctioned and even idealized in Western societies for over two thousand years." He has also "restored" a rite that could be used in contemporary homosexual marriages, should they become legal. <snip>

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html



SIANI 966

Order for Solemnization of Same-Sex Union

i Those intending to be united shall come before the priest .. shall place his hand on the Gospel, and the second on the hand of the first ... iv Lord our God and ruler .. who didst commend the union of thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus…do Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one another and abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives ... v .. Grant them unashamed faithfulness, true love ... vi .. accept now these Thy servants N. and N to be united in spirit and faith…to prosper in virtue and justice and in sincere love ... vii ... that they be joined together more in spirit than in flesh ... ix And they shall kiss the holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded ...

http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html

[Zhade]

50. Indeed. Noted many times by many DUers.

Indefensible.

[Sean Reynolds]

95. Bullshit!

My parish is very pro-gay rights and they don't discriminate at all. Your broad stroking of the Catholic Church is pretty petty.

It'd be like saying "Well since SOME Democrats supported the Iraq War, all Democrats are warmongers."

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[atreides1]

47. The Poster Never Made That Claim

You accused him of it, you also did not refute anything that he stated.

And having 13,000 posts doesn't mean you get or even deserve respect,
having a million posts isn't a guarantee of respect either. Bark Bark Bark just pointed out some of the things that DBDB has said in the past.

And calling someone snotty, petty, and childish doesn't indicate much of an adult attitude on your part.

The best thing would have been to PM Bark Bark Bark, and let him/her
know how you felt.

And just for myself, respect is something that you earn, you don't give it just because someone has 13,000 or more posts!

[barb162]

48. "You vould ve a fine officer for ze Fourth Reich"

What do you call this kind of crap? The post is loaded with this childish, petty and snotty BS

[Bark Bark Bark]

54. Thanks

On most boards, a busy troll with 300 posts will get more respect than an intelligent person with three posts. I'm not saying I'm that second person (OR a troll), but it's refreshing to see someone who looks beyond that.

Granted, I'm a snarky jackass sometimes, but I want DemBones to know more and more of us catch on to her game every day. (I'm hardly alone.) I don't really expect a reply; after she gets her argument handed back to her in shreds, she usually doesn't come back for more--but instead runs off to other threads to push her "Church-run government knows best!!" nonsense.

(I love how Barb responded to you by simply repeating the "snotty, petty, childish" line--and adding "BS" to the end. Now THAT's brilliant. It's the sort of intelligent debate that guarantees I'm going to continue to be a snarky jackass sometimes.)

Perhaps the "Fourth Reich" bit was much, but DBDB's cited subject line was so outrageous ("Your attitude hass veen noted, Ho-gan!") that I couldn't resist.

But we can't let goo-goo-ga-ga like that distract us from the important issue: more and more churches across the nation are going out of their way to punish or silence anyone who doesn't worship George W. Almighty--and have the audacity to claim they aren't "being political." When they start paying taxes, THEN they can start playing politics.

I'm NEVER going to "show respect" to anyone who thinks these sort of political shenanigans are okay and tries to shut down those of us who believe otherwise.

[Zhade]

57. Great post!

Yeah, DBDB has a history. She even defends that multiple-personality freeper that got banned last week, and won't even admit the guy was an obvious anti-democratic nutcase who defended anti-choicers, bigotry, and other assorted bullshit.

I do not respect people like that either. Your post was spot fucking ON, and someone had to say it.

THIS DUer is happy to give you a big welcome. Those who refuse to remain silent while bigotry is supported are very nice to have here.

[Lilith Velkor]

68. *applause*

from a snarky beeyotch with a low post count who's been lurking for 4 years.

:hi:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Puglover]

90. Hear hear Bark Bark..!

Very well said!

[LeftyMom]

92. It seems a bit odd to me

to ask a Catholic to denounce of defend the actions of a Baptist minister. It would be something else if he was Father Chandler of the Palookaville diocese, then a Catholic could share thier opinion without having to worry about butting in.

[Zhade]

52. What's "disrespectful" is defending bigotry.

That's what you're doing, you know - defending the RCC's right to be led by bigots.

And the funniest thing about this whole thing? The RCC used to marry gays, a long, long time ago. Who says they can't change?

But go on pretending you're for human rights. We see right through you.

[Puglover]

89. Oh yeah...of course

wearing a rainbow sash is such a "spectacle"
:eyes:

[Zerex71]

94. So protest isn't allowed in church?

Standing up for the meek and dispossessed? That's part of Jesus' teachings, but it's clear you forget that part of your a la carte 'religion'.

[Tux]

116. Holy Sacrament?

First off, don't tell me what is holy or not. We're of 2 different religions and we hold different things to be holy. Second, I'm not Catholic and don't know anything of it. Third, you are receiving a cookie and wine to an outsider. Don't expect everyone to agree it's important or holy.

[LiberallyInclined]

55. in a catholic church,it's not "wine and a cookie"-

oh...it might start that way- but through some type of holy sleight of hand called "transubstantiation" the wafer and the wine actually become christ's flesh and blood- not merely symbols of flesh & blood, like the other, lesser so-called "christian" faiths are apparently satisfied with.

one might wonder if this opens them up to being seen as cannibals-
and wonder further what happens to those bits of saviour during the digestive process- are they absorbed fully in the intestine- or does some of it come out as holy shit(btw- is that where the expression comes from?)

[Tux]

117. Transubstantiation? Cannibalism?

OK, so the cookie becomes God's body and the wine turns into Jesus' blood? And people eat and drink it?

Sorry, Catholics, but don't expect me at your churches (Catholics everywhere are :woohoo: :headbang: :toast: :party: ) but that seems disrespectful to God. To have a miracles (which I don't believe in) to have God appear in physical form and then eat/drink it makes me uncomfortable.

As for the cannibalism remark from the post I'm responding, it seems to be cannibalistic but it's based on what Jesus had people do: eat bread and drink wine to remember him - the parts about it being his flesh and blood is easily explained: when he taught he nourished their minds/souls and when they did that ritual, they would focus on the teachings to be nourished again. IMO.

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Well said! Imagine how all of us (all DUers) would react

if Republicans started showing up in churches wearing Bush T shirts.

Protesting during any worship service is anti-social behavior.

[sonicx]

26. false comparison

A t-shirt is different than a sash and Bush is a politician. Gay rights are civil rights and not political.

Also, if someone went to church with a Bush t-shirt, they would not (and should not) be denied. Obviously, i'd disagree with the person, but I wouldn't stop them. Who cares, keep things moving along.

[wellst0nev0ter]

39. Denial Of The Host Is The Ultimate Form Of Protest

Sorry, this issue does goes both ways

[jazzjunkysue]

36. Are you sure they don't already?

[barb162]

44. ditto!!!!!

[Selatius]

46. No, bombing people to death is anti-social. Apples and oranges, there.

[noamnety]

72. They DO wear Bush T shirts in church

I've seen it.

And you know what? It hasn't bothered me. It bothers me that they support the guy, but it didn't bother me that a person who does support him chose to wear that shirt. If the pastor wore it, that would be a different story.

They certainly were't denied communion because they wore it. Supporting human rights isn't mutually exclusive with a state of grace - assuming everyone taking communion is in that state to begin with, which seems like a silly assumption. If you disagree with a stance of the church, shutting up about it and quietly sulking - which is what you apparently think they should do - doesn't put you in a state of grace anymore than wearing a sash does.

Nobody ever got sainthood by shutting up about perceived injustices.

[sandnsea]

12. Of course they do

If they'd showed up with anti-war or anti-death penalty t-shirts, there wouldn't have been a problem with it.

[jazzjunkysue]

17. God created us all, right?

Are the gays a mistake? God goofed? No gays allowed?

That's some religion, that decides god's intentions.

[CatholicEdHead]

32. How about John Kerry?

when he did not come in with any overt protest? Yet there were many priests and bishops ready to deny him in a second.

[insane_cratic_gal]

78. Didn't Jesus make political statements?

Didn't he fight for the oppressed, and to show the world especially the Jewish religious leaders(not unlike the catholic church) they cared more about power and wealth then their own flocks.

You must recognize his protests for what it is: a political statement. "Blessed are the peacemakers"

I say good on them for wearing these sashes, it's a peaceful protest, and too often does the church loose its way with in its own judgment's. Perhaps they should be taking a second look at what love is, other then the social definition we have placed upon it.

[anitar1]

99. I don't think Jesus figures in religious debates.

What has always been puzzling to me--if someone can explain it, thank you. If a person chooses to be a member of an organization that calls itself a church, why do they not accept the beliefs of that organization ? Isn't that what it is about? Why would a person stay in a church that goes against their beliefs? Does a priest of that organization have holy powers to give communion? Or is that what the members have been taught to believe? Why can't they gather with friends of like mind and give and partake of communion , while fervently praying for enlightenment? Do members of that organization feel such guilt that they cannot receive communion from another member? I feel that church organizations have totally figured out how to make people their slaves. Convince them they are not worthy people --who can never be worthy, and they are yours.It is a waste of time to try and change these power lovers. The only thing that will change a huge organization is to withhold money. That speaks to them.I hope to witness this some day.Being a member of institutional religion does not mean one is spirtiual.

[dArKeR]

5. It's "Blood and Flesh" not "wine and bread". Eat it and be happy!

[geckosfeet]

7. As per the always gregarious, inclusive and compassionate nature

of the Catholic church.

The priest could have said, here are some of Gods sheep looking to take part in the sacrament of communion. Instead he said, I refuse to allow you to participate. You are less than I and these others.

The catholic church is hypocritical and archaic.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. They were looking to disrupt, to make a spectacle of themselves.

Protests during worship services are totally inappropriate.

[jazzjunkysue]

18. Not a good time for you? When's a good time?

[DemBones DemBones]

20. Before Mass or after Mass, and outside the sanctuary.

Any responsible Catholic knows better than to behave this way.

[sonicx]

27. mmm, sounds similar to "Good Christians can't be pro-choice"

[jazzjunkysue]

29. Interesting use of the word responsible. Like, responsible for

covering up thousands of child molestations.

[anitar1]

101. So right --what is the "official count" now?

And this is only in the U.S. How many have been sodomized by pedophiles across the world?

[MountainLaurel]

124. Or a few million Africans

Dying or dead of AIDS who contracted it because they aren't allowed to use condoms?

[geckosfeet]

22. they were quiet and had their hands cupped,,,,,

He was denying participation to the parishioners.

My point is that the catholic church is hypocritical and archaic in applying its teachings. They teach compassion and inclusion but their policy and behavior on the ground concerning certain groups is clearly discriminatory.

Not that it is easy, but it would nice if they could integrate teachings with the real world.

[Puglover]

91. God ,you are so amazingly offensive.

Are all of your 13,000 posts so pithy? What noone seems to have noted is that this was one congregation and one priest. St Joan of Arc which is 3 blocks from my home is standing room only every Sunday and they allowed these folks to take communion. No doubt they would'nt satisfy your oh so high standards.

edit typo

[Cobalt Violet]

10. "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus said.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Jesus ALSO threw the disrespectful moneychangers out of the Temple.

The rainbow sash wearers are showing clear disrespect.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. Just who, in your opinion, is being disrespected?

[DemBones DemBones]

19. They are disrespecting Jesus, present in the Sacrament.

The Eucharist is not a "cookie" nor a game for children.

Catholics are not to receive the Eucharist unless they are in a state of grace. I tend to think that no one making a political protest during Mass is in a state of grace.

They are also disrespecting their fellow Catholics by disrupting the holiest part of the Mass.

And, of course, their intent is to show disrespect for the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[geckosfeet]

25. They were not in a state of grace?

That is an assumption. I am sorry, but I am myself assuming that you were not there and did not personally discuss this with any of the individuals wearing the rainbows. I apologize if I am wrong and you were intimately involved.

But in either case, its clear that these people feel passionately about their beliefs, religious and otherwise. They were in church practicing their religion. They were also making a statement of solidarity with the groups in question who are likely friends and relatives being discriminated against by the church.

Is it disrespectful to want to celebrate your religion with your friends?

[barb162]

41. yep, political protests during a religious service is

simply showing profound disrespect. These people can stand outside the church and make their protest and ideas known before and/or after the Mass to everyone walking by.

[sonicx]

51. Fighting equal rights is even more disrepectful.

Calling some's personal trait 'evil' = love

Jesus would be pleased, no?

[converted_democrat]

79. I agree completely...........

I have no problem with religion. I have a problem with "organized" religion. Any one who turns someone away from receiving communion is not a "true" man of God. I get tired of people defending the undependable. God created all of us. Equal. Why is that so hard for some to understand? This priest is judging so I'm sure God will judge him too.

[anitar1]

102. Thank you,Converted Democrat. So true.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

108. Since when does the RCC deal with equal rights?

They're concerned about the souls, spirituality, getting to heaven, etc., and not the issues of the day as people in this country see things. I am not defending the RCC for its positions any more than I defend Islam for its positions on the same issues.

[sonicx]

111. You should not defend Islam for sexism and homophobia either.

They are inexcusable.

Of course the Church is concerned about 'issues of the day'. They were involved in the civil rights era.

They comment on Gay rights progress in countries everywhere (Spain, for example). The Iraq War too, sometimes death penalty.

[barb162]

121. The RCC is interested in SOME issues and not others.

What I find interesting is that some people will get "all over" one religion and not other religions who may be far worse on the exact same issue

[barb162]

127. I forgot to mention something... who is defending Islam on these

two issues?
( your subject: "You should not defend Islam for sexism and homophobia either.")

[Zhade]

53. Please explain how you "know" their intent.

Also, please explain why you feel you are able to read your god's mind on the parishoners' "state of grace".

Man, the sheer arrogance of your words are stunning. You compare those who support human rights to the moneychangers, you laughably claim you know that "Jesus was direspected", and you pretend to know better than your preferred god about people you don't even know, all while you of course know you DON'T have the right, per the beliefs you claim to uphold, to judge anyone.

And people wonder how Christians get a bad name.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

69. "a state of grace"? do tell.

with all the clap-trap & mumbo-jumbo the CC has added on to Jesus's teachings I don't think I understand. I thought Jesus reached out to EVERYbody, not those whose souls he could somehow see and judge as being in a "state of grace." what does it even mean? some souls are more "special" or "pure" than others? now how do YOU get this divine insight?

why anybody would even associate with that bigoted, superstitious, anti-intellectual, rigid, CHILD RAPING, gold-hoarding, heretic torturing, mind-enslaving institution is beyond me. I don't think I'd "fit in" with the agenda of the CC because I actually CARE ABOUT humanity. I also have a mind that sees in shades of gray, and in every color of the rainbow, too. guess I must not be in a "state of grace." big effin whoop-de-dingdong.

[converted_democrat]

80. Bull......

They are not disrespecting Jesus. The priest is being disrespectful to God's children. God loves all. For someone who is supposed to model himself after God's image he's doing a p*ss poor job.

[phylny]

16. Besides his disciples, with whom did Jesus spend most of his time? n/t

[deacon2]

125. "Disrespect"? Nonsense

They were quietly, but clearly, stating a position of tolerance. If they were to disrupt the service, that would be disrespectful. I was an altar boy, lots of extended family are priests and nuns and even one bishop, and I've marched with them for any number of social causes. We usually met up at our church parking lot before we caravaned out together. I can even remember a time when sermons were about helping the lesser among us and so on. So don't tell me protest isn't okay within the church.

It's not okay with you.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KaliTracy]

21. I wonder if he will still take their Tithes... hmmm? n/t

[Rose Siding]

23. Checks with rainbows on them!

An idea whose time has come :applause:

[jazzjunkysue]

30. Gay-tainted tithes? Ooooooo! I feel dirty. Do it again.

[KaliTracy]

31. how about this.... each page is a different color, too

http://www.messageproducts.com/shop/product.aspx?ProductID=8MRBPCH(Base)&CategoryName=&SubcategoryName=CKMISC-MP(Base)&CategoryCode=


edit...sorry about the URL, I'm not sure how to fix it...

[jazzjunkysue]

34. With Barbara Streisand in the background...(Ooops! Jewish!)

I really wonder how much they'd tolerate for the $$?

[Tweed]

64. The Catholic Churchs doesn't tithe

:hi: Research, it's a wonderful thing.

[KaliTracy]

71. so sorry -- I assumed monetary commitment was something all

denominations did... just assumed they had to get $$ from somewhere.

my apologies

[truthisfreedom]

24. i guess it's time for them to start packing their own picnic. i'm sure

they can bring their own bread and a much more Jesus-worthy wine than the swill the church is providing.

the catholic church must reveal every single priest who has abused a child and see all of them off to prison, where they belong. until they are willing to do that, they have NO MORAL AUTHORITY whatsoever.

WWJD?

[KaliTracy]

33. Hear, Hear! n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spuddonna]

59. Hey, whoa... back up the truck...

MOST of the Catholics I know are apopletctic about the child rapes, and are trying to do something in their churches about this!

The problem is very similar to what has happened to our country: the leadership of the church has become corrupt, and is promoting the evil from within. The members of the church were NOT the ones committing the crime - they were the victims. The priests and bishops were the ones who 'jockeyed' the scum from parish to parish!

I am no longer a practicing Catholic, and yeah you get gen-u-ine nut jobs like Bill Donohue, but most of the Catholic people I know are disgusted and seriously in mourning over what is happening to our church. BTW, most of the Catholics I know think the way these crazy Archbishops treated Kerry and these gay parishoners is just wrong AND against the tenets of the faith.

[Zhade]

62. No offense, but what part of "SOME CATHOLICS" did you miss?

NT!

[anitar1]

105. So what are practicing Cathlocis doing about Pedophila?

I would like to know? Plese post about theie anti -pedophila efforts. I have not heard about their efforts.

[spuddonna]

118. Most of what I've read concerns changes of policy inside parishes...

And as far as I know, there is no nationwide policy that has changed; it is on a parish/diocese by parish/diocese level. (Yeah, there's a Nationwide policy where bishops are supposed to defrock any freak that hurts a kid, but they haven't been exactly reliable in the past.) And please understand, what I hear is strictly from conversations with my family still practicing in the church: Me:"How can you be sure they aren't going to abuse the kids at St. XXXXXX?" Them:"Cause now Bertha (name changed to protect the staffperson!) sits in the room anytime they talk to Father or they leave the door open and she sits outside the door knitting, and checks in randomly..."

But basically what it boils down to is the laypeople have to become the police force for their own parish. They have to set up rules that the Priest will agree to (yeah, that's a winner!), and they have to enforce them. There's still no way for the people to really investigate their priest (ie demand their records from the Archbishop) and see if the priest is ok, or a serious danger to the church. It's a dictatorial power structure, with no intention of changing...

So it sucks, basically... and it shows so much of what is wrong with the church and its attitude towards the laypeople...("Can't you sinners just accept our apology and get on with the tithing?")

Yet one of many reasons why I am not a practicing Catholic!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

40. Oh! IT'S ON!!!!!

The Feminist Movement, the Lesbian and Gay Movements and Martin Luther King's Civil Rights Movment tapped into real passion and a huge need for people to be free to be themselves as equals in the United States of America.

The fight is about to be re-engaged with the Right by the Left.

Thank God!

[Selatius]

45. If you don't like the institution, then change it or get out.

I got out, but that does not mean I spurn everyone inside the church. The institution may be intolerable for me, but not everyone in it is.

I'm a free-thinker nowadays. God gave everyone the gift of free will and the gift of reason. (The latter seems to be spurned all too often in the name of dogma and superstition) It makes sense that I should exercise the powerful gifts. I do not believe I was given them just to throw them away, and I don't believe I am right to try to strip these gifts away from others who may not think as I do. If through careful thought and contemplation I decide for myself a homosexual is not guilty of sin, for instance, for being a homosexual, then why should I, the individual, judge? Because my church or my priest decides it so? What makes my church or my priest any better than any other human being at deciding what is right or wrong?

[IndianaGreen]

60. The contrast between Jesus at the Last Supper and the Catholic Church

has never been more clear! Jesus, who never said a word about abortion or gays, was an inclusive dude, while the Church that proclaims to act on his behalf takes a different point of view.

[The White Tree]

81. I was thinking about that as well.

Some of things about from this article are troubling:

1. The Rainbow Sash Alliance says that by wearing the sash, members “publicly claim our place at Christ’s table, sacramentally expressing the truth in our lives, and calling the church to embrace a new day of integrity and freedom.”

As a Catholic, I find that to be a consistentt Christian message, not a protest. Ultimately the church leadership makes a decision on what itbelievess is the true teaching of God regarding an issue such as homosexuality. I believee it has no power to deny a sacred right to anyone who does not follow it's teaching (I guess short of excommunication and even then I don't know how valid excommunication would be).

Jesus himself did not deny communion to Judas who he know had already betrayed him in mind and heart. If he did not do this, how could our church leaders or any other Catholic presume to have the right.

Additionally, this is one descrption I found of what Pentecost is all about:

For Christians, Pentecost Sunday is a day to celebrate hope, a hope evoked by the knowledge that God through His Holy Spirit is at work among His people. It is a celebration of newness, of recreation, of renewal of purpose, mission, and calling as God’s people. It is a celebration of God’s ongoing work in the world. Yet, it is also a recognition that His work is done through His people as He pours out His presence upon them.

Based on that, this display by these people seems to me appropriate. The only real objecttion that I could see might be to the wearing of the Sash which I beleive has been perceived as putting ones self on the level of the preist.

However,

2. Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. “As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed,” she said.

These people were denied communion for wearing rainbow colored ribbons? To say they were doing this to try to draw attention to themselves specifically does not appear to be true. Rather, I think, in this particular families case it would be the same as wearing a T-shirt that proclaimed WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?). They are only proclaiming that same value which I believe by many churchgoers.

3. And most worrisomely,

Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.

Again I say, who are these Catholics who feel they have the right to judge another to the point of attempting to deny them the right to receive communion.

I feel that that is truly appalling. It is meeting perceived sin with actual sin and contrary to Jesus word when he admonishes us to turn the other cheek.

Lastly, the article states that they only do this once a year, on Pentecost. As such it is not at all disruptive to the general order of the church. If it occurred weekly I could see it that way, but not once a year. The church itself changes it's appearance regularly to coincide with it's own traditional events.

That this is occurring in my own faith truly saddens me.

[IndianaGreen]

120. Excellent and poignant post, The White Tree!

The Catholic Church is not the only denomination under attack by fundamentalists hell-bent on bringing back the Dark Ages.

[PennyLane]

65. See.......

......they think they are God. The appropriate response would be to
give them communion and let the Lord sort it all out. It's beginning to feel like the 60's! ;(

[w4rma]

70. I hope that Rat's leadership keeps showing their followers who they really

are. That Nazi pope is appointing Nazi bishops.

[Bridget Burke]

74. How many bishops has he appointed?

And what is their political background?

[noonwitch]

73. There are other churches

The catholic church, hypocritical as it's stand may be in light of the pedophile priest problems, still has the right to deny communion to whomever they please. It's not going to change unless people leave in droves, or it somehow otherwise costs them money.

[anitar1]

107. Unfortunately, all the "other" churches are rife with pedophila.

there is a web site one can go to that lists all prosecuted ministers and other officers of churches . I cannot remember the name of the site--but it was listed in a thread on DU a couple of months ago. Sickening.This is a huge problem in all churches. It is not just pedophilia but other types of sexual abuse.So many churches are havens for twisted minds, and that is why they seek positions of leadership amongst the sheeple.We have had a number of examples in this area. I would venture to say that only 50 % of them are reported.

[Bridget Burke]

75. It's political theatre....

And each actor is following the script.

[zanne]

76. WHERE'S MY BIRTH CONTROL SASH?

You notice they never ask parishioners if they use birth control, which is another big NO-NO in the Catholic church. (Probably because about 90% of all child-bearing age parishioners use birth control). I wonder what a birth-control sash would look like?

[Sabriel]

85. A big stretchy condom, with a diaphragm in the middle like a rosette n/t

[Lars39]

87. I think the whole congregation ought to wear a rainbow sash

in solidarity. Would the priest refuse everybody?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MsAnthropy]

83. The Cathedral is in St. Paul, not Minneapolis

[Scurrilous]

84. Gay activists welcomed in LA, not in St. Paul or Chicago

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=37144

<snip>


"Homosexual activists of the Rainbow Sash movement were denied Communion in St. Paul, Minnesota, but welcomed at the cathedral in Los Angeles, during their annual Pentecost Sunday protest.

Each year, members of the Rainbow Sash movement stage major demonstrations on Pentecost Sunday, wearing their distinctive sashes to advertise their disagreement with Church teachings regarding the morality of homosexual acts. In 2004, the group had its most noteworthy confrontation in St. Paul, where Archbishop Harry Flynn administered the Eucharist to protestors wearing their sashes, over the protests of other Catholics at the cathedral. Later, in response to a query from an American journalist, Cardinal Francis Arinze, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, said that the protestors should not have been given Communion, since they were flaunting their rejection of Church teaching.

This year, Archbishop Flynn warned activists that they could not receive Communion if they were wearing sashes. In Chicago, Cardinal Francis George issued the same warning.

But in Los Angeles, a spokesman for Cardinal Roger Mahony issued a statement saying that members of the Rainbow Sash group would be welcomed into the cathedral. The archdiocesan statement did not directly address the question of whether protestors were welcome to receive Communion while wearing their sashes. The Rainbow Sash movement announced because of the "warm welcome" they had received from Cardinal Mahony, members chose not to wear their sashes during Mass at the cathedral there."

[realcountrymusic]

88. Why does anyone with a brain . . . .

bother to try to "reform" the RC church? Forget sashes. Until a large number of parishoners simply refuse to fund this bunch of brigands and hypocrites, the heavy-handed tactics will continue.

Now about those altar boys . . .

RCM

[Berserker]

97. I have to agree with BartCop

Have the child-molesters all gone insane?

They're playing a combination of poker and chicken with their Church.
They're losing paid customers by the millions - and now they pull this?

They won't sign a pledge to stop raping little boys, but they'll deny communion
to anyone to thinks gays shouldn't be discriminated against?

The Church has two choices:
It can back down now and say they were wrong or they
can back down later, after losing a few more millions of Americans.

Poker and chicken - it's a bad combination when you have a losing hand. http://www.bartcop.com/

[BadNews]

96. They have every right to discriminate and deny communion.

The church does not see this as a political statement but a question of morality. If you went to communion with a condom stapled to your lapel, they would have the same right to deny communion. By most church standards you are only forgiven of the sin when you repent and forsake the sin. Most gays can't and won't pretend to simply not be gay. Likewise, if you come to communion with a symbol that you support, oh capital punishment you should be rejected as well. Most sinners are not denied communion because it is assumed that you come with the intention of more and more each day to follow church doctrines. The rainbows are an obvious admission that the wearer has no intention of following or supporting that particular church doctrine.

If you don't agree with church doctrine, find a church that fits your beliefs. For example, I'm not a born again and don't frequent that church because I don't agree with their teachings. I don't see how someone who sees homosexuality as natural can consider the Catholic church their church.

[Dave Reynolds]

100. I'm sure that the new pope

will come out against this.

I'm struggling to keep a straight face after that..not working...

[Yellow_Dog]

106. So much for all that love and forgivness crap the keep preaching

or was he in a hurry to go bugger one of the alter boys?

[cyr330]

109. They sure pick and choose

The CC decides it wants to jump on gays but yet casts a blind on on pedophilia. Also, remember the brouhaha about the possibility of denying Kerry communion because he's pro-choice? Did we ever hear a word about the CC threatening to deny communion to those who are pro death penalty or are pro war? Nope. WE sure didn't.

[Erika]

115. An outsider's point of view

A church marred by pedophile priests who they protected and moved around is now denying communion to gay members? If I was a gay member I would not give one additional cent to that church.

[Vektor]

119. Time to find a new church. n/t

[Chicago Democrat]

126. Reverand Hipocracy Non-Follower of Christ Jerk

:(