Priest Denies Gays' Supporters Communion
The Associated Press via the Washington Post says ...A Roman Catholic priest [in St Paul, MN] 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.Now it's not just being gay that gets you denied communion (a travesty in itself), it's supporting those who are gay.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.
Some might suggest that it's not up to me to decide that denying communion to gay Catholics is a bad thing, and that I should let the Church make its own rules. I'm fine with that - as long as the Church is consistent. Let the Church deny communion to those who have lied during the week ... to those who have had "impure thoughts" about those to whom they were not married ... to those who refused to help the poor and instead bought a bigger SUV ... to those parents who brought potential harm upon their children by letting them eat fast food ... and I'll be glad to support refusing communion for gays.
Let's just see if there would be anyone left to receive it.
posted by Paul Wilczynski @ 11:15 AM
6 Comments:
Catholics think that being gay is a sin.
If people were running around wearing ribbons in support of liars, adulterers and fast food eaters, they might not get communion either.
I'm not saying I want UUs denying ritual to people or anything, but if a religion thinks something is a sin, they do. And if you run around in an "I'm an unrepentant sinner" ribbon, you can't expect a hero's welcome.
CC
Chalicechick,
When I see the Church deny communion to someone who's wearing a big sign that says "I contributed to the obesity of my children by feeding them Big Macs and fries", I'll buy that argument.
Did Paul have anything to say about the sinfulness of fries?
Come to think of it, do you often see people wearing signs around their necks in church?
Maybe most people aren't in church to make statements, they are there for something else.
CC
I don't think it's accurate to say " Catholics think that being gay is a sin" because apparently some don't think that.
It would be accurate to say that the official teachings from the Vatican is that homosexuality isn't a sin, but rather any sexual activity other than potentially reproductive sexual intercourse in male-female marriage is wrong.
It would also be accurate to say that a large majority of Roman Catholics are "cultural" Catholics rather than "follow every rule" Catholics.
Most people masturbate (according to Kinsey). Should the Roman Catholic Church deny communion to most people since most of them are breaking the church's rules?
Most people are "cultural" anything rather than follow-every-rule.
But I can certainly see the diffference between Catholics who masturbate, feel bad about it, confess it, do their pennance and try to not do it again. (Even if they fail.) and Catholics who violate the church's teachings with a "We ain't wrong, we ain't sorry, and it's absolutely going to happen again" sort of attitude.
I don't always agree with the UUA, but if a bunch of UUs made "the UUA's teachings are crap" banners and wore them to church, I would find that pretty disruptive of the worship experience.
These people got their press coverage, so I bet they are probably happy. Making a protest like that in church (as opposed to going through other channels where they would be less disruptive to the worship of others) strongly suggests that's what they wanted anyway.
I believe in gay rights. I believe in welcoming everyone to my church. But I don't believe that I have bitching rights if other people don't believe the same thing.
CC
Chalicechick wrote:
"But I can certainly see the diffference between Catholics who masturbate, feel bad about it, confess it, do their pennance and try to not do it again. (Even if they fail.) and Catholics who violate the church's teachings with a "We ain't wrong, we ain't sorry, and it's absolutely going to happen again" sort of attitude.
I don't always agree with the UUA, but if a bunch of UUs made "the UUA's teachings are crap" banners and wore them to church, I would find that pretty disruptive of the worship experience."
There is one fundamental difference between your hypothetical "UUA teachings are crap" example and the real-world example of folks protesting the Roman Catholic official positions on sexual orientation.
The UUA has accepted channels for dissent such as congregational meetings, district meetings, and GA.
If enough folks disagree with a UUA position, they can lobby to have it reversed. The same cannot be said for churches that have monarchial governance.
As UUs, we also have a decentralized congregational polity which also allows for congregational dissent within the UUA.
For example, a hypothetical UU congregation does have the freedom to teach within its walls that the "official" position on gay rights at 25 Beacon Street is wrong and it can still stay within the UUA.
But the corresponding freedom isn't granted for dissenting Catholics who are gay-friendly. If they teach in seminary, they are fired. If they are involved in BGLT community ministry, they are ordered to stop.
And if dissenting Catholics wear a rainbow sash as a quiet and non-obstrusive social justice statement, they are denied access to the Lord's Supper (and the last time I checked it was the "Lord's Supper" and not the "Church's Supper").
Post a Comment
<< Home