Gay Catholics who plan to identify themselves by wearing a rainbow sash in church Sunday should be denied communion, according to a memo Cardinal Francis George has written to all pastors in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
The wearing of the sash is sponsored by the Rainbow Sash Movement, which has several chapters across the country and plans to show up Sunday at Holy Name Cathedral.
“We wear the sash because it is a symbol of the gifts that we bring to the church as gay and lesbian people,” said Joe Murray of Chicago. “It’s a symbol that we need to also be ministered to as gay and lesbian people and we can’t be ministered to in the clerical closet.”
But the cardinal wrote that wearing the sash indicates disagreement with church teaching that gay sexual relations are sinful, and therefore those who wear the sash should not receive communion.
…Rev. Richard Prendergast of St. Mary of Celle in Berwyn received the memo and said that while he understands the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, “I think the question of the increased usage of bishops withholding communion as a punitive measure is a slippery slope.”
[Full Story
The slippery slope was created when after Roe vs. Wade nothing was done about those who publicly went along with the abortion movement. We would not be talking now about denial of Communion becoming political if we had been consistent from the beginning on this subject. This problem did not start this year, it has only being receiving attention now. The mistakes of the past must now be corrected regardless of what critics say the intentions are. It is understandable when misinformed reporters don’t see why denying Communion to those in manifest grave sin is an act of mercy. To have a Catholic priest only see this as punitive is sad. There is a punitive aspect, but its final end is ordered towards repentance of sin. “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.”
This is interesting thought that the wearing of a rainbow sash is enough information to go by to deny Communion, but a lifelong voting record isn’t. Previously a story on Cardinal George said:
Asked whether he would follow at least one other bishop who directed priests to deny Communion to politicians who back abortion rights, George said: “No, not at this point. No.” He made the comments at a downtown luncheon of the City Club of Chicago.
“I don’t have a good answer” to how the church should react to politicians who hold positions contrary to church law, George said. “I’m loath to say we should take too many public positions on that at this point.”
This seems to me a mixed message. I fully agree that those activists wearing these sashes are publicly showing that they are not following the truth of Church teaching on homosexual acts and should be denied Communion. Yet I would like to hear the Cardinal explain why this same act of mercy should not also be applied to Catholic public figures who defy Church teaching on the Gospel of Life?
11 comments
Post Roe v. Wade: yep. Arguably, it began with Griswold and the whole “privacy of the bedroom” decision. Arguably, it began with the 14th Amendment, which had everything to do with securing equal protection under the law for freed blacks (a noble deed) and nothing to do with free and unfettered access to abortion, pornography, and sodomy (ignoble deeds, all).
Arguably it began with original sin.
The question is whether we can get the genie back in the bottle. With God, all things are possible. Sometimes not as easy as WE might want it to be, but possible nonetheless.
This issue seems to be overwrought/overthought. The issue is notorious and unrepentant sinners receiving communion. I really don’t care whether the sin is public support for abortion or homosexual rights or La Cosa Nostra. It would seem that if one makes a publicity hound for mortal sin, and remains unrepentant about the sin, that person is not prepared for the reception of the Holy Eucharist. And when that public sinner comes forth to receive Holy Communion and is recognized by the priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, said minister should extend a blessing for that individual. As a priest, I would also add that I would speak briefly to the individual, and invite them to speak at greater length after Mass, and would offer the Sacrament of Penance, and an opportunity to receive at a later time, once that Sacrament of Penance has been celebrated. If no absolution, no Holy Communion.
The public character of the sin heightens the culpability, especially after notice has been served by the Church to the individual whose fitness is in question. I stress that this applies to those whose promotion of sinful acts, in disobedience to the moral teaching of the Church, has become notorious, and produces a scandal. Politicians, because of the public nature of their actions and their support, place themselves in the direct spotlight, and should invite the public scrutiny of their positions by all voters, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Politicians need to be held to account for their positions, and should expect that not everyone will embrace their positions on the issues.
I would also add that the absolution is also accompanied by the contrition of the penitent, who resolves to avoid the near occasion of sin [particularly that sin which has been confessed in that Sacrament].
Curt- the slippery slope began with the kerfuffle surrounding Humanae Vitae. When academics weren’t disciplined for public hissy fits against it. Or the Washington D.C. archdiocesan priests who
defied Cardinal O’Boyle on slamming it- and no discipline was imposed by the Vatican. That Cardinal George has said this much on the sash issue is significant enough. Then again, the factory at episcopalspine.com seems to be working overtime these days.
Curt- the slippery slope began with the kerfuffle surrounding Humanae Vitae. When academics weren’t disciplined for public hissy fits against it. Or the Washington D.C. archdiocesan priests who
defied Cardinal O’Boyle on slamming it- and no discipline was imposed by the Vatican. That Cardinal George has said this much on the sash issue is significant enough. Then again, the factory at episcopalspine.com seems to be working overtime these days.
The problem is much more widespread than just same-sex relationships, abortion, etc. If the concept of withholding Communion is to be applied with any kind of sense, it must include parishioners who are known to be limiting their families by contraception, unmarried couples living together, divorced people who have remarried (outside the church), active members of criminal organizations, drug users/pushers – the list goes on and on and on. All of these behaviors are sins, and they are no less or more weighty than homosexuality and abortion, so one can easily surmise that they should receive the same treatment at the Eucharist. Which would make for a very thorny problem indeed – eucharistic ministers scurrying around checking with the priest about Mr. Smith or Ms. Green, priests trying to remember who has been to reconciliation and who hasn’t………
I agree that it is wrong for a Catholic to publicly deny Church teaching, and that [voting in favor of] enacting laws contrary to doctrine and/or the magisterium is even more of a wrong. But the ultimate responsibility for receipt of Communion rests with the individual. It is better for 500 sinners to receive than for 1 needy person to be denied wrongly. And St. Paul clearly said that anyone who receives unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. The key is the unworthy receipt, which is noted by God – no one gets away with it. The burden should be kept on the individual, not placed on the priest – he shouldn’t have to make judgments while administering Communion as to the worthiness of various people to receive.
A final question – if people wearing sashes on the specific Sunday of “protest” are denied Communion based on their wearing a sash, will those people then be “marked” (names/photos/scarlet letter?) and prohibited from receiving Communion at subsequent Masses? They should, if the logic used on Sunday “x” is truly correct. So who will be the “keeper of the list” identifying the unworthy parties?????
Joey, you miss the point.
1) Yes, it is sacrilege to receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin and that is very bad and applies to everyone….
2) BUT, it is the extremely public state of a politicians life and views that makes this so grievous in an election year. Open contradition of what the CHurch teaches pronounced in the Church’s name cannot be tolerated. This is OVER & ABOVE the sacrilege of #1. Compounded sacrilege, public and preventable, much easier to determine too.
michigancatholic,
I was addressing the issue discussed in the posting – that of withholding Communion from anyone wearing a sash in support of same-sex activity/relationships. The implication is that this was to be applied universally, not just to politicians with a sash. What I’m saying is that wearing a sash is no more of an open denial of church teaching than the sight of an [admittedly] unmarried couple with children, or two people known to be divorced who have “remarried”. In that kind of case, I maintain that the burden should be on the would-be communicant rather than the priest/minister distributing Communion.
When it comes to politicians voting in ways that are blatantly opposite to Church doctrine, the situation becomes more thorny. I think that the bishops should make the decision as to what action to take on a case-by-case basis.
That picture is actually funny. Imagine standing around with a banner on your ample stomach that says “I like it like THIS!” How humiliating. And stupid. And funny. And sad.
And then they get together, a whole bunch of them. Eeek. I’m leaving before it gets dark! It’s not like they’re afraid of getting pregnant….ROFLOL.
Maybe the slippery slope started at the Lambeth conference, early in the 20th century, when the Anglican Church became the first Christian denomination to accept the practice of contraception…
Hello boys and girls 😉
Somebody can give me url to the XRumer’s homepage?
Or maybe some information…
Thank you very much!!!
P.S. Вот уроды…
Comments are closed.