RC communion denied to rainbow-wearing parishioners

[furay]

Saw this article posted on an Orthodox forum I frequent - repost from CNN.com.

Communion denied to rainbow-wearing parishioners
CNN

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) -- 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.

Sister Gabriel Herbers said she wore a sash to show sympathy for the gay and lesbian community. Their sexual orientation "is a gift from God just as much as my gift of being a female is," she said.

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.

While other parishioners sat or kneeled after going to the altar, sash-wearers remained standing with their hands cupped as a symbol they still wanted the sacrament. Their silent protest lasted about five minutes, until the congregation rose to hear the announcements and the benediction before being dismissed.

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."

Organizer Brian McNeill wrote to Flynn last month, explaining that the sashes are a symbol "to celebrate the gift of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sexuality."

Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are "more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching," declaring that it has never been acceptable "to use the reception of communion as an act of protest."

Parishioner Larry Pavlicek was not sympathetic. As a divorced man, he said he has to live with the church's teaching that he cannot remarry and cannot have sex outside of marriage.

"If you're going to be a Catholic, either live with it or call yourself something different," he said. "They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years."

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said Flynn made the decision to deny communion after a cardinal asked U.S. bishops to adopt a consistent policy on the sashes. Catholics in Chicago and other cities such as Melbourne, Australia, have also worn sashes. Some have been denied communion; others have not.

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

Regarding the bolded portion: Its amazing that this woman is a Nun.

[Piebald]

I don't understand why you would be Catholic if what you believe flies in the face of what the Catholic church teaches. I mean, you wouldn't go to a vegetarian religion and demand that it be acceptable for you to eat meat, would you?

[Cynic Sage]

I agree with Ham.

[Jawa Man]

I think the most valuable portion in this article was this:

Parishioner Larry Pavlicek was not sympathetic. As a divorced man, he said he has to live with the church's teaching that he cannot remarry and cannot have sex outside of marriage.

"If you're going to be a Catholic, either live with it or call yourself something different," he said. "They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years."

That guy deserves more than just a pat on the back.

[elysian]

I discovered many years ago that out of conscience I could not 100% agree with and adhere to the teachings of the RCC. The RCC teaches if you cannot abide by their rules/policies that you aren't RC. Therefore I left the RCC.

There is a difference between debating the need for change and disobeying though. I don't believe that protest is necessarily disobeying. I also wonder how many priests who consecrate the Eucharist are sexually active gays? Would Communion be invalid (according to RCC teaching) if the priest consecrating the bread and wine were a sexually active homosexual?

The RCC has a right to invite or bar anyone from their Communion table and if they don't wish for gays or divorced and remarried people to partake that is their provenance. I personally believe that Communion is for all Baptized who according to their conscience and understanding (acknowledging the Real Presence) may take the Sacrament is more in line with what Jesus taught and intended. It is by His merit alone that any of us can be worthy to partake.

BUT if I were RC you bet I'd be asking questions of the integrity of the clergy who make and enforce the rules before I started to examine the lay people.

[SpinyNorman]

I don't understand why you would be Catholic if what you believe flies in the face of what the Catholic church teaches. I mean, you wouldn't go to a vegetarian religion and demand that it be acceptable for you to eat meat, would you?

well...if you wanted to get yourself in the news you would.

[spl_cadet]

Regarding the bolded portion: Its amazing that this woman is a Nun.

There's a lot of nuns who are messed in the head.

[elysian]

I don't understand why and how being homosexual is seen by some as being a "gift." Do we celebrate diabetes or heart disease? Do we celebrate bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia? IMO homosexual orientation is abnormal (no amount of political correctness is going to change the natural law- we are created male and female, with one completing the other) and is something a person must either overcome or learn to live with. If that person is a Christian then that person can seek God's grace and strength in overcoming or living virtuously in that state, (i.e. homosexual but celibate) just as a person with diabetes or bi-polar disorder has to make accommodations and struggle to live in a healthy manner in spite of their diseases.

I don't believe that gay people should be denied the community of the church or be barred from the Communion table as if their disease is worse than the ways the rest of us are broken and fall short of God's glory. In fact like the rest of us sinners and broken people participation in the church is their link to salvation and healing in Christ. I do think that celebrating homosexuality or treating it as a "gift" is as ridiculous and is as harmful as celebrating diabetes or heart disease or cancer or schizophrenia. We should embrace the person and walk with them as they find their healing and wholeness in Christ. We need not and in conscience cannot embrace homosexual behavior any more than we can embrace stealing or lying or vindictiveness- but we are all subject to the disease of sin.

[Jawa Man]

I think it makes sense to deny homosexuals to have communion, because it is a sin they do not repent of. If a homosexual was repenting, however, then it would be ok. The same goes for a person doing any type of sin. These people are homosexual and not trying to repent from it, and so they should not be allowed to drink judgment on themselves (as 1 Corinthians tells us about communion) through their willful sin.

[elysian]

There's a lot of nuns who are messed in the head.

Celibate living will do that to 'ya. But in Christ all things are possible- just not desirable nor easy. I would never have dreamed that I would end up being married but living as a celibate out of necessity- and rest assured I DON'T like it- but being faithful (i.e. no action...) is possible in Christ.

Yes nuns are weird. I remember the one from CCD. We called her Sister Mary Refrigerator Perry as she was about 6'5" and a good 400#. Even the boys feared her wrath.

[George Murphy]

I think it makes sense to deny homosexuals to have communion, because it is a sin they do not repent of. If a homosexual was repenting, however, then it would be ok. The same goes for a person doing any type of sin. These people are homosexual and not trying to repent from it, and so they should not be allowed to drink judgment on themselves (as 1 Corinthians tells us about communion) through their willful sin.

Can we try to show some awareness of the real world here? To begin with, what is meant by a "homosexual"? It is, you know, a relatively new term. A distinction needs to be made between persons who have a homosexual orientation - i.e., who have always felt sexually attracted to persons of the same sex without having made a conscious decision to do so - & persons who engage in sexual activity with persons of the same sex. Not all persons in the former category are in the latter. Some are celibate & some are married to persons of the opposite sex & remain faithful, though unhappy.

You can certainly argue that sexual activity between persons of the same sex is sinful. It is much more difficult to argue that homosexual orientation is sinful, primarily because the Bible says absolutely nothing about it. That being the case, there is no justification for denying the Sacrament to someone on the basis of homosexual orientation alone.

For the sake of accuracy I should add that a disvision of sexual orientations into heterosexual & homosexual is too simple, though it is adequate for prelimiary discussion. Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire (Oxford, 1999) deals with this. (His treatment of ethics is, however, superficial.)

Shalom,
George

[Jawa Man]

Whoa George, I wasn't talking about orientation, I was talking about practicing the sin. Don't set fire where there's no wood to burn!

[Jezz]

I discovered many years ago that out of conscience I could not 100% agree with and adhere to the teachings of the RCC. The RCC teaches if you cannot abide by their rules/policies that you aren't RC. Therefore I left the RCC.

There is a difference between debating the need for change and disobeying though. I don't believe that protest is necessarily disobeying.

The RCC teaches that one must adhere to the teachings of their church, and to do otherwise is to endanger their salvation. Protesting is questioning the teachings of their church.

I also wonder how many priests who consecrate the Eucharist are sexually active gays? Would Communion be invalid (according to RCC teaching) if the priest consecrating the bread and wine were a sexually active homosexual?

The RCC position is that validity of the sacraments does not depend on the worthiness of the one administering them. That is Donatism, which was condemned in the 3rd century (Donatus and his followers believed that the sacraments weren't valid unless administered by a worthy celebrant, and separated themselves from what they saw as the "impure" church). See also the Augsburg Confession, article VIII - which teaches the same thing.

However, this does not mean that the church will tolerate sexuality active gay ministers - if they are discovered, they will be (or at least, should be) stepped down at the very least, and possibly excommunicated.

BUT if I were RC you bet I'd be asking questions of the integrity of the clergy who make and enforce the rules before I started to examine the lay people.

Certainly. This, I think, was the point behind St Paul's letters to Ss Timothy and Titus.

On the main subject matter: I applaud this priest for sticking up for his beliefs and for his church.

[George Murphy]

Whoa George, I wasn't talking about orientation, I was talking about practicing the sin. Don't set fire where there's no wood to burn!

Your post in which you referred simply to "homosexuals" made no reference to that distinction. Often in such debates it is not made & in fact some who criticize "homosexuals" refuse to admit that there is anything that can reasonably be called "homosexual orientation" (or more precisely, "non-volitional homosexual orientation.") So it is hardly pedantry to insist on clarity about this.

Shalom,
George

[Cynic Sage]

I don't understand why and how being homosexual is seen by some as being a "gift." Do we celebrate diabetes or heart disease? Do we celebrate bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia?

That's a bit of a poor analogy, there are High-end Autistics who celebrate their autism.

http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/