Gay Rights Activists refused Communion

[Neserk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040531/ap_on_re_us/gays_communion_denied_4

Not to single out the Catholic Church, but that is who the story is about. I'm certain it is happening in other Christian Denominations.


CHICAGO - Parishioners who wore rainbow-colored sashes to Mass in support of gays and lesbians were denied communion in Chicago, while laymen in Minnesota tried to prevent gay Roman Catholics from getting the sacrament.

Priests at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago refused to give the Eucharist to about 10 people wearing the sashes at Sunday Mass. One priest shook each person's hand; another made the sign of the cross on their foreheads.


"The priest told me you cannot receive communion if you're wearing a sash, as per the Cardinal's direction," said James Luxton, a Chicago member of the Rainbow Sash Movement, an organization of Catholic gay-rights supporters with chapters around the country.


An internal memo from Chicago Cardinal Francis George that became public last week instructed priests not to give communion to people wearing the sashes, which the group's members wear every year for Pentecost. The memo says the sashes are a symbol of opposition to the church's doctrine on homosexuality and exploit the communion ritual.


"The Rainbow Sash movement wants its members to be fully accepted by the Church not on the same conditions as any Catholic but precisely as gay," George wrote. "With this comes the requirement that the Church change her moral teaching."


Rainbow Sash Movement spokesman Joe Murray was among those denied communion in Chicago. He said members wearing the sashes should be seen no differently than a uniformed police officer or Boy Scout seeking communion.


"What we saw today in the cathedral is discrimination at the Eucharistic table, and that shouldn't be happening," Murray said. Those denied communion returned to their pews, but stood while the rest of the congregation knelt.


The movement, which started about five years ago in England, also has members in Dallas, New Orleans, New York and Rochester, N.Y.


In St. Paul, Minn., people wearing the rainbow-colored sashes were given communion Sunday despite protests from some parishioners who kneeled in front of the altar blocking their way.


The Rev. Michael Skluzacek said in a written statement that both sides were "mistakenly using the Mass and the Eucharist to make their own personal statements."


Brian McNeill, organizer of the Rainbow Sash Alliance of the Twin Cities, said the local group has worn the sashes every Pentecost at St. Paul Cathedral since 2001, but the group had never experienced such a confrontation.


A Vatican (news - web sites) doctrinal decree last year directed at Catholic politicians said a well-formed conscience forbids support for any law that contradicts "fundamental" morality, with abortion listed first among relevant issues. A second Vatican statement said it is "gravely immoral" not to oppose legalization of same-sex unions.


What I found most interesting was the last paragraph. If someone is against homosexuality, based on their interpretation of the bible, they should be against the act, rather or not the relationship is legalized is a non-issue.

[wowser]

Makes me embarassed to be a Catholic. Thankfully, the Catholic Church is a (slightly) more accepting place in the UK, though I tend to give the whole thing a miss.

[jelloshotsrule]

Makes me embarassed to be a Catholic. Thankfully, the Catholic Church is a (slightly) more accepting place in the UK, though I tend to give the whole thing a miss.

same here.

makes me want to wear a sash and see what my local priest does

sad....

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its not sad, if you want to be part of the club you need to abide by the rules. no mystery, open the book and follow. Im not part of the club but then again im not gay either.

[zimv20]

there are certain things that trump club status, though. family, place of birth and religion come to mind. rejection from any of those is far more devestating than, say, getting kicked out of your favorite bar or the Moose Lodge.

[Dont Hurt Me]

True, but come on the bible is pretty clear on many issues and religions make sure to define those issues.

[zimv20]

True, but come on the bible is pretty clear on many issues and religions make sure to define those issues.
yes, but...

religion tends to be a part of a person's life from the very beginning of their life. imo, this helps to make religion a core part of a person's being. since awareness of sexual feelings and preferences don't come until later, i can see how it would be difficult for anyone whose lifestyle or personal beliefs clash w/ the church to have to do some serious soul searching to determine if they really want to leave the church.

also, so much of christianity's message is love, but so much of the implementation is intolerance and hate. this has to be confusing to just about anyone.

since i'm not at all religious, i may be over sympathizing. but i do have gay friends who are really torn up about being rejected by the church, not just w/ this most recent issue, but in general.

[numediaman]

True, but come on the bible is pretty clear on many issues and religions make sure to define those issues.

You're absolutely right.

The Bible is also clear in other areas: you can stone your son to death for not obeying you (Deut 21:18-21); polygamy is OK (Exodus 21:10); one can capture and enslave a woman and force her to be your wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-13), women can not be teachers (Timothy 2:11-14), you can not touch the skin of a dead pig (no football of any kind I guess -- Leviticus 11), etc.

Yeah, let's live up to the word of the Bible. Let's treat it like a restaurant menu -- reject 90% of it but order from it when it suits our needs.

[Dont Hurt Me]

You're absolutely right.

The Bible is also clear in other areas: you can stone your son to death for not obeying you (Deut 21:18-21); polygamy is OK (Exodus 21:10); one can capture and enslave a woman and force her to be your wife (Deuteronomy 21:10-13), women can not be teachers (Timothy 2:11-14), you can not touch the skin of a dead pig (no football of any kind I guess -- Leviticus 11), etc.

Yeah, let's live up to the word of the Bible. Let's treat it like a restaurant menu -- reject 90% of it but order from it when it suits our needs.Hey you want to join the club then you have to follow, I myself like the new testament better, love thy God with all thy heart and love one another as yourself. we do that and we got it made. Jesus was so cool. :cool:

[numediaman]

Isn't is a bit hypocritical to say the Bible is against homosexuality and not admit that Bible contains arguments in favor of polygamy, stoning, slavery, and the like?

I was born and confirmed a Catholic. I used to consider myself a Christian. But I can not live my life with enough hate for my fellow human beings to be considered a real Christian.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bible was intended for primitive man right from the trees, though ill admit we have not advance much ( hence the constant murders in everyday papers) but Jesus was right on. Im a sinner big time but Jesus was saying things 2000 years ago we still have problems with. Then look at the Mideast they are still trying to live from rules 4000 years ago. Talk about primitives. All im saying is if you want to be a certain religion then you have to follow the customs,traditions and thinking. Throw away the religion and think of Jesus and what he said. love they God with all thy heart,love one another. there is nothing we can not accomplish now. Its that simple. you want to be catholic then be it,same with the others. God didnt create religion man did.

[Abstract]

religion tends to be a part of a person's life from the very beginning of their life. .... since awareness of sexual feelings and preferences don't come until later, i can see how it would be difficult for anyone whose lifestyle or personal beliefs clash w/ the church to have to do some serious soul searching to determine if they really want to leave the church.

also, so much of christianity's message is love, but so much of the implementation is intolerance and hate. this has to be confusing to just about anyone.


If someone looks at the church and doesn't believe that these beliefs and attitudes are ancient and have no place in today's society, then in reality, they don't believe in the teachings of their church, so why go back? Old habit? Seriously, the reason you're a Catholic is because you agree with their point of view. You have to. Religion itself is a belief, and if you don't believe in their teachings, then you don't believe in that religion. You're in a grey area. If you believe in some of it, but not all of it, then you don't really believe in the religion itself, only the part that you agree with. That isn't a religion. That's what non-religious people do.....agree with the parts of each religion that seem right to them without actually making some sort of declaration that, "yes, I am a _______."

Non-religious people are religious -- they just don't define what they believe in with any particular name.

[blackfox]

Bible was intended for primitive man right from the trees, though ill admit we have not advance much ( hence the constant murders in everyday papers) but Jesus was right on. Im a sinner big time but Jesus was saying things 2000 years ago we still have problems with. Then look at the Mideast they are still trying to live from rules 4000 years ago. Talk about primitives. All im saying is if you want to be a certain religion then you have to follow the customs,traditions and thinking. Throw away the religion and think of Jesus and what he said. love they god with all thy heart,love one another. there is nothing we can not accomplish now. Its that simple. you want to be catholic then be it,same with the others. God didnt create religion man did.
I find your post interesting, DHM for the following reasons:
1) In the first line you seem to combine a little bit of evolutionary theory with your religious assertion...also, man was not that "primitive"...comparatively yes, but Egyptian and Latin American civilizations were quite advanced, as was Roman, if you are talking about the New Testament...
2) Your comment about the Mid-East is factually incorrect, and imo, quite demeaning...Muhammed was around the 6th Century AD, and Islam was a very progressive religion for its' time...in antiquity, (1000BC), in the ME there was the advanced Sabaen Civilization, of which little survived, save the "Queen of Sheba"..
3) As far as throwing away the religion and listening to the teaching of Jesus, that is fine, but that is definitely not Catholicism, and many people are unable and unwilling to discern the contradictions and important themes of man-made Religion...which is why they listen to preachers/pastors/priests...and that, of course is some of the trouble between religious theory/ideology and application (as noted above...)

[Neserk]

Actually, the bible is not at all clear on homosexuality. Just some would like to make you *think* it is.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I find your post interesting, DHM for the following reasons:
1) In the first line you seem to combine a little bit of evolutionary theory with your religious assertion...also, man was not that "primitive"...comparatively yes, but Egyptian and Latin American civilizations were quite advanced, as was Roman, if you are talking about the New Testament...
2) Your comment about the Mid-East is factually incorrect, and imo, quite demeaning...Muhammed was around the 6th Century AD, and Islam was a very progressive religion for its' time...in antiquity, (1000BC), in the ME there was the advanced Sabaen Civilization, of which little survived, save the "Queen of Sheba"..
3) As far as throwing away the religion and listening to the teaching of Jesus, that is fine, but that is definitely not Catholicism, and many people are unable and unwilling to discern the contradictions and important themes of man-made Religion...which is why they listen to preachers/pastors/priests...and that, of course is some of the trouble between religious theory/ideology and application (as noted above...)we know by fact from the fossil record, dinosaurs,extinct species from millions years ago, we also know that many biblical events have been recorded and shown true. I myself am not naive to think the universe just sprang into being with no thought. also iam not naive enough to think this process on our planet just happened overnight. I do think there is a greater intelligence(God) just as i do think dinosaurs roamed the planet from years ago. Why cant God use evolution since he created it? everything is in flux and changing and we have the proof. we are a result, call it Gods plan or anomaly the fact is we are here. religions try to explain and control our thinking but Jesus simply stated the truth. Its Gods universe,thank him,love him,and treat each other like you want to be treated. 2000 years ago. he didnt say be catholic,muslim,islam,protestant,etc etc. he said love God and each other. What a concept. Coolest man that ever walked the Earth.

[Neserk]

we know by fact from the fossil record, dinosaurs,extinct species from millions years ago, we also know that many biblical events have been recorded and shown true. I myself am not naive to think the universe just sprang into being with no thought. also iam not naive enough to think this process on our planet just happened overnight. I do think there is a greater intelligence(God) just as i do think dinosaurs roamed the planet from years ago. Why cant God use evolution since he created it? everything is in flux and changing and we have the proof. we are a result, call it Gods plan or anomaly the fact is we are here.


That is quite intelligent of you.

Did you know there are entire foundations and they have websites which are devoted solely to the purpose of demonstrating that the earth was formed in 7 days about 5-7,000 years ago? :eek: And they are quite insistent that one is not a Christian if they don't believe it :rolleyes: It would make a fascinating psychological study. I believed all that stuff as a child. Thankfully I grew up.

[zimv20]

Non-religious people are religious -- they just don't define what they believe in with any particular name.
really? i always considered myself non-religious, 'cuz i don't believe in any god.

[Neserk]

Non-religious people are religious -- they just don't define what they believe in with any particular name.


That is a common fallacy perpetuated by those who wish to put Christianity in schools. They claim that everyone has a religion so why can't there brand be public.

[Neserk]

Hey you want to join the club then you have to follow, I myself like the new testament better, love thy God with all thy heart and love one another as yourself. we do that and we got it made. Jesus was so cool. :cool:

Also a common myth perpetuated by Christians. The God of the Hebrew Bible is the same God as the God of the Greek New Testament. Comments like this reek of anti-semitism. The most caring people I've ever met were religious Jews. They are often at the forefront in activism against things like capital punishment and in favor of human rights.

[Dont Hurt Me]

really? i always considered myself non-religious, 'cuz i don't believe in any god.you should,your not a random event nor is anyone. it has all been planned,thought out,and seen. dont ask me how. you dont have to be religious to know there is a Creater,God,or whatever we call the Architect of everything. :)

[zimv20]

you should,your not a random event nor is anyone. it has all been planned,thought out,and seen. dont ask me how. you dont have to be religious to know there is a Creater,God,or whatever we call the Architect of everything. :)
sorry, i don't believe it. it's all chemical reactions, particle physics and chaos. and, no, i do not believe there was a sentient being that created all that stuff.

life is what you make it, nothing more.

[blackfox]

you should,your not a random event nor is anyone. it has all been planned,thought out,and seen. dont ask me how. you dont have to be religious to know there is a Creater,God,or whatever we call the Architect of everything. :)
If you were so inclined, modern chaos theory could be sufficient to explain our existence...it is proven that even seemingly random/chaotic series of events tend to organize at specific levels of complexity...some theories of natural selection/evolution/mutation fall under this, as might some quantum physics. It can be argued that this organizing principle could be called "god", but the naming is completely irrelevant...and Zim is free to make his choices, it seems from what I know of him that he has been doing rather well...

Also, in relation to the topic (homosexuals denied communion), I do not recall Jesus being against the Gay community in principle or action...are you trying to distance Jesus from the organized church? If so, good for you...are you an Episcopalian? or a progressive Christian (founded by an Episcopalian priest)?

*edit* Zim with the quickness...

[Dont Hurt Me]

chaos is just that, it doesnt follow laws, it doesnt stay in line, its chaos, our universe is not. think about it.

[stoid]

What's all this talk about hate?

The members were not only allowed into the church, but they were blessed by the priest. Communion is a bond of fellowship between those who hold the specific beliefs of the church (Catholic, Protestant, whatever). The Bible specifically tells us as Christians that those who take Communion impurely or improperly are damned by it and not renewed. Priests/pastors have been known to refuse Communion to members who have unresolved marital and other life problems. This is not a matter of exclusion and hate, but a matter of salvation.

[blackfox]

chaos is just that, it doesnt follow laws, it doesnt stay in line, its chaos, our universe is not. think about it.
Firstly, it is chaos THEORY, not just chaos...and if you looked more closely many things that seem chaotic are in fact organized in some fashion...in fact, it can be argued that if there wasn't an organizing principle to chaos, it wouldn't be chaos, at least not for long...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Firstly, it is chaos THEORY, not just chaos...and if you looked more closely many things that seem chaotic are in fact organized in some fashion...in fact, it can be argued that if there wasn't an organizing principle to chaos, it wouldn't be chaos, at least not for long...Chaos theory is just that, even the likes of Einstien and Hawking know that everything didnt just fall into place perfect after countless chance. Chaos has no orginazation, our universe does. hello?

[stoid]

If I put a Rolex wrist watch on the table before you, I'm certain that you would admit that some intelligent being had put that watch together. If you claimed that the watch was simply a coincidence of rare chance that just happened to work out and perfectly tell the time, you would likely be declared insane. Now, the human body and the universe is many many many magnitudes more complex than a wrist watch. To claim that the universe and the fine workings of the human body are just accidents of chance by this logic is madness.

[jelloshotsrule]

I was born and confirmed a Catholic. I used to consider myself a Christian. But I can not live my life with enough hate for my fellow human beings to be considered a real Christian.

for the record, i'd consider anyone a christian if they truly love people and are compassionate, and work for the bettering of humans in general... i too was raised a catholic. and while i still consider myself catholic in that i believe in the dogma and such (jesus rose, saved us, etc etc), i firmly believe that you don't have to say "i accept jesus", or whatever to be "saved"... i also don't think god would have created gay people if it were truly a sickening abomination.

[Krizoitz]

That is a common fallacy perpetuated by those who wish to put Christianity in schools. They claim that everyone has a religion so why can't there brand be public.

How is it a fallacy? Why is my belief in Chrisitianity any different from your belief in whatever it is you believe? I'm not talking about the belief system itself, i.e the fact that I believe in these teachings of this church and you believe in different teachings, but the fact that both are our beliefs. What makes mine or some other persons who believes in something like Islam, or Jainism, or Buddhism any different? Is it because yours doesn't have a God or gods in it? That doesn't seem to indicate anything inherently more accurate about one system or the other, just indicates a difference.

[zimv20]

dhm, you're confusing the common definition of the word chaos w/ the principles behind Chaos Theory. instead, let's call it Non-Deterministic Organizing Theory.

while i get the world to change its terminology, you should read this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140092501/qid=1086234705/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-2909500-2979069?v=glance&s=books)

[blackfox]

Chaos theory is just that, even the likes of Einstien and Hawking know that everything didnt just fall into place perfect after countless chance. Chaos has no orginazation, our universe does. hello?
Hello? Yes chaos theory is just a theory, but so is religion...and of course there is an organizing principle...Einstein was, so I heard, a very spiritual man...which you might expect after appreciating the beauty and complexity of the universe...the point is, there are many different paths to the same general conclusion...if you wish to call this conclusion "god", fine, if you do not...that is fine too...just what are we arguing again? Oh yes, the persecution of homosexuals, which were created by either a) a God b) a complex and chaotic universe...it doesn't really matter, their existance is legitimized by their creation...and they deserve better.

*edit* Zim thanks for the assist (whether intentional or not...)

[stoid]

i also don't think god would have created gay people if it were truly a sickening abomination.

God did not 'create' murder. God did not 'create' theft. God did not 'create' lies and deceit. Yet all these things are sickening abominations of His word and His will for his people. God did not 'create' homosexuality. It is an unfortunate side effect of the sin that we all live in.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Firstly, it is chaos THEORY, not just chaos...and if you looked more closely many things that seem chaotic are in fact organized in some fashion...in fact, it can be argued that if there wasn't an organizing principle to chaos, it wouldn't be chaos, at least not for long...Rules have been put in place, not chaotic random ever changing patterns but rules that follow rules,math,physics,love etc. there has to be more or there would be nothing. we have much more then nothing not from chaos but from intention. otherwise there would only be chaos.

[blackfox]

God did not 'create' murder. God did not 'create' theft. God did not 'create' lies and deceit. Yet all these things are sickening abominations of His word and His will for his people. God did not 'create' homosexuality. It is an unfortunate side effect of the sin that we all live in.
IMO, your post is a sickening abomination of His "Word"...

[stoid]

IMO, your post is a sickening abomination of His "Word"...

Please explain how. I know that I do not understand all of the faith that I profess and if I am in err, please help me. However, a statement such as yours with no backing only serves to frustrate and confuse me.

[Krizoitz]

Also a common myth perpetuated by Christians. The God of the Hebrew Bible is the same God as the God of the Greek New Testament. Comments like this reek of anti-semitism. The most caring people I've ever met were religious Jews. They are often at the forefront in activism against things like capital punishment and in favor of human rights.

Wow I don't know where you et your "information" on Christianity, but I've never known anyone who is Christian that thinks the God in the Old Testament is different from the God in the New Testament. Of course its clear that you have your opinion set in stone and nothing anyone can say, even someone who is Christian can change it.

It amazes me how people can talk to a few people, attend a church a couple times, and read the Bible once or twice and consider themselves experts on Christianity. Thats like if I talk to my friends who are biology majors, skim through their books, and go to a couple of their classes then suddenly I'm a biology expert. Seriously. There are people who spend their whole lives exploring the mysteries and teachings of the Bible, trying to better understand not only Gods message but themselves as well.

Oh and btw, taking a few random quotes out of the Bible, completely out of context is getting old. Its not a fact book, it requires that you actually study it to understand it. Chrisitianty isn't some easy religion. You don't just say I'm Christian and suddenly you get all the answers. You have to work, you have to learn, kinda like school.

As for the Communion issue, its clear that the people making complaints don't understand what it is, what its for, or what the churches teachings are on sin. I really don't want to go long so I'll do a short summary.

Communion is something very sacred, it is partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, and we're not talking about symbolism, but an actual divine transformation that brings you into Communion (hence the name) with God. Part of that Communion is the expectation that you are trying to cleanse yourself of sin, that you realize you have done wrong and want to do better. Communion isn't for people who are perfect, its for sinnners who seek forgiveness. However entering into Communion when you don't intend to stop sining is sacrilegious, and the Churchs teachings on homosexuality (not homosexuals, note the difference) is very clear. This is no different as another person pointed out that the Church doesn't allow you to take Communion if you have re-married without getting an annulment. Since you have decided to actively continue sinning you are not fulfilling you're part of the bargin. Jesus doesn't ask us to be perfect, but he does ask us to try. If you aren't going to try you aren't ready for Communion, its that simple.

[blackfox]

Please explain how. I know that I do not understand all of the faith that I profess and if I am in err, please help me. However, a statement such as yours with no backing only serves to frustrate and confuse me.
First of all, I meant no disrespect to you, but I found your statement to be very un-christian. I do not understand how you can equate homosexuality with some human-failing, corruptability of the Word of God. If you are referring to "free will", that implies a choice...which is something homosexuals do not have...unless you are implying that they should choose to go against their created nature...

[jelloshotsrule]

God did not 'create' murder. God did not 'create' theft. God did not 'create' lies and deceit. Yet all these things are sickening abominations of His word and His will for his people. God did not 'create' homosexuality. It is an unfortunate side effect of the sin that we all live in.

i understand your point, as i agree with you about the first parts... but i don't see homosexuality as a sin. in fact, i see frat boys shagging girl after girl as a huge sin, but why don't we keep them from receiving communion? or people who were in frats (because they are guilty by association, like these ribbon wearers in the story)...

[zimv20]

Rules have been put in place, not chaotic random ever changing patterns but rules that follow rules,math,physics,love etc. there has to be more or there would be nothing. we have much more then nothing not from chaos but from intention. otherwise there would only be chaos.
dude, you're gonna make me crazy. chaos theory is all about _explaining_ those "random" events in nature. turns out they're not so random -- they follow rules. so forget about the definition of the word 'chaos' and pick up a book on the science. you'll stop saying the kinds of things you're saying tonight in a hurry.

[Krizoitz]

for the record, i'd consider anyone a christian if they truly love people and are compassionate, and work for the bettering of humans in general... i too was raised a catholic. and while i still consider myself catholic in that i believe in the dogma and such (jesus rose, saved us, etc etc), i firmly believe that you don't have to say "i accept jesus", or whatever to be "saved"... i also don't think god would have created gay people if it were truly a sickening abomination.

Well the teachings of the Catholic church are that God doesn't create "gay" people. He creates people. And because of Original Sin we are born in to an imperfect world. Just as some people are tempted to steal, or tempted to lie, some are tempted to lust. Loving another person is not wrong, but engaging in purely lustful behavior is. Homosexual relations are one such lustful behavior. So is pre-marital sex. Both are perversions or the gift of our sexuality that God gave to us.

Now I realize that not everyone believes what the Church teaches, and thats fine you are free to believe what you will, but the Catholic Church is not a deomcracy. There are some aspects that can change (what the Priests wear, what language the Mass is said in) and some things, i.e. fundemntal teachings that it can't. Asking the Church to accept homosexual acts as anything but sinful is asking it to deny the teachings of God himself. These aren't minor little differences these are major teachings of the Faith. Asking the church to accept this behavior as anything but sin is like asking it to accept lying, rape, theft, murder, and any other sinful behavior as accetable. You might as well ask them to say Jesus wasn't the Son of God.

Again you are free to believe as you choose. But the Church isn't free to simply change its teachings because people want them too. It doesn't work that way. God makes the laws, we follow them, not the other way around.

[blackfox]

Krizoitz, first of all, you seem to be a very devout(in a good way) and thoughtful Christian. There are many who are not, and do not take the time to realize the nuance (and genius) of the Bible...I would say that it is these people, who see only in black-and-white, who pose a large problem, and they probably outnumber you (or I)...as far as you comment about receiving communion, you must not continue sinning, as Jello pointed out, pre-marital sex is also a sin, as are many others that Christians/Catholics regularily commit and still receive communion...

*edit* after reading your last post, are you implying that homosexuals do not love/are incapable of love and are only lustful sinners? Say it ain't so...also, if homosexuals could marry, their relationship would no longer be sin, right? Do you support this?

[stoid]

The difference imho between 'frat guys' fornication and homosexual behavior in this case is that the frat guys did not parade their promiscuity in the church publicly proud of their sin. Also, I do not think that this thread is intended as a discussion of whether or not homosexuality is sinful but rather if the church responded properly. It seems to me that if the Catholic church views homosexuality as a sin as damnable as any other sin then the reaction was one that showed Christ's love and compassion intertwined in an acceptable way. In other words, if members were to wear a red sash supporting murderers or a green sash to support thievery the priest would treat them in a similar manner since the church views all sins as equal. Again the point is that these people were standing up proudly for something that the church teaches as sinful and therefore the church is justified in refusing these members the most holy and precious rite of Communion.

[blackfox]

However, Stoid, It has been said in this thread that being a homosexual per se, is not against the Churches teachings, but engaging in homosexual acts is...leaving any comment about that aside, the wearing of a sash identifying yourself as a homosexual does not imply homosexual activity necessarily, and should not be against Church Law...

[Abstract]

really? i always considered myself non-religious, 'cuz i don't believe in any god.

All I mean when I said that non-religious people are actually religious is because we all have our beliefs, and whether there's a name for it or not, its still something you believe in. I don't believe in God. I believe in evolution, big-bang, and every other theory that scientists churn out because I'm a science guy. I don't believe we're part of some bigger scheme. I believe its all random, and that everything that has happened before me was random, not planned or created by God.

That is a common fallacy perpetuated by those who wish to put Christianity in schools. They claim that everyone has a religion so why can't there brand be public.

I'm not one of those people. People who wish to put Christianity in schools are just people who are too religious. Believing that atheism is a religion in itself is not an excuse to put any particular religion into any school. People who want to do so are narrow-minded and believe in their own belief so much that they fail to see that other people don't give a hoot. :)

[stoid]

However, Stoid, It has been said in this thread that being a homosexual per se, is not against the Churches teachings, but engaging in homosexual acts is...leaving any comment about that aside, the wearing of a sash identifying yourself as a homosexual does not imply homosexual activity necessarily, and should not be against Church Law...

Ah, I was under the impression that the sash was a way to identify yourself as a supporter of homosexuality. I would think that you'd have to be pretty proud of homosexuality in any case to wear the sash. But, I could be mistaken. Point taken.

[Abstract]

I can support women's rights without being a woman. ;)



.... but the Catholic Church is not a deomcracy. There are some aspects that can change (what the Priests wear, what language the Mass is said in) and some things, i.e. fundemntal teachings that it can't. Asking the Church to accept homosexual acts as anything but sinful is asking it to deny the teachings of God himself
.....Again you are free to believe as you choose. But the Church isn't free to simply change its teachings because people want them too. It doesn't work that way. God makes the laws, we follow them, not the other way around.

Exactly, which is why homosexual people shouldn't be Christian. If they were told by their church that homosexuality is wrong, a sin, they obviously won't believe in such a teaching because they are homosexuals themselves. So again, why believe in Christianity at all if they don't believe in what it says about them? Why do they go? Why do they believe in something that says their sexual preferrence is a sin?

[jelloshotsrule]

Well the teachings of the Catholic church are that God doesn't create "gay" people. He creates people. And because of Original Sin we are born in to an imperfect world. Just as some people are tempted to steal, or tempted to lie, some are tempted to lust. Loving another person is not wrong, but engaging in purely lustful behavior is. Homosexual relations are one such lustful behavior. So is pre-marital sex. Both are perversions or the gift of our sexuality that God gave to us.

Now I realize that not everyone believes what the Church teaches, and thats fine you are free to believe what you will, but the Catholic Church is not a deomcracy. There are some aspects that can change (what the Priests wear, what language the Mass is said in) and some things, i.e. fundemntal teachings that it can't. Asking the Church to accept homosexual acts as anything but sinful is asking it to deny the teachings of God himself. These aren't minor little differences these are major teachings of the Faith. Asking the church to accept this behavior as anything but sin is like asking it to accept lying, rape, theft, murder, and any other sinful behavior as accetable. You might as well ask them to say Jesus wasn't the Son of God.

Again you are free to believe as you choose. But the Church isn't free to simply change its teachings because people want them too. It doesn't work that way. God makes the laws, we follow them, not the other way around.

you make many good points. and i agree that the church isn't going to overturn its teaching on something like this... but my major gripe is their reaction. instead of reaching out with love (a la jesus) they push people away. i think that it is a "sinner" (aren't we all???) that most needs to receive jesus (in communion). therefore, why turn away john kerry if his prochoice stance is "sinful"? why turn away someone who is gay or supports gay people? these people need the sustenance that communion brings even more than the non sinner (again, aren't we all??)

i shouldn't have said what i did in the first post, about god creating homosexuals... because it's not so simple. but the question is whether they "choose" it or whether they are born with it....

i'll be honest. i think part of what i'm realizing with each and every week and issue that i talk about with people, is that i'm less and less "catholic" and while i don't have a problem with that, i know my family would. i find the dogmatic teachings of the church to be what i believe in, moreso than some of the social ones (ie, voting for a pro choice candidate is a sin, etc)...

also, i don't think that all sex outside of wedlock is purely lustful. sure, it may not have the commitment backing it up (in theory... divorce rate????). but just because someone doesn't have a piece of paper saying they're married doesn't mean they can't use sex to show their love, just as a married person would. likewise, gay people use sex as a sign of love too. in my opinion, a lot of gay promiscuity (or at least the perception of such, not all, but some) comes from the fact that there is no legal commitment for them to make. there's no "goal" in the relationship like there is for straight people who can get married and all that...

ahh, i'm rambling. sorry. :)

[Sayhey]

As a nonbeliever I'm hesitant to join in this discussion. However, I will say this, no set of religious doctrines are truly static. The Catholic Church is no exception to this simple fact. While the Church is not set up to have change decided by the input of its lay members, there is no doubt that the demonstration of strong disagreement by ordinary members can have an effect on the views of the Church. I am happy to see the expression of Catholics about the need for the Church to change its view on homosexuality and hope many more join these courageous few in the years to come. It would seem to me that embracing the equality of all people should be something every major religion should be about.

[wwidgirl]

Traditionally it is up to each Catholic to decide for themselves to take or not to take communion, and to follow the appropriate rules (like going to confession first) on their own.

[Krizoitz]

*edit* after reading your last post, are you implying that homosexuals do not love/are incapable of love and are only lustful sinners? Say it ain't so...also, if homosexuals could marry, their relationship would no longer be sin, right? Do you support this?

First, in the eyes of the church, they aren't homosexuals, they are people who have a problem, i.e. that they have unnatural urges towards same-sex partners. They can love each other, just as any person can, but because God created a special bond, a special love between a man and a woman, they can never experience that type of love in a homosexual partnership.
This is not to say that merely by being in a heterosexual you are experiencing the full and loving relationship God intended either. I think our society has pretty much shown that, just look at the divorce rate.

Classifying them as "homosexuals" as if it is an inherent state of being rather than a behavior problem is like saying people who want to have poly-gamous relationships belong to some sort of different group as well. At least in how the Church teaches it.

Also because the Church teaches that marriage is a fundemental institution between a man and a woman, homosexual marriages wouldn't change the fact that its still a sin. So no, legalizing gay marriage wouldn't help things from a Church standpoint.

As far as I'm concerned the gov't has no grounds to deny equal rights to same sex couples if that is how the constitution is interpreted and the people support it. I may disagree with what they do, but I disagree with pre-marital sex as well and I can't justify making that illegal on anything but religious grounds.

However the Church is held to a different authority. Obviously if you don't believe the teachings of the Church none of this matters.

I should be very explicit in pointing out that the Church absolutely condemns any kind of hate-crimes such as those involving homosexuals. The churches teachings aren't meant to be an excuse to condemn but a means to try and bring to salvation those who are in need. The church has many outreach programs that do just that. But if you aren't interested thats obviously your choice too. However just like various special interest groups (environmentalists, vegetarians, etc) continue to try and sway others to their position so does the Church, not because it wants to be right but because it really believes it is helping those people.

But back to the communion issue, as I said. If you are actively and publicly supporting a sinful behavior you are clearly not choosing to live up to your responsibilities as a Christian and the Church is responsible for preserving the sanctity of communion. Think of it this way. If you cleaned your carpet, you wouldn't let someone walk in on it with mud and dirt all over their shoes, especially if they got dirty knowing you had cleaned the rugg and wanted it clean. You would ask them to wait outside or to clean off their shoes. If they chose not to then you would not allow them to come in.

[blackfox]

Krizoitz, I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree, as I do believe that homosexuality is an "inherent" state of being, as opposed to a "choice", or a "defect" of the natural order...as do I believe that Gay couples are as capable of genuine Love as anyone...seeing couples marry here in Oregon (Multnomah Co) was a touching experience to many, regardless of their beliefs.

However, your arguments are well thought-out and genuine. And I appreciate any thoughtful person who stands up for what he/she believes in, even if I do not agree. In this issue, and the abortion thread, it would seem that in both cases, I advocate a more pragmatic, compromising position, as I am keenly aware of the often unnecessary suffering involved in polarizing ideological situations, and the remoteness of any clean solution. Nevertheless, I applaud your efforts, and it is refreshing to me to hear such reasonable arguments from an opposing point of view. I would ask you, however, to consider issues such as this with your heart and ask yourself whether the answers truly resonate as true. As mentioned in this thread, the Church has, and probably will change, God's word might not. I happen to take this as meaning more that humanity is uncovering a ever-expanding understanding of that word, rather than a moving away from it...I am not sure you will agree. In any case, always a pleasure discussing w/ you. Till next time (which may be quite soon).

[mactastic]

As a private organization (albeit a tax exempt one) the Church doesn't have to accept anyone into their organization that they don't want. However, I am also free to express my disappointment in their choice and work to change it. If enough people expressed this sentiment the Church would have to listen.

[stoid]

If enough people expressed this sentiment the Church would have to listen.

I hope that you are wrong. The church is NOT a democracy, it is a theocracy. The church follows the Word of God and not the word of the majority. For the church to 'give in' to what it has labeled as corruption and sinfulness, it has effectively conceded itself and all it's members to eternal suffering in hell. It would be better for all the people to leave the church rather than the church leading them into sin.

[mactastic]

I hope that you are wrong. The church is NOT a democracy, it is a theocracy. The church follows the Word of God and not the word of the majority. For the church to 'give in' to what it has labeled as corruption and sinfulness, it has effectively conceded itself and all it's members to eternal suffering in hell. It would be better for all the people to leave the church rather than the church leading them into sin.

So, in your opinion, would it have been better if everyone had left the church when they were saying the earth was flat and the center of the universe rather than the Church admitting they were wrong about that one?

Church doctrine has changed before, it can change again.

[stoid]

So, in your opinion, would it have been better if everyone had left the church when they were saying the earth was flat and the center of the universe rather than the Church admitting they were wrong about that one?

Church doctrine has changed before, it can change again.

I believe that homosexuality is far more fundamental a doctrine of the church than the shape of the Earth. Though wasn't Galileo condemned by the church for some belief only to be acquitted and let into heaven 4 or 5 hundred years later?

I personally am Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and I think that the Catholic faith has many problems, especially following the decrees of the Pope, a man, whereas my faith is based wholly on the Bible, a static work inspired by God. (But lets leave debating the sanctity of the Bible to another thread ;))

[numediaman]

Wow I don't know where you (g)et your "information" on Christianity, but I've never known anyone who is Christian that thinks the God in the Old Testament is different from the God in the New Testament.

Actually, there was (and still is in a small circle) quite an argument within Christianity about this very issue. The Manichaeans, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Bogomils were (are) all dualists that call into the question the relationship between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.

I was not a theology student, but did extensively study medieval history. Therefore, there are others who could do a better job of discussing this. But from a historical viewpoint, the fight within Christianity to enforce orthodoxy started at the beginning and continues to this day. Saying that homosexuality is an abomination, for instance, is simply an attempt to force conformity within the Church and root out "heresy".

Take, for instance, the story of the Garden of Eden. For many early Christians, this Old Testament story would have been rejected out of hand, or interpreted completely differently (How can Adam and Eve hide from God, for instance? Clearly, the God portrayed is not an omnipotent God and therefore not the true God.) But today, how many American Christians believe that the Garden of Eden existed, and is located somewhere on Earth? (Mesopotamia, for instance.) What was questioned is now orthodoxy.

Looking through this and other threads that discuss religion, a theme runs throughout: to be considered a believer, one has to accept the religion as is without dissent. The difference between today and the 12th C is that we don't burn dissenters at the stake (instead, they're called liberals or French, I guess).

[takao]

So, in your opinion, would it have been better if everyone had left the church when they were saying the earth was flat and the center of the universe rather than the Church admitting they were wrong about that one?

Church doctrine has changed before, it can change again.

just wanted to post that as well...

here i never heard about something like "refusing the communion because of abortion/homosexuality/etc." and i'm living in a 90% catholic country... of course they say that they don't support that opinion and that it is wrong etc. but refusing communion ? ...they wouldn't do something like that... that would seriously drive more people away from church ... which is at the moment the biggest problem.. many people are leaving church here and they have serious problems finding young priests/nuns etc.
and the more people in church the more money they get (we have a church tax here)
1.1 % of the whole income... with perhaps 4 million catholics who are paying (out of 8 million... i assume that a lot of people don't have to pay anything) ...that adds up to a nice sum... i doubt they would ever refuse communion here ... ;)

[jelloshotsrule]

I believe that homosexuality is far more fundamental a doctrine of the church than the shape of the Earth. Though wasn't Galileo condemned by the church for some belief only to be acquitted and let into heaven 4 or 5 hundred years later?


ahh, another problem i have...

a man condemned by the church (which is made up of HUMANS by the way), and then "acquitted" and "let into heaven"...??? by humans? what happened to god being the one to judge people???

which is why, even if being gay is wrong, i personally don't "know" that... whereas i do know that hitting someone on the head with a bat, or stealing from someone, etc is wrong.

kriz- the rug analogy is horrible, but i'm sure you realized that. :)

but seriously. isn't communion supposed to kinda be a catholic's bread of life? their spiritual sustenance? why then, wouldn't someone who's strayed a bit need it all the more?? especially if they willingly go up to receive it? how can we, as humans, condemn them if they clearly "need god's help"? i would rather provide them with the love that i can give as a human, and let god punish or reward them as they see fit.

i see a gay person who lives a selfless life of service and love as being far ahead of a selfish, married person who tries only to acquire personal wealth, etc- far ahead of them in line to heaven.... whether they ever said "jesus saved me" or not.

[zimv20]

I hope that you are wrong. The church is NOT a democracy, it is a theocracy.
more to the point -- it's a business. if a given stance loses more donating believers than it gain/keeps, the church will change that stance.

[stoid]

Communion is a celebrating of the Common Union of the members of the church. If the church believes that homosexuality is fundamentally against it's union, then members that support homosexuality are not part of that common union and should for their own spiritual well being not participate in communion.

Watch the movie Dogma by Kevin Smith. Then you will understand that fallible man has too much power in the Catholic church and God is too often pushed out of the scene.


BTW, I was not supporting the Galileo fiasco in the Catholic church, but rather conceding that the church has made horrible errors.

[mactastic]

BTW, I was not supporting the Galileo fiasco in the Catholic church, but rather conceding that the church has made horrible errors.

How can you be so sure this isn't another 'horrible error'? People back then didn't think they were making a horrible error...

[stoid]

How can you be so sure this isn't another 'horrible error'? People back then didn't think they were making a horrible error...

Hence the word concede. I don't know. I believe that the church is right, but I acknowledge that they and I could be wrong. ;)