chomerics Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 ST. PAUL, Minn. -- 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. source Ah yes, the hate filled RCC is at it again. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 How about posting a few stories about the RCC doing good for people around the world? Seriously. why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Well darn. Imagine that, actually enforcing the beliefs of the church. How dare they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Personaly I am not Catholic and don't feel it is my or anyone else's place to question who gets communion....of course I am not ENLIGHTENED ....I guess being a supporter of gay rights makes some people SPECIAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 ya Im not catholic either, but seeing how much chome hates them maybe I will join them. I will certainly have to nego on that tithing though. 10% pshaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by twa Personaly I am not Catholic and don't feel it is my or anyone else's place to question who gets communion....of course I am not ENLIGHTENED ....I guess being a supporter of gay rights makes some people SPECIAL. anyone who commits a sin according to RCC doctrine can be denied communion. There is no story here, it's common knowledge. I personally have no problem with homosexuals and their lifestyle, but I also respect the RCC for adhereing to their own rules. We wouldnt expect a muslim who refuses to follow Muslim beliefs and rules to remain a part of their church and recieve whatever benefits (spiritual or practical) would we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by dreamingwolf ya Im not catholic either, but seeing how much chome hates them maybe I will join them. I will certainly have to nego on that tithing though. 10% pshaw. The RCC has no mandatory tithe. It's totally voluntary and there is no percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 well then Im in, catholics have some hot chicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 16, 2005 Author Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by zoony How about posting a few stories about the RCC doing good for people around the world? If I agreed with the ideology, I would, but I have my reasons for dispising the RCC. This thread is not about me it is about the hypocritical RCC. I wonder if they refused to allow their priests to receive communion while they were raping an estimated 100,000 young men over the past 30 years??? Just wait until the HBO movie comes out on the Boston-Cardinal Law-pedophile problems. You can see how truly disgusting the RCC is, and the lengths they went to to allow these pedophiles prey on young men. Now, this priest decides that homosexuality is bad, and they can't receive communion. Well, maybe they should have taken that stance when Father Shanley was raping children in Boston. Maybe then I wouldn't be so virle against the RCC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 well since you have an obsession with them its about you too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas anyone who commits a sin according to RCC doctrine can be denied communion. There is no story here, it's common knowledge. I personally have no problem with homosexuals and their lifestyle, but I also respect the RCC for adhereing to their own rules. We wouldnt expect a muslim who refuses to follow Muslim beliefs and rules to remain a part of their church and recieve whatever benefits (spiritual or practical) would we? I thought the actual sin according to the Bible is the homosexual act, not homosexuality itself. In any case, these people aren't homosexuals, they just disagree with how homosexuals are being treated. I don't see how that's a sin either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 ok I gotta ask you a question. You guys are pride yourselves on logic, so explain to me how your complaint it is logical. You charge that an illogical activity(religion) is not behaving logically cause it is shunning those who dont adhere to its belief? come on guys, I know you detest god types but just let them do their thing. I dont know if you think your god, but even if you are god you dont have the right to tell people how to worship you. get over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by dfitzo53 I thought the actual sin according to the Bible is the homosexual act, not homosexuality itself. In any case, these people aren't homosexuals, they just disagree with how homosexuals are being treated. I don't see how that's a sin either. Protesting a church doctrine [the sash] would disqualify them. You cannot protest and be in fellowship with church at the same time........OH and Skins in Vegas, I have no problem with them denying communion ,It is OUTSIDERS I was addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by twa Protesting a church doctrine [the sash] would disqualify them. You cannot protest and be in fellowship with church at the same time........OH and Skins in Vegas, I have no problem with them denying communion ,It is OUTSIDERS I was addressing. I didnt think you did, man! all is cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by dreamingwolf ok I gotta ask you a question. You guys are pride yourselves on logic, so explain to me how your complaint it is logical. You charge that an illogical activity(religion) is not behaving logically cause it is shunning those who dont adhere to its belief? come on guys, I know you detest god types but just let them do their thing. I dont know if you think your god, but even if you are god you dont have the right to tell people how to worship you. get over yourself. Actually, I think if I were God I'd have the right to do anything I wanted to. I also didn't tell them what to do, I said I didn't understand why they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 16, 2005 Author Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by dreamingwolf ok I gotta ask you a question. You guys are pride yourselves on logic, so explain to me how your complaint it is logical. You charge that an illogical activity(religion) is not behaving logically cause it is shunning those who dont adhere to its belief? You just don't get it do you. Religion is a personal relationship with god and yourself. It is also a free service to everyone, as it is not a club or a member group. It is available to all who want to be a part of it. The second you start turning people away for this reason or that, it is promoting hatred and racism, and it is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with what is morally right. What would Jesus do? Do you people actually think Jesus would turn away gay people from a mass??? Hell, jesus was the first democrat, he's rolling over in his grave watching at how his name is being used today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics You just don't get it do you. Religion is a personal relationship with god and yourself. It is also a free service to everyone, as it is not a club or a member group. It is available to all who want to be a part of it. The second you start turning people away for this reason or that, it is promoting hatred and racism, and it is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with what is morally right. What would Jesus do? Do you people actually think Jesus would turn away gay people from a mass??? Hell, jesus was the first democrat, he's rolling over in his grave watching at how his name is being used today. I'm sorry Cho, but it seems that you are the one not getting it. Simply put, in order to be a part of a specific faith, you must follow the rues of that faith. Yes, all religion is open to those that embrace it's values, but it is not open to those that try to make their own rules. There are other faiths that are more open in acceptance of homosexuality. Those that disagree with RCC biblical interpretation and tenets should join those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics You just don't get it do you. Religion is a personal relationship with god and yourself. It is also a free service to everyone, as it is not a club or a member group. It is available to all who want to be a part of it. The second you start turning people away for this reason or that, it is promoting hatred and racism, and it is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with what is morally right. What would Jesus do? Do you people actually think Jesus would turn away gay people from a mass??? Hell, jesus was the first democrat, he's rolling over in his grave watching at how his name is being used today. Actually a church is a member group imo. It is a group of like minded individual gathered to worship and fellowship together. In my church gays are welcome,however a gay relationship will preclude you from membership,as well as any other life choice they deem imoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I am a lefty, but in my opinion I feel the church can believe and act in anyway they want as far as beliefs go, and I have never said the church shouldn't do this or that, I just feel when it comes to the state, our government should not try and appease the church or the church's supporters because there are plenty of people out there that are not followers and should not have to live their life by those rules/beliefs. Example would be, our constitution vs. church beliefs. Our constitution belives every person is created equal and should have equal rights and pursuit of happiness etc etc etc...however the church has every right to believe that something such as gay marriage should not be allowed amongst their following, however what they have no business doing is stepping over their bounds into the government and tell them how EVERYONE should be governed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 NO CAL...This is off topic ,but I don't see marriage as a right, simply a privilage granted to promote the family unit.....A whole other argument.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 nocal is obviously not a toady like chome. the difference in the two is chome feels the church is evil and must be regulated, where is nocal says let them rascals do as they please just keep them out of the government. I can agree with nocal, I can not agree with the hate of chome. Now where I will probrably differ with nocal is that I think the gay push is ridiculous and a non issue. Their lifestyle whether by choice or by some dysfunction doesnt need to be promoted. Im not saying gay people are bad, just that lifestyle doesnt need to be promoted. Famialy units should be promoted and be the sole recipiants of benefits. I have no problem with gay unions or whatever its called for legal reasons. I do have a problem with us promoting them with benefits. The reason we promote heterosexual marriage with benefits is to promote marriage and child raising. I for one am not in favor of the Brave new world of destroying the family, the mother, and peoples god. Gays listen up, you are perverting an age old tradition for political reasons. You dont need our acceptance to feel worth. Repeat that 3 times a day and you will stop your campaign. We should be focusing on keeping babys momma daddy staying with babys momma than gays marrying. what the hell is wrong with you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics he's rolling over in his grave watching at how his name is being used today. actually He's not in a grave... read the book He rose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I didn't mean to turn this into a gay marriage thread, my bad. Oh and as far as civil unions vs. marriage goes, here is my opinion. A Church and Priest/Rabbi/Preacher etc...has every right to say he, personally will not perform the marriage in his church, however it is a FACT that a couple can be married in front of a judge in city hall, without ANY religious meaning and/or significance at all, which to me, says that marriage can be granted by the state, and if the state is granting marriage, rather then the church, then it is unconstitutional to not allow members of the same sex the same rights. Just my opinion, but at the LEAST I do believe they should allow civil unions, in order to get the legal benefits and all that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophet Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics You just don't get it do you. Religion is a personal relationship with god and yourself. It is also a free service to everyone, as it is not a club or a member group. It is available to all who want to be a part of it. The second you start turning people away for this reason or that, it is promoting hatred and racism, and it is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with what is morally right. First off... bashing what they did calling them haters... and showing your haterd for who they are, and what they believe.... How is that different from what they are doing? seems hyprocritical. Second.. Is it wrong to follow your beliefs? They followed their rules. Did they hurt anyone? Did they hit, spit, cuss, or anything else like that? Did they say they hated them? If the people that it was against didn't like it... they could just leave and go somewhere else. How hard is that? I guess offending someone is a crime these days... or is considered hatred. I commend them for actually standing up and sticking to what they believe. Its hard find people like that in these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 nocal I agree with you. The rub is that they want the advantages that are permited to heterosexuals. Logically their arguement is sound, but socially it comes across as aggressive. I see no reason to give any benefits to gays. If gays would take marriage without the benefits I would be all for it. People have a hard enough time staying together in this permissive society as it is, if you put gays into the same promotion group of heteros you will have a wholesale bailout of all those promotions. We can pretend to deny that would happen but the reality is that its unsustainable. I wish people werent so vicious there is a simple solution but people are all or nothing sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.