Furious over the election of Pope Benedict XVI, whom they have venomously called a "liar" and an "aggressive homophobe," members of the so-called Rainbow Sash movement — a calls-itself-Catholic, pro-homosexual movement — are calling for their members to disrupt Catholic Masses around the United States on the Feast of Pentecost on Sunday, May 15:
"The Rainbow Sash Movement (RSM) with its supporters will be entering Cathedrals and parishes around the nation on Pentecost Sunday, May 15. We are inviting our supporters to join us, and wear the Rainbow Sash as a symbol of dignity and inclusion.
"We continue to call for public dialogue with Cardinal Francis George Vice President of the National Council of Catholic Bishops.
[…]
"We hope that our presence will also counter the lies that Pope Benedict XVI is promoting about our community. We are Catholic, and will raise our voices to speak to the truth of our lives from the pews. We will no longer be silent in the face of this injustice."
Actually, all they will succeed in doing is demonstrating their own irrelevance while profaning the Blessed Sacrament. Stories like this can make it a very difficult trial for orthodox Catholics who know they must separate contempt for the sin from contempt for the sinner.
Jimmy, I have the hardest time deciding how to deal with this should it happen at my parish.
These people are deliberately profaning the Eucharist. I thought we were bound to prevent that from happening — not out of hate for someone wearing the sash, but out of love for Christ.
At the same time it doesn’t seem right to resort to physically blocking someone from taking the sacrament (assuming that the parish priest isn’t going to do it).
What’s your opinion of what one should do if the RSM shows up at our parish and the priest/eucharistic ministers are serving them?
I’d like an answer to Jamie’s question, too. I may still be in Omaha or Lincoln this weekend, and there may be trouble…
How someone pretending to be catholic can just think of interrupting a Holy Mass ?
They will just prove that haven’t even any respect for Blessed Eucharist…
They call the Pope a “Liar” and then put things like this in their press release?
Care of Homosexuals” — in this statement he justified violence against GLBT people,
Ratzinger declared that discrimination against gays and lesbians was not unjust
Jimmy,
Please monitor closely what may devolve to a self-righteous rant haven.
I doubt that we’ll see this in our parish it being a small one, but those of ya’ll in large cities will be faced with it. I know we have to love the sinner, but the RS people want us to celebrate him.
I doubt it’ll be a problem either in my parish– I hope not at least.
But how do you deal with someone like that without being cruel?
Methinks I recall Cardinal Pell dealing with like-minded folks in Sydney a while back. He refused them the Eucharist, they walked out whizzed off and made a media scene. I don’t think they did anything more than wear the rainbow and walk up for communion. Aggressively disrupting mass is another story.
If I were in the pews, the last thing I’d do is add to a problem by injecting myself into the situation. If your pastor gives them communion, you should ask him about it and point out his actions to the bishop.
“We will no longer be silent…”??!
I’m sorry, did I miss the whole silent thing? When was that?
J. Wild, here are the instructions from the RSM for its participants:
“The Rainbow Sash is put on as the priest is processing in. Should you be denied Communion go back to your pew and remain standing while the rest of the congregation kneels. However, if you do receive communion, go back to your pew and kneel. This simple act is a public dialogue that counters those who promote hate in God’s name.”
While it sounds as if they mean their action to be “peaceful,” it also sounds as if they certainly want to call attention to themselves and to whether or not they’ve been allowed to receive Communion. Such actions would be disruptive, but passively (not “peacefully”) so.
I seem to have missed the silent thing as well. These Perpetually Aggrieved Groups are so noisy!
If I see them in the congregation during Mass, then after my homily I will personally instruct the congregation as to the statement these people are making. Then I will tell, not ask, TELL the congregation (which includes those who will be helping me give Communion) that since these people are publicly marking their dissent from doctrinal and moral COMMUNION with Church teaching, they are to be told “I will not give you Communion” if they come forward to receive.
It might be helpful to know what Ratzinger *really* said in these documents the Rainbow Sash people are attacking. Links anyone?
Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to publically state in the homily that these rabble rousers are in broken communion, and will not recieve the Eucharist.
A good teaching moment.
Edward,
I think at least one of the documents they’re upset about is: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
I don’t know exactly what The Holy Father (Cdl.Ratzinger) said, but he would have simply been upholding the teaching of the Church.
Read Ch.1 of Pauls first letter to the Romans.
Pretty plain and simple from where I see it. If the SSA folks are living in accord with the teaching of the Church, as pointed out by JP2, they have nothing to fear, but should not wear the Rainbow sash, which is a statement of their dissent.
Lesse…y’know new-age revolutionary peps, this is CHURCH DOCTRINE. It is TRUTH (but you wouldn’t know about that, would you?). It CANNOT BE CHANGED. You can NOT change human nature and the morals applicibale thereof.
Gesh. You’d think they’d learn, but noooo the church must change its policies and until it embraces liberalism it’ll be stuck in the dark ages!!
GESH!! I be so annoyed.
Advantageous fools. They are trying to paint the Church’s constant teachings on sex as the late great product of a “meanie” pope. It does not hold water. These teachings go back to our Jewish roots, they are so old. Onan was struck dead on the spot by God for having non-procreative sex. The Bible has admonitions against birth control. In (non-Biblical) Jewish law, it is said of masturbation that the “hand that wanders below the waist should be cut off.” Oh, and then there’s that whole Soddom and Gomorah thing.
Are these sashers going to disrupt Jewish services as well? What about the fact that no other religion, culture, or people in the history of mankind has ever been deluded enough to think sterile recreational sex between two people of the same sex is a the same thing as the wedded couple who explode into other people? Actually, I cannot say for sure that NO portion of humanity was ever so deluded. What I can say is that no people have been so deluded and not been wiped clean from the face of history.
How could the Church possibly teach masturbation as grave sin (requiring only the will to make it mortal) and endorse people co-masturbating as a valid lifestyle?
Insane. Thanks for the heads up Jimmy and Michelle
And does anyone realize how volatile these accusations of bigotry on the part of the Church is? They empower the populace and the state to do all sorts of horrible things to the body of the faithful. I mean, look at fascist Europe and Canada. If enough people buy into this idea that Catholics hurt society, then we will not be far from an American Auschwitz.
Nowhere in Church history are there stories of homosexuals being hunted, singled out for extermination, or traded as slaves. Yet these people would have the world believe they come from a long line of martyrs whose time has finally come and that their mortal enemy is the Church.
Truth is, the Church is not their oppressor. Never has been. What they hate about the Church is that she is their most vocal critic.
Publius,
Thanks, but I seem to have answered my own question. In this thread at the Catholic Online forum, a poster with the handle “Val” provides a quote from the “Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral care of Homosexuals”. It says the exact opposite of what the Rainbow Sash people are claiming the document says.
Unbelievable. And they have the temerity to call our Holy Father a liar? *shakes head*
JohnathanR . . . if Fr Pedrano were to do what he says he’s going to do if confronted by rainbow RSM’ers, would his actions not be in keeping with previously stated protocol re: how to deal with these folks? They are not to be given the Eucharist, right? The Eucharist is the Blessed Sacrament of Unity, as stated in the hymn; when we say “Amen” in answer to “The Body of Christ” we are agreeing to everything the Catholic Church teaches. Everything. So why should those who step forward in disunity, in defiance of 2000 years of Church teaching re: homosexual acts, be granted the Eucharist after saying “Amen” to that statement, agreeing to everything the Church teaches?
God bless you Fr Pedrano!
While they’re at it, they ought to go after “His Holiness the Dalai Lama” (head of Tibetan Buddhism).
In an MSNBC interview 26 August 1997.
The Dalai Lama says that “I think, basically, the purpose of sex is reproduction.”
http://www.pitaka.ch/dl.htm
In a “Vancouver Sun” interview 20 April 2004.
The Dalai Lama says “if one uses one’s own hand this is sexual misconduct,” and “they use the mouth and the anus, this is sexual misconduct in Buddhism.”
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=6639&t=1&c=5
In that April 2004 interview, he is condemning those behaviors whether performed homosexually or heterosexually. He seems to be more Roman Catholic about sex than too many Roman Catholics.
I wonder what he thinks about artificial contraception.
Why can’t these people go and spoil someone else’s holy day, and leave the high feast of Pentecost alone?
This thing started in Australia. I found these homosexual activist people here in Aussie are very aggresive. I’m not originaly from Aussie, I’m Asian, so I was like “What the f.. ” It was an Easter Mass celebrated by then Bishop Pell and these people actually laid themself on the ground in front of the gate, blocking people coming into the Mass. I was furious. They mocked us as homophobes or something like that. I was upset not because of the taunts but they broke the peacefulness of our most Holy week. I’m sick of them but I guess it is definately not worth jailtime/fine for pelting them with rocks.
Once again we will see the clear leadership of the majority of the American episcopate as they do nothing again this year.
Well… it seems like everyone here is agreed: the Rainbow Sashers are in the wrong.
While I don’t disagree with that, I sense a lot of vitriol towards the RS-ers because of what they are doing. Right or wrong, they are (I hope) working from their conscience, confused as it may be. We don’t have to stand up and say, “You, with the Rainbow Sash. You’re not welcome here.” They are welcome here: them most of all.
I’m reminded of the woman at the well in times like these. Jesus didn’t tell her: look, I know who you are. You’ve got 5 husbands. You’re going to hell if you keep this up.
He spoke to her compassionately about what and how she, as a human and a woman, is to be and live. Certainly, he named her sin – but not to condemn her. He named her sin to call her home.
We have an opportunity to share this exact same message with these people – but not just these people: with everyone. And certainly, we need to maintain consistency in administering the Eucharist: but it should be a consistency in administering it to all people, not just the RS-ers.
Fr. Pedrano, I’m a young, naive man. I could be wrong in what I would ask of you. But I would ask you not to only single these people out, to just identify them to the rest of the congregation, and exclude them from the community. Explain to everyone what is right, true, and good. Call everyone to lay aside their sash – whether it be carried on their shoulder or in their hearts. But also explain to everyone else the same guilt we share as these people – even if it is different and not particularly the same. A Rainbow Sash does not make these individuals any more evil or wrong or stubborn than the rest of us. Call out people who are guilty of all sexual immorality: birth control, masterbation, sex out of wed-lock, etc etc etc. Anyone who wears such raiment, in heart or on shoulder, is not worthy of the Eucharist. But it’s our willingness to try to lay it aside – our hope in Jesus that allows us to do so – that is our invitation to the table.
I see the Rainbow Sashers as a group that is asking for dialogue. Give them that dialogue and give it to them directly since they ask for it. But also include all people in that dialogue, not just the Rainbow Sashers. Make people aware of the sashes in their own heart. Tell people that there is no room for sashes at the Lord’s Table… only for people who are trying to lay those sashes aside and so don’t insist on wearing it to the table.
Interestingly, I read something similar along these lines a few months ago. Y’all might or might not be interested in it. It’s a modern retelling of the woman at the well story. http://ragarambler.blogspot.com/2005/02/just-how-shocking-is-gospel.html
I could be wrong in this, but I’m speaking from the heart. I understand the righteousness we feel because we’re not homosexual and they are. But I think that calls us all the more to compassion towards these people. Jesus did not hang on the cross because of His righteousness – His rightesouness proves He didn’t have to and would have been just in destroying us as we are. He hung on the cross out of compassion and love for us and to call us home.
AC,
If it were just homosexuality, I would agree with you. But it’s not. It is the scandal associated with people openly dissenting with Church teaching, and expecting to receive the Most Holy Sacrament anyway. We should most definitely reach out to those in open dissent, but should also bar them from communion.
I struggle with masturbation, but that is not a “sash”. It would be a sash if I wore a “Masturbator and Proud of It!” T-shirt to Mass, and then made a big hoopla about the fact that I was denied communion.
AC,
If it were just homosexuality, I would agree with you. But it’s not. It is the scandal associated with people openly dissenting with Church teaching, and expecting to receive the Most Holy Sacrament anyway. We should most definitely reach out to those in open dissent, but should also bar them from communion.
I struggle with masturbation, but that is not a “sash”. It would be a sash if I wore a “Masturbator and Proud of It!” T-shirt to Mass, and then made a big hoopla about the fact that I was denied communion.
Sigh… sorry about double post…
AC makes some good points. While I think that anyone publicly demonstrating dissent (via sashes or whatever) at a given Mass should not receive communion, it’s not a bad idea to make this a broader teaching moment for the rest of us, by reminding us of our own sins.
“I see the Rainbow Sashers as a group that is asking for dialogue. Give them that dialogue and give it to them directly since they ask for it.”
But isn’t there already a dialogue, AC? It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t folks, especially those who feel strongly enough about a particular issue as the RSM’ers do, avail themselves on the documents of the Church & make the attempt to understand the teachings of the Church they profess to belong to rather than demonstrate during the Holy Mass? It’s not our Mass to use for demonstration purposes, just as it’s not the priest’s Mass to change around as he might see fit. It’s Jesus Christ’s Mass! For these folks to subvert the Mass for their own agenda – an agenda directly in opposition of 2000 years of constant Catholic Christian teaching – then they’re also displaying a total & wanton disrespect for their Lord & Savior Jesus Christ!
And this is what militant homosexual activists do not get. It’s not about the individual; it’s about the individual’s sin. The Church condemns the practice of homosexuality, just as she condemns the practice of the various sins mentioned by folks above. All of us need the prayers of our fellow Christians to help us overcome whatever sin we may still have attachement to. But to put one’s sin on display & disrupt the Mass Christ instituted for personal purposes is indeed scandalous, crass, narcissistic, & disrespectful of the Church Christ Himself founded. It’s disrespectful of their fellow paritioners, who are the Body of Christ, the Church. It’s disrespectful of the Holy Spirit, on the Holy Day of Pentecost, the day the Holy Spirit was given to those in the upper room. The Mass is the most intimate way a Christian can enter into communion with God this side of Heaven. Though we are unworthy, Christ humbles Himself to appear in the Eucharist – Body, Blood, Soul, & Divinity – so we may grow closer to Him & detach ourselves from our sin. The RSM’ers are making the Mass all about their sin.
I agree, we all know that there are people in all of our parishes that go up and receive Communion when they shouldn’t. That’s between them and God, as far as I’m concerned, and I don’t give it a second thought since it really doesn’t affect me.
Wearing this rainbow sash introduces a public element of challenge to the act of receiving Communion and then it does affect me.
If the sash-wearer gets communion while openly scorning the Church, it sends the message that our rules don’t really matter.
If they just want to receive Communion as any other Catholic, let them go to confession before Mass and leave the sash at home.
I guess one of the things that got lost in my post is that I’m on the side of denying communion to people who wear their sash when they go to receive the Eucharist. Flaunting your dissent and yet partaking in communal love are opposed to each other.
I know people who masturbate and are not ashamed of it. There is no guilt involved. They see the teaching “masturbation is sinful” is a teaching that is behind the times and not considerate of the human animal and psychology. Those people need to be convicted and told that they are wrong: just as wrong as the Rainbow Sashers. And thus the same rule of receiving Communion is implicitly in place with regards to them. This goes just as well for all wilfull violators of sexual morality taught by the Church.
The only thing that separates the Rainbow Sashers from anyone else with a stubborn, defiant heart on Sunday is that they are telling the community they are in sin and proud of it. Their heart is no different from any number of people in the community. The fact that they are telling us their heart – openly, wilfully, and defiantly – is the only basis that the Church actively moves to bar them from Communion. But the wilfull defiance of their heart – along with the wilfull defiance of anyone’s heart – is the reason why Communion is ever witheld (I believe – I suppose I could be wrong about that).
But if they choose to lay their sash aside for Communion, then let them receive Communion. They are willing, in some measure, to submit to the Church’s teaching. And that was the core of my point above: don’t let condemnation be the end of our dialogue on Sunday. Move beyond it to the compassion Christ showed us, the teachings God has given us, and the love rooted in both. Invite all, the RS-ers especially, once again – as our Lord does time and time again for us – to deny themselves, lay down their sash, pick up their cross, suffer our thorns of the flesh, and follow Jesus.
We can give eye for eye: our condemnation for their condemnation. Or we can accept their condemnation as it is – for it is empty – and, in love, offer our other cheek by once again proclaiming the teachings and instructions of the Church: our sinfulness, Jesus’s forgiveness, and faithful obedience.
As to dialogue, I honestly don’t think a lot of people are in dialogue with the Church. I think the people that head up these groups are perhaps the most educated as to the Church’s teachings, but I give the benefit of the doubt that the average gay person that will be wearing a sash on Sunday is not that educated. They are associated with the RS-ers because they are gay and because there is a gay movement inside the Church. They hear all the basis for the Church’s teaching from the lips of people who are “on their side” – and thus conclude the Church is wrong and/or misguided. The Church needs to talk to these people directly – Sunday is that opportunity. Give these people the one-on-one they are looking for. If they will not listen, bar them from communion and, if militance persists, consider excommunication.
Peace.
Exactly, AC – well said. Especially your point in the last paragraph. As I said above, we are all attached to sin, to one degree or another. Really, there is no point in a display of this sort unless it’s to celebrate that sin. Like Mark Shea’s fond of saying: Sin makes you stupid. Seems Pentecost this year will be just one more (sad) example in support of that saying.
BTW, I didn’t mean to imply you were in any way in agreement with the RSM’ers, AC. I’m sincerely sorry if my post came across that way.
1.) There are comments here that smack of equating all sins as the same. Sins are not equal.
2.) If the sinner has been instructed that the course of action is wrong then his sin is greater.
CCC 1874 – To choose deliberately – that is, both knowing it and willing it – something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
For those unclear I suggest a review of David’s act of repentance over Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 2. Notice his *attitude* towards the sin. This is supposed to be instructive for us.
3.) Participation in the Eucharist is not just “between the person and God.”
CCC 2182 – Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So we see it as a witness and community action (there’s more paragraphs)…not to mention, if it were simply a “God and me” proposition denial would be impossible.
Not that anyone who isn’t the ordinary would have the authority, through instuction, to deny…
Dear A.C.,
By their advertised intention to put on the rainbow sash AFTER the priest begins Mass, it would seem these people hope to “sneak” into Mass without being stopped at the door. By their advertised intention to do this, to then remain standing throughout the Mass, these people are singling themselves out–even standing and waving a flag, a rainbow sash, to call attention to themselves. I won’t need to do it for them. Since they will be deliberately causing a distraction within the SACRAMENTAL celebration, it is my duty to respond to that. Since they are publicly announcing and defending something immoral, I have a duty to respond to that publicly and directly. By their doing these things, they are desecrating the Sacred Liturgy, a Sacramental Rite, I have a duty to respond.
But a hired man sees the wolf coming, and runs away, abandoning the sheep. That is not what the Good Shepherd wants.
Christ himself told a parable of the Kingdom of Heaven, likening it to a king who threw out of a wedding banquet one who was improperly dressed. The Rainbow Sash, by what it intentionally advertises and promotes, is improper dress for the Banquet of the King.
Christ himself VIOLENTLY (i.e., against their will) shoved the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and also physically knocked over their tables. What am I to do when buyers and sellers of immorality deliberately and publicly invade the Church of Christ to advertise their opposition to the Church? Am I supposed to point at OTHER sinners in church (including myself), but who are participating appropriately? The rainbow people are coming to protest. They are not coming to participate.
Dear A.C., Christ was always GOOD. However, sometimes GOODNESS is NOT nice or gentle. That’s why parents must sometimes punish in order to do good, in order to do what LOVE requires.
Sure, I can point out that other kinds of sin are to be condemned. However, other kinds of sin are not calling themselves RIGHT or HOLY while calling the Church’s teaching WRONG or UNholy. These rainbow people, by calling unholy what is holy, do seem to be committing what Scripture describes as the unforgiveable sin. I do not mean that homosexual acts are unforgiveable. I mean calling morality “immoral” is unforgiveable. As a Christian and as a priest, I am obligated to NOT forgive that until it changes its mind. Remember! Jesus gave the Church the authority to LOOSE people from their sins, AND to RETAIN their sins. John 20:23! RETAINING their sins confronts sinners with the message that they need to repent in order to RECEIVE the forgiveness that WILL BE offered. RETAINING their sins is something the Church is authorized to do for the BENEFIT of the sinner. Silence helps people go to condemnation, even eternal condemnation.
My duty as a priest is to do what is good for the flock. Failing to respond directly to this planned public act would be to do evil to the flock by letting evil promote itself within the flock.
Finally, though the rainbow people have advertised one modus operandi, their actual history has involved physically lying down and blocking the way of others who want to go to Mass and receive the Eucharist. Furthermore, their allies in the same ideology (without wearing rainbows) once even spat out and stomped on the Eucharist at Mass offered by Cardinal O’Connor in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York.
I don’t entirely expect these people to show up in my parish. However, they do advertise a desire to see their protest take place in all parishes. Furthermore, my diocese did undergo a very publicized confrontation between the pro-homosexual agenda and our bishop less than two months ago. The matter was not resolved with any clarity, and has left people dissatisfied on both sides. I do expect the rainbow people to make a big ruckus somewhere in my diocese.
Again . . . God bless you Fr Pedrano!
I re-read your last paragraph again, AC & found something I do not agree with: “The Church needs to talk to these people directly – Sunday is that opportunity. Give these people the one-on-one they are looking for.” No, not really. No. The Church has spoken in the Catechism, in 2000 years of consistent teaching, & God has spoken on this subject in Holy Scripture. Despite how so-called “queer apologists” might twist & pervert the Bible, they’re not on the winning side of this issue when in light of Church teaching. Why should the Church dialogue with RSM’ers at all?
David Morrison points out on his blog, Sed Contra, today that one bishop has been in dialogue with RSM’ers but it’s gotten nowhere because the RS movement is not interested in dialogue – when you really get down to it – as much as they are interested in polemics & adversarial displays such as the one planned for Pentecost. The Church has spoken. What more must the Church do?
AC-
The state of open dissent – that they have freely chosen – makes them “different from any number of people in the community”. We are all sinners, sure. Some sin and then repent, confess and do penance. Sadly, many sin and continue to receive the Eucharist even though they have not repented. But even those in this second group do not have the temerity to insist that we all give public approval to their sin. They retain, at least, the capacity to be ashamed of their sins. The RS-ers are singling themselves out, this is not something that can be laid at the feet of the priest. To ask him not to “single them out” is misleading. It’s like having someone continually scream in your ear,”just leave me alone!”.
The RS-ers’ (and all the rest of these groups) continued insisitence on “dialogue” is nonsense. We have any number of issues that could really benefit from dialogue, and giving this issue a seat at the table is a waste of space.
And to support my point that the RSM’ers aren’t interested in dialogue, here’s a few tidbits culled from their mission statement:
“who are publicly calling the Catholic Church to conversion of heart around issues of human sexuality.”
“we proclaim that we are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender people who embrace and celebrate our sexuality as a Sacred Gift.”
“In wearing the sash we call the church to honor our wisdom and experience … Together, let us seek a new appreciation of human sexuality in all of its diversity and beauty.”
Sacred gift??? The Church must honor their wisdom & experience? (Arrogant, much?) Does this wisdom spring from the sexual preferences they’ve built their lives around?
What does the Bible, God’s word, tell us about wisdom? Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 9:10, & Sirach 1:12 tell us that “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Fear also means to respect & revere. What does the Lord say, in His Word & through His Church about homosexual acts? See the CCC.
Pretty much closes the deal on the RSM’ers for me. They’re not only not interested in dialogue, they’re not interested in what God has to say, either in Scripture or through His Church, about their chosen sexual lifestyles. The very Church they so desperately cling to & hope to pervert, I mean change. Tim J is right: they want Official Church Apporval(TM) for their sin because they know it’s a sin. And why do they want it from the Catholic Church? Because they know it’s the Church Christ founded, the One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church. Seems they want to return to a time when there was no King & “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
Problem with that is . . . there is a King – & He’s been reigning over His Church for nearly 2000 years now!
Dear Father Pedrano,
Forgive my ignorance on the history of this particular movement. I don’t know any more about their history than what has been presented here. I was not aware of the tactics planned and employed. Again, I’m not asking you to ignore them. Nor am I asking you to make light of them or even tolerate (thus passively accept) them.
But while I understand they are seeking to single themselves out, I think it’s a mistake to give them such an open victory. How is homosexuality any different from promiscuity and adultery? They are all aberations of love that idolize the self/selves over the life giving gift of marrital love. And though people are not wearing sashes proclaiming the Church as false in its teaching on promiscuity and adultery, there are people who harbor such notions in their heart and are equally not ashamed of it. They just don’t suffer a perceived cultural stigma that makes them look for wide-ranging sympathy.
This is what I’m appealing for: a teaching on what’s right, why it’s right, how it glorifies God and benefits us, and concludes in what’s wrong with the world and how it fails and degenerates. A teaching for everyone, that addresses the RS-ers yet is relevant to everyone. And I’m appealing for a benefit of the doubt until: the Word has been proclaimed, an invitation of change – to lay aside the sash both in deed and heart – has been given, and the offer be accepted or rejected. Then remove or otherwise deny those who’s hearts will not be broken by Christ’s gentleness and stand in open defiance.
As a father, I understand the role of tough love. I’m not saying that it is inappropriate here. But I am saying that even in toughness, there is gentleness. (I think of my father’s grip when he would move me through a store when I misbehaved) I think it’s a mistake to enter into God’s house with hearts hardened against a brother. Just because the RS-ers do it does not give us cause to make the same mistake. Give the love and gentleness of Jesus a chance through your words and actions before you allow “meanness” or “toughness” to prevail and remove their company from God’s house.
So much today we see “tough love” from “conservatives”/”traditionalists”. I consider myself “conservative”. I’m appalled by what these RS-ers plan to do. But instead of getting righteously angry – which I am apt to do when I think/know I’m right – I’m trying to see if in righteousness if there is an opportunity for Christ’s own love to speak to these people gently as well as toughly.
I understand what you’re saying. I think you are correct as far as you go. You make a number of very good points as to why they should not be given any opportunity to be disruptive. And you are the steward of the House, and I am a child. I consider it fortunate that you would hear me and answer me. And I trust you will do as you need and are able, all the while exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit.
Peace be with you, Father Pedrano.
Tim: I’m not saying ignore them. That is clearly foolish. But I’m saying not to admonish them specifically to the exclusion of the other silent, hiding, equally unrepenting dissenters. In other words, talk to the whole community – dealing specifically with the RS-ers as necessary and not as sole example. Teach God’s Truth, not the wrongness of their falsehoods. Affirm what is right, true, and good. Teach of the destructiveness that is outside that. Let people hear and know the Truth for what it is first, and what is lost outside that, second. Then, based on that teaching, invite those with Sashes to become part of the community by removing their sash or to serve the community by leaving.
I think there is an opportunity here to speak to the truth and to the problems of falsehoods, both in love. I fear we’re going to just let it slip beyond our grasp out of concern of our righteousness and not out of concern for compassion. My Savior suffered the cross despite all the wrong things I would otherwise say are right if it were not for His example and His Church. His compassion to me moves me to compassion to the RS-ers. Without Christ’s compassion, we’d be no better off than them. And we live with every beat of our heart and in every moment in His compassion and mercy. I think we can suffer these individuals a little while longer to proclaim to them the love and truth of Christ, directly and individually. They are giving us an opportunity of compassion and evangelization that they don’t intend to give us – we should take it.
Whether the movement itself be authentically interested or not in dialogue is not the point. Some of these people probably are (or think they are) interested in dialogue, and so we should show them Christ’s love before we show them the Christian boot. Even though they are representing a larger movement, people are still people and should be treated as such. Certainly, there is no real dialogue to be had: Homosexuality is wrong; celibacy or Traditional Christian marriage is the prescribed sexual lifestyle of all Christians. But we still need to give that message as people to people and hope and pray for conversion. Should we really abandon hope that God can use us here and now in talking, living, and suffering with them? But sure, I think there is a time to stop “dealing” with these people – I always thought that’s the purpose and use of excommunication.
Peace.
Dear A.C.,
Thank you.
I’m not a fire and brimstone preacher. When Jesus got violent in the temple, he, unlike myself, was pure of heart and possessed full, knowing freedom in the play of his anger.
I always try to stick as close as I can to both the letter and the spirit of the Gospel and make its meaning as clear as possible for the congregation. I’m known for attempting the “deep waters”, and am often thanked for not “dumbing down” the Gospel. There is a deeper “Gospel conversion” to God in Christ that needs to take place before the moral ramifications can begin to make sense to some persons.
On Pentecost Sunday, I plan to stick to Pentecost and its Gospel in my homily.
If the RS activists are present, I will mention the purpose of their presence, and then ask the congregation to calmly listen (to my homily). When I ‘ve finished the intended Pentecost homily, I will then explain that any who publicly refuse doctrinal communion with the Church are not to be admitted to sacramental communion with the Church. I do know how to voice this in a gentle way, and I will prepare to do so with clarity.
However, even with his gentlemanly gentleness and with his charismatic clarity, Pope John Paul II himself just never got a reception from some quarters even within the Church. I heard one American nun on TV call him a spiritual and holy man who was nonetheless, according to her, “doing everything he could to destroy the Church as we know it.” Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, actually has a grandfatherly and gentle personality, as the media has now discovered and publicized. Nonetheless, he has received much criticism in the weeks since his election. To my own shame and frustration, a fellow Benedictine in the U.S., Sister Joan Chittister, has been the most frequently interviewed critic of the popes and of Rome during the last month.
Debate can reach a point of futility. Preaching can also reach a point of futility. Then we need to turn to prayer for conversions. Until then, in our preaching we have to “put out into the DEEP and let down your nets for a catch” as Pope John Paul II so often loved to quote. Conversion must at times be planted more deeply than we wished or had imagined necessary. The planting requires gentle watering from our words, and it also requires our words to be a sharp plow. The sharpness can come from clarity and integrity, without resorting to yelling.
For activists such as those of the RS, even the gentlest clarity on the part of the Church is denounced as unjust oppression.
I am not immediately aware of other issues whose promoters have resorted to public desecration of the Eucharist. I must not treat in an equal manner those whose dissent is hidden in their own hearts and minds. I can address it, but the matter at hand is that on Pentecost Sunday homosexual activists will be publicly and disruptively dissenting at “best” … and vilely desecrating at worst.
Christ preached. Then, once they began to “desecrate” God by handing him over to Pilate he chose to remain silent: Pilate rejected Truth rhetorically–“What’s that?”–and didn’t wait for an answer.
These activists have already violently given the boot to the Church, and quite sacramentally so by “boot-grinding” the Eucharist into the floor at St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
I’m not sure we can really reason with them at this point. You propose poignantly that God can use us in “suffering with them.” However, it seems we shall also suffer at their hands. I can accept that for myself, but I must not allow it to be done to the Eucharist, to the Liturgy, to the faithful. In particular, I cannot allow it to be done to those who–at pain to themselves–sincerely abide by Church moral teaching. Since the planned point of attack is the issue of homosexuality, then the point of response will need to be the issue of homosexuality. Other issues can be referred to, but not in the same proportion at the moment of attack. I do repeat, I cannot call to mind any other issue whose activists have resorted to desecration of the Eucharist.
I understand what you are trying to accomplish, AC, but I think one of your most basic assumptions about the situation is 180 degrees out of phase: that is the assumption that the sin we are chiefly concerned with here is homosexuality. You ask:
“How is homosexuality any different from promiscuity and adultery?”
The issue is no longer homosexuality, or anything like it. The sin of which they need to repent first is Pride. Their open rebellion is the crux of the matter, not which pet sin they happen to be lobbying for.
Sure, it is (tragically) a given that there are adulterers and maybe worse sitting in the pews. There are, in a parish the size of mine, very likely a few people with homosexual tendencies. Let’s suppose there are. Let’s say one of them has sinned by committing some homosexual act in the last week. They do not deserve to be lumped together with these RS activists because are not not causing scandal, shaking the faith of their brothers and sisters. They are not publicly setting themselves up as a JUDGE of Christ’s Church. They are not grieving the Holy Spirit by lending their public support to the spread of false religion and lies.
It is this false equivalence that troubles me most. As Nick noted: all sins are NOT equal.
A “broader teaching moment”? That is a great idea, but not at the expense of exposing your flock to the warped idea that all sins are the same. To have this open, prideful dissent (regardless of it’s object) rolled into the same category as masturbation is to concede ground that should not be conceded. To do so would be to let ourselves be deceived by the language of false “tolerance”.
Well said, indeed, Father Pedrano. I thank God that he has raised up for his Church in this age priests like yourself.
I will pray a Rosary for you and those whom God has entrusted to your care.
God bless you. Your letter was a blessing to me.
I know this is rather late, but, I wasn’t disagreeing with Fr. Pedrano, Gene. Do I always sound sarcastic? 🙁
Look at Canada and across the pond, people. The so-called gay rights movement (actually a gay license movement) has been a key player in giving governments power OVER religion. When the state starts telling priests and preachers what they can and cannot teach or proclaim in the dispensation of their holy offices, then the state has just proclaimed itself more powerful than God. Didn’t we just spend an ENTIRE CENTURY fighting godless secular political and philosophical movements? There have been more Christian martyrs in the past hundred years than in all the years of Christianity combined and now these people have the audacity to take their precious political agendas into the public worship of GOD?
Everything good in our society was inspired by religion: equality, freedom, justice, medicine, art. Who are these yahoos that want to make the Catholic Church look like every other church on the block?
It is illegal to openly proclaim the Church’s position on homosexuality in Canada despite the fact that such a prohibition flies directly in the face of the freedom of speech! Does this sound like they care about “rights” to you? Where are our brave homosexual crusaders then?
No state has a right to tell God what is right. Such would be the very essence of Maoist state policy towards religion! Ironically, it is the gay lobby who keeps spouting about “separation of church and state” and decry those who vote along faith lines. As if it was even the slightest bit possible to remove your heart and your mind when you vote!
The whole idea of DEMOCRACY folks is that it trusts the people to be generally and sincerely concerned about doing what is right. But if the state tells people what is right before they vote, how can that be anything but totalitarianism?
In the end, we will continue to decry their behavior as sinful and never think twice about voting along faith lines. Therefore, they will have to do one of two things (cause lets face it, we are not going anywhere):
1) Deny anyone the right to vote on “moral issues” — especially if they openly proclaim to be a member of a certain faith.
2) Round up all the Catholics and other dissenting faithful and put them to pasture.
Think this is an exaggeration? When we talk about the enemies of the Church, folks, we are talking about people who literally kill their own children and sick grandmothers so they can afford digital cable.
I do not think the general public has a clear enough idea of how desperately we need more priests like Fr. Pedrano — people with an ounce of backbone who will stand up for our faith so are children are martyred by the bulldozer-load.
If neither the general public nor the state will let us be as Catholic as we want, then they are doomed. God will see to that. But if we do not at least stick up for ourselves, our children are just as doomed. We have to let them know that we are not stupid, ignorant throw-backs to the Middle Ages, but upright, intelligent people who WANT TO BE AS CATHOLIC AS WE CAN!!
Also, I have been thinking about how to conduct myself in the pews and I have come to the conclusion that the best political statement would be a quiet fashion statement.
As a show of solidarity for our Pope Benedict, I am going to use my computer to make a graphic of a GERMAN SHEPHERD (yes, the dog) along with words to the effect of:
BE WE NOT AFRAID or
WHEN PAPPA JOHN WENT HOME, HE LEFT US THIS COOL GERMAN SHEPHERD or
NO LONGER AFRAID or
ORTHODOXY IS NOT “RUFF” AS HELL or something to that effect
I am going to print it out on special t-shirt iron paper and wear the t-shirt to mass! I am also thinking of maybe somehow incorporating the self of Pope Benedict on the front or back. Be pretty cool, actually.
I know the plan for the protest is supposed to be silent, but so help me if one them tries to read some statement or shout some obscenity, I
fully
intend to
bark
like a dog…
I don’t care how crazy I look doing it, either.
I am also going to buy a stuffed German Shepherd for my car windshield too.
Not “self” of Pope Benedict, but the SEAL or some such symbol.
Sorry.
Fr. Pedrano: Again, thank you for taking your time in addressing me. I have found this exchange to be very edifying, and I count it a credit that we have you among our shepherds. Again, I trust that you will do as necessary mindful of the Church’s teachings and Christ’s own love. I’m not certain if discourse has reached (or ever reaches) the point of futility with people – but I can agree that trying to deal with RS as an institution is an exercise in futility.
Tim, I hear you, and I don’t wholly disagree with you. But I feel like when you say “not all sins are the same”, you’re implying “some sins are more okay than others”. Sin is sin is sin – it’s all wrong. You don’t measure unrighteousness by degrees of wrongness and so say some are “better”. Regardless of what sins we commit, outside of Christ they all equally condemn us. Within the context of a Christian life, differing sins affect us differently in how far removed we find ourselves from the Father as a result. Mortal sins are completely about how the pride of the individual consumes them to the exclusion of the abundance of the grace of God available to them – not that sins in themselves are “more or less acceptable”. Again, no sin is acceptable.
But I think you’re kinda right in that this is not just about homosexuality. This is also about a stubborn, steadfast, and unashamed rejection of the Church’s teachings. But I don’t think rebuke needs to be limited on Sunday to those who just wear a sash on their shoulder – there are plenty of people who wear similar sashes on their hearts and are not ashamed of it. All of them do set themselves up as judge: what else could we say of “Cafeteria Catholics”? I see no difference between them and the RS-ers except the RS-ers are being honest about it.
Another thing you’re not hearing in me is that I’m not equating masturbation with homosexuality beyond them both being sin. The only other equality there exists between the two lies behind the two in the pride that says the Church is wrong in its teaching concerning them. I am asking for the pride of RS-ers to be spoken to directly, but not to the exclusion of people who wear their sashes on their hearts. Lets talk of the authority and the Traditions of the Church. When we speak to them, lets go ahead and address the true and loving teaching of sexual morality – that is what they’re asking to talk about. Lets talk to all about what disagreement with the Church will lead to.
I know plenty of people within my own community who would do well to hear themselves implicated along side the RS-ers because they hold that same heart but without the cultural motivation to make it public.
I don’t see what I’m advocating as unloving to anyone. I am asking for honesty – even if the RS-ers do not show us the same grace. I am asking for patience, gentleness, and self-control in proclaiming the Word to all – even when those we’re addressing don’t show us those same fruits. I am asking for one more opprotunity for Christ’s grace to be offered through us to unrepentant sinners one more time – to allow some of the prodigals to return home. I think if we do not, then we in some measure take for granted these very same graces that we unworthily live in – we show that we are the older brothers of our prodigal siblings.
I do not see how anyone can be harmed by what I advocate – and instead, I only see the Truth being proclaimed for all to hear so that all may know their guilt – venial or grave – and in that all may know each other as fellow brothers and sisters struggling to return Home. Yet even in this, I do not think I can see all ends. I very well may be short-sighted, and there may be very good reasons for not ministering so. This is why I’m not a priest 🙂
I’m growing weary of arguing. Regardless, I’m in no position to change what happens on Sunday except to perhaps, maybe, have an opportunity to talk with an RS-er. I’m just attempting to get us to think more broadly than just righteous indignation. Again, Fr. Pedrano and Tim: I don’t think you’re wrong – I think your position is very much justifiable and correct. I just think we can be more compassionate and loving here and still be just as right if not more right. I think we should treat these people as people and not a movement. Remove them as necessary, but try to minister to them first. And in minstering to them, minister to all. Thanks for such an engaging and thought provoking discussion.
Peace be with you all.
I didn’t have time to read all the posts, so forgive me if I am a little “behind”. I do like the idea of the priest preaching to this topic, (or even the we-should-all-take-off-our-sashes topic) and I think he should do it in hopes of a rainbow-sasher taking off his sash during the homily. It is possible that they (or at least one) could repent on the spot. This is a great opportunity. Pray. God can work miracles.
AC-
I agree that we should be as compassionate and understanding as possible in our dealings with dissenters, but I think it is at least as important that we not allow misplaced compassion to blur lines that should not be blurred.
I’m going to make a couple of radical assertions:
1) Some people really are better than others. I know a raft-load of people who are better than me. I admire them. I try to learn from them. Real righteousness is a joy to behold, and it inspires me to see it in others. Is it really wrong to say that Mother Teresa is better than I am?
2) Some sins are more “acceptable” than others. This is why some are mortal and some are not. It is not simply a matter of degree, but also of kind.
Open dissent is a sin uniquely damaging to the body of Christ and must be met with a unique deciciveness. It can be argued that the invertabrate reaction of the Bishops in dealing with dissent over the last several decades has made the problem far worse.
In our house, fits of temper are not rewarded with “dialogue”. The fit thrower is swiftly removed from fellowship until they repent (we used to have a special chair for this purpose, but as our kids are bigger now, and have their own rooms).
When one of my kids is in a dissenting mood I find the kindest response, in the long run, is to let them know immediately that they have crossed the line.
(I don’t recommend spanking; particularly if, like me, you have a bad back. A thump on the head works just as well and can be administered without stooping.)
Wait. What about my original question?
What should we as parishoners do if the RSM people are there and we know the priest/Eucharistic ministers are going to serve them?
What should we as parishoners do if the RSM people are there and we know the priest/Eucharistic ministers are going to serve them?
Write to the bishop alerting him that the priest at your parish is serving them (or to Rome if the bishop is approving of that). Physically preventing the RSers from taking communion is a bad idea; for better or worse it is the pastor’s decision whether or not to give someone communion. Even if he’s wrong, it doesn’t justify acting like vigilanties during the Mass.
That will certainly be done, but is it wrong to kneel in their way? Would it be wrong to bring scissors and cut their sashes? Do we have an obligation to try to stop them verbally if not physically?
That will certainly be done, but is it wrong to kneel in their way? Would it be wrong to bring scissors and cut their sashes? Do we have an obligation to try to stop them verbally if not physically?
I think it would be wrong. It’s the pastors job to enforce canon law in this regard; if he isn’t doing it, the bishop needs to be informed. But by using even passive force, especially during the Mass, to take canon law into ones own hands, such parishoners would only be sinking to or even below the level of the Rainbow Sashers.
Incidentally, going towards one of them with scissors could very well provoke a brawl in Church (would you let someone approach you with a sharp, pointed object?), which I think would play into their agenda quite well. I think blocking their way is wrong, but approaching them with scissors intending to cut their sashes is insane. What’s next: stealing copies of America magazine from Catholic book stores to burn them (which is analogous, since those sashes are their property and destroying them is the same as stealing them)?
As for stopping them verbally, I think it is would be a bad thing to even further disrupt the Mass. Again, the church’s pastor is the one who must enforce canon law; if he refuses to do so, he’ll have a lot to answer for. Besides, I think the RSers would welcome a shouting match started by our side during Mass; it would accomplish no good (from the Church’s point of view) since they are diametrically opposed to Church teaching in the sexual sphere and would play well for the RSers in the media.
I think most priests know nothing about this movement and its planned actions. It might be a start to alert your priests by printing out some of the statements on the movement’s website, especially the following.
http://www.rainbowsashmovement.com/Pentecost_Sunday_2005.htm
It is their intention to put on the sash once Mass begins, and to remain standing throughout. They are planning on literally “standing out.” They state they are going to “make no apologies,” but rather “call for dialogue, and justice.”
It’s a protest, not worship of God.
There must be no violence on our parts. However, the members of this movement have in the past physically obstructed the participation of the faithful in the celebration of the Mass, especially in Australia.
Publius, your fallback of “let the priest enforce canon law” sounds like timidity. We ALL have a duty to protect the Eucharist from being desecrated, and we shouldn’t shirk it just because the priest is.
Each of the things that I suggested can be done subtly, and the fact that you picked the worst possible interpretation (“shouting match” for “verbal” instead of “a quiet word of correction” and “) makes me suspect you’re not quite being genuine with me.
Jimmy, I don’t recall if I already e-mailed you the following link.
It looks like the Anglicans are having a “gay old time” advancing their own meltdown.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632517,00.html