Man objects to Communion for gay group

St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | May. 27, 2004 | Stephen Scott

[CatherineSiena]

This Sunday at the Cathedral of St. Paul, a 1960s liberal anti-war activist turned orthodox church layman plans to stand — literally — in the way of gay Catholics and their supporters to prevent them from taking Holy Communion.

"I've never seen such an event unfold in a Catholic Mass, and I'm 50 years old,'' said Brian McNeill of Minneapolis, who helps organize the annual gay-rights presence at the Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday.

David Pence's plan has startled leaders of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

It also shocked members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance in the Twin Cities, who have joined others in a worldwide movement the past several years by wearing sashes to Mass on Pentecost Sunday. They say they wear the sashes as a plea for "a conversion of heart'' toward the inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics.

Pence hopes 10 to 20 Twin Cities men will join him in what he admits is an "extraordinary measure'' to "defend the Eucharist from being publicly attacked.''

He and an informal group called Ushers of the Eucharist plan to block the path of Rainbow Sash members when they come forward for Communion at the noon Mass. He said he is committed to nonviolence, not "tackling anyone.''

"At Catholic Charities, anybody who is hungry gets fed,'' said Pence, a radiation oncologist from Mankato who works in Minneapolis. "But the Eucharist isn't like that. The Eucharist is a restricted meal. The Church has always said you don't come to Communion unless you believe in Christianity the way the Catholic Church has transmitted the tradition.''

Although Rainbow Sash wearers have been denied Holy Communion in Australia and in some dioceses in the United States, they have not been barred at the Cathedral of St. Paul.

"I think it would be very disrespectful for any group to take it upon themselves to keep others from receiving Communion,'' said the Rev. Michael Skluzacek, rector of the Cathedral. "That is not anyone's judgment call except the archbishop.''

Archbishop Harry Flynn has said Rainbow Sash members will not be denied Communion, reserving such an action for "extreme'' circumstances.

"Church teaching dictates that the Blessed Sacrament should be received only by baptized Catholics who are in the state of grace,'' the archdiocese said in a statement to the Pioneer Press on Wednesday. "However, the determination of a person's spiritual readiness rests with the individual conscience and honesty of individual worshippers.''

Pence said he and like-minded Catholics believe donning the multicolored sash as a symbol during Communion is an act of public dissent that should disallow wearers from receiving the Eucharist.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago on Tuesday instructed priests there not to give Communion to Rainbow Sash members this weekend. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., previously issued the same ban.

"The people coming with the sash are openly proclaiming that homosexuality should be accepted in the Church,'' Pence said. "That isn't the Catholic position.

"If someone came up and said, 'I don't believe in the Trinity, or in the divinity of Christ,' one of the old heresies, or that abortion is a woman's right, that person also should not be incorporated into the Eucharist.''

In its statement, the archdiocese said it had "no intention of allowing one of the most sacred times in the Mass — the reception of Holy Communion — to turn into a battleground or to be the occasion for demonstrations or counter demonstrations.''

Pence said his actions will be "somewhat of a disruption, which I don't like. I think our Eucharist is sacred, but we're not disrupting it. They are disrupting it.''

McNeill, a Rainbow Sash organizer, was taken aback when he heard of the lay group's plan.

"Their presence will not prevent us from being there,'' he said. "Nothing ever would prevent us from walking up to Communion. This would be very new.''

Pence, 56, is a frequent speaker to Catholic parishes and a member of the Holy Name Society, which since the 13th century has sought to promote reverence and prayer while fighting blasphemy and heresy. He said he wants Sunday's actions to be an example of courage for bishops.

It is a battle few U.S. Catholic bishops have taken on in the debate over denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, a controversy fueled recently by the presidential candidacy of John Kerry.

Pence said the issue is unique to the Catholic Church and others with a "restricted Communion.''

"It is different than the Methodists, or those who say they have 'an open table, we welcome all.' That has never been the Catholic tradition. They're not breaking into a Unitarian church. They're not going to a place where Communion is open to everybody already. They're going to a place where Communion means something.''

An unrelated group, Catholics Against Sacrilege, also opposed to the Rainbow Sash movement, plans to say the rosary on the Cathedral steps beginning at 11:15 a.m. Sunday.

Flynn and Skluzacek will be involved in activities related to the ordination of six new priests in the archdiocese this weekend. Monsignor James Habiger will preside at the noon Mass at the Cathedral.

[old and tired]

I am amazed this sort of thing has not happened sooner. I don't know if I could have the right frame of mind to act as these men will. I'm almost certain anger would be clouding my judgment.

It seems from the article that these men will be using the non violent tactics from the rescue movement. How will some people be permitted to approach the altar and others not? When rescuers locked arms, no one could get through. How will some non public sinners be allowed to approach the altar?

I'm afraid the implementaion of this plan is nearly impossible without a physical altercation.

I guess I'd be inclined to pray the Rosary outside.

[RonF]

"Church teaching dictates that the Blessed Sacrament should be received only by baptized Catholics who are in the state of grace,'' the archdiocese said in a statement to the Pioneer Press on Wednesday. "However, the determination of a person's spiritual readiness rests with the individual conscience and honesty of individual worshippers.''

Interesting comment. I'm not a Roman Catholic, I'm an Episcopalian. Here's an excerpt from page 409 of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer:

Disciplinary Rubrics

If the priest knows that a person who is living a notoriously evil life intends to come to Communion, the priest shall speak to that person privately, and tell him that he may not come to the Holy Table until he has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life.

The priest shall follow the same procedure with those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the congregation, not allowing such persons to receive Communion until they have made restitution for the wrong they have done, or have at least promised to do so.

When the priest sees that there is hatred between members of the congregation, he shall speak privately to each of them, telling them that they may not receive Communion until they have forgiven each other.

And if the person or persons on one side truly forgive the others and desire and promise to make up for their faults, but those on the other side refuse to forgive, the priest shall allow those who are penitent to come to Communion, but not those who are stubborn.

In all such cases, the priest is required to notify the bishop, within 14 days at the most, giving the reasons for refusing Communion.

So, in the ECUSA, while it is certainly desirable and according to Scripture that individuals examine their own hearts and determine their fitness for the Eucharist, it seems that the Priest also has the power to make such a determination. Is this Roman Catholic Archbishop telling me that he has less power, discretion or duty than an ECUSA priest? What are the RCC Canons on this?

[Mark in the Old South]

"At Catholic Charities, anybody who is hungry gets fed,'' said Pence, a radiation oncologist from Mankato who works in Minneapolis. "But the Eucharist isn't like that. The Eucharist is a restricted meal."

I disagree (respectfully) "anybody WHO IS HUNGRY gets fed" applies most specifically to the Eucharist. My point being those who want to sin and receive Christ are not in fact hungry at all. And not just homosexual activist, but the pro-choice, corporate greed types, fans of porn, even the hot tempered. Most of us sinner types don't where a banner symbolizing "I'm a habitual lier, get used to it"

Am I the only person who thinks it odd to see someone wear or display a symbol of bedroom antics and then be told to keep my nose out of their private lives?

[Mark in the Old South]

Before someone points it out I ment "wear" not "where".

[Mattheus]

Unfortunately the bishops are not united on the import of the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, as usual. The non-canonical bishops' national conference, patterned after the American democratic principles has made this possible. It used to be that a bishop was the supreme head of his See, answerable only to the pope (and of course, to God).

There are bishops such as Mahony of L.A. who shamelessly has said "the homos are welcome to receive Communion in my church." The Rainbow Sash group mistakenly believes that by a show of force at the most solemn of Catholic rituals (the reception of Holy Communion, they would be bringing their cause to the negotiating table. See, they know what the Eucharist is: It is what will bring either outrage or compassion to their cause. They are appealing to the bleeding hearts!

Shame on those bishops who are going to support this mockery of Our Lord! They will merely compound the mortality of sin into sacrilege. Homosexuality, lesbianism: the sin of Sodom is a non-negotiable issue, and like abortion, it is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. The Catholic Church does not negotiate with terrorists, whether the rainbow kind or those who wilfully murder little babies in their mother's womb.

Mattheus

[johnb2004]

Very well said. The fact that the bishop does not forbid them is an indictment of him. As always, I question the motives of this type of bishop.

[chatham]

The main problem for the Homosexuals is caused by themselves and their Adoration of the Genitalia as the symbol of their lifestyle.
The Bishops are wrong in that there is no cohesion in their positions across the country, they should be speaking in one voice, not like Delicatessen Bishops.
They are sowing confusion.

[thor76]

Such action on the part of orthodox, faithful Catholics would not be necessary if the Bishops would obey Christ and his Vicar - and stand up for, defend, and preach the faith. Hmmmm......maybe good Catholics should "block access" in a similar manner if obviously gay priests are appointed to their parishes. ...."just say NO!".

[Salvation]

Activism is alive and well in the Catholic Church!

[Salvation]

From another thread:

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

[chatham]

Amen, AMEN!!

[a0t0e0]

I just moved to Minneapolis - and am quite surprised at the lack of knowledge some of the writers in this forum have of our Catholic church. It seems everyone is forgetting that less than 150 years ago, our Catholic leaders were MANDATING the separation of our Jewish brothers and sisters into ghettos and forcing them to wear markings on their clothing indicate their Jewish heritage. That was Cannon law in the mid 1800-s. Would you, Mattheus support such an action today? Would you force your Jewish neighbors to leave their homes and live segregated from your friends and neighbors?

It seems as though we are forgetting the hundreds of children the Catholic church kidnapped from their families - that is correct - forcibly taking them from their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, in the name of cannon law. Mattheus - Cannon law stated that a Catholic child could not live with a Jewish family. Domestic workers, cooks, nannies, etc were 'secretly' baptizing Jewish children when the Jewish parents were not around. The Pope mandated that in those circumstances, the children were to be taken from their families to live in the House of the Catechumens - with little or no contact with their families. Mattheus - If that were still Cannon law, would you feel righteous in helping a Priest essentially kidnap a child from his family?

My point here is that our Catholic Church has not always adhered to 'God's law' - in fact, it has blatantly advocated activities that every one of us would judge today as 'wrong' .. as a 'sin'.. as 'immoral' ..

Mattheus - you have written that "The Rainbow Sash group mistakenly believes that by a show of force at the most solemn of Catholic rituals (the reception of Holy Communion, they would be bringing their cause to the negotiating table." - I am not a member of the Rainbow Sash group - nor do I know a single member of the group. I do, however, know that Jesus fought his causes in the holiest of places in his time. Jesus did not leave his 'causes' at the door when he entered the Temples.

I need your help on something, Mattheus. Since you believe that homosexuals are sinners, I have been searching the New Testament for passages that would support excluding sinners of any kind from the Holy Eucharist. Oddly enough, the only things I can find are about Jesus INCLUDING people in meals.. not EXCLUDING them. I cannot find anything that says Jesus refused to sit down as an equal and break bread with the Tax Collectors, for example.

Since Jesus asked us to 'do this in remembrance of me' I guess I feel like I should be following his example, rather than doing the exact opposite. What do you think?

[D Edmund Joaquin]

1Co 5:11
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

[D Edmund Joaquin]

1 Col 6:9

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

[a0t0e0]

1 Cor 5:11 is not suggesting that we should not eat with 'sinners'. This clearly applies only to people who claim to be Christians, while consistently engaging in serious moral transgressions.

Thanks for pointing this passage out. While it is certainly not Jesus' words or actions - it is a passage that supports excluding certain sinners from our tables.

It seems, then, that we are back to basing this debate on whether or not homosexuality is a "serious moral transgression"
While I can find passages (such as 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 and Romans 1:26-27) that refer to our topic, they seem to be hotly debated by scholars and clergy alike. It is difficult for me to discern which scholars and which religious leaders 'have it right'. What I personally do at times such as these is look at Jesus' words.

Can you help me one more time? I cannot find anywhere, any words spoken by Jesus condemning homosexuality. There are so many things he specifically points out - I am certain he would specifically mention homosexuality if it were immoral.

Perhaps just my ignorance of the scripture, though - please help me find where Jesus speaks out to condemn homosexuality

Thanks again!

[D Edmund Joaquin]

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus is saying that he does not remove any law from the Torah, nor does he contradict any word of the prophets.

The issue with which you are struggling is complicated and it's natural to feel love for our earthly family, whatever their shortcomings. However the bigger concern in the matter of the Communion, is to ensure that the church appears spotless and holy when they come before the Lord to participate in this sacrament.

If you read the scriptures again, notice how Judas left the group before the Lord offered the wine and bread. The church is one loaf and it must be unleavened, untainted with sin. That's why it is important for every one to examine himself before he partakes.

If the sinners, who want to be Christians, ask for forgiveness, there is no reason why they can't have Communion. Think about this: If they had to choose between the Lord or their sin, which one are they choosing? As Christians they should be willing to forego that lifestyle choice,or at the least, remain celibate, which they can do with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I hope this explains some reasoning behind our position and thank you for the chance to post it.