Skip to comments.taking sides (Full coverage of ongoing Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence situation)
Posted on 10/18/2007 10:13:48 AM PDT by NYer
Via Thomas Peters, we learn that the cross-dressing Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, two of whom received communion from the hand of Archbishop George Niederauer on October 7th, have posted a facetious press release concerning the incident, headlined "Sisters Upset Communion Being Turned into Political Issue." The press release quotes the "abbess" of the gay agit-prop group, who calls herself Sister Edith Myflesh.
The moniker "Edith Myflesh," it goes without saying, makes reference to John 6:54 (in its King James Version), "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." The disdain conveyed by the flip allusion to Jesus' Eucharistic teaching, compounded by the lewdness of the sexual double entendre, points to a hatred of Christianity that borders on frenzy.
The intensity of the gay-activist antipathy as well as its target of choice is displayed with exceptional clarity in the Drag Nuns Communion incident, and the reactions to the incident highlight the fault-lines along which the U.S. Church is split. One might think gay-friendly moderates would cringe at the flamboyance of drag-queen activism and the belligerence of the Sister Edith sacrilege, but in fact the reproaches come exclusively from the conservative side of the aisle, while the progressivists seem unable to grasp what all the fuss is about. Some have hesitantly conceded that the Sister Act was "inappropriate" -- as if the dispute hinged on the etiquette of church-going -- but the general liberal consensus seems to be that anything that antagonizes the Catholic League must be on the right track and worthy of defense.
Deplorable though their stuntmanship was, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence may, contrary to their intent, perform a signal service for orthodox Catholics and for the Church at large. Think back to the 2005, and the in-fighting surrounding the upcoming Doomsday Doc, eventually issued as the Vatican Instruction on "Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies." The controversial point was the Holy See's contention that homosexual men lack the "affective maturity" necessary to the spiritual paternity in which the priesthood is authentically lived out. Remember the delegation sent ahead of time by the U.S. bishops begging that the Instruction be shelved? Remember the squeals when it was issued all the same? Remember the gasps of indignation at its statement that homosexuality was a "disturbance of a sexual nature ... incompatible with the priesthood"?
So picture a priest or bishop working in the Vatican curia who lived through the Doomsday Doc warfare and the arguments back-and-forth. And now on his office computer he's got a video-link to the Mass at Most Holy Redeemer. "Deep-seated homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered," he recites to himself, watching adult men in mascara and nun-drag given communion by a U.S. archbishop, "Got that right." No screed, no treatise, no series of lectures could make the point more memorably.
Will it make a difference, concretely? Not in the short term. The majority of U.S. bishops, remember, was trained in a theological culture that views the Sister's principal lapse as "over-accessorizing." Blasphemy (little different from heresy in this respect) is treated as a quaint, 19th-century sort of sin, the censure of which would be as comically obsolete as a treatment for dropsy or St. Vitus Dance, and few churchmen speak ill of the objective disorder in whose service the blasphemy is uttered. We can expect few efforts to tackle the current scandal. But the post-Conciliar ecclesiastics are passing away, and their successors are bolder where they're wrong and bolder where they're right. By putting their real motives on open display, Sister Edith and her pals have helped shape the terms of the conflict for the next generation.
sounds good to me. shouldn’t bother them either, since they are clearly embarassed by the Catholic faith and went ahead and made up their own.
I was hoping for a better response from the Knights of Columbus.......I kind of think that David’s dancing infront of the Ark of the Covenant was a one time freebie.
I know. I can't get over it. It makes me ill. I know it's San Francisco, but I can't believe not one person objected. I honestly think these sisters-of-whatever should be shadowed by counter-protestors everywhere they go -- especially if they dare enter a church again (and they will).
What are the chances of something like this happening? Who is this bishop directly answerable to and why isn't that someone comming down on him like a ton of bricks?
Well it should not be any suprise since fools like those two would BARLEY make it out alive from a Islamic mosque if they did what they did in a RC church.
...Or St. Augustine who preached the truth to sinners.
Watching the video is very interesting: Abp. Niederauer seems to have presumptively gone to bless the first drag queen in the same style that I’ve always seen Protestants blessed at wedding masses, rather than giving them communion. The queen then said something to the Abp., who then gives communion, with an expression consistent with a thought like, “well, if you say so.” He then readily hands it out to the 2nd drag queen.
There’s no telling what the drag queen told the Abp., but it sure seems that the Abp. was not in the ordinary habit of giving communion to drag queens.
What would be best is have the church be taken over by a strict observing Roman Catholic order of priests. Then this type of stuff would never be tolerated. Plus it would bring in those faithful who want to live their Catholic Christian faith according to the Church.
It would not suprise me if once this archbishop steps down in a few years, the next one will be stricter. It will help to bring the faith of Christ into a city that needs it badly bigtime.
After reading the Abp’s “apology,” I have a difficult time not concluding he is a liar. If he didn’t recognize them, why did he presume that they wouldn’t want communion?
>> Everytime I see this I keep looking for serious frowns and keep hoping I’ll hear someone stand up and shout, “No! You will not do this!” <<
1. Any Catholic with any shred of Orthodoxy would have left that parish long ago. The frog in the pot has been boiled tender. This is not base presumption: one of the blogs noted the democgraphics of the mass attendees, and one can safely infer that this has become (perhaps more damning than your question) essentially a gay parish, with but a small handful of even “gay-allied” heterosexuals.
2. Standing up and shouting, “No! You will not do this!” just simply isn’t something one does during mass, especially when the appellate authority (the archbishop) is the one permitting it. Apparently, the few non-perverts in the congregation resorted to videotaping the archbishop precisely as their way of documenting the abuse for appeal beyond him, and it has proven much more effective than causing a ruckus. I’d suspect the approach of shouting “no!” has been exhausted previously.
>> Do you think it’s because this took place in San Francisco that no one seemed to object? <<
So, yes, my answer is that because this took place in the center of the gay zone of Frisco, few seemed to object
There is MUCH MORE to this event than you and I are seeing. It's possible the queen went to Confession - we can't be judges. But I sense this event was a way for the gay community to test the Abp.
What’s even more irritating is that “Body of Christ” song. Yes, we ARE the Body of Christ, but deprived of any other teachings on submission, obedience, etc., the song just amounts to self-justification of any liturgical abuses. It seems like the abusers use the song persistently, precisely to declare their own authority to re-create Catholicism in the image of their most basest presumptions.
We are the Body of Christ
(no, the CHURCH is; we constitute the Church, but to use that fact to justify this statement is like saying water is human flesh, because human flesh is mostly water. We are only the body of Christ when Christ is acting through us.)
God is revealed when we love one another
(if our love is God’s love)
We are the body of Christ
Bringing the light of God’s mercy to others
We are the body of Christ
(OK, I get that)
Putting a stop to all discrimination
(Huh? Discrimination is literally telling right from wrong. Do the authors mean “racial prejudice,” instead, or have they actually accurately stated their doctrine?)
We are the body of Christ
All are invited to feast at the banquet
(Absent any discussion of repentance, this seems like universalism. I guess we know which side of the Homo-nun scandal these people stand on!)
We are the body of Christ
(You keep telling yourselves that, folks.)
(Of course, Spanglish irritates me. If I wanted to sing in foreign languages at mass, I’d go to a Latin mass.)
What’s inherently wrong with AA and Al-Anon meetings in the parish hall? You got something against the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius?
BARLEY? I think BULGAR is the more likely grain. (The word “bugger” is thought to derive from “Bulgar,” a reference to the deliberately non-procreative sex favored by the Cathar sect.)
And continuing to publicly mock nuns while cross-dressing would indicate a manifest lack of repentance. Ergo, they still should not have received Communion.
Nothing is inherently wrong with AA meetings......well....I shouldn't say that. My point, by mentioning it, was that while these other problems are recognized, the elephant in the room, the gay lifestyle, seems to be ignored.
But, as a practical matter, it should be noted that all of this is hypothetical. There is very little practical likelihood that either of these individuals went to confession beforehand, especially dealing with the matter of their sinful membership in this "organization."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.