Anastasia writes “Unbelievable!” in referring me to this story about a Cambridge Catholic parish where supporting Church teaching is unwelcome. Specifically, we’re told that St. Paul’s Parish in the People’s Republic of Cambridge, next to Harvard, is inhospitable to people who say that gay marriage is a bad thing. When two men tried to hand out fliers reiterating the Church’s teachings, they had their fliers thrown out, people protesting them, one person writing an open letter about the “injustice” of having to be confronted about the Truth and what his Church actually teaches while worshipping there.
Of course, what this says is that every Sunday these people are not being presented with the Catholic faith. For all intents and purposes, St. Paul’s has ceased to be a Catholic church, if in fact heresy is taught and tolerated there. I do not say that lightly either. That the parish is smack in the middle of the most liberal part of Massachusetts (that’s saying something) and in the middle of Harvard says something as Father James Heft of the University of Dayton points out:
...in university communities, “academic freedom is sometimes freedom for those who think what academics do, and not necessarily a real freedom of thought.”
In other words, it’s not that people are opposed to dogma, but what they prefer is their own liberal, pansexual dogma, rather than the Church’s doctrine that frees man from slavery to carnal pleasures.
But the priests at St. Paul have been noticeably silent on the topic, failing to bring it up in sermons, according to several parishioners. Every year, the pastor gives an opening homily welcoming everyone, regardless of their past, their race, profession, or sexual orientation, said parishioner Bevil Conway. This approach has essentially kept the peace, making the politically liberal feel at home even as they disagree with many Catholic teachings.
Ah yes, peace at any cost, the tactic of many dysfunctional families. What does it benefit a man to please all men and lose their souls? As Jesus tells us, “Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.” (Luke 12:51) It is not our job, and especially not that of a pastor of souls, to curry favor with people at the expense of their eternal lives.
And when someone was so “mean” as to actually present the Truth, opponents responded in their typically “tolerant” and “diverse” way. One guy stomped up and down the aisle removing fliers, tearing down signs, and throwing stuff out. He and a friend just won’t have it in “their” church:
But Manjapra and Conway insist that such a thing has no place in their Harvard Square church. “The priests have a responsibility to make sure that information distributed on tables adheres to the spirit of the community,” Conway said. “That space should be for selling apple pies to make money for the boys’ choir.”
That’s almost too easy to make fun of. Did two gays actually say it would be better to raise money for a boys’ choir than to support the Church’s teaching on homosexuality?
What these people need is not someone to “affirm them in their okayness,” but to confront them with the sometimes difficult and painful truth. If they had cancer, their doctor wouldn’t tell them they have a cold. We’re not doing any favors telling them there’s nothing wrong with their beliefs.
And God forbid that a Catholic parish be known for being “dogmatic” it presenting the Faith. The red flag goes up when I hear criticisms about the “dogmatic,” which is frequently contrasted with the word “pastoral.” In the libspeak of AmChurch, the first term means close-minded, archaic, soulless, uninspired, and wrong, while the second term means enlightened, correct, inspired, and anything else your little heart desires.
Why doesn’t anybody get that one takes themSELVES out of the Catholic Church? I was struck, as I read the article, at how the pro-gay crew talk about “Christ’s Love” and”wondering if he still belonged in the Church” (after bursting out in tears) and “my Church community will become one of exclusion…” (yes, name calling is wrong)
Would not Christ’s love say “leave sin behind!”? Do we not exclude ourselves when we sin-any sin? Sheesh! If folks refuse to abide by Church teaching, how do they call themselves Catholic? I mean, if I’m going to join a group, wouldn’t it seem plausable that I’d accept their charter?
Joanne, I’m with you. When did it become ok for them to slander and be intolerant, then accuse us of the same. If their arguement were valid, they wouldn’t need to dumb it down to emotions.
“If you feel you are well enough informed to have concluded that homosexuality is a sin (and believe me this would make you a remarkable persons would softpedaling the truth so as not to hurt feelings.
Also to experience same-sex attraction is not sin per se, it is a temptation and thus an occasion of sin (i.e. the opportunity for sin) and must be fought against. To be attracted to the same sex is not the natural order and is thus a disorder. A person is not morally culpable for having a disorder, but is bound to attempt to overcome its effect on their life.
God is not the world. That is pantheism. And nowhere does it say he created the “world” in his likeness. Only man. Re-read Genesis. And by your logic, then God is man as well.
Also, the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals, which includes sexual behavior. By your reckoning the Church can only speak on one thing. Nice job at limiting God.
Again, I did not say I was judging anybody’s salvation. I am judging behavior and actions. I would suggest you take some time to learn what your faith actually teaches rather than spouting platitudes. I’d suggest finding a parish where the faith is actually preached.