Sash-ayers denied at US bishops’ Mass

Sash-ayers denied at US bishops’ Mass

It’s interesting that the US bishops’ conference, when it’s gathered in session, will do what individual bishops will not, that is deny Communion to homosexuals wearing rainbow sashes. Of course, the sash-ayers call it homphobia, but then they can’t imagine a principled reason based on a divine revelation to oppose homosexual activity. I hate to say, but I wonder where the backbone to stand up to this group came from since I’ve rarely seen such a stand from the bishops in the past.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
12 comments
  • An honest question… how can the bishops deny Communion to active homosexuals (who are publicly open about their beliefs and activities) but they will not (as a body) deny Communion to Catholics who support abortion quite openly?

    It doesn’t make any sense to me. Is active homosexuality worse than promoting laws that make it easier or possible to kill babies?

  • Colleen,

    The best answer that can be given is this (and it will draw a ton of criticism)….

    The key is active.  An activity of an active homosexual is quantifiably provable.  One who states that s/he supports abortion may or may have “actually procured” an abortion.  If s/he has, then it is to be held in the same vein.  Until then, it cannot.

    But what is the common denominator in that?  Active (active homosexual acts/actually procurring an abortion) participation in an intrinsically evil action and calls for the denial of Holy Communion.

    If one can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is activity in actually and physically procurring an abortion, which is contrary to Church teaching, then by all means deny that person Holy Communion until s/he receives absolution.  Sometimes, that is very hard to do.  Sometimes it is not.

    If one can prove that a homosexual lives in a active homosexual lifestyle that is contrary to the teaching of the Church, then by all means deny that person Holy Communion until s/he receives absolution.  Sometimes that is very easy to do.  Sometimes not.

    See the correlation and the differences?

    “Is active homosexuality worse than promoting laws that make it easier or possible to kill babies?”

    No.  But they are different kinds of sin.  One entails formal participation in an action the other entails a material participation in an action.  That is the difference and that dictates the gravity of the penalty.

    Cam  

  • Colleen,

    The best answer that can be given is this (and it will draw a ton of criticism)….

    The key is active.  An activity of an active homosexual is quantifiably provable.  One who states that s/he supports abortion may or may have “actually procured” an abortion.  If s/he has, then it is to be held in the same vein.  Until then, it cannot.

    But what is the common denominator in that?  Active (active homosexual acts/actually procurring an abortion) participation in an intrinsically evil action and calls for the denial of Holy Communion.

    If one can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is activity in actually and physically procurring an abortion, which is contrary to Church teaching, then by all means deny that person Holy Communion until s/he receives absolution.  Sometimes, that is very hard to do.  Sometimes it is not.

    If one can prove that a homosexual lives in a active homosexual lifestyle that is contrary to the teaching of the Church, then by all means deny that person Holy Communion until s/he receives absolution.  Sometimes that is very easy to do.  Sometimes not.

    See the correlation and the differences?

    “Is active homosexuality worse than promoting laws that make it easier or possible to kill babies?”

    No.  But they are different kinds of sin.  One entails formal participation in an action the other entails a material participation in an action.  That is the difference and that dictates the gravity of the penalty.

    Cam  

  • Thanks a lot for explaining, Cam.

    I guess I’ll have to mull it over a bit before it sinks in. I can’t fathom that a pol who votes against banning say, pba – or who votes for it, is only materially cooperating in grave sin. It opens the door wider for someone else to commit grave sin.

  • Thanks a lot for explaining, Cam.

    I guess I’ll have to mull it over a bit before it sinks in. I can’t fathom that a pol who votes against banning say, pba – or who votes for it, is only materially cooperating in grave sin. It opens the door wider for someone else to commit grave sin.

  • I honestly think the bishops are starting to wake up a bit—or at least come out of the deep snoring sleep they’ve been in for years.  Mind you, they coming out in slow motion, but they always do everything in slow motion…..

  • I honestly think the bishops are starting to wake up a bit—or at least come out of the deep snoring sleep they’ve been in for years.  Mind you, they coming out in slow motion, but they always do everything in slow motion…..

  • Colleen,

    If the pol—or you or me or Cam or Dom—came to Communion wearing a tee shirt reading something like:

    ~~~~~~~~~
    Me: I HAD AN ABORTION AND AM PROUD OF IT AND WILL DO IT AGAIN DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AND EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE AS I DO AND HAVE ABORTIONS, PERIOD.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Cam: I FORCED MY GIRLFRIEND TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND IF SHE GETS PREGNANT I’LL DO IT AGAIN DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Pol: I NOT ONLY VOTE FOR PRO-ABORTION LAWS, I WILL DRIVE ANY, AND HAVE ALREADY DRIVEN SOME, OF MY FEMALE PREGNANT CONSTITUENTS TO THE ABORTIONARY OF THEIR CHOICE AND HAVE PAID, AND WILL CONTINUE TO PAY, FOR THE ABORTIONS DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.

    P.S. And I believe life begins at conception!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Then I can understand refusing these folks Communion.

    These “tee-shirts”—admittedly wordy!—are, I believe, the equivilent of the “Rainbow Sashers” garb.

    Cam, I’m not so sure I follow you. Wearing a “rainbow sash” does not “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that the wearer is actively engaged in homosexual activity. It does prove that he (or she!) wears a rainbow sash. It’s pretty much clear (but not beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the wearer is pro-homosexual activity.

    Pretty damn close, though.

    For me—and goodness, the bishops agree with me!—that’s enough.

  • Colleen,

    If the pol—or you or me or Cam or Dom—came to Communion wearing a tee shirt reading something like:

    ~~~~~~~~~
    Me: I HAD AN ABORTION AND AM PROUD OF IT AND WILL DO IT AGAIN DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AND EVERYONE SHOULD BELIEVE AS I DO AND HAVE ABORTIONS, PERIOD.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Cam: I FORCED MY GIRLFRIEND TO HAVE AN ABORTION AND IF SHE GETS PREGNANT I’LL DO IT AGAIN DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Pol: I NOT ONLY VOTE FOR PRO-ABORTION LAWS, I WILL DRIVE ANY, AND HAVE ALREADY DRIVEN SOME, OF MY FEMALE PREGNANT CONSTITUENTS TO THE ABORTIONARY OF THEIR CHOICE AND HAVE PAID, AND WILL CONTINUE TO PAY, FOR THE ABORTIONS DESPITE WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.

    P.S. And I believe life begins at conception!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Then I can understand refusing these folks Communion.

    These “tee-shirts”—admittedly wordy!—are, I believe, the equivilent of the “Rainbow Sashers” garb.

    Cam, I’m not so sure I follow you. Wearing a “rainbow sash” does not “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that the wearer is actively engaged in homosexual activity. It does prove that he (or she!) wears a rainbow sash. It’s pretty much clear (but not beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the wearer is pro-homosexual activity.

    Pretty damn close, though.

    For me—and goodness, the bishops agree with me!—that’s enough.

  • Kelly,

    One of the things that we totally agree on and I have said all along about the “sash-ayers” is that they must conform to the will of the bishops.  Apparently, they did.  That is good news for us.  (I even went back and looked at the first posts I ever made….man was I a babe in the woods, LOL)

    Kelly….“Cam, IDATA[

    On Monday, I’ll be guest-blogging at Beliefnet for Charlotte Hays, who is on vacation. They have a pretty decent line-up of guest bloggers including Kathy Shaidle (today), Amy Welborn, Rod Dreher, Charlotte Allen, Jeremy Lott, Mark Shea, and Barbara Nicolosi.

    ]]>

    4582
    2004-11-18 07:20:52
    2004-11-18 11:20:52
    open
    open
    ill_be_guest_blogging
    publish
    0
    0
    post


    21611

    stcasimir@earthlink.net

    4.238.179.207
    2004-11-18 09:22:04
    2004-11-18 13:22:04
    Speaking of guest blogging…I just popped over to Gerard’s blog (A Catholic Blog for Lovers.)

    There seems to be a message in the comments box that he went home to the Lord last night. It was posted this morning.

  • Kelly,

    One of the things that we totally agree on and I have said all along about the “sash-ayers” is that they must conform to the will of the bishops.  Apparently, they did.  That is good news for us.  (I even went back and looked at the first posts I ever made….man was I a babe in the woods, LOL)

    Kelly….“Cam, Iurl>
    24.218.209.222
    2004-11-19 10:08:34
    2004-11-19 14:08:34
    An honest question… how can the bishops deny Communion to active homosexuals (who are publicly open about their beliefs and activities) but they will not (as a body) deny Communion to Catholics who support abortion quite openly?

    It doesn’t make any sense to me. Is active homosexuality worse than promoting laws that make it easier or possible to kill babies?

Archives

Categories

Categories