Amy, commenting on the Diocese of Westminster, England’s, decision to formally institute a Mass specifically for homosexuals, makes a statement I’ve often made:
But separate, designated Masses for one group of people with one particular temptation to sin or identity runs completely, deeply contrary to the weight of Christian tradition. This goes for Masses for the divorced, for youth, for children, for families..for catechists, for whatever – as well.
I agree, but especially so in this case. At least Masses for children and for families do not categorize and apply an approved label upon a group whose identity is based in, to be most charitable, a disordered inclination to sin. What’s next? A Mass for adulterers or at least those inclined toward adultery?
The problem with the Diocese’s approach is that it acquiesces to a flawed precept at the root of most ministries to homosexuals, namely that it is the Church’s fault that they are what they are and that they feel alienated from her. The Diocesan statement says:
The Diocese of Westminster will continue to develop its Pastoral outreach to homosexual people so as to enable them to enter more fully into the life of the Church. This includes the weekly Listening Service being provided by the Catholic churches in Soho and the West End of London which provides support and opportunities to speak with a priest at the Church of Notre Dame, Leicester Place.
And Amy says:
What, in the present situation, in the Diocese of Westminster is preventing “homosexual people so as to enable them to enter more fully into the life of the Church?” What?
What indeed? In that statement lies the root of the presupposition that it is the Church’s teaching on sexuality that is the oppression and which alienates homosexuals, making them into victims, cringing away from any possibility that they are themselves the transgressors.
(By the way, would anyone care to enlighten us as to why it’s the Diocese of Westminster, but the Archbishop of Westminster? I thought archdiocese and archbishop went hand in hand. Perhaps it has something to do with the Anglican schism.)