Priest denies gay supporters communion

[mlyonsd]

IMO this is over the top.


Priest Denies Gay Supporters Communion
Sunday, May 15, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Roman Catholic (search (javascript:siteSearch('Roman Catholic');)) priest denied communion (search (javascript:siteSearch('communion');)) to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.

Before offering communion, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek (search (javascript:siteSearch('Rev. Michael Sklucazek');)) told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul (search (javascript:siteSearch('Cathedral of St. Paul');)) that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread.

A group called the Rainbow Sash Alliance (search (javascript:siteSearch('Rainbow Sash Alliance');)) has encouraged supporters to wear the multicolored fabric bands since 2001 on each Pentecost Sunday, the day Catholics believe the Holy Spirit came to give power to Christians soon after Jesus ascended to heaven. But Sunday's service was the first time they had been denied communion at the altar.

Archbishop Harry Flynn (search (javascript:siteSearch('Archbishop Harry Flynn');)) told the group earlier this month that they would not receive communion because the sashes had become a protest against church teaching.

Sister Gabriel Herbers said she wore a sash to show sympathy for the gay and lesbian community. Their sexual orientation "is a gift from God just as much as my gift of being a female is," she said.

Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. "As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed," she said.

While other parishioners sat or kneeled after going to the altar, sash-wearers remained standing with their hands cupped as a symbol they still wanted the sacrament. Their silent protest lasted about five minutes, until the congregation rose to hear the announcements and the benediction before being dismissed.

The Rainbow Sash Alliance says that by wearing the sash, members "publicly claim our place at Christ's table, sacramentally expressing the truth in our lives, and calling the church to embrace a new day of integrity and freedom."

Organizer Brian McNeill wrote to Flynn last month, explaining that the sashes are a symbol "to celebrate the gift of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sexuality."

Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are "more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching," declaring that it has never been acceptable "to use the reception of communion as an act of protest."
Parishioner Larry Pavlicek was not sympathetic. As a divorced man, he said he has to live with the church's teaching that he cannot remarry and cannot have sex outside of marriage.

"If you're going to be a Catholic, either live with it or call yourself something different," he said. "They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years."

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said Flynn made the decision to deny communion after a cardinal asked U.S. bishops to adopt a consistent policy on the sashes. Catholics in Chicago and other cities such as Melbourne, Australia, have also worn sashes. Some have been denied communion, others have not.

Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.

[Nightfyre]

It's the right of the church to deny their members benefits. :shrug:

[Baby Lee]

IMO this is over the top.
Which side/aspect/part?

[unlurking]

It's the right of the church to deny their members benefits. :shrug:
Agreed. I don't think it's the right way to handle it, but I won't fault the Church for this one. This why there are so many different faiths IMO. Choose the drive-thru that offers you what you want. Go somewhere else where you can get it "your way".

[mlyonsd]

Which side/aspect/part?

I guess I see the Catholic church as being selective on which sins they'll forgive.

For example, we all know in the last election there was talk of not giving communion to politicians that supported abortion rights. Fine. I can see that one.

But you'll never see the church deny communion to members that use artificial means to become pregnant. I understand it's a different issue entirely but at the same time it's against church doctrine to mess with the miracle of life. Kind of hypocritical in my book.

Not allowing an abortion right supporter take communion is one thing, but IMHO doing the same thing to a gay rights supporter is going too far. Especially when they let so many other "sinners" continue to take it.

BTW, I'm a non-practicing Catholic so I understand I'm biased.

[Mr. Kotter]

I guess I see the Catholic church as being selective on which sins they'll forgive.

For example, we all know in the last election there was talk of not giving communion to politicians that supported abortion rights. Fine. I can see that one.

But you'll never see the church deny communion to members that use artificial means to become pregnant. I understand it's a different issue entirely but at the same time it's against church doctrine to mess with the miracle of life. Kind of hypocritical in my book.

Not allowing an abortion right supporter take communion is one thing, but IMHO doing the same thing to a gay rights supporter is going too far. Especially when they let so many other "sinners" continue to take it.

BTW, I'm a non-practicing Catholic so I understand I'm biased.

I understand what you are saying.

From my perspective, it's the "in-your-face" political statement of the sashes that's the issue here. My guess is communion was given to those who may have shared the views of those wearing the sashes...but kept that thought to themselves.

It's one thing to use contraception, in difiance of church teachings; it's another to flip-off the Church and the priest (for all to see) during communion.

[jspchief]

Why are the people in sashes attending that church anyway? It seems obvious the church has a different set of beliefs. Wouldn't you just attend a church that supports your beliefs?

[Baby Lee]

Not allowing an abortion right supporter take communion is one thing, but IMHO doing the same thing to a gay rights supporter is going too far. Especially when they let so many other "sinners" continue to take it.
Perhaps if the other 'sinners' were wearing sashes proclaiming how porud and supportive they were of their particular 'sin.'

Don't imagine they'd offer communion to the contingent who came in wearing sashes saying "I love cheating on my wife with my secretary."

[mlyonsd]

Perhaps if the other 'sinners' were wearing sashes proclaiming how porud and supportive they were of their particular 'sin.'
Yea I hear what you're saying. For some reason I just find it petty.

jspchief probably has the best take on it though....if the parishoners don't believe in the teachings of the church why support it?

That's mostly why I'm non-practicing.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I guess I see the Catholic church as being selective on which sins they'll forgive.

For example, we all know in the last election there was talk of not giving communion to politicians that supported abortion rights. Fine. I can see that one.

But you'll never see the church deny communion to members that use artificial means to become pregnant. I understand it's a different issue entirely but at the same time it's against church doctrine to mess with the miracle of life. Kind of hypocritical in my book.

Not allowing an abortion right supporter take communion is one thing, but IMHO doing the same thing to a gay rights supporter is going too far. Especially when they let so many other "sinners" continue to take it.

BTW, I'm a non-practicing Catholic so I understand I'm biased.

As a Catholic (non practicing or not), you have to know what the policy of the church is regarding homosexuality. The question isn't "why wouldn't they allow homo supporters to eat and drink at the Lord's Table?" but instead "Why in the world WOULD they?".

[Baby Lee]

Yea I hear what you're saying. For some reason I just find it petty.
I'm not Catholic, but my tradition charges those who dispense Communion with refraining from dispensing to those who do not approach the sacrament with a repentant and contrite heart.

[mlyonsd]

The question isn't "why wouldn't they allow homo supporters to eat and drink at the Lord's Table?" but instead "Why in the world WOULD they?".

Cause I'm guessing back in Jesus's day he would have.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'm not Catholic, but my tradition charges those who dispense Communion with refraining from dispensing to those who do not approach the sacrament with a repentant and contrite heart.

BINGO!!!! The Holy Sacrament is not some obscure gesture or symbology to be mocked.

[mlyonsd]

I'm not Catholic, but my tradition charges those who dispense Communion with refraining from dispensing to those who do not approach the sacrament with a repentant and contrite heart.

Like I said, maybe it's time they quit going to church. Pull back the purse strings and I'll be the church will compromise.

[Baby Lee]

Like I said, maybe it's time they quit going to church. Pull back the purse strings and I'll be the church will compromise.
A church that compromises, there's a word for that. Apostasy.
I don't bebrudge a church that decides it'd rather keep up with the times than stand on it's principles, but call it what it is, a social circle, not a religion.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Cause I'm guessing back in Jesus's day he would have.

I highly doubt that. If they were seeking forgiveness for their transgression and expressing a willingness to give it up, then yes. They would have been welcomed with open arms. It is the motive of the heart that must be examined here. People who go into the church wearing sashes to support a sin the LORD GOD destroyed two cities over are simply mocking GOD. They should be denied the Sacrament until their heart is in the right place.

[Mr. Kotter]

Cause I'm guessing back in Jesus's day he would have.

To be forgiven, doesn't one need to repent....and "go and sin no more?" I don't remember Jesus embracing unrepentent sinners.... :shrug:

[Mr. Kotter]

I highly doubt that. If they were seeking forgiveness for their transgression and expressing a willingness to give it up, then yes. They would have been welcomed with open arms. It is the motive of the heart that must be examined here. People who go into the church wearing sashes to support a sin the LORD GOD destroyed two cities over are simply mocking GOD. They should be denied the Sacrament until their heart is in the right place.

You beat me to it...

[Simplex3]

Don't imagine they'd offer communion to the contingent who came in wearing sashes saying "I love cheating on my wife with my secretary."
Can I get one of those on ebay?

As for this whole ordeal, it was their right to wear the sashes, it was the priest's right to not give them communion. Where the hell is the problem here?

[Braincase]

Child molesters, please come to the front ahead of these losers that fathered or mothered gay children. How dare they think they're entitled after raising children to make such an unnatural choice. You, alter boy! Meet me in my chambers later!

[Mr. Kotter]

Child molesters, please come to the front ahead of these losers that fathered or mothered gay children. How dare they think they're entitled after raising children to make such an unnatural choice. You, alter boy! Meet me in my chambers later!

Let's caricature all priests by the actions of a sick and twisted few?

Should we label all homosexuals by the actions of their extremist nutcases?

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

[mlyonsd]

A church that compromises, there's a word for that. Apostasy.
I don't bebrudge a church that decides it'd rather keep up with the times than stand on it's principles, but call it what it is, a social circle, not a religion.

I know you're trying but I just don't see it. Ban gays from taking communion as a matter of principle but not providing it to those that don't practice homosexuality and are wearing sashes for the purpose of inclusion is just being petty in my book.

Especially when pro-choice members are allowed to take communion. I find that to be very hypocritical.

[Mr. Kotter]

...Especially when pro-choice members are allowed to take communion. I find that to be very hypocritical.

"Pro Choice" supporters wearing a sash would be excluded as well....it's the in-your-face "protest" that equates to flippin' the Church and the priest a bird you seem to be missing...

[mlyonsd]

To be forgiven, doesn't one need to repent....and "go and sin no more?" I don't remember Jesus embracing unrepentent sinners.... :shrug:

What sin have these people committed? They aren't partaking in the act, just asking for inclusion for those that do.

I don't see that being a sin. But like I said, I'm non-practicing so I'm not up with the rulebook.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I know you're trying but I just don't see it. Ban gays from taking communion as a matter of principle but not providing it to those that don't practice homosexuality and are wearing sashes for the purpose of inclusion is just being petty in my book.

Especially when pro-choice members are allowed to take communion. I find that to be very hypocritical.

Do the Pro-Murder crowd wear sashes to church stating such? If so, they would be justifiably denied as well.

[Mr. Kotter]

So should Pro-Rapist and Pro-Murder parishners who wear a sash also be permitted to take communion?

[Mr. Kotter]

Do the Pro-Murder crowd wear sashes to church stating such? If so, they would be justifiably denied as well.

Damn it, you are about 2 minutes ahead of me today! :banghead:

[CHIEF4EVER]

What sin have these people committed? They aren't partaking in the act, just asking for inclusion for those that do.

I don't see that being a sin. But like I said, I'm non-practicing so I'm not up with the rulebook.

You are splitting hairs in an effort to justify an untenable position. WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THEIR HEARTS?

[mlyonsd]

"Pro Choice" supporters wearing a sash would be excluded as well....it's the in-your-face "protest" that equates to flippin' the Church and the priest a bird you seem to be missing...

No I get it.....I just don't accept it.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Damn it, you are about 2 minutes ahead of me today! :banghead:

:p

GOD bless you Mr K

[Iowanian]

Non-Catholics might not have the same view, but ironically, its interesting that This group throws a hissy when they can't recieve communion.

There are several things for which you aren't supposed to recieve communion. An example would be, that when Brideowanian were living together before we got hitched, I didn't take communion. If you're divorced, without an Anullment and some stuff in the church....not supposed to take communion. If you support Abortion.....not supposed to take communion. I understood that I was doing something against church teaching, and respected that doctrine until we were married.

It has to do with knowingly doing things that violate doctrine, without trying to do better or something. The Church has doctrine and rules. We have the Choice to follow them, or join another congregation. Its that simple.

These people could have these feelings and be allowed communion. When they choose to rub the Church's nose in it, the Church has the right, and maybe duty to deny them Communion.

They weren't told they were going to hell, they weren't thrown out of the church, they weren't asked to leave the building, they weren't lambasted or shunned..........They were allowed to go up, like everyone else who qualifies for communion, and recieve a special blessing(like some people do for their children who haven't had first communion, or members who aren't yet Catholic).

[Mr. Kotter]

No I get it.....I just don't accept it.

So you think parishoners ought to be able to flip the bird to the Priest and the Church?

[mlyonsd]

WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THEIR HEARTS?

Yes, they disagree with the church. They feel homosexuals are their equals, created by God, and should be afforded the kingdom of heaven just like the rest of you schmuks.

Somewhat more innocent then someone that is pro-choice IMO.

[Baby Lee]

What sin have these people committed? They aren't partaking in the act, just asking for inclusion for those that do.

I don't see that being a sin. But like I said, I'm non-practicing so I'm not up with the rulebook.
They're not asking for inclusion. They're advocating the position that it is not a sin.
You have to come to terms with the difference between sinning on a daily basis, yet managing to come to the Sacrament repentant and contrite about all of your sins in order to renew your commitment to God and his commandments, and coming to the sacrament unrepentant and unwilling to recognize your sin as sin.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Yes, they disagree with the church. They feel homosexuals are their equals, created by God, and should be afforded the kingdom of heaven just like the rest of you schmuks.

Somewhat more innocent then someone that is pro-choice IMO.

Yes, but their hearts are in the wrong places sir. Supporting an obvious affront to our Creator GOD is in itself REBELLION. In this case, they need to back up, reexamine WHAT they truly believe, and approach the altar with humility and penitence (sans the sashes) and they will be afforded the fruits of the Lords Table.

[mlyonsd]

So you think parishoners ought to be able to flip the bird to the Priest and the Church?

Well those are your words. I'm not saying the church doesn't have the right to refuse them communion.

I'm saying they are picking a petty way of fighting back.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well those are your words. I'm not saying the church doesn't have the right to refuse them communion.

I'm saying they are picking a petty way of fighting back.

Fair enough. If I were the priest, that's how I'd view those sashes.

[Iowanian]

Like I said, there are many other things, that a devout Catholic would choose not to recieve communion for that are less blatant.

It seems like the holiest old gals are more likely to not on a given week, because of something they percieve to be a violation. I suppose it has to do with "little things" being a "bigger thing" to those with less Sin.

Its kind of like when I used to go to confession and basically say "I'm bad, I've been fornicating women with reckless abandon, I said alot of dirty words, was mean to some people and kicked a chicken for sport"

whereas my grandmother, may have confessed for "thinking someone who cut her off was a doodoo head"

[mlyonsd]

They're not asking for inclusion. They're advocating the position that it is not a sin.
You have to come to terms with the difference between sinning on a daily basis, yet managing to come to the Sacrament repentant and contrite about all of your sins in order to renew your commitment to God and his commandments, and coming to the sacrament unrepentant and unwilling to recognize your sin as sin.

Ok, I can buy that. Maybe that's why I'm non-practicing. I never understood all the rules and if you didn't agree with one you were a sinner.

That was ok though, cause all you had to do was go to confession and you could get absolved for most any sin. Funny system.

[Baby Lee]

Well those are your words. I'm not saying the church doesn't have the right to refuse them communion.

I'm saying they are picking a petty way of fighting back.
They're not FIGHTING anything. They are preserving the Sacrament for the edification of those who came there in the correct posture to receive it.
Insisting on receiving Communion while refusing to be contrite and repentant is literally the equivalent of the turd in the punch bowl. Ruins everyone's punch.

[Iowanian]

Communion is a pretty darn Holy Sacrament in the eyes of Catholics. That is why, it is withheld when the Church feels you aren't actually at least "trying" or repentant for your sin. that is why its being protected by the Church, and contrary to the beliefs of many non-Catholics...the Church has the Right, and the DUTY to protect their doctrine. As followers, we have the choice to try to follow them, or find another church.

I'm far from the best example of what a Catholic should be.....but I do try, harder now than in years past.

Its ok to do something wrong, but if you have no intention of correcting it, its not.

As for Confession....Christ Himself, and several places in the bible mention the reasons for that. I'm not a scripture quoter by any means.....but there is reasoning behind it....its not just some "catholic invented get out of jail free" card.


I wonder how the Baptists down the road would act if I walked in on sunday with some Bermuda Shorts, flip flops and a "do me not drugs" tee shirt for their sunday service?

[mlyonsd]

They're not FIGHTING anything. They are preserving the Sacrament for the edification of those who came there in the correct posture to receive it.
Insisting on receiving Communion while refusing to be contrite and repentant is literally the equivalent of the turd in the punch bowl. Ruins everyone's punch.

All right, all right, I got it! The God Squad has done it's job. :)

[CHIEF4EVER]

Communion is a pretty darn Holy Sacrament in the eyes of Catholics. That is why, it is withheld when the Church feels you aren't actually at least "trying" or repentant for your sin. that is why its being protected by the Church, and contrary to the beliefs of many non-Catholics...the Church has the Right, and the DUTY to protect their doctrine. As followers, we have the choice to try to follow them, or find another church.

I'm far from the best example of what a Catholic should be.....but I do try, harder now than in years past.

Its ok to do something wrong, but if you have no intention of correcting it, its not.

As for Confession....Christ Himself, and several places in the bible mention the reasons for that. I'm not a scripture quoter by any means.....but there is reasoning behind it....its not just some "catholic invented get out of jail free" card.


I wonder how the Baptists down the road would act if I walked in on sunday with some Bermuda Shorts, flip flops and a "do me not drugs" tee shirt for their sunday service?

I'm Lutheran, but our view of the Holy Sacrament is almost exaxtly the same as Catholics.

[Baby Lee]

All right, all right, I got it! The God Squad has done it's job. :)
I'm not trying to fight you either.
I'm just trying to help you understand what is actually going on, as opposed to a secular rewriting of what appears to be going on. It's not some showdown between 'good' people and 'bad' people.
Those who dispense and those who partake of Communion each have a sacred duty to honor the Sacrament. And if some people are not willing to honor those duties, they need to be excluded from the Sacrament to preserve it's holiness for those who are.
It's not personal, and the parties are free to minister and dialog 'til the cows come home before and after. And congregants are free to advocate whatever changes they feel appropriate.
But this time, when people are inviting a renewal of their covenant with God, is a sacred and solemn time that needs to be respected.

[mlyonsd]

As for Confession....Christ Himself, and several places in the bible mention the reasons for that. I'm not a scripture quoter by any means.....but there is reasoning behind it....its not just some "catholic invented get out of jail free" card.



I'm going on record as saying my intention wasn't to mock the Catholic religion. I was merely pointing out I couldn't adhere to it's rules and decided the best thing for me was to quit the church.

I think all religion is a way of man coping with things he doesn't understand. If it comforts them while going through this life all the power to 'em.

Unless of course you try and forice your religion on someone else....that I have a huge problem with.

[mlyonsd]

I'm not trying to fight you either.
I'm just trying to help you understand what is actually going on, as opposed to a secular rewriting of what appears to be going on. It's not some showdown between 'good' people and 'bad' people.
Those who dispense and those who partake of Communion each have a sacred duty to honor the Sacrament. And if some people are not willing to honor those duties, they need to be excluded from the Sacrament to preserve it's holiness for those who are.
It's not personal, and the parties are free to minister and dialog 'til the cows come home before and after. And congregants are free to advocate whatever changes they feel appropriate.
But this time, when people are inviting a renewal of their covenant with God, is a sacred and solemn time that needs to be respected.

I was lost but now I'm found.

In essence you guys are saying they did what they had to do. Me seeing it as misguided is my problem.

[Laz]

I guess I see the Catholic church as being selective on which sins they'll forgive
they have been for a long time

they pick,choose and interpret the bible how it's convenience for them.


"gay" has been the top sin for a long time



a priest that molests a small boy is forgiven ... gay is not. :shrug:

[Brock]

People who don't believe what the Catholic church preaches probably shouldn't be Catholics.

[|Zach|]

I don't agree with this but I also don't have a problem with it. The church can make decide whatever they want. Its their church.

[memyselfI]

IMO this is over the top.


Priest Denies Gay Supporters Communion
Sunday, May 15, 2005
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

ST. PAUL, Minn. — A Roman Catholic (search (javascript:siteSearch('Roman Catholic');)) priest denied communion (search (javascript:siteSearch('communion');)) to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics.

Before offering communion, the Rev. Michael Sklucazek (search (javascript:siteSearch('Rev. Michael Sklucazek');)) told the congregation at the Cathedral of St. Paul (search (javascript:siteSearch('Cathedral of St. Paul');)) that anyone wearing a sash could come forward for a blessing but would not receive wine and bread.

A group called the Rainbow Sash Alliance (search (javascript:siteSearch('Rainbow Sash Alliance');)) has encouraged supporters to wear the multicolored fabric bands since 2001 on each Pentecost Sunday, the day Catholics believe the Holy Spirit came to give power to Christians soon after Jesus ascended to heaven. But Sunday's service was the first time they had been denied communion at the altar.

Archbishop Harry Flynn (search (javascript:siteSearch('Archbishop Harry Flynn');)) told the group earlier this month that they would not receive communion because the sashes had become a protest against church teaching.

Sister Gabriel Herbers said she wore a sash to show sympathy for the gay and lesbian community. Their sexual orientation "is a gift from God just as much as my gift of being a female is," she said.

Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. "As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed," she said.

While other parishioners sat or kneeled after going to the altar, sash-wearers remained standing with their hands cupped as a symbol they still wanted the sacrament. Their silent protest lasted about five minutes, until the congregation rose to hear the announcements and the benediction before being dismissed.

The Rainbow Sash Alliance says that by wearing the sash, members "publicly claim our place at Christ's table, sacramentally expressing the truth in our lives, and calling the church to embrace a new day of integrity and freedom."

Organizer Brian McNeill wrote to Flynn last month, explaining that the sashes are a symbol "to celebrate the gift of our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sexuality."

Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are "more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching," declaring that it has never been acceptable "to use the reception of communion as an act of protest."
Parishioner Larry Pavlicek was not sympathetic. As a divorced man, he said he has to live with the church's teaching that he cannot remarry and cannot have sex outside of marriage.

"If you're going to be a Catholic, either live with it or call yourself something different," he said. "They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years."

Archdiocese spokesman Dennis McGrath said Flynn made the decision to deny communion after a cardinal asked U.S. bishops to adopt a consistent policy on the sashes. Catholics in Chicago and other cities such as Melbourne, Australia, have also worn sashes. Some have been denied communion, others have not.

Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.

Good, I hope these whack job Priests keep showing their true colors and the world's largest cult is exposed for the fraud it is.

[Mr. Kotter]

Good, I hope these whack job Priests keep showing their true colors and the world's largest cult is exposed for the fraud it is.

From a whack job who would know....heh.

[Pitt Gorilla]

To be forgiven, doesn't one need to repent....and "go and sin no more?" I don't remember Jesus embracing unrepentent sinners.... :shrug:
How are these people sinning?

[mlyonsd]

How are these people sinning?

Oh oh, you asked for it.

[Mr. Kotter]

How are these people sinning?

THEY are not; but they are supporting "sin" (at least according to the Catholic Church)....it's akin to me wearing a sash to church, as a part of a coordinated protest, that says I'm "Pro-Adultery."

It's a church--a private organization. Don't they get to decide their own procedures and rules, just like any other such organization? Sexual orientation isn't a protected classification under the 1964 Civil Rights Act....at least not yet. :shrug:

[Brock]

How are these people sinning?

Unbelievably dense.

[Loki]

Good, I hope these whack job Priests keep showing their true colors and the world's largest cult is exposed for the fraud it is.

nice one.

i'm not even a practicing catholic and you've hit a new low for me.
:shake:

keep dropping that bar... you'll hit rock bottom soon enough.

[DanT]

The RainbowSashAlliance has the text of the letters exchanged between their group and Archbiship Flynn on their website. Here's Archbishop Flynn's letter:

http://www.rainbowsashallianceusa.org


May 2, 2005

Mr. Brian McNeil
Rainbow Sash Alliance USA
3123 22nd Ave S.
Minneapolis, MN 55407

Dear Mr. McNeil,

You first wrote to me in 2001 about the presence of people wearing the "rainbow sash" to Masses in the Cathedral of Saint Paul. Because you assured me that the act of wearing such a sash was not a denial of church teaching, I have not interfered with anyone's desire to receive Holy Communion.

Brian, it has become apparent to me that the wearing of the sash is more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching. Such a perception has been heightened by the explicit statements to this end made in other parts of the United States. Locally, people wearing the sash did not honor Father Talbot's request to remove the sash prior to receiving the Eucharist. Brian, the fact that you personally chose to confront Father Talbot after that Mass confirms the adversarial nature of your appearance at the Mass. Finally, the Vatican has communicated to me that it does indeed consider the wearing of the Rainbow Sash during reception of Communion to be unacceptable, a directive that I believe all Bishops will adhere to.

Therefore, this is to notify you and the other members of the Minnesota Rainbow Sash group that I am asking you to remove your sashes before you receive Holy Communion. I ask you to observe this sign of respect for the Eucharist not only in the Cathedral but in all our parishes. No one wearing the sash will be permitted to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the stated policy of the Catholic Church and of this Archdiocese is to be welcoming to baptized Catholics of all backgrounds, including those with same sex orientation. The criterion for reception of the Eucharist is the same for all - recipients must be in a state of Grace and free from Mortal sin. While the decision for that judgment rests with an individual Catholic's conscience, it has never been nor is it now acceptable for a communicant to use the reception of Communion as an act of protest.

Brian, in the past you have assured me of your desire to advance the unity of the Church. Counting on that, I trust that you and your members will honor my request. I invite you not to use Pentecost as a cause celebre that creates further disruption and damages the communion of our Church.

With blessings and good wishes, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Harry H. Flynn, D.D.
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

A very important aspect of our celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is the unity of the Church that it displays. It's not an appropriate place for a protest. A Catechism of the Church can be found here (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc_cont.html). Here's one of the paragraphs (#1325) from the section on the Sacrament of the Eucharist:


1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."[136]

[vailpass]

Good, I hope these whack job Priests keep showing their true colors and the world's largest cult is exposed for the fraud it is.

How is this going to expose Scientology?

[Pitt Gorilla]

Unbelievably dense.I suppose I am; I didn't know that wearing a ribbon was considered a sin. Perhaps you could cease with the insults long enough to actually engage in the discussion?

[Pitt Gorilla]

THEY are not; but they are supporting "sin" (at least according to the Catholic Church)....it's akin to me wearing a sash to church, as a part of a coordinated protest, that says I'm "Pro-Adultery."

It's a church--a private organization. Don't they get to decide their own procedures and rules, just like any other such organization? Sexual orientation isn't a protected classification under the 1964 Civil Rights Act....at least not yet. :shrug:Uh, sure they should decide their own procedures and rules; where did I indicate otherwise? I asked a simple question and you provided an answer. The rest of your response appears to be some sort of a projected argument in which I've yet to engage (or consider, for that matter).

[Iowanian]

I suppose I am; I didn't know that wearing a ribbon was considered a sin. Perhaps you could cease with the insults long enough to actually engage in the discussion?


I'm not in on all the small print of Catholicdom....but "wearing the ribbon" is not a sin and not the issue. Its the fact that wearing that ribbon, publicly supports something that is against church doctrine.

As for the whackjobs like Dense, I don't know how many times one can say that I don't know a single Catholic, who remotely does anything that could be considered support or approval of the Molestation that happend 30+ years ago. But go ahead and keep slingin that sewage.

Many Churches are having former abused come in for workshops and talking to congregations specifically to "begin the healing process".

Reasonable debate can be had, but its easier when there is some symblance of seriousness by those calling for it, instead of the usuall subjects doing the poo-cannonball into the Catholic Pool.

[mlyonsd]

Uh, sure they should decide their own procedures and rules; where did I indicate otherwise? I asked a simple question and you provided an answer. The rest of your response appears to be some sort of a projected argument in which I've yet to engage (or consider, for that matter).

BabyLee explained it very eloquently in posts 40 and 44.

[Brock]

I suppose I am; I didn't know that wearing a ribbon was considered a sin. Perhaps you could cease with the insults long enough to actually engage in the discussion?

what you call "wearing a ribbon", the Church calls "supporting an immoral lifestyle". I didn't realize it was that tough a connection to make.

[Pitt Gorilla]

what you call "wearing a ribbon", the Church calls "supporting an immoral lifestyle". I didn't realize it was that tough a connection to make.So, wearing the ribbon is a sin. I honestly didn't know that. It would seem to me that it's not the wearing of the ribbon that is the problem; it's the thought behind it. Yet, it would also seem that someone could wear the ribbon and NOT support an immoral lifestyle, and it could be, as someone else has already mentioned, that people who received communion DO support the lifestyle but didn't wear the ribbon. Yet, it's the wearing of the ribbon that is the sin. Interesting...

[memyselfI]

nice one.

i'm not even a practicing catholic and you've hit a new low for me.
:shake:

keep dropping that bar... you'll hit rock bottom soon enough.

I hit rock bottom and got out of that 'church'. I'm an X-Catholic and being on the outside looking in you see things that if they were in religions that were not Christ centered most people would be shaking their heads that 1. anyone followed the religion and 2. that it has so much power and control in the world today.

[Brock]

So, wearing the ribbon is a sin. I honestly didn't know that. It would seem to me that it's not the wearing of the ribbon that is the problem; it's the thought behind it. Yet, it would also seem that someone could wear the ribbon and NOT support an immoral lifestyle, and it could be, as someone else has already mentioned, that people who received communion DO support the lifestyle but didn't wear the ribbon. Yet, it's the wearing of the ribbon that is the sin. Interesting...

Why would someone wear the ribbon if not to support the lifestyle?

[vailpass]

I hit rock bottom and got into that 'church'. I'm a Muslim extremist and being on the inside looking out you see things that if they were in religions that were not Allah centered most people would be shaking their heads that 1. anyone followed the religion and 2. that it has so much power and control in the world today.

Fixed.

[Logical]

Why would someone wear the ribbon if not to support the lifestyle?

Because it goes well with their purse?

[vailpass]

Because it goes well with their purse?
ROFL

[Brock]

So, wearing the ribbon is a sin.

You are simply being obtuse.

[Logical]

Because it goes well with their purse?

Now to be serious for a second.

What do you infer with the statement support the lifestyle. I support homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. Does that mean I support the lifestyle. If so I am down with that.

Or do you have to participate to be a ribbon wearer in your opinion. If so I would bet there are a ton of people who wear the ribbons who do not participate.

Do you have to have aids to wear the aids ribbon? If you wear the aids ribbon are you supporting immorality as the only likely ways to get aids is with sinful endeavors for the most part, at least according to Catholic doctrine. Drugs, sex with partners outside a monogamous marital relationship and anal sex.

[Brock]

Now to be serious for a second.

What do you infer with the statement support the lifestyle. I support homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals. Does that mean I support the lifestyle. If so I am down with that.

That is fine. You probably aren't Catholic.

[Logical]

That is fine. You probably aren't Catholic.

Not a practicing Catholic, but I am technically a Catholic, having received the sacraments of Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation and Matrimony in the church.

[Brock]

Not a practicing Catholic, but I am technically a Catholic, having received the sacraments of Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation and Matrimony in the church.

Window dressing. Do you believe in the Catholic religion?

[Mr. Kotter]

Not a practicing Catholic, but I am technically a Catholic, having received the sacraments of Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation and Matrimony in the church.

Wow. You are Catholic like I'm a Democrat. :hmmm:

Not a practicing Democrat, but I am technically a Democrat, having been indoctrinated in the sacraments of the welfare state, the race card, class warfare, demagoguery, and secular humanism in the party.

Someone along, I decided to think for myself though, rather than accept the talking points the party sends out....as gospel. Go figure. :shrug:

[DanT]

Wow. You are Catholic like I'm a Democrat. :hmmm:

Not a practicing Democrat, but I am technically a Democrat, having been indoctrinated in the sacraments of the welfare state, the race card, class warfare, demagoguery, and secular humanism in the party.

Someone along, I decided to think for myself though, rather than accept the talking points the party sends out....as gospel. Go figure. :shrug:

ROFL

[Logical]

Window dressing. Do you believe in the Catholic religion?You know the answer. I just wanted to point out that I have enough experience in the Catholic church to know the ribbon is just an excuse.

[Brock]

You know the answer. I just wanted to point out that I have enough experience in the Catholic church to know the ribbon is just an excuse.

IYO.

[Logical]

IYO.

Well yes, is that not what we mostly do on this BB. Express our opinions?

[Braincase]

Let's caricature all priests by the actions of a sick and twisted few?

Should we label all homosexuals by the actions of their extremist nutcases?

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

To remind a few folks - I am Catholic.

[Mr. Kotter]

To remind a few folks - I am Catholic.

That's really irrelevant to my point. Should we caricature all homosexuals too?

[vailpass]

... Should we caricature all homosexuals too?

Yes let's do. It may not be fair but it's damn funny.

[Brock]

Well yes, is that not what we mostly do on this BB. Express our opinions?

Let's be clear. You are speculating on the motives of the Church representative, while anyone with no particular bias can clearly see why things happened the way they did.

[vailpass]

You know the answer. I just wanted to point out that I have enough experience in the Catholic church to know the ribbon is just an excuse.


Since when does a church need an exscuse to practice it's beliefs? You have made it clear that you hold some sort of bitter feelings against the church of your youth.
Do you think it's possible that you are letting your emotions cloud your judgement on this issue?

[Logical]

Let's be clear. You are speculating on the motives of the Church representative, while anyone with no particular bias can clearly see why things happened the way they did.

LOL there is not a human alive with no bias. I saw the qualifier "particular" but if you are on one side or the other in even the slightest way you are biased. That last statement seems to be a very Jettio like proclamation. How can you realistically support that viewpoint.

Did that individual want to use an excuse to select an easily definable method to parse out supporters of homosexuals. Yes. Is it really a sin to support homosexuals, not anywhere that I can find in historical religious teachings. Even Catholics believe in love the sinner and hate the sin.

[Logical]

Since when does a church need an exscuse to practice it's beliefs? You have made it clear that you hold some sort of bitter feelings against the church of your youth.
Do you think it's possible that you are letting your emotions cloud your judgement on this issue?

They don't, I agree with that. If they want to be biased and discrimanatory it is a common religious practice. No reason not to cast aspersions on their bad behavior just because they have a US empowered right to those behaviors.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Let's be clear. You are speculating on the motives of the Church representative, while anyone with no particular bias can clearly see why things happened the way they did.No particular bias? You surely aren't that dumb.

[Brock]

No particular bias? You surely aren't that dumb.

I'm obviously smarter than you, since I understand what Catholic doctrine says.

[Brock]

LOL there is not a human alive with no bias. I saw the qualifier "particular" but if you are on one side or the other in even the slightest way you are biased. That last statement seems to be a very Jettio like proclamation. How can you realistically support that viewpoint.

Did that individual want to use an excuse to select an easily definable method to parse out supporters of homosexuals. Yes. Is it really a sin to support homosexuals, not anywhere that I can find in historical religious teachings. Even Catholics believe in love the sinner and hate the sin.

I have no bias regarding the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic, nor do I have an axe to grind with them, as you and DEnise do.

[memyselfI]

Not a practicing Catholic, but I am technically a Catholic, having received the sacraments of Baptism, Confession, Communion, Confirmation and Matrimony in the church.

Well, you know what they say...

you can take the boy/girl out of Catholicism but cannot take the Catholicism out of the boy/girl. :banghead:

I've been rebaptized in a different church in an attempt to try to cleanse myself of it. Still, I have all of the same save for the matrimony as you do. That is alot of history to try to erase.

[memyselfI]

Fixed.

Nope, I find Muslim extremism and Catholicism/Christian fundamentalism to be two sides of the same despicable coin. Sorry, you can't paint me with either dysfunction.

[Brock]

Well, you know what they say...

you can take the boy/girl out of Catholicism but cannot take the Catholicism out of the boy/girl. :banghead:

I've been rebaptized in a different church in an attempt to try to cleanse myself of it. Still, I have all of the same save for the matrimony as you do. That is alot of history to try to erase.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

[stevieray]

Nope, I find Muslim extremism and Catholicism to be two sides of the same despicable coin. Sorry. You can't paint me with either dysfunction.


But you can "paint" anyone how you choose?

[KCWolfman]

Child molesters, please come to the front ahead of these losers that fathered or mothered gay children. How dare they think they're entitled after raising children to make such an unnatural choice. You, alter boy! Meet me in my chambers later!
Funny, I don't remember your extremism when it comes to homosexuality? No Jeffrey Dahmer jokes about killing innocent homosexuals? No Bob Bordella jokes about torturing innocent gays?

I guess you are about as selective with your disdain as the Catholic Church is. At least they have a written belief to abide.

[Braincase]

Funny, I don't remember your extremism when it comes to homosexuality? No Jeffrey Dahmer jokes about killing innocent homosexuals? No Bob Bordella jokes about torturing innocent gays?

I guess you are about as selective with your disdain as the Catholic Church is. At least they have a written belief to abide.

I'll be as selective as I like, thank you very much. Free Will is a powerful thing.

[GoChiefs]

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't catholics, by defintion, HETEROsexual?

[Boozer]

Forgive my ignorance, but aren't catholics, by defintion, HETEROsexual?

No, there are many homosexual Catholics. Provided we define sexual orientation by preference, not acts, I'm not aware of anything in Roman Catholic theology that would exclude homosexuals from membership. Aside from that, I’m sure there are numerous practicing homosexuals who are members of Roman Catholic churches.

[KCWolfman]

I'll be as selective as I like, thank you very much. Free Will is a powerful thing.
So is hypocrisy.

[GoChiefs]

No, there are many homosexual Catholics. Provided we define sexual orientation by preference, not acts, I'm not aware of anything in Roman Catholic theology that would exclude homosexuals from membership. Aside from that, I’m sure there are numerous practicing homosexuals who are members of Roman Catholic churches.

So it's okay to be gay if you're a catholic, as long as you don't do it in the butt (forgive my callous nature)?

[Boozer]

So it's okay to be gay if you're a catholic, as long as you don't do it in the butt (forgive my callous nature)?

I believe that to be correct. FWIW (and take this with a grain of salt, since this is remembered from a Catholic newspaper one of my college roommates received, and this was a couple of years ago that I read it), I believe that "official church doctrine" is that homosexuals are born as such (or at least don't choose their proclivities) and should be accepted for who they are, but same-sex sexual activities are nonetheless verboten.

If I’m mistaken on this, I’m sure DanT will be along shortly to quote chapter and verse from official church documents.

[GoChiefs]

That's actually pretty cool of 'em.

[Boozer]

That's actually pretty cool of 'em.

Who knows. I saw that the Vatican recently canned the Editor-in-Chief of some American Catholic publication for inspiring too much debate regarding church policies, it's possible that they canned the editor of the publication from which I gleaned that information, possibly for spreading nonsense like "gays should be welcome in our church so long as they don't assf*ck."

[Logical]

I have no bias regarding the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic, nor do I have an axe to grind with them, as you and DEnise do.

OK answer this question, if you have no bias, why are you arguing a position that supports this Priest and the Catholic church over people who support homosexual rights? Sure seems like a bias to me.

bias 3: : an inclination of temperament or outlook

[Logical]

But you can "paint" anyone how you choose?

You know DEnise has many, many flaws but I cannot recall her having an inclination to paint anyone anything other than how they have stated they want to be painted. I really feel that is an unfair and innacurate accusation.

[Logical]

That's actually pretty cool of 'em.

Actually it is a fairly common for Christians not just Catholics It is a doctrine based on love the sinner but hate the sin. (giving credit where credit is due)

[Pitt Gorilla]

I have no bias regarding the Catholic church. Interesting; somehow, you have no perspective on an issue that you are discussing. Enlighten me as to how that is even theoretically possible, oh smart one.

[jspchief]

Shouldn't you attend a church that has beliefs that align with yours?

If you don't like that particular chuches' stance on the issue, go to a different church. That seems like a very basic idea, regardless of what the issue at hand is.

It's like a Muslim attending a christian church, all the while protesting their stance on Allah. Sounds like they are more concerned with picking a fight than anything else.

[KCWolfman]

Shouldn't you attend a church that has beliefs that align with yours?

If you don't like that particular chuches' stance on the issue, go to a different church. That seems like a very basic idea, regardless of what the issue at hand is.

It's like a Muslim attending a christian church, all the while protesting their stance on Allah. Sounds like they are more concerned with picking a fight than anything else.
That's pretty much it.

"We're Here! We're Queer, give us Communion or we will cry in our beer!"

[Logical]

Shouldn't you attend a church that has beliefs that align with yours?

If you don't like that particular chuches' stance on the issue, go to a different church. That seems like a very basic idea, regardless of what the issue at hand is.

It's like a Muslim attending a christian church, all the while protesting their stance on Allah. Sounds like they are more concerned with picking a fight than anything else.

You do realize that you do not have to belong to any organized religion to find an action practiced by someone or a group objectionable (whether it is religious based practice or secular).

[Logical]

That's pretty much it.

"We're Here! We're Queer, give us Communion or we will cry in our beer!"

So you know for a fact that everyone wearing a sash was a homosexual? That there was not one single person who simply supported homosexual rights by wearing a sash?

[KCWolfman]

So you know for a fact that everyone wearing a sash was a homosexual? That there was not one single person who simply supported homosexual rights by wearing a sash?
Nope, did I say that?


Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are "more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching," declaring that it has never been acceptable "to use the reception of communion as an act of protest."


'nuff said.

[Mr. Kotter]

You do realize that you do not have to belong to any organized religion to find an action practiced by someone or a group objectionable (whether it is religious based practice or secular).

You do realize that you do not have to be offended by any organized religion in finding an action practiced by someone or a group objectionable (whether it is religious based practice or secular).

It's a choice, isn't it? :)

[unlurking]

I agree, leave the church if it offends you. In the American society I have freedom of speech and beliefs and can rail against my government if I believe it is wrong. In a church I either follow their beliefs, or I find one that fits mine.





























BTW, if you are leaving Catholicism, please feel free to join the Church of UnLurking! We will not be undersold for absolution and will meet or beat any price!
;)

[jspchief]

You do realize that you do not have to belong to any organized religion to find an action practiced by someone or a group objectionable (whether it is religious based practice or secular).Of course I do. I'm not the slightest bit religious, and I object to all sorts of things.

But that has nothing to do with this story.

These people have decided to attend a church who's views don't align with theirs, and then protest the difference in opinions. Why? Why wouldn't they just attend a church that subscribes to the same value set as they do?
I guess I thought the point of going to a particular church, or subscribing to a particular religion was that it coincided with what you believe.

Take away "gays" and insert "issue X". Church #1 is against "issue X", I support "issue X". Why would I attend church #1?

[Logical]

Nope, did I say that?


Flynn wrote back to say the sashes are "more and more perceived as a protest against church teaching," declaring that it has never been acceptable "to use the reception of communion as an act of protest."


'nuff said.

Then why make this disgusting remark?

"We're Here! We're Queer, give us Communion or we will cry in our beer!".

Had you simply pointed out what you just pointed out about your support of his position on denying communion instead of that remark, I would not have made the reply I did.

[Logical]

Of course I do. I'm not the slightest bit religious, and I object to all sorts of things.

But that has nothing to do with this story.

These people have decided to attend a church who's views don't align with theirs, and then protest the difference in opinions. Why? Why wouldn't they just attend a church that subscribes to the same value set as they do?
I guess I thought the point of going to a particular church, or subscribing to a particular religion was that it coincided with what you believe.

Take away "gays" and insert "issue X". Church #1 is against "issue X", I support "issue X". Why would I attend church #1?

I guess you are saying you think things should never change, and no one has the right to take action to try and obtain change for practices they do not agree with.

You really believe in love it or leave it that strongly?

[KCWolfman]

Then why make this disgusting remark?



Had you simply pointed out what you just pointed out about your support of his position on denying communion instead of that remark, I would not have made the reply I did.
Disgusting remark?
Oh, you mean like the disgusting remark chanted by the homosexuals in gay day parades, right? I merely took their own statement, Jim. Get over it.

Between this and your horrid interpretation of my statements regarding Vincente Fox, one would think you are trying desperately to pin some sort of racism or prejudism against me.

[stevieray]

You know DEnise has many, many flaws but I cannot recall her having an inclination to paint anyone anything other than how they have stated they want to be painted. I really feel that is an unfair and innacurate accusation.


BS.

[KCWolfman]

I guess you are saying you think things should never change, and no one has the right to take action to try and obtain change for practices they do not agree with.

You really believe in love it or leave it that strongly?
There is a decent way to protest and an improper way to protest. Obviously some of us cannot tell the difference.

[Logical]

You do realize that you do not have to be offended by any organized religion in finding an action practiced by someone or a group objectionable (whether it is religious based practice or secular).

It's a choice, isn't it? :)

Not for a person of principle. I have always assumed you wanted to deny homosexuals based on your principles. Are you saying I was wrong and you simply made a choice?

[KCWolfman]

BS.
Agreed, he is wrong on that point as well.

[GoChiefs]

Flynn? Does anyone else find it ironic this last guy's name is Flynn?

http://images.allposters.com/images/77/039_70240.jpg

[Logical]

Disgusting remark?
Oh, you mean like the disgusting remark chanted by the homosexuals in gay day parades, right? I merely took their own statement, Jim. Get over it.

Between this and your horrid interpretation of my statements regarding Vincente Fox, one would think you are trying desperately to pin some sort of racism or prejudism against me.

You definitely show an infinity to be prejudiced, but everyone does.

[KCWolfman]

You definitely show an infinity to be prejudiced, but everyone does.
You mean affinity?

[Logical]

BS.

Search function is working again, find an example of DEnise labeling anyone in a way they have not labeled themselves.

[GoChiefs]

You mean affinity?

ROFL Owned!

[Logical]

You mean affinity?

Like you meant "prejudice", "prejudism" is not a word. Since you want to play that game.

[stevieray]

Good, I hope these whack job Priests keep showing their true colors and the world's largest cult is exposed for the fraud it is.

[KCWolfman]

.
Hell, you didn't even need the search function.

[Mr. Kotter]

Not for a person of principle. I have always assumed you wanted to deny homosexuals based on your principles. Are you saying I was wrong and you simply made a choice?

"Homophobia" as you want to call it, is akin to religious bigotry I suppose. :hmmm:

[jspchief]

I guess you are saying you think things should never change, and no one has the right to take action to try and obtain change for practices they do not agree with.

You really believe in love it or leave it that strongly?

It's a church, not a political rally. You don't have to enact change, all you have to do is go across the street to the church that has a set of beliefs that align with yours. It's the reason there are 5 billion religious denominations. Everyone can pray to their god in their own way.

Do you think Muslims should go into Christian chuches and and protest that church's stance on Christ or Allah? Do you think Baptists should attend Catholic churches and protest their differences?

Attending church isn't about forcing your beliefs on someone, it's about gathering with a group of people that share those beliefs, and celebrating/revering/having potlucks for them.

[Mr. Kotter]

Nice job, Stevie. Heh.

[Logical]

Originally Posted by memyselfI
Good, I hope these whack job Priests keep showing their true colors and the world's largest cult is exposed for the fraud it is.

I apologize, I should have paid more attention to your use of anyone. I took it to mean posters on this BB and that is not what you wrote.

Again my error.

[stevieray]

I apologize, I should have paid more attention to your use of anyone. I took it to mean posters on this BB and that is not what you wrote.

Again my error.

:clap:

[Logical]

It's a church, not a political rally. You don't have to enact change, all you have to do is go across the street to the church that has a set of beliefs that align with yours. It's the reason there are 5 billion religious denominations. Everyone can pray to their god in their own way.

Do you think Muslims should go into Christian chuches and and protest that church's stance on Christ or Allah? Do you think Baptists should attend Catholic churches and protest their differences?

Attending church isn't about forcing your beliefs on someone, it's about gathering with a group of people that share those beliefs, and celebrating/revering/having potlucks for them.
LOL your example does not fit, these people are Catholics (or at least so the story implies) and are trying to enact change for one aspect of their Church. Now as for me I know that the meglomaniacal institution that is the Catholic church won't be changed, if it could the Church would sanction its boy raping Priests instead of protecting them.

[Mr. Kotter]

I apologize, I should have paid more attention to your use of anyone. I took it to mean posters on this BB and that is not what you wrote.

Again my error.

FTR, she also routinely characterizes ANYONE (on the BB) or otherwise, who dares to agree with Bush and his policies....as RWNJs. Consistently, and routinely.

I suspect those she's designated as such might have difficulty accepting that label. :)

[KCWolfman]

Now as for me I know that the meglomaniacal institution that is the Catholic church won't be changed, if it could the Church would sanction its boy raping Priests instead of protecting them.
You ask me if I have proof that all were gay at the rally, and you come up with this baseless crap?

I think the prejudiced statements are perfectly clear on this thread Jim. It is definitely one of us, and it ain't me.

[Mr. Kotter]

.... the Church would sanction its boy raping Priests instead of protecting them.

Sanction? :rolleyes:

That's pathetic, Jim.

[Logical]

FTR, she also routinely characterizes ANYONE (on the BB) or otherwise, who dares to agree with Bush and his policies....as RWNJs. Consistently, and routinely.

I suspect those she's designated as such might have difficulty accepting that label. :)

Actually I know this to be bullshit, she has never accused me of being a RWNJ, proving your statement to be false.

[Logical]

Sanction? :rolleyes:

That's pathetic, Jim.

I am guessing you are taking the wrong meaning for sanction.

I meant "sanction" as in "punish"

[GoChiefs]

Like you meant "prejudice", "prejudism" is not a word. Since you want to play that game.

Counterpoint Vlad. Score even 1-1.

[KCWolfman]

Actually I know this to be bullshit, she has never accused me of being a RWNJ, proving your statement to be false.
That is horrible logic.


Stevie has never accused me of being from Denver, therefore, no one on this board is from Denver.

[KCWolfman]

I am guessing you are taking the wrong meaning for sanction.

I meant "sanction" as in "punish"
I can see where you meant punish as I go back and read. But, honestly sanction as a verb means to condone or agree, not punish.

You can take sanctions against someone. Sanctions as a noun means a coercive measure or a means to have someone or something change their ways.

[jspchief]

LOL your example does not fit, these people are Catholics (or at least so the story implies) and are trying to enact change for one aspect of their Church. Now as for me I know that the meglomaniacal institution that is the Catholic church won't be changed, if it could the Church would sanction its boy raping Priests instead of protecting them.So if Catholicism doesn't align with their beliefs, why are they Catholic?

I don't think it's common practice to try to force a religion to subscribe to your beliefs.

[Mr. Kotter]

I am guessing you are taking the wrong meaning for sanction.

I meant "sanction" as in "punish"

Thank you for the clarification; I didn't THINK you were that whacked...

[Logical]

You ask me if I have proof that all were gay at the rally, and you come up with this baseless crap?

I think the prejudiced statements are perfectly clear on this thread Jim. It is definitely one of us, and it ain't me.
We have one example right here in SOCAL. A Bishop here knew a Priest that was raping boys in his Church and said nothing to the police for many years until confronted by law enforcement. Same thing happened in Massachussets.
ORANGE COUNTY WEEKLY (http://www.ocweekly.com/county/) ... Local Boy Makes Good-For Child Molesters Former Tucson bishop comes clean about allowing ... critics say the DA goes easy on child-molesting priests. ...

[Mr. Kotter]

Actually I know this to be bullshit, she has never accused me of being a RWNJ, proving your statement to be false.

She's accused PLENTY of the rest of us; that she's spared you...somehow that changes that fact she's done it to others?
:spock:

[KCWolfman]

We have one example right here in San Diego. A Bishop here knew a Priest that was raping boys in his Church and said nothing to the police for many years until confronted by law enforcement. Same thing happened in Massachussets.
And again, I will use your own statement on this thread. You asked if I knew for certain that all the people wearing sashes were gay. Are you stating that the Bishop speaks for the attitude and mentality of the Church? If you are truly Catholic, practicing or not, you know better than that.

Also note, the article says "The DA goes easy on child-molesting priests". So using your own mindset, we must assume that ALL legal prosecutions in the US go easy on child molesting clergy.

[Logical]

From Boston
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/monitor/profiles/profile-2003-12-17.htm

Rhode Island
http://www.tjcesq.com/CM/Articles/Articles25.asp

To the Pope
PEDOPHILE CATHOLIC PRIEST CONFESSED DIRECTLY TO THE POPE IN 1973 ... (http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1656.cfm)

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1656.cfm

[Logical]

And again, I will use your own statement on this thread. You asked if I knew for certain that all the people wearing sashes were gay. Are you stating that the Bishop speaks for the attitude and mentality of the Church? If you are truly Catholic, practicing or not, you know better than that.

Also note, the article says "The DA goes easy on child-molesting priests". So using your own mindset, we must assume that ALL legal prosecutions in the US go easy on child molesting clergy.

How about the Pope?
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1656.cfm

[KCWolfman]

From Boston
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/monitor/profiles/profile-2003-12-17.htm

Rhode Island
http://www.tjcesq.com/CM/Articles/Articles25.asp

To the Pope
PEDOPHILE CATHOLIC PRIEST CONFESSED DIRECTLY TO THE POPE IN 1973 ... (http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1656.cfm)

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1656.cfm
Jim, the last source is beneath you.

Find reliable sources.

[jspchief]

The catholic church has certainly shown a proclivity for turning a blind eye vs taking action.

That being said, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[KCWolfman]

How about the Pope?
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1656.cfm
From a website that states Free Masons are required to deliberately help hide crimes of their brother Masons?

From a website that believes the Illuminati fought the White Magic Vatican into the 20th century?

From a website that states Pope Paul was the Anti-Pope and is the starting point of Revelations?

Come on, Jim. This is getting pathetic.

[Logical]

The catholic church has certainly shown a proclivity for turning a blind eye vs taking action.

That being said, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Sure it does, if you were a member of the Catholic church and objected to that blind eye treatment your suggested approach is to just turn a blind eye as well but leave the Church. Don't attempt to fix the problem.

[KCWolfman]

Sure it does, if you were a member of the Catholic church and objected to that blind eye treatment your suggested approach is to just turn a blind eye as well but leave the Church. Don't attempt to fix the problem.
The problem you are noting is pedophilic actions of individuals representing the Church in an unhealthy, illegally, and unholy manner.

The topic at hand is a defined sin that you believe should be changed to accomodate the masses in the US. While both are good hot button issues, they are not related at all.

[Logical]

From a website that states Free Masons are required to deliberately help hide crimes of their brother Masons?

From a website that believes the Illuminati fought the White Magic Vatican into the 20th century?

From a website that states Pope Paul was the Anti-Pope and is the starting point of Revelations?

Come on, Jim. This is getting pathetic.

OK how about this:

A Vatican Lawyer Says Bishops Should Not Reveal Abuse Claims
VATICAN: The New York Times' Laurie Goodstein reports: (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/national/18BISH.html?tntemail0) "A Vatican lawyer has written an article saying that Roman Catholic bishops should not turn over allegations or records of sexual abuse by priests to the civil authorities..."


Sounds like an official view point.

[jspchief]

Sure it does, if you were a member of the Catholic church and objected to that blind eye treatment your suggested approach is to just turn a blind eye as well but leave the Church. Don't attempt to fix the problem.Bad analogy on several levels. Ignoring child molestors isn't an official stance or part of the catholic doctrines. There is also no crime being committed in the opposition of gays. As far as fixing the problem, I'll leave that to the police.

And if it was their official stance, I think most people would choose to not be a part of that religion. I know I wouldn't (assuming I was a religious person to begin with).

[KCWolfman]

Sure it does, if you were a member of the Catholic church and objected to that blind eye treatment your suggested approach is to just turn a blind eye as well but leave the Church. Don't attempt to fix the problem.
And I note, very Ironic as you stated you are not a practicing Catholic due to many of their tenants.

Isn't your quote above exactly what you have done?

[KCWolfman]

OK how about this:

A Vatican Lawyer Says Bishops Should Not Reveal Abuse Claims
VATICAN: The New York Times' Laurie Goodstein reports: (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/national/18BISH.html?tntemail0) "A Vatican lawyer has written an article saying that Roman Catholic bishops should not turn over allegations or records of sexual abuse by priests to the civil authorities..."


Sounds like an official view point.
Really, I believe the article you are referring to was mentioned here before.

Do you truly believe an "unnamed source" is an official viewpoint? Ms. Goodstein admitted later she could not confirm the statement with anyone else at the Vatican and obviously would not name her source.

Strike Two.

[Logical]

The problem you are noting is pedophilic actions of individuals representing the Church in an unhealthy, illegally, and unholy manner.

The topic at hand is a defined sin that you believe should be changed to accomodate the masses in the US. While both are good hot button issues, they are not related at all.



Yes I am implying that both need to be challenged by Catholics and stopped if at all possible.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Really, I believe the article you are referring to was mentioned here before.

Do you truly believe an "unnamed source" is an official viewpoint? Ms. Goodstein admitted later she could not confirm the statement with anyone else at the Vatican and obviously would not name her source.

Strike Two.Do you have a source for this?
:)

[Logical]

Really, I believe the article you are referring to was mentioned here before.

Do you truly believe an "unnamed source" is an official viewpoint? Ms. Goodstein admitted later she could not confirm the statement with anyone else at the Vatican and obviously would not name her source.

Strike Two.

Wow a journalist following the ethics of her profession, what a heretic. Your second strike is worthless, I just saw you balk.

[KCWolfman]

Yes I am implying that both need to be challenged by Catholics and stopped if at all possible.
I understand the pedophilia remark and I agree with the statement wholeheartedly. I honestly believe that any clergy member engaging in pedophilia needs to simply be executed as I believe all child molesters should be.

However, I find your relationship of the two items to be vague at very best. Also very Ugly American as you believe the largest church on the planet should simply bend to the will of less than 10% homosexuals of the mere 6% of Catholics that comprise the total United States Catholic contingent.

And if you TRULY believe what you have typed above, I would love to here specifically what you have done as an individual to right the wrongs of the Church you profess to belong?

[KCWolfman]

Wow a journalist following the ethics of her profession, what a heretic. Your second strike is worthless, I just saw you balk.
Jim, you said it was "an official viewpoint". You realize you are 100% wrong with that statement and your tangent regarding Ms. Goodstein's supposed integrity is merely an attempt to detract from that, right?

[DanT]

A part of our profession of faith (e.g. the Nicene Creed) as Catholics is a belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic church". I would guess that this is a major reason why many if not most of those in the Rainbow Sash movement are motivated to work for change within the Church instead of going elsewhere.

Here are some paragraphs from one of the Catechisms regarding this aspect of our beliefs:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#ONE

I. THE CHURCH IS ONE


"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)

813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."[259] The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."[260] The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."[261] Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."[262]

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."[263] The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."[264]

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."[265] But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.[266]

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."[267]
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."[268]

[KCWolfman]

A part of our profession of faith (e.g. the Nicene Creed) as Catholics is a belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic church". I would guess that this is a major reason why many if not most of those in the Rainbow Sash movement are motivated to work for change within the Church instead of going elsewhere.

Here are some paragraphs from one of the Catechisms regarding this aspect of our beliefs:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#ONE
There are different ways to motivate change within the Church. This one was obviously inappropriate. And honestly, the change won't occur because of .6% of the Roman Catholic population protesting 5,000 miles from the Vatican. Has the American demands of married priests or allowed contraception changed the Church?

Reasonable discourse with those who are in charge of Church is more appropriate than deliberate antagonistic actions designed to make others uncomfortable during a time designed to sooth the soul as a Holy Sacrament.

[Logical]

Jim, you said it was "an official viewpoint". You realize you are 100% wrong with that statement and your tangent regarding Ms. Goodstein's supposed integrity is merely an attempt to detract from that, right?

Last time I knew Bishops and a Vatican lawyer (most likely a Cardinal) are indeed Church officials. Yes my first strike was a bad site, I should have read more than just the lead in that related the story to the Pope. But I am not going to agree with you that Bishops and Priest are not Church officials.

[DanT]

There are different ways to motivate change within the Church. This one was obviously inappropriate. And honestly, the change won't occur because of .6% of the Roman Catholic population protesting 5,000 miles from the Vatican. Has the American demands of married priests or allowed contraception changed the Church?

Reasonable discourse with those who are in charge of Church is more appropriate than deliberate antagonistic actions designed to make others uncomfortable during a time designed to sooth the soul as a Holy Sacrament.

As I did in post #57 of this thread (1:20 p.m. Pacific time today), I would call such a protest inappropriate.

I'm not sure if the question at the end of your first paragraph was meant to be rhetorical. If not, then I'd answer it by saying that the teachings of the Church regarding those two issues may not have changed in the recent past, but those two issues probably have caused changes within the composition of our church in terms of who attends mass regularly and the affinity/alienation our brothers and sisters feel for the Church and its teachings. I can't speak with much experience about that, though, as I had my confirmation only 7 weeks ago (at this past Easter vigil). :thumb:

[Logical]

There are different ways to motivate change within the Church. This one was obviously inappropriate. And honestly, the change won't occur because of .6% of the Roman Catholic population protesting 5,000 miles from the Vatican. Has the American demands of married priests or allowed contraception changed the Church?

Reasonable discourse with those who are in charge of Church is more appropriate than deliberate antagonistic actions designed to make others uncomfortable during a time designed to sooth the soul as a Holy Sacrament.

I can only say that those approximately 100 people have my respect for not taking this negative aspect of their religion quietly.

[Logical]

...I can't speak with much experience about that, though, as I had my confirmation only 7 weeks ago (at this past Easter vigil). :thumb:Congratulations Dan, knowing your posting style I am sure you have made the decision to pursue religion with a ton of knowledge aforethought.

[KCWolfman]

Last time I knew Bishops and a Vatican lawyer (most likely a Cardinal) are indeed Church officials. Yes my first strike was a bad site, I should have read more than just the lead in that related the story to the Pope. But I am not going to agree with you that Bishops and Priest are not Church officials.
Jim, once more, an unnamed source is not "an official viewpoint".

I am surprised as you would never allow someone else to try such a tact.

[KCWolfman]

As I did in post #57 of this thread (1:20 p.m. Pacific time today), I would call such a protest inappropriate.

I'm not sure if the question at the end of your first paragraph was meant to be rhetorical. If not, then I'd answer it by saying that the teachings of the Church regarding those two issues may not have changed in the recent past, but those two issues probably have caused changes within the composition of our church in terms of who attends mass regularly and the affinity/alienation our brothers and sisters feel for the Church and its teachings. I can't speak with much experience about that, though, as I had my confirmation only 7 weeks ago (at this past Easter vigil). :thumb:
It was rhetorical.

And congrats.

[KCWolfman]

I can only say that those approximately 100 people have my respect for not taking this negative aspect of their religion quietly.
Perceived negative.

And again, what have you done to garner changes in the Church that would earn the respect of others?

[Logical]

Perceived negative.

And again, what have you done to garner changes in the Church that would earn the respect of others?I object personally to almost everything the Catholic church does so I left it. You have to care about something to attempt to change it.

[KCWolfman]

I object personally to almost everything the Catholic church does so I left it. You have to care about something to attempt to change it.
So while you berate others for suggesting leaving the church if you don't like it, that is exactly what you have done?

[Logical]

So while you berate others for suggesting leaving the church if you don't like it, that is exactly what you have done?Well duh!!!

Sorry, I just could not help it.:evil:

[Braincase]

So is hypocrisy.

We all accept some degree of hypocrisy everyday. So my tolerance is set a little looser than yours. Big freakin' surprise there. Yes, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but there's some folks I wouldn't mind seeing dead. Yes, I'm Catholic, and I take issue with some policies of the church. Yes, I'm part of a minority that opposes the constitutional amendment to "protect marriage", and for my own reasons, and I still make gay jokes. Any other part of my personality you want to take issue with? Does my sense of humor bother you? Hate my scalpstyle? Hate that I allow my wife to work outside the home?

[Baby Lee]

The catholic church has certainly shown a proclivity for turning a blind eye vs taking action.

That being said, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
BUT!!!! Vlad wants to WIN!!!! How can he WIN with issue at hand? It's so much more fun to WIN the easy issue.

[Brock]

OK answer this question, if you have no bias, why are you arguing a position that supports this Priest and the Catholic church over people who support homosexual rights? Sure seems like a bias to me.

bias 3: : an inclination of temperament or outlook

Uh, gee, I don't know...perhaps because their position is supported in scripture, which is the basis for their existence in the first place? :rolleyes: I also understand why you left off the rest of the definition of bias. You are a moron who plays the semantic game, and poorly at that.

3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

[BIG_DADDY]

I wonder if he would deny me communion for wearing my new t-shirt.


http://www.thoseshirts.com/diversitybk.html

[memyselfI]

I object personally to almost everything the Catholic church does so I left it. You have to care about something to attempt to change it.

Which, IMO, has alot more integrity and authenticity than being a 'cafeteria' Catholic and going ahead and getting divorced, having premaritial sex, using birth control, sinning up a storm and then confessing and starting over on Monday, etc.... :clap:

[Braincase]

Which, IMO, has alot more integrity and authenticity than being a 'cafeteria' Catholic and going ahead and getting divorced, having premaritial sex, using birth control, sinning up a storm and then confessing and starting over on Monday, etc.... :clap:

I only ever had premarital sex with one woman. I had no intention of marrying any of the others.

[vailpass]

Which, IMO, has alot more integrity and authenticity than being a 'cafeteria' Catholic and going ahead and getting divorced, having premaritial sex, using birth control, sinning up a storm and then confessing and starting over on Monday, etc.... :clap:

Quitters Unite!

Couldn't hack it;
just gave up.

Now outside the doors you howl like a couple of stray cats in the wind: detached and irrelevant.

Bitter, like camel cock.

[Logical]

Uh, gee, I don't know...perhaps because their position is supported in scripture, which is the basis for their existence in the first place? :rolleyes: I also understand why you left off the rest of the definition of bias. You are a moron who plays the semantic game, and poorly at that.

3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

ROFL if you think typing more words changes the meaning and that it somehow describes your actions any less. You are the moron. By the way you just admitted a bias. You are biased towards something supported by scripture. Based on that do you support slavery as well, after all it is supported by scripture.

[Logical]

We all accept some degree of hypocrisy everyday. So my tolerance is set a little looser than yours. Big freakin' surprise there. Yes, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but there's some folks I wouldn't mind seeing dead. Yes, I'm Catholic, and I take issue with some policies of the church. Yes, I'm part of a minority that opposes the constitutional amendment to "protect marriage", and for my own reasons, and I still make gay jokes. Any other part of my personality you want to take issue with? Does my sense of humor bother you? Hate my scalpstyle? Hate that I allow my wife to work outside the home?

Rep :clap:

[Logical]

BUT!!!! Vlad wants to WIN!!!! How can he WIN with issue at hand? It's so much more fun to WIN the easy issue.

Well duh, I want to win, boy there is a shocker. I of course use examples that more simply illustrate the point that is one of the best debating techniques available to us. Thanks for your incredible powers of observation.

[stevieray]

Which, IMO, has alot more integrity and authenticity than being a 'cafeteria' Catholic and going ahead and getting divorced, having premaritial sex, using birth control, sinning up a storm and then confessing and starting over on Monday, etc.... :clap:

Cafeteria Catholic? Why is it you need to create a negative scenario? why is it you have "paint" a picture using people's failures as a reason to hold accountable those who believe in forgiveness? Don't you teach your own children to forgive? Do you teach your own children to own up to their mistakes and try to do better next time? Learn your lesson? what's the saying? Those who don't learn from the past are doomed(doomed I say) to repeat it? It's all the same.

People don't use the confession of sins as an out. Nobody wants to sin, or make mistakes. no one wants to grow up and be a murderer or rapist. Otherwise no one would ever be sorry, and never learn, and would create chaos.

It's one thing to not like the Catholic Church, and find a church that meets your spitiual needs, and another ot put energy into constantly bashing, instead of rejoicing in your discovery.

Sounds like you are allowing the Catholic Church to control your emotions, how much can you receive from your new Church if you're heart is full of spite for catholicism?

[Logical]

Quitters Unite!

Couldn't hack it;
just gave up.

Now outside the doors you howl like a couple of stray cats in the wind: detached and irrelevant.

Bitter, like camel cock.

Personally I am supporting those who chose to stay and try to change it. I am not going to a Catholic church and protesting their policies born of ignorance and prejudice.

[Logical]

Cafeteria Catholic? Why is it you need to create a negative scenario? why is it you have "paint" a picture using people's failures as a reason to hold accountable those who believe in forgiveness? Don't you teach your own children to forgive? Do you teach your own children to own up to their mistakes and try to do better next time? Learn your lesson? what's the saying? Those who don't learn from the past are doomed(doomed I say) to repeat it? It's all the same.

People don't use the confession of sins as an out. Nobody wants to sin, or make mistakes. no one wants to grow up and be a murderer or rapist. Otherwise no one would ever be sorry, and never learn, and would create chaos.

It's one thing to not like the Catholic Church, and find a church that meets your spitiual needs, and another ot put energy into constantly bashing, instead of rejoicing in your discovery.

Sounds like you are allowing the Catholic Church to control your emotions, how much can you receive from your new Church if you're heart is full of spite for catholicism?

Stevieray, DEnise did not make up the term Cafeteria Catholic. It is a quite common term used by Catholics themselves for their bretheren who choose to pick and choose which parts of Catholic doctrine they will follow and it is believed then ask for forgiveness in the confessional for the ones they don't follow.

Are you a Cafeteria Catholic? Is that why you took offense? If not why would you take offense?

[stevieray]

Stevieray, DEnise did not make up the term Cafeteria Catholic. It is a quite common term used by Catholics themselves for their bretheren who choose to pick and choose which parts of Catholic doctrine they will follow and it is believed then ask for forgiveness in the confessional for the ones they don't follow.

Are you a Cafeteria Catholic? Is that why you took offense? If not why would you take offense?

Stop projecting. Jim.

I did not infer or inquire as to the development of the term. People make mistakes, everyone, no matter where, no matter who. There isn't one re person on this Earth that is immune from it. ..

No. not offended. I didn't take offense, those are your words.

[Logical]

Stop projecting. Jim.

I did not infer or inquire as to the development of the term. People make mistakes, everyone, no matter where, no matter who. There isn't one re person on this Earth that is immune from it. ..

No. not offended. I didn't take offense, those are your words.

Sure you did: Cafeteria Catholic? Why is it you need to create a negative scenario?

You stated she created a negative with her use of Cafeteria Catholic. When she did not create the negative, other people did years ago. She just used it in her post.

[stevieray]

Sure you did:

You stated she created a negative with her use of Cafeteria Catholic. When she did not create the negative, other people did years ago. She just used it in her post.

Point taken. My bad.

[Logical]

Point taken. My bad.:thumb:

[Cochise]

Well, I frankly was shocked to see this thread so I had to come in. I don't think Priest has any reason to oppose his gay supporters getting communion. What does he care? And as long as he keeps crossing the goal line, the rest of his supporters won't care either.

[stevieray]

:thumb:

note to self..choose using instead of creating.
.

[Logical]

Well, I frankly was shocked to see this thread so I had to come in. I don't think Priest has any reason to oppose his gay supporters getting communion. What does he care? And as long as he keeps crossing the goal line, the rest of his supporters won't care either.

LOL I bet Russ would feel the same way if Will Shields, Willie Roaf, Brian Waters, and Tony Gonzales decided to wear multicolored sashes.

[Braincase]

Rep :clap:

Thanks... all I know is that my ideology will get cut into stone as soon as I'm done asking questions and I'm satisfied with the answers. Which translates to about 7 minutes after I flatline for the last time.

[KCWolfman]

Stevieray, DEnise did not make up the term Cafeteria Catholic. It is a quite common term used by Catholics themselves for their bretheren who choose to pick and choose which parts of Catholic doctrine they will follow and it is believed then ask for forgiveness in the confessional for the ones they don't follow.

Are you a Cafeteria Catholic? Is that why you took offense? If not why would you take offense?
No DEnise just uses both sides of the fence when it comes to the religion.

If you follow without question, you are mindless and don't deserve due consideration.
If you pick and select what you do and do not follow, you are a "cafeteria Catholic" and don't deserve due consideration.

Her blind hatred of anyone involved in the Church is no less offensive than some of the prejudiced statements made to TJ regarding his ethnicity.

[KCWolfman]

We all accept some degree of hypocrisy everyday. So my tolerance is set a little looser than yours. Big freakin' surprise there. Yes, I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, but there's some folks I wouldn't mind seeing dead. Yes, I'm Catholic, and I take issue with some policies of the church. Yes, I'm part of a minority that opposes the constitutional amendment to "protect marriage", and for my own reasons, and I still make gay jokes. Any other part of my personality you want to take issue with? Does my sense of humor bother you? Hate my scalpstyle? Hate that I allow my wife to work outside the home?
Wow, you admit your statement is nothing short of being a hypocrite and somehow you turn it around that I am being mean to you by prejudging your hair, lifestyle, and wife?

Damn, you must have issues.

[Logical]

No DEnise just uses both sides of the fence when it comes to the religion.

If you follow without question, you are mindless and don't deserve due consideration.
If you pick and select what you do and do not follow, you are a "cafeteria Catholic" and don't deserve due consideration.

Her blind hatred of anyone involved in the Church is no less offensive than some of the prejudiced statements made to TJ regarding his ethnicity.

Other than your last statement I pretty much agree with you. I don't view negativity towards Religion nearly as negatively as racism. A person can choose what religion they belong or don't belong to, so I cannot see how it is equivalent.

[KCWolfman]

Other than your last statement I pretty much agree with you. I don't view negativity towards Religion nearly as negatively as racism. A person can choose what religion they belong or don't belong to, so I cannot see how it is equivalent.
I have no doubt you cannot.

I do have trouble understanding how any misguided hatred for others you have never met is better or worse because they are Italian or because they chose to watch NASCAR.

[Logical]

I have no doubt you cannot.

I do have trouble understanding how any misguided hatred for others you have never met is better or worse because they are Italian or because they chose to watch NASCAR.

People who watch NASCAR definitely deserve to be shot.:D

[KCWolfman]

People who watch NASCAR definitely deserve to be shot.:D
LOL.

Seeing the err of my statement.

I should have said "those who go to see atrocious movies like You Have Been Served"

[Logical]

LOL.

Seeing the err of my statement.

I should have said "those who go to see atrocious movies like You Have Been Served"

LOL

[Braincase]

Wow, you admit your statement is nothing short of being a hypocrite and somehow you turn it around that I am being mean to you by prejudging your hair, lifestyle, and wife?

Damn, you must have issues.

I'm going to exercise my right to edit myself here. Russ thinks I have issues. I disagree with Russ on some things, therefore I have the problem. I said "we all accept some hypocrisy", but Russ says "Aha - you admit you're a hypocrite".

As I stated in elsewhere - I'll carve my ideology in stone as soon as I'm done asking questions, and I'm satisfied with the answers.

[memyselfI]

No DEnise just uses both sides of the fence when it comes to the religion.

If you follow without question, you are mindless and don't deserve due consideration.
If you pick and select what you do and do not follow, you are a "cafeteria Catholic" and don't deserve due consideration.

Her blind hatred of anyone involved in the Church is no less offensive than some of the prejudiced statements made to TJ regarding his ethnicity.

Agreed on one point, if you follow ANYTHING WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE MINDLESS...

If, however, you question, disregard, and choose to abide by only that which pertains to or is convenient to your lifestyle, while expecting others to follow the rules, then you are not only exercising a cafeteria religion but hypocrisy as well.

[RedNFeisty]

Over the top, certainly. Surprising, no.