tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post2763809757388239090..comments2023-10-10T09:50:34.565-07:00Comments on Find and Ye Shall Seek: Dress codes for sacramentsMystical Seekerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post-50734750911238043422007-10-26T09:36:00.000-07:002007-10-26T09:36:00.000-07:00I think Paul gave very good advice for people who ...I think Paul gave very good advice for people who choose to partake of that ritual.<BR/><BR/>What matters to me in this instance is the presumption that a church has the right to judge the intentions of those who come to the table. If I had a say, I would not choose not to judge the sincerity or intentions of people who ask to partake of communion, regardless of how "tasteless" their clothes are. In my humble view, only God should have that right. And in my humble view, Jesus was right in inviting everyone to the table. <BR/><BR/>Of course, as stated repeatedly, it is the Catholic Church's right to be as exclusive as they want. As I have pointed out, I would prefer an inclusive rather than an exclusionary community of faith.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post-44679667335595585572007-10-26T09:25:00.000-07:002007-10-26T09:25:00.000-07:00What do you make of Paul's warning about dishonori...What do you make of <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/2kbrol" REL="nofollow">Paul's warning</A> about dishonoring the Lord in the sacrament of communion?Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post-91915841332928944672007-10-26T08:50:00.000-07:002007-10-26T08:50:00.000-07:00I have repeatedly said that I am not a Catholic an...I have repeatedly said that I am not a Catholic and that my philosophy of communion is different from theirs.<BR/><BR/>Just as the Roman Catholic Church is free to establish whatever rules they want for their sacraments and to interpret those rules as they please, I am free to cite those same rules as an example of something I disagree with. The fact that the church has its own internal rules doesn't mean that non-Catholics can't express an opinion about them.<BR/><BR/>I have cited this brouhaha as an example of what I think is wrong with exclusiveness and intolerance--not to mention closed communion. I prefer to associate myself with Christians who don't presume to pass judgment on who can be invited to the table, and certainly not based on anyone's judgment of the "intentions" of those who choose to come to the table. It is my right to do so.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post-80354606372996576612007-10-26T06:28:00.000-07:002007-10-26T06:28:00.000-07:00Mystical,Fortunately for you, me, and the Catholic...Mystical,<BR/><BR/>Fortunately for you, me, and the Catholic world at large - we are not arbiters of their views on Sacraments. They've done that for themselves in a way that preserves their organization from caprice. <A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM" REL="nofollow">Canon Law</A> is not a matter of opinion - mine, yours, or theirs.<BR/><BR/><B><A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM" REL="nofollow">Canon 915</A>: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and <I>others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin</I> are not to be admitted to holy communion.</B><BR/><BR/>In Roman Catholic moral teaching, sodomy is a grave moral sin because it breaks the 6th commandment. This is an <I>a jure</I> and <I>latae sententiae</I> excommunication. No one has to pronounce it in order for it to be in effect. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, the Archbishop himself was in danger of excommunication because of Canon 1378, which states that absolving those in gross violation of the 6th commandment is an automatic excommunication. Did you see him pause when he held his hand up in the absolution / benediction immediately before the host was consecrated?<BR/><BR/>Moreover, if they were "just there to worship" then they would have been there just to worship. They weren't. They were there to make a statement - and they chose the very public occasion of an archepiscopal visitation to do it. The <A HREF="http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter3.shtml" REL="nofollow">GIRM</A><BR/> instructs Catholics that at the Mass they "are to shun any appearance of individualism or division." Can you honestly say that their actions reflect an intention to celebrate the Mass with this sort of reverence? Especially in light of <A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM" REL="nofollow">Canon 1369</A>?<BR/><BR/>Let's be very clear, here. The "Sisters" are all about promoting sodomy, sadomasochism, and other perversions (according to RCC Canon Law). Their charitable activities are a nice way of drawing attention away from that. But you have to be <I>willfully</I> blind to their aims in order to think of them as primarily about charity. Just look at their <A HREF="http://thesisters.org/meet.html" REL="nofollow">names</A> (Sr. <A HREF="http://thesisters.org/bios/anal.html" REL="nofollow">Anal Receptive</A>?). And if their sodomy wasn't enough, they make it worse by <A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM" REL="nofollow">usurpation and holding sacred ministries in contempt</A>!<BR/><BR/>The fact is that they are notorious and flagrant sinners. As ABP Niederauer said, he should have denied them Communion. He's apologized because this borders on (and possibly does) desecrate the Eucharist - and there can be no graver transgression in Romanism.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a Romanist. But I hope that you can see that from a RCC perspective, what was done at MHR was much worse than just poor taste or sartorial sarcasm. It was blasphemy and irreverence. Only the Roman Church has the right (rite?) to say that it is offended. And it has said as much through the singular authoritative voice in that area - the Archbishop himself.<BR/><BR/>I'm presuming that you would ask for homosexuals and other oppressed peoples the privilege/right of defining for themselves when they are offended by someone's actions or statements. Please have the fairness to ascribe the same to the Roman Church.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post-5079296494167278542007-10-23T09:54:00.000-07:002007-10-23T09:54:00.000-07:00First, your comparison with Blackface is simply wr...First, your comparison with Blackface is simply wrong, if for no other reason than that it completely confuses who is the oppressed minority and who is the oppressor in that analogy. African Americans are a historically oppressed minority group in the US--as are gays. <BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, I have this radical idea that it shouldn't be up to those giving out communion to pass judgment on what the supposed intentions are of those who partake of communion. "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged", as someone famous once said. In fact, as one possible indication of their intentions, the Sisters sent a premature "thank you" note after that communion--and I say "premature" because it was sent before the archbishop apologized for the "mistake".<BR/><BR/>Of course, as I said, I'm not a Catholic, so my views on sacred rituals isn't the same as theirs. Catholicism often places rules on who is welcome to the table and who isn't. If in this case their intentions were pure or not, my view is that that isn't anyone's business to say. I say--let anyone participate who asks to do so. Who knows, assuming that their intentions are less than pure, maybe by being accepted into the community regardless of how they are dressed, they might just find themselves viewing the church differently. Being welcomed to the table, no matter what--what a radical concept.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29128991.post-91183197841083354142007-10-23T09:31:00.000-07:002007-10-23T09:31:00.000-07:00You've missed the point entirely on this.Do you th...You've missed the point entirely on this.<BR/><BR/>Do you think it would be appropriate to go to an African American church in Blackface or in a Klan get-up? What these people did was everybit as <A HREF="http://qdomine.com/Morality_pages/MHR.htm" REL="nofollow">offensive</A>.<BR/><BR/>The "sisters" were there to foul things up. You don't draw attention to yourself, but to the consecrated host. That person was not there with the intention to worship or receive the sacrament aright. And if the other person wasn't Roman Catholic, then he was being sacrilegious from the perspective of any Catholic. (And let's remember that just 90 years ago <BR/><BR/>I have a difficult time seeing how anyone who has seen <A HREF="http://www.qdomine.com/Morality_pages/GayPride2007.htm" REL="nofollow">video</A> of the mass or the grotesque public sexual displays in the parades that were "blessed" by this parish can see otherwise. But as always, I'm willing to hear the case. I just know that if this were done with any other subpopulation, the victim-crowd would be out in force.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.com