Priest denies communion to supporters of gays

[tristano's ghost]

Swell. Pro-choicers to follow shortly, I'm sure...

By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 19 minutes ago

ST. PAUL, Minn. - A Roman Catholic priest denied 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 told the congregation at the 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 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 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.

[Brian Olewnick]

I still fail to understand why a certain group, in this case gays, wants to have anything to do with a religion whose holy book specifically cites them as sinners and subject to death without trial. The guy who says "...either live with it or call yourself something different" has a point, after all. I mean, I think he's horribly mistaken for any number of reasons but within his narrow, biblical definition of reality, he's on pretty solid ground. Of course, I'd also want to ask him why he eats pork and shellfish, why he's not out campaiging for the ouster of all parishoners with tattoos, why he wears blended fabrics, does work on Sundays, etc.

But, damn, if I were gay the LAST place I'd want to be is in a Christian church!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I have no dog in this fight. I'm neither a Christian nor gay. Saying that, if you join a religion I guess you should be subject to their rules.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

But, damn, if I were gay the LAST place I'd want to be is in a Christian church!

Tell it to this guy:

[tristano's ghost]

Are they denying communion to those who support the death penalty? That goes right against the current doctrine of the Church.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

You're right. They're cherry-picking. During the last election the Catholic Church made a big deal about denying communion to politicians who were pro-choice but didn't mention those who were pro-death penulty.

The Vatican is just as political as any organization.

[Enforcer]

Cherry-picking is an understatement. If I had to venture a guess as to the number of people who attend the Catholic church and adhere to every practice the church teaches, I would roughly estimate the number at zero.

[Sergio Zamora]

In his defense, the priest says he's not denying communion because of the ideological position these folks have, but because they are using a church ritual to stage a protest. Whether or not the priest is being selective can only be ascertained if a similar sort of 'protest' took place during the communion.

[Brian Olewnick]

Well, Root, that is a pretty gay-looking mitre there! Who is he?

I can understand people staying within an organization with which they have quibbles about this or that minor teaching. But when it says, in black and white, that if I'm gay I should be killed....well, that would tend to put a damper on my enthusiasm.

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

Now if you have a given denomination who decides to publically denounce and ignore that particular passage (and others equally silly), I'd say, bravo. However, I'd think that its status as a religion would take a hit. Aside from cherry-picking what many believe to be the Word of God, a questionable enough practice to a true believer, if you're challenging scripture on the basis of what happens to be the contemporary ethos, I'd think you're losing something of the purported "eternal" and "transcendent" qualities of your religion.

In another sense, looking at it as a kind of "club" with certain rules, I'd have to say, yeah, if you don't like the rules go elsewhere. Plenty of religions to go around. Unfortunately.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Brian,

Looks like gay males will have to look outside of the Christian church altogether. Unless they're not active sexually. Also the Bible seems to be OK with lesbians

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

Christian gays probably do it standing up.

[Enforcer]

That passage might actually refer to lying, as in not telling the truth. In other words, it's OK to lie to a woman, but not to a man.

Looks like I'm in OK shape after all.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Well, Root, that is a pretty gay-looking mitre there! Who is he?

Gene Robinson, the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire. He's openly gay. I mention this as a caution that Christianity encompasses more than Roman Catholicism or the various fundamentalist Protestant denominations that are long on dogma and short on brotherhood.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

Gene Robinson, the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire. He's openly gay. I mention this as a caution that Christianity encompasses more than Roman Catholicism or the various fundamentalist Protestant denominations that are long on dogma and short on brotherhood.

Yeah, I assumed he was from one o' those branches! Curious how he "justifies" his sexuality within Bible teachings. Does he (I hope not!) say, "I realize I'm sinning but I beg for forgiveness." Or is it simply, "That part of the Bible is nonsense."? Or something in between.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

That passage might actually refer to lying, as in not telling the truth. In other words, it's OK to lie to a woman, but not to a man.

Looks like I'm in OK shape after all.

It says 'lies with', not 'lies to'. Basically telling con men and to only partner with other guys in their schemes. For example, J.T Walsh and Annette Benning in 'The Grifters' should be killed, but not J.T Walsh and Joe Mantegna in 'House of Games'.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Yeah, I assumed he was from one o' those branches! Curious how he "justifies" his sexuality within Bible teachings. Does he (I hope not!) say, "I realize I'm sinning but I beg for forgiveness." Or is it simply, "That part of the Bible is nonsense."? Or something in between.

Not to presume to speak for the Bishop, but I bet the only parts of the Bible he takes literally are the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Leviticus is from the Old Testament.

[Enforcer]

Sergio, I thought about almost immediately after I posted, and I think you're right. Of course, it's the partner in deceit you choose that you'll get in trouble for. Although I think you have it backwards. J.T. and Annette are fine, J.T. and Joe need to die.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Although I think you have it backwards. J.T. and Annette are fine, J.T. and Joe need to die.

Right, my bad. That's what the Good Book says.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

Not to presume to speak for the Bishop, but I bet the only parts of the Bible he takes literally are the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Leviticus is from the Old Testament.

Curious again. If so, is that a common position in your experience? I mean, I assume there is a predominance of thought among non-fundamentalist thinkers that, for instance, Adam & Eve is a myth. But where is the line drawn further on? How about the Ten Commandments? David? For me, if you believe in the Resurrection (and associated miracles) it might be a little tough pooh-poohing others' belief in earlier miraculous phenomena. Again, if it just comes down to picking and choosing what you are comfortable with, fine, but that seems to stray away from anything I'd call a "religion" and more toward individual philosophies of life not requiring religious justification or affiliation.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Curious again. If so, is that a common position in your experience? I mean, I assume there is a predominance of thought among non-fundamentalist thinkers that, for instance, Adam & Eve is a myth. But where is the line drawn further on? How about the Ten Commandments? David? For me, if you believe in the Resurrection (and associated miracles) it might be a little tough pooh-poohing others' belief in earlier miraculous phenomena. Again, if it just comes down to picking and choosing what you are comfortable with, fine, but that seems to stray away from anything I'd call a "religion" and more toward individual philosophies of life not requiring religious justification or affiliation.

Since I'm more of a philosophy of lifer than a religionist, it's hard for me to speak for a guy who wears a mitre and fancy robes. I do think you can understand, even agree with, the Ten Commandments without believing the story of how they ended up in Moses' hands. The same holds true for the teachings of Jesus. He doesn't have to be divine for his simple guidelines to be worthwhile.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

Since I'm more of a philosophy of lifer than a religionist, it's hard for me to speak for a guy who wears a mitre and fancy robes. I do think you can understand, even agree with, the Ten Commandments without believing the story of how they ended up in Moses' hands. The same holds true for the teachings of Jesus. He doesn't have to be divine for his simple guidelines to be worthwhile.

I agree with that. But the message is delivered with more punch when you're told that if you fail to follow the teachings, an omniscient being will find out, and there's no way to run from the consequences. Cheating and "getting away with it" is a bit of a temptation without the "all powerful, all knowing" bit.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

I agree with that. But the message is delivered with more punch when you're told that if you fail to follow the teachings, an omniscient being will find out, and there's no way to run from the consequences. Cheating and "getting away with it" is a bit of a temptation without the "all powerful, all knowing" bit.

So, you want the sizzle AND the steak, Larry? I can understand that.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

Since I'm more of a philosophy of lifer than a religionist, it's hard for me to speak for a guy who wears a mitre and fancy robes. I do think you can understand, even agree with, the Ten Commandments without believing the story of how they ended up in Moses' hands. The same holds true for the teachings of Jesus. He doesn't have to be divine for his simple guidelines to be worthwhile.

Oh, I have no problem whatsoever with someone who deals with Jesus (or any Biblical figure) as a philosopher. But clearly, that accounts for some tiny fraction of those officially associated with the church. otoh, I'm sure this issue has been dealt with among thinking religionists but I'm wondering with what efficiency and honesty.

off subject--I hope everyone caught The Simpsons conversion to Catholicism last night.

Originally Posted by Brian(Olewnick)

Oh, I have no problem whatsoever with someone who deals with Jesus (or any Biblical figure) as a philosopher. But clearly, that accounts for some tiny fraction of those officially associated with the church.

It does?

Then why the need for the church to begin with?

[groover]

That priest is just jealous because he doesn't dare come out of closet and wear such gay colors.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

off subject--I hope everyone caught The Simpsons conversion to Catholicism last night.

I did not, but the one from the previous week when Homer is convinced he can predict the Rapture was pretty funny.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

It does?

Then why the need for the church to begin with?

I should have said, "as a philosopher only".

Bastard.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Oh, I have no problem whatsoever with someone who deals with Jesus (or any Biblical figure) as a philosopher. But clearly, that accounts for some tiny fraction of those officially associated with the church. otoh, I'm sure this issue has been dealt with among thinking religionists but I'm wondering with what efficiency and honesty.

off subject--I hope everyone caught The Simpsons conversion to Catholicism last night.

Brian, a statement like "those officially associated with the church" is fraught with peril. A Lutheran looks at his faith differently than a Roman Catholic, and neither might find much common ground with a Seventh Day Adventist.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

Brian, a statement like "those officially associated with the church" is fraught with peril. A Lutheran looks at his faith differently than a Roman Catholic, and neither might find much common ground with a Seventh Day Adventist.

I was raised Lutheran. The pastors in our church were "officially associated" with the national Synod or whatever. I assume that's the standard. In any case, I'm just talking about the priests, ministers, etc. who "lead" their flocks.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I was raised Lutheran. The pastors in our church were "officially associated" with the national Synod or whatever. I assume that's the standard. In any case, I'm just talking about the priests, ministers, etc. who "lead" their flocks.

Gotcha. I was reading your comment within the context of your earlier reference to the "Christian Church."

Sort of on topic, Anglican bishops about a decade ago were asked if they thought Christ was divine. Two thirds said no.