Gays and Lesbians Welcome - BUT No Communion!- Page 2

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 11:41am

papa-- was meant to be sarcastic. However I do take great pride in the fact that my priests themselves under-fire from the diocese. Indeed, any self-respecting priest does what is right not what the "powers that be" tell them to do.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 1:08pm

"why on earth would people want so badly to be a part of something that does not recognize their right to exist?"

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Again, I'm wondering if we're talk about this specific church, the Catholic church or Christianity as a whole, because at the end of the day it's gonna be tough no matter where they worship. Sure, you've got your "we love the gay" sects (MCC, etc), but if these two are serious about Catholicism (which it seems they are), another denomination isn't really going to do the trick. If we're saying they should find another Catholic church, I wonder if they have any other option for that where they live. The town they live in has a population of 25,000 or so and I wouldn't be surprised if they only have one Catholic church.

They've been members of the church since 1998. One of them was even baptized in that church. It doesn't seem like they're trying to be a part of something where they're not wanted. It seems like they're trying to remain a part of something they've been a part of for almost a decade.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:10pm

i'm talking about the catholic church. catholicism as a religion is incompatible with homosexuality (from this point forward i may use homosexuality as a term but my meaning is inclusive of all same sex couples and members of the glbt community).

the doctrine accepts the homosexual and welcomes him into the fold as long as he remains celibate. if he slips (ha ha), he can go to confession and make an act of contrition in which he pledges to "sin no more and avoid the near occasion of sin" in order to cleanse his soul of the sin of a homosexual act and endear him to god's bosom again. it's a compact with god that says basically, "you absolve me and i'll try like heck not to do it again." so if a guy's in a long term relationship, unless they are celibate, his act of contrition is insincere, his sins are thus not absolved and he's in a state of sin. since it's a sin to take communion when you're in a state of sin, taking part in the mass just compounds the problem.

i would say to those people who consider catholicism a welcome home for the glbt couple that they are either delusional or willfully ignorant. it's incompatible.

to your point kringas, that specific church might welcome them. good for that church. if they continue to practice their faith in that manner, the priest will of course be excommunicated, but until then, good luck. but it's because the church has decided to ignore the doctrine of the church not because the catholic church has a place for members of the glbt community.

if they're serious about catholicism they need to become celibate and quit engaging in what the church teaches are sins.

that's catholicism. it's not for everyone.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:18pm

Thanks for expounding on that, papa. I do agree that Catholicism is incompatbile with homosexuality. It's one of the myriad reasons I'm no longer a member of the Catholic Church.

[Calvin]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:24pm

So what about all those Catholics who support the death penalty? Or the Iraq war? Or who use condoms? Should they quit, too? It's gonna be an awfully small church!

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:25pm

Good.

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:30pm

As for the "Catholicsim gets in your blood" comment, I know exactly where she's coming from. I was raised Catholic and that had clouded my worldview and view of other religions for a very long time. It's been well over a decade since I left the church and it's only been recently that I've started to look into possibly becoming part of another religion. It's hard to shake Catholic indoctrination, and it's especially hard when the church lets you down, as it did me (and many other gay people).

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:34pm

The Catholic church seems, to me anyway, to be based largely on repetion and physical and verbal habits -- rather than the meaning behind them. You are taught to DO and SAY certain things in certain situations rather than how to THINK about them and search for some spiritual significance to them.

Again, this is only personal observation, but I think it's that habitual nature of Catholicism that's difficult to break...like any other habit.
Updated On: 3/13/07 at 03:34 PM

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:36pm

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:37pm

LOL! Didn't even consider the "habitual" pun!

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:40pm

Calvin:
Since the end of Vatican II the Church has demanded that no birth control ought to be used even within the sacrament of marriage. If all the Catholic fled after that it would be a small Church indeed. The Church is going to have to change eventually-- but this sure isn't the Pope that's going to throw open the doors and let the fresh air (read as: laity) in.

One has to love a Church that is opposed to the death penalty AND abortion. It is opposed to the war in Iraq. But it can still issue such moronic statements. Yeah, its true I'm one of them. It's a love hate thing I have going, but as my(Irish south side Chicago Catholic) parish priests Burns and Greeley always tells me "You were born a Catholic, and you'll die a Catholic young woman-- and if the nutjobs and crackpots don't drive you away in the middle of your life we'll be much better off".

Nonetheless, I have not taken communion in a couple years because of their ever-increasing hypocrisy...and I am practicing celibacy better than most of the ordained priests.

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 03:40 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:40pm

but I think it's that habitual nature of Catholicism that's difficult to break

Well, to some degree I think that's valid. It's also a way of thinking that is often very different from even other forms of Christianity. I remember being so vexed the first time I found out that other Christians didn't go to confession, for example. I didn't understand how their sins would be absolved if they didn't confess them to a priest.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:44pm

i agree, myb. i think that the ritual has a great deal to do with setting a comfort level in that you can walk into any catholic church in the world and experience almost exactly the same thing despite the language difference. indeed, it's possible to follow along and participate in the mass even in languages you don't understand (i've done it in spanish, polish and german...latin doesn't count) because of it's ritualistic format.

[DG]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 3:54pm

This causes a GREAT deal of stress in relationships (non-romantic) that I've had through the years - and has led to the disillusionment of most. This isn't a country club that's being homophobic or misogynistic, it's an organized religion - and as such, it codifies morals and behaviors for its participants.

Quite frankly, I have the same question (about trying to be included) for those who continue to participate, and yet still want to claim they don't agree with all the precepts. If you are a participant, then you agree, at least to some degree. And if you don't, then you're a liar, and the organization is weakened, as it claims to be nothing more than the sum of its parts.

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:18pm

DG that's a valid point for discussion, but I think at least for me, being Catholic is just one part of me...and not a very definitive one. I have all but stopped going to mass on any sort of regular basis, because I get too frustrated. I was baptized as an infant and raised and educated in the Catholic Church, so it is more out of habit or ritual that I call myself Catholic, in reality I find myself bristling over the behavior of the Vatican most of the time. Most of the time I try to ignore the heirarchy completely; I often remind myself there are the Greeley's who used their name (and steamy novels) to try and show the weakness of establishment behavior over love for God and faced expulsion from Chicago diocese (where he then moved to Tucson for a time by the amazing Bishop Green who spend the late 70's and 80's working tirelessly on behalf of people being forced to leave Nicaragua and El Salvador). I've pounding the deserts of this state with priests and nuns who have given their lives in service of their fellow man. Does this new bit sicken me? Yes of course, but does that negate Fr. Roy offering Sanctuary in his church in the early 80's?

To me it has always meant layers and layers of morals decisions...I don't see myself as a hypocrite for not leaving the Church yet dissenting with some of it's practices..for valuing individual contributions over the Establishment....maybe a heretic but not a hypocrite.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:21pm

well, dg, i've never hidden my disdain for the practice of homosexuality. i mean one would think that at some point you'd manage to have perfected it and it would stop being practice!

since i'm the white male, republican, catholic, heterosexual, i'll go ahead and take a whack at dg's mean, mean, mean attack on my poor saintly church. or at least my practice of said religion (again with the practice, will we ever f*cking get it right?).

my personal definition of religion has always been whatever helps you to sleep at night as long as you're not hurting anyone else or yourself. i've never been a proponent of proselytizing and accept that i fall short in that area of catholicism that calls for its adherents to spread the word of god. i don't judge anybody else's religion or their relationship with their god or their denial of god's existence or their ritualistic sacrifices of rodents to the lord of plant xerxes. if it helps them sleep, brings them peace and allows them to get through this life a little easier, more power to them. just so long as they're not hurting anybody else or themselves.

while most folks agree on the hurting other people part, some people give me grief about that second part there. who am i to deny someone the right to hurt themselves? well, maybe you're right and i ought to mind my own business, but i just can't wrap my head around the concept of hurting yourself to gain peace or as an offering to god. i know the history off saints is full of saints who did stuff like this, but i just don't get it. so sue me if i think that hurting yourself like that is wrong. it's my cross to bear and if i'm wrong i believe that i'll answer for it in the next life.

for me the practice (again see?) of catholicism is selfish. i feel better when i go to mass everyday. i feel better when i pray daily. physically and mentally, i just feel better. i do draw comfort from the ritual and the repetition. it's a kind of meditation and i do truly feel closer to god for having done so.

am i a hypocrite for not walking away indignantly from this belief system that counts my friends as unable to love the people they love without spending eternity in the fires of hell? yep. but then, as i mentioned earlier, i'm a republican.

[DG]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:23pm

Rad - I follow that completely. I guess my furthering thought goes back to papa's question (which I'm only specifying as his because it's printed here - it's hardly the first time it's been asked.) Why should a gay person, who might resonate completely with the teachings and moral stance of the church, leave simply because of that one issue? As I see it, the Church - especially under this Pope - is very much in the 'non-negotiable' spirit of things. In other words, they want want dissenters any more than they want us gay people.

[DG]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:40pm

papa - you've said those things before, and I really believe you mean them.

An arguable point, though, could be raised in whether or not the institution itself has hurt people. I know you speak about this from an individual level (much as Rad does,) but the fact remains that it is the Church itself which is represented to most people in the world. I used to go round-and-round with a close gay priest friend of mine, because he said he was comfortable with the good work he could do as an individual, while I continually questioned his ability to represent a homophobic and misogynistic institution.

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:44pm

DG. And a question thats not one easily answered. I suppose it goes back to individuality.... I have to believe that if a gay person (or as in my case a sexually ambiguous, feminist, pro-choicer, sick-to-death-of seeing-Africa-under-siege-and-no-lift-of-the ban-on- condoms-when-it-is-clearly-a-matter-of-life-and-death) has a priest or hopefully multiple priests that treats them like a child of God, and not "oh dear, gay child of God" at least in my situation that is what makes the difference.

I personally can't trust anyone who doesn't have the ability to question and probe everything, anyone who buys entire the whole dog and pony show the Church has to offer scares me in deep and profound ways.
'
That, and possibly that all established religions are misogynistic, homophobic and hypocritical...so it's really not much better or worse that any others -- it's just been around
longer.

*edited for clarify in futile effort to be witty.

Updated On: 3/13/07 at 04:44 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:48pm

unlike some here who shall remain nameless, i'll take my priests from the non-probing variety.

[RadiGal2]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 4:55pm

hahaha. Very phunny. I'll let Doc and Greels know how highly you value both their integrity as ordination ministers of the Church and more shockingly their analytical skills-- as academic I am sure they will be quite thrilled.

I hated how they all got lumped in-- now all priests-- no matter how vocal they were about the problem, or for how long before-- the whole scandal broke are now viewed as possible pedophiles. I know you were kidding, but generally it infuriates me.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 5:36pm

possible pedophiles?

[DG]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 5:47pm

papa - I think she meant that all priests have that taint of possibility.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 3/13/07 at 6:06pm

gosh, dg, can we please leave their taints out of this?