Priest denies communion to 'gay' supporters

[PaulDA]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...S00010000000001
Here is part of the article:

Priest Denies Communion to Supporters of Gay Catholics
By JOSHUA FREED, AP

Janet Hostetter, AP
Rainbow Sash Alliance supporters gather outside the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul, Minnesota.
 
ST. PAUL, Minn. (May 16) - 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.

To my way of thinking, the Roman Catholic Church has every right to ban people wearing those rainbow sashes from receiving communion because it is turning communion into a form of protest, and people are condoning homosexuality and think the church should accept it as a legitimate life style.
One of the nuns even said that:

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.

And another woman 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.

These people are actually condoning homosexuality and believe God approves of it!
Then, the organizer said

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.''

I agree with the following person:

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.''

If a person wants to be a member of a church, they should either obey the rules or go somewhere else.

[amalgamate]

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.ad...S00010000000001
Here is part of the article:

Priest Denies Communion to Supporters of Gay Catholics
By JOSHUA FREED, AP

Janet Hostetter, AP
Rainbow Sash Alliance supporters gather outside the Cathedral of St. Paul in St. Paul, Minnesota.
 
ST. PAUL, Minn. (May 16) - 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.

To my way of thinking, the Roman Catholic Church has every right to ban people wearing those rainbow sashes from receiving communion because it is turning communion into a form of protest, and people are condoning homosexuality and think the churchg should accept it as a legitimate life style.
One of the nuns even said that:And another woman said:  These people are actually condoning homosexuality and believe God approves of it!
Then, the organizer said
I agree with the following person:

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.''

If a person wants to be a member of a church, they should either obey the rules or go somewhere else.

i think we should draw a distinct line between supporting those that are oppressed by the catholic church and supporting the sin by which these people are inflicted.

It does seem that some of these people you've quoted do believe that homosexuality is alright and a "gift" even but it also seems that the quote after "another woman said" isn't really condoning homosexuality but rather doesn't feel that homosexuals or any other kind of person should be oppressed or cast aside by the church.

I don't know the background behind this story so it's hard to tell the context of everything that's occuring..how long it's been building up and other things. So i guess i'm not sure whether i agree or disagree.  

[bloop]

''They're trying to change something that has been taught by the church for 2,000 years.''

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with all these people, either, but "because we've always done it this way" doesn't seem to me to be an outstanding rationale.

[Waltrane]

I'm with Paul on this one. (faints...picks self back up) No really (faints again...picks self up again). It's not about opression, but standing up for their beliefs which have been in place for 2000 years.  

[Wildcatblue7]

I'm with Paul too (SHOCK!!)  They have every right to do that, and they should.

[PaulDA]

It does seem that some of these people you've quoted do believe that homosexuality is alright and a "gift" even but it also seems that the quote after "another woman said" isn't really condoning homosexuality but rather doesn't feel that homosexuals or any other kind of person should be oppressed or cast aside by the church.
 

The woman was using the word 'oppressed' in the context to mean 'the church doesn't accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle'.  
There are Christians who actually believe homosexuality is a gift from God and that it's ok for people to engage in homosexual sex!
Talking to them is like talking to a :brickwall:
They want the church to change to accomodate them, and the church should stand firm.

[bloop]

Where there are scholarly criticisms of the text most often used in the modern debate over homosexuality, they should be heard.  Otherwise, the brick wall arguement works just as well in the other direction.

[Vlad!]

I'm with amalgamate: I'm not sure where I stand on this exactly. There is a difference between supporting sins and supporting people. I would be hesitant to wear a ribbon or sash that could suggest support of the homosexual lifestyle, but I think communion shouldn't be denied just based on whether a person is wearing a certain accessory; the priest should ascertain what specifically the person believes before determining whether it is worth denying communion over.

[PaulDA]

Where there are scholarly criticisms of the text most often used in the modern debate over homosexuality, they should be heard.  Otherwise, the brick wall arguement works just as well in the other direction.

Bloop, I know you think somehow that homosexuality is not condemned outright in the Bible, but it really is.
1. God made Adam and Eve and said to multiply
2. The only acceptable sex is between a man and woman who are married.
3. God says to have sex with your own sex is unnatural.
4. God gave the people over to their lusts and women started having sex with women and men started having sex with mwn. The context is, homosexuality is a perversion and is so bad that God let the people who disobeyed fall pray to it.

I expect churches to have compassion for people struggling with any sin, but I do NOT expect churches to give in to worldly pressure and accept imoral behavior as moral behavior and say nothing is wrong with it.
 

[PaulDA]

but I think communion shouldn't be denied just based on whether a person is wearing a certain accessory;

No one is to take communion unless they have confessed all their sins to God and have forgiven anyone they hold a grudge against. The Bible is specific about this. It says many are 'falling asleep' (dying) in relation to taking communion inappropriately.
To wear a ribbon or any other form of protest and to use communion to advertise that protest is an abomination. Communion is for ONE thing. To celebrate Jesus'.

[Guest]

Communion is for ONE thing. To celebrate Jesus'.

So we ought to descriminate against some people to keep them from celebrating Jesus?

[PaulDA]

So we ought to descriminate against some people to keep them from celebrating Jesus?

That's just it. They are not doing it to solely celebrate Jesus.
They are using Holy Communion to push an agenda.
 

[Guest]

That's just it. They are not doing it to solely celebrate Jesus.
They are using Holy Communion to push an agenda.

Who, the priest or the layperson?

[PaulDA]

That's just it. They are not doing it to solely celebrate Jesus.
They are using Holy Communion to push an agenda.

Who, the priest or the layperson?

The people wearing those rainbow sashes.
The priest is just upholding the sanctity of Holy Communion.
(I'm defending Roman Catholicism here....I wonder if Jesus is coming soon....you know..."strange signs and wonders preceeding...")

[amalgamate]

I expect churches to have compassion for people struggling with any sin, but I do NOT expect churches to give in to worldly pressure and accept imoral behavior as moral behavior and say nothing is wrong with it.

I agree with this, although i also agree that some issues are not so clear cut when it comes to immoral and moral behavior, but i'm not sure homosexuality is one of them.

I can understand the concern by the Priest but i'm not sure that denying communion is the best way to go about this. It's hard to tell from this article if "supporting gay christians" is condoning their lifestyle or not. I'm sure for some it is (based on the quotations you've given), and for some it's not.

Does anyone have any other links for this story? I'm going to go see what i can find on the good ol www.  

[bloop]

Bloop, I know you think somehow that homosexuality is not condemned outright in the Bible, but it really is.
1. God made Adam and Eve and said to multiply
2. The only acceptable sex is between a man and woman who are married.
3. God says to have sex with your own sex is unnatural.
4. God gave the people over to their lusts and women started having sex with women and men started having sex with mwn. The context is, homosexuality is a perversion and is so bad that God let the people who disobeyed fall pray to it.

I expect churches to have compassion for people struggling with any sin, but I do NOT expect churches to give in to worldly pressure and accept imoral behavior as moral behavior and say nothing is wrong with it.

Paul, I made no such claim.  I came to the understanding that homosexual sexual relations are sinful (homosexuality is a much trickier matter).  However, there are those that have a different understanding of these very scriptures you reference.  I don't want to get into the specifics, but if they can support it, the "we've always done it this way" brick wall is a poor response.  That much seems pretty undeniable to me.

The only good arguement against homosexual sex from the Bible, as I understand it, is your #2.  The others seem a little forced into its modern meaning for the masses (#3, 4).  #1 really just ties in with #2, yes?

[PaulDA]

Bloop, I know you think somehow that homosexuality is not condemned outright in the Bible, but it really is.
1. God made Adam and Eve and said to multiply
2. The only acceptable sex is between a man and woman who are married.
3. God says to have sex with your own sex is unnatural.
4. God gave the people over to their lusts and women started having sex with women and men started having sex with mwn. The context is, homosexuality is a perversion and is so bad that God let the people who disobeyed fall pray to it.

I expect churches to have compassion for people struggling with any sin, but I do NOT expect churches to give in to worldly pressure and accept imoral behavior as moral behavior and say nothing is wrong with it.

Paul, I made no such claim.  I came to the understanding that homosexual sexual relations are sinful (homosexuality is a much trickier matter).  However, there are those that have a different understanding of these very scriptures you reference.  I don't want to get into the specifics, but if they can support it, the "we've always done it this way" brick wall is a poor response.  That much seems pretty undeniable to me.

The only good arguement against homosexual sex from the Bible, as I understand it, is your #2.  The others seem a little forced into its modern meaning for the masses (#3, 4).  #1 really just ties in with #2, yes?

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you have said in the past on CMC, every time someone brought up all the scriptures condemning same sex, you would say that they don't mean that, or something to that affect, so i assumed you thought the Bible did not condemn it.
I don't think #3 and #4 are forced at all.
Think about it.
If God says same sex is 'unattural', and if, as a punishment, He lets sinful people gravitate to homosexuality as a 'penalty', how can that mean anything than it is wrong to do it? After all, the people weren't being 'rewarded', but they were being 'punished'.

[danny316]

That's just it. They are not doing it to solely celebrate Jesus.
They are using Holy Communion to push an agenda.

Who, the priest or the layperson?

The people wearing those rainbow sashes.
The priest is just upholding the sanctity of Holy Communion.
(I'm defending Roman Catholicism here....I wonder if Jesus is coming soon....you know..."strange signs and wonders preceeding...")

I have a sudden urge to wear a rainbow sash.

It doesn't matter, I believe all humans are inherently sinful anyway. I'm also not holy enough, I guess. To me, this is just a church-sanctioned form of hatred.

Which, by the way, is blasphemy in my book. I couldn't believe in any God who hates certain groups of people. Don't try to convince me that all this propaganda that "Christians" spread about a "homosexual agaenda" is anything more than just a simple way of placing blame on a group. This isn't a way of loving people, this is an idiotic way of trying to feel self-righteous about picking on gays. This is a prime reason why I'm afraid to associate with Christians these days - I don't want to be seen as part of a hate group. If only these bigots weren't trying to hijack the faith of many to do this, we'd be able to call them for it without being called "anti-Christian" by morons who don't know any better.

Carry on with the self-righteous gay-bashing, and don't forget to call me a judgmental asshole on your way out. I don't think I have a chance of winning this since Paul, Waltrane and Wildcat have already ganged up here.

[MJanke]

Which, by the way, is blasphemy in my book. I couldn't believe in any God who hates certain groups of people.

God doesn't hate gays, nor does he hate alcoholics, thieves, adulterers, cheaters, gossips, etc. But God does hate sin. In all forms. It is not hateful to call homosexuality sin, anymore than it is to call heterosexual adultery sin. Because a Christian happens to believe that homsexuality is wrong does not make them a homophobe or mean that they hate homsexuals.

Yes, some Christians (or in some cases, "Christians"), go way too far and do probably hate gays. But they're just as wrong in their sin as the sin that they are so self-righteously calling out.

Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, though. It's wrong for those Christians to be bigots. But you're being just as bigotted if you start grouping the entire church together because of the actions of some. The church is not perfect. It never will be, because it's made up of human beings. But that's why we're saved by grace. And, contrary to the popular belief of some, many of us actually do believe in grace, and try to extend that grace to others regardless of their lifestyle.

This is a prime reason why I'm afraid to associate with Christians these days - I don't want to be seen as part of a hate group. If only these bigots weren't trying to hijack the faith of many to do this, we'd be able to call them for it without being called "anti-Christian" by morons who don't know any better.

Carry on with the self-righteous gay-bashing, and don't forget to call me a judgmental asshole on your way out. I don't think I have a chance of winning this since Paul, Waltrane and Wildcat have already ganged up here.

Hmm... seems like you're doing just as much name-calling as you are accusing others of.

Don't play the martyr. If you disagree w/ the three people you mention, then try dialoguing with them rather than coming in and immediatly tossing verbal bombshells.

[Vlad!]

[Dan]

God doesn't hate gays, nor does he hate alcoholics, thieves, adulterers, cheaters, gossips, etc. But God does hate sin. In all forms. It is not hateful to call homosexuality sin, anymore than it is to call heterosexual adultery sin. Because a Christian happens to believe that homsexuality is wrong does not make them a homophobe or mean that they hate homsexuals.

Ah, cute! Jesus loves straw men! There is a difference between claiming homosexual acts are wrong and claiming that you need to destroy happy relationships. I think that (as the bible clearly says) the acts of homosexual intercourse are wrong. However, I don't push a hateful "Christian" agenda towards people tempted in that way. They're people too and their honesty in the sins they struggle with is something most Christians can learn from.

....Or Christians can try to keep them from getting near God at all. Several people here have said they don't believe that they should be allowed to have communion - Well in that case, I shouldn't either, because I'm sinner too. In fact, technically, we all are. The point made in this thread is ridiculous.

Yes, some Christians (or in some cases, "Christians"), go way too far and do probably hate gays. But they're just as wrong in their sin as the sin that they are so self-righteously calling out.

Finally, we agree on something.

Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater, though. It's wrong for those Christians to be bigots. But you're being just as bigotted if you start grouping the entire church together because of the actions of some. The church is not perfect. It never will be, because it's made up of human beings. But that's why we're saved by grace. And, contrary to the popular belief of some, many of us actually do believe in grace, and try to extend that grace to others regardless of their lifestyle.

It cracks me up when the same people who torment others with their crazy ideas claim they want to be treated with grace. It reeks of hypocrisy. I'm afraid that I'm not the one doing the lumping - most people don't notice when they support groups that oppress gays, such as Focus On The Family. The error was made by the people following this crap - not the person who realizes what these people are standing up for.

This is a prime reason why I'm afraid to associate with Christians these days - I don't want to be seen as part of a hate group. If only these bigots weren't trying to hijack the faith of many to do this, we'd be able to call them for it without being called "anti-Christian" by morons who don't know any better.

Carry on with the self-righteous gay-bashing, and don't forget to call me a judgmental asshole on your way out. I don't think I have a chance of winning this since Paul, Waltrane and Wildcat have already ganged up here.

Hmm... seems like you're doing just as much name-calling as you are accusing others of.

Name-calling? I was thinking more along the lines of compliments. Trust me, you haven't seen the half of the harsh words I have to say here.

Don't play the martyr. If you disagree w/ the three people you mention, then try dialoguing with them rather than coming in and immediatly tossing verbal bombshells.

As soon as I get my time machine so I can spend all day arguing with them, sure. In the mean time, we might as well get it all out. Oh, and I'll play the martyr as long as people keep trying to tear me and my beliefs apart. The only thing that seperates me from real martyrs is that I'll give up and fight back first.

I have a feeling the quotes here aren't going to work properly, apologies in advance for that.

[MJanke]

[bloop]

Janke's experience with fellow Christians and their attitudes toward those with homosexual tendencies is similar to mine, but only lately.  My wife was a Lutheran, so I  gave Lutheranism a chance (coming from one of those nondenominational charismatic superchurches).  

It seems that the entire environment is different in the mainline setting that goes beyond the liturgy, and I have to say I very much prefer the Lutheran attitude on these issues.  Switching saved my faith from cataclysm, seriously, as I just couldn't take the kind of self-righteousness I was regularly exposed to much longer.

(note: the mainline denominations aren't for everyone, and some of them verge on heresy on this issue IMO)

[Josh]

I find it peculiar that Danny accuses others of creating straw men when it is he who continually lumps all of evangelical Christianity into one big box and insists on assigning the many the characteristics of the few.

In fact, I also find it offensive. Again, Danny, let me remind you that you are addressing an audience that is mostly, if not entirely comprised of Christians, therefore your constant Christian-bashing is, if nothing else, a very ineffective form of argument. Not to mention completely lacking in any kind of grace, love, or forgiveness-- key attributes of the Christian faith, and ones that you yourself seem to struggle with as much as anyone!

[danny316]

The church is not as full of haters as you seem to want to believe.

Don't tell me what I want and I won't tell you to fuck off. Janke, this is an issue I really care about. Regardless of how you choose to disguise it, attacking me based on my stance on an issue is not a way of discussing the issue. Trying to make it sound like I'm out to get a group of people because of my stance on an issue also isn't a way of discussing the issue. If I did do something that implied something negative to Christians, it's not a problem, since they put people through crap all the time too - no one's perfect and it's not a crime to point out a flaw, right?

Trying to make it sound like I'm making up everything negative that Christians have ever done is idiotic. There are problems and I actually care about them. If you want to discuss them, go ahead. If you want to keep preaching at me, put my picture on a dartboard somewhere and aim at the thing.

I'm all for a valid discussion of how to love the sinner and hate the sin, but if we're not even working with the same definitions to start with, it's not easy to discuss this. It's even harder when people try to make it look like Dan has some other problem rather than admitting the fact that much of the church has this problem.  

[Josh]

As usual, Danny, you're pretty much ignoring what others have to say and playing the self-righteous martyr. No one ever doubted that this issue is important to you, that you've had bad experiences with the Church, etc. But I remind you once again that you simply have no right to make such broad stereotypes about churchgoers-- I mean, how many churches have you been an active member in, anyway? Moreover, your refusal to place yourself among the damned, and to admit that you have just as much of a problem as anyone in the Church, is self-deceiving and arrogant.

And, yet again, remember that you're addressing an audience that is comprised entirely of evangelical Christians-- lumping all of us into one big stinky pile is NOT the best way to have a mature conversation. You reprimand Janke about having an intelligent discussion; I would give you the same request.

[danny316]

As usual, Danny, you're pretty much ignoring what others have to say and playing the self-righteous martyr.

I did try to address what was said. Sadly, I'm kind of stuck in the martyr role, but mostly because of how this thread has turned away from the original topic (which I was the only one to take offense to in the first place, so I was really the martyr in this thread all along).

No one ever doubted that this issue is important to you, that you've had bad experiences with the Church, etc. But I remind you once again that you simply have no right to make such broad stereotypes about churchgoers-- I mean, how many churches have you been an active member in, anyway?

I wasn't making any broad statements, just stating that this was an issue and that it seems to be one for the majority of Christians. I didn't say that all Christians are deranged bigots, just that many are and I don't like to be associated with them.

Oh, and three, by the way. One non-denominational, one presbyterean, and one catholic. I've attended many others, and I've also seen Christians of all sorts online. I can't really say anything about churchgoers in particular, since i've never been one to keep track of who actually goes or not, but i do have some idea what i'm talking about when i mention Christians.

Moreover, your refusal to place yourself among the damned, and to admit that you have just as much of a problem as anyone in the Church, is self-deceiving and arrogant.

I think this is just a misconception based on this thread. I do place myself among the damned, but the issue of dehumanizing gays and their supporters is not one that I've had trouble with. I'm sure there are sins I have trouble with that many people do not struggle with or are not aware of, but we have to address the problems we're aware of in the people who have those problems.

And, yet again, remember that you're addressing an audience that is comprised entirely of evangelical Christians-- lumping all of us into one big stinky pile is NOT the best way to have a mature conversation. You reprimand Janke about having an intelligent discussion; I would give you the same request.

I never tried to lump all of you into one big stinky pile. There are plenty of little stinky piles to go around, and some of them actually don't smell all that bad. Others have certain elements of stench that some of the piles don't. It's just the nature of the piles. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to touch the piles long enough to make a big stinky one.

....and that deserves some kind of award in the bizarre metaphor catagory.

[MJanke]

[Vlad!]

Regardless of how you choose to disguise it, attacking me based on my stance on an issue is not a way of discussing the issue.

How is he supposed to debate? Based on your hair color? If he thinks your stance is wrong, offensive, and hurtful, he has as much right to attack it as you do to express it. I'd rather see him attacking your stance than you personally, a courtesy that you have not shown him as of late.

[Dan]

I'm not even sure how to respond to you now....  

Here's one, how about saying something on-topic? This thread is titled "Priest denies communion to 'gay' supporters". A good response in this thread might be saying something about whether you think that was a good decision or a bad decision, or why something should be said. Maybe something about how that made you feel, or a joke or observation that's somewhat related to the topic.

I did not intend to stereotype anyone here, and I think I've made that clear by now. I stand by the blog entry you mentioned (how did you find that, anyway?) and I also stand by what I said in my now-dead Xanga - you need to respond to what's being said and not just to how it's being said. I also stand by the stance I've presented in this thread. Feel free to discuss my stance, or Paul's, or even bring up a third way of looking at this.

If you want to continue the off-topic discussion about what you think is wrong with me, I'm going to ask that you don't. That type of thing belongs in a PM, if it needs to be said at all. Frankly, I don't think that our same ol' crap needs to be brought up again at all, and I'd like it if you'd respect that view and stop trying to "fix" me. I know I've told you before that I really don't care about what you have to say, and rude as it is, I stand by that too. I'll make an exception if you say something reasonable that's related to the topic, but I am beyond sick of your personal attacks and misrepresentations of people's ideas.

Besides, I think we've scared off Paul anyway, and he was the biggest supporter of the "but we shouldn't let them have communion!" side. Without at least two sides in the discussion, it's going to be impossible for anyone to get anything out of this. The only thing worse than a useless thread is a useless thread that wastes this much of my time.  

[Josh]

Dude... if the thread's such a useless waste of your time, why do you keep posting?

[Dan]

Dude... if the thread's such a useless waste of your time, why do you keep posting?

For a little while there, I thought we just hadn't heard from Paul (or anyone else who agrees with him for that matter) yet. Now a couple of weekdays have gone by and I've seen Paul and Wildcat post in other threads - I'm fairly convinced they've been scared off now. Before, it looked like we could still pick up the topic, now it looks rather unlikely. If we had been able to get somewhere, the time would be worth it. I'm all for a good lengthy debate, and I really don't mind clarifying myself that much, but when a ridiculous tangent brings the thread to a point where it can't even have a discussion of the original topic, the thread becomes pretty useless.

Contrary to how it looks, I'm actually quite the optimist.  

[PaulDA]

For a little while there, I thought we just hadn't heard from Paul (or anyone else who agrees with him for that matter) yet. Now a couple of weekdays have gone by and I've seen Paul and Wildcat post in other threads - I'm fairly convinced they've been scared off now.

One thing you should know about me by now:
I don't get 'scared off.!
If I stop posting it's because I don't feel like posting.

When a person takes communion they are supposed to be right with God. They are supposed to confess all their sins. That's why Paul said many Christian are 'falling asleep'. Communion is a serious thing.
While it is true that a Priest cannot read someone's mind, they can notice when communion is being used the wrong way. These people who are wearing those arm bands are trying to use sacred communion as a form of protest, saying they agree with homosexuality and they want the church to say homosexuality is normal.
Communion is NOT for that type of thing, and the Priest has every right to refuse to give communion to anyone participating in that protest.

[Wildcatblue7]

No, I didn't get scared off, I just have better things to do than waste my time arguing when I'm not going to change your mind and you're not changing mine.

[danny316]

One thing you should know about me by now:
I don't get 'scared off.!

Cool. Good to know, I was afraid this thread was going to end up being pretty useless.

When a person takes communion they are supposed to be right with God. They are supposed to confess all their sins.

Interesting idea, but I don't think that really matches church doctrine or scripture. How do you explain the people "communed" with Christ in the gospels who were not right with God beforehand? I'm particularly interested in knowing how to explain Judas' presence at the last supper with this idea - it seems that while Judas had the sin of betraying Jesus on his mind, he was sitting there eating the bread and drinking the wine while Jesus said to do this in rememberence of him!

I have to admit, I am not a good student of the Catholic catechism, but I do know that it is standard in Catholic churches to allow young Catholics to experience the sacrament of "holy communion" or "eucharist" before they experience the sacrament of "confession". There are parishes and dioceses (sp?) that disagree with this and do it in the opposite order, or at the same time, or at least closer together than the standard few years between the two, but they're not the majority. I wouldn't be surprised if they were thinking similarly to you on the issue of being right with God, but at the moment, that's not the official church teaching.

Another question: if we are supposed to be right with God before we come to experience him, then how is anyone supposed to be fit to approach God? (Wait, the textbook answer is to approach God through Jesus, isn't it? Ok, then how is anyone supposed to be fit to approach Jesus to ask for forgiveness?)

That's why Paul said many Christian are 'falling asleep'. Communion is a serious thing.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I'm seeing quite where you're coming from here, but I do agree that communion, as an act of worship, is a serious thing. I can also see how the lack of a type of worship can be seen as falling asleep. I'm not entirely sure what the connection you're making here is though.

While it is true that a Priest cannot read someone's mind, they can notice when communion is being used the wrong way. These people who are wearing those arm bands are trying to use sacred communion as a form of protest, saying they agree with homosexuality and they want the church to say homosexuality is normal.

Actually, the last Catholic priest I talked to on the topic did say that homosexuality is normal. The belief presented by him was that it's not wrong to be tempted that way, but it is wrong to act on it by having "gay sex" or whatever you want to call it. I agree with that, but I have a hard time believing what he said next, especially in light of the scandals that have since come out: he said he encourages gays to join the priesthood, so that the complete abstinence from sex could be used for God.

I wonder if he'd still say that now.

Anyway, as far as it being a way of protesting, I think I could accuse the priest of doing the same thing. I think that whether or not you interpret the rainbow sash as also implying that "gay sex" is right decides whether or not this is truly a protest. If it's a way of saying that you're tempted to lust after people of your gender and not people of the opposite one, I don't see what's wrong with making that statement. If the point is to experience Jesus through the sacrament, I don't see why Jesus wouldn't be willing to meet with them and forgive them too.

Communion is NOT for that type of thing, and the Priest has every right to refuse to give communion to anyone participating in that protest.

I don't know - if the statement being made is "I'm gay and I still want to experience communion with Christ", then I think that person should be allowed to have communion. If the statement being made implies that there is no sin in lusting, then it's something worth having a problem over.

For the record, I don't know of any gay people who think that it's completely morally right to engage in homosexual acts, but I do know some who don't think it's morally wrong to express who they are. Many gays actually do respect the church when it says that homosexual acts are wrong, but the line is crossed when Christians say that it's wrong for them to be who they are.

It really depends on your interpretation of the rainbow sash, and to be honest, aside from the portion of Christians who are paranoid about these things, I don't think anyone really thinks of the sash as saying that it's not a sin to engage in homosexual acts.

Also, I don't think it's right to ever deny God or the things of God to others, even if they are protesting against God. Remember, even with all the things that happened at the end of Jesus' life, he still said "forgive them father, they know not what they do".

Wildcat, I don't think that it really comes down to both you and me being that stubborn. You gotta give the truth a chance to win out. It seems pretty silly for us to sit back and say "nah, that'd be too difficult a debate to win" when we both think that the other's views are seriously hurting people. Besides, I've already conceded a few things to Paul - do you really think I'm not willing to budge a little? I think that a firm belief always can stand a few tests, even if it turns out that the belief doesn't apply on the scale it was originally expected to apply on.

[PaulDA]

When a person takes communion they are supposed to be right with God. They are supposed to confess all their sins.

Interesting idea, but I don't think that really matches church doctrine or scripture.

It most definetely does match scripture!
Please read the following verses. The apostle Paul is speaking to the people at Corinth.
Especially note verses 27 - 32, which clearly show communion is a Holy act, and that people have even died (fallen asleep) when participating while not right with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11: 23-32
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.
32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.[/b]

[Wildcatblue7]

Wildcat, I don't think that it really comes down to both you and me being that stubborn. You gotta give the truth a chance to win out. It seems pretty silly for us to sit back and say "nah, that'd be too difficult a debate to win" when we both think that the other's views are seriously hurting people. Besides, I've already conceded a few things to Paul - do you really think I'm not willing to budge a little? I think that a firm belief always can stand a few tests, even if it turns out that the belief doesn't apply on the scale it was originally expected to apply on.

Okay, so maybe I really meant that I got exasperated with debating and didn't want to debate anyone about anything for a while.  

[danny316]

Interesting verse Paul. We should ask why more Catholic churches don't change the order of the sacraments to reflect that.

I can see how the verse would also kind of explain the situation with Judas at the last supper: he invited judgment on himself by taking it when he wasn't write with God.

I have another question though: If Jesus wouldn't deny Judas communion, why should priests deny communion to people today?

[PaulDA]

I have another question though: If Jesus wouldn't deny Judas communion, why should priests deny communion to people today?

There are two different subjects here:

One subject is: Anyone can take communion. If, for instance, I was holding a grudge against ten people and hated them, I could go up and take communion. I wouldn't be right with God, and I am playing with fire, but no one is going to stop me. Jesus wasn't about to stop Judas, because that was Judas' choice. We should not take communion when we are not right with God, but it is our choice.

The other subject is, if people are clearly using communion for political purposes, to clearly form a protest. In that case, the priest or preacher has every right to stop that behavior, because communion is not for that purpose. Just like if a group of protesters stand up in church and disrupt the services, the preacher has every right to eject those people. Church is to worship God, not to protest an agenda.
Don't forget, the people who wore those armbands weren't saying:
"Please accept 'gays' as people, we are all sinners",
they were saying:
"Homosexuality is normal and the church should accept homosexual marriage and homosexual sexual acts at being just as normal and ordained by God as heterosexual acts and marriage."
And no Christian church should agree with that.

[danny316]

Don't forget, the people who wore those armbands weren't saying:
"Please accept 'gays' as people, we are all sinners",
they were saying:
"Homosexuality is normal and the church should accept homosexual marriage and homosexual sexual acts at being just as normal and ordained by God as heterosexual acts and marriage."
And no Christian church should agree with that.

Paul, you were doing so well, and you even had me convinced that communion could be held back on the grounds that it's not something to be used for protests. Then you have to go and say something like that. What makes you think that the armbands meant the second thing you quoted and not the first one?