I guess the "threesome pride" three-corner hats are a no-go too.

It still never ceases to amaze me how ever "gay" "Christian" over and over continues to over look that bible verse that says "Man shall not lie down with man, it is an abomination".

On Ch.11 News last night, the camerawork showed a confrontation between two people, and the anti-rainbow-sash guy said loudly and clearly, "No, you are celebrating what is, in all honesty, a sin!"

I just don't understand how it can get anymore clear cut than that.

If you want to be gay, and you want catholic communion, go start your own Gay Catholic church, but don't for ONE SECOND expect blessing from the Vatican, Benedict 16 or anyone below him, all the way down to your parish priest.

FJBill:

It might have to do with the fact that the fellow you referenced had shaved that morning. Last I checked, that's also forbidden; so's eating shellfish.

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to believe homosexuality is wrong. But remember the parable of the mote and the plank.

Re: Jeff Fecke at May 16, 2005 10:18 PM

In the Bible, eating shellfish is only forbidden for Jews. Homosexuality is forbidden for Jews and all others as well.

If you're going to protest something it's probably a good idea to do so in a way that is likely to win people over to your side rather than offend them. Trying to hijack the Mass and Holy Communion for your own purposes is repulsive to Catholics who -- like me -- would otherwise tend to by sympathetic to the cause. The gay community seems to do this on a regular basis. Another example is holding 'gay pride' parades which celebrate promiscuity and behavior that is -- to say the least -- out of the mainstream, and then getting all offended when mainstream America doesn't support the idea of gay marriage. It's great to celebrate 'who you are,' but you also need to be pragmatic about what your goals are and how best to achieve them. If you want to protest, picket outside the church. You make the decision to attend Mass, then you respect the sacraments and the other people there.
Having said all that, and in reference to previous comments in this thread, the Bible has been used as the basis for several things (like apartheid and slavery) that the Catholic church now abhors.

Chriss,

Bingo. Exactly my point.

I, personally, don't care about anyone else's orientation. It's the whole arrogant idea of hijacking a worship service with their disruptive theatrics that, as you said, turns people who are fundamentally on their side against them.

If I were a family that had just lost a loved one, and was in church trying to deal with the loss, and had to put up with that self-righteous posturing in the next pew, I'd be hard-pressed to find a whole lot to be sympathetic about.

I think you are right about the Winona situation. I think it is all about boobery (from one of my earlier posts):

Ms. Rethlefsen, be proud of your sexuality. That is a good thing. However, I firmly believe that buttons are just like bumper stickers: they say more about the person wearing them than they do about the issue they are addressing. Example for my fellow "leftist" friends: what is the first thing you think of when you see someone drive around with either an "Impeach Clinton" or a "Charlton Heston is My President" bumpersticker. Answer: "My god, I don't heart that vagina. What an ass." Political speech, yes. Complete boobery? Also yes.

However, I think there is a bit more to the Catholic sash issue. I have been Catholic all my life. I went to Catholic grade school and college. I have staunchly conservative Catholic grandparents and fairly liberal Catholic parents. This is a big issue in our family. I think you are wrong to simply focus on this issue as mainly an act of grandstanding.

While I understand and agree with Pope Benedict XVI's desire to make clear exactly what it means to be a Catholic, I also understand that the church's ministry to the GLBT community has been virtually extinguished along with the increasingly rigid public stance towards homosexuality.

I think this protest is more about the ministry of the church and politics than it is about specific doctrine. Ultimately, I'm not sure how important a smallish, rather ambiguous verse from the Holiness Code is in the grand scheme of things. I don't think it rises to the level that all the public fuss is about...thus the label of politics (I know there are more references to homosexuality in the bible, but this is the key verse.)

Ultimately, I think the Church is in the right to declare its own rules, enforce them, and expect people to play along (much like the Boy Scouts, for a secular answer). However, as a Catholic this pains me because of the way it affects GLBT ministry. Everyone should be welcome in the church; especially those whom are not always accepted by society. And it's pretty hard to express concern when there is a "my way or the highway" mentality on the ruling side. In cases like this...what can you do but get loud and proud?

Another thing at play here is that I don't like seeing the eucharist used as a protest. This is a personal and positive affirmation of faith, (not to mention all the stuff about the body of Christ)...not a threat or a tool for leverage. I didn't like it when it was used against John Kerry and I don't like how it is used right now.

This still leaves me the question of how the church can "lay down the law" on people it disagrees with. I don't know how they can find a middle ground where they can express their concerns with homosexuality, while at the same time providing a spiritual home and ministry. As much as I think that they are wrong on homosexuality, this is their right and there should be theological consistency in the church...I just wish there were a better outlet for discussion of what that theological consistency is.

BTW: A lot of people--including me--celebrate their fantastic guitar playing in church. Spitting...not so much. There is a good deal of individual celebration in church. My mom used to make the eucharist bread becasue she was a good cook. My grandma helped embroider the sash for her priest because she was a good stitcher (she calls herself the "happy hooker"). A church is a collection and celebration of different individuals coming together because of their love for Christ. It is a celebration of both community and individuality. How can I, as Cleversponge, use my talents to serve the lord? This is the question that God asks all of us. What happens when the church says that the biggest part of your identity is a moral sin? I don't know. I can't imagine this sort of thing happening to me. I hope and pray it never does (I don't realistically think it will). However, my point is that the church is very much about what each of us brings to the table.

Withholding the Eucharist from people who are proudly announcing that they are living in sin, whether they are pro-abortion politicians or non-celibate gays and lesbians, is not "a threat or a tool for leverage". It has always been a requirement for someone to have been to Confession and repented their sins before they take confession, and if you are openly dissenting from the magisterium to the point where you are not only sinning but proud of it, you have no business lining up to receive Communion. It's pretty open and shut, and has been ever since I was a wee lad growing up with base chaplains instead of parish priests. The scandal has been that so many priests have been shirking their duty and not enforcing the rules, to say nothing of failing to see that people are taught what the rules are.
The middle ground for the church and homosexuality is that they're okay with you deciding (or being) gay and lesbian so long as you're chaste and celibate, which is the way you're supposed to behave if you're unmarried and straight, for that matter. OTOH, if you want to be "out", you shouldn't expect to be treated any differently than people who are straight and screwing around. You're a sinner. Deal with it.

Kevin:

I don't think we disagree on the point of the church having the right to do what they are doing. You are right that the withholding of the eucharist hasn't really been used all that much in the past.

My beef with this is that I think if the church is going to be consistent, there are plenty of other sins out there in the open to deny communion for. I think this is only popping up because the sin of homosexuality has, what I believe-to be an overly prominent place in the public eye. Because it has been switched on for the rainbow sashes...this is why I say politics and leverage.

We're all sinners and we all have to "deal with it", regardless of the sin. I say this with hope of redemption. I believe you say it with a sense of vindictiveness.

Kevin:

I'm quite a smart ass with political things, but I do try to keep it civil with religious discussion. I don't know whether or not you are a vindictive person and I was wrong to assume so.

I am very frustrated as a Catholic right now. I grew up Catholic in a Catholic family with Catholic grandparents, Catholic great-grandparents, I went to Catholic grade school, I was confirmed a Catholic, I went to Catholic college, I grew up in houses that had pictures of the Pope, Mary, and JFK on the walls. After church every Sunday we would go to the basement and have coffee and doughnuts. We would volunteer in Catholic soup kitchens and we would donate whatever we didn't need to Catholic charity. I don't ever remember hearing a homily about homosexuality when I was growing up. I remember stuff about adultry and premarital sex, but nothing about homosexuality. I remember hearing how we needed to help the poor and needy. I don't remember anything about homosexuality. I remember hearing how we needed to support ministries in Africa (we had a Nigerian priest for a while), but nothing about homosexuality.

My point is that I am Catholic. I think I'm a good Catholic. It is who I am. However, there is a large group of people out there who think I am a wishy-washy ball of relativism because of my stance on one issue that I don't think is all that important to the overall theology of the church. One frickin' issue...and some people want to vote me off the island. This has caused quite a crisis of faith with me. I know it really shouldn't, but I just don't know anymore. I guess I have a little bit more empathy for GLBT folks than I used to because I have seen how this 1 issue can change everything. And the more and more I think about it, the more I think that this has more to do with politics than it does anything else...and this honestly worries me.

I apologize for assuming things about your faith without evidence.

Cleversponge, you're unable to come to a conclusion because you want to have your cake and eat it, too. It doesn't work that way.

The Church should not have given Communion to the protesters. And if they persist in sinful action and encourage others to engage in the same, they should be ex-communicated. That's completely consistent with Church law and plain common sense.

Every religion has rules. Roman Catholics believe their rules are based on God's Eternal Truth. They're not willing to compromise because there IS NO MIDDLE GROUND between God's Eternal Truth and Satan's Snares.

If you want to protest the Catholic Church's rules, follow the long and honorable tradition of Martin Luther and Henry VII - quit the Church and join one that has rules you like. And by the way, congratulations - you're now a Protestant.
.

Oops, wrong Henry. You get the idea . . . .

Nathan:

I don't get the idea. To many people, I've somehow become a "bad Catholic" (and yes, I've been called this) because of my stance on 1 maybe 2 issues that were never really talked about during my formative years. Now, they want to enforce something that wasn't important before. I have no problem with enforcing the rules...I just don't get the emphasis on this one...one that wasn't important until it became a political hot button.

On pretty much everything else...I'm all about what the Church teaches.

This is who I am. This is not something to be given up lightly, as it cuts to the core of my being.

And all that stuff about no middle ground...come on!! Earth IS the middle ground. And the Vatican hasn't exactly kept a completely consistent position on every issue throughout the years...copyright Copernicus.

Nathan:

Are you Catholic?

Sponge:

This is only become an issue in the last 25-30 years because the concept of homosexual behavior as biologically determined, or for someone to consider themselve exclusively homosexual, is a very recent concept. Homosexuality was practiced by cultures surrounding Jesus' Judea, but it was perfectly understood by the Jews to be sinful, thus there was no reason for Jesus to address it. Instead he talked about the sins the Jews were engaging in, such as adultry through serial monagamy, which been made popular, by exploiting the laws on divorce.

Since you say you are on-board with the rest of catholic teaching, I suggest that you do some more study as to why catholicism, and Christianity in general, regards homosexuality as wrong. The bible is consistant that we were created male and female for a distinct purpose, to argue that same sex relationships are equivalent simply undermines God's in respect to sexuality.

Rick:

I think you make a good point. My issue with the point of the new concept of homosexuality is that if the concept has changed in recent years, it obviously didn't mean the same things for the people of @580-530 BCE as it does for us right now.

I have studied this issue at great length and I am unsure as to whether or not Leviticus 18:22 should be considered a moral sin or a unclean ritualistic sin.

Perhaps the biggest strike against my reasoning is the other branch of the church's sexual teaching that says that sexual intercourse is a perfect blend of procreation and pleasure that should only be undertaken by married couples. However, this belief takes into account the interpretation that the homosexual part of the Holiness Code is indeed a moral sin...something that I am not too sure is the case.

The distinction between ritual and moral sin is an important one, as most everyone these days simply doesn't subscribe to everything that is written down in the Holiness Code. For example, my farmer grandparents didn't exactly plant their fields according to the wishes of Leviticus.

Going back to the point of the changing concept of homosexuality, I don't believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that people at the time of exile had in mind anything other than homosexual acts. We don't have the second part of the verse to hash this distinction out. I wish we did, as it would help solve a lot of unanswered questions for me.

I've always thought there was something very Quixotic about Catholics protesting Church teaching. It's not your church -- it's the pope's church. He can do with it what he wants. It's not a democracy, nor do I think any amount of disgruntled Americans can make it one.

Why do they stay?

We stay because we love it and--for the vast majority of its teachings--believe in it.

CSponge-

Two things:

1. In regard to your comment on Copernicus, I hope that you're not believing the hype and know the history of the Church and Galileo:

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/galileo.html

The real story doesn't quite live up to the myth that's been created over the years.

2. You were raised Catholic, went to Catholic grade school and college, and say you NEVER were taught that the Church considers homosexual behavior sinful? You never heard anything on this from a parent, a teacher, or a priest? As someone with a similar background (add Catholic high school, subtract Catholic college), I find that surprising and frankly quite shocking.

"You were raised Catholic, went to Catholic grade school and college, and say you NEVER were taught that the Church considers homosexual behavior sinful? "

They were too busy teaching us how awful the Jews were.

(It was pre Vatican II, though).

Yes, Cleversponge, I am a life-long Roman Catholic, with religious instruction similar to yours.

Not that it matters, my opinion wouldn't change. If you were Orthodox Jew, Shiite Muslim or Wisconsin Synod Lutheran and were raising the same objections to the teachings of your faith, I'd tell you to submit to those teachings or quit that temple, mosque or church and find one you like better.

The club sets the rules, not you. If you don't like the rules, leave. You do NOT disrupt club events by wearing a rainbow sash and singing protest songs for one very basic reason . . . it's not nice to insult other people's deeply held religious beliefs right in the middle of their worship service.

.

To address your other issue, Cleversponge, let me see if I understand it clearly:

You disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church because your scholarly research on the Biblical teaching of homosexuality leads you to a conclusion which differs from than that of the Church.

Isn't that the essence of the Protestant movement? That there is no central religious authority, that every person has a direct line to God, that every person can decide for himself what the teachings of the faith should be?

You can't be a "good Catholic" and deny just one small teaching about the triune nature of God; instead, you're a Modalist, a heretic.

You can't be a "good Catholic" and deny just one small teaching about Jesus being created by God instead of being God; instead, you're an Arian, a heretic.

You either accept the teaching of the church or you quit. If you can't understand how the church came to a different conclusion, maybe you should spend some time with high powered churchmen, thinkers and teachers who can explain it.

As a person educated in the Benedictine tradition, I couldn't in good conscience recommend you have anything to do with the Enemy [no, not the Protestants, the Jesuits - sorry, inside joke], but they do have many fine thinkers and teachers, especially at universities. Offer to take such a priest to dinner to discuss it - a small investment of time and money could literally change your life.

From your writings, you seem to be a person of faith and good will. The Church can't afford to lose people like you. Try this with an open mind. If it doesn't work, e-mail me your address and I'll pay for dinner.
.

Elder:

I hope you are not saying that the church hasn't made any major foul-ups during its history. I was going for a little bit of over-the-top-ness with the Copernicus comment. The point remains that they have changed positions on a few things over the years

I honestly don't remember homosexuality coming up. The first time I remember hearing about it at church was when I went to St. Bonaventure's in Bloomington. They reportedly fired the musical director because he was gay. This is the first time that I remember a homily having any reference to homosexuality in it. My prior church was St. Kevin's (now Our Lady of Peace). Father Jeub was the priest and I honestly don't remember hearing any homilies on the subject.

I attended college at Creighton, a Jesuit University. The subject came up in the discussion of the Holiness Code. I still can't recall a single homily on the subject. During my time in the military, I often went to the only available church service (because of my weird hours on several deployments)...I heard lots of stuff about homosexuality in several sermons.

I think that this is a timing thing more than anything else. I just don't recall homosexuality being a big issue when I was younger. It wasn't a current event and it wasn't a "threat" in any way shape, or form. Therefore, it was never brought up in homily. (It very well may have been...I honestly don't remember it.)

Also, I never said that I wasn't taught that it was sinful...I just said that I didn't hear about it in homily. I apologize if this was unclear. Even in our religious instruction, we did not spend all that much time on homosexuality. I remember it being brought up by my 3rd grade teacher Mrs. Sullivan. Someone in class called another kid "gay" and we all laughed. Most of the class had no idea what gay was except for a few kids. Mrs. Sullivan explained that the Old Testament said that gay was a word for when 2 guys slept together and that it was banned by God. That's pretty much it.

I think I learned as much about the use of condoms as I did about homosexuality from my Catholic school (until college, of course).

Nathan:

I have spent many a long hour with a Jesuit talking about this and other theological issues (many at the Dubliner in downtown Omaha). As the son of a Johnnie and a Bennie, I know about the rivalry.

I know I'm not a heretic because I don't completely subscribe to 1 of the church's teachings. I know this deep, deep, down inside of me. And if I'm wrong...well, then so be it. I just don't think that a position on homosexuality is central to Catholic belief. I know, I know about the "wholeness" of proper Catholicism...but this is my bet. I try to follow the rest of the rules to the best of my ability...but I do so with faith and (hopefully) introspection. I can't seem to do it on the issue of homosexuality. You bring up some pretty substantial theological issues. I don't think homosexuality rises to that level.

I know I can't decide what the teachings of the church are. I'm not so naieve to think so. I do know that I'm a good Catholic. I'm still proud of it.

I don't say this as a gay person (I'm not...I'm happily married with a lovely Okie wife and 2 beautiful daughters); nor do I say this as someone who wears a sash in church. I say this as someone who thinks that there is a viable middle way within Catholicism to provide a good ministry to everyone; GLBT folks included. I don't know that it is possible to provide ministry to someone whose identity you reject. I don't know if there is a way to love the sin and hate the sinner in this case (but this opens up a whole new can of worms...inateness or chosen behavior).

Whatever it is...well, I'll find out just how good of a Catholic I was in the end.

point of clarification:

I was in the military during the time when the alleged firing took place at St. Bonnies. I didn't actually hear the homily. It was relayed to me via family and friends.

another clarification (it's hard to keep track of things in this small window):

the other sermons were for non-Catholic ceremonies. I usually got off shift just as the Pentacostals were having a service.

CSponge, it's okay, people have made worse assumptions about me, and you apologized promptly, so we're cool. I think Nathan and the Elder pretty much covered the points I would have made if I'd come back sooner, but I do want to reinforce one point that has been obliquely touched on by a couple of people.
I don't find it hard to believe that you didn't hear any sermons on homosexuality while growing up, because until fairly recently it wasn't an issue. Society considered GLBT folk disgusting perverts and there was damn little tolerance, let alone acceptance and encouragement. When that changed, and such behavior became first tolerated and then encouraged by the dominant media culture, it became an issue for the Church to confront, and that's when they started cracking down on it. Essentially, it's always been a sin (and a serious one) but they haven't made a big deal about it until recently because it hasn't been a widespread problem. The same goes for abortion, and for similar reasons.
Church teaching on sex does stress the primacy of reproduction within marriage, but it also holds that the emotional bonding that takes place with sex within marriage is also important, and sanctifies sex between husband and wife even if the husband or wife is sterile through no fault of their own.

We'll, I am an Evangelical. I can say we don't talk about homosexuality very often, except when the issue is engaging western culture, then it becomes a big issue. I think the enormity of ot comes from the idea that we should bend our scripturally informed beliefs to accomodate the sexual practices of a very small number of people. If we can't stand firm on this, we can't be counted on faithful to the rest of our beliefs.

You can say what want about us, but you have to admit we have a consistent sexual ethic. Embracing Homosexuality requires us to give up most of what we believe about how God expects us to conduct ourselves sexually. Not only about homosexuality but about extramarital sex as well. Have you once ever heard a Gay man say, let us marry and we'll promise to be monogamous?

I've done a little research into churches that have adapted themselves to accept homosexuality, and have noted that this issue seems to become only thing the church is about after awhile. Check out the website of Mayflower Church in MPLS. You'll find some reference to sexual orientation on almost every page. To the bible, not once (that I have found).

Kevin:

I think you are right about the reason why homosexuality wasn't brought up in the homily. This has been my working assumption on why I had never heard anything about it.

Rick:

I don't think that people should bend their religious beliefs to accomodate things that go against everything they stand for. I don't think homosexuality (as we now define it) fits this bill (of being against everything). I don't see homosexuality as a threat to western culture. I don't see it as a threat to the major teachings of Catholicism. I think you can make the proper Catholic arguments about the nature of sex and reproduction without attacking homosexual identity as a moral sin. Because of these things, I don't think that the slippery slope applies in this case. I don't think the weight of this sin is equal to the amount of attention it has garnered.

"I think you can make the proper Catholic arguments about the nature of sex and reproduction without attacking homosexual identity as a moral sin"

How? I think you are engaging in cognative dissonance. You seem to me to be embracing two sets of beliefs, one for straight catholics one for gay catholics. The net effect of what you propose is that straight catholics continue in church teaching, and that gay catholics go where-ever thier sexual proclivities lead them Where in the bible does one go to determine a sexual ethic gays and lesbians, other than celibacy?

I challenge you to question the whole notion of homosexual identity. What real evidence is there that it exists, other than an after the fact excuse to justify homosexual behavior?

No dissonance. I think you can safely (and with theological consistency) determine that homosexuality in the bible refers to homosexual ACTS (sorry, I can't put italics here...I'm not yelling) not identity. Whether or not you believe in the inateness of homosexuality is besides the point on this matter...the act and the identity (whether chosen or inate) are different concepts. The act can also be interpreted to be a ritualistic sin.

I can't answer your last question. I'm not a biologist. I have read things that both support and attack the inate nature of homosexuality. I don't know the first thing about either of them.

Here's a moral/theological question:

What if we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is an inate identity?

I'm not saying this to try and show you up, I have asked the same question to myself. What would it say about human nature? What would it say about church doctrine? What would it say about our ability to act beyond our bodily constraints; utilitizng the free will given to us by God? What does it say about God?

Do you know why this issue is really scary? Answer these questions. I believe that the church, and all of Christianity, will eventually be placed in this position if it doesn't work things out beforehand.

I don't think that this is a situation like evolution where the scientific evidence can be folded into the mix...this one raises far more theological questions....if it were ever to conclusively happen.

Spongeworthy-

I was by no means trying to say that the Church has behaved perfectly in the past. Far from it. But the story about Galileo and the Church has been distorted through the years and has been used to try to paint the Church as being ignorant and anti-science. The true facts are not quite as black and white.

When you say that you didn't hear about homosexuality as a sin in homilies, it makes more sense. As others have already pointed out, I think it's because it was something that was considered obvious and didn't need to be mentioned in that setting. But there are plenty of other venues for the Church to express its views and I still find it strange that you could grow up Catholic without understanding the Church's position on the matter.

Elder:

Agreed on the point of Galileo. True facts are not quite in black and white; which is ironic since we are talking about exactly what one must do to be a "good Catholic."

I find it strange that I had never really heard about homosexuality, as well. The more and more I think about it, the more and more I realize that it all has to do with the increasing presence of homosexuality in our culture. Homilies were about what was going on in the world. When I was growing up...this just wasn't talked about. I do remember hearing a homily on the evils of pop culture when Return of the Jedi came out. I was very upset about Father Jeub saying that it was bad that more people paid attention to the movie than they did to chuch; I sort of know where he is coming from now. Back then (with my action figures)...not so much.

I do think that there is another force at play here: political activism. Churches (of all ideologies) have become more politically active in recent years. Narrowcasting has become an effective way to reach specific voters on specific issues. Contrary to what everyone says about evangelicals, we Catholics are the most important voting bloc in the country; you can't win a national election without us. I'll try to keep this as non-partisan as possible; there are certain folks out there who have it in their best interest to narrow down the traditionally large scope of Catholic issues into something that is a bit more manageable and easily targeted. I know all the stuff about the 5 non-negotiable voting issues, but this is deeper than that. There are external non-Catholic forces extending their influence into Catholic communities to target specific issues. One of these single issues is homosexuality. I'm not making any value judgments on this practice (at the moment); all I am saying is that I think that politics has a little bit to do with the increased "importance" of homosexuality and religion.

This is a tricky (and, to me, troublesome) mix. I'm not a big believer in mixing religion and politics. Not because I don't think it can be done, but because I think that the political flavor of the day is narrowcasting, wedging, and framing; issues that don't give one rat's ass about the ultimate ends of the universe (which is why we have religion.)

Politics these days is about dividing and conquering. This is something that I don't want in the church. Politicans taking advantage of church doctrine is not a good thing. I've kind of strayed off topic just a little, but here is an old post I had on a matter of relevance:

http://monkeysponge.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-i-do-not-like-george-w-bush.html