Acbp Flynn & the Rainbow Sash Group

[HagiaSophia]

Archbishop Harry J. Flynn of Minneapolis-St. Paul spoke to Vatican officials about gay rights proponents wearing rainbow sashes to Mass and receiving Communion.

Unlike some other bishops across the country, Archbishop Flynn has allowed Communion to be given to members of the group known as Rainbow Sash. That has prompted criticism by some Catholics in his archdiocese, and at one Mass a group of lay people tried to block the aisles to prevent sash-wearers from receiving Communion.

Archbishop Flynn said he discussed the issue in a private meeting in early December with Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

He said Cardinal Arinze agreed that it was a complex problem requiring clear teaching and pastoral sensitivity. The archbishop said he was not asked to change his policy.

"I got the clear understanding that this is recognized as a very complex pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications," Archbishop Flynn said in an interview in mid-December.

"It needs to be handled prayerfully and reflectively," he said.

"There was encouragement to keep on teaching and also to be aware of the forces everywhere, including in the United States, that are against the long tradition of the teaching of the church," he said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/sto...ns/0406824.htm

[Sola]

Archbishop Flynn said sash-wearers would not be denied Communion because members of the movement had assured him in writing that their presence was not in protest of church teachings.

Huh??? Isn't the rainbow sash movement "in protest of church teachings" by its very existence?

"Gay rights" are antithetical to the Church!

[AmyS]

Originally Posted by Sola

Huh??? Isn't the rainbow sash movement "in protest of church teachings" by its very existence?

"Gay rights" are antithetical to the Church!

What a weight they are now carrying on their shoulders taking their feelings above Gods teachings.... I wonder if this ever hits their conscious?

[Island Oak]

Mpls/St. Paul is a very liberal metropolitan area full of civic pride in its progressive attitudes on any number of social issues--some less offensive and challenging to accept than others. It also has a large (for its size) well-organized, vocal/visible gay rights constituency. It comes as no surprise to me that a "rainbow sash coalition" has taken root there.

I think that and similar challenges being made to the Church are just the beginning of a wave we will all be riding in fairly short order. I only pray the leadership of the Church fashions a response that respects the dignity and underlying faith in God of all sides while making clear that full communion in all aspects of civil and religious life may be beyond the grasp of even the most persistent gay-rights proponents.

[fix]

I am not sure which is more disappointing. Flynn not doing his appointed job, or Arinze not telling him to do his job. The homo sashers are in your face and intentionally and willfully dissenting from Church teaching. Instead of excommunicating these people all we ever here is the word pastoral which is almost always a code word for not correcting error. More scandal. Weak bishops are not in short supply.

[Island Oak]

Originally Posted by fix

I am not sure which is more disappointing. Flynn not doing his appointed job, or Arinze not telling him to do his job. The homo sashers are in your face and intentionally and willfully dissenting from Church teaching. Instead of excommunicating these people all we ever here is the word pastoral which is almost always a code word for not correcting error. More scandal. Weak bishops are not in short supply.

What exactly do you propose? A show down at the communion rail? Or would you prefer that the rainbow-wearers be tackled at the front door of the church and either stripped of their offending banners or denied entrance? Let's not forget that part of the goal of any deliberate disobedience is the hope of provoking a reaction. The lack of an immediate response is not equivalent to no response. The Church needs to be measured and thoughtful as well as compassionate in its response or risk losing its credibility and moral authority.

[fix]

Originally Posted by Island Oak

What exactly do you propose? A show down at the communion rail? Or would you prefer that the rainbow-wearers be tackled at the front door of the church and either stripped of their offending banners or denied entrance? Let's not forget that part of the goal of any deliberate disobedience is the hope of provoking a reaction. The lack of an immediate response is not equivalent to no response. The Church needs to be measured and thoughtful as well as compassionate in its response or risk losing its credibility and moral authority.

This nonsense has been around for years. It is not some new item to deal with. They should be told if they wear the sash they will be refused communion. They have been catechized many times. They reject the truth. They deserve prayer, but they are a scandal and can easily lead others astray. It is a grave matter that has been not handled well.

In my diocese I have been at mass when they have gone to communion. It was at a leftist, dissenting parish. The bishop allows it. This is a problem in the Church today. Some are weak and some are traitors. Nothing new under the sun, but now there is a greater awarness due to technology.

[Island Oak]

Originally Posted by fix

This nonsense has been around for years. It is not some new item to deal with. They should be told if they wear the sash they will be refused communion.

This sounds like a set-up for confrontation and an invitation to fill an entire church with banner wearing protesters.

They have been catechized many times. They reject the truth. They deserve prayer, but they are a scandal and can easily lead others astray. It is a grave matter that has been not handled well.

I'm not taking issue with your underlying view so much as the approach. We stand to fan the flames by erecting barriers. The Church has a tradition of taking on tough, controversial social/sexual issues and issuing teachings on them. However, it has thus far stayed away from scarlet-letter type shunning of certain categories of sinners. We're all in the same soup in terms of our sinfulness and I think we need to carefully consider whether we really want to start publicly singling out selected sinners as more deserving of differential/exclusionary treatment.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Island Oak

This sounds like a set-up for confrontation and an invitation to fill an entire church with banner wearing protesters.

Some churches have security guards to keep out the rabble-rousers. If they are coming in to protest rather than participate in the sacrifice of the mass, the guards have every right to kick them out.

Originally Posted by Island Oak

I'm not taking issue with your underlying view so much as the approach. We stand to fan the flames by erecting barriers. The Church has a tradition of taking on tough, controversial social/sexual issues and issuing teachings on them. However, it has thus far stayed away from scarlet-letter type shunning of certain categories of sinners. We're all in the same soup in terms of our sinfulness and I think we need to carefully consider whether we really want to start publicly singling out selected sinners as more deserving of differential/exclusionary treatment.

Christ's teachings are not barriers but liberating truths.

The issue here is not who is sinning and who isn't. The issue is these protestors want the Church to declare homosexuality not sinful. I heard 2 things in the past 2 days.

First, from my local parish homily from a deacon:

There are not bad and good Catholics. There are only Catholics and non-Catholics.

Second, from a talk by Peter Kreeft:

There is no problem in not knowing all the truth. The question is whether you are seeking the truth or not.

The Church's Truth is not up for grabs. It's not up for grabs or pick and choose what you want. You can disagree with Her moral teachings but you cannot demand or promote Her modifying Her moral teachings. The Church is the Body of Christ.

Christ (God) is the same yesteday, today, and forever. These teachings cannot change.

[HagiaSophia]

Originally Posted by Brad

Some churches have security guards to keep out the rabble-rousers. If they are coming in to protest rather than participate in the sacrifice of the mass, the guards have every right to kick them out.

My understanding is that the issue has always been this: any individual may approach to receive Eucharist. They are responsible for the state of grace which entitles them to do so. But the Rainbow sashers have wished to wear their sashes and approach the Eucharist as a "body" protesting the church's stand on homosexuality. Bishops have said that a protest symbol approaching the Eucharist is not proper, the Church's stand on homosexuals vs. the practice is well known.




.

[Island Oak]

Originally Posted by Brad

Some churches have security guards to keep out the rabble-rousers. If they are coming in to protest rather than participate in the sacrifice of the mass, the guards have every right to kick them out.

I have NEVER heard of such a thing and God help us if that's the best we can do.

There are not bad and good Catholics. There are only Catholics and non-Catholics.

Second, from a talk by Peter Kreeft:

There is no problem in not knowing all the truth. The question is whether you are seeking the truth or not.

The Church's Truth is not up for grabs. It's not up for grabs or pick and choose what you want. You can disagree with Her moral teachings but you cannot demand or promote Her modifying Her moral teachings. The Church is the Body of Christ.

Christ (God) is the same yesteday, today, and forever. These teachings cannot change.

We are largely in agreement on these solid insights. I think the goal needs to be finding that common ground that exists as well as defining boundaries. You can no more bully a person into being tolerant than you can into being faithful. All I am suggesting is dialog--not abandoning principles and certainly not erecting barbed wire around the churches.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Island Oak

I have NEVER heard of such a thing and God help us if that's the best we can do.

God help us is right. But aren't we there? When open dissenters protest and disturb the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass - and threaten the priests - are we not to defend them? It does happen you know.

How about when satanists take communion and do not consume it but leave the church - I saw this at a mass a week and a half ago. This is extremely dangerous and should not be allowed.

Originally Posted by Island Oak

We are largely in agreement on these solid insights. I think the goal needs to be finding that common ground that exists as well as defining boundaries. You can no more bully a person into being tolerant than you can into being faithful. All I am suggesting is dialog--not abandoning principles and certainly not erecting barbed wire around the churches.

I agree. The problem is that there is no pluralism in the Church - as we just agreed - Christ's teachings are the same forever - they cannot be changed. This is not bigotry - this is the fatih, this is the truth.

What about the faith of the 8-year olds that see the rainbow sashers taking communion in full pride? Is this not a scandal to their faith?

[Sola]

Originally Posted by Island Oak

We're all in the same soup in terms of our sinfulness and I think we need to carefully consider whether we really want to start publicly singling out selected sinners as more deserving of differential/exclusionary treatment.

You are right, Island Oak, but there is more to it than just being sinners. The wearing of the rainbow sash is a political, deliberately provacative action in protest of Church teachings. Wearing it to Mass is taking a physical, visible action.

Of course we all sin, but we don't see the adulterer come to Mass with spouse AND mistress; the thief does not come wearing a banner to give all thieves the right to steal; the animal abuser does not enter the sanctuary while kicking a dog. So when we see these people, we don't know their sins, or else we trust that they have confessed. But wearing your sin across your chest is unrepentant and therefore subject to different treatment by the parish.

IMO.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Sola

You are right, Island Oak, but there is more to it than just being sinners. The wearing of the rainbow sash is a political, deliberately provacative action in protest of Church teachings. Wearing it to Mass is taking a physical, visible action.

Of course we all sin, but we don't see the adulterer come to Mass with spouse AND mistress; the thief does not come wearing a banner to give all thieves the right to steal; the animal abuser does not enter the sanctuary while kicking a dog. So when we see these people, we don't know their sins, or else we trust that they have confessed. But wearing your sin across your chest is unrepentant and therefore subject to different treatment by the parish.

IMO.

Correct.

[cestusdei]

I don't know what happened to the Archbishop. He was very orthodox as a rector. No one wearing a rainbow sash will receive communion in my parish.