U.K. Cardinal's permission for "gay mass" dismays Catholic traditionalists

Homosexual rights campaigners have gained permission from the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales to hold Mass for gay parishioners.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor will allow a gay group to hold fortnightly Masses in his Westminster diocese
While the Church has allowed celibate gays to receive holy communion, traditionalist Catholics believe that practising homosexuals should be barred from the sacramental rite because their way of life defies Church teaching.

Now, however, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has taken the controversial step of allowing fortnightly Masses in his Westminster diocese specifically for homosexuals.

telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/18/nchurch18.xml

What should a non-traditionalist Catholic response be?

Would you attend this NO Mass with your family because … after all … a " Mass is a Mass"…?

I was in the CMRI and the Bishop WAS a homosexual…
what should a traditionalist reaction or response be?
Error is error.
Disobedience is disobedience.
The Holy Father will respond in time…after all Rome was not built in a day.
These individual rouge bishops will answer to God.
Beware lest your reaction is as Luther’s was.

I was in the CMRI…

When did you attend Mass there?

When I was a member of the community…
That should be sufficient.

When I was a member of the community…
That should be sufficient.

Long ago then, I presume.

Is your non-answer an attempt to impugn the CMRI today?

I would avoid it like the plague that it is – even if it was the only Mass avail and I had to miss my Sunday obligation

I have lost hope that Rome will respond in force. They do not exercise their authority other than in meaningless paper that no one reads

AMEN!.. But there are too many of these “rouge” bishops

Luther did get abuses cleaned up but strayed from catholic doctrine.

First, I do not like to see a Mass targeted at a group like homosexuals. I can see no purpose in it except for the need to make a political statement. I can hardly imagine having a bi-weekly Mass for adultrery, theft or any other sin.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with welcoming them to Mass and, as long as they are celebate, receiving communion, even at a Traditionalist Church. The sin of homosexuality should be treated like any other grave sin. It should not excessively stigmatize the sinner, nor should it be treated as anything less than the grave sin it is. I like this statement:

“Homosexuals can attend their own parish church, so having a separate and distinct Mass looks like they are trying to make a statement,” said Michael Akerman, of Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, a traditionalist Catholic group.

If divorced and remarried people are not allowed to communion because their sex is wrong, neither should active homosexuals be. I speak this not to deny anyone communion.

Well said. I cannot see these actions as anything but politcal. Would it be pastoral to have special mass for contraceptionists? Or for those attached to pornography?

I agree with that… Welcoming them as individuals , as sinners (as I am), but not as a group

Amen…!

The bizarre, yet perfectly analogous, spectacle of a “Mass for Non-Contrite CarJackers” would be a clue as to how silly it is.

Wow…

Then again (from the article):

“A statement from the diocese stressed that the move did not represent a shift in Church teaching, which says that homosexual practice is a sin and that non-celibate gay people should not be given communion.”

…answers the question.

To all:

I think we’re missing something here. Why is the Church allowing these types of Masses anyway? Doesn’t this carry the implication that non-gays are excluded? I though catholic meant universal, that all Catholics should feel free to attend a Catholic Mass anywhere it is said.

Sorry, but if it isn’t catholic, then it does NOT fulfull the Sunday obligation.


Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

I agree with BobP, something is missing in the article. I wonder what group is actually coordinating the Mass? We have a young adults group here in KC that has a Mass once a month or so that is targeted to the age group (from what I hear they are about as orthodox and by the book as one can get, wish I didn’t have class on Thursdays so I could go). Perhaps this Mass is being coordinated by a group similar to COURAGE. The article was rather vague on this topic.

The Church is not allowing it. In all likelihood, the Church may not even know about it. Why is the bishop allowing it is a whole other situation.

The Church is not allowing it. In all likelihood, the Church may not even know about it. Why is the bishop allowing it is a whole other situation.

If a Bishop claiming jurisdiction is allowing it, then a member the Church Teaching is allowing it. If complaints are made and ignored, then the Church is allowing it.

Good point!

The following pages have excellent rebuttals.
I am sorry that they are too lengthy to post here…I do hope that those interested in The Catholics Church’s position will follow the links and settle in for some good stuff!

SSPX - The Grammar of Dissent - The Church and Scandal
[[cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=132](“http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=157")]("http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=132”)

cuf/FaithhFacts/view_all.asp

The above link might work better.:slight_smile:

What does “a member the Church Teaching” mean? A bishop’s teaching is valid in so far as it is in communion with Rome.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.