Support Gay Marriage? Then Skip Communion Says Detroit Archbishop and Canon Lawyer

[Danny]

Anyone who want's to rebute my arguments, do so. I will use the bible to back it up in a flash. Don't say it, just bring it.

[swingline]

The Detroit Roman Catholic hierarchy has vocally injected itself into the gay marriage issue. According to their statement, Catholics who simply express support for gay marriage [thinking not doing] and took communion were likened to perjurers by the archbishop.



Peters went on to say, "Catholics who promote 'same-sex marriage' act contrary to" Catholic law "and should not approach for holy Communion," he wrote. "They also risk having holy Communion withheld from them ... being rebuked and/or being sanctioned."

Peters has previously said Catholic liberal Democrats like Gov. Cuomo of New York and House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi should be denied Communion because of their statements and positions seemingly taking a partisan political stance generally eschewed by the church.

I wonder if they are equally vocal in the many scandals in which the church is awash.

My primary reaction to Archbishop Vigneron's statements was sadness. Sadness for the continued descent of a remarkable institution into the dark depths of hypocrisy, bigotry and moral corruption. Its leadership has devolved into little more than a police organization addressing "immoral" sexuality. [[While Catholic hospitals are refusing to provide abortion services to women, how can they at the same time provide pre and post-natal care to unmarried mothers?) It's incredibly tragic. I agree that the Church is in danger of becoming a historical relic within a couple of generations.

[Meddle]

I will use the bible to back it up in a flash.

You're going to use an antiquated book of fictional stories to back up life facts?

[subsidized]

Anyone who want's to rebute my arguments, do so. I will use Gullivers Travels to back it up in a flash. Don't say it, just bring it.

Back it on up danny.... Because everything written in books is fact.

[Johnnny5]

. [[While Catholic hospitals are refusing to provide abortion services to women, how can they at the same time provide pre and post-natal care to unmarried mothers?) .

Perhaps because they see a difference between an act that takes an innocent life and another that saves one?

[canuck]

My primary reaction to Archbishop Vigneron's statements was sadness. Sadness for the continued descent of a remarkable institution into the dark depths of hypocrisy, bigotry and moral corruption. Its leadership has devolved into little more than a police organization addressing "immoral" sexuality. [[While Catholic hospitals are refusing to provide abortion services to women, how can they at the same time provide pre and post-natal care to unmarried mothers?) It's incredibly tragic. I agree that the Church is in danger of becoming a historical relic within a couple of generations.

Well the whole idea of promoting a traditionally molded, family unit was very important to indoctrinate generations of catholics and other christians.

The "family values" campaigning was about control more than it was about sanity. For centuries, the church and then the protestant factions needed to ratify unions because this gave them power to control the family unit economically and politically to its advantage. It was never about assisting the people it preached to, it was about maintaining control over every aspect of their lives until national governments effectively dispensed with their control, making the churches redundant. In Quebec that happened within 2 generations, because the people were more evenly catholic, and their reaction to the will of the church more extreme than elsewhere. The government ministries replaced the church in health and education, the two most expensive units of a provincial budget.

[Bham1982]

Perhaps because they see a difference between act that takes an innocent life and another that saves one?

Is that why I never hear the Catholic church preaching against domestic gun violence, which has killed more Americans than in all U.S. wars put together?

I guess the "sanctity of life" only applies to those who haven't been born yet. Once they're alive, tough luck.

[Johnnny5]

Is that why I never hear the Catholic church preaching against domestic gun violence, which has killed more Americans than in all U.S. wars put together?
.

I can only assume it's because you are selectivity hearing only what you choose to.

[Bham1982]

I can only assume it's because you are selectivity hearing only what you choose to.

No, the next time I hear a homily preaching against gun violence will be first. I've even heard a homily preaching for war, prior to the invastion of Afghanistan. As if God is rooting for the U.S.

In contrast, I think I've heard a thousand homilies preaching against gays, contraception, and abortion. The majority of Catholics, like myself, have to separate our faith from the hypocricy of its leaders.

[Johnnny5]

No, the next time I hear a homily preaching against gun violence will be first. I've even heard a homily preaching for war, prior to the invastion of Afghanistan. As if God is rooting for the U.S.

In contrast, I think I've heard a thousand homilies preaching against gays, contraception, and abortion. The majority of Catholics, like myself, have to separate our faith from the hypocricy of its leaders.

Well then perhaps they are simply preaching it on a numbers basis. That would make sense since about 1.2 million American lives are lost each year to abortion and about 12,000 Americans lose their lives each year to gun violence.

Either way, this is getting a bit far from the thread topic.

[Bham1982]

Well then perhaps they are simply preaching it on a numbers basis. That would make sense since about 1.2 million American lives are lost each year to abortion and about 12,000 Americans lose their lives each year to gun violence.

They aren't preaching against lives lost. They're preaching against potential lives lost. Huge difference. You could say that abstinence or birth control "kills" billions of people each year. But, once they're born, apparently no one cares if they're killed.

[poobert]

N The majority of Catholics, like myself, have to separate our faith from the hypocricy of its leaders.

Bingo. I've been doing this for years, with increasingly limited success. The Church seems more and more interested in being a conservative Super Super PAC these days than anything else.

Ironically the Church has "liberal" positions, like being against the death penalty. Yet they aren't going after governors who allow dozens of executions per year. I know it isn't nearly as much as, say, abortion, but this isn't a numbers game, right?

Jeb Bush [[a Catholic) was Governor when a shitload of people were executed, and he's a freaking Knight of Columbus. Total hypocrisy.

Despite their wailing and gnashing of teeth, a majority of US Catholics voted for Obama this time around. Basically we're not medieval peasants anymore and can think for ourselves.

I'm having a tough time though. Being a Catholic with a brain sucks, but I'm not Jewish, love alcohol too much to be a Muslim, am scared to death by evangelicals thumping their Bibles and handling their snakes, and get the feeling the Episcopalians are just playing church. Not sure where to get religion from these days, I guess.

[michimoby]

The Catholic Church is right. They stand by God's Laws only! Homosexuality is a sin. Those who sin and didn't repent cannot take communion. If any sinners take the Lord's supper inappropiately will be found guilty of polluting the Gospel.

It's not ok to be homosexual while living a Christian life at the same time. It's a form of hypocracy!

As a Christian I respect the person, not their lifestyles of sin.

The Church welcomes sinners, but they must accept the truth of God and come out SAVED! Their decision for salvation and grace is that person's hands.

Peter took the Lord's supper despite a prophecy that he would deny Christ. He didn't believe Jesus' words, which would technically be a sin, but still was allowed to sit at the table.

The verses you'll likely pull are either Pauline [[that being the perspective of a singular apostle) or couched in Levitical law. Both are subject to discussion, and many scholars would even view them as orthogonal to the Gospel. To cut off any and all debate by claiming "the Bible says so" is arguably the most un-Christian thing you could do.

[RedeemerKid]

I can support SSM [[outside of the church) and take holy communion, and sleep just fine at night.

I don't care what any mortal man says. All is well between me, my conscience and my God. It's a personal relationship I have with God. We're good.

There's a few other things I am not in lockstep with the church on as well. Same with most if not all Catholics I know, and every priest I have ever spoken to about the subject.

[jackie5275]

Maybe the timing is intentional. The new pope is not settled into his throne nor established his authority and positions. Could this be an attempt to create a scene that will force his hand to assert the church's stance?

I don't think so. The pope has too many other things on his radar besides one lone archbishop in the US.

[jackie5275]

Well the whole idea of promoting a traditionally molded, family unit was very important to indoctrinate generations of catholics and other christians.

The "family values" campaigning was about control more than it was about sanity. For centuries, the church and then the protestant factions needed to ratify unions because this gave them power to control the family unit economically and politically to its advantage.

I always thought family values campaigning was done by Republicans to get the Protestant vote.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

Bingo. I've been doing this for years, with increasingly limited success. The Church seems more and more interested in being a conservative Super Super PAC these days than anything else.

Ironically the Church has "liberal" positions, like being against the death penalty. Yet they aren't going after governors who allow dozens of executions per year. I know it isn't nearly as much as, say, abortion, but this isn't a numbers game, right?

Jeb Bush [[a Catholic) was Governor when a shitload of people were executed, and he's a freaking Knight of Columbus. Total hypocrisy.

Despite their wailing and gnashing of teeth, a majority of US Catholics voted for Obama this time around. Basically we're not medieval peasants anymore and can think for ourselves.

I'm having a tough time though. Being a Catholic with a brain sucks, but I'm not Jewish, love alcohol too much to be a Muslim, am scared to death by evangelicals thumping their Bibles and handling their snakes, and get the feeling the Episcopalians are just playing church. Not sure where to get religion from these days, I guess.

A congregation like this would be a good place to start
http://www.cathedralofstanthonydetroit.org/

[Onthe405]

I'm not gay or Catholic, but I still think the host of the party should be able to make the rules . . .if you don't agree with them you have every right to go elsewhere . ...

One of the many reasons there are so many former Catholics. These decisions are made by ordinary men to further human agendas that they support. Men are not perfect in their choices, hence the many missteps in a perfect world.

Correct. IMO, the RCC is a carryover from the pre-Enlightenment Age. Any Roman Catholic should face the reality that it is a monarchy, not a democracy. "Protests" & disagreements from the pews are irrelevant and fruitless. Lay Catholics provide 100% of the funding and do 90% of the parish grunt work & administration, but have absolutely no say in who their leaders are, what the canons of the church are, or knowledge of where their money is going. If a person chooses to participate in that type of arrangement----continue to write checks & enjoy.

One more reason to be glad that I left the Roman Catholic Church years ago. These days I take pains to refer to it as the Roman church, in deference to the other less reactionary Catholic churches that do not have allegiance to the Pope on his gilded throne.

DOTWC, as a person called to faith and raised RC, I, too, reasoned this out years ago and moved on to another denomination. As a gay man, I am welcomed as an equal [[as are women--including as clergy), know where my money is going [[can & do protest effectively when I disagree), and have been elected in the past as a delegate in the democratic process of the ongoing evolution of canon.


Theologically, if the "Holy Spirit is guiding the Church through history" via a bunch of old men in Rome or Salt Lake---why can't it work the same way through other people-as a discerning, joint process equally between parishioners & clergy?

[coracle]

One result if SSM is granted is that as the participants cannot produce an issue having their combined genes eventually the problem will die out or at least be minimized. [[if the condition is in their genes as against being an adopted lifestyle). By then of course rhe damage will have been done and they can get married to dodge paying taxes.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

OnThe405: I moved on from the RCC to the Unitarian Universalist church. Quite a change, and one I am very grateful for having made.

[canuck]

I always thought family values campaigning was done by Republicans to get the Protestant vote.

Overwhelmingly yes, the bible belt ticket I guess, but I meant in the wider context of christianity and the catholic church in historical terms. You know Henry VIII's contention that he was the leader of the English church is based on marriage and annulments administered by Rome, and the impossibility of divorce even for a king. That in a nutshell says a lot about the power of the church on paupers and monarchs alike.

Muslims and jews have their own courts, all effectively bypassing the order of the lay courts if members of their respective communities agree to abide by their rules.

[Zacha341]

Not necessarily. Again the 'tidy' partisan template fails to be water-tight; exclusively descriptive. There are others [[including dems and indies) who question the long term outworking[[s) of SSM.

I always thought family values campaigning was done by Republicans to get the Protestant vote.

[michimoby]

One result if SSM is granted is that as the participants cannot produce an issue having their combined genes eventually the problem will die out or at least be minimized. [[if the condition is in their genes as against being an adopted lifestyle). By then of course rhe damage will have been done and they can get married to dodge paying taxes.

What "problem", exactly, are you talking about?

[CassTechGrad]

The Minnesota State legislature had committee hearings on redefining marriage. A little11 year old girl came forward and asked the politicians that if marriage is not about the joining of a man and a woman then could they tell her which parent she no longer needed, her mother or her father. No one either could answer or would answer but they voted to pass the bill and close the meeting. Maybe some of the readers of this site can provide the little girl with the answer to her question.

[jcole]

The Minnesota State legislature had committee hearings on redefining marriage. A little11 year old girl came forward and asked the politicians that if marriage is not about the joining of a man and a woman then could they tell her which parent she no longer needed, her mother or her father. No one either could answer or would answer but they voted to pass the bill and close the meeting. Maybe some of the readers of this site can provide the little girl with the answer to her question.

IT's still about joining a man and a woman, but it can also be about joining a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Tell her to go ask kids who can't be adopted by their gay parents why BOTH of their parents are expendable.