AmericanPapist Comments
As I noted on Gerald's blog, Archbishop Niederauer behaves and speaks like a man who has something to hide. That is, he evidently fears the homosexuals of San Francisco more than he fears God. Now, ask yourself the question: Why would a bishop of the Catholic Church participate in blasphemy, and then pretend that it never happened?
OK, Rick, it's clear what you are implying. You believe that the Archbishop fears being "outed". Unless you have real evidence, then what you are writing is calumny. This is a serious matter--be careful of what you say. I am not pleased with Archbishop Niederauer's conduct or explanation. It appears to me that he has made a grave error, but you are way, way out of line here.
How exactly is one NOT to engage in such conjecture. At this point, a blackmail theory would actually be a considerably more charitable hypothesis. We could at least take solace in the fact that, if he has a problem, he is trying to in some way to fight it or deny it.
It is either that, or he has no respect whatsoever for the teachings of Holy Mother Church and is openly rebelling against her.
Granted, there could be a sort of Father Brown moment when the whole truth is revealed and the actual situation is something that no one expects.
But Father Brown was also an excellent judge of character and if one were to go purely on what this Archbishop himself says and does, you would have to come to the conclusion that orthodoxy and obedience are not major concerns. Combine this with the amount of power that resides in his office and the issue gets even more murky.
By the way Thomas, methinks you need to give your spelling the once-over. Unless the transvestite was also a level 5 white mage, I do not think he could have been wearing "heals".
Is there anything that is worse than intentionally desecrating the Body of Christ? Sodomy, theft, fraud, adultery etc. certainly are not worse - so what could be used to blackmail a Bishop to do this?
Maybe this video is a fabrication. Maybe the man is not the Bishop but a stunt double. Maybe he never actually conserated the host and was just handing out little bits of bread. Maybe the Bishop has some misguided notion that the Sacrament would instantly cast the demons out of those manifest perverts. Maybe.
What if?
What if the Archbishop asked the communicant if he'd been to confession? What if the answer was yes?
What would any priest do? a visiting priest at that?
and, if that was the question asked - the Archbishhop certainly can't reveal that publicly can he?
If your impression of the scenerio is correct, I don't have arguments with you but if the above "what if" is the scenerio - it presents different questions and issues for me.
I think if the Archbishop asked if the individual in question had been to confession, and the individual in question replied, "Yes," the next question from the Archbishop should have been, "Then why do you persist in presenting yourself as a mockery of a consecrated woman, publicly scandalizing the faithful?"
Someone in an irregular marriage who "confesses" every Sunday morning before coming to confession, but persists living in an objective state of sin ought not present himself or herself for communion. Similarly this individual, even had he confessed just prior to Mass, is showing by his external garb, his contempt for things held sacred by the Church, his rejection of Church teaching, and his espousal of an ideology that starkly contrasts with that of the Gospel.
Christ didn't say to the woman at the well, "Your sins are forgiven, keep on living the life you've lived."
Can somebody walk me through exactly what the Abp. should have said or done in this instance?
I mean, as the person approached, when the person got to the front, etc.
But is it not just more simple...
Men are not to wear hats in church!
Or did the good Archbishop not know that these were really men?
I think...
First of all, if you look at the video you see a couple of things.
This is a small church. There are maybe a couple hundred people there.
The two folks in question are, it seems, seated in the back, but they are clearly visible.
The Archbishop, in a quick glance before Mass, would have seen them.
The Archbishop, being the pastor of the Church in San Francisco, knowing that this parish was in the Castro, would immediately know who these folks were - members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
He could ask to see them before Mass. He could inquire as to who they were and what their intentions were. He could say, that because they are members of a group that is openly opposed to the teachings of the Church, they should not present themselves for Communion. If they do, they will be blessed, but refused Communion.
And then he would say a prayer for strength and compassion, and preside at Mass.
Someone who is aware of his surroundings, who is not either doddering or simply being led around the nose or afraid could handle this. It would not be easy, but it would be possible.
It might have been helpful beforehand to meditate on the words of St. Paul: "I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God...As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."
As I noted in my blog, perhaps the person or persons wearing "mock religious garb" were out of range of the camera taking this picture. Maybe they were to the right or left of this appropriately-dressed couple in the center.
This is very shocking. Can you imagine being in the congregation at that mass and watching those two receive communion? I'm pretty sure I would have been in tears.
Should we really be playing into these person’s delusions by referring to them with the title they have given themselves? "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?" 1. They are men, not women. 2. They are not therefore women of Consecrated Life and thus do not merit the title. 3. By continuing to refer to them by this self-given title we play into and reinforce their delusion. We should in a spirit of true Christian charity earnestly pray for these poor sinners (remember, even St. Paul converted... and he had murder on his heart). We should also pray for the Archbishop, who has not only done harm to these individuals, but through this scandalous event has harmed the entire Church - the Living Body of Christ. Kudos to TAquinas for the St. Paul quote!
If he followed them with his eyes to see if they consumed the host, what would/could he do if they had just walked away with it in their hand?
Teresa:
No one would have been shocked. MHR is very, very gay-friendly parish in the Castro district. If you watch the whole video, you see one older gentleman at the reception coming up to one of the Drag Nuns and saying "Thank you for being here."
Alas, I suspect Archbishop Neiderauer is on "the other team." If the Vatican actually sees this stuff and keeps him as Archbishop, I won't take much of what they have to say about the gay lifestyle seriously again, just more pious puffing. Moreover, probably not many of the rest of the Faithful who become aware of this scandal will either. Faith without action is meaningless. Tom
This whole episode is ridiculous. You don't live in the SF Bay Area for more than a week or two without knowing who the SofPI are. My 10 year old knows who they are! So no matter what excuse he's using the bishop is either derelict in his duty as head of his diocese or he's derelict in his duty as the head of the diocese. To claim ignorance and suggest that you don't know who some of the most public dissenters are in your diocese has got to have some wondering what the heck he does all day?
Get over it. It's not like those transvestites desecrated the host or anything like that. We ALL desperately need the living presence of Christ in our lives — regardless of what we wear or who we are. Maybe Christ wanted them there. Who are you to question Christ's mercy?
Turn off EWTN, look deeper, and stop obsessing.
I'm with you Michaelus. This is SO contrived!
Oceanforty -
1) Actually, they did desecrate the Host if they were in a state of mortal sin.
2) I agree we ALL desperately need the presence of Christ in our lives. But Jesus wants us to let him forgive our sins, and we have to ask for that first.
3) I'm sure Christ wanted them there. But as his loving friends, not dressed in an outfit that mocked other members of the Church.
4) I'm not questioning Christ's mercy. No one can know the spiritual state of someone else's soul. But we *can* know when someone's external actions point towards a sinful lifestyle. If my friend shows signs of alcoholism I can fully act on those signs and seek to get him treatment.
5) Pull up a chair, re-examine your pre-conceived notions, and keep an open mind on this topic. There's far more here than meets the eye.
Thanks.
As a barely former (2 months ago) resident of the Bay Area, I have to agree with Anonymous a couple posts above. The SPI are infamous in the area. What's more, there was a protest last year at this time because Most Holy Redeemer was permitting them to use their parish hall for meetings.
If I had to guess at the Achbshp's motivation without putting too uncharitable a spin on it, the pastoral policy in the Bay Area toward homosexuals has been ... conciliatory ... for lack of a better word. I imagine to try and avoid the public perception (already well in place, btw) that Catholics are "bigoted, fundamental, gay-hating" etc.
It is possible for a bishop to be a good, orthodox shepherd without picking a fight with the local proponents of immorality and still uphold Church teaching. Anyone who wants to know how should look across the Bay to Bshp. Vigneron who has been quietly changing the Oakland diocese for the better by simply promoting good things (Eucharistic adoration, pro-life groups, Corpus Christi processions, catechetics.)
I'm afraid Achbshp. Nierderaur's actions are only more of the same morally timid leadership the Church in the Bay Area has suffered from and under for the last couple of decades. San Francisco deserves some relief!
Thankyou AmericanPapist for your above reply to OceanForty. Your handling of this issue has been just, appropriate, and balanced. Thank you for not writing about this event in a mocking tone. OceanForty, remember that the Church has ALWAYS been protective of the Eucharist. Recall that the early Church did not even allow non-initiated Christians into the Liturgy. Today, we not only welcome their presence but offer them a blessing - how progressive is that?! However the Church teaches us to guard agains sacrilege and immoral behavior in Her Liturgies (read the Epistles of John and Paul). The Eucharist is one of our oldest and most treasured of gifts with we must take the greatest care in protecting from desecration. This issue goes well beyond whether one is a "liberal" or "conservative" Catholic. We all share in this sacred responsibility. I agree with you that it should be these people should still be treated with love and respect (Christ commands it) and I believe that Thomas has done a dignified and respectable job. Yes, let us pray for them!
If a person was a practicing Catholic, would they sincerely come dressed like that to receive Jesus?
Are those two people attempting to make a statement rather than worthily receiving our Lord?
In my opinion, AB N. lacks courage and conviction of the Presence to speak to those two people by simply telling them to go home, wash their faces, changes into clean clothes and come back to receive Communion.
Anyone with true charity would try to help those two rather than excuse them under the words of charity or
tolerance or being judgmental.
Perhaps there are so few 'real' nuns wearing authentic habits that even fake ones will fool some people ... NOT.
"Perhaps there are so few 'real' nuns wearing authentic habits that even fake ones will fool some people ... NOT.
Father John Trigilio"
Well, there's the irony of the world we live in now, Fr Trigilio. We have actual nuns refusing to wear habits, and mock nuns wearing the habits that proper nuns used to wear. How's that for a topsey-turvy world?
You're right, Jason R. I agree.
I also wholeheartedly apologize to Thomas for my hastily written comments. I have better manners than that.
Those words came from a place of sheer frustration. I'm no theologian — just another average Catholic guy who's just so sick and tired of this divisive left-right-oreilly-franken-hannity-colmes-coulter-
maher culture war noise, which is taking its toll on all of us as American Catholics.
Pray for unity. Pray for me! ;)
The bishop had to make an on-the-spot decision and he realizes now it was not the best decision, so maybe it's time to stop beating this horse.
In any case, it made me think of something I once witnessed at Holy Cross Cathedral in Boston. It was at a Mass celebrated by the late Cardinal Medeiros.
Toward the end of the Communion line, a man came up who from his whole appearance and dress, etc., was obviously not a well-balanced individual who probably didn't realize what was going on. Cardinal Medeiros didn't give him Communion but talked to him in a very kind and pastoral way, gave him a blessing and sent him on his way. That was all the man really wanted, apparently, and I was impressed at how the cardinal handled that situation with kindness and tact, while respecting the sanctity of the sacraments.
The "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" are in a totally different category, obviously, but dealing with this kind of situation calls for kindness blended with a firmness that respects the Church's discipline about the sacraments.
a very wide stance offered by the SFAB. The kiss was very reassuring also.
Bill O is a clown. Invading the church?! They were participating in the Mass... and they're in the Castro--they aren't rushing into St. Dominic's or St. Patrick's... If you don't like San Francisco, don't come here.
This is a city of enormous tolerance-- and I believe that Christ and His Church can withstand anything, even this.
What is silly is to make such a big deal about it.
If this was no big deal, than why did the early Christians like Tarsius give his life rather than let the pagans touch and desecrate the Holy Eucharist? Where are the Catholics willing to protect with their lives if need be,the Holy Eucharist?
re update 3:
George Neumayr is now editor of Catholic World Report.
Commenting by HaloScan
