Very true, Mark. And no one can know for sure if another person is in a state of sin. There's that nagging little "judge not lest ye be judged." It's possible, highly unlikely bordering on totally improbable but some of those coming for communion might have been celibate.
Two points:
First, I think having lay vigilantes trying to enforce who goes to communion is awful, awful, AWFUL. This is a HUGE step in the wrong direction. The LAST thing we want is for the sectional rivalries among lay Catholics to start getting played out by different vigilante groups deciding who they want to let come to communion this week.
Second, I would actually say (and I spent a fair amount of time talking to Rainbow Sash protesters in St. Paul last summer) that it's quite probable that some of them are celibate for one reason or another. For one thing, the gay community is so youth focused that older gay men often have few opportunities.
However, one point that most people seem to miss is that wrong public witness is WORSE than private sin. A celibate homosexual who wears a rainbow sash to Mass, publicly proclaiming support for Church blessing of gay sexual relationships, is doing more damage than a man who does not dissent from Church teaching publicly but who does engage in private sinful behavior.
The person who publicly advocates a sin which they do not themselves engage in is leading others into sin. This does far more damage to the Body of Christ, and is a very, very serious sin against charity.
Were not those barring the self-excommunicated from defiling the Blessed Sacrament -doing the right thing-?
Have any of the saints been martyred doing the same thing?
If the priest allows the Sash members to recive communion, then he is guilty of spiritual neglect by allowing the potential damnation of those who receive unworthily, as the manifestation of grave sin is already emblazoned on their..err..(wear does one wear a sash?)
If the lay people engage in this vigilantism, then they drag themselves down with the sin of the priest. Best not to do that...
Hmmm?
Vigilantism? Noose and tree limb? Slap the horse's rear?
Hey, where is the sheriff? I mean, His Excellency, the Archbishop? Why put the poor pastor in such a bind whom I understand is quite a devout orthodox Catholic?
What happened to the sheriff? Drunk?
A coward? Worried about doing anything orthodox in liberal MPLS?
Seems we have a dereliction of duty here. Now, if Sheriff Flynn had only done his duty, none of these boys would have taken the law into their own hands.
Think it's time to bring in Duke Wojtyla.
Pretty tacky. The priests at Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral did exactly the right thing on Sunday. Handshake, no Eucharist, a few individual words, go back to your pew. Then cry and moan to the teevee cameras with The Same Old Threadbare Excuses.
This is the sort of situation in which I'm apt to find that my initial assumption was quite mistaken. We need a canon lawyer here - is it proper for laypeople to prevent, or demonstrate against, public sacrilege? I wouldn't be willing to state conclusively of my own knowledge that it was wrong for them to do so. It probably contributed to an invigorating conviction of martyrdom on the part of a bunch of tiresome, self-dramatizing idiots, which would be unfortunate, but that's different from being wrong. Does anyone know what the rule is? I'd be interested to hear.
One of the comments in the article had it right: a church (anywhere) is for worshipping God, not pushing your own agenda, whatever that may be, in order to get on the news. Another example of the loss of awareness of the sacred, when a church is considered a place to socialize rather than a place of worship. Shameful behaviour by the Ushers and the Rainbow Sash wearers.
Oh for Christ's sake (excuse me). Why would you want to be Catholic if you don't want to abide by the religion's teachings?
Gerald E, the SF Chronicle really should hire you as a columnist. They would love the pastiche-style of writing, but would get a thousand hate letters a day demanding that they fire you. Of course, the same people would be your most faithful readers.
And notice this line? "Some in the audience came specifically to support one of the two sides." So now, because of the Rainbow Sashers and their kneeling opponents, the Sacrifice of the Mass becomes a show with the attendant "audience" and "cameras". It throws more fuel on the fire the Sashers are trying to light.
Well, they had a snappy name, at least. "Ushers of teh Eucharist." I wonder if they have some cute crest or something. Mayeb they could have "The Grand Supreme Usher of the Eucharist." Swell.
I could be wrong.
I am sorry but I do not think these men were wrong. I think they are heros and white martyrs. I believe that they are in the tradition of the saints who have given their lives protecting the blessed sacrament from desecration.
These Rainbow Sash wearers, by wearing the sash, are in grave sin, open and notorious. It does not matter if they dont stick their pee pee in untoward places anymore. Their very act of approaching the table with that sash is an abomination. Please visit the Rainbow Sash Website to see that to wear the sash is to give Jesus the finger.
To all who are hand wringing over these men who stood forth and waxed valiant, I think it is shameful that you would sit back and allow someone to damn themselves. The priest who gave it to them is guilty of neglect of their souls at the least. But this is not about the Sash wearers, primarily, it is about JESUS!
The early Christians would not even let people who were in notorious open sin to come to the Eucharistic liturgy. They had to leave after the liturgy of the word. But we think its ok for these Supporters of Sodomy and Degredation to come sashaying down the aisle. NO!NO!NO!
I think these men are heros. I bless them. These men care about Jesus and do not want to see him abused, nor do they want to see the Sash Wearers heap damnation on their souls by committing Deicide!
I am suprised at the lack of outrage and righteous zeal that is being displayed on this blog comment thread.
I have a question for all of you . . . including you Mark S. What would you do if you saw a Satanist with an upside down cross on his chest come down the church aisle and take Jesus from the priest and then proceed to spit on it? Would you just stand there?
Now I know that these Sash Wearers are not conciously serving the Dark Lord BUT they are desecrating the Mass, the Priests, the whole Christian Religion, and our God by attempting to make a statement with their unholy recieption of the Eurcharist.
I think you would all do well to read Numbers 25 with the eyes of the Church Fathers. See what they and God say of men like Phinehas! Note: the men you condemn did not even go that far! Do a Bible word search and see how many times and in what context Phinehas the Son of Eleazar the Son of Aaron the Priest is mentioned. Then grab some of the Ante-Nicean and Post-Nicean Fathers and do the same!
Then think to yourself, if God thinks this about Phinehas, what joy and familial affection he must have towards these brave men who stood forth for truth when the Shepard would not!
Deus Lo Vult!
I'm with paladin. We are supposed to rebuke those doing wrong as well as try to prevent it. Also we dont do things or avoid them depending on wether or not its popular or will make us look good/bad, we do them because they are right. Go sit in the middle of my mothers people and it wont take long for you to see that they didnt want the eucharist they just wanted those around to see noone would stand up to them. If noone had youd be hearing stories about how the faith has begun to accept homosexuality instead. If people started believing this it would be more dangerous. Being seen as a marter to a few is far better than being seen as normal and ok to many.
The fanaticism of the so-called Ushers and their defenders amaze me. I wonder if they would put a bullet in the brains of the Sash wearers if they could get away with it. I smell a tragedy in the making.
Me also with Paladin: While I don't think the acts of Phinehas son of Eleazar are necessarily on point, I don't see what the Ushers did wrong. They acted only to protect the Host and His Church, but Mark and many of the posters here seem to want to look into their hearts and see self-aggrandizing self-righteousness--Mark's taunt, play Bishop For a Day is particularly offensive-- even while claiming the impossibility of judging the hearts of the Sash wearers. It is clear that their secret sins are not the issue, but their public desecration of the Host. The Ushers, for their part, didn't bring politics into church. Notwithstanding the circus surrounding them, charity enjoins us to judge their acts in the very narrow context of protecting the Eucharist--no less charity than we all seem to want to grant the Sash wearers.
Patrick: Kneeling in the aisle so that a desecrator has to walk three extra feet (that's about a metre, Patricia) to do his vile work. There's a sure sign of wanting to put a bullet in someone's brain if I ever saw one.
I guess I'll be flamed for this, but...I agree with Paladin, Josephine, and John C. Somebody has to stand up and if the bishops don't/won't, who will? Shall we sit on our rusty dusties and let things start to slide and slide down faster, like so many Episcopalians did? I'm a refugee from the ECUSA and I can tell you that if only there had been many Episcopalian laity that had taken this type of action starting years ago - last summer's travesty in the ECUSA might not have happened.
Your right John C.
Also, let me take a moment and explain why I used the Phinehas analogy.
Phinehas was serving as an Old Test. altar boy if you will (akin to an usher) at the time of the events of Numbers 25. He was of the priesthood family and would one day be a priest. He was not in the lead role.
At a "Church Service" where they were gathered, crying out for God's Mercy (Lord Have Mercy . . .) an Israelite (ie. member of the church) came walking into the service and began to fornicate with an Midianitesh woman (strage god worshipper etc.). This was in FULL SITE of the rest of the congregation. (Rainbow Sashsayers in full view of congregation celebrating an even worse depravity than mere fornication, march up to make a statement of disunity and demand for change of Church teaching . . . = blasphemy and abuse of God.)
Phinehas, realizing the utmost blasphemy of this act, rose up, took a javelin in his hand and thrust both of them through (pinned them together). NOW . . .certainly their is a difference between running someone through with a spear and kneeling peacefully to impede someones way BUT . . .
Phinehas was rewarded BY GOD with an EVERLASTING PRIESTHOOD!!! and God said that Phinehas showed zeal for him (just like Jesus later would) and Phinehas wound up saving a whole host of people because he showed them what God expected and prevented God from killing the lot of them for the actions of the two fornicators.
Phinehas, out of love for God and his holy people, rose up and took action to prevent blasphemy from occurring.
These ushers rose up, out of love for God and for his holy people, and took action to prevent blasphemy from occurring.
My point is that if God showed such appreciation towards Phinehas for what he did ( which was much more than these ushers did) he certainly is not going to have unkind feelings toward ushers who are not protecting an old covenant law but God Himself.
This is why this analogy is on point. God is looking for Phinehases in this and every generation. The priest at this Church should have prevented this but I would bet that the ushers, knowing that the priest was going to hand Jesus over to the tormentors, felt that at least they would try to implore God's mercy and prevent blasphemy.
God bless these men. I wonder just how seriously we take the warnings in 1 Cor. if we are going to sit back and let Jesus (defenseless, humble, exposed in the Host for our sakes) be abused and mocked and used and do nothing to stop it.
Well I take it seriously. And I love the Rainbow Sash wearers. But above all I love God. I am not going to sit still while my God is abused. Phinehas did not and God showed what he thinks of people who rise up in zeal for Him. These men just added jewels to their crowns in heaven in my opinion.
Old Pal, you're right; your example is on point. I lost my train of thought somewhere between reading, writing and editing. I was thinking not that it was inappropriate, but that it might be a dangerous example, inviting, say, Patrick Rothwell to the conclusion, "well if not a bullet, then a javelin". But it was awkwardly worded and ended up being not "on point" after the edit. Sorry.
Still friends?
Oh absolutely! I agree that some simply cannot bear to think that our loving God would gush and reward someone like Phinehas . . . many I doubt have even read Numbers 25. In my first post however I tried to avoid a literalist interpretation (ie. that I am advocating taking a javelin to Mass) when I said read Numbers 25 with the eyes of the Church Fathers. They saw that many of the Old. Test. stories were now to be taken and applied spiritually. This, I think is what the Ushers here did. They used the javelin of love, fidelity to church teaching, and truth to thrust the advocators of homosexual gloriousness through. They were a living example and perhaps (though its up to the Sash wearers) their actions were a prick to their seared consciences and will be the first step towards their repentance.
I wonder what Jesus is thought of . . .? I mean he went to church and did more than kneel in front of the moneychangers . . . he took a whip to them.
Patrick Rothwell's post was worthless and got an appropriate response from John C.
After reading St. John Vianney's "Sermons on the Eucharist" (wonderful book BTW), I'm tempted to say I wish they would've worked harder to make their "defensive perimeter" harder to breach. I wonder what St. John V. would've done....
Mark's probaby correct though. But where's the line for obedience's limit drawn?
It's a difficult mess. I tend to agree that it's the Archbishop's decision, and that vigilante efforts are problematic. (Do remember, though, that if he will be judged one day on how he handled this, nevertheless it is God who will be doing the judging, not us.) I do think Cardinal George came up with a good response: take off the sash, and we'll give you communion. The *public statement* is worth refusing over.
But on the other hand, I can see why these men are acting to defend their Lord. And it seems they did a fairly appropriate job of balancing matters: they made it clear that "all is not well here," without causing a physical scuffle.
So what should our response be? Pray for everyone involved--Rainbow Sash people, the Ushers of the Eucharist, and the clergy.
Lay people acting as vigilantes during Mass strikes me as disruptive and inappropriate.
It is the responsibility of the bishop and pastor to speak up in a homily or after Mass if there is a need to clarify Catholic teaching (and there apparently was). Or lay
people can try to discuss the issue
civilly outside the church.
I vote for prayer for everyone concerned.
However, as one commenter above said, if I saw someone take the Eucharist and attempt to desecrate it, I would not hesitate to stop him, any way that I could.
The anti-Usher posters unfailingly describe them as vigilantes--a word with such negative connotations that it begs the question whether they did wrong.
Were the Sashers hunted down and lynched--posse style? Were they even physically touched? Actual vigilanteism this is not. On the other hand, to treat it metaphorically is to impute to them ill-motives of which we can actually know nothing--a breach of charity as I have already pointed out.
Were they disruptive? Maybe, but disruptive in not wrong in itself. Posters like the Paladin and Josephine have shown that the Ushers' actions were not inappropriate.
Speaking of disruptive, one of my pet peeves at my church (so far kept to myself) is that the Communion procession isn't disruptive enough. Everyone lines up file order within rank order. If someone has broken fast, or temporarily hasn't the presence of mind to recognize and consider Whom he is about to receive--let alone if he's in a state of sin--the pressure to just get in line and go up anyway is strong.
I used the word vigilante because it was used in the introduction to this article..sorry...it is an emotionally charged word.
I'm inclined to think that the Users of the Eucharist are more correct than not, as their intention is clearly to prevent the profanation of the Eucharist, in contrast with the professed intentions of the Rainbow Sash demonstrators.
I would like to ask a question of those who think they were totally our of line---if it's wrong to take action on the basis of judging the hearts of the Rainbow Sash brigade, why would it not be equally wrong to judge the hearts of the Ushers of the Eucharist?
Uhhh....that would be "Ushers" of the Eucharist, not "Users"---I haven't got the hang of catching all my typos.
play Bishop For a Day
Well, I guess when the Bishop is out playing, someone has to do something. Tend to agree with Paladin, et al. As Lynn said, if someone were spitting and stomping on the Eucharist, would you stand by and watch? Oh, its up to the priest/bisop/etc. Yeah, that will go over well on judgment day (I recall a story about someone ambushed on the roadside, and many passersby kept on going b/c it obviously was not their place to render assistance). This was a peaceful demonstration that the ushers are not going to let you go without knowing that you are wrong.
As for judging others' hearts - a heart is a muscle completely devoid of feeling or state other than pumping blood. What you are judging is another's state of mind, normally impossible, UNLESS THEY TELL YOU WHAT IT IS. The sash spoke loud an clear unless you wish to remain deaf and blind to it.
I can never think vigilante is such a very ominous word, since it's the surname of my second son's godparents, who are sweet. Still, I'd be more comfortable in my mind if I knew what canon law had to say about the barricade business at Mass.
It is pretty significant that the ushers said they would not receive Communion themselves because they realized that their actions might place them in a position to be tempted to the sins of pride or anger at the time of reception.
The history of the Church is full of people who have to call a bishop or even a pope to task for not fulfilling his duty to teach, govern, and sanctify. Unfortunately, this is a public action that will probably only make traditional/orthodox people even more non grata than we already are in the chanceries.
I usually don't second-post ideas but this has been much on my mind since yesterday: for the last 40 years, some priests and some bishops have been molesting kids, counseling that contraception and divorce are OK, cosying up to pro-abortion politicians, and promoting liturgical abuses. Many lay Catholics who have been horrified by these things have until recently been quiet because they were waiting (in vain, IMHO) for said priests and bishops to do their jobs.
In the face of blatant attacks on the meaning and dignity of the Eucharist, said lay people are told to continue to wait for the priests and bishops to do their jobs. When would be a good time for lay Catholics to defend their faith by means other than silent prayer?
another thing that makes you go hmmmmm.
excellent question linda.
I looked it up and c matt is correct. The heart is a muscles designed for pumping blood. How could I have been so stupid!
We know irony is dead so I'm serious.
Now metaphor is dead too.
What's next, onomatopoeia?
Its ok, I forgive you.
Perhaps communication is dead as well. I don't mind metaphors, as long as they are used accurately. The heart metaphor is usually employed for feelings/emotions. In this instance (judging whether someone is in a state of mortal sin) the proper metaphor would be state of mind - what they profess, believe (or don't profess/beleive). Ususally an impossibility to read minds - unless people "wear their mind on their sleeves" or wherever they put the sash.
Heart is metaphor for emotional centre, but heart is also metaphor, loosely, for soul--cf. the Sacred Heart, also "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"*--as, clearly, was being used by posters here.
* Answer: The Shadow, alter-ego of Lamont Cranston
I sorry but Paladin is just dead wrong.
Phinehas -(1.) Son of Eleazar, the high priest (Ex. 6:25). While yet a youth he distinguished himself at Shittim by his zeal against the immorality into which the Moabites had tempted the people (Num. 25:1-9), and thus "stayed the plague" that had broken out among the people, and by which twenty-four thousand of them perished.
Phinehas WAS A HEREDITARY OT PRIEST & thus had the right to do what he did. He was not a laymen taking to himself authority he didn't already have by Divine right. However be assured if a non-Cohen went into the Holy of Holies & did what Phinehas did, not only would he NOT have been rewarded with an Everlasting Priesthood he (like Korah or the fellow who grabed the Ark to keep if from falling into the mud) would have been dtruck dead by God!
Thus this is a poor analogy & doctrinally suspect. Mark Shea is right. The Bible & Church teaching are on His side.
Sorry.
Uzzah was the fellow who grabed the Ark when it was shaking to hold it steady & God Struck him dead for touching the Ark with unconsecrated hands. That's what these "Ushers of the Eucharist" are. Two wrongs don't make a right. These guys are I'm sure well meaning vigilantes but they are vigilantes none the less & NONE of them are comparable to Phinehas. More like Uzzah or Korah.
But no, BenYachov, the Ushers did not touch the Tabernacle or the Host to protect it from harm, they merely stood (knelt) at the entrance to the tent, as it were. So your analogy falls flat also.
You, like others, call them vigilantes--and if they are, I'm against them too--but I'm still waiting for someone to substantiate the claim.
OK....so, how would any of you feel if nobody had done anything and the rainbow rash...er, sash troublemakers had tried to grab the Host, or gotten into a scuffle with the priests, or actually touched the Host with their unkosher hands, etc.? Would that would be so much preferable and better? What if these rainbow rash troublemakers invaded your own parishes? Would you want everyone to stand aside and sit on their hands and be episcopalian "nice?"
Oh, forget it, never mind.
>But no, BenYachov, the Ushers did not touch the Tabernacle or the Host to protect it from harm, they merely stood (knelt) at the entrance to the tent, as it were. So your analogy falls flat also.
I reply: Sorry, but ONLY those with Church Authority have the right to withold communion. That would be the Bishop or the Pastor as governed by Canon Law. There is NOTHING in Canon Law that says laymen may give themselves the authority to stop individuals (no matter how deserving of censure) from recieving communion.
BTW Paladin was the one who first brought up Phinehas. Not me. I have shown that the analogy is bogus.
Mark is right.
>But no, BenYachov, the Ushers did not touch the Tabernacle or the Host to protect it from harm, they merely stood (knelt) at the entrance to the tent, as it were. So your analogy falls flat also.
I reply: This of course the analogy Paladin first came up with. But you are still wrong. If these fellows back in OT times got that close to the Tent according to the Torah the Levites would have been commanded to put them to the sword.
A few thing you guys aren't taking into account.
1) Even God put up with one of His Cohen bonking a pagan whore in his most sacred place & didn't strike the Priest dead himself. But waited till someone WHOM HE GAVE AUTHORITY (not some vigilante who gives the authority to themselves) acted.
2) This is no more that ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS "morality". It's un-Catholic.
3) Therefore ALL we can do is wait for the Church to Act to correct Herself & pray for neglagent Pastors & gay Catholics. But WE DON'T take the Church Law into Our own hands.
4) What if me & a bunch of "Neo-Catholics" found out a Sedivacantist was taking communion at the local FSSP Chaplel & formed a blockage at the communion rail? Would that be right? No it would not.
Paladin is right in one sense. We really do need a latter day Phinehas. But these "Ushers" are not it.
Oh & Bret,
>What if these rainbow rash troublemakers invaded your own parishes? Would you want everyone to stand aside and sit on their hands and be episcopalian "nice?"
I reply: What if Uzzah had let the Ark fall in the mud?
If "rainbow rash troublemakers" invade your parish it's up to the Bishop or Pastor to withold communion according to canon Law (not for Vigilantes to take these actions upon themselves) & call the police if they don't comply.
No you have not shown the analogy bogus . . .
First of all, Phinehas did not do what he did in the Holy of Holies.
Second, the Ushers cant be Uzzahs because they did not touch the tabernacle or the Hosts so your analogy falls flat.
Third, as to the protection of the holy Eucharist, I think you are stretching if you state that the laity are forbidden from ever taking an active role in its preservation from desecration.
May I ask, do you think a Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister is under an obligation to give communion to a known Satanist who approaches the altar if that person knows that person is going to abuse it?
Would it have made a difference if these men were ordained priests from another church?
Would it have made a difference if they were deacons?
Again, I ask, should the laity sit still if a person comes in and rips the tabernacle from the altar and starts to walk out with it? Or does it have to do with how much the box is worth? Difference in scale not in substance.
These men did nothing wrong. They did not even approach the altar. They simply performed an act of charity towards God and their fellow men.
I agree that they have no authority to withhold communion. Certainly! That is not what they were doing. They were trying to prevent people, they knew were about to commit sacrilege, from going to the altar where they knew the one with the authority to withhold communion was not going to use said authority.
All that said, maybe you are right about Phinehas . . . maybe God thinks these ushers are wrong and "viligantes" and maybe he doesnt appreciate what they did. Then again maybe your not.
Palalin,
You are right that I am most likely thinking of another event in the Bible & confusing it with Numbers 25. Never the less you are still wrong.
" So Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Each of you (6) slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor."
6 Then behold, one of the sons of Israel came and brought to his relatives a (7) Midianite woman, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, (
while they were weeping at the doorway of the tent of meeting.
7 (9) When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he arose from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand,
8 and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and pierced both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman, through the body. (10) So the plague on the sons of Israel was checked.
9 (11) Those who died by the plague were 24,000
Moses HAS Divine authority & commanded what Phinehas did.
There is no Vigilantism here.
Who gave these ushers authority to block the Rainbow crowd from communion? Did the Pope directly order them? The Bishop? The Pastor? No they took it upon themselves. So they are as wrong as the Gay invaders who are using the Communion for politics. Zeal doesn't excuse error.
>These men did nothing wrong. They did not even approach the altar. They simply performed an act of charity towards God and their fellow men.
I reply: Yes they did. They blocked these persons from taking communion. The Bishop can rule they can't take communion. The Pastor can efforce it & the Ministers of Communion can efforce the Pastor's & Bishop's will. But that's it.
>I agree that they have no authority to withhold communion. Certainly!
That is not what they were doing.
I reply: Think of what you are saying. So IF I DECIDE your faulty opinon in this matter is heresy & I decide it is sacrilege for such an obvious heretic to take the body of Christ & I decide to stand in front of the Church door & not let you in. I'm NOT witholding communion from you?
Think about it. Use REASON not your feelings.
>They were trying to prevent people, they knew were about to commit sacrilege, from going to the altar where they knew the one with the authority to withhold communion was not going to use said authority.
I reply: So they should basically sit there & let it happen. Really. Until the one with authority gets off his ass & does his job that's all you can do. God doesn't need a bunch of Later day Uzzaha catching the Ark.
All right . . .if I must.
You are correct. Moses did command this . . .Phinehas was not taking it upon himself to "rise up". Thus, without a command from those with Authority these guys were using zeal without wisdom.
Can I say that I wish there were some Moses out there for the many Phinehases I know . . . . Reckon Dagger John Hughes would have had to order some men to guard the Eucharist or would he have done it himself with a zealous grin on his face?
What is your answer to the Eucharistic Minister question then? I still have a hard time looking at these guys as being wrong.
When is it time for the laity to act. How much laxity on the part of the leadership should we stand.
I say we but mean they because such things would never happen in the parish I attend. My priests are awesome and have lungs, a heart for God, and a backbone (yep, they still look human).
>What is your answer to the Eucharistic Minister question then? I still have a hard time looking at these guys as being wrong.
I reply: Objectively they are but I won't judge their hearts. For all I know they are as Ignornant of Catholic teaching as the Gay invidors.
As for the Eucharistic Ministers they have no authority. They can only implement what someone in authority tells them to do.
Well Mr. Yachov,
I have enjoyed this . . . humbling yourself and admitting you too have much zeal and little wisdom is not the easiest thing for me to do.
Check out my blog for my attempt.
>When is it time for the laity to act.
I reply: About twenty minutes ago...we can act in that we can write articles explaining Catholic Teaching...Start Courage Chapters in Our areas...PRAY & don't give into dispair....learn apologetics & gently correct your pastor instead of accusing him.***
>How much laxity on the part of the leadership should we stand.
I reply: None. But we must act as laity not clergy wannabees.
***It goes both ways. I was so tempted by the Evil One to pepper my responses with little personal swips at you Paladin. I'm glad I held back. It worked better. Helped convince you to change your mind I think. Thank you Jesus & Mary the credit goes to YOU alone.
God be with you Sir Paladin.
I'm not happy with you cats' decision to make up and be friends. I think Paladin was too easily convinced that what the Ushers did WAS a usurpation--acting like clergy wannabes. They did not block anyone from receiving the Host--the article is clear, the Sasher were simply forced to walk around. They might have simply been in the same pew as a Sasher, put hand on shoulder and whispered, "you shouldn't go up for Communion." This, like that, is more a spiritual work of mercy than an act of vigilanteism. The analogy in Pal's blog's comments of a man raping the guy who murdered his daughter--no, the other way around--fails also. The Ushers' actions are more analogous to that of a man who stands in between his daughter and the man about to rape her and says, "Please, stop!" This isn't a case where some people overstepped their authority and I'm trying to forgive them because the cause is good. This is a situation where they haven't overstepped their authority at all.
Well John C. you have changed my mind again! Ha! . . . .
This is a really tough one . . . I mean I can see that the one flaw in the Phinehas analogy (I just love that story . . .probably my favorite in the OT)is Moses' command in verse 6 of Num. 25. He clearly gave Phinehas the authority to do what he did. NO authority was given to these men. No canon law para. gives such authority. perhaps, however, this is simply a case where the actions are not covered on way or the other and it is up to us to view these men's actions in the most charitable light possible.
However, I would be interested to hear Mr. Yachov's views on the scenario where the person whispers to the person with the sash, "you should not go up for communion b/c by wearing that sash you are declaring yourself an enemy of Christ". I dont see this as a ursupation of authority. This, perhaps is what they should have done.
Perhaps kneeling in the aisle is a way of saying this . . . Also, the comment regarding standing between the rapist and the daughter by John C. is right on. These people had not yet taken Jesus unworthily . . . they were about to. Therefore, what these men did was not a reprisal (like say waiting for them after church and giving them a good thrashing warning them not to do it again would have been).
Question: What if the Pastor knew these guys were going to do this and asked them not to? Obey? Disobey?
The thing you have to give them is that they did not recieve communion because they did not want to do what they were attempting to stop (recieve unworthily). That is telling to me that they did not do this out of a "wrong spirit".
Mr. Yachov,
just was looking at Num. 25 again and verse 6 is a command to the judges of Israel to slay those who had joined themselves to Baal-Peor.
Then in verse 7 we have a scene shift where the people are weeping and repenting (ie. the judges went through and did their killing and "hanging them up before the Lord".
Then as they were trying to "make-up" with God here comes Zimri and Cozbi and start it all over again. Phinehas, it seems to me, rises up out of righteous zeal and not out of a duty or a order following mentality. I mean if that was the case then wouldnt God have given all the judges who followed Moses' command an everlasting priesthood.
In fact why is Phinehas singled out and given such a gift? Why is he mentioned several more times in Scripture? It doesnt seem that he was following orders. It seems he acted, spontaneously really, for the glory of God and "God said YES! Now thats my kind of servant!"
Perhaps I was too quick to admit that Phinehas was acting "under orders". Again, if he was he was no different than the other "judges" who killed at least 12 that day (Moses told the judges to kill the heads of the people = 12 tribes = at least 12 heads of the people).
I am not sure if this changes whether these men were "right" or "wrong".
Not trying to get personal swipes . . .ha! just still thinking.
Don't see why you guys are so worried about personal swipes--they're half the fun of this place. No harm, no foul, I say.
BenYachov says:IF I DECIDE [Paladin's] faulty opinon in this matter is heresy & I decide it is sacrilege for such an obvious heretic to take the body of Christ & I decide to stand in front of the Church door & not let [him] in. I'm NOT witholding communion from you?
1) To make the analogy correct, you have to say "...stand in front of the Church door and make him walk around me, to get in." The Usher's never withheld anything, they never stopped anyone. They don't have that power.
2) If you did that, and were correct about Paladin's heresy, you have done the right thing. Paladin would then do one of two things. i) Say "My G-- what have I done? Thank-you, BenYachov"; or ii) Walk around you. Either way you did what you could. Are you an insufferable prig? (I mean in the example 
) Maybe, but it doesn't mean you didn't do right.
One of the problems in this whole mess is that some of us, in our wildest imaginings, could not have come up with a scenario in which the dignity of the Eucharist would be attacked and there would be priests and bishops who would (A)not defend proper Catholic teaching, or (B)actively encourage such an attack (Cdl. Mahony, for instance).
Even as I write this, though, it begins to make sense. Clergy who wouldn't defend Catholic teaching in other areas aren't likely to defend it anywhere.
Which leaves us lay folk feeling a little bit stranded....
My sad suspicion is that we are going to see much more blatant assaults on the Blessed Sacrament than what we have seen heretofore. Might be a good idea to determine a proper lay response ahead of time. What does canon law have to say on the subject?
This all reminds me very much of a Biblical story. I forget where it is, but I have a hunch it's from one of the Maccabees books.
The Jews are being threatened with torture and death if they do not eat meat sacrificed to pagan gods. The hero (Judas, I think) refuses. Then a man (I think his name was Ezekiel) steps foreward and volunteers to do it instead. Judas does not suffer this to happen. If I remember correctly, he plays the "vigilante" and kills the man, then proceeds to rouse the people and kill all the soldiers. Okay, we're not thinking of killing anyone, but is not the desecration of Christ's body far more grevious than the desecration of self that Ezekiel was about to perform?
Like I said, this incident is in the back of my scriptural memory, and it is likely I have some of the details mixed up. For example, it is possible that Judas or whoever took action was a priest who was supposed to do this sort of thing anyway.
Nevertheless, I can't find fault with these people so long as they used non-violent means to try and prevent sacrelidge from taking place.
When I was an altarboy in Manassas VA (Dcs. of Arlingont), making sure that people did not do anything improper with the Eucharist - putting it in their pockets, sharing it with their kids, or whatever - was one of our main responsibilities.
Perhaps these people should have become altarboys, or Eucharistic ministers themselves, but on the spur of the moment, they didn't have time to sign up for anything.
Also, I agree with what some others have said. The Clergy should be ashamed that it was left to the Laity to do their job.
By the way, I don't intend a single Scriptural reference to end the debate, this is just food for thought.
"When I was an altarboy.... making sure that people did not do anything improper with the Eucharist - ....was one of our main responsibilities.."
Jonathan,
During my Eucharistic Minister, trainning, the priest stressed that it would be our responsibility to be sure that the Eucharist is consumed in our presence. If it is not, we must speak to the person and ask him to consume it. I have encountered this
situation only twice, and those were the result of ignorance...no one had told them that they couldn't take the Host back to their pew or share it with their friend.
Maybe a little catechesis from the altar is in order?
Needless to say, Eucharistic Ministers can NEVER refuse
Communion to anyone.
12 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
