Hmmm, given that the judge considers herself a Catholic, I don't think calling it bigotry or Catholic-bashing really applies. What it was, though, was a judge injecting her own religious views into her sentencing decision rather than equitably applying the law.
andy | Homepage | 01.31.03 - 7:38 pm | #

Mark Shea:

Turns out there's no problem at all with a US Court dictating to Catholics on theological matters and suspending the law to do so, just so long as the Court is declaring that gays can do whatever they like.

Three false claims in a single sentence. The court cannot "dictate to Catholics on theological matters," cannot suspend the law, and did not declare that gays can do whatever they like.

Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

Jon Peters | 01.31.03 - 8:11 pm | #

Plenty of people who profess to be Catholic engage in Catholic bashing. In this case, if this is a case of mistaken "identity," I am sure that just as soon as these men who have been "devastated" by the "extreme violence done to them" by having the body of Christ denied them explain to the priest/bishop in question that they are celibate homosexuals who adhere to the teachings of the Church or go to confession for the times they haven't, will be restored to full communion with the Church. As for this judge, what happened to separation of state and church? And would ANY religion other than the Catholic religion ever be so disrepected in a courtroom? I doubt it.
Rose Lowery | 01.31.03 - 8:21 pm | #

Rose Lowery:

In this case, if this is a case of mistaken "identity,"

It's already been established that it was a case of mistaken identity. The Archdiocese of Washington admitted it.

Even if they had been members of the Rainbow Sash group, why would that have been grounds for denying them communion? Cite the applicable Church rule.

I am sure that just as soon as these men who have been "devastated" by the "extreme violence done to them" by having the body of Christ denied them explain to the priest/bishop in question that they are celibate homosexuals who adhere to the teachings of the Church or go to confession for the times they haven't, ...

Why should they have to do that?

As for this judge, what happened to separation of state and church?

It's alive and well.
Jon Peters | 01.31.03 - 8:39 pm | #

Re: Jon Peters

The issue of taking communion as a "protest" by Rainbow Sash rather than a sacrament has already been covered.

As to "why should they do that?"

The whole excuse for the illegal action taken by these men is that they were "looking for an explanation for why they had been denied communion," according to the article. This explanation would afford them the opportunity to correct any incorrect perceptions about their eligibility to take communion. That's why.

Look, lots of heterosexuals who take communion are not eligible to do so - that does not make it right, nor excuse others to do the same. I should not be worrying about that when I am at mass, but our priests and bishops should be. I don't always like following the "rules" either and having to confess my sins and repent, but that is what being Catholic is all about.

And as to separation of church and state - apparently not, in this case.
Rose Lowery | 01.31.03 - 9:38 pm | #

You have to forgive Jon. He thinks that if he repeats an opinion enough times it will magically become truth. Please refrain from asking Jon questions that require impartiality, an open mind or truth that has not been revealed by Jon himself.
Paul Scheibmeir | 01.31.03 - 10:53 pm | #

Jon,
A priest can in fact deny communion to someone for a variety of reasons. Here is a link you can read for yourself. In this case the rainbow sash people could probably follow under either category since they are explicitly protesting a teaching of the Catholic Church then one could argue they are Protestant not Catholic.
Todd Reitmeyer | Homepage | 02.01.03 - 8:04 am | #

Why do you play Peters's game. He is not interested in an honest debate, he merely enjoys having you chase rabbits.
Jim | 02.01.03 - 9:10 am | #

A neccesary distinction


Unless my memory plays me false, Andrew's post is not quite accurate. None of the Rainbow Sash folks have been denied communion because they are "dedicated to the inclusion of gay people within the Catholic Church." They have been denied communion because they made a point of telling the Church 1) that they have not lived chastely and that 2) they have advocated other people taking part in homosexual sex. In short, they have made sure the Church understood that they were asking for communion when in a state of mortal sin and, since in the Church's teaching to actually do so would have been have been manifestly uncharitable, they were denied. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1385, which cites in part St. Paul Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11, verses 27-29).

Now, to Mr. Sullivan it may be that to experience Same Sex Attraction is to act upon it, but that is not the case for everyone. I am pretty much out there when it comes to folks knowing that I live with a degree of SSA, including priests where I participate in Mass. I have never been denied communion and would not expect to be, but not on the basis of what does or does not tempt me but on the basis of what I believe and how I live. Christ left us Himself in communion, as a sacrament meant to steadily further graft us into the Vine that is Himself, to enable us even further to live in Him and invite Him to live in us. Folks who willfully choose mortal sin and advocate it for others clearly indicate that they will have Christ on their terms only and will deny Him themselves on His terms. And, sorry guys, we don't get to define heaven - even in our fallen state we would even want to do so.

Andrew also says: According to the Church itself, openly gay people are not to be denied communion. They are part of the body of Christ. And this is true - as long as it is understood that people living with Same Sex Attraction are expected, called to, live the same lives aimed for holiness and heaven that everyone else is called to live. Folks like Andrew and the Rainbow Sash seem to have lost the point of the forest in the blur of the trees. The sacraments in and of themselves mean nothing, are nothing. The Eucharist nothing a bad cracker and some cheap often over sweet wine. Baptism a little splash splashing the kind that an infant might make in the bath. But with Christ behind them, with the power of Who He Is, the Second Person of the Trinity, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten Not Made...they are the world and more than they world. They are the roads to heaven - a road He will not deny us, but will not compel us to take either.

Finally, as to the judge herself. It's a free country with an independent judiaciary. She is free to say what she wants from the bench, no matter how misguided it may be. But I am also not sure I would have imposed any sentence either. After all, its not like they desecrated the Eucharist as folks did a while back at St. Patrick's in New York or, more recently, had sex there during Mass.

David Morrison | Homepage | 02.01.03 - 9:48 am | #

I forgive Jon. Please forgive me for leading the "rabbit chase." LOL ;->
Rose Lowery | 02.01.03 - 12:31 pm | #

Three false claims in a single sentence. The court cannot "dictate to Catholics on theological matters," cannot suspend the law, and did not declare that gays can do whatever they like. Isn't there something in the Bible about bearing false witness?

Indeed. There is something in the Bible about twisting morality as well.

I'm sure you have heard of the expression: "the power to tax is the power to control". One could call a corollary to this is the unequal application of justice by the civil authorities as a power to control. Review your history on how effective this manuever was against blacks during the Jim Crow days.

By injecting her personal bias into this case so much, the judge has as far as her courtroom is concerned done precisely the things Mark has said. Such meddling may not make such de jure, but de facto can be strong enough.
John Betts | Homepage | 02.01.03 - 9:22 pm | #

Rose Lowery:

The issue of taking communion as a "protest" by Rainbow Sash rather than a sacrament has already been covered.

No, it hasn't. Show me how you know that they weren't taking communion as a sacrament. You are presuming to know things that you do not know.

The whole excuse for the illegal action taken by these men is that they were "looking for an explanation for why they had been denied communion," according to the article. This explanation would afford them the opportunity to correct any incorrect perceptions about their eligibility to take communion. That's why.

It is not their responsibility to correct false perceptions, and it is certainly not a requirement for receiving communion.

Look, lots of heterosexuals who take communion are not eligible to do so

Then why aren't you demanding that they be denied communion, too?
Jon Peters | 02.03.03 - 3:39 pm | #

David Morrison:

None of the Rainbow Sash folks have been denied communion because they are "dedicated to the inclusion of gay people within the Catholic Church." They have been denied communion because they made a point of telling the Church 1) that they have not lived chastely and that 2) they have advocated other people taking part in homosexual sex.

Substantiate these accusations.

I have never been denied communion and would not expect to be,

Why not? You're openly gay, just like the members of Rainbow Sash.
Jon Peters | 02.03.03 - 3:42 pm | #