Posted on 09/24/2016 6:17:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
At a Catholic parish in Athy, Ireland, a lesbian couple who resigned from parish ministry after entering a legal marriage has returned to active participation—and to loud applause. So now everyone is welcome in St. Michael’s parish, right?
Wrong.
Anthony Murphy, the editor of Catholic Voice—the man who objected to the lesbian couple’s prominent role in parish life—has received so many threats that he is, on the advice of the local police, staying away from the parish. But then again, if you know the whole story, you may wonder why Murphy would ever want to attend Mass at St. Michael’s.
The bitter dispute in this Irish parish is an extreme example of a sort of conflict that has become sadly familiar within Catholic communities. These conflicts erupted in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s and 1980s, then subsided for a few decades. They have escalated again during the past three years, since the election of Pope Francis. They involve fundamental disagreements about what it means to be Catholic: debates between people with irreconcilable views, who sometimes suggest (and sometimes forthrightly proclaim) that their adversaries must be excluded from the Church. These conflicts pose a clear and present danger to the unity of the Catholic faith, and they will continue until the fundamental questions that are now in dispute have been resolved.
Many good Catholics, motivated by the best of intentions, have sought to downplay these tensions, to avert a showdown. But the conciliatory approach cannot succeed when two sides are irreconcilable. A healthy Church cannot long accept a situation in which some members anathematize what other members endorse. (The worldwide Anglican communion, desperately fighting to avoid formal recognition of a schism that is already apparent to the world, illustrates my point.) Fundamental questions cannot be ignored and finessed and explained away indefinitely. Eventually the failure to answer a question is itself a sort of answer: a judgment that truth and integrity are less important than temporary peace and comfort. Such an answer is unworthy of Christians.
Since the shocking case of St. Michael’s in Athy is the starting point for this essay, let me recount the story:
Jacinta O’Donnell and Geraldine Flanagan were prominent members of the parish: both singing in the choir, one the choir director, the other an extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. They were also lesbian partners, united in a civil marriage ceremony. (Invitations to the wedding were passed out at choir practice.) When Anthony Murphy registered an objection, saying that their active role in parish ministry suggested an endorsement of their union, the pastor, Father Frank McEvoy, brushed away the objection. But Murphy’s protests made the couple uncomfortable enough so that they voluntarily stepped down… for a while.
The reaction from parishioners—support for O’Donnell and Flanagan, hostility toward Murphy—brought the couple back into the sanctuary. In their triumphant return at a Saturday-evening Mass on September 10, they led the choir in singing “I Will Follow Him”—which is not a hymn but a 1960s pop song, memorably performed by Whoopi Goldberg and others in the film comedy Sister Act—and were rewarded with raucous, shouting applause, which the pastor judged “well deserved.” At the conclusion of the Mass the couple stood before the altar together, arms raised, fists clenched, to new applause. They had won; Anthony Murphy had lost.
But not just Anthony Murphy.
“Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared,” wrote then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is impossible to believe that the “human achievement” prompting applause in this case was the couple’s musical performance. (If you listen to their rendition of the song, readily available on YouTube, you’ll see what I mean.) No; this Catholic parish was saluting the couple for their homosexual union. And Yes, the essence of the liturgy had totally disappeared.
After that appalling display, one of the five priests who was on the altar at St. Michael’s said that he was sorry he had been there. Father Brendan Kealy explained that he had intended to celebrate the 50th anniversary of a fellow priest’s ordination:
I was not present to promote or condone same-sex ‘marriage’ or what appeared to be the apparent triumphant and victorious return of our musical directors which seemed to become the focus of the evening. In my opinion, the Mass was hijacked to support the cause of same-sex ‘marriage’ which is clearly in breach of Catholic Church teachings…I felt Saturday evening’s principal purpose of the Mass was grossly lost and I regret my participation. Now what does it mean, when a Catholic priest regrets his participation in the holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Something is seriously wrong there, is it not? Father Kealy recognized that the Eucharistic liturgy had been exploited for political purposes—and for purposes that are incompatible with Catholic teaching, at that.
Notice that the exploitation of the Mass for any reason in unacceptable. Even if the distraction takes the form of a magnificent musical performance, that is, as Cardinal Ratzinger argued, an abuse of the liturgy. The Mass is Christ’s Sacrifice and the liturgy belongs to Him; we have no right to turn it to our earthly purposes.
But when those purposes are at odds with the Church’s teachings, the offense is even more grievous and the threat to Catholic unity more acute. American Catholics have been wrestling with this difficulty for years, as prominent Catholic politicians—from Kennedy and Cuomo through Pelosi and Kerry to Biden and Kaine—have continued to approach Communion despite their clear violation of Church precepts on key moral issues. Timid prelates tell us that they do not want to turn the Communion line into a political battleground, but that excuse misses the point. It already is a political battleground; the politicians had made it so, by refusing to acknowledge their break with the Church.
The canon law of the Church stipulates that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin”—such as those openly involved in illicit sexual unions, and those who publically support the legalized destruction of innocent human life—“are not to be admitted to holy Communion,” primarily because of the scandal involved. But there is another reason for this policy as well: a matter of that it means to be “in communion” with the Catholic Church.
To say that we are “in communion” with other Catholics is to profess that we believe what they believe, we worship as they worship, we are members of the same faith and recognize each other as such. We are not “in communion” with our Protestant friends, no matter how much we might love and respect them; nor are they in communion with us, since they “protest” various aspects of our faith. Nor are we fully “in communion” with the Orthodox, even if their belief in the Eucharist matches our own.
How can it be plausibly argued that Jacinta O’Donnell and Geraldine Flanagan—and, apparently, most of the parishioners at that Saturday-night travesty—share the same faith as Anthony Murphy and Father Brendan Kealy? It cannot. Murphy thought that the lesbian couple should be excluded from parish leadership; the couple’s supporters made it clear, on a sympathetic web site, that they rejoiced in having purged Murphy’s “right-wing” views from their community. Clearly these people cannot profess a common faith, until the major issues that separate them have somehow been resolved. They are not “in communion” with each other.
Nor is their problem unique. More and more frequently, Catholics disagree on what it means to be in communion, what it means to be Catholics. Radically different beliefs are held, and dramatically different goals pursued, by different members within a parish, different parishes within a diocese, different dioceses within the universal Church. (To take just one prominent example, the indissoluble nature of the marriage bond apparently now means something different in Philadelphia and Phoenix from what it means in Argentina and Germany.) These divisions will continue to stretch the fabric of Catholicism, straining the seams, threatening a serious rift, until they are confronted. The unity of the faith requires unity of belief, and unity of belief requires clarity.
I've had plenty of experience with Evangelical churches and Catholic churches, and it is certainly true that there is MUCH more diversity of belief among Catholics than there is among Protestants.
The stream of dissent in American Catholic parishes is deep and wide, and it is often led by priests or, more commonly, religious sisters.
I once worshipped for five years or so at a suburban Boston parish with about 1200 people at Mass on Sunday. If they had been Evangelicals, there would have been so much shaking of dust off of sandals that they would have formed 50 new and different churches by the time I left.
It cracks me up every time a Catholic poster here declares that all Catholics, or even most Catholics, believe the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, there is only one Catechism. Many Catholics are not educated to know this.
I missed that it was a caucus thread. Please delete my post.
It won’t be long before the RCC is downsized to just the true believers and the TLM. I believe this is what Pope BXVI meant when he said the church would be smaller but more vibrant.
That’s a mess. Yiu have to wonder where the bishop is...
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Bishop appears to be with the heretics.
Phil wants to say it but can't quite bring himself to do so....yet.
Here ya go, Phil. Allow me...."....whose constant ridiculing and abuse of faithful Catholics, virulent anti-intellectualism and ongoing denigration of traditional Catholic moral teaching has given encouragement and comfort to dissidents within the Church as well as its enemies without and has contributed enormously to the current upheaval."
Glad I could help.
The bitter dispute in this Irish parish is an extreme example of a sort of conflict that has become sadly familiar within Catholic communities.
____________________________________
The “bitter dispute” is a reflection of the “bitter fruit” of VC-II.
Indeed, Profess does not even necessarily equate to believe, while what they profess is variegated beliefs. Then trad. RCs condemn divisions among evangelicals while they themselves must engage in the same.
But cordially responding to an impenitent proud proabortion prosodmite pol without rebuke, and allow such to have ecclesiastical funerals which praise them, is not sanctioning unholy applause?
What one does and effects is how true belief is determined Scripturally. Many Catholics are not educated to know this. Nor is the Catechism infallible, and not subject to interpretation to some degree, or all the same as previous Catechisms.
I see nothing objectionable in your post.
The teachings within it are infallible.
We are *supposed* to believe the same things. There has been no unity in the Church since Vatican II.
This thread was ineligible for the caucus designation as it referenced Protestantism in the third from the end paragraph. It said this.....
“We are not “in communion” with our Protestant friends, no matter how much we might love and respect them; nor are they in communion with us, since they “protest” various aspects of our faith. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
According to the RM profile page,
Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Rather ironic that they celebrate diversity among themselves and yet still claim to be in communion with each other, and yet when those outside Catholicism are diverse, RC's are condemning it as being an indication the error of *sola Scriptura* and it's proof that Protestantism is not the OTC.
WHICH teachings?
RC?
EO?
Some other of the 22 other rites?
Papal bulls?
Trent?
Vatican I?
Vatican II?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s published.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.