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.
To be fair, despite our differences in dealing with/explaining the post-Vatican II crisis in the Church, traditional Catholics hold to the same pre-Vatican II Faith. Of course there are some who call themselves traditional Catholics, but they merely “prefer” the Latin Mass over the Novus Ordo service. For them, the only issue is the liturgy and they see nothing wrong with Vatican II other than its so-called “ambiguities”.
The "married" lesbian music directors with the clenched fists at St. Michael's in Ireland and their infernal excuse for a pastor are NOT Catholic whatever the circumstances of their baptisms, if any. Nor are Pelosi, Rosa DeLauro, Patty Murray, John Kerry, Tim Kaine, Susan Collins, and a host of other once Catholic political apostates. They have excommunicated themselves.
It goes without saying that there is "diversity" among the Reformed. Protestantism cannot be the One True Church because Protestantism, as such, is not one. Protestant churches contain much truth and many truths which differ in some respects from church to church. In and of itself, such differences prove nothing other than that "Protestantism" has many principled variations and is not "one."
Sola Scriptura assumes, without proof, common agreement on what Scripture truly teaches. On their own, neither Catholics by their own talents, nor Reformed Christians by theirs agree completely on the entire meaning of Scripture.
Oooops, Sorry. I stand corrected.
I read that as Catholics, not TRADITIONAL Catholics. I went back and re-read the post and saw what dan was referring to.
You are correct that traditional Catholics do NOT celebrate anything of the sort but desire to get back to pre-VII Catholicism.
While I also disagree with traditional Catholics, sometimes strongly, as a whole I have found them courteous and have a great deal of respect for them as they really do stand for what they believe in without compromise. Not being a young, tender, little snowflake, I can handle the fact that someone has an opinion different than mine.
And I understand what they think of those outside the Catholic church.
The "married" lesbian music directors with the clenched fists at St. Michael's in Ireland and their infernal excuse for a pastor are NOT Catholic whatever the circumstances of their baptisms, if any. Nor are Pelosi, Rosa DeLauro, Patty Murray, John Kerry, Tim Kaine, Susan Collins, and a host of other once Catholic political apostates.
Nor do I consider them Christian.
It is inconceivable and contrary to Scripture that someone who names the name of Christ would either continue in such sin or advocate for it. Those with the new, born again, born from above nature at the very least have a a strong aversion to sin, one that really should be revulsion, but alas, we are still creatures of flesh and struggle with the old nature still liking the sin the new nature doesn't.
It goes without saying that there is "diversity" among the Reformed. Protestantism cannot be the One True Church because Protestantism, as such, is not one. Protestant churches contain much truth and many truths which differ in some respects from church to church. In and of itself, such differences prove nothing other than that "Protestantism" has many principled variations and is not "one."
But there are not many churches, and I have never encountered any personally but rather have heard that they exist, which claim to be the one true church.
Of all the different churches I've attended over the last 40 years, of varying denomination (not church hopping, but because of moving and traveling a LOT -it gives you a lot of exposure to many different fellowships) their unifying factor is salvation through faith in Christ.
Sometimes there are minor differences in theology, but at the core is salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Those who have put their faith in Christ alone for salvation I consider my brother or sister in Christ and we can enjoy fellowship with each other and I can freely worship in their church on Sunday morning, even as a guest once or twice a year.
And while many have repeatedly asked why not all just one denomination, well there are differences in ministry focus. Some are aimed at college students, some helping the poor, some on missions, some just like small churches, others like big, but the main focus is the same and the areas of difference fall under what Paul refers to as *disputable matter* (Romans 14).
Sola Scriptura assumes, without proof, common agreement on what Scripture truly teaches. On their own, neither Catholics by their own talents, nor Reformed Christians by theirs agree completely on the entire meaning of Scripture.
No, I've not encountered that meaning for sola Scriptura.
It recognizes Scripture to be the final word on Truth and is authoritative due to it being the God inspired, Holy Spirit breathed word of God. It is that to which all truth claims and doctrine and theology is compared.
While there will never be common agreement on every last passage of Scripture, even within Catholicism there is room for different interpretation. As I've been told in the past, anything that Rome has not authoritatively interpreted is subject to the individual's own interpretation.
And Rome has not yet put out a theological interpretation of the entire Bible, so that leaves a fair amount of flexibility for individual Catholics to interpret as they choose., something that I notice is frequently condemned with non-Catholics do it.
See previous post.
I misread what dan posted and was thinking just average, general Catholic, not traditional Catholic as yourself.
Sorry about that.
And yes, I have noticed what you pointed out.
Not a problem metmom...thank you. :-)
IS this a Caucus Thread? I don’t think so. It’s not listed as such.
I think Jim Noble’s post should stay.
Everything you listed except EO.
I had originally posted the article as a Catholic Caucus thread but some moderator(s?) stripped the caucus designation, even after Jim Noble asked for his post to be removed.
It’s be been happening quite often lately. I have since given up.
Caucus threads may not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus. Such was was done within the article.
Therefore the caucus designation had to be removed to be in line with the guidelines.
I don't know what you think we Traditional Catholics think about those outside the Catholic Church. I know that I personally, as a Traditional Catholic, have great respect for serious Bible Christians who are not Catholic (or Orthodox). I have had the privilege of representing, as an attorney, many of them arrested shutting down abortion mills. To represent them, I had to interview each at length to represent each person to the court according to his or her respective beliefs and motivations, rather than my own. I had to really get to know them.
Many were among the finest folks I have ever known no matter our disagreements on a few doctrines. I also learned that, while there are differences, our agreements far outweigh our differences. I cannot say that of most Unitarians or Congregationalists or many Main Line Protestants whose leaders have abandoned Biblical principles and teachings or many "leaders" of my own Catholic Church who have similarly abandoned those principles and teachings.
Then you will find that we Traditional Catholics get much angrier at alleged members of our own Church who want to lead us into the amoral quicksand occupied by "churches" that approve sexual perversion as a way of life, want to corrupt the morals of children, "understand" the need of some women to murder their unborn for convenience. Neither my kind of Catholic nor your kind of Christian approves or tolerates such abominations.
Traditional Catholics have sooooooo much work to do cleansing the Catholic stable before we should dare to strive against Bible-believing Christians.
As to Scriptural differences of opinion, an example would be Catholic reliance on John 6 as the basis for believing that in the Eucharist, by what we call transubstantiation, we receive the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the continued appearance of bread and wine. Jesus's own disciples found this a hard saying and not all accepted it. Yet He said that by consuming the Eucharist, a person would have (eternal) life. Many Bible-believing Christians can cite other Scriptural passages for their belief that the Eucharist is a memorial only of what Jesus did at the Last Supper and rely on those passages to resolve the question by the method of Scripture "proving" Scripture or looking at Scripture as a whole to find a consistent understanding as to such questions. If I misstate the Reformed position on this, feel free to correct me and I will accept correction as to what the Reformed belief is.
The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It means in each and every word what He meant. If you or I or anyone disagrees with what He meant, we are wrong because He cannot be other than right.
I will leave the subject of "the One True Church" for another day.
You are certainly no snowflake. Rather, you are a dedicated warrior of God. May He continue to bless you and yours!
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.
I've seen some evidence of this...
Shall we blame the students or the teachers?
So is the Book that it supposedly based upon.
Galatians 6:9
A Whiff of Schism.
Luke 12:51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!
Co 11:18 First, I hear that there are divisions among you when you meet as a church, and to some extent I believe it.
1Co 11:19 But, of course, there must be divisions among you so that you who have God’s approval will be recognized!
I am no expert on the Reformed position myself, not considering myself a Calvinist or Reformed.
You’ll have to get that information somewhere else.
For my part, I believe that it’s strictly a memorial, with the elements representing the body and blood of Jesus. The clear Scriptural prohibition against eating blood makes that interpretation of it representing fit more readily with the rest of Scripture. There is then no conflict with other passages.
As far as the presence of Jesus, I find Scriptural support for the belief that Jesus indwells the heart of every believer already, when they surrendered to Him and were born again, and that as He said, where two or three are gathered together, that He would be in their midst.
I agree with this so much. It is one of the reasons why I just don't bother debating any of the non-Catholics here on FR.
I’m already rifted....
Cafeteria Catholics make their own rules (or comfortably dismiss “Man Made Rules”).
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.