Skip to comments.Rainbow Sash Response to Cardinal George's Refusal of Communion
Posted on 06/02/2004 3:19:32 PM PDT by NYer
May 31, 2004
Dear Rainbow Sash Members and Supporters,
Pentecost is a time to celebrate the Universality of the Church, and it's Gospel Message of inclusiveness. I was very saddened by the response of Cardinal Francis George in Chicago. He used the Eucharist as a tool of discipline. He chose not to welcome us into his Cathedral, and went as far as to deny us the Holy Eucharist.
However, others like Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, Bishop Hart of Rochester, NY, and Archbishop Harry Flynn welcomed those who wore the Rainbow Sash to their Cathedral. We thank these bishops for supporting the Teaching of Church in a pastorial manner.
Because of the warm public welcome from Cardinal Roger Mahony, our LA members desided not to wear the Rainbow Sash to the Cardinal's Cathedral. Instead they wanted to express their support of his pastorial approach by not wearing the Sash.
Additionally, I was shocked that our brothers and sisters in the Rainbow Alliance were confronted by conservative Catholics who attempted to block their way as they proceeded to receive Communion. It is my hope that Archbishop Harry Flynn will address this problem of harrasement of GLBT Catholics in his Cathedral.
I believe this year the Holy Spirit is setting out a path for us to follow. We should never respond with anger to those who bear false witness about us. We should always remember that all things must be done in charity and love.
Thank you for your faith filled witness to the Truth of lives. I also wish to thank all the wonderful straight Catholic support we have received. We are Church, and I believe our actions this Pentecost Sunday have loudly proclaimed that message.
Sincerely In Christ,
Rainbow Sash Movement.
That certainly identifies their agenda.
Homosexual Agenda Ping + Fake Christian/Catholic Nausea Alert.
Better to be an atheist by rejecting all connections with the Catholic Church than a hypocrite by pretending to accept some teachings and rejecting others.
Better an honest atheist/profligate than a smarmy phoney "Christian" sodomite. At least if they admit who/what they REALLY worship (their own sex organs) they may, one day, wake up.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Since they can't hide their sin from God they are only fooling themselves.
Nauseating, isn't it? Roger supports everything but traditional Catholicism.
It also pegs Mahony for the phony that he is.
He and a bunch of other pseudo-bishops.
Mahoney and Flynn should be defrocked. They have compromised the faith and continue to do so. Cowardice.
Cardinal Mahoney will, if he has any guts, show up wearing the Rainbow Sash himself. I have it on good authority that Mahoney is in EVERY way qualified to wear the Rainbow Sash.
Cardinal George would have given them communion too, if they'd left their sashes off. The sashes were the entire point.
And Mahony giving them communion while they were sashless doesn't prove a thing.
Shades of the 2003 Episcopal General Convention.
The supporters of Vicki Gene Robinson all managed to get their faces on television and proclaim that "the Holy Spirit is moving us in a new direction". Bishops and priests cheerfully mocking the Holy Spirit.
It was chilling.
Powerful quote here:
That hope is deceitful which hopes to be saved amid the occasions of sin.
-- St. Augustine
[Cardinal George] used the Eucharist as a tool of discipline.No, Christ Jesus himself established the Eucharist as the sign of unity. The Rainbow Swishers, OTOH, established the sash as a sign of dissent, and sought to profane the Eucharist. Cardinal George wasn't disciplining the Swishers; he was protecting the Eucharist from their intended sacrilege.
Iris, I apologize for responding to you; it could be to anyone. If your innuendo about Mahony were true, what would that say to you? Where is a sense of Christ's love for his children in this discourse? What does your religion really mean to you? How do your objections advance Christ's message of love over law?
Reading the Gospels there is no doubt that Jesus saw the books of the law, the books of Moses, as the unerring word of God. To ignore the Books of the Law, to see them as not the word of God, is an old heresy, Paulicianism, Catharism, later, Bogomilism.
To imitate Christ we must take Leviticus 20 as seriously as Exodus 20.
That's what I thought. Without the sashes, they were not publically declaring their sin.