Ping!
At first I thought Kerry was wanting communion again.
The Archbisop’s apology is accepted.
This is good to see. He made a mistake, and instead of denying it or trying to downplay it, he apologized.
I wonder when the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" will take their act to the local Islamic Mosque, especially since fundamentalist Islam calls for the death penalty for homosexuality while the Catholics just call it sinful. If these guys had any b***s, they would mock the Muslims as much or more so than the Catholics. < / s >
I accept his apology.
Now where is the apology from the clowns?
Bump. God bless him.
Apology accepted. Let us then continue with the Lord’s work.
Give the man credit for this.
I hope he also orders his clergy to avoid the same mistake he made in giving these individuals the Eucharist, and sets about doing everything he can to retroactively catechize the entire archdiocese with regard to authentic Catholic teaching on homosexuality and its practice.
I admire him for apologizing. I am still disappointed but will give the man the benefit of the doubt. I’ve never done his job so am unaware of any blinders that may be put on before communion. I hope that his eyes will open and he’ll be a little more aware in case something like this should occur again. He could just give them a blessing and refuse communion without making a scene. Of course, with folks dressed like that it’s already a parade. *sigh*
In an ideal world, the celebrant would be alert and aware at all times of those who are coming up to receive, and ready to make a discerning judgment.
But I know that in a long Mass I sometimes go on autopilot myself -- and I'm just a member of the choir in the back of the balcony, not up there in the sanctuary in front of God and everybody, trying to keep track of the priests and deacons and altar boys and how long the anthem is running and whether the ushers have any more people in the back . . . .
So he's probably not pleading guilty by reason of stupidity -- just distraction and inattention.
Besides, the way folks are in that part of the world, it might not be too easy to distinguish the provocative from the just plain odd . . . .
Poor old guy.
However, there should be posted on all churches the dress code required to attend Mass.
I have seen parishes in other parts of the country that forbid the wearing of shorts and other clothes that is inappropriate for Mass...
There is a Federal Law by which the Sisters of Indulgence can be asked to leave church -- it the FACE Act. Though it was passed to prevent people from denying entry into an abortion clinic, Reagan Republicans (and Reagan) put language in that makes it a Federal Offense to interfere with a Religious Service.
Certainly, the disruptive DRESS of the Sisters of Indulgence is something that needs to be addressed and handled by parishes...
His explanation sounds reasonable to me. I’m good with it.
The archbishop acknowledges that he noticed "two strangely dressed persons." That in itself is a grotesque understatement, apparently put forward to satisfy readers who have not seen the pictures. Niederauer goes on to say that he "did ot recognize either of them as wearing mock religious garb." Perhaps not. But he could not have failed to recognize that they were wearing garish costumes, clearly designed to attract attention and to make a point. And what was that point? Someone who stopped into Most Holy Redeemer parish after having spent the last several years on a remote desert island might not have been able to discern the purpose of this strange demonstration. But ordinary residents of San Francisco knew exactly what was going on, and the archbishop is taxing our credulity yet again when he claims that he was in the dark.
Most Holy Redeemer is a notoriously gay-friendly parish, in a hotbed of gay activism. Just a week before the archbishop's visit, the parish had hosted a competition among "the Bay Area's Most Delicious Drag Divas." Archbishop Niederauer himself disclosed that he had once ordered the parish administrator not to host an event for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a militant group whose main purpose is to mock Catholicism. When he visited the parish, therefore, the archbishop must have been keenly aware of the likelihood that he would encounter homosexual activists in general, and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in particular. When these two demonstrators approached him in their bizarre attire, he should have known-- must have known-- what he was facing.
In his "apology" the archbishop says that he did not recognize the two men as members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. But can he seriously expect us to believe that he did not recognize them as homosexual demonstrators? The archbishop's statement suggests that the protestors' main offense was membership in a group that mocks the Catholic faith. But whether or not they belonged to a particular organization, these two men were quite clearly challenging the Church by their presence at Mass, and especially by presenting themselves for Communion. The Church, in the person of the archbishop, failed to meet that challenge.
If Niederauer really did not notice anything unusual about the demonstrators, then he would have no reason to apologize-- except, perhaps, for being spectacularly obtuse. But even when he expressed his regrets about the incident, the archbishop failed to grasp the essential element of the scandal. "The manner of dress and public comportment of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence is deeply offensive to women religious," Archbishop Niederauer wrote. That is true, but terribly incomplete. The behavior of these defiant homosexual protestors is deeply offensive to all Catholics. Far, far more important, it is deeply offensive to Jesus Christ, whose Body and Blood they desecrated with the archbishop's compliance.
A priest, and particularly a bishop, has a sacred duty to guard the Blessed Sacrament, to protect our Eucharistic Lord from disrespect. The archbishop's failure to carry out that duty-- and not the attendant public-relations brouhaha-- is the true scandal here. Personally, I can't accept Archbishop Niederauer's apology, because I cannot believe that it is candid or accurate. But it is not I to whom an apology is due.