Replies

FROM AMERICAN PAPIST

Blasphemous "sisters" release "press release" about receiving communion, etc.

Why isn't the light of truth meant to be kept hidden under a bushel? Because the forces of darkness are always on the move....

Today, in the latest sad episode related to Abp. Niederauer giving communion to a couple of "queer sisters" at Most Holy Redeemer parish in San Francisco, the organization "sisters of the perpetual indulgence" (SPI) - a sham organization of transvestites that take systematically (and irrationally) mocking everything about Catholicism, religious orders and Christ to offensive new extremes - released a press release today entitled "Sisters Upset Communion Being Turned into Political Issue".

As just a brief taste of the SPI's modus operandi, the "abbess" leader who leads the press release with a quotation is named "Edith Myflesh" (get it? That's supposed to be a pun on Christ's words "Eat my flesh", only it's just as crude, this-worldly and blasphemous as you would care to understand). Let nothing about this "press release's" correct grammar, 501 (c) (3) status and official letterhead fool you - this is a pernicious group which celebrates lifestyles deeply at-odds with human dignity and which, moreover, has for more than twenty years mocked the figures and realities of Christianity in general, and the Catholic Church in particular.

Revealing the blatant errors present in this press release would be too easy. So, too, would uncovering the malicious intent behind it (though I might stray into that temptation from time to time below). Frankly, this organization doesn't deserve to be dismantled at an intellectual/theoretical level. Others may do so if they wish. I tend to save my bullets for fish not confined in barrels of their own making.

My purpose is merely to demonstrate that the ministry of Most Holy Redemeer parish directly, and I would also argue the recent decisions made by Abp. Niederauer proximately, have done nothing to actively and publicly disabuse this organization of its pathetic attempts to create a false reality for themselves (or in other words, to self-deceptively think that they are full members of the Catholic Church eligible to receive communion when they're motto is "go and sin some more!").

I read, therefore, through this document with one question to answer: how is this press release the result of receiving no catechises from their parish and little to no reprimand of their "lifestyle choices" from the Archbishop?

First of all, of course, this issues isn't a "political" one as claimed repeatedly by the press release. It is a theological, doctrinal and spiritual one, for starters. Sorry, we're not constrained by the narrow horizons of politics here. There's far more at stake, which is why we're concerned in the first place. Anyway:

While at Mass the Sisters joined other parishioners in respectful and sincere worship and received Communion from the Archbishop.

They were dressed like this. Has anyone ever told them how disrespectful that sort of dress is in Mass, how completely it works against "respectful and sincere worship"? Not just within Mass, but how their activities in such dress (i.e., participating in publical sex acts as part of gay pride parades, etc., etc.) similarly bar them from "respectful and sincere worship"?

Our hearts go out to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and to the Archbishop who have been unfairly stigmatized by these disingenuous campaigns for doing nothing more than following the welcoming teachings of Christ and administering Communion in keeping with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Has anyone told them that the "teachings of the Second Vatican Council" say nothing about distributing communion to those actively and regularly committed grave acts of scandal and sin? Do they think the Second Vatican Council renounced the Catholic Church's long tradition of condemning homosexual acts as sinful? Acts that the "sisters" participate in regularly? Did mocking the Church get its own document?

We would like to take this opportunity to state again that, contrary to the spin of right-wing fanatics, that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do not "mock nuns" but live "as nuns," taking vows that affirm the traditional compassionate and justice-seeking ministries of religious women....

Has anyone told them that they aren't nuns? That their anti-vows cannot be brought into harmony with living an integral virtuous human vocation?

We are open and supportive of all forms of spirituality that teach respect for human life, diversity, freedom and community, including those of the Catholic Church.

Again, just to give you a feeling for what content the "sisters" actually mean when they appropriate words: one of the sisters who was given communion by the Archbishop has been photograhed at pro-abortion rallies holding a wire hanger. That's what they mean by "teach[ing] respect for human life."! Again, see a problem?

It is no secret that our vows sometimes call us to challenge the dogmas and hypocrisies of the Catholic hierarchy....

This is an admission that the "sisters" do not accept the dogmas of the Catholic faith. This may seem elemental (and obvious), but we recite the creed before communion for a reason - the saving truths of the faith must be given our consent before we present ourselves for communion.

Final paragraph:

In keeping with our vows to expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence call on all people of good faith to oppose those who would desecrate the sanctity of a church and defile a moment of true communion for cheap political gain. In a world wracked by violence and fear, we have no time for such lies and will continue to serve our community by boldly proclaiming that joy is more powerful than shame. We extend our sincerest gratitude and affection to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and hope that their new Archbishop continues to walk with them in service to the gospel of joy and justice.

Okay, enough arguments. Just an observation: this is more mockery. This is a clear example of obstinate sin, of blithely desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ and going back to business as usual. This is continuing to spread errors in thought and errors in deed unopposed. This is a lie to support a lifestyle of lies and untruth. This is claiming to be what they are not, and in so doing, cheapening and further offending those who do act in service to neighbor and love of God. This is, finally, claiming the sponsorship and endorsement of Most Holy Redeemer Parish and the Archbishop who "walk[s] with them".

And to those responsible for this state of affairs (i.e., Most Holy Redeemer parish and it's pastor, Fr. Steve Meriwether): this is what you get when you don't teach, when you don't witness to the Gospel, and when you act upon a permissive, "everything-goes" attitude about sexual deviance. The "sisters" have grown up, and have been allowed to flourish at MHR parish for so long that - suddenly - when MHR is put in the spotlight, its pastor and staff find themselves continually embarrassed and abused by the individuals it has failed to teach.

This is why the light of truth isn't meant to be kept hidden under a bushel, because the forces of darkness are always on the move....

How much longer will the light of Christ only shine dimly at Most Holy Redeemer?

Related:

Previous posts on this topic:

Watching the video is very interesting: Abp. Niederauer seems to have presumptively gone to bless the first drag queen in the same style that I’ve always seen Protestants blessed at wedding masses, rather than giving them communion. The queen then said something to the Abp., who then gives communion, with an expression consistent with a thought like, “well, if you say so.” He then readily hands it out to the 2nd drag queen.

There’s no telling what the drag queen told the Abp., but it sure seems that the Abp. was not in the ordinary habit of giving communion to drag queens.

After reading the Abp’s “apology,” I have a difficult time not concluding he is a liar. If he didn’t recognize them, why did he presume that they wouldn’t want communion?