Newark Catholic Leader: No Communion for LGBT Equality Supporters

[trotsky]

http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/10/15/newark-catholic-leader-no-communion-lgbt-equality-supporters

The Roman Catholic archbishop of Newark, N.J., has advised priests under his jurisdiction that people who reject church teaching — for instance, by being in a same-sex marriage or even endorsing marriage equality — are not to receive communion or other sacraments.

The letter from Archbishop John Myers, sent to priests this week, also prohibits churches and other Catholic institutions from serving as venues for any person or organization opposed to Catholic doctrine, Religion News Service reports. Myers’s missive further states that Catholics, “especially ministers and others who represent the Church, should not participate in or be present at religious events or events intended to endorse or support those who reject or ignore Church teaching and Canon Law.”

...

A spokesman for Myers said recent social and political developments motivated the archbishop to send the letter. “With so much being generated in the media with regard to issues like same-sex unions and such, this memo about ensuring that Catholic teaching is adhered to in all situations — especially with regard to the use of diocesan properties and facilities — seemed appropriate,” archdiocesan spokesman James Goodness told RNS. The Newark archdiocese covers more than 200 parishes in northern New Jersey.

There have been several instances of LGBT Catholics being denied communion at family funerals. And the question of facilities use came up recently during Pope Francis’s visit to Philadelphia — a Catholic parish would not allow a pro-LGBT group to hold events on its property, so the group moved the events to a Methodist church.

[Yorktown]

1. "No Communion for LGBT Equality Supporters" sounds resasonable

I mean, it's not as if LGBT Equality Supporters were decent humans, right?

[dorkzilla]

2. Disgusting

Are they begging for empty parishes? They’re closing down left, right and center already.

[gcomeau]

10. As they should be.

They’re closing down left, right and center already.

This is after all just the guy doing what his religion tells him to. People need to stop being surprised or begging and pleading for them to change their mind and just wake up and recognize they need to be written off and walk away.

[TlalocW]

3. Everytime there's some sort of pronouncement from Catholic clergy

I just wonder to myself if they realize they've given up any possible claim to a moral high ground long ago.

TlalocW

[whatthehey]

4. But the Pope drives an old car and grumbles about rich people so it's ok!

Strangely focusing on what he cannot change, like macroeconomics, rather than what he can change, such as restricting communion.

[trotsky]

5. "Hey, everybody, YOU need to change!"

"Not me!"

[Lordquinton]

6. Looks like we won't be going to church in the greater Newark area.

[mr blur]

53. Ha!

I see what you did there!

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Most LGBT equality supporting Catholics are going to ignore this rule, by simply being...

silent in Church. How many priests actually will try to enforce it by trolling social media of Parishioners to "catch" those horrible heathens who take communion and support same sex marriage? I doubt many will make the effort. I do see a possible snitch culture occur here though, where fellow parishioners snitch on LGBT equality supporters to get awarded brownie points in church.

If the Archbishop is actually serious, and attempts to enforce this rule on parishioners in a serious fashion, then we will see church attendance and participation drop precipitously. According to the latest polls, over half of those who identify as Catholic support same sex marriage, that number is only going to increase over time.

It appears that a great shift is occurring, the old standbys(Most of Europe and the Americas) are collapsing in participation and attendance. Much of it driven by scepticism, much of it by the child abuse scandals that rocked the Church at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, but also its conservatism is in opposition to the social progress of many nations.

Please bear in mind this, while the Catholic Church is still the largest Christian denomination on the planet, its numbers are inflated. All 1.2 billion Catholics(or so) are those who were baptised, not those who are practising or even believers, hell I'm still part of that number. And, as of 2009, there's no formal way to remove yourself from the "list" so to speak. Once baptised a Catholic, always a Catholic, at least according to the Church.

[Angry Dragon]

9. When someone says they are a christian I always ask to see their membership card

[RKP5637]

27. I immediately put them on my beware/caution list. I don't trust them! We also never hire

contractors for our places if they tout a religion card as part of their presentation. They immediately go on the "do not use list."

[Angry Dragon]

8. Next I suppose they will excommunicate all the sinners

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Add Newark to the list.

It is getting very difficult for the allegedly non-homophobic faithful to find an RCC region that is not on the list.

[rug]

12. "allegedly non-homophobic faithful"?

Do you say all practicing Catholics are homophobes?

Go on, warren, why don't you just have the integrity to state yor actual opinion instead of hiding behind weasel words like "allegedly".

[Yorktown]

15. Practicing Catholics are illogical if they are not homophobes

Homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible (the old part)

Christianity says the Bible is a holy book.

A Christian who is not a homophobe has a split personality.

[rug]

16. So, in your mind, practicing Catholics are either bigots or they are mentally ill.

Good of you to step in between warren and the question with that idiocy.

[Yorktown]

17. practicing Catholics who support gay rights have no logical basis for their split beliefs.

I leave your passive-aggressive simplifications (either bigots or they are mentally ill) to you.

[rug]

18. The simplicaifications, and the bigotry thart flows from them, are all yours.

Oh, your term was "split personality" not "split beliefs". Work on your backpedaling.

[Yorktown]

19. No, Sir, no. The simplifications and bigotry are yours.

There is an astrophysicist who is a young earth creationist.

Determining whether it's a case of "split personality" or "split beliefs" is moot.

Though highly intelligent, he holds two sets of ideas which are totally contradictory.


This was exactly my point about Christians who support gay rights: split beliefs.

They believe the Bible is holy, and the Bible roundly condemns homosexuality.

Try facing the issues and not personalities. Even if mine seems to hold special interest to you.

[rug]

20. Who is the astrophysicist?

I'll wait.

[Yorktown]

21. Ask politely, and I'll tell you.

Must I remind you again?

You're not boss here.

[rug]

22. No need. I already know it's Hugh Ross, who is not as you described.

He is not a young earth creationist.

I was just curious to see if you'd respond with information or snark. I should have known it would be childishness instead.

I suppose whatever shallow poll of the internet you got that statement from unsurprisingly valued rhetoric over fact.

Just another reason to question what you post.

[Yorktown]

23. LOL LOL LOL you're wrong again, this time obviously so

I like Hugh Ross. AGAIN, you try to dishonestly assign false beliefs to me. It shows.

The answer was Dr. Jason Lisle.

Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado. Dr. Lisle did his undergraduate work at the Ohio Wesley University with a double major in physics and astronomy and a minor in mathematics. He has written several papers that have been published in both creation literature and secular magazines. He had grown up in a Christian home and he had trouble dealing with being taught about evolution in the government schools. While he was in graduate school he began to read creation materials he realized that if you looked at materials through different points of view then you would come up with two different things. He started to give lectures encouraging people to believe in the Bible and not in evolution. Dr. Jason Lisle continued to give lectures on why people should believe in the Bible today as a fulltime speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis. In early 2012, Lisle became the Director of Research for the Institute for Creation Research.

[rug]

24. Now was that so difficlult?

Name another.

While I wait you can tell me what you like about Hugh Ross' creationism.

[Yorktown]

25. Only you mentioned Hugh Ross and creationism in the same breath.

Your debating techniques are childish.

Putting words in the mouth of the person debating you is both clumsy and dishonest.

Again, I hope you do not think lies are helping to further the cause of your imaginary god and jesus.

[rug]

28. I see. You don't have another name.

An outlier is hardly a basis for your ridiculous broad brush statement that Christians (unmodified) are either bigots or have split personalities.

Not that that will stop you.

[Yorktown]

29. Christians are either bigots or have split personalities is YOUR statement

Again, in the name of civil discourse, I would appreciate if you desisted from putting words in my mouth.

But that might be asking too much of someone who will stop at nothing to further his cause.

that of an imaginary god, imaginary jesus, and clownish 'saints'..

[rug]

30. Ah, so you believe that Christians are not bigots or have split personalities?

Or do I see the glimmerings of your encounter with the word "some"?

[Yorktown]

31. Back to the logical grinding mill

Do you understand you cannot always make issues personal?

That ideas have ground in logic? A and non-A are not compatible ideas.

(A) Homosexuality is an abomination (Bible) is an idea incompatible with (non A) gay rights.


You enjoy debating for the sake of it, with ad hominems and sleigh of hand tricks.

Good for you. I'm not interested. I prefer facts and logic.

[rug]

32. There you go, answering a question with a question again.

Excuse me while I avid the ricochet.

So, are you still slathering with a wide brush or do you finally realize that your characterizations of religious groups, and each of its members, is bogus?

[Yorktown]

33. I do not characterize religious groups. I evaluate religious doctrines and the logic behind.

If people hold ideas which are incompatible, I state it because it's a fact.

it is a fact the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

People who believe the Bible is a holy book have no basis for their support of gay rights.

That support of gay rights is based on our nature as social animals (live and let live)

The cranky religious ideologies (Torah/Bible/Quran) just go against the best in us.


As for myself, I support gay rights without the hindrance of the biblical fairy tales.

[rug]

34. If that is true you can not say the RCC or active Catholics are either misogynist or homophbic.

After all, you merely "evaluate religious doctrines".

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

[Yorktown]

35. Again, you're trying to shield the Roman Catholic ideology behind the faithful

You seem to have a real difficult time to differentiate ideas from people.

Lots of nice people can entertain very rotten ideas.

I am sure there were actually Soviet apparatchiks or Nazi Party members who were decent individuals.

And yet, the Soviet or Nazi regime were running with totally atrocious softwares.

In the same fashion, lots of believers in that fantasy which is the Roman Catholic doctrine are nice.

But the Roman Catholic doctrine itself is hateful and divisive. Like the doctrine of Islam is.


One cannot reconcile the doctrine homosexuality is an abomination and be understanding of gays.

Unless one is ready to live with a set of conflicting and logically mutually exclusive ideas.

That's a fact. No amount of spin from you can cover that up. Sorry.

[rug]

36. I'm not shielding anything. Frankly, my criticisms of the RCC would stun you.

The difference between mine and yours is, they are based on facts, knowledge, understanding and analysis, not digital talking points awkwardly posed.

Sorry.

[Yorktown]

37. LOL you just played a Lesley Hazleton on me

That's one of Lesley Hazleton's routines when defending Islam:
what critics of Islam would barely cover the back of a playing card.
(people are expected then to assume dear old Lesley knows far more than anyone else in the room)

In the same way, you generously adjudicate yourself with a "knowledge, understanding and analysis" of catholicism that you imply is far superior to mine.

I trust this means you are generally quite pleased with yourself, which is a good thing for your sense of self worth.

Sadly, I have not yet been privileged to see samples of your superior "knowledge, understanding and analysis" of catholicism. I can't wait.


Let's try this: at the time of which Pharaoh did Moses live?

I'm so impatient to benefit from someone with such a bright "knowledge, understanding and analysis"

[rug]

38. Leslrey Hazelton is far better company than that which I find myself in.

https://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran?language=en

[Yorktown]

39. Ad hominem. Again. Your brand of Catholicism is inspiring.

Not.

[rug]

40. Oh, I'm the first to admit I'm a shitty Catholic.

But I do know what it's about. And what it's not about.

[Yorktown]

41. No. You cannot know what Catholicism is about. For a very simple reason:

Nobody does.
Nobody can know what Catholicism is about.

Who was Jesus? Did he exist? What did he really say?
The 4 'accepted' gospels contradict each other. Even about 'jesus' last words.

And that's not even counting internal disagreements.
As we speak, the cardinals conference on family values shows great dissensions.

So anyone claiming he/she 'knows' what Catholicism is about is bragging and deluded.

[rug]

42. Of all the religions extant, that one is the most punctilious in setting down what it is,

what it believes and how it operates.

You can thank the late Roman Empire for that legacy.

If you do not know what it is about, you have no one else to blame.

I note that intellectual uncertainty is rapidly followed by name-calling.

[Yorktown]

43. Comparison is not reason, and your comparison is flawed by your own admission

You say:

Of all the religions extant, that one is the most punctilious in setting down what it is what it believes and how it operates.

What is it supposed to mean?

ONE OF? with a handful of religions, one covers the 20/80 of existing religions by believers.

Islam is at least as punctilious as the Roman Catholic Church. Arguably more so.

So the meaning of your post #42 is so vague as to be meaningless.

Hope you will not (again) consider that reasoning about ideas a 'name calling'.

[rug]

44. What I wrote is actually very clear.

Are you having trouble with "punctilious"?

I'll make it easier for you.

Read the Catechism. Read the Canon Law. Read what magisterium means, both wit and without the Pope.. If you do that, you too will know exactly what Catholicism is about.

What is distinctive about the RCC is the third one. You will not find a parallel to that in Islam.

[Yorktown]

45. LOL there is no worse deafness than the voluntary one

You carefully evaded the key point:

Who was Jesus? Did he exist? Who wrote the 4 contradicting gospels?

Cathechism, Canon Law and Magisterium are built on these unanswered questions.

So you can pompously throw as many 'punctilious' to me as you wish,

bottom line: it is demonstrable that Catholicism has no firm ground to build upon.

(and that's being nice; the gospels accomodate themselves with slavery quite comfortably)

[rug]

46. No, those are not the key points. Those are talking points 7 and 32, depending on the website.

Now, pay attention, this is getting tedious.

You first wildly claimed no one, let alone me, could know what the RCC is about.

I showed you how.

Now, you shift that to an assertion that the Catholic Church is built on a myth. Ho-hum. Stale. Hardly worth the bold face.

That assertion is bullshit of corse. But let's assume it's not. So what? The question was can anyone know what the RCC is about, not whether what it claims is bullshit.

I colud have simply said you're moving the goalposts but that's as stale as what you've been posting.

[Yorktown]

47. There is no worse blind than he who won't see (and read)

You make the claim that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is well defined.
I mentioned in this thread two key reasons why it is not;

1- I wrote that the 4 gospels (authors unknown) contradict each other.
Did you not read, not understand or willfully disregard?

2- even if the 4 gospels were a base, I wrote their interpretation differ at the top of the RCC
I mentioned the Roman Catholic conference where bishops cannot agree on family values.
Did you not read, not understand or willfully disregard?

And the goalposts only appear to you to be moving. Religion is a mirage.

There are no goalposts.

[rug]

48. That's "none so blind", not "There is no worse blind".

Your picture reminded me of this:

The more I talk to you the more I undersatand it.

There is always a spoon.

[Yorktown]

49. Bingo! Total evasion of my arguments. I accept your surrender.

[rug]

50. How did you like the clip?

(BTW, that was not an evasion but a description.)

[Yorktown]

52. TLDNR

[Warren Stupidity]

13. somebody seems to think everything is about him.

[EvilAL]

14. I didn't know they could do that.

But there ya go..
It is always funny yo see them turning on their own though. Not as much into self - preservation as they used to be.

[RKP5637]

26. Yep, using his religion as a veil to practice his brand of hatred and bigotry. Idiots like this have

made religion even more synonymous with hatred and bigotry.

[Smarmie Doofus]

51. Damn. Now I'm gonna have to replan my entire Sunday.

OK.... cheap shot. Sorry to DU believers. But I couldn't help myself.