Thugs at the Cathedral of Chicago

From LifeSite:


Monday February 22, 2010

Gay Mob Protests Wedding Vow Renewal at Chicago Cathedral

by James Tillman

CHICAGO, February 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last Valentine’s day, Feb 14, Chicago’s Holy Name Cathedral offered married couples a chance to celebrate their spousal fidelity by renewing their vows to each other during Mass.  Yet in order to do so, couples had to pass through an angry crowd of "gay rights" protestors who marched by the steps of the cathedral, accusing Church hierarchy of hatred toward gays and telling parishioners to "stop funding the bigots!" 

Police refused to interrupt the demonstration, despite laws that prohibit protesting near places of worship while services are ongoing. [And this is the problem, isn’t it.  What would people be saying to the city of Chicago if the police had not shut down a protest on the steps of a mosque where some stupid thing was being said?]

Chicago lawyer Nora Doherty, who was present during the demonstration, recounted via Renew America’s Matt Abbott how "one of the particularly angry protesters yelled at my three-year-old daughter, ‘Little girl, I hope you grow up to be gay so that your mother will disown you and you can know how I feel!’”

"There were some kinder protesters standing next to her trying to make excuses for her behavior," she continued, "but she was inexcusably uncivilized and there was literally frothy saliva visibly draining from the corners of her mouth."  [My favorite protestors are always spittle-flecked.]

The demonstration was organized by the Gay Liberation Network (GLN), which proclaims that the protest was meant "to draw attention to the Catholic hierarchy’s continued opposition to equal rights within the church and in society at large." [And the Church will continue to teach that homosexual sex and attraction is a perversion of the natural order.]

In particular, the protest was intended to target Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George, current President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the "anti-civil rights posture of the current Pope."

"We want to drag the Church’s bigotry out of the closet," Andy Thayer, a well-known militant co-founder of the group, told the Chicago Tribune.

At one point, a speaker with a microphone and blow-horn asserted that "the Catholic hierarchy, particularly in the Knights of Columbus [sic] [!] and the organization of bishops, have regularly been clear that they want people who love people of the same gender … to stay in the closet; also, to not get jobs." [Not to get…. jobs….   Okay.  They are going to target the Church for discrimination suits.  Just watch.]

Protestors held signs proclaiming "the Pope is anti-women and anti-gay," "anti-equal Rights =’s hate," and "love transcends doctrine."   They also chanted "Holy Name, Holy Shame," "Stop the harm. Stop the hate. Separate the Church and State!" and other similar mantras.  [Pretty stupid, all in all.] The noise was audible from within the church.

[NB] The Chicago Municipal Code states that someone is punishable for disorderly conduct whenever he "pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any church, temple, synagogue or other place of worship while services are being conducted."

When Doherty asked an officer why they were permitting the protest to continue immediately outside the cathedral, she recounts, he "said that the organizer of the protest currently has 20 lawsuits pending against the city of Chicago and he tends to name officers personally as defendants in his civil suits."

For this reason, says Doherty, he went on to say that "unless the Commander gave explicit instructions to move the protestors to the other side of the street, he intended to do nothing."  [So, these homosexuals are effectively thugs, rather like organized crime.]

Ironically, Chicago rigorously enforces protection of its abortion mills with the "bubble zone" ordinance, which prohibits pro-life counselors within 50 feet of an abortion facility from approaching within 8 feet of an individual entering the facility, without that individual’s explicit consent.

Holy Name Cathedral’s pastor has asked the archdiocese to look into why Chicago police allowed the demonstration to take place
.

Colleen Dolan, spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Chicago, said that the protestors’ efforts were misguided.

"They may not like it, but it’s the teaching of the Church that marriage is between one man and one woman," she said. “Those of us in the Church don’t get to choose what the teachings are."

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Thugs at the Cathedral of Chicago

  1. Some years ago, I posted something about homosexuality and was virulently attacked to the point where I almost stopped blogging for a while. It wasn’t pretty, but I held my ground and kept telling them what an abomination their sin is.

    I really find it outrageous that they can go around and promote their agenda in the public square, but the Catholics and others have been pushed out. I suppose that in our secularist and modernist world that he who has the most influence wins and is allowed to protest whatever he or she likes. It’s sad, I know, but it’s the truth.

  2. TJerome says:

    I guess if Catholics started cutting off their heads they would not come around to protest. That strategy works for the “Religion of Peace.”

  3. Oneros says:

    We’ve been pushed out because we’ve let ourselves be.

    If these people can get together a little crowd just to protest some Valentines Day renewal of vows…that’s why they’re winning.

    Why haven’t we gotten people together to protest communion on the hand, etc??

    Such boldness is why they are winning.

  4. vincentuher says:

    Pray the Holy Rosary for the conversion of the enemies of the Church.

  5. Glen M says:

    How about suing the Chicago PD? If this tactic works for the radical gay agenda then it should work for everyone. How about suing the protest organizer?

  6. Salvatore_Giuseppe says:

    “Hey, lets separate Church and State by having the State force the Church to acknowledge same-sex unions”

    The more this happens, the more I get frustrated that the government is in the marriage business at all. Marriage is, and has been a religious institution. The only reason the government ever got involved was because they realized they could make money on it by taxes and fees.

    Take the government out of the marriage business, and gays will have no reason to protest. They will find some “church” to call them married, the State won’t care either way, and because it won’t be a valid marriage, and because the State won’t be able to force the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals, it won’t be a problem there either.

  7. Leonius says:

    The men of that parish should be ashamed of themselves.

  8. esquiress says:

    “Stop the harm. Stop the hate. Separate the Church and State!”

    Protesting a non-government entity’s non-government position on it’s non-government property? Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe this.

  9. When Doherty asked an officer why they were permitting the protest to continue immediately outside the cathedral, she recounts, he “said that the organizer of the protest currently has 20 lawsuits pending against the city of Chicago and he tends to name officers personally as defendants in his civil suits.”

    What C-R-A-P-P-O-L-A. Those police officers, acting lawfully within the course and scope of their duties to enforce a city ordinance, are IMMUNE from liability. You can’t convince me they don’t know that.

  10. Jayna says:

    Is it just me that finds irony in that fact that the protesters were complaining about how the Church is anti-women, but then the spokesman for the Archdiocese of Chicago is…a woman?

  11. B.C.M. says:

    Is it me, or was the spokeswoman’s response she said. “Those of us in the Church don’t get to choose what the teachings are.” a little less than full throated support?

  12. Maltese says:

    *Holy Name Cathedral’s pastor has asked the archdiocese to look into why Chicago police allowed the demonstration to take place.*

    Very simply because there is a palpable double-standard with respect to the Church. Imagine, contrariwise, a sham-fest protest of this magnitude at a Synagogue or Mosque, and troops and Calvary would have put it down in no undo order!

  13. RR says:

    This kind of thing has only just begun. The Church needs to prepare itself. The martyrs faced much worse, of course.

  14. Lurker 59 says:

    In reading the various debates on topics such as the one above, I must highly recommend a massive shift in the language that is currently being used. All the language and reference points need to move away completely from an ecclesiocentric perspective towards a Christocentric perspective. The ecclesiocentric is a debate looser because it as soon as it is mentioned that “They may not like it, but it’s the teaching of the Church that marriage is between one man and one woman,” the debate is lost because it has been so drummed into people’s heads, including Catholics, that a “church” is a human institution and all human institutions are 1.) democratic 2.) need to progress towards “social justice” and liberty. People simply do not understand that the Church is the Body of Christ and much of the time people arguing from an ecclesiocentric perspective don’t really view the church as anything beyond the conglomeration of the people that are its members.

    People on the other side of these issues only see the Church as a human construct that needs to be changed. As long as Catholics argue from a position that such and such is against the Church, it is a lost argument because it is seen as an admission by the Catholic that the such and such is only human institutionalized racism/bigotry/homophobia/sexism etc.

  15. JonM says:

    The degree to which homosexuality is not only tolerated but violently defended by society and especially younger people is one of the greatest historical anomolies ever.

    Recently when chatting about Lent and a time for renewed pennance and self examination, I was jousted for opposing sex outside of marriage [NB: Often men, especially strong or handsome ones who, when asked, don’t apologize for divine law are called ‘gay.’ Not in a happy way. And not in a ‘that’s nice let’s celebrate our unique paths’ way. We’ll come back to this.]

    I explained to my fallen away Eastern Orthodox friend that first of all it is doctrine and not my opinion. Beyond that though it can be a challenge at first, it becomes less of one. Eventually the idea of sex outside of marriage with one woman when married becomes repulsive.

    “Well,” as Father would say, Wait for it! “what about gay people?”

    Carefully explaining Tradition and using the soft language of the latest Catechism, as well as pointing to the natural order in virtually every society in history, I was dismissed and mocked for ignorance and hate. [Remember, a moment ago I was tared with a slur, but the hate-source is me somehow.]

    It’s not a choice etc. etc. However, I made progress with the counter-response: Is there no choice in pornography and the sin that goes with it? Both absolutely can be broken through prayer, Confession, pennance, and faith. We need grace but we can make use of it. The gate is open so we can walk through.

    Response…

    Silence!

  16. momoften says:

    “They may not like it, but it’s the teaching of the Church that marriage is between one man and one woman,” she said. “Those of us in the Church don’t get to choose what the teachings are.”
    ***Does this mean she is showing sympathy towards the homsexuals by saying those of us in the Church don’t get to choose what the teachings are? Poorly worded by Colleen, or does she feel as she says…hmmmm

  17. catholicmidwest says:

    Some people are scum. It’s always been that way, and it always will be that way. Too bad society doesn’t keep it under control any better than it used to.

  18. Girgadis says:

    Giving the spokeswoman the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she was trying to say that the protesters had no business harassing faithful people who obey the non-negotiable teachings of the Catholic Church. If the protesters don’t like those teachings, they are free to find another church, but they are not free to harass those peacefully trying to worship. The Church does not base her teachings on public opinion. Perhaps Colleen Dolan will offer an explanation.

    What kind of sick person screams at a three-year-old child and then expects to be taken seriously?

  19. TNCath says:

    I am afraid we are going to see much more of this in the next several years. Before it’s all over, we will once again see yet another persecution of the Church, and this time it will be right here in the U.S.

  20. Fr Martin Fox says:

    Salvatore Giuseppe said:

    “Marriage is, and has been a religious institution.”

    No, no, no!

    Marriage is not, of its essence, “a religious institution”!

    When two atheists get married, are they not validly and truly married? Per Church teaching they are.

    Marriage is natural, human institution that arises out of human nature itself; out of sexual complementarity, and our need for family in order to survive.

    Be very careful folks–the other side LOOOOOOOVES to talk about marriage as “a religious institution”–so that they can complain that insisting on marriage’s true nature as man-woman is actually just religious dogma and the state shouldn’t submit to it. That is very convenient for what they want–don’t play along, because…it’s not true!

    Religious people did not “invent” heterosexuality and family! It’s hard-wired into us by nature; and as far as we’re concerned, by God. But you don’t have to believe in God to see the truth about marriage.

  21. Sandra_in_Severn says:

    The Catholics and other Christians are “safe” you know. We hate the sin, but love the sinner, they (the most radical and vocal of protesters) feel free to protest in our faces because like a toddler or teen on a temper tantrum, we are “safe” and “loving.” We are “Parental” as in the protection of a way-ward child, and “I may not like this but I would not abandon you,” definition of the word.

    Where as, “the religion of peace and submission,” it would not be a pretty picture.

    Old saying, “Those that are the enemy of my enemy are my friend, (for now).”

  22. ray from mn says:

    Richard M. Daley, Mayor of Chicago, son of Richard J. Daley, last of the Big City Bosses, is nominally Catholic. His father was a daily communicant.

    Richard M. obviously has a different agenda. Will Cardinal George take him to task for his neglect of enforcing Chicago’s laws?

  23. JonM says:

    Fr. Fox, thanks for such a wonderful deconstruction of marriage. You are so correct that we cannot let those in error frame the debate.

    I hope the Cardinal does look into this matter. It would be a good break from the near indifferentism expressed recently regarding a non-Christian restorationist sect.

  24. MikeM says:

    Well, if law suits get the police to back down, I guess Chicago’s pro-life demonstrators know what to do!

  25. Charivari Rob says:

    You know, after I read this article and Googled several others, I was all set to condemn all those reporters who referred to it as a “Valentine’s Day” Mass or some such observance – when it is in fact an observance of World Marriage Day.

    That is, until I read an archived bulletin (Feb 7th) from the Cathedral Parish – in which they refer to the upcoming events as “Valentine Masses”

    Never mind.

  26. Incaelo says:

    All too recogniseable to me at the moment, I’m afraid. Whenever the public debate gets triggered again, it’s always overshadowed by the highly emotional reactions of the pro-homosexual rights crowd. Don’t even think of having an objective and sensible debate…

    In my country, the Netherlands, is priest is charged with discrimination for denying an openly homosexual man Communion. This after the priest and the homosexual man in question sat down twice to discuss the decision privately. But the case has been taken over by the crowds who clamour to be heard and enforce their opinios on anyone.

    The court will undoubtedly throw it out on the basis of freedom of religion, but it has once again tarnishd the Church’s image. And the media love it. I have devoted a few posts in my blog to it.

  27. Be very careful folks—the other side LOOOOOOOVES to talk about marriage as “a religious institution”—so that they can complain that insisting on marriage’s true nature as man-woman is actually just religious dogma and the state shouldn’t submit to it. That is very convenient for what they want—don’t play along, because…it’s not true! – Fr. Martin Fox

    Dear Fr. Fox,

    A thousand thanks for the above!

    Marriage is a public institution that enjoys both temporal and ontological priority with respect to the state.

    A skeletal version of an argument follows.

    The following is excerpted from a post over at mine, here.

    Those who would use state power to change the basic structure of marriage, usually couch their case in terms of civil rights.

    Civil rights are created by the state and are expressions of, or determinations in accordance with the fundamental rights of man. Marriage, however, and the natural society called the family, which is founded on it, is an instituion that is prior to the State.

    The institution of marriage does not simply pre-exist the State: it is a natural social institution that survives even when the State disintegrates.

    This means that the state is not competent to alter the fundamental structure of marriage.

    N.B. This does not mean that a state may not, or ought not, or even must not alter the fundamental structure of marriage. It means that the State, as such, has no power to alter the fundamental structure of marriage. The State does not, as Chief Justice Catherine J. Marshall argued in Goodridge, “create civil marriage.” Such a claim is not only based on faulty ontology; it is anti-historical and illogical. Marriage existed before the states did, and it continued to exist even when colonial governments were annihilated and before new ones were erected to replace them; the history of marriage in America belies the claim. Native Americans took wives and had families even when they were not subject to the authority of any state or federal power, while the validity of Indian marriages was never made to depend on the issuance of retroactive marriage licences or certificates after such time as a formerly sovereign nation came under the jusrisdiction of a state, or of the United States; the ontological priority of the institution with respect to the State is something that has never, on principle, been disputed in the history of our nation. If the state creates civil marriage, then the state may destroy civil marriage – without so much as a “by your leave” to those, who have entered into the union; this is absurd.

    Nevertheless, it may be that everyone in every generation prior to 1988 has been dreadfully wrong about the right order of marriage’s relationship to the State. The gravity of the interests at stake in the question calls for exploration of the possibility.

    The right to marry the person of one’s choice, without respect to the sex of the persons who would enter into marital union together, can only be a civil right if the state does, in fact create civil marriage. If the state does create civil marriage, then the state has power over nature. If the state has power over nature, then the state is not naturally limited in the scope of it’s power. If the state, however constituted, is unlimited in the scope of its power, then it is total.

    So, the claim according to which the state ought to grant “marriage” as a matter of “civil rights” is actually based on a surreptitious presupposition, i.e. that the state is not naturally limited in the scope of its power, or, more bluntly, that the state is total.

    The “gay marriage” claim may therefore be made to hold only within a totalitarian understanding of the state.

    Now, I do not think the advocates of “gay marriage” are crypto-totalitarians. I do think they are gravely mistaken about the American understanding of the nature and purpose of government.

    The difficulty of the matter is that gay marriage proponents have appropriated the vocabulary of a psychically and politically healthy citizenry, while Catholics and others of good will who oppose “gay marriage” often do so on the basis of spurious claims, e.g. that legislators have a “duty” to represent “the values” of their constituents; or that the “gay lobby” is out to “destroy the family”. This sounds more like the ranting of a “second shooter on the grassy knoll” conspiracy junkie than a seriously engaged citizen ready to offer frank opinions and presume the good will of his fellows.

    The short of it is that people on the right side of an issue are not guaranteed – and indeed often do not employ – better arguments than their interlocutors on the other side of the issue. Very often, all too often, indeed, the people on the right side of an issue are the wrong sort of people – the sort of people who frown at hot fudge sundaes and gripe about the noise the neighbors’ children make while playing in the yard on Saturday afternoon. Too often people think that being right gives them a right to be nasty, or a claim to moral superiority.

    In any case, the duty of legislators is to represent the interests of their constituents, and often it is precisely the conscientious execution of this duty that leads a legislator to lose his next bid for re-election. Ours is not a perfect system. It does happen to be better than all the others.

    If Catholics are going to help society, then we must rediscover the forms and modes and orders of argument in our political system, and re-engage on the ground that shall then be available to us.

  28. Leonius says:

    Marriage is primarily neither a religious nor a public institution, it is a natural institution founded by God in Genesis when He was creating the universe.

    It has been what it is since the dawn of time and no law of man can make it anything other than what it is, man quite simply does not have the power or authority to change marriage and that modern man seems to think he does just shows the extreme arrogance of the current age in which we are living in.

  29. Dear Leonius,

    Marriage involves more than one person.

    Per natural reason and revelation, it is a – nay, it is the societas naturalis.

    Marriage is a public institution.

    Best,
    C.

  30. chironomo says:

    If the “Gay Rights” movement does for gays what the “Women’s Rights” movement did for women and the “Civil Rights” movement did for African Americans, we should be all for it. Both of those groups have fared far worse under their new “freedoms” and “rights”, which are in the end nothing but submission to some kind of government regulations and rules for behavior.

    Last time I looked, a gay man has the exact same rights to marry as I do. I can only marry a person of the opposite sex…. he can only marry a person of the opposite sex. I can’t marry another man and he can’t either. Same rights for both of us.

  31. kbf says:

    It’s been going on a while.

    About 15 years ago I was serving at a service at westminster Cathedral to mark the publication of the newly revised catechism. A major protest was organised by a militant group outside the cathedral, that at the start of the service charged in and down the ailse. The protesters invaded the sanctuary and surrounded Card Hume and started shouting all kinds of insults and abuse at him. Other climbed on the altar and stood on it waving rainbow flags and chanting “our love transcends your laws” with loudhailers. A few of us who were serving stood around the Card to put a barrier between him and the protesters (he lowered his head and prayed for his abusers while all of this was going on). One of the protesters had a video camera and took footage of what was happening. One police officer who was outside the cathedral did folow the protesters in and advised us that while we could stand in front of the Card we couldn’t raise our hands or do anything other than stand still because we could be charged with assault and that was why the protesters had a camera. They goaded us to do something and pushed and jostled us to try and get a reaction. The police officer asked if we wanted the protesters removed from the Cathedral (fr Danny Cronin the Chancellor and MC said he did) and reinforcements were called. This went on for about 15 mins until police back up arrived. All the while the protesters continued to shout, abuse, run around the sanctuary and apse and cause chaos. The choristers (boys aged between 8 and 12) were removed via the back stairs to the apse and many were crying and frightened, but as a credit to their professionalism sang the service after the protesters were removed. What the protesters didn’t count on was the overwhelming volume of the 4-Manual Gern-Willis Great West Organ, so their shouts were more or less drowned out, but it didn’t stop the horrific personal abuse of Card Hume being heard by those of us around him.

    As others have said, imagine that happening outside a mosque? It certainly doesn’t happen down the road at the Abbey (major tourist attraction) where even the homeless get moved on to gather around the Cathedral Piazza.

  32. KAS says:

    The church needed to have gotten the names of the officers and gotten a lawyer and filed civil suits against all of the people who did not enforce the law.

    Those same lawyers could go ahead and file whatever paperwork allows for complaints against the taxpayer funded police for failing to fulfill their job of upholding the law.

    And LOTS of people need to post utube videos of things like police officers saying they won’t uphold the law.

  33. Where were the Knights of Columbus in that case? Those boys would have kicked some butt.

    Also, why apologise for Church teaching? I would suggest, ‘Roma Locuta, Causa Finita – get over it, pervs!’.

    Typical liberals – they preach tolerance but practise intimidation.

  34. Steve K. says:

    On the reluctance of the CPD to enforce protest law on the “protesters” –

    There is more to the reason given by CPD than you think. Just today, we were sent an all-hands email from our security/force protection group (I work for DOD) about a series of anti-war protests to be held in the area this weekend by a certain group. We warned to avoid all contact if we happened to be in the vicinity, because the group’s membership includes many lawyers, they deliberately try to provoke reactions (burning flags, screaming obscenities at funerals, etc.) and then videotape the incidents to try to find litigation opportunities. They then file lawsuits seeking monetary reward to fund their future activities. It seems this homo group has a similar MO, and absent some really ugly incident, I can understand (if not endorse) the CPD’s reluctance to tangle with these creeps.

    It’s a problem, not sure what’s to be done about it past endurance and prayer. It should certainly open eyes – there is no doubt this is the work of the evil one, and don’t expect these people to stay at this level. I am sure they will escalate to worse tactics; sanity and restraint they have clearly done away with, it will only get worse. Pray for them.

  35. Steve K. says:

    RebelKnight –

    “Where were the Knights of Columbus in that case? Those boys would have kicked some butt.”

    Yes, and the CPD would have been on them like white on rice, arrested them and then the creeps would have sued. Understand, they are trying to provoke a violent confrontation.

  36. Titus says:

    When Doherty asked an officer why they were permitting the protest to continue immediately outside the cathedral, she recounts, he “said that the organizer of the protest currently has 20 lawsuits pending against the city of Chicago and he tends to name officers personally as defendants in his civil suits.”

    For this reason, says Doherty, he went on to say that “unless the Commander gave explicit instructions to move the protestors to the other side of the street, he intended to do nothing.”

    Hmm, two words come to mind: “Civil RICO.”

  37. Miguel says:

    As a fourth generation Chicagoan — happily no longer living there — I wonder what my Irish immigrant ancestors would have done had this group showed up back in the day.

    I am sure they wouldn’t have waited for the police to “do something” about it!!!

    Sad.

  38. ikseret says:

    Horrendous! But it shows how living a lifestyle according to a disordered inclination leads to anger, hate, and frustration. It is so sadly ironic that such people are called “gay” when buying into the lie that their identity is defined by a disorder only serves to make them intensely unhappy [and anti-social].

    That said,I wonder how many Novus Ordo sermons tied the day into St. Valentine whom the Novus Ordo calendar replaced with Sts. Cyril and Methodius?

  39. Sedgwick says:

    Were any of these thugs wearing brown shirts, by any chance? Any of them employed by ACORN? Any of them employed by CCHD-funded culture-of-death organizations?

  40. Wow. Those poor people. If only they knew Christ (sigh). Pray for them, they truly need it. When something attacks Truth and Love there will always be flaws and contradiction in them, for if you are not with Truth and Love you are against it. If you are against them then you lack the fullness of them. You cannot love without love and you cannot argue against Truth without Truth.

  41. Michaelus says:

    Hey – where was Rembert Weakland on the 14th?

    Actually there seems to have been only a collection of about 20 sexual misfits making noise: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6v1AZqbxc8

  42. Sid says:

    Turn the bogus “equality” argument against them.

    The 14th Amendment clearly states that “no state shall […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Chicago ordinance must be equally applied to Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics. Get a good civil rights lawyer make it a Federal Case, and ask for serious punitive damages against the Chicago government, the Chicago PD, and the sodomites. Hit them in the pocketbook, and you’ll get no more demos. For the Archdiocese not to sue would be a “breach of fiduciary duty” to parishioners and Chicago Catholics.

    And now for something really inflammatory and subversive: We’re discovering the hard way why the Church in ages past (1) got rid of the Sign of Peace, (2) got rid of Communion under both Kinds, (3) got rid of the prayers of petition at Mass, and (4) kept military orders — armed military orders.

  43. In reading the various debates on topics such as the one above, I must highly recommend a massive shift in the language that is currently being used. All the language and reference points need to move away completely from an ecclesiocentric perspective towards a Christocentric perspective.

    No. The alleged distinction between Christ and His Church is false. The solution is not to make concessions to this error — and a rhetorical concession is a concession — but to preach the truth.

  44. JonM says:

    @Sid

    I’m not disagreeing with your four points, but how do points 1 and 3 factor in this case?

    Point 4 is obvious enough. On point 3…

    Clearly the Sacred Blood is particularly threatened if troublemakers come in (we can quickly protect Hosts, but the Sacred Blood of Christ is prone to, well, retain its liquid accidents.) I believe that only in special cases should both species be offered (e.g., weddings to remind the guy that he has to be ready to give up his own blood for his wife.)

    But I wouldn’t argue that we should restrict Communion out of fear of seriously troubled and violent people. I’d simply keep it to correctly conveying the nature of the consecrated wine (it is Jesus) and that under normal circumstances the risk of spills outweigh the good of offerring to all.

    Also, there’s that pesky heresy that we ‘must receive both’ or else we somehow don’t fully receive Christ. It’s rampant even amongst non-dissenting Catholics.

  45. Maltese says:

    Chris Altieri: *The institution of marriage does not simply pre-exist the State: it is a natural social institution that survives even when the State disintegrates.*

    Marriage is primarily a Sacrament, but does a “valid” marriage exist between two protestants? Two Jews? Myself, I had to have my protestant marriage recognized by the Bishop according to Canon law. Really am just curious…

  46. Fr Martin Fox says:

    Maltese — marriage begins as a natural reality — and for two Christians who marry, it is also a sacrament.

    Two athiests who marry marry validly (i.e., presuming no defect of intention etc.), but theirs is a natural marriage–it is not a sacrament.

    So with any marriage in which both parties are not Christian. (And if Catholic, they must marry according to proper form for it to be valid.)

    So, I’m sorry you are incorrect–marriage is NOT “primarily a sacrament.” That’s like saying water is primarily a sacrament because it’s used in baptism. No, it’s a good, natural thing that is also a sacrament, with the right conditions–and that is an even better thing.

  47. Dear Maltese,

    Marriage is a natural social institution. If it were primarily a sacrament, then a society would need Christianity in order to know what it is.

    Christ has raised the institution to the dignity of a sacrament (Cf. CIC 1055).

    This means that one must be in the body of Christ to have the sacrament, not the institution.

    Let me try to put it another way: there is the sacrament of marriage wherever there is a valid marriage contract between two baptized persons.

    Best,
    C.

  48. Because the democrats officially support such unnatural perversion in their platform, and democrats rule Chicago, what else would one expect as an official response? This type of persecution will continue to worsen until Catholics as a whole live like Catholics rather than apostates. As punishment of said apostasy, God allows such things. That is nothing new, however, as Isaiah 3:4 says “And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them.”

  49. TonyLayne says:

    RebelKnight: Where were the Knights of Columbus in that case? Those boys would have kicked some butt.

    As a KC myself, I have to ask you: What do you think we are, ecclesial bodyguards? “Kicking butt” would not have been an appropriate response for any Catholic in this circumstance, Knight or not. Not unless and until it became a legitimate question of defending others from physical harm, which it apparently did not.

    “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Mt 5:11-12).