Sunday, July 6, 2008

Change in the Air?

Given the recent prohibition on a "gay pride prayer service" at St Joan of Arc parish, is the new Archbishop sending a signal to SJA that things are going to change? This parish is proudly notorious for it's defiance of Church authority, especially but not exclusively regarding promotion of the "gay" lifestyle. (I will just use "gay" because it's quicker than "those with same-sex attraction," although it doesn't appear to me that those with same sex attraction are often very gay, that is happy...)

How does a parish develop such a dissident philosophy toward the Church? I guess it started with Fr Harvey Egan, who apparently was the embodiment of the VCII gone awry. Well, there is a lot of material out there, you can search for yourself.

Do you view the prohibition as a substantial, positive step; or just another thrust and parry by an Archbishop with a rebellious parish, with no real impact toward corrective action?


bilbannon said...

One problem that contributed to this mess started decades ago when in Catholic quarters and in magazines, one would read comments to the effect that Paul was against women or Paul was speaking often within his culture and must be filtered thereby.
It was an anti Paul fog that permeated such periodicals as America and other magazines. And the hierarchy got in the same habit and as a result, you cannot find wifely obedience in either Vatican II nor in the current catechism despite it being clearly and explicitly in the epistles.
So we developed as a Church a somewhat cafeteria approach to the New Testament. At the magisterial level, that resulted in Romans 13:3-4 being not quoted at all in Evangelium Vitae when the death penalty is discussed and it was THE classic passage affirming the death penalty for Aquinas. And it resulted in the current fog on husband headship.

Now pan to the gay acitivity problem. Gay actions of both men and women are clearly condemned in Romans 1....crystal clear. But since all levels of the Church from the Pope on down undermined Pauline or deutero Pauline letters as only sometimes binding in the name of historico-critical is then no great surprise that active gays used the very same technique to weaken Romans 1 by seeing it simply as a part of its patriarchal time rather than an eternally binding condemnation of gay actions as against nature as Romans states.

When you give a dance, you have to pay the band. Modern hermeneutics was used to undermine the death penalty so as to have a Seamless Garment of Life so now you have other groups undermining other parts of Paul for their own purposes.

Laura The Crazy Mama said...

Damn those women who speak their minds. If they would just shut up and let their husbands do the talking, the gays wouldn't be out there mucking up the historico-critical hermeneutics. You've TOTALLY nailed the root of the whole problem there, Mr. Bil! (I cannot BELIEVE how I could have missed that connection beforeslapmyforehead! All I had to do was "pan" to and from seemingly disconnected issues to somehow divine the connection and use lots of big words...hmmmmm...who knew it could be that easy?!!!

Joshua, you don't have to post this response if you think I'm being too mean. Besides, I'm just a stupid, disobedient woman anyway. What the hell do I know?

bilbannon said...

You might be wasting your good intellect by playing the rant role....even in giving yourself the full title that you have given yourself which excuses impulse. God will want to see work not just impulse in our posts if we think that those posts on the net qualify as a spiritual work of mercy. Otherwise we'd be better off actually doing other works of mercy off net.

Laura The Crazy Mama said...

I am only responding (yes, in a smart ass manner but that's the way I roll) to YOUR comment because it grouses me to no end to have people connecting dots and not really offering any good solutions. In my opinion the best thing to do is:

Let the bishop do his job.
Rejoice that he IS doing his job.
Pray for those poor souls who are separating themselves by their sin.
Pray for ourselves when we get steamin' mad at dorky commentors who think they are God's gift to everyone else on the forums because they think they are being master "fraternal correcters".

The original post had four questions and you should have just addressed THOSE with some intelligence to keep the conversation going instead of spouting your opinion about how we got here in the first place (starting back when women decided to take the coverings off their heads in church, the heathens!).

To give my 2 cents on the two questions he asked but didn't answer:

Yes, I do believe he's sending a signal but maybe he's just doing his job properly and is connected in a more modern way to his flock than his predecessor.

Yes, any time you can prohibit a big, ongoing event (even IF it's for the first time for whatever reason) it's a good, public way to show everyone "enough is enough already!".

Sorry this wasn't more thought out...I gotta go scrub and paint the bathroom, fold about 3 loads of laundry, sweep the floor, put on my pearls and heels, and dress the turkey in the oven before baseball tonight!

Joshua 24:15 said...

In terms of understanding the spirit of dissent in the American Catholic Church, I would obviously recommend George Weigel's "The Courage To Be Catholic." It describes some of the factors leading up to the sexual abuse scandals, but the undertone of rebellion the Church throughout the 60's and 70's could also reasonably linked to the SJA enviromnent.

bilbannon said...

No...actually if the moderator forbade any posts that did not address his questions, he is perfectly free to delete them but he did not so that your rule for response to lead articles is far stricter than his rule is. I could see a moderator using your rule but it is not mandated here. And were a site to have your rule, I'd probably not be inclined to it.

Laura The Crazy Mama said...

Bleah, whatever. I don't have any "rule". I was just making a suggestion. Forget I ever posted any of that stuff. I'm just a fickle woman and prone to lunatic ravings now and then (I'm sure you understand.). Forgive me.
I promise next time if I can't say sompthin nice, I won't say nothin at all.