Wednesday, October 17th 2007
Disrespect, an SF Value?
The front page of the San Francisco Chronicle covers two men who dressed as nuns and went to a Roman Catholic church for the purpose of ridiculing it. (As a point of disclosure, I am a Roman Catholic.)
From the paper:
It was a typical Sunday Mass until two men in heavy makeup and nuns’ habits received Holy Communion from San Francisco’s top Catholic official.
On Oct. 7, Archbishop George Niederauer delivered the Eucharist to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - an activist group whose motto is “go forth and sin some more” - prompting cries of outrage from conservatives across the country and Catholics in San Francisco.
There is also this exchange of quotes:
Conservative Fox news commentator Bill O’Reilly, who has disparaged “San Francisco values,” called the latest flap another example of how the city is run by “far-left secular progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion.”
On his Friday news show, O’Reilly called San Francisco “a disgrace on every level.”
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dismissed O’Reilly’s comments.
“This debate really is about San Francisco values. The Bill O’Reillys of the world are threatened by San Francisco because we value diversity, universal health care and civil rights for all. They will exploit any controversy to attack our values.”
It is incidents like this that discredit the diversity so many people are proud to proclaim. Diversity as I know it involves a minimum level of respect for people, especially if they are different from you or you disagree with them.
The two men are the ones who should apologize. They chose to go into a church service for the reason of disrespecting and ridiculing it. In the same way it would be wrong for a person who disagrees with a gay person’s lifestyle to go into an LGBT meeting to disrupt it or make fun of those present.
Archbishop Niedarauer has nothing to apologize for. He did not withhold the Eucharist from anyone but instead trusted anyone who entered the church and approached him for Holy Communion did so with earnest and honest intentions in accord with the sacrament.
Sometimes when intentional disrespect of people or their beliefs occurs there is a call for hate crime legislation and diversity training. From what I have read online it is hard to say a majority of non-Catholic people condemn the actions of these two men.
Chris,
I should point out that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have long been on the forefront of the gay rights movement. Before the church that you claim is so diverse was willing to serve the needs of AIDS victims, the Sisters were already visiting SF bathhouses to tout a term they coined (Safe Sex) and raising money to ensure the needs of the gay community were met.
Not knowing the hearts of the two sisters who partook in the communion ritual, I am unable to discern whether they acted wrongly (nor can you). The Catholic Church has policies against serving the Eucharist to certain people for various reasons.
As obviously dressed as the Sisters were (if you’ve ever met the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, you know how conspicuous they are) it was the clear intent of the church to serve the communion and not cause a scene. That point was noted by one of the two Sisters who later wrote a thank you note to the church for their inclusiveness
In short, the Sisters have nothing to apologize for.
Comment by Matt Bunch — 10/18/2007 @ 3:14 pm
Bunch,
The “sisters” have everything to apologize for. They chose to indulge in hipocrisy by ridiculing and disrupting something important to a group of people with whom they disagree while expecting tolerance from others.
It would truly be wrong and intolerant to ridicule gays at events of their own and violate what they feel is important to them. They have a reasonable expectation that no one would do such an inappropriate thing. Likewise, they did the same to Roman Catholics like Chris and myself with their actions. Tolerance, indeed. Mind you, these comments are coming from a Roman Catholic gay-supporter.
The accomplishments of the “sisters” that you mention are great but not of concern in this matter. The Roman Catholic Church and this group do not share the same goals, and are definitely not in competition.
Neither you, nor I, nor Chris know what is in the hearts of these “sisters,” as they did not “partake” in the Communion ritual but rather they invaded it. Taking Holy Communion is only for Catholics, which they are not. Therefore, they should not have tried to participate regardless of their intentions. It has nothing to do with their sexuality as you implied (”The Catholic Church has policies against serving the Eucharist to certain people for various reasons.”), but rather with their membership in our church. There are plenty of gay Catholics, and they are all welcome to partake in the sacrament.
It is quite clear the sisters are “obviously dressed,” but you cannot say that it was the church’s intentions to not cause a scene by serving the Eucharist to them anyways. The priest truly did not know who they were, or he would NOT have given it to them. It would be against our policy and our faith. Given how they were dressed I have no idea how he did not realize his mistake until later, but it was still just a mistake.
And it was their mistake to be so intolerant. I don’t expect gays to support or respect my Church (which admittingly has many flaws) in the way I have supported and respected their sexual orientation, but I do expect tolerance. Coexistance doesn’t require much respect or support, but it does require each party to leave the other be.
Eddy Crochetiere
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — 10/18/2007 @ 4:47 pm
How is it that you know they weren’t Catholic? The article pointed out the real identity of the two Sisters was unclear. In any case, no mention of the religious affilitation of the two was mentioned.
Further, while I understand that the Catholic church prefers to restrict communion to its own members, rarely is any real fuss raised when a believing Protestant Christian (read: Non-Catholic who believes in Salvation through the Trinity) takes the Eucharist in earnest. Unless there is a specific knowledge by the Priest or Eucharistic ministers that the individual should not recieve the host, typically they do recieve it. Neither you nor I know whether the Sisters recieved the host out of ridicule for the church or out of earnest worship.
Unfortunately, according to Catholic policy, it doesn’t matter. Both men are gay (as are you and I) and are disqualified from recieving communion if we choose to live a “sinful lifestyle.”
Because the sisters dress in a very distinct way- essentially outrageously decorated habits- the Priest could have denied the Sisters the Eucharist if he felt they were offensive in their portrayal of nuns. He apparently decided not to deny them. Certainly, it was not their actions in church that ridiculed and disrupted the services.
In fact, it was their membership in the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence that was the offense. The priest saw no reason to deny the Sisters until he was informed of their membership.
Comment by Matt Bunch — 10/18/2007 @ 7:39 pm
Okay I thought it was a reasonable assumption that, since they are members of a group that is known to ridicule the Catholic church, that they are themselves not Catholic. Maybe I shouldn’t make assertions on assumptions, but I still figured it was a reasonable one to make.
And I am a Catholic straight-ally gay supporter, not actually gay myself. My religion may be downtrodden with plenty of archaic intolerances, but the “American” version of Catholicism is arguably much more liberal and more accepting. The church here at Cal (newman hall) has it’s own clergy sponsored LGBT group with weekly meetings at church and weekly announcements at every mass. I figure that’s more than anyone could realistically expect from the Catholic church.
A discussion about theology is useless and isn’t very topical here, but faith-based policy limits communion to catholics and protestants who also share a similar view of the practice. I imagine the priest assumed that they were not Catholics when hearing of their organization and regretted serving communion to them rather than their membership in the organization itself. He probably made the same assumption I did about their faith or lack thereof.
Membership in any groups are not legitimate grounds for witholding communion. If the priest truly would have withheld it only due to their group affiliation that would be indefensible but I personally don’t feel that were the case. But in the end, who knows? Both you and I are speculating and no one (including priests) makes correct decisions 100% of the time.
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — 10/21/2007 @ 6:41 pm
Eddy,
I do apologize. I mistakenly thought you were an openly gay man. I am not sure where I got that idea.
I thank you for being an ally to the gay community. I am sure you recognize that the Catholic church has a pretty solid record against gays. The Berkeley Newman Hall, which I am very familiar with from my college days, is very unusual and tolerant. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is generally not as tolerant and supportive as you and Newman Hall. As a result, a number of gay Catholics have been forced out of the church, into closeted lies, or otherwise suppressed.
In Sacramento and elsewhere, there is currently a movement of gay parishoners that attend the Cathedral services wearing colored ribbons to denote their sexual orientation. Each week they solemnly rise and go forward to recieve Communion. Each week, they are denied. As you know, to a devout Catholic, denial of the Eucharist equates to excommunication.
Comment by Matt Bunch — 10/22/2007 @ 2:14 pm