|
|
|
|
Soulforce and the Catholic Church Background:
Soulforce Protesters at 2002 US Bishops Meeting Prior to the Mass, priests distributing the Eucharist were warned that members of the Rainbow Sash movement—whose members “proclaim that [they] are Gay and Lesbian people who embrace and celebrate [their] sexuality as a Sacred Gift”—might attempt to receive communion. The Bishops instructed Eucharistic ministers to refuse communion to members of the Rainbow Sash Movement. Because the Catechism calls the Eucharist “the source and summit of the Christian life” (¶1324), Canon Law teaches that “Any baptised person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion” (Book IV, Title III, Canon 912). The right to receive the Eucharist is not absolute, however. Canon 915 clarifies that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Additionally, those who would receive the Eucharist unworthily commit the sin of sacrilege which, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church (¶2120), “consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments … [it] is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.” The Catechism cites Code of Canon Law, canon 1367 and 1376 which treat of “just penalty” for sacrilege. Christians, of course, must respond to everyone with compassion. But bishops have to balance their desire to reach out compassionately to the sinner with the need to be absolutely unambiguous about sin. Most bishops have judged that members of the Rainbow Sash Movement “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,” and hence cannot receive the Eucharist, as the Apostle Paul taught: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” (I Corinthians 11:27). So when Rev. Michael Bugarin saw that Speltz, Einhaus, and Perez were wearing rainbow crosses, he refused to give them the sacrament, believing that they were part of the Rainbow Sash Movement. However, the Soulforce members were not part of the Rainbow Sash movement, and denied that they were receiving communion as an act of protest. According to the Detroit Free Press, Fr. Bugarin apologized the following day, calling it a case of mistaken identity. “I regret that there was a misunderstanding on my part, and I regret the whole situation,” he said. This apology was extremely generous, considering that while Speltz, Einhaus, and Perez were not with the Rainbow Sash Movement, they were gay rights protesters who were in Washington, DC to publicly protest Catholic teaching about human sexuality. The next day, despite this very generous apology, Speltz, Einhaus, and Perez went to the lobby of the Hyatt Regency, where the Bishops were meeting. They knelt down by the escalators while Rev. Mel White, director of Soulforce, Inc., stood in the lobby with them saying, “is there not one bishop with the courage to feed your flock and comfort God’s children?” They said that they had been denied the Eucharist “without explanation or just cause,” and had not come to the hotel to protest: they simply wanted to receive the sacrament, “the source and summit of the Christian life.” Although the three denied that this was an act of protest, their claim is not logically credible. Whatever their intentions when they came up for communion at the National Shrine, their intention at the hotel was clearly either an attempt to protest or a very public attempt to embarrass the bishops. If they wanted to receive communion, they could simply have gone to any Parish in the DC area that offered daily Mass (though they might have been wise to take off their rainbow pins before going forward for communion). According to Canon 918: “It is most strongly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion in the course of a Eucharistic celebration. If, however, for good reason they ask for it apart from the Mass, it is to be administered to them, observing the liturgical rites.” Was there a “good reason” for a Bishop to give them communion in the hotel lobby? No. There was no particular hardship to keep the Soulforce three from attending Mass in a parish and receiving communion there. Therefore, if they wanted communion, the proper course would have been to go to Mass. Instead of this, they chose to go to the hotel and publicly demand communion in front of news cameras. This was not likely to result in their receiving communion, but it was likely to generate a great deal of publicity. Since going to a parish would have guaranteed receiving communion but had no protest value, and going to the hotel had very high protest value but very little chance of receiving communion, it is rational to conclude that their decision was motivated by a desire to protest or embarrass the bishops, and not by a desire for the sacrament. I’m sure that any faithful Catholic would recognize that it is much more meaningful, much more prayerful to receive the sacrament in the context of the Mass and in the sacred space of a Catholic Church, than in a hotel lobby surrounded by reporters and a grandstanding Protestant minister like Mel White. (In fact, the Rainbow Sash Movement has sent an open letter requesting that Soulforce not show up at this year’s Bishops’ conference precisely because they believe that Soulforce does not respect the Church’s liturgy.) While the protesters were kneeling and calling for communion, the Hyatt Regency’s security staff asked Speltz, Einhaus, and Perez to leave the lobby. When the three refused, the staff called the police, who arrested the protesters and charged them with unlawful entry. See Also:
Copyright © 2003 by Ron Belgau [ Home ] [ Meetings ] [ Five Goals ] [ Fourteen Points ] [ Chaplains ] [ Resources ] |
