Tuesday, October 16, 2007

the San Francisco Sacrilege

As you may or may not have heard, last Sunday (October 7th, 2007), the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco was invaded during mass by homosexual militants. Most of us might have missed this attack were it not for our dear friend, Mr. Bill O'Reilly, who was prompt to point out to FOX viewers yet another reason San Fransisco should be wiped off the map. Those of you who missed this ride in the no spin zone can watch it here and then again here.

On that Sunday, as Mass was being given by San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, two men, dressed in what could perhaps be described as 'subdued' drag and wearing copious amounts of makeup, joined the ranks, and were granted communion by said archbishop (do forgive my terminology as I know little of Roman Catholic lingo). One of the men wore a rainbow colored maypole hat, while the other was dressed in a habit and princess Leia buns (Ear Brassieres if you want to be precise). After consuming their wafers, the nun and the clown (maypole? you decide) shared an air kiss, no doubt celebrating their successful invasion.

The men are part of a group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a social activist 'order' that arose in 1979. It's mission - to combat homophobia, raise awareness of AIDS, and collect money for charity in their spare time. In 1987 the order performed a notorious exorcism of Pope John Paul II, and in 1992 they started the Queer Army, enlisting "for the Holy Wars against homophobia in the church and the government". With more than 20 'orders' world wide, and nearly 30 years of awareness-raising, tolerance-promoting charity work, this is the group of vicious militant blasphemes that Bill O'Reilly would have arrested.

So what did the devout have to say on the subject?
The Archbishop issued an apology, and explained that he saw two strangely dressed persons at the end of the line but did not recognize any signs of mockery, protest or disruption.
His apology did nothing to endear him to the already displeased Catholics who feel that Niederauer is too much of a gay-lover anyway. Here are some choice comments from a great Catholic blog, the Curt Jester:

"This act by our Archbishop is actually a good thing, in my opinion. What took place on Sunday was the result of 25 years of gay activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Now the rotten fruit is out there for all to see--it was there already, but now everyone can see it. This will be the turning of the tide in San Francisco."

"Just when I think I'm desensitized to these things...something more outrageous then I could ever imagine occurs. I say out loud what happened, and I don't even believe my own words."

"I pray that someone is collecting all of the info, compiling it, and burning it to a CD to send to the Pope."

"I miss the inquisition."

So these men, who behaved themselves very respectfully, are blasphemes because they
a) arrived at mass wearing their ostentatious attire in quiet protest to the condemnation of homosexuality by the Church
b) received communion while being sinners in the eyes of the Lord (according to Bible)
What do you think?

My thought is that they would not get dolled up for mass in their make up and habits (problem A) if they were not endlessly condemned for their 'sinful' lifestyle (problem B). After all, these guys are the epitome of 'doing the Lord's work', what with their support for the sick, the young, and the persecuted. And if these are the problems, what solution is there? Is it possible to change our biology? Is it wiser to reexamine the doctrine? What are our priorities here anyway? Tell me, what would Jesus do?


maeverin said...

to me, this is more about respecting the other person--on BOTH sides. Catholics believe that homosexuality is wrong, and it is their right to think so. we may choose to agree or disagree, but we don't have the right to say they are wrong. should a homosexual be able to practice his/her religious beliefs? absolutely! but in a manner that would be expected of any of us, which includes dressing and acting approriately. kissing during communion isn't appropriate for any sexual orientation. what i want to know is if these men were acutally Catholic, or were they just there to make a statement. don't the other worshippers have a right to be comfortable as well?
Gays (more to the point, those two men) should definately feel comfortable to worship as they please, but they should also feel free to be practical. it'll give people less cause to think "the gays are invading!"
and before you think i'm siding with O' Reilly, no. he's being a putz.

Paulina said...

I have an ax to grind with the Catholic opinion that homosexuality is wrong. Perhaps I shall tackle that in another post. In the meantime, check out http://godhatesshrimp.com.

As for your other question. I have only been able to locate the name of one of the attending sisters, Sister Delta Goodhand and he is a Catholic. Here is a quote from his profile:
"Having grown up in the faith, received many sacraments, seen the true Faith of devout Catholics and witnessed the absolute presence of the Holy Spirit, I am proud to be Catholic. My goal is to promulgate universal joy and expiate stigmatic guilt. My personal calling as a Sister is actually a beautiful manifestation of my Catholic faith. It allows me to keep God ever-present in my life and ultimately, live the life of Christ... in fabulous make up and heels, of course!"

Oh, and O'Reilly is ALWAYS a putz.