A faithful Catholic men's group was kept off the Cathedral steps during Pride weekend. The reasons were fair — but the instinct behind them points to a deeper problem in the Church.
We had a similar issue when trying to start a Veterans support group in our parish. The scenario was that our proposed group would set up a table at the local VA, offering coffee, donuts, Bibles, and conversation. This was great and I am part of another group who does this. We would not offer medical advice, simply support and conversation. But, one administrator asked, what if a Veteran with suicidal tendencies came out to talk and, instead of guiding him or her to qualified emergency personnel, our volunteer said, "If that were me, I'd just kill myself." This, of course, is horrible and completely off the rails; we would never condone this. But...we also knew potential volunteers who would say exactly this kind of thing. Would you be willing to risk bringing that horror onto the Veteran's family or your parish? When they turned me down, I was very disappointed but knew that they were right to protect the parish and the diocese.
Liability and accountability are real issues. I completely understand the Archdiocese’s decision. In my exchange with the group leader, I immediately clear about that. But the church has to break free of the bondage of these mechanisms of fear. The faithful are willing to help do that. It's true some of them are nut jobs. Let's just be frank about it, but many of them are not. Many of them are very talented, very faithful, very qualified. But relying on them, or collaborating with them, or supporting them, or coordinating with them is outside of the church's “Big Box o’ Paradigms” The statement “We’ve always done it this way” comes from that box.
So I completely agree with the Archdiocese's decision but I think the Archdiocese should have found a way to think and operate outside of the paradigm. The trouble is, most priests at every level just don't want to do that. They want to “do…or…do not…there is no try” And usually the “do not” is what wins. No one wants to find another way forward.
Of course. I completely agree. Had the answer been "Just cancel your event," it would have been unacceptable. Options included moving the group off of the steps, as was done, taking ownership of the event and having clergy on site to keep things clean, asking the group to lose the bullhorns and pray silently, or asking the group to consider setting up an information table. Forty Days for Life has been wildly successful, threading their way through these same issues at abortion facilities.
The archdiocese was absolutely correct in this decision. Working for a major cathedral myself - I've seen vile and hateful rhetoric coming from groups such as this- who proclaim they are preaching the gospel- while at the same time holding placards saying " God hates fags dead". My assumption is that they were denied for this very reason. Christ would never condone behavior and rhetoric like this
But in fairness, you're making a lot of presumptions there. I think the archdiocese made an understandable decision, and I was very deliberate in pointing that out in the article and explaining why. But I think there were paths forward for the archdiocese to support a men's group that apparently had been doing this for several years without issue, while still having some measure of oversight and control to protect it from conditions that would result in backlash.
As a culture, we in the Church have grown too accustomed to doing the business of the world and allowing it to encroach on the business of the Gospel. It wasn't effectively a trade-off across the past hundred or so years, when we were doing the business of the world, in a world that was still largely Christian or Christian-aligned. But it isn’t like that today—today it’s a tradeoff that can come at the expense of the Gospel and the Church’s mission and duty to proclaim it.
I understand there are rules you have to play by (some written, some unwritten) and realities the Church simply has to navigate. I get all of that. But at what point should we decide to pour at least some of that energy into innovative ways of doing the business of the Gospel even while dealing with the realities of playing along with the business of the world? The imbalance is just too stark, and it really has to change.
Thank you really coming to a growing opportunity with this. Ignoring the legal challenges the church has to deal with but also recognizing the need for more bold actions lead by laity. Balanced and hope more communication from both sides before hand will help
I think you had a typo in there, but just to be clear, I did address the understandable concern of legal issues from the church's perspective. I think that's what you meant to say, but I just wanted to be clear just in case lol.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I always try to be balanced and fair without pretending that I don't have an opinion. It's not about venting for me; it's about sharpening my readers. it’s a responsibility I take very seriously. It's all about you guys.
God bless you, brother, and thank you again for reading and especially for that feedback.
Thank you, brother. Your support and your feedback go a long way in helping me to keep up the good work and to stay disciplined about how I serve you and the other readers. I mean that very sincerely.
We had a similar issue when trying to start a Veterans support group in our parish. The scenario was that our proposed group would set up a table at the local VA, offering coffee, donuts, Bibles, and conversation. This was great and I am part of another group who does this. We would not offer medical advice, simply support and conversation. But, one administrator asked, what if a Veteran with suicidal tendencies came out to talk and, instead of guiding him or her to qualified emergency personnel, our volunteer said, "If that were me, I'd just kill myself." This, of course, is horrible and completely off the rails; we would never condone this. But...we also knew potential volunteers who would say exactly this kind of thing. Would you be willing to risk bringing that horror onto the Veteran's family or your parish? When they turned me down, I was very disappointed but knew that they were right to protect the parish and the diocese.
Liability and accountability are real issues. I completely understand the Archdiocese’s decision. In my exchange with the group leader, I immediately clear about that. But the church has to break free of the bondage of these mechanisms of fear. The faithful are willing to help do that. It's true some of them are nut jobs. Let's just be frank about it, but many of them are not. Many of them are very talented, very faithful, very qualified. But relying on them, or collaborating with them, or supporting them, or coordinating with them is outside of the church's “Big Box o’ Paradigms” The statement “We’ve always done it this way” comes from that box.
So I completely agree with the Archdiocese's decision but I think the Archdiocese should have found a way to think and operate outside of the paradigm. The trouble is, most priests at every level just don't want to do that. They want to “do…or…do not…there is no try” And usually the “do not” is what wins. No one wants to find another way forward.
Of course. I completely agree. Had the answer been "Just cancel your event," it would have been unacceptable. Options included moving the group off of the steps, as was done, taking ownership of the event and having clergy on site to keep things clean, asking the group to lose the bullhorns and pray silently, or asking the group to consider setting up an information table. Forty Days for Life has been wildly successful, threading their way through these same issues at abortion facilities.
That's my issue, there were other paths forward. Inaction didn't have to be the only option.
The archdiocese was absolutely correct in this decision. Working for a major cathedral myself - I've seen vile and hateful rhetoric coming from groups such as this- who proclaim they are preaching the gospel- while at the same time holding placards saying " God hates fags dead". My assumption is that they were denied for this very reason. Christ would never condone behavior and rhetoric like this
But in fairness, you're making a lot of presumptions there. I think the archdiocese made an understandable decision, and I was very deliberate in pointing that out in the article and explaining why. But I think there were paths forward for the archdiocese to support a men's group that apparently had been doing this for several years without issue, while still having some measure of oversight and control to protect it from conditions that would result in backlash.
As a culture, we in the Church have grown too accustomed to doing the business of the world and allowing it to encroach on the business of the Gospel. It wasn't effectively a trade-off across the past hundred or so years, when we were doing the business of the world, in a world that was still largely Christian or Christian-aligned. But it isn’t like that today—today it’s a tradeoff that can come at the expense of the Gospel and the Church’s mission and duty to proclaim it.
I understand there are rules you have to play by (some written, some unwritten) and realities the Church simply has to navigate. I get all of that. But at what point should we decide to pour at least some of that energy into innovative ways of doing the business of the Gospel even while dealing with the realities of playing along with the business of the world? The imbalance is just too stark, and it really has to change.
Thank you really coming to a growing opportunity with this. Ignoring the legal challenges the church has to deal with but also recognizing the need for more bold actions lead by laity. Balanced and hope more communication from both sides before hand will help
I think you had a typo in there, but just to be clear, I did address the understandable concern of legal issues from the church's perspective. I think that's what you meant to say, but I just wanted to be clear just in case lol.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I always try to be balanced and fair without pretending that I don't have an opinion. It's not about venting for me; it's about sharpening my readers. it’s a responsibility I take very seriously. It's all about you guys.
God bless you, brother, and thank you again for reading and especially for that feedback.
Yes u r correct, thats a typo lol. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, brother. Your support and your feedback go a long way in helping me to keep up the good work and to stay disciplined about how I serve you and the other readers. I mean that very sincerely.