Actions Speak Louder than Words, Pope Francis

First, I'm sorry I was away so long. I had to prepare for our 12-day trip to Ireland and then spend some time getting things back to normal. I was going to wait till the weekend to resume writing as I had some lovely articles on Pope Francis' comments regarding capitalism, throw-away mentality, and poverty. I wanted to write more glowing posts about these things.

Quite sadly, some earth-shattering news reached my Facebook page and I am compelled to speak up about it. Unfortunately, I must harp on an rather overdone topic, because we never seem to finish with more outrageous stories about it.

Read: 

Melbourne Priest Greg Reynolds Defrocked And Excommunicated By The Vatican

Mr. Reynolds has been an outspoken champion of elevating women to the priesthood and of gay marriage. He finally decided that his own views on these topics were too divergent from the Roman Catholic church and chose to leave it to start his own sect—Inclusive Catholics.

But, oh dear, despite Pope Francis' recent kind words about how we must not be "obsessed" about gay marriage and abortion, back in MAY 2013, the Vatican sent a peremptory letter to Mr. Reynolds telling him that he was not only defrocked per his request but that he was also excommunicated.

Defrocking makes some sense. It's what's done when someone leaves the priesthood. Mr. Reynold's own sect allows for gay marriage and elevates women to the priesthood, per his beliefs. In Inclusive Catholics, Mr. Reynolds gives Holy Communion to people who attend services there. It's not Roman Catholicism, so it's appropriate to accede to his desire to be defrocked.

There also appears to be an unfortunate rumor that someone attending one of the services gave part of the Host to a dog. Mr. Reynolds did not do this.

But excommunication seems quite wrong to me. Why should this man be excommunicated? Why is he not allowed to participate in any Catholic rituals, such as receiving Holy Communion or marrying in a Catholic church, among other things. Because of the schism?

Schisms in Christianity are pretty old. I seem to remember reading that at one point in history there were two popes! There are all sorts of Christians around—many varieties of Protestants, Anglicans, Greek Orthodoxes, Coptics, and Mormons, to name the ones I know about. If this man deserves excommunication based on forming a new sect and giving Holy Communion, well then shouldn't all these other groups also be similarly punished for doing the same thing? Why single out this one man? His archbishop didn't call for this to happen.

Was it the dog? This man did not give Holy Communion to the dog. If we follow this kind of reasoning, then someone who pockets a Host and later brings it to a Satanic Black Mass would automatically make the priest who gave the person the Host to blame. That's absurd.

We can argue about dogs and Communion. I believe that all living things have souls, so it doesn't bother me if the dog got Communion. I wouldn't do it out of respect for tradition but, as long as it wasn't done for Satanic reasons or for mockery, it's just not that awful that a dog shared spiritually with humans in the church.

We can only conclude that this man was thrown completely out of the Catholic Church because of his outspoken and active support for gay rights and women priests. And again, what should then be done with Episcopalians and the Anglican Church in England? Should THEY be excommunicated too? How about the female ministers in evangelical Protestant churches. And, ooops, I forgot the Unitarians—my husband and I were married by a female minister in a Unitarian Church. What about THEM?

Now, it is not totally clear whether or not Pope Francis knew what the Vatican staff members were doing, as he cannot be in a thousand places at once. But what IS clear is that, when this came to light, the Pope did NOTHING to reverse this decision. He let it stand, despite his own words that this "obsession" was wrong. He was saying this, while, behind the scenes, the Vatican was just doing "same old, same old."

Now let me mention something about my trip to Ireland because it IS relevant. We stayed in Limerick and visited a number of places there and in surrounding areas in County Clare with relatives we had discovered online. We had a glorious time in Ireland. One thing really struck me. All over the place, in Limerick, I was seeing the rainbow flag flying. I had known before that Limerick was expecting a Gay Pride march as part of a yearly activity and as part of something termed The Gathering, which was a kind of call for people who had roots in Ireland to return for a visit. I had been surprised that even that march was allowed in that very Catholic country, but I figured, "what the heck? We'll attend and show our hetero support for the Irish gays."

But it really hit me when I saw THREE rainbow flags flying right in front of Limerick's Hunt Museum. I pointed to them and whispered to my husband "I don't know what these flags mean here, but I can tell you what they mean back in America." Then in a conversation with the cashier (everything in Ireland is a conversation—even the elevators talk to you), I pointed to the flags outside and  asked timidly: "What are those flags for?" "Oh," he replied quite casually and in a very normal voice, "it's for the gay pride." Shocked almost out of my wits, I asked: "Why aren't the priests and Cardinals out there picketing the museum?" "Why should they?" he asked me in turn. I turned to my husband and, in a dazed voice, asked: "Well how do you like that?!" (He approved, of course.) And then I explained to the lovely gentleman that, even in good old liberal New York City (where gay marriage is legal), if a museum flew that flag, the Cardinal would be screaming bloody murder in a New York minute.

I found this liberal attitude toward gays quite popular among the people I met. They were very confident that there was no problem between Church and State. Church was Church and State was State, and nobody was paranoid that the twain would ever meet. Even two religious relatives we met, when told about the compromise in New York allowing the churches to opt out of performing gay marriages, approved of this. Another relative agreed with me that homosexuality was simply genetic. And this man was NOT from the city. He lived way out in the country! The religious folk also came from the country.

In seeking to learn when and where the gay parade was taking place, we found information in two places. One was a supposedly "conservative" newspaper that simply provided the information (at least the paper was conservative in Frank McCourt's day, being against contraception) without any comment at all about it. The other source was, believe it or not (it WAS something out of Ripley's), an entire BROCHURE put out by the Irish bureau of tourism all about the gay-themed activities for The Gathering. 

Just think about that for a second. Could you imagine the uproar that would ensue in the United States if that happened here? There would be riots in the streets! The so-called Christians would scream their heads off and they'd be in front of the White House en masse and bombarding their Congresspeople about it. It would be a MESS of blood, fire, fists, and tears. And yet, in this Catholic country, all we had to do was walk into a little place in a mall and be handed a brochure with no questions asked! I called my state of mind about Ireland "flabbergastment" because, for the entire 12 days, that is what I was feeling. To me, this city was more Christian than so many of the so-called Christians back home in the United States.

Can you imagine my further shock when I looked through the brochure and found that there was a gay pride MASS at St. Mary's Catholic Church? Upon returning to New York and telling someone about this, the person said that they do this in New York too. Well, I never heard about it. All I ever hear around here is the Cardinal yelling about how terrible this all is.

So, now, what is the Pope going to do about IRELAND? Should he excommunicate the whole country? He may as well do Argentina while he's at it. And England. . .and New York and other states in the United States. What is the Pope going to do about St. Mary's in Limerick or the churches in New York that have gay services?

You get my drift, now, right? Why pick on one MAN who LEFT the priesthood, who had enough respect for the Church to renounce his right to represent the Church, because he knew he was departing from doctrine? 

Does anybody really believe that the people who attend masses for gay people aren't having sex with partners of the same sex? I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan if you are interested.

I did not expect the Pope to endorse gay marriage or elevation of women to the priesthood (two of many reasons I remain unchurched), but I felt glad that he seemed to be opening up the discussion about such topics. I felt, for the first time in more than 50 years, that I did not have to be ashamed to call myself a Catholic (even as an unchurched dissident). Now the shame is right back.

I hope Inclusive Catholics eventually makes its way to New York City. I'd like to join up.

There is a saying that goes like this: "Put your money where your mouth is." This is what I want to say to the Pope:  "If you want people in your Church, Pope Francis, then put your money where YOUR mouth is. Your actions are speaking louder than your words."