By CPCSM Members and Friends

My Rainbow Sash Experience
By Michael J. Bayly
Pulse of the Twin Cities
May 18, 2005

My experience as part of the Rainbow Sash action at the Cathedral of St. Paul on Pentecost Sunday was actually quite a positive one. I felt totally in communion with those around me and with God – even though the priest presiding at the mass, the Rev. Michael Skluzacek, denied eucharist to all who were wearing the sash – myself included.

My friend Eduard and I arrived a half-hour before mass started. We joined the other Rainbow Sashers at the cathedral’s side entrance and donned our sashes in the late morning sunshine. I was interviewed by KARE 11 News and by a reporter from the Pioneer Press. I was also inundated with thanks and congratulations from friends who had read the commentary I had written and which the Star Tribune had published the day before. My piece had clearly resonated with many and I felt honored to have been in some small way a voice for so many Catholic GLBT people, their families and their loved ones.

To the sound of voices singing “We Shall Overcome,” Eduard and I entered the cathedral and sat toward the front with my friend Kathleen. The cathedral of St. Paul really is a beautiful building – though the acoustics are not the best. All around us were people in Rainbow Sashes – well over 100. It was the largest Rainbow Sash event ever, according to Brian McNeill, the coordinator of the Rainbow Sash Alliance and president of Dignity/Twin Cities.

The mass began and I found myself amazed at how the readings and hymns supported both why we had gathered at the cathedral on this day celebrating the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst, and why we were wearing the Rainbow Sash – the symbol of celebration of our God-given sexuality.

One hymn had the following words: “Joined together as one body, knit together, we are one. We the church, God’s chosen body . . . joined together by the Spirit, every person brings a gift. Every life is full of merit . . . Joined together, all-embracing, yet our separate selves we bring; on our hearts our God is tracing words of love that make us sing.”

When communion time came, Fr. Skluzacek reiterated the archbishop’s request that those wearing the Rainbow Sash remove them before receiving communion “as a sign of reverence for the Lord and a desire for unity.” I found myself wondering how wearing a multi-colored sash could possibly threaten either ‘the Lord’ or Christian unity. The hierarchy’s decision to deny communion as a way of protesting and punishing those it disagreed with seemed much more disrespectful and divisive.

Fr. Skluzacek continued his pre-communion warning – noting that if anyone did attempt to receive communion wearing the sash, they would not receive the eucharistic host but just a blessing. No one around me made a move to remove their sash.

When it was my turn to approach Fr. Skluzacek, I did so and received his blessing. I then looked him in the eyes and said, “I realize the situation you’re in, and I forgive you.” I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was simply following orders. Perhaps if it were up to him he would give communion to all of us. Perhaps he lacked the courage to follow his conscience and defy such orders.

Interestingly, I think many wearing the sash made some comment to the Eucharistic minister whom they approached to receive communion. My friend Mary, for instance, took the hand raised in blessing of one minister and said, “Shame on you!” Later she told me how appalled she was that they would consider their blessing a substitute for what they were denying. “It was so incredibly pompous!” she said.

In retrospect, it was quite amazing: Over a hundred people speaking from that holiest of places, their conscience, and making their feelings and beliefs known to the hierarchy at the most sacred time of the mass. How appropriate for Pentecost! And how unprecedented! Have the members of the church hierarchy ever before experienced such a loving yet firm challenge? Who could have foretold that the banning of communion to Rainbow Sash wearers would initiate such an outpouring of the Spirit! Such confounding paradox, various spiritual traditions contend, is often a sign of the presence and action of God.

Such thoughts, however, were to come to me later. For the moment, I found myself returning to my seat having been denied communion – at least by a priest. But as it turned out, I was to receive communion that morning. Back in our pew, Eduard gently touched my arm. Turning, I saw that he was reverently holding half a host in his hand. He broke it and gave a portion of it to me. I in turn broke my piece and gave half to my friend Kathleen.

Later I discovered that someone without a sash had shared the host they had received with Eduard – who was wearing a sash. What this person (and apparently other non-sash wearers) did seems to me to be what communion is all about. I found this loving and sharing action very inspiring and hopeful. It would be something Jesus would do – and did do through the actions of these people. Here were “ordinary Catholics” taking to heart Christ’s call to be a “priestly people.” I later heard that other non-sash wearers refused to receive communion as a way of standing in loving solidarity with those who were wearing the Rainbow Sash.

At the end of the mass a group of Rainbow Sash wearers left their pews and tagged onto the end of the recessional as it made its way to the back of the church. Usually this recessional is comprised of ordained ministers and other “official” folks. It brought a smile to my face to see GLBT people, their parents, and loved ones – all adorned in the Rainbow Sash – taking the initiative and proclaiming their own unique authority and leadership within the church.

As my friends and I were leaving the cathedral, various people – ushers and parishioners – thanked us and offered words of encouragement. This too felt nurturing and empowering.

In short, I feel renewed and reenergized as a result of my participation in Pentecost Sunday’s Rainbow Sash action and thank those of you who were present at the cathedral and all who offered your prayers of love and support to me and all who wore the Rainbow Sash.

Peace,
Michael

---

Sash Wearing Parents Tell "Their Story"
By Charlie and Maria Girsch

(Submitted to Star Tribune for Publication, 5/21/05)

Kudos to Archbishop Flynn for challenging the Governor (Flynn takes on Pawlenty 5/20) on his no tax increase stance. In the interview, the Archbishop suggest that "when I hear the other side of the story ... I've changed my mind. It's my hope and prayer that the governor, listening to the stories of the many, will modify his position. I asked him to listen to the stories." And later he adds, "we need to be holistic in our approach to the caring of the other."

Then in the next breath, while discussing Catholic Gay Activists, he holds that "I would not be able to let someone who is openly defying church teaching at the same time receive the Eucharist." We hope the bishop sees the non holistic contradiction in his thinking. If the Governor can be wrong, why can the Church or its Bishops?

We are card-carrying cradle Catholics who happen to be the parents of a child who is tall, dark-haired, right-handed and gay -- all God given traits. He lives with his best friend and partner in a union blessed before family and friends. We ask the bishop, and all that would, to "listen to our story" and to understand that we are not defying the church, but challenging it to "modify its position" - as our Church has done many times in the past.

In truth, our Church is a terribly human one, that today attempts to define our gay children, everyday ordinary people that they neither know nor understand, as "disordered" and "evil". Our child is neither. Remember that our Church has a history of persecuting individuals and minorities (slavery, the Inquisition and Galileo - to mention a few) and recall that this Church, while slow on the uptake, is capable of changing its ways.

It's time for our shepherd, who's compassion for the victims of the Governor's no-tax increase mentality is most admirable, to listen to the stories of parents, families and friends. It's time for him (in his words) to "hear the other side of the story, modify his position." It's time for our Archbishop to model for the Governor a loving compassionate Christ-like-arms-open welcome for us and our child, and to do so without judgment or condemnation.

Until then we shall speak up and, inspired by the Jesus of the Gospels - the one who challenged the religious leaders of his time - to do all that we can to nudge the Catholic Church of our times toward the loving acceptance of the gift of our child - the one who is tall, dark haired, right handed and, oh, by the way, gay.

Charlie and Maria Girsch, St. Paul, MN 651-699-1008.

---

Mary Lynn Murphy's Response
to Joe Soucheray's Column
(St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 18, 2005)
(Submitted as a Letter to the Editor, May 18, 2005)

Garage Logic, Soucheray style is simplistic fare for the complicated question of the Rainbow Sash controversy. For those who understand its significance, the extensive international media
coverage was entirely appropriate. The issue boils down to an escalating religious, cultural and
political clash between authoritarianism Vatican style, and proponents of the Catholic Pastoral Church. Homosexuality is the flash point issue of the moment.

The Vatican labels gays as "intrinsically inclined toward evil", and implies that they and their supporters,( parents, families and allies) are part of an"ideology of evil,'' as referenced in "Memory and Identity", Pope John Paul II's recent book. Allegedly, this ideology poses as a human rights initiative, but threatens the family and mankind. Those are fighting words which break hearts, give license to hatred and violence, and are not true. Such words resound as gay Catholics and their families approach the communion rail at Pentecost.

It gets worse as in-house struggles like the "sash clash" spill into public policy, as they always do. As one of his first actions, the new pope urged all Catholic citizens of Spain to practice civil disobedience of Spanish laws supporting same sex marriage and adoption.

This is no small potatoes, Joe. Millions of people both inside and outside of the Church will be affected by this controversy.Stay tuned because neither side plans to "love it or leave it" any time soon -- as Joe suggests they should.

Mary Lynn Murphy
St. Paul, MN 55116

---

Vatican Takes a Slash
at the Rainbow Sash
By B.R. Simon Rosser
Star Tribune, May 15, 2005

Spare a kind thought or prayer for Minnesotan Catholics this Pentecost Sunday, as we prepare to wash more of our dirty laundry in public.

Archbishop Harry Flynn has been ordered by the Vatican to refuse communion to any Catholic wearing a rainbow sash. While some may enjoy the irony of a bunch of men in dresses banning the wearing of sashes, the message is disturbing.

Even from a conservative Catholic perspective, the edict is strange. The Vatican II Documents exhort all Catholics to receive communion frequently and especially when attending mass, except when in a state of mortal sin. While rainbow sashes may be an egregious fashion violation, I am hard-pressed to find anyone who would declare them mortally sinful. The explanation given for forbidding wearing of the rainbow sash – a symbol of support for gay rights – is that it has become politically divisive.

What is this saying about Pope Benedict's relationship to American Catholicism?

By all accounts, the new pope is a highly cultured, politically astute, intelligent and deliberate man, well aware of the power of symbolism. The last time homosexuals were ordered how to dress was by Adolf Hitler, who ordered them to wear a pink triangle prior to detention and, in many cases, death in concentration camps. Thus, this directive is particularly odious to a community that suffered under the Holocaust, even more so when coming from an ex-German soldier who served under Hitler. Last week, Benedict also ordered the editor of the Catholic magazine America to resign and to remain silent. The message is clear: The pope wants American Catholics to follow his conservative ideology.

One possibility is that Benedict is trying to counteract a crisis.

Widespread adoption of contraception by Catholics in developed countries has dramatically reduced family size; thus these pools of potential vocations are dry. Historically, women and gay men disproportionately staffed the church; however, the women's and gay liberation movements have provided new and evidently more attractive choices. The ranks of nuns and clergy, necessary to sustain traditional Catholicism, are running out. If Benedict can convince lesbian and gay Catholics that celibacy is the only true way, the labor problem could be alleviated.

A second interpretation is that Benedict needs to divert U.S. Catholics' attention. Responding to America's outrage, the Vatican initially framed the clergy sex abuse scandal as a local scandal resulting from U.S. liberalism. But it is now clear that some in the church perpetrated the largest and first truly global child sex ring in history, a pandemic involving not just America but the most traditionalist Catholic countries, such as Ireland and Poland.

Who was the Vatican prelate directly in charge, who had to know the magnitude and scope of this tragedy and chose to remain silent? Who increased the obstacles to bishops accepting the resignations of sex-offending clergy? Who reassigned Cardinal Bernard Law to Rome, and who chose him to lead one of the masses during John Paul II's mourning period? These are disturbing questions.

As someone who studies sex for a living, I'm not sure that American Catholics will buy the Puritanism Benedict is selling. The New Catholic Catechism already condemns masturbation, fornication, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, premarital sex, contraception, divorce, adultery and polygamy as gravely sinful, yet Catholic and non-Catholic practice in most of these matters appear close. Clearly, the prohibition approach isn't working.

The biggest challenge with the sash directive is how to fit it into Catholic teaching. Catholic means universal, or in modern speak, "diverse and for all." Popes are not free to narrow this. Papal authority has limits, and Benedict is required to follow the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Complicating matters further, in 1986, he wrote, "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action, and in law." Thus, even his own writings condemn this announcement.

So, how should Catholics respond? I suspect we Minnesotan Catholics don't particularly appreciate being told how to dress, having our media silenced, or being distracted from addressing the most serious problems in our church. Nor do we support prejudice. Some will want to protest, while others will give solemnity priority over politics. Wherever one falls on this issue, one thing is clear: On this Pentecost Sunday at St. Paul's Catholic Cathedral, midday mass should not be dull.

B.R. Simon Rosser is a Catholic professor, sexologist and researcher in HIV prevention, homosexuality and homophobia at the University of Minnesota Medical School. He is the author of "Gay Catholics Down Under" and studies religious and sexual identity.

---

Excerpts About Rainbow Sash Event from
"Flynn Takes On Pawlenty" Article in Star Tribune (5/20/05)

Below are excerpts from the May 20th Star Tribune interview (entitled “Flynn Takes On Pawlenty”) with Archbishop Flynn. While most of it is focused on the archbishop’s commitment to economic justice, part of the interview touches on the recent Rainbow Sash presence at the cathedral.

Flynn takes on Pawlenty
By Patricia Lopez
Star Tribune, May 20, 2005

After more than a decade of quietly leading the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Archbishop Harry Flynn has stepped into the spotlight on the most secular of issues, openly advocating higher taxes and taking the governor to task for his insistence on holding to a no-new-taxes pledge. Flynn has also spoken out against Catholic gay activists who have taken their protest to the very heart of Catholic ritual, holy communion. He discussed both issues during an interview with the Star Tribune's Patricia Lopez this week.

Excerpts:  . . .

On denying communion to Catholic gay activists who wear rainbow sashes to mass:

"In the beginning, when I heard from the Rainbow Sash people, they indicated to me that they were not challenging church teaching. They were only doing this to let other people know that there were gays and lesbians who coexisted with them. They were not challenging the teaching of the church on human sexuality. Last year it began to change. The cry became, 'We're doing this to defy church teachings so that the church will change its teaching on homosexual relationships,' which it won't. In the meantime, I had discussions with the Vatican. I would not be able to let someone who is openly defying church teaching at the same time receive the eucharist and use that reception of the eucharist as a point of protest.

On whether there will be any repercussions for St. Joan of Arc, where sash-wearers continue to receive communion:

"I'd rather not get into that today."

---

On rainbow sashes and the Quran, media get it wrong
By Joe Soucheray
St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 18, 2005

The people who wore rainbow sashes to the Cathedral of St. Paul on Sunday were denied Communion. The archbishop, Harry Flynn, following the instructions of his superiors in America and in Rome, made it clear that the wearing of the sashes was a protest against doctrinal teaching and therefore Communion would be denied and that, furthermore, Communion was not the time to stage a protest.

And what were the sashes if not a protest? Of course it was a protest. The people who wore the sashes could have received Communion by not wearing the sashes. Or they could shop around and find another religion to join, or possibly another church. I guess a couple of churches in Minneapolis looked the other way on the sashes.

Now, maybe not surprisingly, this was a big story around the world. Yes, around the world. You could have read this story in the Billings, Mont., Gazette or in a newspaper in New Zealand. It made all the Web sites. It occurred to me that the implication clearly intended was that the Catholic Church had some kind of nerve refusing Communion to the people who wore sashes to church.

In other words, and however vaguely, the media, institutionally, took the position that the sash wearers were somehow victimized in backward St. Paul by the church's failure to accommodate them, even though the church could not accommodate them because the church has rules.

At the same time Newsweek magazine was busy retracting a story that reported that agents of the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay had dunked the Quran into a toilet. That was the story. In the act of interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the Quran was allegedly disrespected. It turns out that this cannot be verified and that Newsweek has no evidence of such desecration.

For my money that should put Newsweek out of business, but it won't. Newsweek and others of its ilk will ride into the sunset on the backs of anonymous sources. The implication intended in this story was that agents representing the United States had the nerve to show disrespect to a sacred book that is the official rule of God to Muslims. And that they did so knowing full well that showing disrespect to the Quran was such a serious offense that it can call for penalty of death in certain parts of the world. The Newsweek story led to riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan that caused the deaths of 15 people.

It reads this way: The American media — institutionally, mind you, acting as a collective — goes to bat for the people who knowingly break the rules of Catholic teaching but admonishes Americans who supposedly showed disrespect to the Quran, the Islamic rule book, if you will.

Which did not happen.

If, institutionally, the American media had the same values for the teachings of the Catholic Church, Sunday's protest in St. Paul would not have been covered, or would not have received the amount of coverage that it did, or would have been covered in an entirely different way, with a different tone.

No disrespect should be shown to the Quran and it is with relief that we learn that Newsweek can't demonstrate that such a thing happened. And because that is true, the Catholic Church should also be allowed to have its rules without them being challenged and without the hectoring of an institution that acts on behalf of those who find the rules disagreeable.

In both cases the rules are the rules.

But Newsweek and others of its ilk are definitely riding into the sunset. Their days are numbered. Americans are catching on to these increasingly not very subtle treatments of the news.