….I noticed a courageous article by Mary Frances Myler, an undergraduate at Notre Dame, on her university’s approach to LGBTQ activism. The article’s existence should be a rebuke to the officer class of American Christianity, so many members of which remain silent on such issues. As Rod Dreher observed, the article highlights the pitiful leadership of the church, one incapable of withstanding what is to come. Yet here is a young woman potentially risking her career and more in order to stand for truth and state the obvious: Christianity and Pride activism cannot be reconciled.
The article features a striking picture of a Catholic priest wearing a rainbow stole at a Coming Out Day Celebration on Notre Dame’s campus. Myler quotes the priest: “My presence at this event was simply to affirm, support, and celebrate the dignity of every human person as a child of God. We prayed in gratitude for the unique gift that every person is [and] for an end to discrimination.”
The priest was no doubt sincere in this. But his personal motives are of little significance compared to the rainbow-colored stole that he wore: It is a deathwork. And deathworks are just as lethal to the faith as any explicit denial of Christian teaching.
“Deathwork” is a term used by sociologist Philip Rieff. It refers to the act of using the sacred symbols of a previous era in order to subvert, and then destroy, their original significance and purpose. Rieff uses Andres Serrano’s notorious 1987 picture Piss Christ to illustrate this. The work is a photograph of something considered sacred — in this case a crucifix — submerged in the artist’s own urine. As Rieff puts it, in Serrano’s photo the sacramental has been made excremental. Or, to borrow a phrase from Marx — that which was holy has been profaned.
So how is the priest’s stole a deathwork? To Jews and Christians, the rainbow has sacred significance. In the Bible, God places a rainbow in the sky after Noah’s flood as a sign of his covenant promise not to wipe humanity from the earth in another act of judgment. It is a sacred sign — just as circumcision, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper also have powerful, holy significance.
It is one thing for someone unaware of the biblical narrative and the sacred significance of the rainbow to adopt it as a sign. This is likely the case for many LGBTQ individuals. To them, the rainbow signifies the spectrum of identities that their alliance contains, and is therefore a symbol of inclusion. But it is quite another thing for Christians, especially priests and ministers, to use the rainbow as a means of acknowledging the LGBTQ movement — or to express any level of solidarity with it, especially in a religious context. Such actions are deathworks, the willing subversion of the sacred in the service of the profane. The priests and ministers who perform them are simply helping the church become just like our world: a place where the sacred symbols that give church life meaning are degraded and parodied until nothing but chaos remains….
The above comes from an Oct. 21 article in First Things by Carl Trueman, a professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College.
Demonically inspired attempts to normalize homosexual activity and inclinations must always be resisted. Catholic institutions must be clear and steadfast in denouncing sin, and Notre Dame needs to grow up and rid their campus of homosexual infiltration. It’s way past time to do the right thing, souls are at stake.
Now, I am do not promote the gay lifestyle at all, but just to make a point here: normalizing homosexual activity as DVult writes may indeed be “demonically inspired”, but so is using the Sacraments of the Church in order to divide the Church itself, lambasting the Pope and bishops, and putting down a solemn Council of the Church. One may even say that those things are more of an indication of being demonically inspired because they are a direct assault on the structure of the Church itself. Just warning you.
“…lambasting the Pope and bishops, and putting down a solemn Council of the Church…” Now Jon, if the Pope has done things that are worthy of criticism, and the most obvious two things are the rehabilitation of Uncle Ted and the resulting concord with the evil President Xi Jinping, then who are Francis’ friends, those who call him out or those who remain silent? If bishops are associated with concealing Uncle Ted’s wickedness, should they be given a pass? What side would Satan, the father lies, be on? As regards to Vatican II, I have never been critical of the council, but certainly of implementation, especially in matters liturgical. The documents specifically give Gregorian Chant the highest place in liturgy. Also, there is no proscription of saying Mass ad orientem. It is my understanding that the Council fathers assumed Mass would be celebrated ad orientem. So if a bishop forbids Gregorian Chant , or a priest from saying Mass ad orientem, I consider that bishop to be making an assault on a solemn Council of the Church. For it is this bishop, in clear violation of Vatican II, who is sticking a dagger into the Council and into the heart of the Church herself. Am I therefore lambasting? I will let you decide.
Yes Dan you are lambasting with your loaded questions. This is not the proper forum for any faithful Catholic to be lambasting the Pope, the bishops, and the Council, which is just what you have done. Poor McCarrick remains the popular tool with which to bash Pope Francis, isn’t it, yet he wasn’t even responsible for elevating the man to any of the high offices he acquired. If anything, Pope Francis should be credited for finally acting.
Jon, there is no “proper forum to” say “Poor McCarrick”. The man is a defrocked homosexual predator among other things, shocking to see him described as you did.
Poor mccarrick !? how about the victims and the damage to the church and the faithful ? how much has it has cost in souls and the moral authority that the church should have ? finally acting ? how ? was it punished or held to account for it’s crimes , no it was not.
McCarrick is indeed “poor”, needing your prayers and your sacrifices. The most severe critics of McCarrick I daresay must be unequalled in their penances and sacrifices for this poor soul, among other poor souls.
Called out on McCarrick, Jon pleads compassion as his reason, rubbish! McCarrick is completely unrepentant and good for those who in their charity will take him as a prayer cause, but that’s not what Jon meant and we all know it.
Oh? So what exactly did I mean, “Not”? That I am a “fan” of McCarrick? Right. If as you write that “McCarrick is completely unrepentant,” then he is indeed “poor.” And what adds to his pitiful state and “poverty” is that he continues to be the go-to whipping stick for people like “Not” to unjustly bash and trash the Pope and the bishops. Pitiful.
Still not buying it Jon, no matter how much you howl. Better to use your time praying for McCarrick’s soul.
Not Born Yesterday , his tone and defense of mccarick compare that to his fellow posters and those organizations he disputes, the compassion for the mccarrick in so absent from those who did not do such damage to the church .
Plus, the argument that offering Mass “versus populum” is an assault on the Council of the Church is hilariously ridiculous. I prefer ad orientem myself, and Gregorian chants, but that argument Dan takes funniest-argument-of-the-day award.
Jon, please note: ACI Prensa, the Spanish sister news agency of CNA, confirmed that the Diocese of Alajuela, in the Northern region of Costa Rica, ordered Fr. Sixto Eduardo Varela Santamaría to be suspended from all ministries for six months, and will be sent to a psychological treatment clinic for celebrating in Latin the Mass of the Missal of Pope Paul VI, also known as the Ordinary Form or “Novus Ordo.” Yes, and Jon, he celebrated ad orientem.
That may be the case, “Dan,” but this Costa Rican priest’s predicament doesn’t change things: namely that your particular point that offering the Mass “versus populum” is a violation of the Second Vatican Council remains ridiculously hilarious.
Dan, he refused obedience to his bishop. It does not matter what he disobeyed on.
I started to write about the ridiculousness of calling something “a violation of the council. ” What would that even mean?
You should really read the documents of Vatican II but also get a good book on the liturgy.
Educate yourself.
Please.
This whole thing was based on jon saying that the devil is behind the attacks on the Pope and bishops and the attacks on Vatican II.
Of course, it was him 50 years ago and it is him today.
Of course. The devil, the flesh and the world are the sources of temptation. Which do you think it is?
I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered Matthew 26:31
I’m not specifically addressing “me” here…
But, why are you all even responding to Jon’s logical fallacy of “what about’ism”? The article is a about a homo supporting priest not about some Vatican II confabulation.
Just ignore this guy. Don’t feel the V2 troll(s).
“that”, a commenter here such as yourself would be out-of-line to direct fellow comments on what they should or should not comment on. This is a free country, “that.” This is still America where free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, lest you’ve forgotten. Freedom, people. Freedom!
Yes jon, to be crystal clear, normalizing homosexual activity is absolutely demonically inspired.
Confirming people in sin is not charity; it’s death. Death of life and death to soul.
If I know this, how come a Roman Catholic priest doesn’t?
Was it Fr Hardon who said, “Human respect is a tyrant”.
DirtyLittleRat, It seems to me was just following the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not confirming people in their sin.
Where exactly does the catechism say to wear the costumes of your opponents? And what kind of priest happens to have gay pride clothing?
Where exactly doesn’t it say that LGBT people are his opponents?
Active homosexuals are living in opposition to Church teaching, that makes them opponents of all who hold and teach the Catholic faith.
Is that what the catechism says? Gosh I’d like to read where it says anything about active homosexuals are opponents of anybody. Besides how do you know they are active homosexuals?
Those involved in same sex activity are committing mortal sin, thereby putting themselves on the side of Satan. That makes them opponents of God. Figure the rest out yourself.
The LGBT mafia is the enemy of the human race
Definition of gaslighting…..^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all creatures be destroyed by the waters of a flood; there shall not be another flood to devastate the earth. Genesis 9:11
I don’t like him wearing the rainbow stole. This seems to be a prayer event where a priest would not need to wear a stole. So he should not wear one at all.
The church has rules about stoles but I was not able to find them online.
To me it seems like an imitation of a sacred garment that should not be done, whatever it symbolizes.
It wasn’t that long ago that rainbow sash wearers were denied communion.
One of the things I was catechized in my Lutheran days was the symbolism of the various vestments. I’m surprised more catechesis isn’t done about it, and I wish more were. Lutherans, even high lutherans, use a limited number of them.
The stole is a symbol of ministry and ordination. Long stoles worn beyond knee length parallel to the two ends symbolizes priestly ordination. The ends crossing symbolize deaconate ordination.
Shorter stoles, which I think is a bit controversial, symbolize mission and ministries like music etc, and are more used in protestant ministries.
Shouldn’t say anything about Catholics, because Lutherans became heretical . Your sect lacks the fullness of faith. Your Lutheran feastday is coming up on Sunday.
After all these years on this website, people can still make my jaw drop.
He’s a convert.
A convert to what?
Catholicism.
Which again begs the question, is YFC Catholic?
Tanya I’m a Catholic. My feast day is in several weeks.
One of the things that always fascinated me about water is that the Bible uses it as a symbol of destruction (the world before Noah) and a symbol (and mechanism of) baptism. So how does that fit into this notion of “Deathwork”?
And as to Noah, he was rescued from the waters of the flood, yet it was water that created the rainbow, symbol of hope and promise. Without water, there is no rainbow. Without water, there is no flood. Without water, there is no baptism.
Hence, Paul declares that unless we die with Christ in {the flood of} baptism, neither shall we rise with him ]in the new life of the rainbow]
You’re not fooling anyone, neither is this rainbow sash wearing priest. It’s a gay thing, don’t try to be coy about it. Now you’re both called out.
The new life of the rainbow? Huh?
Fire is both helpful and destructive. Wind is too.
The Cross is a symbol of both death and life.
His Blood makes our scarlet sins white as wool.
Wearing a rainbow sash is an explicit endorsement of the homosexual agenda. The priest knows it and is hiding under the umbrella of compassion, what rubbish.
Notre Dame? Isn’t there a college in Indiana that was once Catholic with that name?
Lets Go Brandon…
His superiors should confiscate his computer (after giving him a chance to come clean) and look very closely at his personal life. The sad fact is that priests that step out this boldly are very often at very high risk of causing grave scandal….more than he already has. If we haven’t learned this by now, we never will.
He’s a member of the Holy Cross order, which is Jesuit light. They don’t care.
Thank you for the article. The homosexual s use a rainbow which is incomplete, with six colors. Biblically six is the number indicating human weakness and sin. The human eye can see 7 colors of the rainbow, seven is considered perfection, completeness. The evil one always mimics truth, goodness , falling short because he is a liar and wicked. men are easily lead astray if they are not grounded in faith, sacraments, and love of Holy Mary.
FYI the original flags, which were handmade, had 8 colors. When the idea took off and they decided to mass produce it, they couldn’t find a company who could produce 2 of the colors inexpensively, so they went with 6. So that number is an accident of history, not a determination of the symbolism of the artwork.
You seem to familiar in this arena, please join the Church.
I am a practicing member of the Roman Catholic Church and in good standing. I might very well sit in the same pew as you during Mass.
“..and in good standing. ..”
Ha, What does that mean? You put 20 buck in the plate every week? You shake padres hand after Mass and he knows you by name?
What about living a sacramental life?
When asked by the English tribunal if she was in a state of grace, St Jean answered, “If I am I pray God He keeps me there, if not I pray He returns me to that state”. See even saints aren’t sure.
The chances of you sitting next to me during Mass are nil.
I like that quote DirtyLittleRat. State of grace is not the same as in good standing.
THE LGBT crowd can be defined by their lack of self awareness
Crowds Aren’t capable of self awareness.
So in some weird way, YFC just agreed with bohemond.