|
Post by Skypea on Aug 14, 2014 5:28:10 GMT
Jonda, I'm convinced now, due to the following; Excessive quoting Selectively answering questions posed to herAnswering questions with questionsRun-on one-liners Referencing bible passages as answersFrequent lack of proper capitalization and punctuation That's a lot to remember if you're faking it. excessive quoting of? or is it just that I break up a quote containing 10 others into individual quotes that I'm replying to?
or is it being selective of who I reply to?
really? do I do that?
how many bible verses have I posted on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 14, 2014 5:52:37 GMT
they would consider her a Catholic. once a Catholic, always a Catholic. "Once baptized, always baptized" is the more apt phrase. And divorce has nothing to do with eligibility for a Catholic funeral or burial. Neither does sexual orientation - usually. (See bolded below.) Under Canon Law there are three reasons to deny a Catholic funeral: 1. Heresy or schism (joining another denomination, formally leaving the Catholic Church by informing a bishop, or rejecting Catholic doctrine in a public way), 2. Choosing cremation for non-Christian reasons, 3. Being a "manifest sinner" whose funeral could cause public scandal among the faithful (e.g. Mafia lord, genocidal dictator, abortionist). Note: Interestingly, gay men have been denied Catholic funerals in the US at least twice in the last ten years - both times by San Diego priests, and both times the family received a subsequent apology and offer of a funeral mass.
Also: the family of a non-Catholic can request a funeral mass, as long as the deceased's own minister is unavailable (or, presumably, non-existent), and as long as the deceased would not have objected to the idea. that's not how we were taught back when. I heard a Catholic news anchor recently say it as I do - and he isn't much younger than I am. glad to see you here mapchic
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 6:17:45 GMT
I think it's clear that at the time the church agreed to host the funeral, they were not aware that the deceased was gay. The obligation of informing the church was on those who made the plans. Again, they knew they were seeking to use the church for a religious service and knew that the church's stance on homosexuality would have precluded the service being performed there. IMO, this entire situation was created by those who asked the church to bury him. They were attempting to defraud the church into performing a religious rite they knew the church would have declined to perform. The so-called "bad form" was exercised by those who sought out this church; not the church itself. And I disagree because I have never ever heard of a church turning down a funeral for someone based on them being gay. A wedding yes, funeral no way. The man was Christian as they were having their own officiant to conduct the funeral so I still don't get it. And this is all on the church. No one else. Scrappower, there are different denominations for a reason. The fact that a particular church is convenient or because it can hold enough people are reasons someone may want to have funeral services there, but that may not be enough as far as the church is concerned. I'm trying to think of even one Baptist church I've ever attended that would be OK with an officiant of someone from a different denomination conducting any ceremony or service without the input of the church, and I can't think of a one. Maybe there are some that I don't know about, and this church may (or may not) be one of them, but I'm extremely hesitant to just assume that this is the case. I keep thinking something really important must have been left out of this story since I still can't get past the agreement that began this. 1) Person not associated with the church wants a funeral in the church - I question if the church would agree to allow it. 2) Baptist church agreed to have an officiant from a different denomination - I think it's questionable that the church would agree unless there was also a minister or deacon from the church involved in the service. 3) Someone from the church agreed to a service within the church for an actively gay man not associated with the church to be performed by someone not affiliated with that church - All I can do is shake my head and wonder what actual authority the person had to make such an arrangement. I just see red flags throughout the whole thing, not the least of which is the fact that this became a story that went beyond the local area. It just screams that this man's funeral is being used to further an agenda. ETA - One more thing. Over and over it has been repeated on this thread that it wrong to cancel this service the day before. Funerals don't often have a long planning time. They are performed as soon after someone dies as the body is released and people can arrive. It wasn't mentioned here when this agreement was made. How firm was this agreement and how long before it was broken was it made? ETA2 - And this is why I hate these kinds of stories. It is just so darn easy to assume you know who did something wrong when you're really only relying on what may be a very biased presentation of a situation.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 14, 2014 7:18:21 GMT
they would consider her a Catholic. once a Catholic, always a Catholic. "Once baptized, always baptized" is the more apt phrase. <Snipped blah, blah about eligibility for a Catholic funeral...> that's not how we were taught back when. I heard a Catholic news anchor recently say it as I do - and he isn't much younger than I am. glad to see you here mapchic 1. I didn't say it was never taught. I phrased it in a way with which all Catholic theologians could agree - that you can't undo a Catholic baptism. Some of them, though, would argue that a "heretic" can separate himself from the Catholic Church (e.g. Martin Luther); hence, the disagreement. 2. Similarly (see bold), arguing that MapChic and I are the same person - or that you and Skybar are the same person - would also be a source of disagreement among many. I suppose we could settle on "Once a Pea, always a Pea."
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 7:25:27 GMT
I didn't say it was never taught. I phrased it in a way with which all Catholic theologians could agree - that you can't undo a Catholic baptism. Some of them, though, would argue that a "heretic" can separate himself from the Catholic Church (e.g. Martin Luther); hence, the disagreement. Hey! Watch who you're calling names like heretic. Next thing you know, the Brits will be coming on here and calling us Revolutionaries.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 14, 2014 7:29:11 GMT
I thought about this a bit. Here someone dies on a Monday and sometimes their funeral is the next afternoon (to save on embalming costs) or perhaps Wednesday. I think any canceling would be viewed as "last minute". Funerals in their very nature are last minute things. Depending on publication of the funeral information done already 24 hours is not really last minute. I know our funeral home doesn't print the cards until right before visitation starts to allow for change of information. I think being part of a dirt small community makes a big difference too. We can be real flexible as needed and a change of venue for a funeral with 24 hours notice wouldn't make us bat an eye. But yes emotions could still be rattled depending on the reason just like here. I think I read that the agreement had been made three or four days earlier. No time to check now, but I'll look later. (I think I also read that the family was notified of the change when they were at the wake, which was probably not arranged that day.) As promised, I read the article again. The man in question died on July 26; funeral was scheduled for August 2, seven days later. Article doesn't say when arrangements were made with church.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 14, 2014 7:31:38 GMT
I didn't say it was never taught. I phrased it in a way with which all Catholic theologians could agree - that you can't undo a Catholic baptism. Some of them, though, would argue that a "heretic" can separate himself from the Catholic Church (e.g. Martin Luther); hence, the disagreement. Hey! Watch who you're calling names like heretic. Next thing you know, the Brits will be coming on here and calling us Revolutionaries. Ha! It's time those Brits woke up and started accusing us of something over their morning coffee tea. And I put "heretic" in quotes.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 7:33:41 GMT
A wake in a Baptist church? What?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 14, 2014 7:36:11 GMT
Once the announcement has been published in the paper (with the blessing of the host church, of course), it's too late to cancel as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 7:43:58 GMT
Once the announcement has been published in the paper (with the blessing of the host church, of course), it's too late to cancel as far as I'm concerned. 99.99% of the time, I think this would be a pretty reasonable statement. But this is new ground for a church - almost any church - and it probably took that much time for the leadership/congregation/council to come to some agreement on what will be church policy. That .01% is reserved for making an arrangement that violates the heart of what the church believes. I believe this situation falls into that.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 7:51:35 GMT
lucyg - I just want to add that I'm really glad that you did not have a problem with your husband's funeral. Grieving is hard enough without having to deal with politics.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Aug 14, 2014 7:55:24 GMT
Hey! Watch who you're calling names like heretic. Next thing you know, the Brits will be coming on here and calling us Revolutionaries. Ha! It's time those Brits woke up and started accusing us of something over their morning coffee tea. And I put "heretic" in quotes. So many possibilities, so little time!
|
|
SuPeaNatural
Full Member
AUSTRALIA
Posts: 424
Jun 27, 2014 8:49:11 GMT
|
Post by SuPeaNatural on Aug 14, 2014 7:59:31 GMT
I don't think the Pastor or the church were coming from a place of hate - just narrow mindedness and intolerance. Yet another reason why people turn away from religion.
ETA: But, the pastor was simply upholding the teaching of his religion as is his duty\responsibility. I'm glad the family found an accepting place to hold the service.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 14, 2014 8:05:54 GMT
Link
Interesting. Mr. Evans' husband is saying the same thing many of us are saying. I suppose some will interpret his need for exposure as proof of furthering some agenda. I think that many fewer people have an agenda than are accused, though. (For me, it always conjures up images of clipboards.) I think the husband is just having a human reaction to an event.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Aug 14, 2014 8:08:52 GMT
Ha! It's time those Brits woke up and started accusing us of something over their morning coffee tea. And I put "heretic" in quotes. So many possibilities, so little time! Aw, c'mon, where's your ambition? Your day's just starting. I'll be checking your list when I wake up.
'Night.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Aug 14, 2014 8:13:15 GMT
lucyg - I just want to add that I'm really glad that you did not have a problem with your husband's funeral. Grieving is hard enough without having to deal with politics. oh, it was not entirely without politics. A business owner (owned a chain of food & liquor markets, dunno if he still does) got pissed off over traffic being held up for the funeral procession and went on a one-man anti-police campaign. He told the local police in all his store locations they weren't welcome in his stores in the event a crime was committed. Freakin' whack job. I had no idea until years later, I was at a statewide police memorial foundation meeting and the subject came up. They're telling this story and halfway through, I realize it's .my.husband's.funeral. they're talking about.
I wonder if that nut job is still at it. But the funeral itself was lovely. The church was wonderful. I've been to more Catholic funerals than Jewish (or Protestant) funerals, and I'm very comfortable with them. /end hijack, sorry
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Aug 14, 2014 15:08:14 GMT
~Lauren~, to your knowledge, would a Jewish temple do that? Do they discriminate against gay people? Liz, there are different sects of Judaism just like Christianity. I am a reform Jew and no, they would not refuse to bury a gay individual or to perform gay marriage. However, I am quite certain that orthodox Jews and Hassidic Jews would refuse. That's my point; if I were gay or the family of a gay person, I would not approach the more "religious" sects to be involved in any way in a rite involving the gay person. They will refuse, so why cause myself the upset and start a ruckus. Despite what the deceased's husband claims, he was looking to start trouble, IMO. This shows me that the guy is either ignorant or intentionally causing trouble. What difference does the year make to the religious beliefs of a group? Some religious groups have changed their views over the years, but this shows me he believes that it's "wrong" for this Baptist church to have it's beliefs and live by them. To me, THAT is intolerance.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 15:33:12 GMT
Link
Interesting. Mr. Evans' husband is saying the same thing many of us are saying. I suppose some will interpret his need for exposure as proof of furthering some agenda. I think that many fewer people have an agenda than are accused, though. (For me, it always conjures up images of clipboards.) I think the husband is just having a human reaction to an event. No, I don't think that's agenda-driven. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I DO think he has every right to speak up, and I am relieved to hear that this came from someone who was directly affected (the husband) and not from someone outside trying to take advantage of him. My doubts pretty much still rest with the decision-making on the church's end.... in a "What were you thinking?" kind of way. I keep trying to put Baptist leadership that I know in the place of the leadership for this church to imagine how this could have played out differently. Again and again, I come back to the person who made the arrangements. If this is a church large enough to hold a good-sized crowd, it probably employs an office staff. That's probably where the original arrangements were made, possibly by a church member or someone the staff knew personally. Because the arrangements were made, and thought definite enough to publish in the paper, whoever reserved the church must have thought that they were in agreement with church policy. And then the full weight of this decision began to be felt by the congregation and leadership and they were faced with adding to the burden of those grieving or compromising the principles they believe in. As difficult, and hurtful, as their decision was to cancel the arrangements, I think they must have felt their hands were tied at that point. This is why I hope compassion and forgiveness can be found for them. It may have been an innocent mistake, but it was a big blunder on the church's end. And while the result may be in accordance with church principles, this is going to cause embarrassment to many congregants who had nothing to do with the way this played out. The positive side to this is that many people are learning that they are going to have to re-evaluate their ideas of homosexuality in America today. Denominations that can't adapt will lose members to those that do. Having lived through the death of my church because the membership all moved away from the area, I know how sad it is to lose such an important member of a community. I feel so bad for this church because they aren't adapting well enough to continue to thrive. Just the fact that they seemed open to having a service by a different denominational officiant makes me think that they have been struggling already. (I may be way off base on that, though I've seen too many churches struggle not to think it's a real possibility here.)
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 15:49:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Aug 14, 2014 16:34:36 GMT
I'm clearly no expert but I'm wondering whether we're meaning different things when we talk about denominations, because based on the name of their respective churches (below) I thought they were both of the same denomination. Are you saying that because of their different treatment of this couple they must by necessity be different denominations?
New Hope Missionary Baptist Church New Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Aug 14, 2014 16:42:10 GMT
I'm clearly no expert but I'm wondering whether we're meaning different things when we talk about denominations, because based on the name of their respective churches (below) I thought they were both of the same denomination. Are you saying that because of their different treatment of this couple they must by necessity be different denominations? New Hope Missionary Baptist Church New Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church Those were their respective churches? The one that the deceased attended and the one that turned him down for the funeral? If that is the case, it confirms for me that the onus was on the church to make it known ahead of time that they wouldn't allow this funeral in their building. I would think if I were the family of the deceased that if one missionary Baptist church was going to do the ceremony, that another missionary Baptist church wouldn't have a problem with it either. I think this throws Lauren's argument that the family of the deceased should have known better than to go to that church out the window.
|
|
|
Post by jennyap on Aug 14, 2014 17:02:20 GMT
I'm clearly no expert but I'm wondering whether we're meaning different things when we talk about denominations, because based on the name of their respective churches (below) I thought they were both of the same denomination. Are you saying that because of their different treatment of this couple they must by necessity be different denominations? New Hope Missionary Baptist Church New Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church Those were their respective churches? The one that the deceased attended and the one that turned him down for the funeral? If that is the case, it confirms for me that the onus was on the church to make it known ahead of time that they wouldn't allow this funeral in their building. I would think if I were the family of the deceased that if one missionary Baptist church was going to do the ceremony, that another missionary Baptist church wouldn't have a problem with it either. I think this throws Lauren's argument that the family of the deceased should have known better than to go to that church out the window. Other way round - New Hope was the one that cancelled, New Rising Star was the one whose Pastor delivered the service. It's still not completely clear whether the deceased attended either or any church himself. I suspect the fact that it hasn't been stated means he probably didn't, at least not recently. His mother was baptised at New Hope, and several family members apparently still attend there; she is now in the congregation of New Rising Star. This is purely speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the mother who pushed for a religious funeral rather than the husband (which would fit with the quote somewhere above where he said he understood the decision, not the timing) It's the timing that makes it awful for me - if you know you've got several hundred people supposed to be attending a service, you must surely realise that giving less than 24 hours notice of a cancellation makes it nigh on impossible to both make alternative arrangements and contact all the attendees in that time. I get what Lefty is saying about the position the church leadership were in, but that aspect still just sucks.
|
|
|
Post by scrapqueen01 on Aug 14, 2014 17:10:21 GMT
If that's the case then how rude and inconsiderate of the mother to not take the husband's or possibly her son's wishes into consideration.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 17:33:08 GMT
I'm clearly no expert but I'm wondering whether we're meaning different things when we talk about denominations, because based on the name of their respective churches (below) I thought they were both of the same denomination. Are you saying that because of their different treatment of this couple they must by necessity be different denominations? New Hope Missionary Baptist Church New Rising Star Missionary Baptist Church I was going by a comment made by Scrappower that I must have misinterpreted. It does look like these churches should have more common ground than it seems they do. First - I am really, really, really glad to see a Baptist Church accepting this new reality. That is truly exciting to me. Second - I am not surprised that another Baptist Church within the area would have a different view. This is the kind of thing that makes one church branch off from another, even to the point of becoming different denominations. So, I believe I was wrong about the officiant. And - I'm glad to be wrong here, since this makes a lot more sense. It really helps explain why the arrangements were thought to be OK with this particular church in a way I couldn't understand. BUT.... I do believe that this church will soon be in trouble (if they aren't already). Two similar churches within a local area and only one is dealing with the reality of openly homosexual families means that that church will be more attractive to the younger generations so needed to maintain and renew a congregation. The difference between the generations on the understanding of homosexuality and whether it is an aberration or just part of normal is profound. It will violate the conscience of those with this new understanding too much to support a church that won't embrace this segment of the population, especially now that this is no longer a hypothetical situation. Change is really hard. I'm guessing the one church will try to remain consistent with their traditional role and will maintain a lot of the aging, older congregants.
|
|
Country Ham
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,314
Jun 25, 2014 19:32:08 GMT
|
Post by Country Ham on Aug 14, 2014 19:03:59 GMT
I do know that in my faith group it's not uncommon to use the "big churches building" for large funerals. The preacher of that church doesn't perform the service. The preacher of the families choice does. Honestly though I can't think of anyone using the building and fellowship hall that are not of the same beliefs. They just need a bigger building.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 19:38:12 GMT
I do know that in my faith group it's not uncommon to use the "big churches building" for large funerals. The preacher of that church doesn't perform the service. The preacher of the families choice does. Honestly though I can't think of anyone using the building and fellowship hall that are not of the same beliefs. They just need a bigger building. Exactly. That's why it just wasn't making much sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 14, 2014 19:52:17 GMT
Jonda, I'm convinced now, due to the following; Excessive quoting Selectively answering questions posed to her Answering questions with questions Run-on one-liners Referencing bible passages as answers Frequent lack of proper capitalization and punctuation That's a lot to remember if you're faking it. There are certainly characteristics in the posts that are similar to skybar, and I admit it would be a lot to remember, but having argued with Skybar for years, something is still off in the delivery and the words used. Our speech patterns and vocabulary are as unique to us as our fingerprints, and I just really feel that someone is impersonating Skybar for fun. I am looking for things that are specifically unique to her and I'm not seeing it yet. I do hope that nothing has happened to the real Skybar no matter how much I disagreed with her in the past.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Aug 14, 2014 20:00:40 GMT
That's my point; if I were gay or the family of a gay person, I would not approach the more "religious" sects to be involved in any way in a rite involving the gay person. They will refuse, so why cause myself the upset and start a ruckus. Despite what the deceased's husband claims, he was looking to start trouble, IMO. . I disagree - The man had family that attended the church in question. I am sure they were extremely surprised by this as well, but it is not uncommon for family members of a deceased to suggest their church location for services. You just want to blame the husband for causing trouble.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Aug 14, 2014 20:45:07 GMT
I attempted to look up the churches to review their faith statements. I couldn't find one for the Rising Star church on pages 1-3 on google. My system runs about as fast as paint drying so after p3 I gave up looking. I did read that the website for New hope was limited at this time - so I didn't even look for it.
I pulled up a media report (maybe a FL paper) and it said that Evans' aunt (sister to his mother) went to New Hope. If so, she would have known their teaching on gay marriage. Of course, she could have been a member and not attended services there. One should know what the beliefs of a church are before joining tho. I think it said other family members went there also.
The mother of Evans went to Rising Star.
Evans has been sick for 4 yrs and in/out of hospitals since May. He was recently sent home from a hospital with just months to live but it seems he died a few days later. Still, having been this sick for 4 yrs he had a lot of time to plan for this. He evidently didn't. nor did his mother/family. Even if not time to have all of ones affairs in order, settling on a where to have a svc and other basics should have been done considering his condition. His dying was not unexpected.
As someone already posted a funeral isn't set up far in advance - a place usually needs to be found on short notice.
The article said that no one at New Hope knew Evans was gay - they didn't know until the obit was published and listed him as having a 'husband'.
I couldn't paste the link into the link do-thingy box -
www.wfla.com/story/26248514/after-backlash-over-canceling-gay-mans-funeral-tampa-church-takes-information-off-of-its-website
btw - remember what is in this article depends on things like who gave the reporter the info, how the reporter recorded it and then translated it into the article. Don't stake your life on it.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Aug 14, 2014 21:48:48 GMT
The article said that no one at New Hope knew Evans was gay - they didn't know until the obit was published and listed him as having a 'husband'.
No one in the office would have asked if this was for an openly gay man since the request came from family familiar with the church and/or a sister church. Is it possible that the family who loved this man tried to slip this service in, getting the go-ahead and putting enough public pressure on the church for them to change their policy? And then, when the church remained true to their well-stated beliefs, they turned to the media to try to shame the church into embracing changes they don't want to make? The person designated to make funeral arrangements within the church does not have the authority to change church policy or the tenets of belief the church is built on. Even the minister in charge would have to face the leadership and congregation for such a breach of trust in the principles of the church, and some form of discipline would be expected.
|
|