In regard to Melbourne's Archbishop George Pell and his refusal at Mass to
give communion to a group of Catholics signifying their protest against the
church's stance toward the practice of homosexual sex by coming together in
a group all wearing rainbow sashes, Edward (Ted) Smith writes:

     "The issue with homosexuality is not restricted to homosexuality I
would hope - but to unrepentant sinners - who of course _should_ not be
admitted to communion."

I would like to suggest that the archbishop did not refuse communion on the
grounds of whether or not he thought those wearing sashes were unrepentent
sinners, but because by their coming as a group marked by those sashes they
were symbolically and publically confronting the archbishop's
interpretation of the right teaching of the church on this matter.  By
approaching the communion table hey were, in effect, saying that in their
belief that the practice of homosexual sex is o.k. they are one with the
body of Christ (the eucharist being an expression of the unity of the
church).  The archbishop, then, had no choice but to uphold the church's
teaching that they are not.   

Consequently, I would argue that by refusing them in their wearing of those
symbolic sashes, he was not convincing them of sin so much as he was being
forced to deny them communion in order to be true to his ordained mandate
as archbishop to uphold the traditional teaching of the church.  After all,
earlier in these posts it was noted that not all those who wore those
sashes were actually practicing homosexuals; some where supporting friends
and family.  And as was noted earlier,  other members of the Australian
hierarchy who went on record stated that in the situation forced upon him
the archbishop could not have done otherwise.  In fact, before the final
prayer of the Mass, Archbishop Pell explained his action to the
congregation and they filled the church with their applause.  In other
words, the archbishop -- although known to be quite a strong-minded
conservative -- was in this instance clearly not alone in his judgement.

John Laurance


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%