Bishop Fabbro instructs London priests to suspend liturgical privileges of SSM MP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ani_Ibi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Traditional Ang:
Ani:

Dear MP Comartin:

I understand that, since you supported Same Sex Marriage and Canada Bill C-38 and did not oppose it as directed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church or by the Canadian Council of bishops on at least 30 occasions, Bishop Henry Fabbro, decided to disallow you from receiving Our Lord’s body and Blood in the Parishes in the Diocese of Windsor.

Your mature response to this outrage, and that of your supporters, was to walk out of parishes where Bishop Fabbro’s letter was read, to scream at the priests who read the letter and to insists that Church teaching did not apply to members of Parliament or to modern day Canada.
Click to expand...
Please, for the sake of accuracy, it is the Diocese of London, and Joe Comartin didn’t walk out, the article clearly said that he wasn’t in attendance. About 30 people in the parish did walk out but MP Comartin was not one of them.
 
40.png
Patrick:
Please, for the sake of accuracy, it is the Diocese of London, and Joe Comartin didn’t walk out, the article clearly said that he wasn’t in attendance. About 30 people in the parish did walk out but MP Comartin was not one of them.
Click to expand...
Patrick:

I stand corrected - Actually I did once I checked the Website for the Diocese of London. I also found the “Peter”, after I had written the letter and sent to to the wrong e-mail address.

I’m sorry, but I felt it more import for praise to be sent post-haste to the recipient than to worry about trying to correct his name after writing the letter and trying to send it for 3 hours at 12 miidnight.

This is the Response I received in my inbox today from Bishop Fabbro’s office:

Thank you for your letter; I assure you that it will be brought to Bishop Fabbro’s attention.

In Christ’s Peace,
Bernardine

A grateful life is one
in which you receive your gifts from God
and then lift them up,
trusting they will multiply.

(Mrs.) Bernardine Ketelaars, M. Div
Executive Assistant to Bishop Ronald P. Fabbro, C.S.B.
Diocese of London
1070 Waterloo Street
LONDON ON N6A 3Y2
Phone: (519) 433-0658, ext. 224
Fax: (519) 433-0011

To bketelaars@rcec.london.on.ca 07/13/2005 02:49
cc The Pope

Subject Fwd: Resend of “Your courageous stand about Canada’s Bill C-38 and MP Joe”

You might want to ask Bishop Fabbro and Mrs.Ketelaars whether they would have preferred that I waited to correct everything and sent the E-mail today (while they’re receiving all sorts of NEGATIVE Commentary about the actions I praised), or sent it as I did.

As far as whether or not MP Comartin was with the crowd who walked out in protest, or whether he sanctioned the protest, Mr. Comartin has my E-mail and can correct the record if he wishes. Such correction will be published here, in the same way as my E-mail to him. Either way, my invitation for them to join the Anglican Church of Canada (and to stop trying to change the Catholic Church to suit their agenda) holds.

I notice that you seem to be correcting the members here about all of the details regarding the incident, and the names of the people involved.

Might I ask where you were when brothers and sisters were looking for information so they could contact the parties involved? Or, did you think the most helpful thing you could do was to come by and correct the brethren who had done some real work trying to defend our Faith and trying to congratulate a Bishop who had done so at personal cost?

It’s enough ro make me wonder if you’re someone who happens to agree with MP Comartin and his friends…

Blessed are they who act to stop the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
I notice that you seem to be correcting the members here about all of the details regarding the incident, and the names of the people involved.

Might I ask where you were when brothers and sisters were looking for information so they could contact the parties involved? Or, did you think the most helpful thing you could do was to come by and correct the brethren who had done some real work trying to defend our Faith and trying to congratulate a Bishop who had done so at personal cost?

It’s enough ro make me wonder if you’re someone who happens to agree with MP Comartin and his friends…
Click to expand...
Patrick is new, I think. There is a letter to be written to the Queen (much to may utter astonishment). I will post it anon. Perhaps we can ‘initiate’ Patrick by appointing him Royal Writer of Letters to Her Majesty. Meanwhile have a cup of tea on me:

http://www.tea.co.uk/images/c4.jpg

🙂
 
Cardinal backs MP sanctions

STEPHANIE RUBEC, Free Press Parliamentary Bureau

2005-07-1403:21:57

canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/07/14/1130749-sun.html

OTTAWA – Canada’s top Catholic cleric says MPs who support same-sex marriage should be stripped of their parish leadership roles, but not excommunicated.
Marc Cardinal Ouellet backed a decision to bar Windsor New Democrat MP Joe Comartin from leading church activities, but insisted it’s best to keep him and the 158 MPs who favour Bill C-38 inside the fold where they can be lobbied by parishioners to change their views and oppose same-sex marriage.

“You do not lose your right to belong to a community because you do not vote in the right way,” Ouellet said yesterday, adding those MPs who backed Bill C-38 should go to confession before taking communion.

Ouellet fell short of supporting the sanctioning of Timmins New Democrat MP Charlie Angus, who was refused communion after voting in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage.

“I think there should be dialogue, but not necessarily public punishments,” he said.

Speaking to the committee reviewing the bill, Ouellet urged senators to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples or risk threatening religious freedom.

Ouellet said he doesn’t understand the urgency in passing C-38, adding that Canadians need time to reflect on it.

“The government will be accountable to the population for the decision it made,” he said.

Ouellet said speaking out in favour of traditional marriage has caused Catholics and priests to be branded homophobic.

“They are aggressively sometimes labelled and this is an insane atmosphere in our country and in our communities and it’s not good for religious freedoms,” Ouellet said, adding some priests are afraid to broach the subject from the pulpit.

Ouellet said Catholics will continue to fight same-sex marriage even if C-38 receives royal assent, and left the door open to asking the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

“Even if it is adopted now, it will be questioned later,” he said. “So the battle is not finished.”

The Senate is expected to pass C-38 next week, making Canada the fourth country in the world to allow same-sex marriage.
 
Too bad none of you freak out this much when Catholic soldiers went to war with Iraq and didn’t conscientiously object when JPII and the US Bishops condemned that war as unjust and sinful.
 
Traditional Ang:
Patrick:

I stand corrected - Actually I did once I checked the Website for the Diocese of London. I also found the “Peter”, after I had written the letter and sent to to the wrong e-mail address.

I’m sorry, but I felt it more import for praise to be sent post-haste to the recipient than to worry about trying to correct his name after writing the letter and trying to send it for 3 hours at 12 miidnight.

You might want to ask Bishop Fabbro and Mrs.Ketelaars whether they would have preferred that I waited to correct everything and sent the E-mail today (while they’re receiving all sorts of NEGATIVE Commentary about the actions I praised), or sent it as I did.

As far as whether or not MP Comartin was with the crowd who walked out in protest, or whether he sanctioned the protest, Mr. Comartin has my E-mail and can correct the record if he wishes. Such correction will be published here, in the same way as my E-mail to him. Either way, my invitation for them to join the Anglican Church of Canada (and to stop trying to change the Catholic Church to suit their agenda) holds.

I notice that you seem to be correcting the members here about all of the details regarding the incident, and the names of the people involved.

Might I ask where you were when brothers and sisters were looking for information so they could contact the parties involved? Or, did you think the most helpful thing you could do was to come by and correct the brethren who had done some real work trying to defend our Faith and trying to congratulate a Bishop who had done so at personal cost?

It’s enough ro make me wonder if you’re someone who happens to agree with MP Comartin and his friends…

Blessed are they who act to stop the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael
Click to expand...
Sorry if I offended you with the corrections. I’m sorry I wasn’t here to help you with the correct information when you needed it. I thought that helping you with the corrections now was the best I could do under the circumstances.

My only interest was in correcting the information that was being posted so that the errors weren’t perpetuated. The number and nature of the errors was a bit embarrassing. I think getting a bishops/MP’s name right is close to what many would consider showing a minimal level of respect. Getting the diocese name right just might help the mail get there! But saying that Joe Comartin walked out of church in protest was just plain wrong and implied that he was taking a strident position when in fact he hopes to meet with Bishop Fabbro.

With respect to Joe Comartin, I don’t agree with his position, but he is a very good man and a faithful Catholic in every other respect. He said some unfortunate things that weren’t necessary to make his point in the House and has been justly disciplined for it.

Thank you so much for your positive note to our Bishop! I’m glad that Bernardine responded to you so quickly. She is a nice lady and good to deal with.
 
Patrick, Thank you for the correction. It was sloppy work on my part and I appreciate your time and effort. Fortunately, I double-checked what I had previously written to the bishops, the nuncio and the newspaper editors and Joe Comartin was correctly identified. Hopefully, the errors were promptly pointed out before anyone duplicated them.

Ani, thankyou for the posting on Cardinal Ouellet. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops posted his entire speech to the senate yesterday and it was so good I have printed up a copy to share with my parish priest and with our weekly prayer group. Someone suggested we take a break during the summer as it is difficult for everyone to come out; whereas the more difficult it is the greater the penance and with our beloved nation writhing in the straightjacket of political correctness prayers are needed now more than ever.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
Ani, thankyou for the posting on Cardinal Ouellet. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops posted his entire speech to the senate yesterday and it was so good I have printed up a copy to share with my parish priest and with our weekly prayer group. Someone suggested we take a break during the summer as it is difficult for everyone to come out; whereas the more difficult it is the greater the penance and with our beloved nation writhing in the straightjacket of political correctness prayers are needed now more than ever.

Rosalind:

I think praying about it now, as difficult as it will be, is the right think to do.

Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther are all remembered because they acted when times were really tough and what they were doing was incredibility inconvenient, difficult and dangerous.

Go for it, and those who understand what’s at stake will show up and pray. Those who don’t, won’t.

And, May God bless and approve your efforts.

Blessed are they who act to save the lives of God’s Little Ones, Michael
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Patrick:
Sorry if I offended you with the corrections. I’m sorry I wasn’t here to help you with the correct information when you needed it. I thought that helping you with the corrections now was the best I could do under the circumstances.

My only interest was in correcting the information that was being posted so that the errors weren’t perpetuated. The number and nature of the errors was a bit embarrassing. I think getting a bishops/MP’s name right is close to what many would consider showing a minimal level of respect. Getting the diocese name right just might help the mail get there! But saying that Joe Comartin walked out of church in protest was just plain wrong and implied that he was taking a strident position when in fact he hopes to meet with Bishop Fabbro.

With respect to Joe Comartin, I don’t agree with his position, but he is a very good man and a faithful Catholic in every other respect. He said some unfortunate things that weren’t necessary to make his point in the House and has been justly disciplined for it.

Thank you so much for your positive note to our Bishop! I’m glad that Bernardine responded to you so quickly. She is a nice lady and good to deal with.
Click to expand...
Patrick:

Thank you for your apology. Sorry if I got a little cross myself.

I think that we show respect for our leaders by trying to OBEY them and by standing with them when they take difficult and unpopular stands which are based on God’s Law and the unchanging Teaching of the Church.

Regarding whether MP Comartin walked out of a Church - I was relying on a newspaper report which stated that he had walked out of a parish where Bp Fabbro’s letter had been read. I don’t know which parish that was, and MP Comartin has chosen not to correct the record - That’s his right.

I just thought it was shameful that some 20-30 of his followers walked out of a parish (noisily and none too gracefully) after the letter was read and that someone responsible for catechesis within the Catholic Church had committed himself to changing one of the Sacraments of the Church.

You’ve made enough posts to indicate that you were around when people were struggling trying to get the information together. I really think it would have been a service, and accepted as such, if you would have paid this thread a visit and corrected the mistakes BEFORE anyone acted on the mistaken information. Usually I try to do that, but after a full day of training, and then 3 hours of figuring out that I had the wrong e-mail and then correcting it…

You’re right about Bennedette from Bishop Fabbro’s office - That was a classy thing that she did.

I also received (via snail mail so I can’t post it) a package from Senator Cools office. It’s the office Transcripts of her comments for both readings of the accursed bill, and can that lady debate!

I still have to send them a Thank You note…

Blessed are they who act to stop the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Patrick:

I also received (via snail mail so I can’t post it) a package from Senator Cools office. It’s the office Transcripts of her comments for both readings of the accursed bill, and can that lady debate!
Click to expand...
Canadian Senate Passes Second Reading of Gay “Marriage” Bill

OTTAWA, July 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Canadian Liberal-dominated Senate passed the Bill C-38 same-sex “marriage” legislation through second reading by a 43-12 vote Wednesday. The Senate has adjourned until Monday, July 18, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.

The following 12 Senators – 10 conservatives and 2 Liberals – opposed the legislation: Tommy Banks (L-Alberta), James Kelleher (C- Ontario), John Buchanan (C- Nova Scotia), Wilbert Joseph Keon (C- Ontario), Ethel Cochrane (C-Newfoundland/Labrador), Noel Kinsella (C-New Brunswick), Gerald Comeau (C-Nova Scotia), Gerard Phalen (L-Nova Scotia), Anne Cools (C-Ontario), Terry Stratton (C-Manitoba), Consiglio Di Nino (C-Ontario), David Tkachuk (C-Saskatchewan).

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/images/2005/cools.jpgLong-time champion for life and family, Senator Anne Cools, voiced her opposition to the bill. “Honourable senators, as I said before, I wish to register my strenuous opposition to Bill C-38,” she said. “I believe that the issues have been falsely framed as Charter rights issues and equality issues. Marriage is not now, and never has been, a right. It has always been a grand privilege, with its origins as a sacrament of the church, governed by the canon law, received from the civil law into the common law. No sacrament of the church is now, or has ever been, a right.”

“I believe that the judgments of the lower courts finding marriage between a man and a woman as unconstitutional are themselves unconstitutional,” Cools continued. “In fact, the full weight of the Constitution of Canada for 140 years has been to defend and to protect marriage as the foundational unit of the family.”

“Marriage has been thought to be that institution which governs the heterosexual sexual union between a man and a woman,” Cools explained. “This sexual union is driven by the natural human and organic instinct towards reproduction. It is to this specific sexual union that nature and God have entrusted the grand mystery of life called procreation and the bringing forth of issue . . . the public interest in marriage is the phenomenon of procreation.”

“I believe that the conclusions of the Attorney General of Canada and a tiny minority of judges in the country are not only wrong and contrary to our Constitution, but their arrival at these conclusions were based in what I would describe as constitutional deconstruction, constitutional vandalism and, quite frankly, even some social engineering, because their result was not to extend rights to anyone. The result is to alter the fundamental nature and character of the institution of marriage.”
 
Debate of the Senate (Hansard) Wed., July 6, 1st. Session, 38th Parliament, Volume 142, Issue 82, Civil Marriage Bill

Honourable Anne C. Cools
Location of speech :1610-1620

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I join this second reading debate to articulate my strenuous opposition to Bill C-38, respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for civil purposes.
Before going too much further, I would like to say that Senator Mahovlich has articulated an interesting question. He has asked: Are sacraments of the church rights? Senator Mahovlich, no sacrament of the church is a right. That is why marriage is not a right. Marriage has its historical origins in canon law as a sacrament of the church.

Honourable senators, it is not often in this place that I refer to skin colour, or that I speak very much about being a Black person, descended as I am from a group of people who were legally called free coloured people. In the history of the British Caribbean, they became very quickly the leading citizens of the British Caribbean. On behalf of Black people in Canada who are too powerless to have much of a voice in any formulation of public policy, it is an enormous mistake to compare the condition of homosexual people regarding marriage to the situation of the desegregation or lack of integration in the United States of America. As we know, the whole phenomenon of segregation of Black people grew as a historical development out of the condition of slavery. As we know, slavery was a condition of estate, property in human flesh.

The wondrous thing about the abolition of slavery, as it originated in William Wilberforce and others, is that for the African and Black peoples the result of that movement was that it ended slavery not only for the Black peoples but for all the peoples of the world. If I could use the words of John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, slavery was the scandal of religion and a scandal of the human race. It was an execrable villainy.

All of that is en passant. It is something I know a lot about. One of these days I will talk about it in this place…
 
Anne Cools continued…

Honourable senators, as I said before, I wish to register my strenuous opposition to Bill C-38. I believe that the issues have been falsely framed as Charter rights issues and equality issues. Marriage is not now, and never has been, a right. It has always been a grand privilege, with its origins as a sacrament of the church, governed by the canon law, received from the civil law into the common law. No sacrament of the church is now, or has ever been, a right.

I believe that the judgments of the lower courts finding marriage between a man and a woman as unconstitutional are themselves unconstitutional. In fact, the full weight of the Constitution of Canada for 140 years has been to defend and to protect marriage as the foundational unit of the family.

The Confederation debates show this weight of the law, as the BNA Act developed from the 72 resolutions framed at the Quebec conference, 44 of which were authored by Sir John A. Macdonald himself. A simple reading of those debates and resolutions as they developed at the London conference and as they ended up in the separation of marriage and divorce from one solemnization of marriage reveal very quickly that the entire constitutional scheme was intended to protect marriage. Most important, it was to protect Quebecers’ leave to marriage in the rites of their own churches.

Marriage has been thought to be that institution which governs the heterosexual sexual union between a man and a woman. This sexual union is driven by the natural human and organic instinct towards reproduction. It is to this specific sexual union that nature and God have entrusted the grand mystery of life called procreation and the bringing forth of issue.

Honourable senators, I have been a defender of homosexual people all my life. I will also add that the public interest in marriage is the phenomenon of procreation. Other than that, there is no public interest. In fact, there is no public interest whatsoever in anyone’s sexual happiness or in anyone’s sexual gratification.

I was an adherent to Mr. Trudeau’s notion that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. I would add that he based his statement and his work at the time on the Wolfenden report and on the notion of the rights of privacy in sexual behaviour and in sexual morality. The bill before us does the opposite. The Liberal Party has once again abandoned Mr. Trudeau’s view.
 
Senator Anne Cools continued:
I believe that the conclusions of the Attorney General of Canada and a tiny minority of judges in the country are not only wrong and contrary to our Constitution, but their arrival at these conclusions were based in what I would describe as constitutional deconstruction, constitutional vandalism and, quite frankly, even some social engineering, because their result was not to extend rights to anyone. The result is to alter the fundamental nature and character of the institution of marriage.
Honourable senators, in any society where there were Black people, descendants of the African slaves, no institution was fundamentally altered to be able to accommodate those Black people.

Senator Joyal, the sponsor of Bill C-38 here in the Senate, gave us a wide review of the history of the development of the Charter, in particular section 15. However, I note that he presented very little evidence to support the reasoning behind the application of section 15 to marriage. I understand the reason for the application of section 15 to employment and all those kinds of issues, but not to marriage. He also mentioned in passing the question of abortion and its current legal status in Canada as achieved under the Charter.

Senator Joyal also mentioned en passant the fact that I sought and obtained intervenor status in the marriage reference in the Supreme Court. My reasons for seeking intervenor status were inspired by two things: The first was my abiding concern for the proper constitutional relationship between the constituent parts of the Constitution, being the cabinet, the courts and Parliament. The maxim is that there is to be constitutional comity between these three in the exercise of their proper constitutional roles and their proper constitutional jurisdiction. My second reason for seeking intervenor status was the inspiration I received from Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his response to the 1980 repatriation decision. As we will recall, Mr. Trudeau put this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, pressured by the then leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Mr. Joe Clark.

Honourable senators, as we know, Mr. Trudeau was the progenitor of the Charter of Rights. In 1991, Mr. Trudeau spoke about the Supreme Court of Canada at the opening of the Bora Laskin Library in Toronto, named after the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. Trudeau spoke candidly, introspectively and reflectively about the Supreme Court’s treatment of the 1980 repatriation reference. He also spoke sternly about the Supreme Court of Canada’s role in this opinion decision, wherein he said:

… it is not a role to which a court of law, striving to remain above the day-to-day currents of political life, should aspire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top