M
mfrances
Guest
I stand corrected on this point then. I thought the priest had created his own church with heretical beliefs.
- Status
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
NCR did a predictably sympathetic piece on this situation last year.
I live in the Cleveland Diocese and attended high school with this Priest, so I know what a talented and gifted man this is.
I’ve watched the unfolding of these events with dismay and uncertainty at first. At first, because it was obvious that the Bishop was in the wrong initially (as born out by the later Vatican judgement.)
However, after the judgement, the Cleveland Bishop was very charitable and even meek in making every effort to try and bring about a reconciliation.
It has been over two years of overtures from the Bishop that went unheeded and scorned by the Rev. Marrone, and his congregation. They claim they are following their conscience and only thinking about their community. But couldn’t any of the great schismatics of the past have made the same claim? Didn’t they in fact?
Although even John Henry Newman would have sided with conscience over the Pope, he was very careful to distinguish between the voice of conscience and the voice of his own desires. So in this situation, the Bishop was initially unjust, and the priest and his congregation were treated UNCHARITABLY. However, the Bishop never required anything that was actually immoral or wrong. Obedience to one’s Bishop, even when that Bishop is exercising poor judgement, would not be morally wrong or against one’s conscience. There are certainly other ways that the injustice could be addressed without disobedience to one’s Bishop, which is indeed morally wrong. This was in fact accomplished by the appeal to the Vatican over the closings, which Marrone’s church did win. How tragic that the original church is now opened again, the injustice rectified, while the disobedience and schism remain.
Also, the Catholic Church is our FIRST AND PRIMARY community. We don’t put our own local community’s needs before the entire Universal Catholic Church and her duly appointed pastors.
I feel sorry for the congregation as they have been led astray by this pastor. I also feel sorry for the pastor, as he is guilty of leading his flock astray, which is very grave.
Finally, even in this excommunication, the Bishop has treated it as a final plea for reconciliation. But I think at this point the Rubicon has been crossed.
I live in the Cleveland Diocese and attended high school with this Priest, so I know what a talented and gifted man this is.
I’ve watched the unfolding of these events with dismay and uncertainty at first. At first, because it was obvious that the Bishop was in the wrong initially (as born out by the later Vatican judgement.)
However, after the judgement, the Cleveland Bishop was very charitable and even meek in making every effort to try and bring about a reconciliation.
It has been over two years of overtures from the Bishop that went unheeded and scorned by the Rev. Marrone, and his congregation. They claim they are following their conscience and only thinking about their community. But couldn’t any of the great schismatics of the past have made the same claim? Didn’t they in fact?
Although even John Henry Newman would have sided with conscience over the Pope, he was very careful to distinguish between the voice of conscience and the voice of his own desires. So in this situation, the Bishop was initially unjust, and the priest and his congregation were treated UNCHARITABLY. However, the Bishop never required anything that was actually immoral or wrong. Obedience to one’s Bishop, even when that Bishop is exercising poor judgement, would not be morally wrong or against one’s conscience. There are certainly other ways that the injustice could be addressed without disobedience to one’s Bishop, which is indeed morally wrong. This was in fact accomplished by the appeal to the Vatican over the closings, which Marrone’s church did win. How tragic that the original church is now opened again, the injustice rectified, while the disobedience and schism remain.
Also, the Catholic Church is our FIRST AND PRIMARY community. We don’t put our own local community’s needs before the entire Universal Catholic Church and her duly appointed pastors.
I feel sorry for the congregation as they have been led astray by this pastor. I also feel sorry for the pastor, as he is guilty of leading his flock astray, which is very grave.
Finally, even in this excommunication, the Bishop has treated it as a final plea for reconciliation. But I think at this point the Rubicon has been crossed.
B
brumano
Guest
NCR did a predictably sympathetic piece on this situation last year.
I live in the Cleveland Diocese and attended high school with this Priest, so I know what a talented and gifted man this is.
I’ve watched the unfolding of these events with dismay and uncertainty at first. At first, because it was obvious that the Bishop was in the wrong initially (as born out by the later Vatican judgement.)
It has been over two years of overtures from the Bishop that went unheeded and scorned by the Rev. Marrone, and his congregation. They claim they are following their conscience and only thinking about their community. But couldn’t any of the great schismatics of the past have made the same claim? Didn’t they in fact?
Although even John Henry Newman would have sided with conscience over the Pope, he was very careful to distinguish between the voice of conscience and the voice of his own desires. So in this situation, the Bishop was initially unjust, and the priest and his congregation were treated UNCHARITABLY. However, the Bishop never required anything that was actually immoral or wrong. Obedience to one’s Bishop, even when that Bishop is exercising poor judgement, would not be morally wrong or against one’s conscience. There are certainly other ways that the injustice could be addressed without disobedience to one’s Bishop, which is indeed morally wrong. This was in fact accomplished by the appeal to the Vatican over the closings, which Marrone’s church did win. How tragic that the original church is now opened again, the injustice rectified, while the disobedience and schism remain.
I feel sorry for the congregation as they have been led astray by this pastor. I also feel sorry for the pastor, as he is guilty of leading his flock astray, which is very grave.
Finally, even in this excommunication, the Bishop has treated it as a final plea for reconciliation. But I think at this point the Rubicon has been crossed.
L
Lucky7
Guest
But this is what the article (the one posted at the end of page one) states as the reasons:
The reasons cited were that his parish allowed women to co-officiate in Masses, gay couples to marry and anyone, regardless of their creed, to take communion.
How are these reasons simply schismatic and not heretical?
L
Lucky7
Guest
*"[Marrone] and the people of the Community of St. Peter take the Gospel seriously," she said. “It’s far more important to follow the Gospel than canon law. This is an example of rules getting in the way of authentic Christianity.” *
Well, I’ll be…where have I heard this before?
B
brumano
Guest
how do you define co-officiating as opposed to serving at the altar as women now do in many parishes as altar servers, would they all become heretics too? If they had co celebrated I think the enemies of st peter community would have had them answering to charges like that long before. I don’t know if they even conduct any marriages there of anyknid much less knowingly homosexual. When communion is given there is no one standing there interrogating people about whether they are catholics, or catholics in the state of grace, to be able receive; but there isn’t anyone standing there at any catholic church in the world to be sure everyone is just so either. All of those things can be lumped together as sacriledges or depradations, but that is not heresy a heresy is a doctrine, a teaching that directly contradicts and is in opposition to a clear and absolute sacred doctrine of the church. Like the infamous heretics advanced.
The hard problem for the diocese is that whatever they were doing, they were doing it for a pretty long time in a church building that was only nine blocks east of the diocesan hdqrtrs. on Superior Ave. The Bishop before the current Bishop didn’t seem too concerned about anything they might be doing and the current bishop hasn’t brought any of these things up either, not publicly, but he insisted they comply fully in closing the parish. He ordered them not to conduct the liturgy in an unsanctioned building they refused and they defied this order that is why the pastor is being excommunicated. It’s not because of heresy it’s because of disobedience, but the excom. decree still was meanspirited and gratuitous really the priest served for something like 40yrs. he’s well past retirement age and he could have just spared him his family and his parishoners and everybody in this area this final blow.
A
Anthony86
Guest
That last part of the article appears to be about a second group in another diocese, whose pastor (one Fr Callan) was excommunicated at an earlier date. If I understand correctly, the author merely mentions them as a somewhat similar case.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
How does the previous Bishop figure into all of this? Bishop Pilla is retired, and was retired when all of this flared up. It must be very painful to Biship Pilla however, as he was the Bishop that installed Marrone at St. Peter’s in the first place, and also taught him in the Seminary.
The current Bishop, although he was wrong in the way he closed St. Peter’s (as the Vatican has said) he has been VERY accommodating and conciliatory in his handling of the matter SINCE the rebuke from the Vatican. That MUST have been a very bitter pill for the Bishop.
The excommunication decree was fully expected and NOT mean-spirited or anything of the kind. The Bishop’s hand was forced by a recalcitrant priest. He could hardly IGNORE this open defiance, as that would be contrary to the Gospel. The Bishop has said the decree is medicinal, and continues to hope for Maronne’s return.
This priest is about 65 yrs. of age, so he’s hardly “well past” the age of retirement.
It’s true this was a good, talented and charismatic priest all the way up until the closing of St. Peter’s. However, his obedience and loyalty to the Church and the Bishop he pledged his obedience to were tested in this event. Sadly, this priest has chosen to cling to lies and illusions, and to lead his flock astray in the process. The whole thing is tragic. There is still time for reconciliation, and the Bishop has offered his hand, but the priest has in effect said “I will not serve.”
B
brumano
Guest
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Recently Bishop Lennon has met with the leaders of the break away parish of St. Peter’s. We are awaiting news on the outcome.
- Status