Diocese of Rockville Centre rejects gay ex-eucharistic minister's reinstatement request

[LisaA]

Um, first would come the Sacrament of Reconciliation, predicated upon a firm purpose of amendment – precisely like all of us are expected to do, and no less than him.

Who said anything about that in the first few posts before yours? I’ve only read that far, but you seem to be the one introducing melodrama.

Just like every heterosexual Catholic who is not within a valid marriage, never married, and possibly will never marry. (Or is widowed and not remarried.) Which is

for all the above persons.

Because of course, it’s just so much easier to abstain from sex if you’re a heterosexual. Yep, controlling one’s urges are just a piece of cake if you’re straight.
Yes, it’s you.

Brilliant observation! Isn’t it interesting how it is not considered outrageous that the Church expects us to participate in sexual activity only within marriage—IOW others are to be chaste or celibate depending on the vocation.

But heaven forbid someone with SSA be held to the same standard! As to the canard that those with SSA also need companionship, friendship and interpersonal relationships but such relationships don’t “count” unless there is a sexual component…yeah right.

Very typical of this entire self aborbed self determining life…it’s all about what I want or “need” and thus these factors are elevated far beyond reality.

LIsa

 

[LisaA]

An interesting observation. It seems to me that it applies to much of current thinking, whether relating to heterosexual or homosexual matters.

We are slaves to our impulses apparently, much more like animals than sharing the Divine nature of God.

LIsa

 

[Lormar]

Read some of the comments. Of course the reality that anyone who openly opposed Catholic teaching would not be allowed as an E.M. is ignored in the quest to normalize homosexuality and redefine marriage.

You want to join an organization but ignore its teachings, make yourself the all knowing god, lead others to scandal and confusion and then complain when you can’t participate? Right makes perfect sense to me.

Lisa

 

[Lormar]

An interesting observation. It seems to me that it applies to much of current thinking, whether relating to heterosexual or homosexual matters.

Jim, I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Lucky7]

OK, so I’m going to take this further…here’s my question: Since we know that this man is not reconciled to the Church and is married to a man, does he receive communion?

 

[Lormar]

I am so tired of all of it.

 

[Basilios]

OK, so I’m going to take this further…here’s my question: Since we know that this man is not reconciled to the Church and is married to a man, does he receive communion?

Kyrie Eleison! Goodness, a horrible situation this man is in. May Our Lady strengthen him. He must not receive Holy Communion. He is pretending to be married to a man, defying Church teaching, and living in sin. Receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament in that state would only condemn him further.

God Bless +

 

[Lucky7]

Kyrie Eleison! Goodness, a horrible situation this man is in. May Our Lady strengthen him. He must not receive Holy Communion. He is pretending to be married to a man, defying Church teaching, and living in sin. Receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament in that state would only condemn him further.

God Bless +

I may be wrong (and I hope I am), but I’m going to bet that, although he has been told he can not distribute holy communion as an EM, he is allowed to receive communion.

 

[Basilios]

I may be wrong (and I hope I am), but I’m going to bet that, although he has been told he can not distribute holy communion as an EM, he is allowed to receive communion.

I hope he has been told to refrain from receiving Our Lord; but who knows.

 

[Seeker1961]

It seems that this is setting a precedent for some kind of detailed background check for anyone who wants to serve as an EM. Prescription records will have to be checked to make sure nobody is using birth control pills, perhaps the medicine cabinet and the bedside table should be checked for condoms. Every aspect of the person’s life needs to be checked to make sure all Church teachings are being followed to the letter.

I’m in total agreement that anyone who serves in the Church must adhere to Her teachings, ALL of them. Just because this sin is visible and public doesn’t mean the rest of them are to be ignored.

 

[LisaA]

It seems that this is setting a precedent for some kind of detailed background check for anyone who wants to serve as an EM. Prescription records will have to be checked to make sure nobody is using birth control pills, perhaps the medicine cabinet and the bedside table should be checked for condoms. Every aspect of the person’s life needs to be checked to make sure all Church teachings are being followed to the letter.

I’m in total agreement that anyone who serves in the Church must adhere to Her teachings, ALL of them. Just because this sin is visible and public doesn’t mean the rest of them are to be ignored.

Did it take a background check to determine this man was “married” to another man? If not why on earth would you suggest this is a precedant. We had a very similar situation with an EM who as it tuned out, moved in with her fiance. She was asked to step down and not to take Communion. Now I suspect she had been engaged in a sexual relationship before moving the tea towels. But only when it became known did it become an issue.

Let’s face it, we are ALL sinners and any EM who is standing there has sinned as well. But when it becomes PUBLIC, when it can lead others to scandal, then it’s dealt with in this manner. The situation is rather like the militant lesbian who went to the priest beforehand, made an issue that she was a lesbian, AND engaged in a sexual relationship and basically challenged him to try to prevent her from Communion. Sadly the Priest did deny Communion and HE got in trouble!..good grief.

Lisa

 

[Robert_Sock]

The gay minister is being discriminated against. Nobody knows if he is having sex, which would change the picture completely. How many Eucharistic ministers miss Mass regularly (Mortal sin), but are not forced to quite.

 

[LisaA]

The gay minister is being discriminated against. Nobody knows if he is having sex, which would change the picture completely. How many Eucharistic ministers miss Mass regularly (Mortal sin), but are not forced to quite.

Robert he claimes to be “married” to another man. I suspect that he wouldn’t “marry” a man unless he was in a sexual relatonship.

While I agree that other EM’s have sinned and said so above, when the sin becomes a public matter, then it’ not just the sin but leading others to scandal. Further the idea that given the grave nature of the sin, that he felt worthy to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ shows poor catechesis at best or heresy and defiance at worst.

Lisa

 

[Seeker1961]

Did it take a background check to determine this man was “married” to another man? If not why on earth would you suggest this is a precedant. We had a very similar situation with an EM who as it tuned out, moved in with her fiance. She was asked to step down and not to take Communion. Now I suspect she had been engaged in a sexual relationship before moving the tea towels. But only when it became known did it become an issue.

Let’s face it, we are ALL sinners and any EM who is standing there has sinned as well. But when it becomes PUBLIC, when it can lead others to scandal, then it’s dealt with in this manner. The situation is rather like the militant lesbian who went to the priest beforehand, made an issue that she was a lesbian, AND engaged in a sexual relationship and basically challenged him to try to prevent her from Communion. Sadly the Priest did deny Communion and HE got in trouble!..good grief.

Lisa

So when a parishioner spots their EM at the drug store buying condoms and goes to Father? That’s public. Would we expect that EM to quit or be removed?

All I’m suggesting is you can’t pick and choose what sins you’re going to punish people for. A gay person in a relationship can’t be an EM, but he’s not the only one that needs to be held to a standard.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert he claimes to be “married” to another man. I suspect that he wouldn’t “marry” a man unless he was in a sexual relatonship.

While I agree that other EM’s have sinned and said so above, when the sin becomes a public matter, then it’ not just the sin but leading others to scandal. Further the idea that given the grave nature of the sin, that he felt worthy to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ shows poor catechesis at best or heresy and defiance at worst.

Lisa

I’m not too sure, but I think we should be non-judgmental.

 

[pnewton]

Um, first would come the Sacrament of Reconciliation, predicated upon a firm purpose of amendment – precisely like all of us are expected to do, and no less than him.

The media seems to always ignore this in their rush to normlaize homosexuality. Everyone is called to live a pure and chaste life in whatever situation they are. He is called to live a life in the manner of every other Christian. Is a promiscuous man allowed to engage in polygamy? Is a pedophile able to engage in a child marriage? Those tempted by homosexuality are no worse and no better off than the rest of humanity. As with all peoples, some have greater difficulty, some an easier time. The problem here is not that this man has committed homosexual acts, but rather that he has gone past recognize the sin of sex outside of marriage and publicly endorsed this sin as acceptable.

 

[LisaA]

So when a parishioner spots their EM at the drug store buying condoms and goes to Father? That’s public. Would we expect that EM to quit or be removed?

All I’m suggesting is you can’t pick and choose what sins you’re going to punish people for. A gay person in a relationship can’t be an EM, but he’s not the only one that needs to be held to a standard.

Did you bother to read the original article? The man was “openly gay” he “demanded reinstatement” he brought boxes of petitions to demand that the bishops reinstate him.

So not only was he openly sinning but demanding that the Church accommodate his heretical views and lifestyle.

I would expect the Bishop to also hold other open and defiant sinners to the same standard. NO ONE HAS SAID OTHERWISE!

Would you suggest the Bishop and the Parish Priest simply look the other way? I don’t.
Please read the article and tell me what you believe would have been the appropriate action.

ROCKVILLE CENTRE - An openly gay man formally demanded reinstatement as a eucharistic minister today at the Diocese of Rockville Centre.

Former Catholic eucharistic minister Nicholas Coppola and members of the gay community arrived at the Rockville Centre Diocese offices this morning, carrying boxes full of petitions. The petitions call for Bishop William Murphy to reinstate Coppola, who volunteered for the last four years at St. Anthony’s in Oceanside. Coppola was dismissed after he married a man earlier this year.

The diocese rejected his reinstatement request, saying Coppola was fired because “by marrying under New York State’s same-sex marriage law, he took a public position against church teachings.”

Still, Father Nick Lombardi says Coppola continues to be a valued member of his Oceanside parish.

 

[Suslar]

So when a parishioner spots their EM at the drug store buying condoms and goes to Father? That’s public. Would we expect that EM to quit or be removed?

All I’m suggesting is you can’t pick and choose what sins you’re going to punish people for. A gay person in a relationship can’t be an EM, but he’s not the only one that needs to be held to a standard.

Yes, we would expect any EMHC who is involved in public scandal to resign or be removed from the ministry. However, it’s important to remember that witnessing outward actions are not the same as judging the interior disposition of someone’s heart - for none of us can do the later, but we can all do the former. If an EMHC is leading another into sin, is causing scandal, or is not in good standing with the Church, he or she should not be serving.

Our priest had to break that news to those who remarried outside the Church without first obtaining a Declaration of Nullity and those who publicly campaign for abortion rights. We need to remember it’s Jesus Christ that is being gifted to the people of the community and while no human being could ever be worthy of such a task, those who are publicly denying Church doctrine by causing visible scandal should not be serving.in the capacity of EMHC.

 

[LilyM]

So when a parishioner spots their EM at the drug store buying condoms and goes to Father? That’s public. Would we expect that EM to quit or be removed?

All I’m suggesting is you can’t pick and choose what sins you’re going to punish people for. A gay person in a relationship can’t be an EM, but he’s not the only one that needs to be held to a standard.

People use condoms for other than contraceptive purposes. I’ve heard of gunowners using them to keep bits of their guns dry when out shooting in inclement weather, for example.

So one cannot assume merely because they saw someone buying condoms that they are using them for an immoral purpose.

 

[Basilios]

Easy solution: get rid of EM’s except when they actually meet the definition of EM - i.e. 100000 people, 1 priest. Most of the time it’s just an abuse and a misguided way to get people involved. Laity shouldn’t be handling Our Lord.

Always found it funny that most people who push for EM’s also have a thing against the EF. Yet they’ll try make out that the Extraordinary in EF means “hardly ever to be said, maybe once a year” but the Extraordinary in EM means “At every single opportunity”.

Kyrie Eleison.