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

[pnewton]

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.

Since this is not actually true, it is not a very good solution.

 

[JamesCaruso]

OK, we have judged Coppola to be “not in good standing”, correct? We have prohibited him from being an EM. What else shall we do? Since we know that he is copulating with another man, will he be prohibited from receiving the Sacrament of Love? Or–Heaven forbid–should we excommunicate him without a second look? It seems that he has only one option, that being to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of his life, unless, of course, he can pray his gay away. Is it me, or is this a very, very sad situation?

Is celibacy a very, very sad situation? In the priesthood it is considered a gift. Why for a lay person is it to be considered a curse? The priest does not lose his attraction to carnal things by some magic that occurs at his ordination. You might say, “But he freely chooses to serve God.” Are any of us at liberty as Catholics to not serve God?

The priest has simply answered God’s call to a particular form of service. Whatever the gay man’s calling, it does not include gay sex. It would be wrong to think that God is not mindful of the man’s predicament.

I know a man whose wife does not enjoy sex. The man decided not to insist on his marital rights and became celibate. Is he to be pitied? He does not think so. He sees it as an opportunity to give something of value, something sacrificial and honorable, to God.

Maybe, I’m wrong, but think about it. No one is born with a right to be sexually fulfilled. Life is full of crosses, big and small. You don’t have to go out and find one-- they’re friendly critters, they come right up to you, and they’re perfectly tailored just for you.

Do I lack compassion? My compassion goes out when he he struggles with his attraction and cannot overcome it. Then I feel compassion. Then I want to pray for him. Then I want the floodgates of heaven to open up. But if he can overcome, if he can put to death the desires of the flesh, then I rejoice with him. Then I admire his courage and his strength. Then I say to myself, this is the way it should be. This is what God expects us to strive for, and it’s not so much achieving the victory, as it is persevering in the fight, no matter how often we fail. Where sin did abound, grace did more abound.

I feel sorry for the whole human race, because that’s what Jesus did-- He felt sorry for all of us. But He also said, any man who does not take up his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me. It’s a fine line.

Thank you for feeling compassion. We all need God’s mercy.

 

[Basilios]

Since this is not actually true, it is not a very good solution.

Since it is actually true, it is a very good solution.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

I was wondering why the Diocese allowed it to go that far. According to the article he was a member of the gay community and was openly gay. I don’t know if that is true, or what the Church actually knew about this man, but if so, that seems sufficient grounds for taking away his role as EM without the gay marriage. It is scandalous for an openly gay person (meaning someone who makes no pretense to be against gay sex) to touch or distribute the Consecrated Host. I suppose it is a ticklish area, in that a person can be gay in orientation, also in mannerisms, without being gay in practice-- I think. But the gay marriage can leave no question in anyone’s mind. The Church teaches against gay marriage-- period.

I am glad the Bishop acted decisively, both for the sake of the Catholic faithful, and for sake of dispelling the strange delusion that this man must have suffered from to believe he was doing nothing wrong. He actually collected petitions! [Shaking my head in disbelief]

 

[pnewton]

Since it is actually true, it is a very good solution.

Then perhaps you care to back up your statement by showing where the Catholic Church has declared your opinion as truth. One priest to 100000 people? Can you support this extreme statement?

 

[Basilios]

Then perhaps you care to back up your statement by showing where the Catholic Church has declared your opinion as truth. One priest to 100000 people? Can you support this extreme statement?

No need to be pedantic and take that number as if I pretended to give out a concrete number to be held by all the faithful.

You and I both know that the law in itself gives no numbers and is lacking in it’s direction. It’s really just up to each individual pastor to decide what counts as necessary, which is precisely where the danger is. In such cases we must rely on tradition to see what is to be done.

We could go on and on about this. I take the traditional view that the laity shouldn’t handle the Most Blessed Sacrament except in extraordinary circumstances, and the practice of the Roman Church for centuries in not having EM’s as we now have it. You can follow the new way if you like.

God bless.

 

[Lucky7]

No need to be pedantic and take that number as if I pretended to give out a concrete number to be held by all the faithful.

You and I both know that the law in itself gives no numbers and is lacking in it’s direction. It’s really just up to each individual pastor to decide what counts as necessary, which is precisely where the danger is. In such cases we must rely on tradition to see what is to be done.

We could go on and on about this. I take the traditional view that the laity shouldn’t handle the Most Blessed Sacrament except in extraordinary circumstances, and the practice of the Roman Church for centuries in not having EM’s as we now have it. You can follow the new way if you like.

God bless.

I have said this often, I am not a traditionalist but I can see where Basilios is coming from. The Vatican II documents call EM’s Extraordinary Ministers, not Eucharistic Ministers and yet there are EM’s at every mass I attend. Most Catholics do not even realize this because people go around calling them Eucharistic Ministers. This is yet another liturgical abuse.

 

[LilyM]

No need to be pedantic and take that number as if I pretended to give out a concrete number to be held by all the faithful.

You and I both know that the law in itself gives no numbers and is lacking in it’s direction. It’s really just up to each individual pastor to decide what counts as necessary, which is precisely where the danger is. In such cases we must rely on tradition to see what is to be done.

We could go on and on about this. I take the traditional view that the laity shouldn’t handle the Most Blessed Sacrament except in extraordinary circumstances, and the practice of the Roman Church for centuries in not having EM’s as we now have it. You can follow the new way if you like.

God bless.

The Church is well able to provide specific guidance where such is warranted or appropriate. And offers much in regard the Mass. Rubrics prescribe the number of candles, for example, required to be on the altar at Mass, Canon prescribes the ingredients for the Eucharistic species and so on.

So rest assured if Rome leaves details such as use of EMHC up to pastoral discretion it is not for want of attention, but because it has weighed up the pros and cons and decided upon reflection that it really is better to leave them to the discretion of each pastor.

Do some abuse the privilege? For sure. Do you think Rome is unaware of the abuses? Of course not. It is fair to surmise that its action or lack thereof reflects how relatively important (or in this case unimportant) it considers the issue to be.

On a tangent - I bet you’d be thrilled to bits if every single Mass was an ‘Extraordinary’ Form.

 

[pnewton]

You can follow the new way if you like.

I follow the Catholic Church, thank you very much. In this article, if we can get past this particular agenda, we find that it is not the number of lay peole giving communion that Bishop Murphy addressed, but that this particular man was performing this task and was living an active and public homosexual lifestyle. Therefore, your solution is not relevant, as the bishop in question did not object to the practice that you do not like. This thread is not about the topic you raised.

 

[Basilios]

On a tangent - I bet you’d be thrilled to bits if every single Mass was an ‘Extraordinary’ Form.

LilyM, this kind of remark is unnecessary and above you. What are you looking for, trying to bait me in such an obvious way? But let me answer.

Of course not… if you mean in the Universal Church. If you only mean the Roman Rite, then yes, you are correct.

I follow the Catholic Church, thank you very much.

So do I. Thank you

This thread is not about the topic you raised.

So why did you go through so many posts responding to me? Easier just to PM me no? - or leave it to the moderators to tell me off?

The fact is that it is about the topic I raised. In particulars, no. In the general scheme of things, it most certainly is about the legitimacy of the use of lay people as distributing Our Lord. All of these things could easily be avoided, I believe, and I argue, if the use of EM’s was restricted to it’s definition.

But since you think it’s off topic, let me not derail it any longer.

God Bless you +

 

[Tigg]

OK, we have judged Coppola to be “not in good standing”, correct? We have prohibited him from being an EM. What else shall we do? Since we know that he is copulating with another man, will he be prohibited from receiving the Sacrament of Love? Or–Heaven forbid–should we excommunicate him without a second look? It seems that he has only one option, that being to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of his life, unless, of course, he can pray his gay away. Is it me, or is this a very, very sad situation?

“As the World Turns,” our sole and complete identity is rooted and grounded in sex, sex, sex and the promise of a fuller life with Christ integrating us into wholeness to be disregarded. It’s sad all right!

 

[Tigg]

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

I’m not too sure, but I think we should follow the Vatican directive, Immensae Caritatis which would forbid an openly gay man, living in relationship with another, from being an EMHC.

 

[Netty1]

NeedsMercy;10611300:

OK, we have judged Coppola to be “not in good standing”, correct? We have prohibited him from being an EM. What else shall we do? Since we know that he is copulating with another man, will he be prohibited from receiving the Sacrament of Love? Or–Heaven forbid–should we excommunicate him without a second look? It seems that he has only one option, that being to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of his life, unless, of course, he can pray his gay away. Is it me, or is this a very, very sad situation?

Is celibacy a very, very sad situation? In the priesthood it is considered a gift. Why for a lay person is it to be considered a curse? The priest does not lose his attraction to carnal things by some magic that occurs at his ordination. You might say, “But he freely chooses to serve God.” Are any of us at liberty as Catholics to not serve God?

The priest has simply answered God’s call to a particular form of service. Whatever the gay man’s calling, it does not include gay sex. It would be wrong to think that God is not mindful of the man’s predicament.

I know a man whose wife does not enjoy sex. The man decided not to insist on his marital rights and became celibate. Is he to be pitied? He does not think so. He sees it as an opportunity to give something of value, something sacrificial and honorable, to God.

Maybe, I’m wrong, but think about it. No one is born with a right to be sexually fulfilled. Life is full of crosses, big and small. You don’t have to go out and find one-- they’re friendly critters, they come right up to you, and they’re perfectly tailored just for you.

Do I lack compassion? My compassion goes out when he he struggles with his attraction and cannot overcome it. Then I feel compassion. Then I want to pray for him. Then I want the floodgates of heaven to open up. But if he can overcome, if he can put to death the desires of the flesh, then I rejoice with him. Then I admire his courage and his strength. Then I say to myself, this is the way it should be. This is what God expects us to strive for, and it’s not so much achieving the victory, as it is persevering in the fight, no matter how often we fail. Where sin did abound, grace did more abound.

I feel sorry for the whole human race, because that’s what Jesus did-- He felt sorry for all of us. But He also said, any man who does not take up his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me. It’s a fine line.

Thank you for feeling compassion. We all need God’s mercy.

:clapping:…

 

[LisaA]

I was wondering why the Diocese allowed it to go that far. According to the article he was a member of the gay community and was openly gay. I don’t know if that is true, or what the Church actually knew about this man, but if so, that seems sufficient grounds for taking away his role as EM without the gay marriage. It is scandalous for an openly gay person (meaning someone who makes no pretense to be against gay sex) to touch or distribute the Consecrated Host. I suppose it is a ticklish area, in that a person can be gay in orientation, also in mannerisms, without being gay in practice-- I think. But the gay marriage can leave no question in anyone’s mind. The Church teaches against gay marriage-- period.

I am glad the Bishop acted decisively, both for the sake of the Catholic faithful, and for sake of dispelling the strange delusion that this man must have suffered from to believe he was doing nothing wrong. He actually collected petitions! [Shaking my head in disbelief]

James first appreciated your previous post as well. Good point that “crosses are friendly little critters…” and that sexual fulfillment is not the be all and end all of life although as Tigg noted, it seems to be so in this culture…UGH!

I agree, that it probably WAS a very ticklish situation for the Bishop as the man was perhaps open about being gay but could not be presumed to be engaged in a sexual relationship UNTIL the public act of marriage. Sadly I think that being openly gay and still an E.M. emboldened him to take the next step. As you said he was clearly of the opinion that being in a sexual relationship with another man wasn’t wrong. Whether it was poor catechesis or defiance is unknown. Honestly suspect the latter sadly. In NOT proclaiming the Truth, in allowing pro abortion, pro gay marriage politicians to receive the Eucharist, we have sown the seeds of dissent on other issues. People given latitude will often push the issue further, particularly if it comports with their own philosophy or self serving desires.

Lisa

 

[HB11]

:clapping:…

statement on website Diocesan Office of Communications date April 11, 2013 . Sorry don’t know how to link, but its well said.

 

[Lucky7]

In NOT proclaiming the Truth, in allowing pro abortion, pro gay marriage politicians to receive the Eucharist, we have sown the seeds of dissent on other issues.

Yup. Until something is done about this we will not see things start to turn around. The “pastoral approach” is not working folks…time to make a change.

 

[Elizium23]

Since he does trust the Church on the Eucharist, why wouldn’t he trust it on such a moral issue?
If he doesn’t believe the Church on a simple moral issue, why would he trust it on an issue like the Eucharist?

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?

I can guarantee you that he still takes communion (I would hesitate to call it “receiving”). Can you imagine the magnitude of scandal (in the secular sense of the word) and the press coverage if someone dared deny the Eucharist to this guy? Remember what happened to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo.

Which brings me to wonder if this guy really does trust the Church on the Eucharist. Perhaps he thought his role as EMHC was just to give magic cookies to everyone. He seems to have no concept of the importance of being in a state of grace to minister to Christ’s faithful or to receive His Body and Blood worthily… what makes him ready to safeguard and distribute Him to others? Is he really going to care if a host falls on the floor?

Canon 915 requires that the Church protect the Eucharist from sacrilege. She has made a laudable first step in removing this sinner from ministry. May she continue to safeguard her sacraments from the unworthy in the future.

 

[JamesCaruso]

He seems to have no concept of the importance of being in a state of grace to minister to Christ’s faithful or to receive His Body and Blood worthily… what makes him ready to safeguard and distribute Him to others?

Gays are in complete denial. With all the gay advocacy over the past 40 years, it is no wonder. This man believes himself to be in the state of grace. His actions reveal this. Petitions instead of penance. Indignation instead of shame. I had an image the other day praying of a sword thrust right through Jesus’ heart. He took on more suffering than we can ever fathom when he decided to love us, of this I am certain.

 

[JMJSHJ]

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.

Sure lets ban Catholics who work for Planned Parenthood from Communion or who give a donation to them. Let’s also deny communion to those who voted for Pres. Obama for starters!!

 

[LisaA]

Gays are in complete denial. With all the gay advocacy over the past 40 years, it is no wonder. This man believes himself to be in the state of grace. His actions reveal this. Petitions instead of penance. Indignation instead of shame. I had an image the other day praying of a sword thrust right through Jesus’ heart. He took on more suffering than we can ever fathom when he decided to love us, of this I am certain.

and ditto with Catholics who support politicians who are abortion advocates or other public scandal.

I don’t think we are told frequently or forcefully enough how to approach the Eucharist. As noted above, I suspect some think it’s a magic cookie or at best a symbol rather than the Real Presence.

The Church’s position on those facing SSA is charitable as well as clear. Nothing more is being asked of those with SSA than with other desires and urges. But as you said, due to all of the media support and political correctness, those with SSA seem to believe it means everyone else but them.

Lisa