M
El Paso Diocese Backs Away from Priest's Stance against Homosexuality
- Status
P
Peggy_in_Burien
Guest
Very sad and disturbing.
C
Columba_Tom
Guest
Sad story. Do we have the leaders we deserve?
Let us pray for Fr. Michael Rodriguez, who will doubtless be receiving hate mail.
And let us pray for the VG and others of the diocese wh may be leading others astray.
Give me again the joy of your help;
with a spirit of fervour sustain me,
that I may teach transgressors your ways
and sinners may return to you.
Let us pray for Fr. Michael Rodriguez, who will doubtless be receiving hate mail.
And let us pray for the VG and others of the diocese wh may be leading others astray.
Give me again the joy of your help;
with a spirit of fervour sustain me,
that I may teach transgressors your ways
and sinners may return to you.
O
odhiambo
Guest
Fr. Michael Rodriguez is right. What he says is what the Church teaches. I wonder what the diocese says is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
Let us all encourage others to read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” so that:
Catholics will not be lead astray,
and that non-Catholics will know the ‘truth’ about what the Catholic Church teaches.
Human error whether accidental or purposeful abounds.
Catholics will not be lead astray,
and that non-Catholics will know the ‘truth’ about what the Catholic Church teaches.
Human error whether accidental or purposeful abounds.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Headline is a bit misleading, per usual with LifeSiteNews.
From the El Paso Times:
From the El Paso Times:
The diocese is wisely staying out of a political issue.
K
Kenneth_Jones
Guest
I think that’s the issue, isn’t it? …that the Church doesn’t come out pro or con regarding candidates.
What the Bishop’s rep coulda/shoulda done was to make crystal clear that the Church’s teaching was accurately reiterated, and could / should be used a guide for forming the conscience of the citizenry, however she takes no stand for or against any office holder; that is your job, and mine.
What the Bishop’s rep coulda/shoulda done was to make crystal clear that the Church’s teaching was accurately reiterated, and could / should be used a guide for forming the conscience of the citizenry, however she takes no stand for or against any office holder; that is your job, and mine.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t understand how the reporter or writer of the LifeSite article messed this one up. When you go to the article in the El Paso newspaper you can clearly see what happened. Father Rodriguez and the Diocese are both innocent here and are being used as pawns by someone with a political agenda.
Here is the breakdown as I see it. Fr. Rodriguez writes the articles for his congregation. As a priest, he can certainly do this. If his work appears in the newspaper, the Church has every right to say that this is Father’s position and not its position. The words are very important. The diocese is not saying that Father is wrong. It’s simply saying that this is not the Church’s position. The Diocese has to be very careful how it responds so as not to throw Father under the bus or teach error.
If the diocese says that Father is wrong, it undermines his work, effectively throwing him under the bus.
On the other hand, if the diocese says that Father is right, but denies that Father is conspiring with any one side, no one is going to believe it. People are going to believe what they read in the press.
The most neutral answer that the diocese can give is that this does not represent the diocese position. This is true. The diocese does not have a position for or against a politician. The diocese has a position on a moral issue.
In the newspaper article, the Vicar General said it very well. “These paid advertisements are the personal views and opinions of Fr. Michael Rodriguez” One has to ask how the media dished it out to the Vicar General. They did not ask him for the Church’s position on homosexuality. They confronted him with the advertisements. The advertisements did not come from the Church. The Vicar General went on to say that “the Church could not and would not take a position on the recall.” In other words, the Church would not endorse a candidate or a party.
Neither LifeSite nor the El Paso Times are telling us whether or not anyone told the Vicar General that Fr. Rodriguez never authorized the use of his writing for this purpose. The El Paso, the newspaper that published the ads admits, “Rodriguez said he wrote the pieces but did not pay for the advertisements or submit the writings to the Times.” However, the paper does not tell us whether they informed the Vicar General of this when they confronted him. The Vicar General may have then challenged their agenda in publishing the writing without permission, regardless who paid for it.
The people responsible had good intentions, but they needed to ask Father and the diocese how to proceed. In not doing so, they created a situation that put Father and the diocese in the middle of a political campaign.
Also, LifeSite reports that the diocese said that the statements were out of line and it links this phrase to the article in the El Paso Times. However, the article in the Times makes no mention of this and LifeSite admits that the diocese has not responded to its inquiry on the matter. **Where did LIfeSite get “out of line?” ** The LifeSite writer seems to have made some mistakes here. Father and the diocese are innocent of the charges. Father is not campaigning and the diocese is not contradicting Church teaching. Someone did something without asking and now the priest and the diocese are in a tight spot. They can’t contradict Church teaching and they can’t endorse the recall of these votes or politicians, whatever.
There had to be a better way of delivering Father’s message.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Here is the breakdown as I see it. Fr. Rodriguez writes the articles for his congregation. As a priest, he can certainly do this. If his work appears in the newspaper, the Church has every right to say that this is Father’s position and not its position. The words are very important. The diocese is not saying that Father is wrong. It’s simply saying that this is not the Church’s position. The Diocese has to be very careful how it responds so as not to throw Father under the bus or teach error.
If the diocese says that Father is wrong, it undermines his work, effectively throwing him under the bus.
On the other hand, if the diocese says that Father is right, but denies that Father is conspiring with any one side, no one is going to believe it. People are going to believe what they read in the press.
The most neutral answer that the diocese can give is that this does not represent the diocese position. This is true. The diocese does not have a position for or against a politician. The diocese has a position on a moral issue.
In the newspaper article, the Vicar General said it very well. “These paid advertisements are the personal views and opinions of Fr. Michael Rodriguez” One has to ask how the media dished it out to the Vicar General. They did not ask him for the Church’s position on homosexuality. They confronted him with the advertisements. The advertisements did not come from the Church. The Vicar General went on to say that “the Church could not and would not take a position on the recall.” In other words, the Church would not endorse a candidate or a party.
Neither LifeSite nor the El Paso Times are telling us whether or not anyone told the Vicar General that Fr. Rodriguez never authorized the use of his writing for this purpose. The El Paso, the newspaper that published the ads admits, “Rodriguez said he wrote the pieces but did not pay for the advertisements or submit the writings to the Times.” However, the paper does not tell us whether they informed the Vicar General of this when they confronted him. The Vicar General may have then challenged their agenda in publishing the writing without permission, regardless who paid for it.
The people responsible had good intentions, but they needed to ask Father and the diocese how to proceed. In not doing so, they created a situation that put Father and the diocese in the middle of a political campaign.
Also, LifeSite reports that the diocese said that the statements were out of line and it links this phrase to the article in the El Paso Times. However, the article in the Times makes no mention of this and LifeSite admits that the diocese has not responded to its inquiry on the matter. **Where did LIfeSite get “out of line?” ** The LifeSite writer seems to have made some mistakes here. Father and the diocese are innocent of the charges. Father is not campaigning and the diocese is not contradicting Church teaching. Someone did something without asking and now the priest and the diocese are in a tight spot. They can’t contradict Church teaching and they can’t endorse the recall of these votes or politicians, whatever.
There had to be a better way of delivering Father’s message.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
ANNE_2
Guest
Having worked with politicians and the media for many years, when I did not want to be “misquoted” I gave hand outs(press releases) to all the press - very short, and **very clear **so that it was almost impossible to be mis-construed by anyone who read it.
Also, anyone (including the Diocese) has the right to say “no comment”.
Most people (including Catholics) do not know that each Diocese is technically called a “Church”. Therefore when dealing with the secular press, they should always say Diocese only, not Church of El Paso.
To avoid confusion about what the ‘Catholic Church’ teaches, the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” should be quoted - in italics and quote marks regarding homosexuality. (CCC 2357, 2358, 2359)
The Diocese should make it very clear what the Church teaches on homosexuality - for the ‘Salvation of Souls’. (CCC 2245, 2246 and Bible Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.)
Also, anyone (including the Diocese) has the right to say “no comment”.
Most people (including Catholics) do not know that each Diocese is technically called a “Church”. Therefore when dealing with the secular press, they should always say Diocese only, not Church of El Paso.
To avoid confusion about what the ‘Catholic Church’ teaches, the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” should be quoted - in italics and quote marks regarding homosexuality. (CCC 2357, 2358, 2359)
The Diocese should make it very clear what the Church teaches on homosexuality - for the ‘Salvation of Souls’. (CCC 2245, 2246 and Bible Gen 19:1-29; Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.)
manygift1spirit
New member
I commend the abstract principles LSN overtly takes in situations like this. But far too frequently I disagree with the editoral principles they espouse to get there.
If they changed their handle and their editorial bias to LifeAndTruthSiteNews, both they and media consumers would be better served.
With friends like that…
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
This story is so misleading as to make it commentary and not a news article
closed
closed
- Status