New priest tells married gay couple they can not receive communion

[Ender]

One positive thing to take away from this incident is that the priest involved here is both young and rather newly ordained. It is a positive sign about the priests coming into being. This is, regrettably, not the type of resolute stand one would typically expect from an older priest…which probably explains a lot.

The article said that the bishop would come out with his position on the matter in a few weeks, but I think his hand is forced. It seems impossible for him to reverse the priest’s stance now that it is public, even if he might have wished that he could have prevented it from occurring in the first place.

Ender

 

[Holly3278]

The priest made the right decision. They are living in a state of grave sin and cannot receive the Eucharist in that state.

 

[Holly3278]

Talk about minding your own business. It seems the only religion that the media treat as their little plaything to pressure into doing what they want to do is Catholicism. Why does they media care anyway? What business is it of theirs? If Catholicism is so backwards and not “with it,” it sure doesn’t seem like it based on the freakish amount of freaking out out publications do.

The reason why is because the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Jesus Christ told we would be persecuted and hated for His sake.

 

[Scottgun]

One positive thing to take away from this incident is that the priest involved here is both young and rather newly ordained. It is a positive sign about the priests coming into being. This is, regrettably, not the type of resolute stand one would typically expect from an older priest…which probably explains a lot.

The article said that the bishop would come out with his position on the matter in a few weeks, but I think his hand is forced. It seems impossible for him to reverse the priest’s stance now that it is public, even if he might have wished that he could have prevented it from occurring in the first place.

Ender

This quote from the bishop is encouraging:

“Either I uphold what Catholic teachings are or, by ignoring or permitting it, I’m saying I disagree with what I’m ordained to uphold,” Warfel told the Gazette.

I suppose he is holding off out of PR considerations, but quite frankly, the trial is upon us and this is the hill we must die on and their ain’t no way to spin that.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Here’s another take on this: if they are both lifelong catholics, then isn’t it quite reasonable for them to assume that the church wouldn’t consider them married? After all, if one of them had married a woman in a civil ceremony, wouldn’t the church say that the two of them weren’t married because of lack of form?

The articles on the topic suggest that it was done for legal reasons rather than any sort of activist intent. So if they thought a civil marriage between catholics wouldn’t be recognized as a marriage in the church, perhaps that’s why they didn’t worry about it. They said they wouldn’t have done it if they had known it would be a problem. It seems since they were married in 2013 that their previous pastor didn’t have a problem with it.

That seems to be a common factor in a lot of these cases involving catholics-people are known to be gay and in a relationship, and only suffer consequences once something else occurs. To me that seems to send very mixed signals, and it doesn’t surprise me that they cause a ruckus in the congregation. If x was fine to sing and serve on the finance committee last week, why are they persona non grata this week?

Some more consistency and/or better explanation of why the treatment of the person has changed would likely defuse more of these situations.

 

[Havard]

@Non Serviam.

It’s possible that this treatment is consistent, but that knowledge was lacking. Perhaps the prior pastor wasn’t interested in following up on hearsay and gossip, or perhaps no one told him at all.

 

[J_Peterson]

Of course the marriage does not exist. They must get a civil divorce to acknowledge that fact, just as a tribunal would require a civil divorce before acknowledging the nullity of a marriage. The fact that they got a civil marriage was an attempt to pretend that such a marriage is possible.

Your right. The comparison to the necessity of divorce when it’s a civil ceremony makes it clear. Unfortunately, even if it’s not an inconsistancy, it will look like one. There is an awful lot of confusion about this (I’m referring to marriage in general). I thought that my civil marriage “didn’t count” either. It was actually someone on here that pointed out that I was wrong. I should look that up to see who it was to thank them. That was a big moment for me (not a pleasant one but good none the less).

 

[Non_Serviam]

@Non Serviam.

It’s possible that this treatment is consistent, but that knowledge was lacking. Perhaps the prior pastor wasn’t interested in following up on hearsay and gossip, or perhaps no one told him at all.

That’s reasonable. From what I read they held several roles in the community and in the church, so I thought they must be well known to the prior pastor. That may not be the case.

If it was a case of not wanting to follow up if some members of the church were aware (and judging by the bishop’s statement after the parish meeting that support was split 50/50 between the couple and the priest, it seems at least some knew about their relationship), then that would go to explaining why they didn’t think it a big deal, if no one made a big deal out of it.

I think things need to be addressed in the church, don’t get me wrong, I simply think that issues that have been allowed to “slide” require a different approach than those that are addressed as soon as they present themselves. Some authority has been compromised in the lapse and that needs to be reinforced with explanation and teaching to rebuild the trust and respect.

 

[Ender]

Here’s another take on this: if they are both lifelong catholics, then isn’t it quite reasonable for them to assume that the church wouldn’t consider them married? After all, if one of them had married a woman in a civil ceremony, wouldn’t the church say that the two of them weren’t married because of lack of form?

Certainly the church accepts the impossibility of their marriage; that they are not in reality married is not the crux of the problem.

That seems to be a common factor in a lot of these cases involving catholics-people are known to be gay and in a relationship, and only suffer consequences once something else occurs. To me that seems to send very mixed signals, and it doesn’t surprise me that they cause a ruckus in the congregation. If x was fine to sing and serve on the finance committee last week, why are they persona non grata this week?

The problem is the public nature of their relationship. The clergy does not investigate the private behavior of individuals to discern who is living in sin. The individual has the responsibility of determining for himself if he is worthy of receiving communion. When, however, private sins become public, when an individual is “*obstinately persevering in **manifest *grave sin”, then the clergy is obligated to withhold communion because of the scandal involved in giving it to someone who is quite publicly sinning.

Some more consistency and/or better explanation of why the treatment of the person has changed would likely defuse more of these situations.

Clearly more consistency is what is needed. Since the new priest is following canon law it is not his behavior that was invalid, rather it is the failure of other priests in similar situations to do likewise that is the problem.

Ender

 

[I_trust]

Let us be clear…
One of the 2 men who were civilly “married”, Tom Wojtowick, is/was? an ordained Catholic priest. Furthermore he served as a minister and board member of Dignity Seattle. So I think the article is at least misleading when it portrays the men as not knowing that the Church would frown on the “marriage”.
dignitychapters.org/Seattle/1973–2008%20History%20Booklet%20website.pdf

But Tom and Paul said the church doesn’t have an explicit rule against the partnership. And though they signed the papers to protect their assets and rights, they would have chosen religion first.

“We didn’t know, as I’ve said to the Bishop and even the Priest,” said Wajtowick. “If we’d known at the time that this would happen, we would not have engaged in a civil ceremony.”

If they met 30 years before was Tom Wojtowick a priest at that time?

 

[Tomdstone]

Let us be clear…
One of the 2 men who were civilly “married”, Tom Wojtowick, is an ordained Catholic priest. Furthermore he served as a minister and board member of Dignity Seattle. So I think the article is at least misleading when it portrays the men as not knowing that the Church would frown on the “marriage”.

I didn’t see any mention in the news of Father Tom W. being an ordained RC priest. So for 30 years Father Tom W. and his partner have been living together openly, and there were no repercussions?

 

[I_trust]

We were informed this weekend from our father before Mass ended that one of the men was a priest. The media is just not commenting on that part. They are focusing on the “young” priest that was just assigned to that Parish. They say that half of the church quit attending, which is unfortunate. But I am sorta along the line of Pope Benedict about a smaller more devoted faithful church that a large cafeteria church (not that I think Pope Francis is wanting that). But the media seems to think that is what Pope Francis wants. The support online is the usual anti-Catholic people slamming the church (bringing up Pope Francis’ words about “who am I to judge”/the child molestation coverups) with quite a few good Catholic people defending the faith.
Me personally after hearing that one of the men is a priest, I am so angry at the media and actually at the men for bringing this to the media. It happened back in August, but we are getting the story right now. Maybe it is just that there is nothing going on in the news right now.
I’m praying for my diocese and for the Father Spearing and for Bishop Warfeul(sp) and for the two men and for the Parish to understand what Father Spearing is doing.

There was nothing in the news article, but…
Did you read the above post, or my link to the Dignity chapter?
Also a quick google search of his name will turn up his name as an being an associate priest, at one time, at a Seattle parish.
Please correct me if I am in error.

 

[Havard]

There was nothing in the news article, but…
Did you read the above post, or my link to the Dignity chapter?
Also a quick google search of his name will turn up his name as an being an associate priest, at one time, at a Seattle parish.
Please correct me if I am in error.

Billings, Montana is a long ways from Seattle… are you sure that’s the same Tom Wojtowik?

 

[I_trust]

Billings, Montana is a long ways from Seattle… are you sure that’s the same Tom Wojtowik?

Not absolutely sure, but they moved from Seattle to MT in 2003…So perhaps there were 2 different (former) priests in Seattle named Tom Wojtowick who were advocates for homosexual rights and/or admitted homosexualls?
Tom Wojtowick from the article attended seminary according to his facebook page.

advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/09/22/catholic-clergy-demand-gay-couple-divorce

Huff, 73, and Wojtowick, 66, have been in a committed relationship for more than 30 years and have attended St. Leo the Great since 2003, when they moved to Lewistown from Seattle, according to the Gazette.

 

[I_trust]

TOM WOJTOWICK (from LEWISTOWN, MONTANA) has a Master’s Degree in Historical Theology.

So I think it is safe to say this is probably not a case of being unaware of the Church’s stance even if there were 2 different homosexual activist former priests from Seattle named Tom Wojtowick.

 

[Tomdstone]

TOM WOJTOWICK (from LEWISTOWN, MONTANA) has a Master’s Degree in Historical Theology.

So I think it is safe to say this is probably not a case of being unaware of the Church’s stance even if there were 2 different homosexual activist former priests from Seattle named Tom Wojtowick.

He is not wearing a Roman collar in his TV interview.

 

[gracepoole]

The priest made the only viable decision. I do hope he didn’t do it in the Communion line.

From the article’s presentation of events, it thankfully didn’t.

 

[gracepoole]

I hope I’m wrong. But a quick Google search for Tom Wojtowick pulls up photos published of he and his partner, Paul Huff. It also pulls up Tom Wojtowick’s Facebook page. I don’t want to link to it – I’m sure folks can find it on their own. But the FB photo seems like the same man, who lists his past education as St. Thomas Seminary (which is Roman Catholic). Maybe I Trust is right? Something smells weird here.

 

[Havard]

I hope I’m wrong. But a quick Google search for Tom Wojtowick pulls up photos published of he and his partner, Paul Huff. It also pulls up Tom Wojtowick’s Facebook page. I don’t want to link to it – I’m sure folks can find it on their own. But the FB photo seems like the same man, who lists his past education as St. Thomas Seminary (which is Roman Catholic). Maybe I Trust is right? Something smells weird here.

Huh. That is odd.

Well it looks like you, Scooby, and the gang will have it figured out before long.

 

[Havard]

I heard a repeat broadcast of Catholic Answers Live this morning,Patrick Coffin confirmed that one of the two men had been a Catholic priest.