Peterborough [Ontario] Bishop Faces Human Rights Complaint

[Neil_Anthony]

Peterborough Bishop Nicola De Angelis and 12 parishioners at St. Michael’s parish in Cobourg, Ont., face an Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint that could cost the parishioners $20,000 each and the diocese of Peterborough $25,000 plus legal fees.

Jim Corcoran brought the complaint after he was asked to give up his position as an altar server at Sunday Masses. Corcoran was dismissed from all duties on the altar after 12 parishioners wrote a letter to De Angelis questioning the presence of a gay man serving at the altar of St. Michael’s.

“There are laws in Ontario,” Corcoran told The Catholic Register. “Those laws say that it is unlawful to discriminate against people for a number of reasons, one of which is sexual orientation.”

full article…

Oh my goodness… its really happening. Is this when we start moving underground?

 

[fix]

Peterborough Bishop Nicola De Angelis and 12 parishioners at St. Michael’s parish in Cobourg, Ont., face an Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint that could cost the parishioners $20,000 each and the diocese of Peterborough $25,000 plus legal fees.

Jim Corcoran brought the complaint after he was asked to give up his position as an altar server at Sunday Masses. Corcoran was dismissed from all duties on the altar after 12 parishioners wrote a letter to De Angelis questioning the presence of a gay man serving at the altar of St. Michael’s.

“There are laws in Ontario,” Corcoran told The Catholic Register. “Those laws say that it is unlawful to discriminate against people for a number of reasons, one of which is sexual orientation.”

full article…

Oh my goodness… its really happening. Is this when we start moving underground?

Do faithful Catholics complain to the state about such matters?

 

[Zundrah]

Peterborough Bishop Nicola De Angelis and 12 parishioners at St. Michael’s parish in Cobourg, Ont., face an Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint that could cost the parishioners $20,000 each and the diocese of Peterborough $25,000 plus legal fees.

Jim Corcoran brought the complaint after he was asked to give up his position as an altar server at Sunday Masses. Corcoran was dismissed from all duties on the altar after 12 parishioners wrote a letter to De Angelis questioning the presence of a gay man serving at the altar of St. Michael’s.

“There are laws in Ontario,” Corcoran told The Catholic Register. “Those laws say that it is unlawful to discriminate against people for a number of reasons, one of which is sexual orientation.”

full article…

Oh my goodness… its really happening. Is this when we start moving underground?

Perhaps it is too late but maybe they should have just let him work there…?

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Do faithful Catholics complain to the state about such matters?

I just wrote to my MPP (member of provincial parliament) to voice my strong objection.

I guess we’ll have to start learning about what happens when a church goes underground. How much interference do you put up with before you disobey the law? In China the government started appointing bishops, and how was that handled? I guess its time to do research.

I can see the church just going along with it, and the parishes with the gay lovers altar serving together will just die off and have to close. Then the gay altar servers will go to the next parish and ruin it there, etc. I know I won’t stat at a parish with scandalous things going on.

 

[fix]

I just wrote to my MPP (member of provincial parliament) to voice my strong objection.

I guess we’ll have to start learning about what happens when a church goes underground. How much interference do you put up with before you disobey the law? In China the government started appointing bishops, and how was that handled? I guess its time to do research.

I can see the church just going along with it, and the parishes with the gay lovers altar serving together will just die off and have to close. Then the gay altar servers will go to the next parish and ruin it there, etc. I know I won’t stat at a parish with scandalous things going on.

It boggles the mind. A Catholic loyal to the Church goes to some illegitimate state authority to impeach how the Church runs Her practices?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Copy of my email to the MPP, in case it is of help to anyone else:

Mr. ***** *****
MPP (riding name)
July 10, 2009

Dear Mr. *****,

I must express to you my most fervent objection to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s investigation into a complaint against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Peterborough. The diocese and individual parishioners are being forced to spend large sums on legal fees to defend themselves against a complaint regarding who is allowed to participate in our religious rituals.

The laws of Ontario must be changed to prevent the government from interfering in how we worship. We will not tolerate the government dictating who will and will not participate in our liturgy. The separation of church and state must be maintained over matters of liturgy.

I am a loyal citizen but I am also loyal to my religion, and the separation of church and state must remain so that we are not put into a conflict between loyalty to our religion and our citizenship. If these government actions are not corrected, millions of Ontario citizens will have to make a difficult choice between their religion and their loyalty to their country.

Please help us stop these government actions by changing the legislation. I believe this is the first step towards forcing my Church to go underground. Please do what you can to prevent that.

Sincerely,

 

[canadianguy1143]

Reading the Catholic Register article, it says that the Gay altar server is quoted as saying he is chaste but lives with a male roommate.

Now am I naive to think that I should take him at his word? If not, then a Gay male who is living a chaste lifestyle is committing no sin and shouldn’t be removed from being an altar server.

I would also like to know how those parishioners found out that he was gay.

 

[Pondero]

We have these human rights tribunals in Ontario, and indeed throughout Canada. Anyone with a grievance can take anyone to the Human Rights Commission with a complaint.
The complainant does not have to pay to have his case heard, but the accused does have to pay out of his own pocket if he appeals the unfavourable verdict to a real court in Canada, not a Kangaroo Court , such as a court run by the Human Rights Commission .In a real court the complainant would have to pay costs if he lost.Usually, the accused when found “guilty” finds it cheaper to pay the fine than take it a real court .

Now, the point that is most important to me is that human rights are defined for us by the Catholic Church , not some state run secular body. So, here is a case where the Church will clash with a Human Rights Commision, and that is not acceptable in a free society.
St. Thomas Aquinas said that where a law violates the moral law, it is no law, but rather a species of violence.

 

[rossum]

Reading the Catholic Register article, it says that the Gay altar server is quoted as saying he is chaste but lives with a male roommate.

Now am I naive to think that I should take him at his word? If not, then a Gay male who is living a chaste lifestyle is committing no sin and shouldn’t be removed from being an altar server.

I would also like to know how those parishioners found out that he was gay.

It might also be interesting to see how many other altar servers were investigated to see if they were sinners. If all sinners had been removed then the church may well have had a case on religions grounds. If some sinners were retained while other sinners were refused then the church’s legal case is less secure.

rossum

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It might also be interesting to see how many other altar servers were investigated to see if they were sinners. If all sinners had been removed then the church may well have had a case on religions grounds. If some sinners were retained while other sinners were refused then the church’s legal case is less secure.

rossum

The standard we use is “grave public sinners”. If the sin is grave, and it is public, then they shouldn’t hold a special position in the liturgy and they should be denied communion. This is routinely applied to people who live together and aren’t married.

Also the important thing here is that the church should make the decision who does and does not serve in the liturgy - not the state.

 

[canadianguy1143]

The standard we use is “grave public sinners”. If the sin is grave, and it is public, then they shouldn’t hold a special position in the liturgy and they should be denied communion. This is routinely applied to people who live together and aren’t married.

Also the important thing here is that the church should make the decision who does and does not serve in the liturgy - not the state.

I understand the standard but my questions still remain from before.

How absolute is that? What if a church (say a non-catholic) said that blacks couldn’t be allowed on the altar?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I understand the standard but my questions still remain from before.

How absolute is that? What if a church (say a non-catholic) said that blacks couldn’t be allowed on the altar?

That would be wrong, but it should be up to that church to clean up its own act. We can’t allow the state to decide who gets to do our rituals and who doesn’t. That’s like the situation in China, where the state started ordaining bishops.

What will you do if the state says the church has to ordain women? I’m sure some bishops would be happy to obey the law, and others wouldn’t, and they would be fined out of their churches. Then what? Then we would have to seek those priests out for underground private masses done in secret. No thanks!

 

[canadianguy1143]

That would be wrong, but it should be up to that church to clean up its own act. We can’t allow the state to decide who gets to do our rituals and who doesn’t. That’s like the situation in China, where the state started ordaining bishops.

What will you do if the state says the church has to ordain women? I’m sure some bishops would be happy to obey the law, and others wouldn’t, and they would be fined out of their churches. Then what? Then we would have to seek those priests out for underground private masses done in secret. No thanks!

That’s true and I see what you are saying.

Am I naive to think that because the gay altar server said he was chaste but has a male roommate that we should take him at his word?

 

[PapaSquash]

That’s true and I see what you are saying.

Am I naive to think that because the gay altar server said he was chaste but has a male roommate that we should take him at his word?

I don’t think you are. I believe we should take him at his word. The sin is not in being attracted to members of the same sex. The sin is in fornication.

I had male roommates before I was married. It wasn’t an issue. Having cohabitated with a woman before I returned to the Church was brought up as requiring confession and repentance. Both for fornication and appearance of scandal.

Would we expect him to have female roomates? Demand that he live alone? If he avows acceptance of Church teaching and tries to live by her tenets, confessing any transgression sacramentally, he should be accepted as a member in full communion with the church.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I don’t think you are. I believe we should take him at his word. The sin is not in being attracted to members of the same sex. The sin is in fornication.

I had male roommates before I was married. It wasn’t an issue. Having cohabitated with a woman before I returned to the Church was brought up as requiring confession and repentance. Both for fornication and appearance of scandal.

Would we expect him to have female roomates? Demand that he live alone? If he avows acceptance of Church teaching and tries to live by her tenets, confessing any transgression sacramentally, he should be accepted as a member in full communion with the church.

You bring up a good point. You may have had male roommates before you were married but since you are straight, that is different than this guy. You mentioned that you lived with a girl before you returned to the Church and it required confession (sin).

To this gay male, having a male roommate is equivalent to a female roommate for any of us guys who are straight. There is the appearance of scandal.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That’s true and I see what you are saying.

Am I naive to think that because the gay altar server said he was chaste but has a male roommate that we should take him at his word?

I don’t know enough about the situation to know. I just know that it must be the priest and bishop who make that call, or else we’ll end up with government-legislated female and homosexual priests.

I don’t mind celibate gay people being altar servers or choir leaders, in case that’s what you’re wondering.

 

[Seamus_L]

The 12 people who complained are also facing fines ? Time to take that Maple Leaf out of the flag and replace it with the Hammer and Sickle.

 

[estesbob]

I understand the standard but my questions still remain from before.

How absolute is that? What if a church (say a non-catholic) said that blacks couldn’t be allowed on the altar?

How demening. Did you really mean to compare a race that was bruatally enslaved, beaten , sold and raped at will to a group of people whos only distinguishing charactersitic is the manner they enage in sex???

 

[estesbob]

Would we expect him to have female roomates? Demand that he live alone? If he avows acceptance of Church teaching and tries to live by her tenets, confessing any transgression sacramentally, he should be accepted as a member in full communion with the church.

I would expect him not to mention his sexual attractions at all.Once, however, you declare that you are a homosexual it becomes public scandal whe nyou openly livwe with another man. It would be the same if he were heterosexual and living “chastely” with his girlfriend

 

[canadianguy1143]

How demening. Did you really mean to compare a race that was bruatally enslaved, beaten , sold and raped at will to a group of people whos only distinguishing charactersitic is the manner they enage in sex???

It wasn’t meant to be demeaning at all. I was just using it as an example so as to understand what Neil Anthony was saying. Since we have reached an understanding there should be no problem from you.