Peterborough [Ontario] Bishop Faces Human Rights Complaint

[estesbob]

Pretty bold statement, considering the fact that you don’t actually know this man.

So how is it that anyone even knows this man is a homosexual?

 

[rossum]

And I would remind you that church documents are very specific in the GIRM and will not allow any hint of scandal, which the Church considers to be a GRAVE offense, regarding lay ministry.

“[A]ny hint of scandal”? A married couple who did not have a child in the last year and so might possibly be using artificial contraception are giving a “hint of scandal”. Is this church also dropping all married altar servers who might be giving scandalous hints by not having children?

That is a very strict standard, one which would disqualify a great many people, not just celibate homosexuals.

rossum

 

[averheyen]

That is a very strict standard, one which would disqualify a great many people, not just celibate homosexuals.

rossum

And it does.

 

[Dale_M]

"[A]
ny hint of scandal"? A married couple who did not have a child in the last year and so might possibly be using artificial contraception are giving a “hint of scandal”. Is this church also dropping all married altar servers who might be giving scandalous hints by not having children?

That is a very strict standard, one which would disqualify a great many people, not just celibate homosexuals.

And it does.

Really?

Married persons are disqualified from serving because they haven’t had a child in the past year?

 

[averheyen]

What do you think? Don’t be silly, go back and read what I quoted.

 

[rossum]

Really?

Married persons are disqualified from serving because they haven’t had a child in the past year?

If we are to take Tigg’s statement in post #104 about “any hint of a scandal” seriously then yes. Failure to have children may indicate the use of articifial birth control and hence can be construed as a “hint of a scandal”.

rossum

 

[Phemie]

If we are to take Tigg’s statement in post #104 about “any hint of a scandal” seriously then yes. Failure to have children may indicate the use of articifial birth control and hence can be construed as a “hint of a scandal”.

rossum

Except that, even if it were 100% sure that they were using contraception it, sadly, wouldn’t be scandal to most Catholics. The situation in the case we are talking about would probably not be scandal to many Catholics and neither would the situation of a common-law couple be scandal either. Which says a lot about the world we live in today.

 

[fix]

“[A]ny hint of scandal”? A married couple who did not have a child in the last year and so might possibly be using artificial contraception are giving a “hint of scandal”. Is this church also dropping all married altar servers who might be giving scandalous hints by not having children?

That is a very strict standard, one which would disqualify a great many people, not just celibate homosexuals.

rossum

A married couple without childen is not scandalous. They may have medical problems, or be using NFP. There is nothing to draw scandal from.

 

[Darryl1958]

Altar servers are not paid positions. The decision does not impose any hardship on the man.

The lawsuit is a frivolous one.

 

[rossum]

A married couple without childen is not scandalous. They may have medical problems, or be using NFP. There is nothing to draw scandal from.

The wording was not “scandal” but “hint of scandal”. In this case the man in question says he is celibate, and I have seen no evidence to contradict that. A celibate homosexual is not scandalous but can be seen as having a “hint of scandal”. Similarly a married couple who do not regularly have children may well be within church rules, but still be giving a “hint of scandal”.

My point is that the “hint” part is dependent on how other people see things and not on the actions of the person(s) in question. I do not think that is a very fair position to take. Hence my example of a married couple who do not have children regularly.

rossum

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The wording was not “scandal” but “hint of scandal”. In this case the man in question says he is celibate, and I have seen no evidence to contradict that. A celibate homosexual is not scandalous but can be seen as having a “hint of scandal”. Similarly a married couple who do not regularly have children may well be within church rules, but still be giving a “hint of scandal”.

My point is that the “hint” part is dependent on how other people see things and not on the actions of the person(s) in question. I do not think that is a very fair position to take. Hence my example of a married couple who do not have children regularly.

rossum

The scandal here is that he lives with another gay man. A catholic man and woman can’t be roomates, friends or chaste or whatever, it would be scandalous.

Now, I see how this could be a major problem for chaste homosexual men … who could they ever have as a roomate without being scandalous? It’s a real difficulty.

A lot of this problem is subjective. In the story I read, this gay man and his gay roomate (who claim to be chaste) are BOTH altar servers together at the same time. Are they seen walking to mass together holding hands? Do they express a lot of affection towards each other? Do they appear in public as a couple? None of us on this thread know the answers to these questions.

Certianly there is the possibility that some bishop could make a bad judgement in one of these cases, and that parishioners could make complaints based on prejudice. But we don’t know enough details.

But whether the bishop is right or wrong, I would rather live with the decisions of a fallible bishop than a fallible government court. When the state starts intervening in these matters, it sets a very disturbing precedent.

 

[Phemie]

The wording was not “scandal” but “hint of scandal”. In this case the man in question says he is celibate, and I have seen no evidence to contradict that. A celibate homosexual is not scandalous but can be seen as having a “hint of scandal”. Similarly a married couple who do not regularly have children may well be within church rules, but still be giving a “hint of scandal”.

My point is that the “hint” part is dependent on how other people see things and not on the actions of the person(s) in question. I do not think that is a very fair position to take. Hence my example of a married couple who do not have children regularly.

rossum

The problem with the 2 people in the lawsuit is that they present themselves as a couple. That fact alone, regardless of their lack of sex, is enough to be scandalous.

It would be no different if a common-law couple or a remarried outside the church couple wanted to serve at the altar. They might not be having sex either but there is no doubt that they would be passing themselves off as a married couple.

 

[estesbob]

“[A]ny hint of scandal”? A married couple who did not have a child in the last year and so might possibly be using artificial contraception are giving a “hint of scandal”. Is this church also dropping all married altar servers who might be giving scandalous hints by not having children?

That is a very strict standard, one which would disqualify a great many people, not just celibate homosexuals.

rossum

really? Do you actually understand so little about human reproduction that you would believe this? By your standards I should have 40 children now.

Now if a man was proclaiming publcily to one and all he was practicing contraception i am sure he would be dsqualified from being an Altar server

 

[averheyen]

Its pretty clear from what I can see that the bishop made the right move. The only real objection i can see here is if you dont like the catholic church, what she teaches, or how she minds her internal affairs.

 

[fix]

The wording was not “scandal” but “hint of scandal”.

But, in your case there is no “hint” on scandal. Being married, with or without children, is not scandalous.

You could easily say any person you see is provoking scandal based on nothing but silly guesses.

In this case the man in question says he is celibate, and I have seen no evidence to contradict that.

He lives with another gay male. That can be a problem regardless of what they are or are not doing.

A celibate homosexual is not scandalous but can be seen as having a “hint of scandal”. Similarly a married couple who do not regularly have children may well be within church rules, but still be giving a “hint of scandal”.

No, that is not true. It is not only about personal rectitude but about public perception. There is no scandal in being married.

My point is that the “hint” part is dependent on how other people see things and not on the actions of the person(s) in question. I do not think that is a very fair position to take. Hence my example of a married couple who do not have children regularly.

Sorry, but that simply does not make sense. It is not about any person conjuring up some notion in his/her mind about anything in general. It is about the objective fact two “gay” males are living together and one wanting to be an altar server. That situation is different from a married couple.

 

[uther]

My point is that the “hint” part is dependent on how other people see things and not on the actions of the person(s) in question. I do not think that is a very fair position to take. Hence my example of a married couple who do not have children regularly.

rossum

It is about how others see things, in this case the 12 complainants first. But there are others who are the primary worry of the 12. I have followed this case a little, and in the first article I read about it, Corcoran himself says Bishop De Angelis offered him a Scripture quotation to meditate on. It comes from 1 Corinthians Chapter 8. Actually, the entire chapter is necessary to get the full context.

What is implied in that gesture of the Bishop is that he does not say that he doesn’t believe Corcoran’s statement of his chaste status, but that for the sake of those who are not necessarily going to believe him, the appearance, if only the appearance, of a man actively living the homosexual lifestyle serving at the most sacred of liturgical acts that are performed in the Church, the summit of our liturgical lives here on earth; for the sake of the weak in the faith, who might be led astray and given a false impression, he must step down.

“Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.”

That is the commitment of St. Paul, and that is the commitment that the Bishop asked of Jim Corcoran. Clearly, he wasn’t up to it, and the mere fact that he subsequently ran to the Ontario Human Rights Commission says volumes about Jim Corcoran’s commitment as a son of the Church as opposed to his commitment to his own so-called “rights.” His mentality is that of the current selfish age and in particular shows the influence of the homosexual “community” who run off at the merest slight to some government body to bludgeon the offender into submission.

As a buddhist, rossum, I am not sure if you are aware of St. Padre Pio and the experience he had when the manifestations of his holiness (stigmata) began to take on the character of a side-show in the mind of his governing Bishop who stopped him from performing his duties as a priest. What was his reaction? Any complaint he had was made internally in the Church, and he had a legitimate complaint, and in the meantime he obeyed the duly appointed authority. And he was an ordained priest, not simply a volunteer lay-person assisting at the discretion of the Bishop.

Yes, the opinions of the people around count, but the judgments that are made are those of the Bishop. The Church is not a democracy, never was, never will be. There have been attempts by governments at various times in 2000 years to impose their will on the Church and the Church has not changed. If this is one more indicator of the beginning of persecution in Canada, then I hope Jim Corcoran reflects on that and weighs out whether it is worth attempting to impose his will, rather than to practice obedience to the Bishop, and by the self-centered approach help further the cause of the Evil one who never stops trying to undermine and bring down the Catholic Church.

The gates of hell will not prevail. We know that, but there may be some rough times for us ahead. Like the Pelosi’s and the Sebelius’ in America, there are many self-centered people who claim to be “devout” Catholics who would trade the Church for their own temporal gain. We can pray and hope that Jim Corcoran has a change of heart and withdraws his complaint.

 

[Tigg]

What I was referring to, perhaps incorrectly, was the document “Immensae Caritatis.” I cannot find the link at the moment, but remember that as it pertains to EMHCs no one in that ministry can legitimately serve if anything in their personal life could cause “wonderment” to the community of faithful, in other words, if there is a suggestion of impropriety, it could cause scandal. I cannot with certainty say if this particular document extends to altar servers, but certainly the “spirit and intent” of it would extend to all who serve in some capacity during the Liturgy.

Now I wouldn’t necessarily be raising my eyebrows at a gay altar server, but if he freely admits he is living with another male, then that can open other possibilities regarding scandal and how the community of faithful may view it.

On another thread, a poster gave links to a pastoral letter from Bishop Vasa (of Baker) for any lay ministry or apostolate.

dominicanidaho.org/docs/givingtestimony.pdf

Every Catholic is held to standards of appropriate behavior by God Himself and those who are called and chosen for more distinguished and visible service are held to a higher standard for they do act and teach ’in the name of the Church’.

 

[rossum]

But, in your case there is no “hint” on scandal. Being married, with or without children, is not scandalous.

Using artificial birth control is scandalous for a Catholic couple. Not having enough children is enough to “hint” at artificial birth control and hence is a “hint of scandal”.

You could easily say any person you see is provoking scandal based on nothing but silly guesses.

My point exactly. This man has no real evidence of actual scandal against him - he has said that he is in a celibate relationship. Has any evidence been produced by the twelve accusers to counteract this or does the entire case against him rest on “guesses”.

He lives with another gay male. That can be a problem regardless of what they are or are not doing.

Why? Would it be better if he lived with a lesbian?

It is not only about personal rectitude but about public perception. There is no scandal in being married.

But there is scandal in the public perception of the use of artificial contraception.

Sorry, but that simply does not make sense. It is not about any person conjuring up some notion in his/her mind about anything in general. It is about the objective fact two “gay” males are living together and one wanting to be an altar server. That situation is different from a married couple.

Why? A celibate gay male has a right to be treated as other people; if the mere perception of scandal is enough to disqualify him then a great many other altar servers could also be disqualified.

The Church has rules, is it applying its own rules fairly in this case?

rossum

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Why? A celibate gay male has a right to be treated as other people; if the mere perception of scandal is enough to disqualify him then a great many other altar servers could also be disqualified.

The Church has rules, is it applying its own rules fairly in this case?

Church rules are designed to help bring the people to heaven. They aren’t about individual rights, but about saving souls.

The only measure of fairness is whether these rules are helping people get to heaven.

 

[averheyen]

The Church has rules, is it applying its own rules fairly in this case?

rossum

Here’s a thought, lets consult the Catholic Church’s 2000 years of theological scholarship and precident on this one. You have no arguement. a) its clear this man shouldnt have been altar serving as he has no respect for the authority of the church (which is at the complete dicresion of the bishop either way) and b) its none of the governments business . Period.