Squashed wedding announcement disappoints gay couple

[Crescentinus]

Slow down, Tiger…I can’t form a coherent reply when you get all “Computer Geek / Gamer” on me.

Here’s another one.
Fourth order of business - all computers are property of the archdiocese and are only to be used for watching anything lesbian like The L Word or yuri

I enjoy poking some fun at the idea.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But I’m wondering about this part in the Huffington Post story link posted by the OP. This was kind of shocking and I don’t think anyone on this thread has commented on it unless I missed it…the gay Catholic priest who is supporting gay marriage?:

And some Catholic clergy members have even come out in support of gay marriage.

Father Bob Pierson, who said he knew he was gay when we was ordained, recently asked church members in Minneapolis to vote “no” on a proposed anti-gay marriage amendment that will be put to a vote in November.

“Too many of us have been thought to think of God in terms of God’s judgement, rather than God’s tremendous love and mercy,” he said. “I do not believe the church has the right to force its moral teaching on others outside our fold.”

Here’s another article on him with his full speech:
huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/father-bob-pierson-gay-marriage-minnesota_n_1589996.html

So…he is “permitted” to feel this way and be vocal about it?

Because priests, like laity, live in a free country where free speech is supported, he is “permitted” in a secular sense to “feel this way” and to “be vocal about it.” I’m not sure why you would find that “shocking” or unusual.

In terms of his profession, however, he has gone rogue, clearly. Again, I’m not sure why that should be so “shocking” to you, given that every occupation tends to include members with agendas of their own, who only titularly seem to belong to the institution. There are rogue Cabinet members of many countries who are at cross-purposes with the government they are representing. Eventually, such people either undermine their own governments (causing the collapse of a party or even a system), or are shown the door.

Ya gotta admit, the logic is lopsided…that a Catholic priest can give public speeches and be quoted in mainstream media in support of gay marriage…and yet, this couple cannot quietly have their wedding photo in their little, rinky-dink, high school alumni newsletter?

And are Catholic publications part of the MSM? Do you seriously think that orthodox Catholic press would publicize the heterodox views of an unfaitfhful priest, let alone in a positive or celebratory way? No, there is zero “logic” to the connections you are making here. The relationship does not exist. Period.

 

[Rence]

Whoa, wait, stop, think.

Does this same newsletter publish the weddings of alumnae who marry outside of the church? Most likely it publishes notices about civil and non-Christian weddings. If it does so, there’s no reason to single out same sex unions. If it has a policy to only publish notices about weddings that are recognized by the Catholic Church, then, they have a right to refuse in this case.

I’m getting mightily tired of Catholics who seem to think that living a homosexual lifestyle is somehow a graver sin than any other. I think if the Catholic Church expects people who are attracted to their own gender to live a celibate life, the the onus is on Catholics to treat these people (who are being asked to make a huge sacrifice) with the utmost respect. Dialogue and civilized debate is what’s required, not the drawing of battle lines.

So, if you’ve never masturbated, had extra or premarital sex, looked at porn, go ahead and cast the first stone (in the eyes of the Church all of these things are no less sinful than having a same sex partner). By all means, engage with this issue, but please do so with love & respect.

You are so right! They absolutely should post that marriage announcement, along with an excerpt out of the Catechism about the Church’s teaching.

However, you’re a bit confused about marriage and the Church, which is why I think they should post something about the Church’s teaching under all the wedding announcements. The Church recogizes as valid other religions’ marriages, and other non-Catholic marriages. What they don’t recognize is civil marriages for Catholics. So it’s perfectly acceptable for them to post about civil marriages (for non-Catholics) and other religion’s marriages.

 

[Rence]

I’m guessing that if an alum sent in an announcement of her abortion, or her extra-marital affair, or her most recent menage a trois, they wouldn’t publish that either.

Well you can’t have it both ways Jim. If they’re going to insist that a Catholic insitutution must announce one Catholic event that clearly goes against Catholic teaching, then they really should announce them all. There’s no reason to discriminate

 

[FromTheAshes777]

signed.

This is a simple matter of religious freedom. Any religious group has the right to refuse to celebrate, condone, or promote something that they find morally reprehensible.

 

[WhatMeWorry]

Signed!

 

[FromTheAshes777]

signed.

This is a simple matter of religious freedom. Any religious body has the right to refuse to celebrate, condone, or promote something that they find morally reprehensible.

 

[BlueSapphire]

Signed, Face-booked and tweeted!

 

[JimG]

Well you can’t have it both ways Jim. If they’re going to insist that a Catholic insitutution must announce one Catholic event that clearly goes against Catholic teaching, then they really should announce them all. There’s no reason to discriminate

Marriage doesn’t go against Catholic teaching. Catholic canon law applies to Catholic marriages. However one is unlikely to send in an announcement stating the religion of one’s spouse, or information about whether, for example, approval was obtained from the bishop, or whether in fact the alumnus might have formally defected from the Catholic Church. But announcing a same sex marriage would be rather like announcing that the circle has been squared. It would be ignored by a Catholic publication.

 

[oneofmany]

No wonder our children are so confused and messed up now a days. Their parents have no roots that are strong anymore.

 

[Spencer3096]

Signed and posted to Facebook. Now just to unsubscribe from their pesky mailing list.

 

[Corki]

S then…if the gay couple is banned from having their wedding photo published in their school newsletter…why isn’t this priest not “fired” or…dethroned or…banished…or…whatever the right word is, for promoting gay marriage?

Has he been?

It’s a no-brainer, is it not?

You think you are pointing out an inconsistency in the enforcement of Catholic teaching. What you are really pointing out is that the Catholic Church is not a monolithic corporation with control over everything that happens to mention Catholicism.

The Archbishop who oversees Marion High School is acting to re-inforce Church teaching in the organizations overwhich he has control. But his control is not over the couple trying to marry; his control is only over the High School and it’s newsletter. It is also fair to point out that the Archbishop did not make this public, the couple and their supporters did.

Archbishop Lucas does not have control over Father Pierson. Fr. Pierson’s religious supervisors may very well have disciplined him or tried to get him to stop making statements against the teachings of the Church. If they did, it is unlikely that they would take it to the press like the couple in Nebraska did so we would never know what steps have been taken. But even those who have authority over this priest can’t stop the HP from publishing his remarks. There is no Catholic authority over the HP as there is over the publications of a Catholic High School.

So the fact that some priest’s erroneous remarks were published in a non-Catholic publication has not relevance whatsoever to the legitimate authority being exercised by a Catholic Archbishop over a Catholic organization in his diocese.

 

[Elizabeth502]

an incongruency (sp?)

The word is incongruity.

Bishop would also want and be able to stop this priest from publicly undermining doctrine?..In the grand scheme of things–and even in the little scheme of things–I’d imagine what the priest is doing is much more serious than this little couple and their small-town school letter.

I addressed this in post #65. Corki addressed it in post #76.

 

[jilly4ski]

The priest’s comments have been quoted in several Catholic publications as well.

If a person does not do their job properly, they are usually fired.
If a lawyer breaks a law, he is de-barred.
I’d assume that a Catholic priest promoting something completely against Catholic doctrine, over and over, would come under that category? And it is serious?

This couple can hardly be blamed–or punished–for wanting their photo in the school paper…when a priest of the *same *religion that is banning them is himself promoting the reason they are being banned.

If the Catholic church is against gay marriage, and a Catholic priest is promoting it, and the priest is employed by the Catholic church to officially teach doctrine…it makes way more sense to tell the priest he cannot be a priest anymore than punish the couple–or at least, to be consistent, and deny both parties…in an effort, as you say, “to re-inforce Church teaching”.

Because what he is doing is the* opposite *of reinforcing church teaching.

I guess priests are not infallible in their teachings?
Would this not be somewhat of an example of him teaching erroneous church doctrine?

As we have been trying to point out to you, the bishop who is barring this publication, rightly I might add, has no “jurisdiction” over Fr. Bob. That would be like the owner of Burger King trying to fire the employee of McDonalds.

You mention “Catholic” publications that published Fr. Bob’s remarks. But I would like to see if the bishop actually has any control over those publications. (The National Catholic Reporter’s previous bishop said they were not allowed to use the name Catholic, but the continue).

And no, no individual priest or bishop is infallible. And their opinions and prudential decisions are just that. Lets take Fr. Bob, the bishop has little control over him because he is a religious priest. The bishop would have to approach the abbot, but the bishop relies on the abbey to staff many of its parishes, it might not be a priority to rein in this one priest if it will upset the balance between the diocese and the order. Not to mention the bishop is respecting the authority and proper role of the abbot to care and discipline is monks. Why the abbot has not done something I can only speculate, but perhaps he has and we just don’t know.

And lastly, being a priest is not like a job. A priest is a priest forever. He can be removed from his assignment or even returned to a lay state, but such punishments are hardly used for minor misdeeds and carry canonical procedures and rights granted to the priest subject to such proceedings.

 

[Corki]

This couple can hardly be blamed–or punished–for wanting their photo in the school paper…when a priest of the *same *religion that is banning them is himself promoting the reason they are being banned.

The couple is not being punished. They aren’t being banned from any place or any thing. We wouldn’t even know about this if they hadn’t brought it to the internet as a petition. The actions of the Archbishop were directed to the newletter, not to the couple.

I guess priests are not infallible in their teachings?
Would this not be somewhat of an example of him teaching erroneous church doctrine?

You are absolutely correct. Priests are not infallible and there is no protection against an individual priest teaching erroneously against Church doctrine. There is no expectation that a priest will be right 100% of the time. In fact, the whole conceprt of infallibility doesn’t even apply to priests.

 

[rfournier103]

The high school, like any other PRIVATE organization has the right to publish or omit any information it sees fit in it’s bullitin. This includes the announcement of a phoney-baloney sham of a marriage in Iowa.

These two women can be disappointed all they want, but NOBODY can force the diocese to publish the announcement. There may be pressure from -]homosexual nutjobs/-] gay rights groups, but if there is resolve on the part of the diocese, it won’t be published.

“Why,” you ask?

That pesky first amendment of ours actually protects the ‘freedom of the press’. That’s why. Not only does our first amendment enable us to publish what we want without worry of government reprisals, it ALSO allows us not to publish material we don’t want to. This is made very clear. I see this as a total non-issue. The women have no legal leg to stand on.

 

[rfournier103]

Has anyone noticed that the petition is on the “SignOn” website? A part of “Move On Dot Org?” :bigyikes: I am totally behind the archbishop, but I don’t want MoveOn to have my email address :bigyikes:. By signing the petition, you’re consenting to get email from them. :bigyikes: No thanks.

 

[adrift]

Thank you for your respectful response.

I need to point out, however, that non-Catholic Christian to Christian weddings are recognized by the Catholic Church but are not sacramental. Many marriages outside of the church are civil and therefore not recognized by the Church. Marriages between Christians and non-Christians can be (but not always) considered valid, but again not sacramental.

I guess my badly-expressed point is, no one would question the validity of the above-mentioned marriages should they be publicized in a Catholic school alumni newsletter, provided one party’s name was recognizably male and the other female. I wonder if we single out same sex couples because it’s impossible to ignore that their unions aren’t recognized by the Church.

I guess my points can be restated this way:

1. It’s too easy to single out the issue of same sex unions whilst turning a blind eye to other transgressive relationships.
2. We need to treat other people with respect, regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

This seems to be the defense of defending bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. This isn’t a matter of people who marry outside the Church trying to pressure the Church into accepting their sin. This is about homosexuals trying to say that they are not sinning.

 

[ccmnxc]

So, if you’ve never masturbated, had extra or premarital sex, looked at porn, go ahead and cast the first stone (in the eyes of the Church all of these things are no less sinful than having a same sex partner). By all means, engage with this issue, but please do so with love & respect

A couple things.

1. In Ezekiel 3:18 we are to hold each other accountable and tell others of their sin. With the throwing the first stone analogy, I’d say it refers more to condemnation than judgement. We have no right or power to condemn. However, we have the obligation to judge, yet do so lovingly and wisely.
2. On of the big problems among the homosexual Christian population is that they think homosexuality it okay in the eyes of God. It is pretty much agreed upon that the sins you listed are wrong.

 

[april32010]

The priest’s comments have been quoted in several Catholic publications as well.

If a person does not do their job properly, they are usually fired.
If a lawyer breaks a law, he is de-barred.
I’d assume that a Catholic priest promoting something completely against Catholic doctrine, over and over, would come under that category? And it is serious?

This couple can hardly be blamed–or punished–for wanting their photo in the school paper…when a priest of the *same *religion that is banning them is himself promoting the reason they are being banned.

If the Catholic church is against gay marriage, and a Catholic priest is promoting it, and the priest is employed by the Catholic church to officially teach doctrine…it makes way more sense to tell the priest he cannot be a priest anymore than punish the couple–or at least, to be consistent, and deny both parties…in an effort, as you say, “to re-inforce Church teaching”.

Because what he is doing is the* opposite *of reinforcing church teaching.

I guess priests are not infallible in their teachings?
Would this not be somewhat of an example of him teaching erroneous church doctrine?

t is called giving scandal