To get us out of DNC mode for a moment (sorry Bill and Barack) I thought this could be an interesting topic. Or a unity horse issue involving the church?
Connecticut priest rebuked for role in cousin's same-sex wedding By Bob Connors, NBCConnecticut.com
A Catholic priest has been rebuked after performing a reading in his cousin's same-sex wedding.
Rev. Michael DeVito, of Sacred Heart Church in Suffield, Conn., was called into his archbishop's office after a wedding announcement in The New York Times mentioned that DeVito assisted in the August ceremony.
Hartford Archbishop Henry Mansell "formally rebuked" DeVito for his participation in the New York wedding, a citation that will be part of his permanent record.
The archdiocese released a statement on the matter Thursday:
"Archbishop Henry J. Mansell has met with Father Michael DeVito regarding the priest's participation in a same-sex marriage ceremony involving a cousin in New York City on August 19th. According to Father DeVito, his participation in the ceremony was limited to doing a reading. He wore no vestments, but had worn his Roman collar. Archbishop Mansell informed Father DeVito that his participation in this ceremony was understandably perceived by many Catholics as an implicit endorsement of same-sex marriage, which is contrary to Church teaching. As a consequence, and in accordance with canon law, the Archbishop formally rebuked Father DeVito and informed him that the rebuke would be a permanent part of his record. Fr. DeVito said that he would not participate in any way in same-sex marriages in the future."
The church’s response has sparked outrage.
“I understand where the Catholic church is coming from, and it makes me really sad,” said Robin McHelen, who runs True Colors, an advocacy group for the gay and lesbian community.
“I grew up Catholic. The word I grew up with was abomination,” McHelen said.
McHelen worried that the rebuke would hurt those struggling with their sexuality.
“It sends a message to kids that if you're gay, you shouldn't be Catholic,” McHelen said.
While some parishioners in Suffield thought DeVito crossed the line, most disagreed.
“I guess I don’t see anything wrong with it. If that’s his family member and he wanted to be there, that's fine,” Janine Liddell said.
“I think what he did was fine because he was with family ... and family is family, no matter what,” Carolyn Zartner added.
That reason wasn’t enough for the Catholic Church.
“Every religious faith has its right to its own rules and regulations and belief systems,” McHelen said.
It was a belief system DeVito said he would not go against. He agreed to not have any involvement with same-sex marriages in the future.
The archdiocese would not say what DeVito’s punishment was, only that it would be a permanent part of his record.
DeVito would not comment on his meeting with the Archbishop.
My thought is family is family and he should have been able to stand and support his cousin. He was only doing a reading, no doubt at the request of his cousin. HOWEVER, he was wearing his clerical collar, signifying he had a role with the church and wasn't merely a family member. The church shouldn't have rebuked him for reading in a family member's wedding if he was wearing civvies and not designated in any way as a member of the (Catholic) clergy. Family is family no matter your religion or personal beliefs; he could have done a general reading as an individual showing his support, regardless of his religious beliefs and if that was the case I would think the Church would be 100% in the wrong. Since he was wearing a collar signifying a relationship with the Church, they had standing for at least that much.
... McHelen worried that the rebuke would hurt those struggling with their sexuality.
“It sends a message to kids that if you're gay, you shouldn't be Catholic,” McHelen said. ...
I know that, officially, the Catholic Church welcomes everybody to attend, and my experiences have been that mass is usually fairly welcoming and non-judgmental (obviously there are exceptions). But really, does anybody actually think that homosexuals are truly welcomed by the official Catholic Church hierarchy?
I think that a priest should probably expect to be rebuked if actually officiating at a wedding between two people of the same sex, since that would imply Catholic Church sanctioning of the event (even though I disagree with the Church here; I know that I can't go about and make statements explicitly against my company policy without expecting repercussions). But, I don't think doing a reading at a family wedding is at all the same.
... McHelen worried that the rebuke would hurt those struggling with their sexuality.
“It sends a message to kids that if you're gay, you shouldn't be Catholic,” McHelen said. ...
I know that, officially, the Catholic Church welcomes everybody to attend, and my experiences have been that mass is usually fairly welcoming and non-judgmental (obviously there are exceptions). But really, does anybody actually think that homosexuals are truly welcomed by the official Catholic Church hierarchy?
I think that a priest should probably expect to be rebuked if actually officiating at a wedding between two people of the same sex, since that would imply Catholic Church sanctioning of the event (even though I disagree with the Church here; I know that I can't go about and make statements explicitly against my company policy without expecting repercussions). But, I don't think doing a reading at a family wedding is at all the same.
Actually, it's my understanding that I, as a lay Catholic, should not do a reading at my cousin's same-sex wedding (if he ever had one), so a priest? This is a no brainer.
... Actually, it's my understanding that I, as a lay Catholic, should not do a reading at my cousin's same-sex wedding (if he ever had one), so a priest? This is a no brainer.
Really? I honestly didn't know that, but I'll definitely defer to you there. If that's the rule for a lay Catholic, then I can see why it would be a problem for the priest.
Of course, it also adds another entry to my "reasons-I'm-glad-I'm-no-longer-Catholic" list.
... Actually, it's my understanding that I, as a lay Catholic, should not do a reading at my cousin's same-sex wedding (if he ever had one), so a priest? This is a no brainer.
Really? I honestly didn't know that, but I'll definitely defer to you there. If that's the rule for a lay Catholic, then I can see why it would be a problem for the priest.
Of course, it also adds another entry to my "reasons-I'm-glad-I'm-no-longer-Catholic" list.
Attending a gay marraige would be the same as attending a heterosexual marriage where you know that at least one Catholic partner is still married in the eyes of God (ie. civilly divorced but has no annulment).
ETA: I mean actively participating. I'm not sure about attending.
Post by sillygoosegirl on Sept 7, 2012 18:51:49 GMT -5
My Catholic grandparents were advised by their nephew the priest not to attend my parents wedding, because my dad was (officially) Catholic and the ceremony was not being performed my a Catholic priest, and therefore was a sham. Which was a little bit of a surprise, since they expected my grandparents to be advised not to attend because they thought my mom was still married in the eyes of the church (civil divorce only). But it turns out that my mom's previous marriage never counted in the first place because her first husband was also Catholic and the first marriage was also not performed by a Catholic priest (I don't think this makes a marriage void to the Catholic church anymore, but it did back then).
My grandparents said family is family and went anyway. I agree with them. And I agree with the priest doing the reading in this article. But I am in no way surprised by the church rebuking it. I appreciate the consistency that the Catholic church tends to display on such matters, and in some ways find it really appealing and admirable. But all too often, as in this case, I just fundamentally disagree with where they are coming from. There's a reason I'm not Catholic.
My Catholic grandparents were advised by their nephew the priest not to attend my parents wedding, because my dad was (officially) Catholic and the ceremony was not being performed my a Catholic priest, and therefore was a sham. Which was a little bit of a surprise, since they expected my grandparents to be advised not to attend because they thought my mom was still married in the eyes of the church (civil divorce only). But it turns out that my mom's previous marriage never counted in the first place because her first husband was also Catholic and the first marriage was also not performed by a Catholic priest (I don't think this makes a marriage void to the Catholic church anymore, but it did back then).
If you're Catholic but not married by a Catholic priest (and haven't undergone the necessary premarital rites such as counseling and pre-cana) then the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the church. So technically, even though her mother was "married" and a "divorced woman" before her marriage to SGG's dad, she wasn't "married married" because it didn't receive the proper Catholic benediction. If she had been married in the Catholic church with her first husband, she would have had to receive a church annulment prior to her second marriage to invalidate the first marriage. Her grandparents would have objected on the grounds she was "still married in the eyes of God and the Church" even with a civil divorce because she never went through the church procedures. But because she wasn't married in the Catholic church or by a Catholic priest the first time, the marriage technically never occurred in the eyes of the Church. So no reason to object on the grounds of her prior "non-existent" marriage, just on the fact that this one would also not be valid in the eyes of the Church.
(non Catholic married to a non-practicing Catholic whose mother is Reborn Catholic who was raised Lutheran and also a granddaughter of a Catholic converted to Methodist after ex-communication from the Catholic Church as a result of her divorce from her first husband and whose father was raised Catholic but converted to non-practicing Presbyterian...which is even more confusing than the explanation above.)
If you're Catholic but not married by a Catholic priest (and haven't undergone the necessary premarital rites such as counseling and pre-cana) then the marriage is invalid in the eyes of the church. So technically, even though her mother was "married" and a "divorced woman" before her marriage to SGG's dad, she wasn't "married married" because it didn't receive the proper Catholic benediction. If she had been married in the Catholic church with her first husband, she would have had to receive a church annulment prior to her second marriage to invalidate the first marriage. Her grandparents would have objected on the grounds she was "still married in the eyes of God and the Church" even with a civil divorce because she never went through the church procedures. But because she wasn't married in the Catholic church or by a Catholic priest the first time, the marriage technically never occurred in the eyes of the Church. So no reason to object on the grounds of her prior "non-existent" marriage, just on the fact that this one would also not be valid in the eyes of the Church.
Yes. I went back to read it again and I get the situation now. I think all of the relationship words confused me and I had to pay attention more closely.
I hope these vile bigots get an official rebuke from God. Incidentally, was Mr. Groeschel ever officially rebuked for his empassioned defense of child abusers?
I do not know if he was, but I do know he apologized and stepped down from his show on EWTN. I tend to think you wouldn't hear about an official rebuke regarding that matter anyway. That would be good press for the Church. OTOH, an official rebuke re: participating in a gay marriage ceremony?
I do not know if he was, but I do know he apologized and stepped down from his show on EWTN. I tend to think you wouldn't hear about an official rebuke regarding that matter anyway. That would be good press for the Church. OTOH, an official rebuke re: participating in a gay marriage ceremony?
The Diocese could have released a statement that he had been officially rebuked if that were the case. They could garner their own good press.
2Vermont, the Church is not the victim, so please do not attempt to make it so by trying to indicate that the leftist lamestream media villifies it.
This was part of their response to the sentence of William Lynn: (the first half stated they know how grave child abuse is) "Fair-minded people will question the severity of the heavy, three to six year sentence imposed on Msgr. Lynn today. We hope that when this punishment is objectively reviewed, it will be adjusted. We pray for Msgr. Lynn and his family at this difficult time." My point in including this example here is that the Church does a good job on its own without the help of the media making itself look bad.
I realize my argument is hard for you to accept. Please do not take it as a personal attack against you because it's not. But please do not try to make the Church seem like a victim of injustice.
No, I'm not. However, have you seen much good press? I think one can point that out and still not take the POV that it is a victim.
Wrt Fr Groeschel, it is very possible that there was a formal response. Just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean there wasn't one (which is what I'm getting at). I'm not sure where that would come from though because as far as I know I don't think he is a diocesan priest. I'm not sure who would be his direct superior.
Wrt Fr Groeschel, it is very possible that there was a formal response. Just because we don't know about it, doesn't mean there wasn't one (which is what I'm getting at). I'm not sure where that would come from though because as far as I know I don't think he is a diocesan priest. I'm not sure who would be his direct superior.
This article uses the word "rebuke," but I'm not seeing any reference to a formal rebuke that goes in his file along the lines of what was at issue in the same-sex wedding case.
“Father Benedict made comments that were inappropriate and untrue,” the order said in an Aug. 30 statement. “These comments were completely out of character. He never intended to excuse abuse or implicate the victims.”
The order cited Father Groeschel’s worsening health: “In recent months his health, memory and cognitive ability have been failing. He has been in and out of the hospital. Due to his declining health and inability to care for himself, Father Benedict had moved to a location where he could rest and be relieved of his responsibilities. Although these factors do not excuse his comments, they help us understand how such a compassionate man could have said something so wrong, so insensitive and so out of character.”
The friars expressed regret for the remarks and highlighted Groeschel's medical history. They said he had been in a car accident several years ago, and that "in recent months his health, memory and cognitive ability have been failing." They described the comments as "out of character."
So it appears to me that the mainstream media has reported this chain of events accurately.
And within most of those linked articles (one of which was a Catholic organization) is the following response from the Archdiocese of New York:
Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said in an Aug. 30 statement before Father Groeschel's apology that the priest's comments were "simply wrong." Zwilling added, "Although he is not a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, what Father Groeschel said cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. The sexual abuse of a minor is a crime, and whoever commits that crime deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." He also took exception to Father Groeschel's characterization of sexual abuse victims as seducers. "The harm that was done by these remarks was compounded by the assertion that the victim of abuse is responsible for the abuse, or somehow caused the abuse to occur. This is not only terribly wrong. It is also extremely painful for victims," Zwilling said. "The Archdiocese of New York completely disassociates itself from these comments," he added. "They do not reflect our beliefs or our practice."
He was rebuked. Of course not to the extent of the priest who acted against the teachings of the Catholic Faith.
Post by jillboston on Sept 8, 2012 18:06:19 GMT -5
I find it fascinating how the Catholic church in America picks and chooses the rules it wants to "front" on. Child abusers? We need compassion and understanding for them. Annullments for men married dozens of years with children from the marriage - Sure! Attending a marriage of a loved one in you collar - that's the line we won't cross... I am grateful yet again that I chose to marry outside my church with a minister we both respected. There was no way in hell I was going to tell my DH that he had to get an annullment from his ex-wife to whom he was married by in a the Catholic church (by a pedophile priest as it turns out) for 8 years. They can call my marriage a sham all they want but my conscience is clear. I think I'll go puke now.
I feel like if the Catholic Church wants good press they should be doing more good things than bad...and yes, I am sure they do lots of good things, but protecting pedophiles pretty much trumps all that. I HATE that but its true. I feel the same way as an 'evangelical' Christian. I hate it that when I tell people I attend a baptist church (with a really liberal pastor, but that's besides the point) they presume I am a 'crazy Christian'. But I don't blame them for their assumptions, I blame picket bearing, funeral protesting, gay bashing 'Christ-followers' who give the rest of us a shitty name.
We get shit press because we pretend to be better than other people, judge other people for their actions and then get caught doing even worse shit and then try to cover it up.
I find it fascinating how the Catholic church in America picks and chooses the rules it wants to "front" on. Child abusers? We need compassion and understanding for them. Annullments for men married dozens of years with children from the marriage - Sure! Attending a marriage of a loved one in you collar - that's the line we won't cross..I am grateful yet again that I chose to marry outside my church with a minister we both respected. There was no way in hell I was going to tell my DH that he had to get an annullment from his ex-wife to whom he was married by in a the Catholic church (by a pedophile priest as it turns out) for 8 years. They can call my marriage a sham all they want but my conscience is clear. I think I'll go puke now.
Clearly there's a lot of anger in that post and you're entitled of course, but most of what you wrote is either not true, inaccurate or shows your own bias.
(1) The Church is working on doing the right thing wrt child abusers despite its desire to have compassion for them (compassion that I think Jesus would have had for them too I might add). From what I have seen, it is also working hard to make sure this never happens again.
(2) The main issue with this priest was not about attending the marriage, but actually participating in it. I don't believe there are any hard and fast rules about attending marriages of any sort.
(3) I find it interesting that you only focus on all of the annulments for the "men" (as if annulments aren't granted for women too).
There was a priest who crashed his car into an abortion clinic and charged in with an axe. He didn't get in (Church) trouble. But a guy reading the Bible at his family's wedding got rebuked. It's wrong.
Can you give me more info because I would like to research that? I have a hard time believing there were no consequences for that. The Church does not promote violence in its pro-life endeavors.
I find it fascinating how the Catholic church in America picks and chooses the rules it wants to "front" on. Child abusers? We need compassion and understanding for them. Annullments for men married dozens of years with children from the marriage - Sure! Attending a marriage of a loved one in you collar - that's the line we won't cross..I am grateful yet again that I chose to marry outside my church with a minister we both respected. There was no way in hell I was going to tell my DH that he had to get an annullment from his ex-wife to whom he was married by in a the Catholic church (by a pedophile priest as it turns out) for 8 years. They can call my marriage a sham all they want but my conscience is clear. I think I'll go puke now.
You are damn right I'm angry. A good high school friend of mine was raped by a priest for years. The priest had been shuttled up to our tiny parish in upstate NY by the Albany Bishop who confirmed me after he had been find in a hotel room in Albany by the cops with young boys. He took my first confession and then targeted my friend because he was poor and his parents were divorced. I do not think the Church is getting "better" with respect to this issue. They fought the revelations tooth and nail in Boston and sent our Cardinal to the Vatican before he could be arrested.
If you can't see the rank hypocrisy in the actions taken by the Church with respect to this priest vs. the bullshit they hide under the rug we are miles apart here. I said "Men" in my post because those are the people I have anecdotal evidence and I was too pissed off to "Women". But it is bullshit that the covenant of marriage is sacred until it is not and the American Catholic church treats annulments cavalierly and apparently as long as enough money is involved can be granted. I am disgusted by the Church's behaviour.
Clearly there's a lot of anger in that post and you're entitled of course, but most of what you wrote is either not true, inaccurate or shows your own bias.
(1) The Church is working on doing the right thing wrt child abusers despite its desire to have compassion for them (compassion that I think Jesus would have had for them too I might add). From what I have seen, it is also working hard to make sure this never happens again.
(2) The main issue with this priest was not about attending the marriage, but actually participating in it. I don't believe there are no hard and fast rules about attending marriages of any sort.
(3) I find it interesting that you only focus on the all of the annulments for the "men" (as if annulments aren't granted for women too).
It says that he is an associate pastor at a bilingual parish in another town. He was on probation, did community service and paid a fine. I am not seeing how he was punished "in house' in the article (http://www.rrstar.com/news/x426171369/Priest-who-wrecked-Rockford-abortion-clinic-moved-to-Belvidere ) but I will keep looking. Outside of defrocking, I am not sure any more infor would be posted publicly, htough.
It says that he is an associate pastor at a bilingual parish in another town. He was on probation, did community service and paid a fine. I am not seeing how he was punished "in house' in the article (http://www.rrstar.com/news/x426171369/Priest-who-wrecked-Rockford-abortion-clinic-moved-to-Belvidere ) but I will keep looking. Outside of defrocking, I am not sure any more infor would be posted publicly, htough.
those are legal punishments, though, not punishments from the Church.
right. I said that...outside of defrocking, other punishments might not be published.
Can you give me more info because I would like to research that? I have a hard time believing there were no consequences for that. The Church does not promote violence in its pro-life endeavors.
lol, I am too lazy to look up links, so I will give you his name: Father John Earl. Let me know what you find out, ok? He's also here, but it's just a wiki list without anything further (look at 2000 in property crime): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Not sure what the "lol" was for but I found this with a quick google (so yeah, there were consequences and he was most certainly rebuked for this as well):
Update: Rockford priest faces charges
A Rockford priest was expected to be arraigned Oct. 9 on charges of burglary and criminal trespass in connection with his alleged entry into a Rockford abortion clinic Sept. 30. Father John Earl, pastor of St. Patrick Parish in Rochelle, was released on $10,000 bond following an incident at the Northern Illinois Women’s Center in which he is alleged to have driven his Saturn automobile into a closed garage door to gain entry, and then used an ax to open other doors and move about inside the building. In a statement released Sept. 30, the Diocese of Rockford had no comment on the criminal charges facing Earl but said that “it has never been nor is it the policy or practice of the Roman Catholic Church to condone, approve or promote violence in any form to achieve a desired end.’’ “While this matter is under further review,” Rockford Bishop Thomas G. Doran “has restricted Father Earl’s activities in accordance with church law,” the diocese said. Diocesan officials said they planned to make no additional comments while charges were pending against Earl.