Priest rebuked for role in same-sex marriage

[2vermont]

Sept 9, 2012 9:04:32 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Sept 9, 2012 5:33:53 GMT -5 2vermont said:

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.

www.catholicnewworld.com/archive/cnw2000/1008/hed.htm

A Catholic news source.

the "lol" was at my laziness.

Thanks for looking that up. When we look at these side by side, there seems to be no similarity between them.

Gay wedding priest: "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."

Ax-wielding priest: "has restricted Father Earl’s activities in accordance with church law"

The car-crasher got grounded. Then he got moved to a church 25 minutes away where presumably his language skills were an asset. A quick search showed he was just moved back to his original area 25 minutes away again. It indicates nothing about a permanent record or a formal rebuke. Examining these 2 particular statements, it seems that the more lasting and serious transgression was the wedding priest.

Also, the wedding priest got rebuked by the Archbishop, but the car crasher got told off by the Bishop. Does this indicate the former's transgression was greater because a higher-ranking Church official handled the matter?

Finally, a violent offender should NOT be receiving the same consequence of rebuke-- if indeed they were the same, which seems to be your argument-- as a non-violent offender.

Regardless of rebukes or lack thereof, it is pretty dismal to keep a car-crashing, ax-wielding person as a representative of their leadership and spirituality.

Again, like Tef said, you can't go just by what is reported. I suspect there was formal rebukes and permanent records involved in the other cases as well. When they say "in accordance with Church law" that means they followed canon law. Unless we want to investigate exactly what canon law says about each and every circumstance, then we aren't going to know all of the details of the specific consequences.

As for Archbishop vs Bishop, they are both bishops. The difference has to do with the size of the diocese (ie. is it an archdiocese or a diocese?). They are both the highest rank in their respective dioceses. For example, there is no archbishop in the Diocese of Albany, NY, only a bishop. However, there is an Archbishop (actually now named a Cardinal) in the Archdiocese of NY.

WRT not allowing transgressors to be leaders in the Church? I am sure that things are taken case by case (especially now) regarding the behavior of priests. From what I read, the car-crasher priest had a clean "record" up to that point. In fact, his parishioners were in shock because he didn't tend to preach that much on abortion, prolife etc. Likewise, i would bet the same is true for the wedding priest. I happen to believe that the Church is being more careful these days (as it should), but ultimately it is still going to lean towards forgiveness whenever possible. We all sin including priests.

This is my POV and I recognize that most on this board don't share it....and I'm cool with that.

ETA: And, if in fact the report is all there is to both, I would argue that having one's priestly activities restricted is a harsher penalty to a priest then a memo in his file.