patent
"Homosexuality is Sin. The Bible calls it such; and it is not compatible with the priesthood - period. Any member of the priesthood who is Homosexual must resign immediately or face expulsion and excommunication. This includes any Homosexual who is celibate, or not."
The first generation of filters may do a good job in excluding people who should not be ministers. Later, all one has to do is question women's ordination or abortion as birth control and the interviewer's eyes will fill with tears. Goodbye seminary. In addition, similar tools are used to get rid of dissenting conservative seminary students. One scientist argued Creation successfully at a Lutheran seminary. The faculty voted unanimously to get rid of him.
"Testifying before a public school board in State College, he argued on spiritual grounds for legitimizing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle in the public schools there. Brown told the school board that he was 'appalled' that the school district had excluded known homosexual speakers from Penn State University from making presentations to teachers at in-service day workshops."
The problems here in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown persist to this day. We have demanded the bishop remove Brown, to no avail.
I have gone rounds with our bishop, and all they get worked up about is the faithful genuflecting before communion!
Here is my original letter to Bishop Adamec:
3/8/99
Most Rev. Joseph V. Adamec, D.D., S.T.L.
126 Logan Blvd.
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
Dear Bishop Adamec,
On Friday, February 27, 1999, I attended a Local Issues Forum at Park Forest Middle School, State College School District, where the subject of debate was whether to include the phrase "sexual orientation" in the school district's nondiscrimination policy.
Unfortunately, only four Catholics [including my friend Gary Morella, who cooperated with Michael Rose regarding the information about Brown in Rose's new book--Brian], including myself, and six Baptists attended this meeting to elucidate the traditional Christian position on this subject. We were confronted by approximately 200 homosexual activists and others militantly advocating this change to the school district policy. History has shown that such a change would prevent any individual within the school district, be they staff or student, from giving Christian witness to the fact that homosexuality is by its nature disordered and homosexual actions are gravely sinful in the eyes of God.
Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1990, enumerated the definitive church teaching on this issue, with a document entitled "Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons." Paragraph 9 of this document states:
``In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life'' (no. 17).
Furthermore, under "Applications," Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Document states: 10. ``Sexual orientation'' does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. ``Letter,'' no. 3).
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.
This teaching is quite clear and simple. Unfortunately, our priests in the State College area, both in the parishes and the Catholic Community on campus, have failed to enumerate this clear teaching to your flock in this community. In fact, in a letter to the local paper several weeks ago, Fr. Hlubik, of the Catholic Community of the Penn State University, openly denied these truths. The inaction of the rest of the priests of State College, in conjunction with the dissenting public opinion of Fr. Hlubik, leaves the community at large in State College with the distinct impression that our local church either tacitly approves of homosexual advocacy or is openly advancing it. It is scandalous that our local leadership allows this impression to persist, given the courageous stance of Rome on these issues, and that the local leadership also appears to tacitly approve of homosexual advocacy by its inaction.
The actions of a Catholic employee of the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, the Liturgy Music Coordinator of the Catholic Community Staff at PSU, must be also addressed strongly and unequivocally. Diane Bremer, in her letter published in the Center Daily Times Online, dated February 13, 1999, openly embraces not only granting special rights to homosexuals in the State College School District, but curriculum changes to "teach respect for all sexual orientations...Training and workshops should be planned for all staff to encourage understanding and respect for all sexual orientations."
Again, referring to the 1990 document, Paragraph 16 states:
Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17). (Emphasis added.)
While so many issues, such as homosexual advocacy, go uncorrected, the simple faithful Catholic in our diocese who desires to show reverence to Christ in the Holy Eucharist by a form of Latria, namely a genuflection or bow before receiving the Eucharist, is forbidden to do so. While no public correction of dissenters against the Church's teaching on homosexuality, abortion, contraception, etc., is forthcoming, if the faithful persist in following the dictates of their consciences public correction by your priests is swift and sharp.
Last night I witnessed and heard Fr. Mazur accost and publicly embarrass a woman who genuflected at the 5 PM mass Sunday, at the Cathedral Of the Blessed Sacrament, before receiving communion. He grabbed her arm and stated, "The bishop has requested that you don't do that!" Fr. Baroni has recently threatened from the pulpit to "publicly embarrass" anyone who genuflects before receiving communion. Those practicing this legitimate form of reverence for the Eucharist, but otherwise giving assent to all the other more important doctrines and dogmas of the Church, are being singled out for public correction by these priests and many others in this diocese.
Why is there, then, no PUBLIC correction, by you or our priests, of those dissenting from much more important issues, like homosexuality? Why has this one simple liturgical practice, which is in no way harmful to the faithful, been singled out for public correction by you in the Catholic Register?
If you desire to see the Church documents dealing with this issue, which are clearly contrary to the personal opinions of the liturgist(s) advising you on this issue, I would be happy to provide them to you. Please be advised that the Roman Catholic faithful have the right to show this form of reverence for the Eucharist, the local ordinary is not permitted to deny them of this right, and the authority to make a "Determination" regarding this "sign" is reserved to the Holy See or the national conference of Bishops. In fact, in 1995, the Bishops of the NCCB decided to leave the decision on this issue solely in the hands of the laity.
Furthermore, according to a nationally recognized Canon Law organization that has been consulted on this issue in our diocese, Canon law proceedings can be brought against any priest who attempts to deny a Roman Catholic faithful of their right to utilize this form of Latria, namely genuflection, before receiving the Eucharist.
In the light of the disturbing facts noted above, and given the teachings of the Church noted in Cardinal Ratzinger's document, I would appreciate your answers to these specific questions:
1. What corrective actions have been taken regarding Fr. Hlubik's erroneous opinions regarding Roman Catholic teachings on homosexuality? While one cannot expect his bishop to publicly discipline a priest, Fr. Hlubik's erroneous public statements, at a minimum, should be publicly corrected or retracted.
2. What disciplinary actions have been or will be taken against Diane Bremer for her public dissent against the teachings of the Catholic Church?
3. Why are the priests seemingly silent on this critical issue in State College?
4. Are the faithful in your diocese to be permitted to Genuflect before receiving communion? Your letter regarding this issue does not explicitly forbid genuflection, but this is how some of your priests are "enforcing" your Directive. Are they correct in inferring from your "Directive" that the faithful are forbidden to genuflect?
5. What can I do to assist you in rectifying these problems?
It would be SCANDALOUS to publicly correct the faithful for a practice that, under Canon Law, is their right, while failing to publicly correct the most dangerous types of dissent among your priests and laity. I look forward to your personal response to these questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Brian J. Kopp
cc: Fr. Mazur, Fr. Baroni, Fr. Hlubik
Here is my bishop's written response via US Mail to my letter, after I wrote 2 brief follow up letters requesting a response, stating my support for his annual appeal would depend on hearing back from him:
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown,
Office of the Bishop
126 Logan Boulevard
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
May 24, 1999
Dr. Brian J. Kopp, DPM
303 Budfield Street
Johnstown, PA 15904
Dear Dr. Kopp,
My preference has been to answer certain correspondence myself, if at all possible. Unfortunately, this does cause a response to be somewhat delayed. Please accept my apologies. Its not that I do not wish to respond. With all the events that I am expected to attend, it would be easier to have my staff answer all mail. That is not always taken kindly.
You wrote me some time ago regarding the situation in State College and genuflection at communion time. As I gather from your letters (and from your inquiry on the internet) you appear to present yourself as already having all the answers. Consequently, I did not feel that a response from me would mean all that much to you.
Regarding the State College situation, it has been under study by my staff. I have, as a consequence, written a pastoral statement relating to the matter. Know that I have (and will in the next issue of "The Catholic Register") updated the reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Relative to posture at the time of receiving holy communion, I have more authority in this regard than does a priest from the Diocese of Harrisburg on the internet. As Bishop and the liturgist for this Diocesan Church, I do have the right to make certain determinations. As I tried to point out, the "Amen" has been for all these years the expression of belief. Furthermore, making the sign of the cross makes more sense before receiving the Eucharist than after while bowing to a crucifix, having received the very body and blood of the Lord.
Whether you share some of what the Lrod has given you with the Church through the Annual Catholic Appeal is, of course, your choice. Please know that I am grateful for your significant contributions in the past.
Thank you for writing. May you experience an abundance of divine blessings; - especially those of peace and joy.
Fraternally yours in the Lord,
+ Joseph
(Most Rev.) Bishop Joseph V. Adamec
Bishop of Altoona-Johnstown
To see Bishop Adamec's "Pastoral Letter" on Homosexuality, which used the same reasonongs for which Father Nugent and Sister Grammick were suspended by the Vatican, see this link: http://www.diocesealtjtn.org/bish/doc/bish_psh.htm
patent
I know this to be fact. Two young men from my parish were initially denied entry into seminary because of their psychologicals (they were too orthodox, whatever that means). Many letters and a raging pastor later, they were let in and one is now a priest and the other will be ordained this June. In another instance, my best friends son just left seminary because of the "homosexual" living conditions there. He is taking a leave to discern what's next. After listening to his story, I'm surprised he is still considering going back to seminary. He must have a real vocation, I guess.
So we have psychiatrists passing on the sanity of potential priests, when by their definitions anyone who firmly believes in God and an immortal soul is deluded or insane...