Skip to comments.Priest Barred From Saying Mass [Canada; for remarks on abortion, homosexuality]
Posted on 09/22/2011 7:11:33 AM PDT by marshmallow
An elderly priest on the Acadian Peninsula has been barred from performing church services in the Bathurst diocese after he made remarks about homosexuals and women who have had an abortion.
Rev. Donat Gionet, 85, gave the sermon at the Roman Catholic church in Saint-Léolin while replacing the regular parish priest late last month.
He stands by the comments he made in Saint-Léolin, a village of about 730 people located about 50 kilometres east of Bathurst.
Reached in Caraquet on Wednesday, Gionet declined an interview but did provide a written statement.
In a letter written in French that he provided to the Telegraph-Journal, Gionet stated the sermon in question was about the destruction of the Church and the need to seek forgiveness for past sins:
"I said: 'Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.' (That's when I pointed at my chest - through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our Church ourselves. And that's when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Léolin church only, I added: 'We can add to that the practice of watching gay parades, we are encouraging this evil' ... What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes."
Bishop Valéry Vienneau has revoked Gionet's rights to serve mass across the Diocese of Bathurst, a decision welcomed by Joseph Lanteigne, the openly gay mayor of Saint-Léolin.
"The action taken by the diocese is good and I know it isn't easy for............
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com ...
A true priest and a credit to the ROMAN Catholic Church and to his Maker!
ib4z (at Diocese of Bathurst, I mean).
"We have to respect people on their own journey...
That's ZEN BUDDHISM, not Christianity at all!
If the Vatican doesn't dismiss Bishop Valéry Vienneau, this it will confirm that there is corruption all the way up. Waiting . . . .
Sir Walter Scott
Another bishop punches his ticket to burn in Hell, forever.
He must have been at my Church last summer, we had a Priest that said the same things. I thought his sermon was pretty good.
My guess is the collection plate that week wasn’t so good and they banned him.
The Catholic Church I belong to is against practicing homosexuality and abortion, maybe Canada is different.
Of course I just know what I read here, but when did Christ say “We have to respect people on their own journey , meaning Homosexuals and abortionists.
IMO just from what I have read here Rev. Donat Gionet, 85. is the only Catholic in the Diocese.
Guess I better get ready to be crucified LOL.
Hooray for Fr.Gionet! The truth must be spoken for evil to be conquered.
Sadly, the Vatican does not dismiss bishops for making dumb, even sinful, administrative decisions. Each bishop has autonomy within his own diocese, providing he does not commit apostasy or schism.
What’s even more sad is this such a beautiful region, with such a wonderful religious heritage. From the papal museum, to the colonial reconstruction, to the sheer natural beauty, it made such a wonderful spiritual vacation. I’m not surprised that there is rot at the top. I understand the founder of the papal museum and a divine-mercy natural sanctuary was given much grief for his efforts by the local hierarchs.
I am inclined to agree with the Priests’ written transcript.
There seems be a great falling away beginning to take place.
I worry about a Church that would bar such a one -unless there is much we have not been told about the man. Would they accept as Priest/Confessor one who taught that the Scripture is wrong to suggest the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners exceedingly before the Lord.? ( my apology to the author of Genesis 13:13)
You cannot just "dismiss" a bishop. You have to depose him from his see which is a long legal process - unless he does something which is excommunicable.
The bishop has authority in his diocese to decide which priests do or do not have permission to celebrate public Masses and hear confessions in his diocese.
The priest has canonical rights and the bishop has canonical rights and there is a canonical process for determining whether the bishop has unduly deprived a priest of his faculties.
Many people seem to think that the Papacy is a personal dictatorship rather than an elected canonical office.
You can hide behind semantics, but if this Bishop is free to do this, then the Catholic church is no difference from the Protestant church. The Bishop has denied the faith and rejected God (1 Thess 4:8). The Vatican put him in a position of authority. If it doesn't t remove him, then it's complicit with his apostasy.
The 10th anniversary of September 11th fell on a Sunday and the priest at my church preached a brief and forceful sermon using basically the same analogy: ten years ago our nation received a wake-up call. What have we done in the intervening years? Doubled-down on our sinfulness.
It's not a matter of "semantics."
Words mean things.
if this Bishop is free to do this, then the Catholic church is no difference from the Protestant church
A meaningless statement.
There are rules which the Pope has to follow, which the bishop has to follow and which priests and laymen have to follow as well. The Church is a hierarchy and it has established rules - following them is hardly "Protestantism": in point of fact, ignoring the rules is more consistent with Luther's behavior.
The Bishop has denied the faith and rejected God (1 Thess 4:8).
That's your opinion. You cannot remove a bishop from office on the basis of a newspaper article.
The bishop has a point of view as well, and unless he agrees that he is denying the faith and rejecting the Almighty, he has a right to explain his point of view.
The Vatican put him in a position of authority.
Indeed it did, and it did not do so arbitrarily, but according to the canonical process required for such a promotion. Likewise, he cannot be removed from his see arbitrarily, but according to canon law.
If it doesn't t remove him, then it's complicit with his apostasy.
If you accuse someone of apostasy and expect him to be punished on the grounds of apostasy, you have to prove it - a newspaper clipping is not sufficient evidence for deposition and excommunication. That isn't justice - it's pique.
And neither you nor any mortal man has a right to stand in judgment over the Holy See. You have absolutely zero authority in this matter.
No, he isn't. He works for the ultimate legislator. There are many laws he is powerless to change.
he can change Canon Law with the stroke of a pen, or with a simple decree
In many cases, this is true. Certainly not in all. And this is not how matters are traditionally handled, as you know.
even without touching the canonical issues regarding deposition, the Holy Father could transfer this bishop to Rome in an instant, and assign him a titular see which is vacant (i.e. neutralize the bishop's canonical authority) or demand his immediate resignation, among other things
Not entirely accurate. He would still have to depose him from his existing see. Bishops who accept titular sees usually resign their previous see to accept the new see. If he does not want to resign and take a titular see, he would canonically need to be deposed.
He could, of course, demand a resignation - however this would be self-defeating: the Pope has a responsibility to guarantee all the faithful of whatever station their canonical rights, demanding a resignation without a canonical trial is an extreme move reserved for glaring violations - and the matter we are discussing is not actually a violation of any kind whatever.
it's much more likely that the priest will be exonerated, that his faculties will be restored, that the bishop will receive a rather stern reprimand/correction, that a coadjutor bishop could be assigned, and that wheels will start moving in the direction of pressuring the bishop to retire early
That is usual method and it is the usual method for a reason.
This is exactly what happens when you don’t have a 1st amendment and a 2nd to back it up.