Priest Barred From Saying Mass [Canada; for remarks on abortion, homosexuality]

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............

The scripture says to test all spirits to see if they are of God.

And what is the test it tells us to apply?

"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God."

Unless you are prepared to claim that the Pope does not confess the doctrine that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God" (a doctrine he not only confesses but exhorts others to confess in both volumes of his "Jesus Of Nazareth"), then you are applying some other artificial test invented by yourself that has no Scriptural basis whatever.

After a while, the evidence begins to speak for itself.

The evidence on this thread, so far, is that you are trolling and are not a serious person.

Wideawake wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
Er... that really doesn't portray the Papacy (or the situation) very accurately. First: the Pope is the ultimate legislator of the Church

[wideawake]
No, he isn't. He works for the ultimate legislator. There are many laws he is powerless to change.

(*wry look*) I don't know whether you're being coy or serious; of course God is the "Ultimate Legislator", if we want to be pedantic... but I do think you know what I meant, yes? You did catch the part in my next sentence saying that I was speaking of CANON law, not the moral law? The policies by which bishops are handled (i.e. the very topic of this thread) is most definitely a pure case of canon law, not positive Divine Law... right?

[Paladin]
he can change Canon Law with the stroke of a pen, or with a simple decree

[wideawake]
In many cases, this is true. Certainly not in all.

Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

And this is not how matters are traditionally handled, as you know.

I did... and I said as much. But you had said that the Pope was powerless to do so instantly... which is not correct. Say that it's unlikely to proceed instantly, and I'll agree with you; but do not go too far.

[Paladin]
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

[wideawake]
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.

That last bit is true enough (symptom of [my] typing too quickly, last time); my main point was to counter the mistaken idea that the papacy is merely (as you put it) "an elected canonical office", which is glaringly misleading to anyone who lives in a democracy/democratic republic; you're welcome to call it wildly unlikely (and you'd be right), but: the Pope could abolish the college of cardinals tomorrow, transfer every last bishop to new dioceses, depose hundreds of them with one Papal decree (written or unwritten), and a hundred-thousand other things which would, for anyone else, be forbidden by canon law. Quite simply: the Pope is certainly the guardian of canon law, and he is honour-bound to defend and uphold it; but he is not externally bound by it.

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.

First: it would only and possibly be self-defeating in a "pragmatic" sense, not in a legal/validity-based sense (i.e. the Pope could actually do it). Second: I was arguing the theory, not the application (as I think I made clear). The Pope (through the appropriate dicastery) could very easily issue a negation of the Bishop's actions and issue a public correction of the deficiencies in the Bishop's comments (through his vicar general, etc.) and actions--coupled, perhaps, by something to the effect of: "We hope to enjoy your cooperation in these matters, Your Excellency" (i.e. consequences await you if you don't).

Ultimately, I think we're in agreement in the "probably matters on the ground"; I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

Now you've changed the terms of the discussion.

Canon Law is codified - every word of the code is canon law and no distinction is made between "pure canon law" and some other category of canon law.

By the very fact of its being law it cannot be disconnected from what you are describing as "positive Divine law" or what other jurists would describe as natural law.

Canon 208 can never be abolished by any Pope, for example.

I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

And I wanted to avoid the much more common and dangerous fiction that the Pope is some kind of arbitrary dictator who gets to invent procedure as he goes along - as opposed to a pastor with a well-defined canonical role whose actions and statements conform to two thousand years of Christian Scriptural exegesis and tradition.

I take your point but... It's a village of 750 people. I doubt they have gay-pride parades at all nevermind people applauding them as they watch. (The parade would have what? Two people?) They were likely left untouched by priestly abuse scandals. Who was this homily for? It doesn't seem to be about things happening in that village.

He sounds a bit like a dotty old priest that can still say mass but is otherwise a bit frayed around the edges. Most Catholics have seen this. I recall a confession one time in which I confessed to gluttony and the confessor wandered off into a lecture about lesbians and undirected thoughts of violence before telling me to eat a jelly donut while NOT enjoying it for penance. Fr. Gauthier was a fantastic priest but he was a little ... Erratic at the end.

wideawake wrote, in reply to my comment:

[Paladin]
Just for my own reference: when you say "certainly not in all", do you have examples in mind? Specifically: can you name a single instance of "pure" Canon law (i.e. not simply a Canon which reiterates some positive Divine Law, such as the moral wrongness of abortion) which the Pope cannot change, if he willed to do so?

[wideawake]
Now you've changed the terms of the discussion.

[Paladin]
I hardly think so, friend. I already specified "Canon Law" (i.e. legislation of the Church, as opposed to positive Divine Law; it parallels the difference between Church discipline [reformable] and Church dogma [irreformable]), and I think we can both admit that I didn't indend to mean "Can the Pope change the Law of God?", right? I think I've said enough to make my point very clearly, on that idea.

Canon Law is codified

Er... that's undeniably true... but I fail to see how that's relevant. The Holy Father can "un-codify" any canon which is reformable (and there are many such canons which are reformable); you agree, yes?

every word of the code is canon law and no distinction is made between "pure canon law" and some other category of canon law.

Let's not be silly, here! I already make the distinction between Canon Law which reiterates Divine Law, and that which does not; and no sane person would deny that there exists a distinction between the two. I was trying to avoid the use of the word "mere", as in "merely canon law", since I didn't want to diminish its importance; but I also sought to distinguish between Positive Divine Law (which canon law often references, and even restates) and those canons which are "merely" (though very importantly) Church legislation/discipline.

By the very fact of its being law it cannot be disconnected from what you are describing as "positive Divine law" or what other jurists would describe as natural law.

I sought to distinguish it, not to "disconnect" it (whatever you meant by that). Think of the Divine Persons of the Blessed Trinity, as a randome example: utterly distinct and unconfused, but inseparable.

Canon 208 can never be abolished by any Pope, for example.

Right... since that's a matter which pertains directly to Divine Law. Perhaps I could have picked a term more to your taste than "pure canon law" (i.e. canon law which can be changed), but I trust my meaning is now clear?

[Paladin]
I merely wanted to avoid any mistaken impressions that people might get about the Pope somehow being "legally beholden to a legislative process".

[wideawake]
And I wanted to avoid the much more common and dangerous fiction that the Pope is some kind of arbitrary dictator who gets to invent procedure as he goes along - as opposed to a pastor with a well-defined canonical role whose actions and statements conform to two thousand years of Christian Scriptural exegesis and tradition.

Fair enough; but you might do well to avoid terms like "elected canonical office", since it strongly implies (to the very people whom you're trying to convince) a "we elected you, and we can un-elect you, so you'd better represent our interests!" sort of view.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.