Skip to comments.Catholic church removes 'married' gay man as confirmation teacher, lector
Posted on 04/04/2013 4:06:35 PM PDT by Morgana
OCEANSIDE, NY, April 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) A Catholic church on Long Island has removed a 47 year-old Long Island man from his role as the parish's confirmation teacher, lector, and altar server after learning he was married to another man.
Nicholas Coppola joined his partner, David Krespo, in a non-sacramental wedding ceremony last October. The service was attended by some of his fellow parishioners at St. Anthonys Catholic Church in Oceanside. Bishop William Murphy. Bishop William Murphy.
Coppola claims that he had been an open homosexual in his parish for years. Even his pastor, he alleges, knew of his engagement in the homosexual lifestyle but permitted Coppola to serve in leadership positions, including as an altar server, religious education teacher for children preparing for confirmation, and lector.
Bishop William Murphy of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York, received a written complaint about Coppola. A diocesan official passed it on to Coppolas pastor saying, While not on a witch hunt, I know it would be of concern to you if a catechist were, in fact, married as described.
Coppolas pastor soon after pulled him aside to notify him that he was being removed from his public roles within the parish.
However, contrary to some reports, Coppola was never asked to leave the Church or cease worship at the parish.
In this situation, the Catholic Churchs teaching on marriage is that the sacrament of marriage is between one man and one woman, diocesan Director of Communications, Sean Dolan explained to LifeSiteNews.com. When this man became civilly married, its inconsistent with the Churchs teaching on marriage.
When you hold yourself to be a teacher, a public figure, lector or Eucharistic Minister, it sends an incorrect signal to people about the Churchs teaching on marriage, he added.
Dolan responded to a question from LifeSiteNews by saying the church had not acted when it learned Coppola was a homosexual, because hes civilly married, and marriage is a public action.
When youve taken the step of publicly getting married, that raises the bar, he said.
Were not singling out any community or individual in particular, Dolan clarified. Prohibition exists for people who are currently in invalid heterosexual marriages as well.
An example of this, he explained, would be the person who marries in the church, divorces, then remarries outside the Church.
That person, too, would be precluded from participating in educational or public roles in the Church.
Same-sex marriage is at center stage in the media, with the Supreme Court hearing arguments regarding Californias Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
The Catholic Church has remained one of the most vocal defenders of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Some media outlets are questioning whether the Rockville Centre bishop and priests removal of Coppola from his volunteer positions is in contradiction to recent statements made by Cardinals Timothy Dolan and Donald Wuerl with respect to ministering more effectively to people with same-sex attractions.
However, the cardinal has maintained the Churchs position that marriage is between one man and one woman.
...you can't be a friggin' homo.
So, why wasn’t the complicit pastor removed, or at least disciplined?
I was speaking to a neighbor just a little while ago ,and he was telling me he took his little boy to join the Boy Scouts, but when he got there something looked fishy.
He found out that two of the little boys who were joining had been adopted by a couple of male Homo’s.
He decided his son did not need to belong to this troop.
Now some will say he was wrong in this,but then again, why take a chance with your child?
How can he even be allowed to continue as a member of the Church?
LOL!!!! Who writes this stuff? As if ever there could be a sacrament to endorse and promote sin?
“As if ever there could be a sacrament to endorse and promote sin? “
Explaining the wedding is false for those of you in Rio Linda ;)
And there ain’t a thing the Supreme Court can do about it.....
because the catholic pastor is probably gay as well.
It’s time for the pastor to be reminded of Canon 915, now that this story has appeared in the press, making the situation notorious.
>> So, why wasnt the complicit pastor removed, or at least disciplined? >>
As the bishop said, “this is not a witch hunt.” We might be inclined to believe the gay dude’s claim, but it would be completely unseemly to bar someone from their profession on nothing more than an assertion. It might well be a completely different matter were the priest to write in his bulletin, “I’ve known Nick and David to be having gay sex with each other for years, and I think it’s just dandy!” Or if the priest had performed, blessed or in any way sanctioned the “marriage.”
I’d even go so far as to say that the gay dude may not be lying, and yet the priest could still be innocent. Being “open” need not mean being explicit, and a celibate’s naivete may be stunning; don’t forget that the confessional offers no basis for contextualizing.
So, why wasnt the complicit pastor removed, or at least disciplined?
My question, as well. Sounds like he was definitely in on this.
From the Catholic Catechism:
“1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.”
To cover up a sin makes one a participant in it.
If the Church didn't allow sinners to belong, who would be there?
We are all sinners and when we sin we confess it and restore our state of grace.
A sinner is excommunicated if his sin is public and there is no public remedy. A classic example is people who are illicitly married (e.g. after a divorce, or it’s not even a marriage but the intent is a sexual union, like in gay “marriage”) and live together. That is because a public ceremony makes the sin public.
And believe me, there's always room in the Confessional line. That's one of the things I like about Pope Francis: one of his first talks --- I think it was to priests of the Diocese of Rome --- saying, "Keep your churches open. Let people know the Confessional is open. Then you'll see how many come!" They (we) need to be reminded to go to the Sacrament of Confession on a regular basis. (I've been trying to go once a month, and I really should move it up to once every 2 weeks.) They (we) need to hear the first word "Repent," before we hear "... and believe the Good News."
There's 2 or 3 pairs of female housemates in our parish that may be now (or may have been in the past) sexually/romantically involved, but I (being generally out of the gossip circuit) would have no idea, and I've been in the parish for 23 years. It's common enough for women to live together; if they don't wear rainbow scarves or entwined female-symbol earrings, most people wouldn't know.
The same may be true of guys too. Males can certainly share an apt without being sexually involved.
I would imaging there's ALWAYS been a lot of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," simply because people don't stick their noses into other people's household management.
Then perhaps you should read the testimony of a more reliable witness making the complaint. From the letter linked in the article:
Dear Bishop Murphy,
This letter is to inform you of a serious situation at St. Anthony's in Oceanside. I have made numerous calls to your office which I believe have fallen on deaf ears. [emphasis added]
Nicholas Coppola... is a homosexual. He was recently married to another man. He does not hide this or keep it silent. [emphasis added]
This all that The Catholic Church has been dealing with and trying to stop, WHY IS THIS PERMITTED?
We are trying to keep our children on the right path to Heavan.... We also have been trying to keep MARRIAGE a Sacrament BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!
How do we do this when the Church we attend is endorsing it?
And the reluctant, lackluster response from the Bishop?
Bishop Murphy's general approach to anonymous letters is "unsigned is unsent." [almost got out of this one.] At the same time there are times when it is good that a pastor knows what is being sent especially since he may or may not be aware of a particular pastoral situation. [The letter writer says it is well known.] It is in that spirit that I pass the attached letter on to you. While not on a witch hunt, I know it would be of concern to you if a catechist were, in fact, "married" as described.
In other words, they'd been "busted," and (sigh) had better oil the squeaky wheel.
Should have reported it to the Council Headquarters.
I bet you don’t Bishop Murphy from your own ass. I bet you have no idea that he was one of the first bishops to kick Voice of the Faithful out because they angled for all manners of doctrinally unacceptable things, such as gay civi unions, womynpriests, etc. I bet you have no idea that he took incredible amounts of heat for canceling the pastoral formation program, because it wasn’t orthodox enough. I bet you haven’t a clue that he shut down the diocesan seminary for being heretical and ineffectual. I bet you didn’t know that his diocese was chock full of liturgical abuses that he put an end to.
Could a message to his office have fallen on deaf ears? If it went to some of the career hires from the previous bishops (including Bishop Wcela, who had it in for mother Angelica, and McGann who tolerated atheism in the seminary), possibly. The bureaucracy is unfortunately pretty dense. But once it went to a letter that was received by the bishop himself, it obviously did NOT go on deaf ears.
The bishop’s letter simply says this:
I have no reason to believe this charge, but I think you’d better look into it.
The pastor was to look into it, and remove the person from ministry.
Either the bishop truly didn’t know that the charge was well-founded, and the pastor took swift action on his own, or the bishop is issuing a veiled threat to the pastor. Either way, you’re presumptions are completely refuted.
That looks just like a network “news” report with gaps in the facts filled in to suit an agenda.
It's a characterization of incomplete facts to fit the agenda of the author of the “news report”. The queers no doubt want the pastor severly disciplined as well because he didn't defy the Bishop or cover up for the queers in question. Is that the goal, to discipline anyone who does get with the program so people ingnore this sort of thing because they don't want their pastor disciplined for being unaware of something?
Is the idea to make sure that no one ever does obey Church teaching? If one Bishop will discipline you if don't turn a blind eye and if the next Bishop wants to do the right thing and you do it, you get disciplined anyway. It sounds like a plan to make sure pastors feel “damned if you do, damned if you don't” so they let sleeping dogs lie.
There's a big difference between "being a sinner" and defiantly engaging in an open and unrepentant sin. In 1 Corinthians chapter 5 Paul told the Church to remove the member who was engaging in open, unrepentant sexual sin. Why should we do less? Church discipline needs to be exercised here or a very bad message is being sent.
You speak as if the Bishop should be commended for all these actions - going “above and beyond the call” - when this action should be automatic and immediate with regard to rebellion against Church doctrine.
No, the Bishop was simply placating this reporting parishioner, who called repeatedly to report the issue, and had to resort to a letter when no response was received.
I’m not condemning the eventual response, only the lackluster and reluctant manner that lead to it. And what do you want to bet that the homosexual offender is not still participating in communion at this church?
(I'm assuming it was himself, not his pastor of bishop, who launched the publicity.)
Sao that does put it in a special category. He needs to be separated from the believing community if he is defiantly advertising his sin and also defying the admonitions he has received from the pastor.
I wonder: has this priest ever preached effectively on the Sixth and Ninth Commandments? The message of "Repent"?
Not going above and beyond the call; merely meeting a call that has been far too much for far too many others.