Catholic church removes 'married' gay man as confirmation teacher, lector

lifesite ^ | Johanna Dasteel

[fwdude]

Yes, he alleges. That’s an allegation by someone with political and self-interest motives to make that assertion.

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.

[fwdude]

He found out that two of the little boys who were joining had been adopted by a couple of male Homo’s.

Should have reported it to the Council Headquarters.

[dangus]

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.

[Rashputin]

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.

[circlecity]

"If the Church didn't allow sinners to belong, who would be there?"

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.

[fwdude]

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?

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're right, circlecity. The fact thatq he entered into a pseudomarriage with his "partner" made it a "manifest" public act, and the fact of himself publ;icizing his dismissal as teacher and lector means he's defiant.

(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"?

[dangus]

Not going above and beyond the call; merely meeting a call that has been far too much for far too many others.