Skip to comments.Marquette Catholic bishop responds to removal of gay man from ministry duties
Posted on 06/20/2014 1:47:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Yesterday, we reported on a parishioner at St. Michaels in Marquette who was removed from his ministry duties after it was discovered that he had taken part in a same-sex commitment ceremony with his partner.
Today, the U.P.s Catholic bishop has made a statement in response to the story.
Bobby Glenn Brown was a cantor, lector and choir member at St. Michaels Parish for the past three years. Hes been with his partner for 31 years. The two men held a commitment ceremony on Saturday.
Father Larry Van Damme, a pastor at St. Michaels, told Brown on Sunday that he could no longer perform his ministry duties.
In the Catholic Church, we love and embrace and want to include among our members persons with same-sex attraction, Bishop John Doerfler said in a news conference today. Having a same-sex attraction in no way will disqualify someone from being a member of the Church, and we also give people the benefit of the doubt that people tend to live chastely.
Bishop Doerfler says that to the Church, having same-sex attractions and acting on them publicly are two different matters. The bishop says it was the commitment ceremony, and only the ceremony, that disqualified Brown from ministry.
If someone were to give some type of public affirmation that its morally OK to act on those attractions, thats where the departure would be, he said. The commitment ceremony would indicate that it would be permissible to act on those attractions, and thats where the disconnect is from the Churchs teaching.
Brown says hell find another, more accepting place to worship.
We attempted to speak with Father Van Damme on Monday but were unable to do so. Bishop Doerfler says it would be difficult for Father Van Damme to speak to the media out of a need to keep conversations with parishioners that concern pastoral care confidential.
I wonder whether the difference is because in the former there was no public ceremony. According to the bishop in the current story, he said that the benefit of the doubt is given that they are living chastely. Perhaps just “living together” didn’t prove that they were not living chastely.
If you think about it, if a gay couple living together was refused communion, there would be a whole lot of heterosexual Catholics living together who would also be refused communion. And we know that doesn’t happen.
I think the difference is that before this ceremony, there was always the possibility that they were just roommates.
But when they had this ceremony, the occult sin was made public by the "couple's" own declaration.
Before that ceremony, the pastor and his bishop could just bury their heads in the sand. But after it, something had to be done, otherwise there is tacit endorsement.
Yes. That is basically what I’m saying.
BINGO!!! Just had to rub it in their faces!!
I remember a wise Rel. Ed teacher told us all once. She said I know that since Vat II there has been a lot of discussion and disagreement over various things in the Church, but you as teachers need to hear this! This is our curriculum, this is what the Bishop wants us to teach. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you WILL teach it, or kindly find another ministry". She said this not to be mean, but as a reality check! When everyone is off doing their own thing there is no unity! As a minister you are held to a different standard then being just a parishioner.
On the second thing, the priest and the lesbian. According to rubrics, if I were to whisper to a priest, that I had just murdered someone, as he was handing me Communion, it would be his duty to not allow me to have Communion at that time. I suspect that the lesbo's set him up. At her mother's funeral no less. I hope she is proud of herself. These people are just so self-obsessed.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There have always been queer popes, queer bishops, queer priests, even queer nuns. They did not and do not celebrate it. If they sin, they confess it, or are supposed to.
Probably a better idea to stop queer candidates at the vocational gate. Scandal-limiting strategy. Recently attended a ceremony with three prancing priests on the altar ... most amusing.
Oh the gays in the seminaries.....
This is the book I’m reading now:
No doubt Novus Ordo.
In the Fr. Guarnizo case, the two lesbians came to the sacristy and confronted the priest at the funeral. They set him up. Their relationship was in the obituary.
Their relationship was known to the entire congregation. When the lesbians (or lesbian—the second one may not be Catholic) was/were denied Communion, virtually the entire congregation refused to come up for Communion.
Fr. Guarnizo handled the situation in the right way. He refused to participate in a calculated act of defiance against the Church.
He was called to a meeting at the chancery. There, he was handed a letter, already signed and sealed, informing him that he was suspended.
When Cardinal Wuerl was in Pittsburgh, he allowed Dignity Masses to continue for NINE YEARS after the Vatican had finally ordered them shut down. Even then, he apologized to the “gay community” profusely.
Today, Wuerl obstinately refuses to obey Canon 915, which is always a mortal sin because it is always a grave scandal to do so. And, as in the case of Fr. Guarnizo, any priest who refuses to join Cardinal Wuerl in mortal sin is punished.
Perhaps I’m came off as if I think the first incident shouldn’t have happened. As a Traditional Catholic I absolutely support Fr G.
Having said that, if a priest is going to withhold communion from folks in a gay, living together, relationship then wouldn’t it also apply to all of the folks in straight, living together relationships? Priests are just as aware of who those folks are, but they still offer them communion.