Back on December 4, we posted and linked to a "Wedding Announcements" article from the Bay Area Reporter reporting that a man named Philip Carrizosa had "married" another man. The article also mentioned that Mr. Carrizosa served as an acolyte and lector at Most Holy Redeemer Church.
Today, the December 19 issue of the "Catholic San Francisco" newspaper (PDF: 4.72MB; page 20) published across this letter to the editor. It opened with:
"Salt in Wounds
Archbishop Niederauer’s recent “open letter” did nothing but rub salt in the wounds for at least two members of his flock. My husband and I do not think we are alone."
and was signed:
"Michael Vargas
Martin Bednarek
San Francisco"
Michael Vargas is a Lector at Most Holy Redeemer. And in the September 9, 2007 church bulletin, "Marty" Bednarek is listed as serving in the music ministry at MHR. This now brings to seven (by our count) the number of people serving in liturgical ministries at MHR who have "married" persons of the same sex.
We repeat what we said in our post of December 4:
"It will be good here to remind ourselves of Church rules.
From 'Redemptionis Sacramentum' #46 'The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them.'"
Why in the world would "Catholic San Francisco" give a platform to persons expressing blatant contempt for the teaching of the Church? Since we are reminding people of Church rules we will remind the editors of Catholic San Francisco of this sentence from the USCCB's statement "Catholics in Political Life" :
"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
All emphases are added.
Not only does our Archdiocese tolerate openly same-sex "married" lectors, eucharistic ministers, and acolytes serving at the Holy Mass, they are now allowing them to publish their contempt for Church teaching in the Archdiocesan newspaper. Vargas and Bednarek come right out and say it in Catholic San Francisco: We're Catholics, we're gay, we're "married," get used to it.
I cannot understand why our Archbishop is willing to take the heat for defending natural marriage yet at the same time allows Most Holy Redeemer to have people serve at Mass, who, in the most public possible way, disobey the Church on this foundational issue. MHR is directly under his authority.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The Archbishop doesn't want a showdown with MHR, which would extend to a showdown with the entire homosexual demographic in SF. In that he is either being cowardly or prudent. I favor the former. It's going to come to a showdown eventually anyway.
As one of the "husbands" you referred to, I am curious which Church rules forbid the use of this name. If your only issue is the use of a label, the evidence for "expressing blatant contempt" for Church teaching is insignificant.
We agree with Archbishop Niederauer that the language of Prop 8 would preserve traditional marriage. We disagree with the Archbishop that the language and passage of Prop 8 results in no elimination of civil rights for a minority by the majority. This majority has a history of discrimination against LGBTQ persons, and that this discrimination has been historically associated with violence against the minority by the majority.
Two men referring to each other as "husbands" might hint at sexual orientation. Anything else that the author of this post deduces about our life, morals or fidelity to the Church magisterium says much more about the author than it says about either of us. Might the author have more problems with the Church's fundamental moral principles of faith, hope and love, than two men who happen to call each other "husband?"
The fact that this posting was made well before the Catholic SF was available on their website makes me also wonder: where I might find the Friday edition of the Catholic San Francisco on a Thursday?
"As one of the "husbands" you referred to, I am curious which Church rules forbid the use of this name." Umm...sorry, but are you serious? Really? I can only think of one other common use of the word 'husband', and if that's what you're thinking, human/animal relations are also qualified by natural and moral law. Just like human/human relations.
"Two men referring to each other as "husbands" might hint at sexual orientation." Or it might lead one to conclude it unequivocally. Was there any other way to take this? I'll answer: no, there wasn't. By the way, the "fundamental moral principles" you mentioned are the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity (not love, per se). Sometimes charity demands correction. It certainly invites instruction. Men cannot marry other men. Not cannot as in 'not allowed', but can't in the same sense that tuna can't climb trees. Here's the instruction: Sodomy is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It's in the same category, according to the Catholic Church, as willful murder. Think on that a minute, wont you?
The Catholic Church is unambiguous as to moral teaching. You have a responsibility to learn about the faith you claim to have, and come to a decision as to whether you will follow your own will through life, or will follow the Magisterium. You cannot do both.
I truly believe that the issues homosexuality and "gay marriage" will separate those who have an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and those who are more interested in getting along with the world.
I believe that this society will become increasingly hostile to orthodox Christians who maintain that homosexual acts are immoral and cannot be condoned. Catholics who hold to Church dogma in the are of sexual morality will be labeled "bigots" and treated with contempt.
We must remember that Jesus told us: "before they hated you, they hated me."
Post a Comment