Thursday, July 9, 2009

Bishop Dismisses Openly Homosexual Altar Server

When I saw the headline for a second I thought (hoped) this was about Most Holy Redeemer. But it's from Canada:

"Homosexual Adult Altar-Server Files Human Rights Complaint against Bishop for Dismissal

PETERBOROUGH, ON, July 7, 2009 ( - Jim Corcoran, the owner of one of Canada's largest and most lavish spas, has launched a human rights complaint against the Bishop of Peterborough Ontario for refusing him permission to continue to serve as an altar server. "

It will be interested to see how Canada's infamous "human rights" commission rules on this!

"Corcoran admits that he is homosexual and lives with another homosexual man, but says that he follows the Church's teaching and lives a chaste lifestyle. According to the Catholic Register, Bishop Nicola De Angelis asked Corcoran to accept his decision that he not serve on the altar based upon the bishops' desire to avoid public scandal.

Corcoran is seeking monetary damages of $25,000 from the bishop and $20,000 each from 12 parishioners who complained to the bishop about Corcoran and his roommate having been invited by the local priest to serve on the altar at Masses.

That priest, Fr. Allan Hood, of St. Michael the Archangel Parish, was not available to speak with"

God Bless good Bishop De Angelis! We have pointed out numerous times that there are at least seven openly same-sex "married" parishioners at San Francisco's Most Holy Redeemer serving as Eucharistic Ministers, lectors, acolytes, and in the music ministry. We don't expect 12 or even one MHR parishioner to complain about this. But that should not matter. 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."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney


Jim Corcoran said...

Fr. Malloy: Please read the facts behind this case before passing such harsh judgement. I have just posted a new blog entry for this purpose.

Warren said...

If Jim is telling the truth, and he's living as the church teaches him he must live, as we all must, chastely, shouldn't we at least have a little sympathy for the guy? I mean, I wouldn't sue my bishop if I was him, but I feel some compassion for the position he's in. Even if he does everything right, merely because he suffers from what the Church describes as a personal struggle, to be faced with courage, shouldn't he have been afforded a little respect?

The question ought to have nothing to do with SSA, and everything to do with whether or not, in the opinion of the Bishop (not the priest), this person was living in a state of continuous gravely sinful behaviour.

He has destroyed his own right to privacy by bringing this matter to the HRC, but perhaps we could have some cooler heads prevailing here.

I wish he'd take it back, and go meet with these 12 people, and the bishop, and stay within the Church's own means of handling these things. He asks why there's so little Christianity being practiced here, and I ask you, Jim, why aren't you going to the Bishop? Why did you bring the HRC into this? That's a bully tactic.