Plan B Forum

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:50 am**

Same sex marriage dispute divides Montana church
David Murray, dmurray@greatfallstribune.com . . . 10:41 p.m. MDT September 18, 2014

Lewistown residents Paul Huff, 73, and Tom Wojtowick, 66, had yet to attend a Mass conducted by the newly assigned priest of St. Leo the Great Catholic Church when they were told they would no longer be allowed to receive Communion.

Huff and Wojtowick are both lifelong Catholics and have been active participants at St. Leo's since moving to Lewistown in 2003. They are also a couple who have been together in a dedicated relationship for more than 30 years. On May 31, 2013, Huff and Wojtowick were married in a civil ceremony in Seattle.

According to Huff, four days after the Rev. Samuel Spiering was installed as the new administrator of St. Leo's, the priest left a phone message at their home asking that either Huff or Wojtowick return his call.

"He said, 'I heard a rumor that you two got married,'" Huff recalled.

When Huff confirmed that he and Wojtowick had indeed been joined in a civil ceremony 15 months earlier, Spiering asked for both men to meet him at his office the next day. It was at that point that Spiering informed both men that because of their marriage, they could no longer receive the sacraments in the church or be part of any ministry.

Huff and Wojtowick were also told that to regain full privileges within St. Leo's, they must first obtain a divorce, cease living together and write a statement renouncing their prior marriage.

The issue is now dividing the congregation. According to Huff, as many as 40 members of St. Leo's have either expressed disapproval of the action or have discontinued attending Mass there.

Bishop Michael Warfel of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings has scheduled a meeting Saturday with parishioners to discuss church teachings as they apply to the current situation.

In an interview with the Billings Gazette, Warfel called same-sex marriage "the issue of our era," said the church's stance on Wojtowick's and Huff's relationship "is not an animus against someone who happens to be homosexual …"

"As a Catholic bishop, I have a responsibility to uphold our teaching of marriage between one man and one woman," the Gazette quotes Warfel as saying.

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:15 pm**

Econoline wrote:"...

"As a Catholic bishop, I have a responsibility to uphold our teaching of marriage between one man and one woman," the Gazette quotes Warfel as saying.[/size]

Who is excluded and who is included? It's how groups define themselves. In the old days, not so long ago, they would have killed them.

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:38 pm**

As I recall, the RC church does not recognize civil ceremonies (nor most non RC religious ceremonies--as I recall from helping my friends study their catechism--these are not "true marriages in the eyes of god") as evidenced by the fact that such persons do not need a church-sanctioned annulment to "remarry". Thus, why any priest would demand a couple married in a civil ceremony be divorced is beyond me.

Personally, I'd show up every week and take communion, and it the priest doesn't like it too bad--I'd just go to another one of the persons handing it out. Somehow I'd doubt the priest would stop the entire mass to call these guys out.

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:28 pm**

Big RR wrote:As I recall, the RC church does not recognize civil ceremonies (nor most non RC religious ceremonies--as I recall from helping my friends study their catechism--these are not "true marriages in the eyes of god") as evidenced by the fact that such persons do not need a church-sanctioned annulment to "remarry". Thus, why any priest would demand a couple married in a civil ceremony be divorced is beyond me.

BINGO! It seems to me that, by making this demand, the priest has just recognized the validity of gay marriage.

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:21 pm**

I am not a Roman Catholic nor do I play one on television, but it seems to me that these are rather inadequate views - whether one agrees with the religious chappie or not. As Big RR notes, in the RC church, a civil marriage is not in fact a "marriage" since it is a secular event lacking the (for want of a better word) 'presence' of God. It isn't a holy sacrament (obviously) and true marriage is a holy sacrament.

From the article, we cannot say that the priest used the word "divorce" (he may have done or he may have said 'cancellation'). Even if he did, since the church does not recognize that a divorce can ever occur in a sacramental marriage (i.e. a genuine holy one), the use of the term in reference to a secular event has no bearing whatsoever on the recognition of the religious validity of either such a "divorce" or such a "marriage".

Whatever the words used, the requirement is that since a certain secular action has been taken, then a secular invalidation of that action must occur as (I suppose) a kind of public retraction. The civil event is a contract and contracts are valid instruments, regardless of what is and is not "marriage" in the eyes of God. It is therefore appropriate to use the correct word (whatever that is) in referring to the mutual cancellation of that contract. If civil society says that is a 'divorce', then I suppose others must use the term for the sake of clarity.

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:38 pm**

In fairness (because obviously I don't agree with the RC Church's stance on marriage, same-sex or otherwise), the priest's position in this case is entirely consistent with how someone who had divorced and remarried in a civil ceremony would be treated under Canon Law - disqualified from receiving the sacraments. I would guess that lifting that ban would require some clear evidence that the second marriage had been renounced - e.g. through a civil divorce, and I imagine the same would apply in this case.

I think this is one of those cases where it is the doctrine that is at fault, and not those charged to enforce it. Although if he truly wanted to be pastoral, the priest could have chosen not to pay attention to rumour, rather than going the Inquisition route. By which he is setting a very dangerous precedent that is going to require him to be peering with a flashlight into the bedrooms of a good number of his parishioners.

And so now 40 people, to start, are ready to leave the fold because a priest and the bishop who is backing him up chose to ignore what their pope had to say about obsessing over bedroom matters. I guess that's one happy result then, because anything that diminishes the number of Roman Catholics is a good thing.

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:43 pm**

But again Meade, my understanding is one may/should be refused from communion only for the commission of grave (mortal) sin without repentance. In this case, what we have is two guys who entered into a civil contract to live together and be treated under the civil law as a married couple; so far as I know, that is not grave sin under and doctrine of the RC church. Now engaging in homosexual relations is (I believe), but so far as the priest knows (and we know based on the article), they may or may not be sexually active, and one should not be barred from communion for mere suspicion.

So what we are left with is a couple of men whose behavior appears to challenge church teachings--heresy if you will. Heresy was a major concern centuries ago, but (and perhaps my RC brethren may help me out here), I am not sure what the RC church says about it now, and even if there would have to be proof that their behavior amounted to heresy before the priest could pronounce such a sentence.

Again, if I were in that position I would be sure to be the first in the communion line every week.

Scooter--if that is the case, then it might be somewhat different. Are you certain?

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:33 pm**

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ -- 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery' -- the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot assume certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

(emphasis added)

Catechism of the Catholic Church revised edition, London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1999, p.369

In the context of a remarriage after divorce, I can't think of any other meaning to apply to the words "as long as this situation exists" except "as long as the subsequent marriage exists" i.e. until it no longer exists due to divorce or death.

A civil SSM is not strictly analogous to a civil marriage after divorce in that it lacks the component of adultery which the Church ascribes to the latter, but in terms of applying a similar "standard" to civil marriages not seen as valid by the Church, I don't think it was completely outrageous for the priest in this instance to have insisted on a divorce prior to re-integrating the couple into the sacramental life of the congregation. He failed on a pastoral and pragmatic level for reasons I have already stated, of course.

And I'm feeling that this is putting me in the position of being seen as defending the RC Church, which is not where I want to be,, so I'll leave it at that.

Posted: **Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:02 pm**

Thanks Scooter; I think you're right. There is a difference between remarriage and same sex marriage as you pointed out, but they are probably using a similar reasoning.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:12 pm**

Scooter--I looked into their policy regarding second marriages in a civil court and it appears to be rooted in heresy and any public challenge to the church's teaching or authority. Indeed, the policy admits that cohabitation without any sexual relations is not sinful, and allows that persons who cohabit and do not commit the sin or fornication/adultery may do so unless it proves to be a public problem (as in many persons in the church know they were previously married and thus it would appear to be a public challenge to the church's position on divorce). If it is a problem, the persons must separate.

Thus, in the modern day we still have heresy as a concern of the RC church, and it will even go to the point of breaking up families to avoid any public challenge to its position.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:40 pm**

Maybe they could just buy an indulgence? What the going rate? Does it depend on how many times a week they have sex?

Is there a historical precedent we can find to settle this? Can we research what the popes paid for their catamites?

yrs,
rubato

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:02 pm**

A little overstated Big RR. The public challenge (a rather quiet one) by the chaps is in fact made into a full public challenge by the action of the church itself. What they are avoiding is the appearance of publicly condoning a breach of the faith teachings, as they define them. Since an article of that teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman, then a "marriage" between a man and man is something that cannot be blessed with sacraments.

The requirement is to make a choice. Continue as church members but without access to sacraments/leadership roles or do x, y and z to regain access. Or leave the church. Only one of the three involves them parting. And along with you I'm not sure that "living in the same house" constitutes proof of sin. I suppose they'd be asked in the confessional about that and perhaps are unwilling to "confess" or deny..... next it's the comfy chair.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:53 pm**

Overstated? I don't think so. Sacraments (other than the sacrament of marriage) don't bless the marriage or even condone it--the sacraments convey something to the person receiving them, but don't say anything about them. As I recall, one must be in a certain "state of grace" to receive communion, and this requires that there be no serious (mortal) sins weighing on one's soul, but again, such compliance is up to the individual. A priest may well privately counsel such persons not to take communion, but the counsel should be private and not public. Here, as in the case of a remarriage (even in a civil ceremony), the church is more concerned in making sure someone does not publicly challenge their teachings. As I said, canon law permits a second-time married couple to participate in the sacraments of the church if they agree to remain celibate (and thus not commit the sin of fornication) so long as such would not cause a public problem (in which case they must separate, even if the have children, etc.). Again the concern is in what the couple living together looks like to the public, not that the sacraments somehow consent to the union.

As for continuing in the church without access to the sacraments, this also is a problem for persons who claim to be RC, as they would be denied the sacraments of reconciliation (confession and absolution for any sins, not just the sin they might be committing by the cohabitation) and the fact that not receiving communion for a long time (I think a year) is a mortal sin in and of itself. So a married heterosexual couple could be denied these sacraments (believed by the RC church to be needed for entry into heaven) even if they chose to remain celibate (and thus not commit the sin of adultery/fornication) because they are living in a relationship that appears to challenge the church's position on divorce and remarriage. This is a concern for how an act appears to others, which as I understand it is the essence of heresy.

As for asking in the confessional, my understanding is that whatever is or is not said in the confessional is private and inviolable; a priest could not reveal that communication even to avoid a greater sin (the classic example is a priest learned someone has poisoned the communion wine--he could not reveal that or stop communion because it would make public something he learned in the confessional--but he might "accidently" spill that wine). So asking about it in confession would not be in any way similar to the "Comfy chair"

or the later flames and other tortures

.

My only point here is that here is a relationship the RC church does not recognize as a marriage; a relationship that it did not participate in forming or blessing, and yet they feel the need to publicly deny the persons in that relationship access to the little comforts the church has to offer because it might appear to others that their authority is being challenged. They have no proof that any sin is being committed (and following the remarriage position, that might well be immaterial) and are only concerned with how it appears to others. Rather ridiculous IMHO, unless you see their authority as being of the paramount importance.

My guess is that the current pope would say let them receive the sacraments the church has to offer and leave their ultimate judgment to god, that remains to be seen.

Posted: **Wed Sep 24, 2014 7:26 pm**

Well he's burying suicides so you could well be correct. But that of course is a matter of interpretation (is it self murder?) whereas the other is plainly contra-biblical. He might draw the line at that. And no, I don't see their authority as being of paramount importance but they (quite rightly) do.

I am unable to distinguish between what a thing "looks like to the public" and what it looks like to the church hierarchy. What it looks like is that the church is OK with homosexual marriage - and it isn't OK with that. So I don't see how public opinion is of any concern to them at all other than the conclusions that the public may draw about church policy - or the church view of the validity of the Bible which is far more important but probably not to them.

I imagine, based on your info, that if Margareta and I decided to become RCs, being as this is a second go round for both of us, we'd be told not to "know" each other ever again. My idea is to wait a bit and that problem won't be a problem.... two or three years might do it

Or weeks.....

So they might take me but she'd probably become a Baptist

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 1:15 pm**

I am unable to distinguish between what a thing "looks like to the public" and what it looks like to the church hierarchy.

But the church hierarchy clearly sees the difference; if it didn't and a second time married couple pledged to live celibately, they would permit it (unless they had reason to doubt the veracity of the pledge perhaps). However (and I don't have time to find it but you can google it as well), the policy clearly states that this arrangement will be permitted only if it would not appear as a second marriage to other persons, in which case they will demand the couple separate--even if they have other reasons to remain together (like children). The perception of the public is far more important than the facts of the situation.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:22 pm**

Plan B Forum

Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!

Re: Catholic Church comes out in favor of divorce!!!