Gay Catholic barred from ministry still faithful, hopeful

[rug]

by Jamie Manson | Apr. 12, 2013

When a debilitating back injury rendered Nicholas Coppola housebound and unable to work, he was desperate to restore his sense of self-worth. He found new sense of purpose at his local parish, St. Anthony's, a Jesuit apostolate in the Long Island, N.Y., town of Oceanside.

Coppola started his volunteer ministry by working with a group of parishioners whose circumstances he understood well: those who were too ill to leave home. As a eucharistic minister, he offered weekly visits to homebound members of his community, offering them Communion and companionship.

St. Anthony's, Coppola said, provided "a place to use the gifts God gave me."

His devotion to the parish continued to expand, and eventually he was serving as a catechist, lector, fundraiser and altar server. The entire time, Coppola was out to his parish as a gay man and regularly attended Mass with his partner, David.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/gay-catholic-barred-ministry-still-faithful-hopeful

Here's the obnoxious letter that started this fiasco, likely sent by someone fuming in the pew when it came time for the Sign of Peace.

http://www.glaad.org/files/Anonomous_Letter_of_Removal.pdf

[herbkunz]

1. May I respectfully disagree?

Am I allowed to make a point that does not support the OP?

I would like to make a case for some of the content of the "obnoxious letter," but not until I know what the terms are of this forum (this Catholicism sub-forum) regarding discussions and for what reasons one can be booted from it.

[William769]

2. Welcome to DU.

I would strongly suggest reading DU'S Terms Of Service.

Can be found here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Again welcome.

[herbkunz]

3. Thank you.

I appreciate the welcome and I have looked over those terms.

But regarding this Catholic sub-forum--must the opinion of the OP stand and not be questioned or disputed? Does that go against the rules?

Once I've made enough posts that I can start my own thread, may I make a thread in support of that letter, or are certain Catholic beliefs forbidden to be expressed here?

[William769]

4. Speaking only as a regular DU member.

OP's are questioned & disputed all the time in all Group & Forums as long as they are done in a respectful way without trampling on the rights of others.

I can not speak for this group alone (just giving an observation of DU in general).

I don't want to sound confusing, just trying to make your stay here a enjoyable one.

EDIT: Here is the Statement of purpose for this Group http://www.democraticunderground.com/1221585

[herbkunz]

5. Catholicism is not politically correct as defined by the overall board.

There are Catholic beliefs which contradict what general members here would consider to be politically correct.

Must those beliefs be suppressed and not discussed?

Or is this truly a safe place for Catholics to discuss and/or profess any aspect of their religion?

Will citing Church teaching about sexual morality be considered to be "trampling upon the rights of others"?

Sorry to be taking up space in this thread questioning rules, etc., but I want to have a clear understanding of what can or cannot be posted HERE in this sub-forum. I cannot at this time PM a moderator with my questions.

[William769]

6. The person who posted this OP is a Host for this Group.

I sent him a DU Mail with your concerns. Hopefully he will get back to you in a timely manner.

Have a good evening.

[rug]

19. It boils down to this.

The Church teaches chastity as a virtue, among many others.

If a government or a group or an individual proposes legislation to enforce chastity, or to outlaw masturbation, that's where the shit hits the fan.

Relate that to contraception, abortion, sodomy statutes and a hole range of other issues and the distinction becomes apparent.

Beyond that, ignore the inexorable personal attacks for stating whatever view it is that you wish to argue. The SoP issue, as I see it, is when one argues political action be taken on those views. At that point, the discussion has left the arena of religious belief and entered the arena of politics.

[hunter]

9. Welcome to DU.

I never feel inhibited in this or any other DU forum, but maybe that's just me...

What "certain Catholic beliefs" did you have in mind?

Homosexual couples contributing to the Church Community don't bother me at all. I figure in the end God gets to judge who is truly married, and who is not. It's not man's job to enforce God's law, mostly because we do such a crappy job interpreting it. There is no peace on earth, especially when religious people are fighting, Protestants vs. Catholics, etc., etc. I grew up in a household where every family get-together was a religious war, most especially Christmas.

Human laws exist to protect our human rights and reduce they mayhem we are capable of inflicting upon one another as much as possible.

Prohibiting same sex marriages violates the secular human rights of gay people. If the Church doesn't want to celebrate or recognize the marriages of gay people, that's their business, but secular government must. Otherwise committed homosexuals couples are denied the civil rights committed heterosexual couples enjoy.

U.S. law is not based in any religion, the Church and State are explicitly separated by our Constitution.

There's a whole lot of people at every Mass, going all the way up to and including our Pope, who've got some serious timbers in their eyes. Simply being married outside the Church doesn't seem a catastrophic failure of Faith compared to some actions and inactions of our Church leaders. I've seen too many rotten priests come and go; the Church is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for some of them. I know how to solve that problem, but that's another one of my heresies.

My own marriage is recognized and celebrated by the Church, but some of my heresies make more conservative Catholics uncomfortable. Sadly, the sort who would write an anonymous letter like that in the original post, or the ones who stand in front of Planned Parenthood with their rude signs, well, they all avoid me.

Personally, I think if Bishop Murphy had any sense, he would have said, "Oh, an anonymous letter," said a quick prayer for the poor bitter and judgmental person who wrote it, and filed it away without any response.

Whenever I send letters to a Bishop, I always sign my name. Sometimes they write back.

[herbkunz]

12. Thank you for your response, hunter.

Hunter,

Is the Church of man or of God?

I would say the latter, and if the former, I would not belong. I believe what the Church teaches about itself, that it was founded on Peter, the Rock, that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, that our Bishops have Apostolic Succession, that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ and all the rest of it.

I believe that the Church is a divine institution and has the right and duty to impose moral teaching on the faithful, who by the way are not being held in the Church against their will. They are free to leave whenever they like.

I haven't made up my mind yet about what role the Church should take in the public debate regarding civil unions, etc., but let's say for the sake of argument that the Church has no business in this decision that will be made by the State, and it should stick with enforcing its own rules regarding Sacramental marriage. I think you would agree that the Church at least has that right (and duty), and I've been reading some other threads here, and the OP, rug, has stated the same.

So in the eyes of the Church, a homosexual union is not a valid marriage. Even if it is a civil union, it's not a sacramental marriage. It is not recognized by the Church. Further, and more importantly, the Church condemns ANY sexual contact outside of a Sacramental marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It is a serious sin. The job of the church is to forgive sin and discourage sin, not ENcourage it. Sin harms and sin can lead one to hell.

Those who volunteer and help in the Church, especially catechists, have to live up to, or at least ATTEMPT to live up to the standards that they are teaching. A couple living a lifestyle (whether homosexual or heterosexual) that is defined to be a serious sin by the Church, and doing so blatantly and publicly, while professing to be members of the Catholic Church, are saying that they are above the Church and that they can make their own "rules." And if that's the case, then what good are any standards, doctrine, commandments, etc., if each of us can bend them to suit our own fancies? The Church is not there to conform to our tendencies and weaknesses but to cure us of them.

I've got my own weaknesses and sins to deal with, but the difference is that I see them as such and am not going to flaunt them and say it's ok for me to be this way and it's ok for you too. I'm going to instead go to Confession and otherwise work to improve myself. And I'm not getting down on others because they sin, but we are not doing them or anyone else a favor by saying living in sin is a good thing.

The man who wrote that letter did the right thing in principle, as I see it, though he really should have had the nerve to sign it too.

But let me follow up with this question, and please don't read anything into it as if I'm making a comparison or equating the situation in question with this hypothetical, because I'm not.

Let's say a catechist is known to practice witchcraft and worship Satan. Clearly, that's in opposition to Church teaching. Should he be allowed to teach children about the Church even though he worships the enemy of the Church? Or should it be overlooked, because after all, others have splinters or beams in their eyes?

And why do you think your "conservative" Catholic friends are standing in front of Planned Parenthood with their "rude" signs? And how would you know they are the same types who would write an anonymous letter? (I put "conservative" in quotes because I don't think it's appropriate to use political terms regarding religion. It's not a political institution).

[hunter]

15. A Church is a community of humans. Humans are imperfect.

God is there, but the Church is a human institution, therefore it is imperfect.

I have many siblings. My wife has many siblings. I look around in church and I don't see as many big families as I remember. I can also tell you that this is not the result of "natural family planning." Most human beings don't have the discipline to successfully practice natural birth control methods, and even some who do are often surprised multiple times. There are seven billion people on the planet because sex is fun and humans are fertile.

I'm not going to lie, we have two children. There's no magic there and we didn't practice any sort of abstinence.. I look around at the smaller families at Mass and I know there's no magic and little abstinence there either.

We teach our kids about sacramental marriage, but we also teach them about birth control and safe sex so they don't crash and burn if they don't achieve that ideal. My siblings and I didn't have kids until after we were married. We didn't pick up any sexually transmitted diseases. But I don't think any of us successfully maintained our virginity until we were married.

A kid who knows nothing about sex can be overwhelmed the first time an opportunity presents itself. A kid who knows everything about sex can avoid it if it seems the right thing to do. Most of the time avoiding sex at the first opportunity IS the right thing to do. I know I avoided some entanglements that would have been disasters, and in retrospect with whatever wisdom I've acquired by age and sleepless nights as a parent of teenagers and young adults, some of those "opportunities" look even worse now than they did at the time.

My mom had "Choose Life" license plate frames on her car, and always told us if we had any kids before we were married to bring them home. I think the thought of having any more kids in the house terrified me and my siblings. More babies? No! I was changing younger sibling's diapers long before I was interested in girls. It makes a kid think about consequences.

I'm against abortion. I'm against the death penalty. On the issue of abortion, I know other people believe differently. I can respect that belief. But so far as the death penalty, there is my religious belief, but there is also unequivocal evidence that our legal system often fails and people are sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. The humanity of a fetus is largely a matter of faith, of belief, reasonable people can argue either way. The humanity of a prisoner is not debatable.

If we cannot respect the beliefs of people outside our church, there should be no expectation that they will respect ours. I find your equating of homosexual relationships with "worship of Satan" disrespectful, in the same way that protesting outside of Planned Parenthood is disrespectful.

Furthermore, suppose this gay couple, one who has health problems that cost him his job, doesn't have a sexual relationship... would that change your opinion? Is it all about the sex? Or is it the word "marriage?"

It wouldn't change my opinion either way, I'm simply curious.

My own marriage is sacramental and my marriage is a legal protection that says my wife and I enjoy certain civil rights as a couple. These are not the "same" thing. The Church can't have it both ways, marriage in the church cannot encompass marriage by the state, nor can the state dictate what marriage is as a sacrament.

Most of all, I will not abandon honesty for hypocrisy. Like politics, religion is often the training ground of hypocrites.

[rug]

18. This is the place to discuss Catholic beliefs.

Particularly Catholic beliefs as it relates to contemporary politics.

Just be sure that the statement of those beliefs is accurate. So much commentary on the RCC is based on stereotypes, exaggeration or plain ignorance.

That said, there are a wide range of issues where there is no definitive position. Feel free to argue your own.

Finally, there are areas where the Catholic Church speaks definitively on areas where it has no competence to do so. This OP raises one, the political and civil aspects of a marriage. IMO, the Church is competent to describe and speak on sacramental marriage but it has no more competence to speak on the legal and economic aspects of a marriage than you or I.

Hope that helps.

[rug]

17. Hello, herbkunz and welcome to DU.

The whole idea of a safe haven group is respect, not conformity.

So feel free to post your thoughts.

[47of74]

7. My first thought upon seeing that anonymous letter...

...what a little chickens---t we got here.

[herbkunz]

8. He was a catechist.

His devotion to the parish continued to expand, and eventually he was serving as a catechist, lector, fundraiser and altar server.

A catechist teaches what the Church teaches. A catechist would therefore be teaching the Catechism and would not be opposing the Catechism.

What does this particular catechist do regarding Church teaching about chastity?

See "offenses against chastity"
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

This is not referring only to homosexuality but to heterosexuality as well. For example a catechist openly having an adulterous affair would not be a qualified catechist and should be removed from a teaching role or any visible role. It's not that these people must be spotless and never sin, but that they would be persisting in their sin publicly and living it as if it were not a sin or even as if it were a virtue.

So to the OP, I'm not understanding what your problem is with this letter, though it might have been expressed more charitably, and the writer should have had the courage to sign it.

My question to you is how could someone be qualified to be a catechist when he doesn't believe in what he is teaching and doesn't strive to live what he claims to believe? Or it might be that he believes "selectively" what the Church teaches and rejects certain things that are challenging or difficult for him, but how is that being a good catechist and why would he want to teach those things he doesn't believe? Or...it could be that he would teach against what the Church teaches in that regard, and if that's the case, why should he be allowed to teach?

OP, as a professed Catholic, do you believe what the Church teaches regarding sexual morality?

[hunter]

10. If the entire Church hierarchy was held to your high standards...

... more than half of it would be "removed... from any visible role."

The Church is not consistent.

[herbkunz]

11. These are not "my" standards.

The "standard" is Church doctrine and dogma.

And what is says is clear.

Inconsistencies, hypocrisy, failures of those in high places, etc., don't negate the principles.

That would be like saying you and I could disobey the law because the police chief is a crook. Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the behavior of the police force, the law is still the law, and if we get arrested for stealing a loaf of bread, our recourse is not that the police chief is embezzling thousands of dollars. His crimes don't cancel out ours.

But I would be interested to know what members of the hierarchy you're referring to and what they have done.

[hunter]

13. Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes are human.

Sometimes humans have adulterous affairs.

Something I respect my parents for is they truly believe we are all equal before God. My dad will fish, golf, drink beer with anyone, Priests included, and my mom will argue with anyone. (Well sometimes that's not a good thing... I don't want to be at the Pearly Gates when Mom gets there, she may start a riot. She's done it in churches, so it could happen...)

A catechist is teaching an ideal; failure to achieve that ideal is always a given in any persons life.

The "law" is something outside a crooked police chief, or a good honest one. The police represent one aspect of the law, but they are not themselves "the" law.

[herbkunz]

14. I agree but...

A catechist is teaching an ideal; failure to achieve that ideal is always a given in any persons life.

I have many such failures. But I will not tout them as virtues and will not ask the Church to validate them.

The "law" is something outside a crooked police chief, or a good honest one. The police represent one aspect of the law, but they are not themselves "the" law.

Agreed, and you're helping me make my point regarding authority figures in the Church. Their failures and/or alleged failures don't invalidate the "laws" of the Church.

We are to love the sinner but never to love the sin. Jesus forgave the adulterer but told her to "sin no more."

But in the case of the story that started this discussion, it seems that the the idea that there could be such a thing as a sexual sin is completely off the radar.

[hunter]

20. It often seem the only "sins" the Church pays attention to are...

... those that embarrass the Church hierarchy, and those that reflect existing social prejudices.

The catechist who is a raging alcoholic gets a pass, the gamblers, the Machiavellian or racist Priest gets shuffled off to another parish, the misogynist Bishop is insulated from any consequences of his hatred by his staff, and yes, the pedophiles who were quietly relocated to nations they wouldn't be extradited from as the victims and their families were secretly paid to remain silent.

So many elephants in these rooms no one talks about yet a man who is doing good works is expelled because he doesn't want to live in a corrosive fog of hypocrisy??? That's not right.

I always take offense at the phrase "Love the sinner and hate the sin." First of all, we are all sinners and it is often our weaknesses and not our strengths that are the wellsprings of our good character. (I DO NOT consider homosexuality to be a sin or a weakness.) Second, Jesus forgives us, tells us to sin no more, and then we often go right out and find some new sin to wallow in.

Hating is always a regressive thing, blocking the path forward and pushing us back into the darkness. Judging the sins of others and rating the severity of those sins doesn't make our world a less sinful place. We move forward into the light by loving our neighbors and solving problems.

[uppityperson]

22. What is the "PRACTICE of homosexuality"? Do you mean just sex or everything that goes with

being homosexual? I've homosexual friends who practice homosexual washing of dishes, or homosexual lawn mowing. Are they sinning? Or only if they have sex? Is simply loving someone of the same sex "PRACTICING homosexuality" and a sin? Or is it just the sex part?