Since he does trust the Church on the Eucharist, why wouldn’t he trust it on such a moral issue?
If he doesn’t believe the Church on a simple moral issue, why would he trust it on an issue like the Eucharist?
It’s not that he is gay, it’s that he “married” another man. By doing so, he is not in good standing with the Church.
Likewise, a person who divorces their 1st spouse and marries another outside the Church (without benefit of Declaration of Nullity) also cannot serve as EMHC and for the same reason - they are not in good standing.
Should either of the above wish to serve, they can regularize their situations. The gay man has the power to choose in his own hands – and it has nothing to do with petitions from gay activist groups.
Read some of the comments. Of course the reality that anyone who openly opposed Catholic teaching would not be allowed as an E.M. is ignored in the quest to normalize homosexuality and redefine marriage.
You want to join an organization but ignore its teachings, make yourself the all knowing god, lead others to scandal and confusion and then complain when you can’t participate? Right makes perfect sense to me.
I like how the responses of gay protestors of the Catholic Church are thought out with their genitalia rather than their brains.
They should not reinstate Coppola in ministering the Eucharist if he continues with his public position against church teachings.
OK, we have judged Coppola to be “not in good standing”, correct? We have prohibited him from being an EM. What else shall we do? Since we know that he is copulating with another man, will he be prohibited from receiving the Sacrament of Love? Or–Heaven forbid–should we excommunicate him without a second look? It seems that he has only one option, that being to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of his life, unless, of course, he can pray his gay away. Is it me, or is this a very, very sad situation?
This is no different than a “Catholic” politician who is “Pro-Abortion” it is against the teaching of the Church and is bringing scandal into the equation. I hope they stand their ground on this one.
Yes it is… if unbridled sexual activity is the source, summit and meaning of ones life. On the other hand, if one is a Catholic, then Jesus Christ is your life, and you understand that salvation is more important than anything that the world can offer. I feel sorry for him that unlike many courageous Religious he cannot embrace celibacy willingly for the life of Christ. It has been forced upon him by the loving hand of God for his sanctification. But he has the opportunity to turn this cross into his salvation and glory, and what magnificence would his eternal crown be if only he used this cross to help himself and others get to Heaven! Same goes for anybody with disordered sexual desires.
If sex = life, then this is sad.
If Christ = life, then this man has to embrace his cross for love of His God and Saviour. It won’t be easy, and I do not envy him, but it must be done or else the eternal death awaits.
On topic: this is great news. Thanks be to God. Finally they are seeing that making all and sundry “EM’s” is a bad idea especially when you don’t know what kind of moral lives they are leading. Enough EM’s please!
God Bless +
I say let them deliver 10,000 truckloads of petitions if they want, the bishop would still be right in what he did. This man should not be reinstated until he repents of his sin by going to Confession and begins to live a chaste life. He should also obey any other directives given to him by his bishop. For example, if the bishop tells him to publicly apologize for “marrying” another man then he should do that.
There are many saints who were never married and the Church honors them through the centuries for their heroic love and virtue. To practice love, chastity and service is very far from being “very, very sad”.
I think she’s just saying that it hard to go through life without someone to love. It is difficult, but if that is God’s command, it still must be lived up to.
I think that the Church should be gentle and loving in disciplining this wayward man and I feel that they are being gentle and loving. Suspending him from his duties may not seem that way to some people but in reality, it is. If he were not suspended then that would be almost like condoning his sin and it would be similar to enabling him to sin. I don’t know about other people but I don’t want to be enabling anyone to potentially send themselves to Hell and no, I am not saying he is going to Hell but getting a gay “marriage” is gravely sinful and so is living the homosexual lifestyle which includes unchastity.
That said, I fully trust the bishop to do the right thing. I am certain that he knows how to handle this issue. I believe that we should all pray to God for the bishop but also for this wayward man and for his diocese that they would be lead by God. Clearly this wayward man and some in the diocese need some orthodoxy. The only orthodox man I noticed in my quick read of the article was the good bishop.
Um, first would come the Sacrament of Reconciliation, predicated upon a firm purpose of amendment – precisely like all of us are expected to do, and no less than him.
Or–Heaven forbid–should we excommunicate him without a second look?
Who said anything about that in the first few posts before yours? I’ve only read that far, but you seem to be the one introducing melodrama. :shrug:
It seems that he has only one option, that being to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of his life,
Just like every heterosexual Catholic who is not within a valid marriage, never married, and possibly will never marry. (Or is widowed and not remarried.) Which is
a very, very sad situation
for all the above persons.
unless, of course, -]he can pray his gay/-] all the straight unmarried people can pray the sexual desire away.
Because of course, it’s just so much easier to abstain from sex if you’re a heterosexual. Yep, controlling one’s urges are just a piece of cake if you’re straight. :rolleyes:
Is it me?
Yes, it’s you.
It is love to endanger the soul of another through serious sin? My understanding of Love was that it should be beneficial to the other person, which killing of their immortal soul hardly qualifies.
Sexual activity is only actually a sign of love when it is done in the context of a marriage recognized by God. At any other time, it is deadly poison to the soul.
Do you think the great saints who remained chaste did not have anyone to love? That they never experienced love??
No one is asking this man not to love, but, instead, is calling him to True Love, true care for the immortal soul of those he loves.
We haven’t, the Church has. Christ gave the Church that authority.
We have prohibited him from being an EM. What else shall we do? Since we know that he is copulating with another man, will he be prohibited from receiving the Sacrament of Love?
Really, for the sake of his soul and his own spiritual health, he should be refraining from the Eucharist of his own accord ( 1 Cor 11: 25-30). That is what the Church teaches as well.
Or–Heaven forbid–should we excommunicate him without a second look?
When the Church excommunicates someone, it is never without a second look. An Excommunication, by definition, is always done for the spiritual benefit of the person in question, to inform them of the gravity of their offense against God
It seems that he has only one option, that being to refrain from sexual activity for the rest of his life, unless, of course, he can pray his gay away. Is it me, or is this a very, very sad situation?
Yes, it is very sad, that a person would reject the Church in such a way, all for the sake of a false expression of what love is.
It is sad one would not submit to the Church, yes very sad.
An interesting observation. It seems to me that it applies to much of current thinking, whether relating to heterosexual or homosexual matters.
God bless Fr. Lombard and Bishop Murphy for doing the right thing.
St. Paul EXCOMMUNICATED the incestuous Corinthian–he said he should be “delivered up unto Satan”.
I say throw the man out–if he truly repents then he should be let back into the church but he shouldn’t be serving Communion.
That’s what St. Paul did to the incestuous Corinthian of 1 Corinthians chapter 5. In 2 Corinthians 2:10 he granted him absolution and forgave him “in the person of Christ”.
This story is proof positive that excommunication can be healing to the excomunicant’s soul if they repent.