Bishop Zurek finally breaks media silence ... to cast aspersions

Take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
 – Matthew 18:16

We finally got a direct quote from Bishop Zurek in the Amarillo press. It comes after Father Frank Pavone did not appear for a scheduled "private" meeting with his Ordinary on October 13. Here are some quotes from an article titled "Despite bishop's meeting request, Pavone a no-show":

“I would welcome a meeting with Father Pavone, face to face, a meeting as his bishop,” Zurek said. “I am still waiting for a favorable response to that.”

“This is a delicate internal Church matter that needs to be resolved between a bishop and his priest,” he added. “This is parallel to a human resources matter in the secular workplace. And it is even more sensitive when you factor in the relationship between a bishop and his priest as one similar to a father to a son or a brother to a brother.”

“In this case, right now, a real concern for me is Father Pavone.”

The bishop is obviously no stranger to the spin room. Following this deprecatory statement, there was a flurry of denigrating articles from the usual suspects. I'm thinking in particular of the Catholic Culture article (no author -- I guess the article wrote itself) where Phil Lawler has been leading the charge on libeling Father Pavone's good name.  And of course the ever pesky gadfly Mark Shea felt it necessary to chime in without all the facts. How's this for showing "respect" for a Catholic priest in good standing:

"This kind of petulance makes the bishop look smarter every day. This is your bishop we are talking about, Fr. Pavone. Show some respect." – Mark Shea

And true to form, Edward Peters -- self-proclaimed canon lawyer extraordinaire -- could not wait for the facts to become clear before excoriating Father Pavone for missing the meeting. (Please see my previous article titled "Ed Peters' dogged defense of Bishop Zurek".) Without anymore information about the situation than you or I have access to, Ed Peters has declared himself to be the ultimate authority on all things related to Frank Pavone and Bishop Zurek. Once again, Peters can find absolutely no fault with Bishop Zurek -- even after he learns some more about the nuances of the situation from Fr. Deibel's account. Will Ed Peters have the manly courage to apologize for his libelous treatment of Father Frank after the fact? So far there are no signs of this ever happening. If Peters is as naïve as he sounds about human nature and Church politics from his posts on Father Pavone, then he has no business being a canon lawyer. I sure wouldn't want to be his client if I were a priest that had been accused of wrongdoing by my bishop.

If they had all waited a short while for a response from Father Frank or had made some attempt to contact Priests for Life, they would have heard the other side of the story. From LifeSiteNews in an article titled "Canon lawyer advised Fr. Pavone not to attend private meeting with bishop" we learn that things are not as simple as Bishop Zurek has attempted to portray them in the Amarillo press.

Fr. Pavone’s canon lawyer has said that he advised Fr. Pavone not to attend the meeting without a mediator present.

“The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking,” said Canonist Fr. David Deibel.

Fr. Deibel, in his official statement released today,  says that requests to have a mediator present at any meeting between Pavone and the bishop have not been acknowledged. “Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators,” he said. “Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.”

“Instead,” added Deibel, “he wrote to Fr. Frank, asked him to come to a one-on-one meeting with him, and asked him in writing not to speak to anyone about the meeting. Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the Bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese.”

Fr. Deibel said that Priests for Life would prefer that the process of discussing the disagreement take place in private rather than in the media.  He said that Priests for Life remains hopeful that Bishop Zurek will respond privately to the requests for mediation and that the matter will be resolved shortly.

Fr. Deibel said however, “As his canonical consultant, I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway.”

I suppose that Father Frank's detractors will just use this as more evidence of his lack of "obedience" to his bishop.

I wrote a comment at another website just shortly before learning of the response from Priests for Life. I have to give myself a pat on the back for understanding how this situation has been playing out. Here it is:

I'm not as disturbed by Father Frank's no-show as you are. I never expected anything good to come out of this meeting anyway.

As for possible explanations, I can think of a few. Of course it would be better to wait until there is a statement from Father Frank himself. But first remember that the main issue here is not about a skipped meeting or even "obedience". I'm reminded of the famous quote from Cool Hand Luke, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate."

Keep in mind also that the Bishop said this would be a "private" meeting - but he publicly announced it. And also keep in mind that the Bishop himself was a "no-show" for a month. Anything said in a private meeting can be spun any which way by the Bishop, and if Father Frank would have tried to give an alternate explanation of what happened he would again be labeled "disobedient" for contradicting his Ordinary -- or even for just speaking out according to some people.

So one scenario is that he was advised by canon or civil lawyers not to meet with the Bishop unless he could have someone else in the room with him that could represent him. Or at the very least to be a witness to what is discussed.

Or it could be that Father wants to delay the meeting because he is waiting for a reply from some other Church authorities.

I don't know. But this is the way that "witch hunts" are conducted. First a bogus accusation is made and then the allegations widen and the "lack of cooperation" by an innocent person attempting to defend himself is thrown in as "suspicious behavior". Until anything a person says or does not say is touted as proof of their guilt.

You know, like throwing someone in the ocean with an anchor tied to them and if they sink then they are innocent (but dead) because we all know that a witch would use his powers to be able to float.

As I have from the beginning, I remain "In full support of Father Frank Pavone".

 + + +

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

 + + +

Related articles:

• Homilies by Father Frank Pavone
• Priests for Life comparison of the Democratic and Republican party platforms
• Sep 12 letter from Priest for Life canon lawyer
• Bishop Zurek on Father Pavone's priestly status
• Ed Peters' dogged defense of Bishop Zurek
• Father Michael Rodriguez and Father Frank Pavone
• The bishops on marriage: right message, wrong timing
• Father Frank on Ave Maria Radio
• Bishop Gries: "Please continue to support Priests for Life"
• If 100 bishops got thrown in jail ... that would be wonderful
• Bishop Zurek says Priests for Life has no "ecclesial status"
• In full support of Father Frank Pavone
• Forgive them
• Slaying the abortion dragon

 + + +

UPDATE 1 [Oct 14]:

Amarillo.com has published a follow up article titled "Priests for Life defends no-show" giving Father Deibel's explanation of why Father Frank did not meet with Bishop Zurek. Here is the full statement released by Father Deibel as it appears on the Priests for Life website:

Official Statement from the Rev. David Deibel, Canonist

As Canonical Advisor to Fr. Frank Pavone and Priests for Life, I have, on numerous occasions, communicated on their behalf with Bishop Patrick Zurek, asking for a mediator as a first step in restoring trust and facilitating healing in the relationship between the bishop and his priest. I can attest that Fr. Pavone is eager to restore with Bishop Zurek the trust and communication that should exist between any priest and his bishop. Fr. Pavone remains in Amarillo as directed by his bishop, and remains faithful and obedient.

The details and history of the present situation are such that moving forward to a resolution is no longer simply a matter of getting together and talking. Several Church officials have made it clear that they believe mediation is necessary, and that they are willing to undertake a role as mediators. Unfortunately, Bishop Zurek has not responded to or even acknowledged any of these requests.

Instead, he wrote to Fr. Frank, asked him to come to a one-on-one meeting with him, and asked him in writing not to speak to anyone about the meeting. Then, the next day, before Father Frank even had an opportunity to respond, the Bishop announced the meeting on the front page of the website of the Amarillo diocese.

As his canonical consultant, I advised Father Frank not to have this private meeting until the process of mediation is underway. All of us want this entire process to be carried out in private rather than through the media. He remains hopeful and prayerful that the bishop will respond privately to requests made of him, and that this situation will be resolved shortly in a truly Christian and ecclesial manner. I ask all to respect Father’s prayerful wishes in this regard.

Reverend David L. Deibel, JD, JCL

 + + +

UPDATE 2 [OCT 14]:

True to form, Mark Shea brushed off Fr. Deibel's statement in an impudent comment:

"How thoughtful to deign to explain this the day after he blows off his bishop. Sorry, but he’s being childish. It’s like watching a divorcing prima donna spouse only talking to her husband through a lawyer. How about a little humility?"

Seriously, when is National Catholic Register going to give this gossipy columnist the boot? It is obvious that NCR is withholding judgement on the whole AmarilloGate mess that the bishop has fabricated. There have only been a few carefully worded articles on the site on this topic. I'm sure this has a lot to do with the fact that NCR is now affiliated with (owned by??) EWTN where the Priests for Life TV show "Defending Life" is seen.

And yet columnist Mark Shea has been constantly fanning the flames of controversy with his statements on his own blog. On top of that, Shea's general liberal Catholic pronouncements are far out of line with EWTN's goal of creating an orthodox Catholic presence on TV, radio and the internet. I think Shea would fit in much better at the heterodox National Catholic REPORTER -- also known as the National Catholic fish-wrap.

It was also interesting to see Ed Peters commenting over at Mark Shea's site. You would think that Mr. Peters would chastise Mr. Shea over some of his derogatory comments. But no. Does this mean that Peters shares Shea's open disdain for Father Frank Pavone? Well, until I see Peters publicly single out Shea for criticism, I have to come to that conclusion. Which casts a whole different light on some of Peters' supposedly lawerly statements.

Is there an organized campaign among certain prominent Catholic persons online to damage the reputations of Father Frank and Priests for Life? I'm waiting to hear next from the opinionated Gerald Nadal, who has made it very clear that he doesn't need any facts to come to the conclusion that Father Frank is guilty of .... well, something!

Is this the same gang that attacked Lila Rose and Live Action for their use of undercover tactics to expose Planned Parenthood? Who's side are they on?

Bishop Zurek on Father Pavone's priestly status

Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
 – 1 Corinthians 9:16

Pope Innocent III dreams of St. Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran

Here is the full text of a letter posted on the website of the Diocese of Amarillo on September 30 by Bishop Zurek.

Clarification of Fr. Frank Pavone’s Priestly Status

Father Frank Pavone remains suspended. At my discretion and solicitude, he has faculties for ministry in the Diocese of Amarillo. He does not have my permission for ministry outside of the Diocese. He is to remain in the Diocese for an indefinite period of time for prayer and reflection.

Ed Peters has provided his comments on this letter on his blog. Peters had previously criticized Bishop Zurek for his use of the word "suspended". Here is what he has to say on this latest use of the word "suspended" by the bishop.

Zurek’s continued use of the word “suspended” is apparently idiosyncratic, as “suspension” is a type of canonical penalty and, to my knowledge, no crime has been alleged against Pavone and no penal process conducted in his regard. While, strictly speaking, a canonical suspension could be imposed which would allow for some exercise of ministry, (c. 1333 § 1), my guess is that Zurek is using the word “suspended” according to its common understanding to mean something like “sharply curtailed for administrative reasons”. I regularly advise against ecclesiastical officials using terms with canonical implications as they are used in common speech, for obvious reasons, but such use still happens.

I think that Peters is being overly apologetic about the bishop's use of the word "suspended". Surely the bishop is using the word very deliberately. If the bishop does not understand the correct ecclesiastical meaning of the word, then that would be very troubling. A suspension would mean that Father Frank would not be allowed to say Mass and that clearly hasn't happened. In fact the diocese of Amarillo specifically stated that he "remains a priest in good standing".

Peters goes on to offer his unsolicited advice to Father Pavone about what he should or should not do, saying that "he should avoid [working for Priests for Life from Amarillo]" since that would "interfere" with his "prayer and reflection". It doesn't seem to bother Peters in the slightest that the bishop has never stated any definitive reason why Father Frank needs to spend time in "prayer and reflection" rather than actively spreading the Gospel of the Lord to a nation that is sorely in need of repentance.

It is fortunate for St. Francis of Assisi that Ed Peters wasn't around when he was founding his order. You see St. Francis was preaching without a license and he and his twelve disciples had to appeal to the Pope in order to establish his order. It could have gone either way. Francis might have been declared a heretic, but Pope Innocent III had a dream in which he saw Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the mother of all churches. And thank God that he did.

Similarly, Father Frank has appealed to Rome and as Ed Peters is well aware, the canon lawyer for Priests for Life, Father David Deibel, has stated that this temporarily nullifies the suspension by Bishop Zurek until the Vatican weighs in. And yet Peters doesn't bother to mention this in his comments on the bishops letter of "clarification".

St. Francis was called to physically repair the Church of St. Damian which Pope Benedict XVI reminds us was "the symbol of a much deeper call to renew Christ's own Church". Today the challenge is to restore society's respect for the dignity of human life which Priests for Life is doing through its pro-Life ministry. The struggle to end abortion is "the symbol of a much deeper call" to unity within the Christian world. Nowhere do we see the various Christian denominations coming together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit like we do in the pro-Life community.

We need more priests like Father Frank Pavone who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause of the unborn. If there are some financial irregularities at Priests for Life, then by all means these need to be straightened out. But that can certainly be done without pulling Father Frank off to the sidelines at a time when we have seen Planned Parenthood under so much political and financial pressure. This is the time to increase the pressure on the pro-abortion forces and not let them off the hook. Bishops should be denying communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians according to the instructions issued by then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) in 2004. But the American bishops are in open defiance of such instructions, saying that this is "a complex question involving 'prudential judgment' in each case."

And on the matter of politicians that support "homosexual marriage", Cardinal Ratzinger in 2003 instructed that "the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against [the recognition of homosexual unions]". And yet Catholic politicians are never denied communion on the basis of supporting "homosexual marriage" or singled out by the American bishops for public chastisement.

But woe to the pro-Life priest that fails to maintain a spotless financial organization. Or is it woe to the priest who stands up to pro-abortion politicians as Father Frank has done?

What has Bishop Zurek clarified in his "clarification"? He is simply reiterating what he said in his previous letter. Ed Peters knows this. We all know this. It seems that Bishop Zurek is making good on his threat "to withdraw Father Pavone permanently from pro-life ministry if he were to exercise his canonical rights to hierarchical recourse".

In so doing he is posting a challenge to any other bishop outside of Amarillo who might wish to come to the defense of Father Frank. We all know this is not strictly a local matter confined to Amarillo, so why don't we hear from Archbishop Dolan, the president of the US Conference of bishops? After all, Priests for Life is headquartered in Staten Island, New York which is part of the Archdiocese of New York. Should we infer from his silence that he is in full support of Bishop Zurek?

I have to hand it to the pro-abortion National Catholic Reporter on this one. Rather than hurl stones at Father Frank while he is down, they have just quietly stood by and watched as some members of the Catholic pro-Life community have thrown the first stones.

I do not think that this is going to end well. Pray for the Church.

 + + +

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Ed Peters' dogged defense of Bishop Zurek

And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear."
 – Luke 11:46

Ed Peters seems to have appointed himself to be the lead prosecutor of Father Frank Pavone in a public trial which he is conducting through his blog. Yes, Ed Peters is a canon lawyer, but his issue with Father Pavone does not seem to be just about canon law; it seems to be much more personal than that.

From the beginning Peters has tried to portray this as a conflict between Father Pavone and Bishop Zurek. As a lawyer, he should know much better than that. This is not some sort of boxing match with the bishop and his priest in opposite corners as Peters likes to portray it.

This is a policy dispute which was made public when a letter by Bishop Zurek was published by CNS (Catholic News Service). The letter addressed to all the United States Catholic bishops made unsubstantiated claims about the character of Father Frank and about Priests for Life. As a public figure that has a responsibility to defend the reputation of Priests for Life, Father Frank was put into a very awkward position by his bishop.

If he said nothing then Priests for Life would be adversely affected. In fact Bishop Zurek asked his fellow bishops to halt all donations to PFL. How was Father Frank supposed to respond to that? Should he just quietly go into prayer as Peters has suggested?

Ed Peters seems to like to put himself in the limelight. Not that long ago he made a public pronouncement that Bishop Hubbard of Albany should deny communion to Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York. This led to a flurry of publicity. When Bishop Hubbard did not take any action against Governor Cuomo, Peters let the matter quietly drop.

If only he had followed a similar trajectory in the current situation with Father Frank Pavone then he would have saved the pro-Life community a lot of public embarrassment. Instead Peters got ever more involved in criticizing anyone that showed any kind of support for Father Frank.

Why did Ed Peters let Bishop Hubbard off the hook while publicly scolding Father Pavone in article after article?

In the latest round of fighting initiated by Ed Peters, he took aim at Al Kresta who conducted an interview with Father Frank on his Ave Maria Radio show. Peters' main objection seems to be that Father Frank should simply not be allowed to speak out in public.

It was now Al Kresta's turn to be put into an awkward position. He was forced to defend himself against Ed Peters' charge that he had given Father Frank "what amounted to a 40 minute infomercial". Peters bluntly charged that this was "a bad idea". And added that neither Father Pavone nor Kresta were "competent to explain ... canon law to the public". He said that interviewing Father Frank was especially bad while the "dispute with Zurek was in full swing", which just shows how Peters has attempted to turn this policy dispute into a highly personal confrontation.

So much for tact and diplomacy on the part of Ed Peters; never mind being charitable. This is more the style of a bulldog than a diplomat.

In his response Al Kresta starts out by saying that he and Ed Peters are friends and that Ed Peters has appeared as a guest on his show in the past. Thank goodness that Al is a "friend" of Peters. I'd hate to think how he would have worded his criticisms if they weren't. Kresta tries his best to defuse the situation which Peters has created using very apologetic language. He does however say that Peters' characterization of the interview as an "infomercial" is "silly".

Peters in his reply rather than apologizing just digs in deeper. He describes himself as "one who knows what the rules are". So now Peters is not just the prosecutor, but has also declared himself to be the judge in this case. Aren't Bishop Zurek and the Diocese of Amarillo capable of speaking for themselves?

Meanwhile, where in the world is Bishop Zurek? It's been over two weeks since he disappeared from the face of the earth on September 13 -- the same day that he demanded that Father Frank show up in Amarillo.

As for Ed Peters, I wish he would turn his lawerly attentions to more worthy victims like Nancy Pelosi and the bishops that allow her style of public insubordination to continue unchallenged. Or Catholic "social justice" groups like the 8th Day Center for Justice which insists on showing a film that advocates "women priests". With all the attacks that the Church is under today, why zero in on a priest that has dedicated his life to end abortion?

I hate bringing this up, but I will anyway because it goes to the core of Peters' argument. When we blindly defer to the bishops, bad things can happen. The bishops can and must be held accountable. They should not be above criticism from the laity when they fail to vigorously defend the teachings of the Catholic Church. And they certainly should not be allowed to place themselves above the Pope.

The bishops should conduct their business in public and avoid secrecy as much as possible. Again, we have seen how secrecy has been used to hide abuse in the past. Eventually, secrets are uncovered.

Why shouldn't a bishop go on a radio program to be interviewed? If Archbishop Dolan can go on 60 Minutes, then why can't Bishop Zurek be interviewed by Al Kresta? He should follow the example of Pope Benedict XVI who has been very open and candid in his papacy. At times this has resulted in his being attacked by the press as happened when "Light of the World" was published. But he has helped to dispel the myth that the Vatican and the Catholic Church has something to hide.

When baby Joseph was about to be euthanized by Canadian doctors the whole pro-Life community came out in support. But it was ultimately one priest who was able to make a difference and give Joseph a chance to live out a full life. Shouldn't this priest receive our thanks and support now when he needs it most?

God bless you, Father Frank.

 + + +

St. John Chrysostom, pray for us.

Holy Communion is for the faithful

See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know Him.
 – 1 John 3:1

Back in April, American Life League came out with the following video that stated that the Catholic Church should excommunicate politicians who support abortion giant Planned Parenthood in defiance of the Church's teachings on the sanctity of life. It caused quite a stir.



Now the pro-Life organization has gained a stunning endorsement for their campaign from high ranking Vatican officials.  Judie Brown, the President of American Life League reports that Cardinal Raymond Burke told her to be “persistent” in her campaign to have Canon 915 enforced.

Here's more on this story from LifeSiteNews.

Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Brown also noted that Burke encouraged her to make use of the numerous articles he himself has written on the subject.

“He encouraged us to be persistent, to use his articles and not to back down from our position which is the same as his,” she said. “It’s not arbitrary it’s a matter of the law of the church which needs to be enforced.”

Cardinal Burke, she noted, spoke of applying the sanction called for in canon 915 as “therapeutic” in terms of helping people come back in line with the church.

The fact that many bishops are “not comfortable” about it, said Brown, doesn’t matter.

The "not comfortable" comment is significant because this has been the response on the part of the American Bishops in the past when confronted with this issue. For instance National Catholic Register recently wrote "the bishops of New York have signaled their discomfort" with denying Communion to Catholic lawmakers that supported "homosexual marriage".

And as I have reported previously, Canon Lawyer Ed Peters has already made the case for denying Holy Communion to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. As one commenter at LifeSiteNews said, why does the Church have Canon Laws if they are not going to be enforced? And I think it's obvious that this applies equally to all the life issues, but at this time the key battles that are being fought in legislative bodies are over abortion and marriage.

Related articles:
Too many to list all of them but I'll just single out this one: Is Cuomo Catholic? You can do a search in the box in the upper right hand corner for "marriage" to get a complete list of related articles.

Cuomo tells us why he should be excommunicated

[Governor Pilate] washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent"
 – Matthew 27:24

GOVERNOR CUOMO: "THE LAW IS THE LAW!"

I think Governor Cuomo was trying to tell us something when he remarked on the resignation of a town clerk who said she could not "marry" homosexual couples.

"The law is the law. When you enforce the laws of the state, you don't get to pick and choose which laws," said Cuomo, who previously served as state attorney general.

"You don't get to say, 'I like this law and I'll enforce this law, or I don't like this law and I won't enforce this law' -- you can't do that," Cuomo added, according to our intern, Alex Katz, who was on the scene for Cuomo's presser. "So if you can't enforce the law, then you shouldn't be in that position."

Right you are, Governor! The law is the law! And you don't get to pick and choose which laws you are going to obey! Otherwise, get out of town!

That's the way it works in any government or any business or any other large organization. There are rules. There are procedures. And if you can't respect the rules then you just don't belong!

This is the classic case of seeing the speck in the eye of the other, and not seeing the log in your own eye!

Or maybe, Governor Cuomo is actually directing his comments to Archbishop Dolan??? Did Cuomo really mean to say...

"Canon law is canon law. When you enforce the laws of the Church, you don't get to pick and choose which laws," said Cuomo, who secretly wishes he was a canon lawyer like Edward Peters.

"You don't get to say, 'I like this canon law and I'll enforce this canon law, or I don't like this canon law and I won't enforce this canon law' -- you can't do that," Cuomo added, in a fantasy dream of Ed Peters' son, Thomas Peters, who is also known as the American Papist. "So if you can't enforce canon law, then you shouldn't be in that position."

Care to comment Archbishop?

------

UPDATE 7/13:

An official statement from Nassau County District Attorney, Kathleen M. Rice, went out on July 8 threatening City Clerks that did not fully comply with the "homosexual marriage" legislation when it goes into effect July 24.

Recently, a local clerk in upstate New York made headlines when she said she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Marriage Equality Act provides that an application for a marriage license cannot be denied on the grounds that the applicant parties are of the same sex and the law affords no discretion to public officials charged with granting marriage licenses. Therefore, any such refusal may be subject to criminal prosecution.

So, if I've got this right, in order to appease a small minority of people that are cohabiting and not even necessarily in a monogamous relationship, the State of New York is throwing the full weight of its police powers against any citizen that objects on the grounds of religious freedom to this newly invented civil "right". Is the State really going to incarcerate people who take a stand for their religious beliefs – the very same religious beliefs upon which our country was founded?

Christian Americans have been tolerant. We have been accepting. But we cannot allow ourselves to be bullied into denying our Christian beliefs with regards to the fundamental institution of marriage.

This isn't funny anymore. I hope that all Christians in New York will do whatever they can to support those State workers who object to issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. Certainly there are many solutions to this problem other than fines, imprisonment or firings. Which just goes to show how "tolerant" the supporters of the homosexual agenda are when the shoe is on the other foot.

Is this democracy in action, or are we witnessing a Machiavellian State apparatus coming into being?

h/t – National Organization for Marriage (NOM)

------

UPDATE-2 7/13:

"The law is THE LAW! We don't make no stinking exceptions!" Except to create a massive PR event in support of "homosexual marriage" by opening City and State offices on a Sunday. "The law is THE LAW!" except when Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg are looking for ways to get around the New York marriage law that requires a 24 hour waiting period from the time of obtaining a license.

• City Setting Sunday Hours to Grant Gay Unions – New York Times
• New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will officiate at the wedding of two city officials on July 24, the first day same sex couples can legally marry in the state – Reuters

Maybe the law isn't always THE LAW! Maybe the law always tries to remain flexible and allow for special cases and exceptions. Or are those exceptions only for Mayor Bloomberg and his friends? Why so much anger towards faithful Christians, Governor?

------

UPDATE-3 7/13:

Lillian Ladele

I can't find very many details on this, but there is a woman in the UK that was disciplined for refusing to "marry" homosexual couples. Her name is Lillian Ladele. She challenged this action in court and lost. Now the case is going up before the European Court of Human Rights. The British Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) had insisted that her religious rights had not been denied, but now seems to have made a u-turn and says, "Judges have interpreted the law too narrowly in religion or belief discrimination claims." On the face of it this sounds like good news, but knowing how entrenched secular humanist ideals are among the British elite I suspect that there is more going on than meets the eye.

I bring this up to draw obvious parallels with the case in New York, and to suggest that the law can and should respect the religious rights of Christians.

Bishop DiMarzio on EWTN

For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
 – Titus 1:7-9

Bishop DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, NY was interviewed on EWTN's "World Over Live" news program on Thursday, July 7. Host Raymond Arroyo focused the interview on the recent passage of the "homosexual marriage" bill which was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo who is a Catholic. Below is the video of the interview which lasts about 20 minutes.



Here are some comments I left over at the Cleansing Fire website regarding this interview.

Comment 1:

I was kind of baffled by Archbishop Dolan's statement [Some Afterthoughts] when I first read it. I just watched the interview of Bishop DiMarzio on Raymond Arroyo's "World Over Live" news program on EWTN. Now I think I understand what is going on.

I think Dolan realized that he couldn't remain silent while DiMarzio was speaking out. So he rushed out a statement to indicate that he is still engaged in "dialogue" on the issue of "homosexual marriage". That explains why his statement is so rambling, pointless and basically incoherent.

Don't you think that EWTN's Arroyo would have extended an invitation to Archbishop Dolan before inviting Bishop DiMarzio? The implication is that Dolan refused to go on EWTN to discuss the topic of "homosexual marriage". It may seem like I am conjecturing, but it's just plain logic.

And don't you think that if Archbishop Dolan would initiate a request to go on EWTN, that the network would oblige him? Ergo Dolan has not reached out to EWTN.

Arroyo continually pressed Bishop DiMarzio to respond to the statement by Canon lawyer Ed Peters that Gov. Cuomo should be denied communion. The Bishop did not totally reject the idea, but suggested that the situation was "complicated".

I haven't always been a fan of Arroyo. But I admire the work he has done to raise the issue of the scandal caused by Gov. Cuomo's rejection of Church teachings.

The bishops of New York are hoping that this storm will just blow over. We shouldn't allow that to happen.

No amount of "catechesis" can undo the message that Catholics get when they see Governor Cuomo openly defy the Church without retribution. He must suffer the consequences of his actions. Our God is a god of mercy and justice. The Church does not demonstrate true mercy when it forsakes justice.

Here was the response from Gretchen:

I listened to Raymond Arroyo’s interview also and was dismayed by Bishop DiMarzio’s comments regarding a proper response to the public scandal of our NY politicians in general, and Gov. Cuomo in particular. He went on for a bit about how one could never judge what is going on in a person’s conscience. It seemed as if he was saying that the bishops and priests should not refuse anyone communion, ever, based on the idea that if a person’s conscience is impelling them to support SSM then one should not judge them. If that is what he was implying, I assume the same could be said for abortion, and all other public and private sins.

I will say that Bishop DiMarzio seems genuinely upset that SSM passed in NY. He also seemed very uncomfortable during the interview, as if he was being constrained from speaking his heart on the matter.

He also spoke about not having the hearts and minds of the laity, particularly those who do not attend Mass or are ‘nominally Catholic.’ He said that the Church needs to do a better job of teaching the faithful what is right and wrong, but that withholding communion would not necessarily accomplish that goal.

I have heard statistics that state up to 50% of priests may be homosexual. I wonder if this, along with admittedly poor catechesis, is presenting a Gordian Knot to the bishops.

Comment 2 in response to the repy from Gretchen:

Gretchen. I echo your sentiments. I am cutting Bishop DiMarzio considerable slack, because I think he is "constrained", as you say.

I have the impression that the Bishop is instinctively a fighter, but that he has his hands tied. He's the only one of the New York bishops that has taken any action, and that should tell you something. I interpret his action as saying he is pushing the issue as far as he can and that he can't go any further at this time. He says he "got the attention" of others and that was his goal. His diocese of Brooklyn is home to over 1.5 million Catholics so I think that gives him more freedom to speak out than other bishops.

I wrote an article on Bishop DiMarzio immediately after he released his statement condemning the vote on "homosexual marriage". I embedded video of an interview that DiMarzio did where he speaks more openly about his feelings regarding this. I think its worth watching:
Bishop DiMarzio speaks out against homosexual "marriage"

Comment 3 was posted after I re-watched the interview I mentioned at the end of comment 2. I reposted the video below and have cued it up to the interview with Michael Long of the New York Conservative Party.



Comment 3:

Gretchen. If you have a chance to watch that video, let it continue playing after the Bishop DiMarzio segment. At around the 11 minute mark there is an interview with Michael Long who is Catholic and the Chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State.

Q: What do you think happened in the last week or two?

LONG: I may get in trouble for saying this, but if there were more voices like Bishop DiMarzio… I think we could have turned this thing around and stopped this vote. He was a very steadfast, clear voice in opposition to this.

Translation: Archbishop Dolan was not a “steadfast, clear voice in opposition” to “homosexual marriage”.

Bishop DiMarzio indicated in the EWTN interview that the answer was not denying politicians communion, but denying politicians a victory at the polls. That dovetails very well with what Long is advocating.

One last thought. It may be that the Catholic Church is being threatened with the charge of violating the Constitutional separation between Church and State if they refuse Communion to Gov. Cuomo. Maybe that’s what the Bishop was referring to when he said it was “complicated”.

I don't expect to see Archbishop Dolan on EWTN anytime soon. He seems to be waiting for the "homosexual marriage" storm to blow over.

Over at the National Organization for Marriage there is a decidedly different approach. They are organizing a rally to "Let the People Vote!" on the issue of "homosexual marriage" for Sunday, July 24.

Is Cuomo Catholic?

"Now, those who deny that marriage is holy, and who relegate it, stripped of all holiness, among the class of common secular things, uproot thereby the foundations of nature, not only resisting the designs of Providence, but, so far as they can, destroying the order that God has ordained. No one, therefore, should wonder if from such insane and impious attempts there spring up a crop of evils pernicious in the highest degree both to the salvation of souls and to the safety of the commonwealth."
– Excerpt from Pope Leo XIII "On Christian Marriage" (1880)

Cuomo and live-in girlfriend Sandra Lee after both received communion from the Bishop of Albany Jan 2, 2011

The subject of "gay marriage" is once again in the headlines. This time it is a push by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo to legalize "gay marriage" in New York. This is despite the fact that Cuomo claims to be Catholic.

Archbishop Dolan of New York has published a statement on his blog against legalization of "gay marriage", but in my mind his statement is weak and deeply flawed. He seems to be saying that gay couples should have all the legal rights of a married couple except that their relationship shouldn't be called a marriage. This is basically the "civil union" concept which we have seen is just an intermediate step towards gay marriage. Why for example should a gay sex partner be entitled to health insurance? Who will ultimately pay for this added benefit? What will keep someone from declaring to be a "partner" just in order to get the benefits?

And not surprisingly, Cuomo is also pro-abortion and supported by Planned Parenthood. Dr. Edward Peters, a top expert in Catholic Church law said, "based on what is widely reported about the governor’s consistent support for abortion in New York, I see no other way to interpret his abortion-related conduct except as sufficient to warrant withholding of holy Communion from him under Canon 915." Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the highest court at the Vatican said, "We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner."

I have to say that I'm very disappointed in Archbishop Dolan. Not only is he the Archbishop of New York, but he is also the recently elected head of the American Bishops. He needs to demonstrate more leadership on this issue. In addition, to everything else there has been an ongoing controversy over whether Governor Cuomo should be allowed to receive communion since he is divorced and living with his girlfriend. The teachings of the Catholic Church are quite clear on this matter and yet no one in the New York Catholic hierarchy has stepped up and confronted Governor Cuomo. Is excommunication a thing of the past?

In contrast former New York Giant David Tyree (who is Christian but not Catholic) has come out with the following strong and heartfelt video statement in support of marriage as defined by human society throughout history. He is very clear that underlining his support of marriage is his strong religious beliefs. And he states clearly that changing the definition of marriage will have profound effects on American society and our practice of religion.



Related articles:

• Gay "marriage": war against religion
• On marriage
• Prop 8 Round 3
• The end of "one man, one woman"?
• The meltdown of the family
• "What is Truth?"
• The Manhattan Declaration
• The attack of the "humanists"
• Pope Leo XIII on marriage
• Marriage and the Mass