Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Discuss your priests’ and parishes’ SSM comments

June 25th, 2011, Promulgated by Ben Anderson

Seeing as how just this Friday a monumental social engineering piece of legislation was passed, I’d be curious to know what your priests and parishes have to say about it. Did your priest (or lay-person) mention it in his homily (or liturgical abuse speech)? Was there any other mention of it elsewhere in the parish? It’s high time we start outing poor leadership and calling them to task. If one word is mentioned that sounds like support for this disgusting legislation, it should be documented and reported. How bout starting here and letting us know what you heard from the pulpit?

Tags:

|

26 Responses to “Discuss your priests’ and parishes’ SSM comments”

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    If a man comes up to you, introduces himself and his “husband,” be kind and simply say: “I don’t agree.” Be honest and gentle, but stick to the truth.

  2. avatar Diane says:

    Nothing was mentioned in the homily.

  3. avatar JLo says:

    We were at Holy Mass Saturday morning and today, and neither Fr. Reif yesterday nor Fr. Wheeland at 7:30 a.m. today said a word. Too bad. And if anything was said during the general intercessions of either of those Holy Masses, I missed it!

    Our priests MUST start shepherding the flocks in this matter, because too many Catholics have opened another cafeteria line and think it’s okay! +JMJ

  4. avatar Bruce says:

    Priestly silence on this issue is defeat. Period.

  5. avatar Anonymous says:

    I attended Mass at St. Cecilias and Fr. Leone mentioned SSM in his homily. He was not happy with the decision and even mentioned that he wished there was not the religious exemption in this new law because what would be better than to go to jail for something you believe in. He said what better way to protest than to have a priest in jail because they refused to marry a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I was very pleased with his comments.

  6. avatar Michael says:

    Nothing was mentioned at Mass. When I asked our Pastor about it afterward, he stated that the Bishop had already commented on it, so there was nothing more for him to say.

  7. avatar JLo says:

    Hooray for Fr. Leone! What parish, Michael at 10:33? +JMJ

  8. avatar Anonymous says:

    At St. Joseph’s in Penfield, I am sad to say, there was no mention of this terrible defeat for our Church and our society. As if nothing had happened.

  9. Fr. Leone displays valiant endeavor in willing to go to jail for refusing to marry Same Sex Couples but that assessment is not accurate. A priest will not be arrested and go to jail for refusing to marry Same Sex Couples. Civil proceedings would take place which means the priest, the parish, and the Diocese could be sued. For this reason it is fortunate that the provision to safeguard religious institutions was added.

    Priests, Deacons, and parishioners should educate themselves in regard to legal proceedings to learn what will cause arrest and incarceration, what will cause a subpoena to appear in court to be sued, and what could cause both to occur.

    The course of action which could take place against religious institutions if the provision did not exist could cause the annihilation of different faiths, including the Roman Catholic Faith, even if a lawsuit wasn’t won, due to efforts in court causing money,a local Diocese, or many Dioceses, could be drained of money. If lawsuits were won supported by homosexual advocacy groups who appear to have enormous resources of personnel and funds, it could mean the end to the existance of major organized faiths.

  10. avatar Raymond Rice says:

    No comment at Mass. According to the trial of St Thomas More, in English law, silence is assent!!

  11. avatar annonymouse says:

    Crickets chirping, that’s all I heard.

  12. There was no mention at SSM at St. Andrew Church at the 9:30 A.M. We had a visiting priest who gave a great homily on the Body and Blood of Christ.

  13. avatar Anonymous says:

    From YNN news site:

    “Bishop Matthew Clark says the Catholic Diocese of Rochester remains opposed to gay marriage. He says the church’s position is based on the belief that marriage is a sacrament, celebrated between a man and a woman.

    “It just seems inappropriate to me and a lot of people that it should be redefined to reach a good end, but an end that could be achieved in other ways,” said Clark.”

    A good end? That could (should?) be achieved in other (?) ways? Inappropriate: Like wearing stripes and plaids?

  14. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    christian 1954, you and I were at the same mass this morning at STA on Portland Ave!
    I agree that Father Dollen gave a really good “Catholic Homily” for the Solemnity of THE BODY OF CHRIST. While this faithful and devoted priest chose not to discuss the new legislation, I do not fault him. There will be plenty of time to brainstorm possible action steps in this next phase of the culture war. After our new pastoral administrator and two assisting priests arrive this week, you, Christian 1954 and I, if you like, can approach them and ask WHAT STEPS WILL OUR PARISH UNDER YOUR LEADERSHIP TAKE IN LIGHT OF THIS NEW LEGISLATION ON same-sex marriage? See you in Church.

  15. avatar Anonymous says:

    Christian 1954.

    I think you miss the point of what Dr. Leone was saying. He was really saying he wished the Catholic church could have martyrs again for what they believe it just like the Christians who were killed for their beliefs during the times of the Romans. Please don’t analyze everything that is said as if we are in a court room. Gee, at least he said something. I for one am glad that he spoke up and said something that needs to be said to Catholics.

  16. avatar JLo says:

    How about faithful Catholics (and others) who do not want to supply flowers or rent rooms or cater or provide music, etc., to the coming bogus “weddings”? Will they all be sued and lose their businesses? Is there a “clause” in that rag… er, I mean bill… that provides a conscience exemption to all who have a well-formed one? The nightmare has just begun. Even though not among the protected priesthood, Fr. Leone will see much martyrdom. +JMJ

  17. avatar Chris says:

    There was no mention at St. Frances Xavier Cabrini (Our Lady of the Americas). But, Fr. Tracy gave a really good homily on the Body and Blood of Christ.

  18. Dominic Anthony Zarcone: I also do not fault Father Dollen for not addressing SSM. He is a very faithful, spiritual priest who delivers well thought-out and prepared homilies using relevant examples. Fr.Dollen is not permanently assigned to our parish; we are very fortunate to have him with us. I for one, am very grateful. —You managed to convey more accurately what I was trying to convey. Peace!

  19. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    Just to be clear (I should’ve been more so in the original post), I am in no way trying to fault priests for not mentioning SSM in this one particular homily. In general, yes, I think we need to hear more about it. And not only that “we don’t agree” with SSM, but tell us how to deal with it. Tell us how to treat the situation amongst loved ones. Tell us what the proper Christian response is, instead of leaving us guessing. But in no way was I trying to provide a litmus test that if your priest didn’t mention it this particular Sunday (Feast of Corpus Christi) that he is a failure. I was more concerned that some priests and parishes might be subtly endorsing the legislation. I thank you for all sharing your experiences. Perhaps talking to our priests about some of the issues we face as laity might encourage them to speak up (like Fr. Leone – God bless him).

  20. avatar OLS Parishioner says:

    Fr. John Gathenya mentioned it and said that he would write about it in his article for the Holy Family bulletin when he begins his pastorate there on Tuesday. He said that we could read it there.

  21. JLo: You have an important point-what about businesses who are Catholic, another Christian denomination, one of the other faiths, or anyone who do not want to supply flowers, cater, provide music, or rent a room for SSM’s? Can they be sued and lose their businesses?

    There are laws in place which prevent landlords from discriminating against unmarried couples (and probably same sex couples). These same laws pertain to hotels and motels. So you can see that it is very difficult to be a landlord or hotel manager or desk clerk if you have strong religious convictions. I think it is already possible for a business such as florist, musical group, restaurant, or banquet hall, to be sued for refusing to conduct business with couples who are homosexual, because they are homosexual. SSM’s have already been taking place in this state without the blessing of the state, and in many cases, without the blessings of a formal church. But now that SSM’s have the backing of the State, it might increase the likeliness of discriminatory lawsuits against businesses who do not wish to provide services for SSM’s.
    I think a Forum is needed for how to handle situations involving SSM’s. The concern is how to handle these children of God involved in these “unions” with Christian love, charity, and concern without compromising our values.

  22. avatar Anonymous says:

    Further report on the Mass at St. Joseph’s, Penfield today.

    The homily was by a nice man, I think a Deacon, who had served meals recently in Haiti. The homily connected Holy Communion to a “meal”. There were several references to that great big meal connection, that you hear so often here in Rochester. It always seems lacking when the homily is about the Eucharistic as “Meal”.

    Then were baptisms. We all had a thorough view because three screens automatically lowered above the sanctuary and the event was projected clearly onto the screen.

    It was two babies and a child in a lovely dress. The young girl in a pretty dress bowed her head over the pool and had plenty water poured on the back of her hair three times. The first baby, dressed in white, got a thorough drench of water poured on the back of her head with water poured three times. She was a long-haired baby and got quite wet, but appeared to be sound asleep! The last baby was different. Stripped naked, he was handed to the priest who held him sturdily and gave a “backside baptism”. Whole backside, dipped 3x! At the first dip the baby tensed up in terror. As the priest prepared to dip him the second time, the baby flailed in a startle and then reached out to the priest, grabbing desperately for him to save him. No such luck. People made sympathetic sounds and chuckles as the priest held him apart to prepare for the next dip. After the second dip the gasping baby continued to reach for the priest to save him, to no avail. After the final dip he was handed howling back to the mother who wrapped him in the towel. Mom seemed happy. Baby continued to howl his offense for quite some time. I was so sorry for the baby I didn’t think to notice if any of his head got dipped. Possibly not. I spent a lot of time after that wondering if it was a valid baptism if none of the head got wet.

  23. avatar Gretchen says:

    Went to Mass at St. Mary’s in Clayton, NY (diocese of Ogdensburg). The priest had an excellent homily on the body and blood of Christ. At the end of Mass, the priest asked everyone to remain while he read a statement by Bishop LaValley denouncing Friday’s ruling on SSM. (Some of it is contained in the beginning of this article in the Watertown Daily Times. The rest of the article is bird cage lining…)

  24. avatar Catholic Dad says:

    Assumption Parish in Fairport- References to SSM: Dead Air…Intercession prayers included one reference to a couple celebrating their 65th wedding anniversary and “for all married couples”, which seemed to be an oblique nod to the issue, if one thinks about it long enough….We did have a very moving homily by one of our fantastic deacons on the body and blood of Christ, that included a touching reminder that we are to go out and be Christ for all, including those considered “unwanted or inconvenient”.

  25. Anonymous 13458: I think you miss the point I was trying to make – That it is not possible to combat SSM by going to jail and being a Christian witness. So the point the Fr. Leone made regarding that the provision protecting churches and other religious institutions should not exist to allow priests and others to be jailed for refusing,(martyrs for the cause) is not valid. Although Fr. Leone point opposing SSM’s is valid and his intention is valiant. God Bless him for making a stand.
    Unfortunately, the law of the land only allows you to be a martyr for the cause with your pocketbook/wallet. Not too many priests,parishes, Dioceses, or other religious institutions are in a position to carry out that type of martyrdom. It would mean being in court all the time, paying out large amounts of money to defend faith against the law of the state. Because of this, I stated that it was a good thing that the provision was made to protect religious institutions.
    Since churches and other religious institutions are protected, it is all the more reason for carrying out an agreed upon agenda of not performing SSM’s.
    (Additional Note)- The only possible way that I can see a priest, deacon, or parishioner being jailed in regard to refusing a Same Sex Marriage from occurring at a church is -to show up at the church on the wedding day of the Same Sex Marriage, and prevent entrance into the church by protest line or disrupt the ceremony.

  26. avatar Jim says:

    Jim M. here: At Our Lady of Victory/St. Joseph’s, Fr. Antinarelli didn’t mention anything about this in his homily, as the entire Mass (homily, procession, adoration of the of Blessed Sacrament) was focused on the Feast of Corpus Christi. However, he did mention it the day before, on Saturday, and reminded us that the bishops need to speak out more forcibly on issues like this.


-Return to main page-