Quis Custodiet Custodos?

I am sure I am not the only devout Catholic in good standing who was a bit stunned, shocked even, to read the story ( widely reported in The Associated Press and in columns on the blogs: Huffington Post, Daily Kos and the Daily Dish) of a young boy, Lennon Cihak from Barnesville, Minnesota who was refused confirmation because of a picture he posted on his facebook page showing himself and a poster connected to the Minnesota referendum which wanted to amend the Minnesota Constitution so that, by law, marriage was defined as only between a man and a woman. Lennon doctored the poster to show support for equal marriage rights. The referendum, despite a lot of effort and exceedingly large sums of money from many Minnesota dioceses, did not pass.

Lennon's pastor, Rev. Gary Lemoine, at Assumption parish in Barnesville, barred him from confirmation and also told his mother that she and her family would be barred from communion for taking  a line on gay marriage different from his. In an attempt to appeal the pastor's decision, Lennon's mother appealed to the Bishop of Crookston, Minnesota, Michael Heoppner, who told her Lennon could be confirmed only if he stood in front of the parish congregation and denounced marriage equality. How I wish Andrew Greeley was still writing his columns. He would have written a scorcher on this pastoral mal-practice!

I was reminded of a conversation I had with a retired archbishop about an earlier letter by Archbishop John J. Meyers of Newark who wrote in a pastoral letter that Catholics who supported marriage equality for gays and lesbians should abstain from communion. The retired archbishop told me Meyers needed to consult a good canon lawyer. While Meyers, in his letter, said he wanted to be clearer than some other of his fellow bishops regarding homosexuality, in fact he went beyond what good pastoral practice and canon law allow.

The canon law of the Church says that good Catholics ( Lennon went to weekly mass and did volunteer work as part of his confirmation preparation) should have access to communion and the other sacraments ( indeed, they have a right to them), provided they have not committed a mortal sin or are under excommunication or an ecclesiastical censure and, also, that they accept the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist ( cf. canon # 905).

It might help if we look at three cognate cases. Case # 1: the official church teaches that the use of contraceptives in marriage is evil and, objectively a mortal sin. Yet, the church does not teach it is a sin for Catholics to support civil legislation which allows the sale and possession of contraceptives. Indeed, in a famous Massachusetts referendum, in the 1960s, to allow the sale of contraceptives ( previously illegal in the state), Cardinal Cushing of Boston said Catholcis were not bound to support such civil laws outlawing the sale of contraceptive devises in the state.

Case # 2:  The official church teaches that divorce is wrong if it leads to remarriage after the divorce which constitutes a kind of adultery. Again, except for a few retrograde Catholic nations before Vatican II, no one in a pluralistic democracy would have taught it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to support civil laws in support of possible divorce with remarriage.

In a similar way, the official church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. Once again, there is no clear Catholic teaching that a Catholic who votes for or supports civil laws allowing marriage for gays and lesbians is guilty of any clear sin, let alone mortal sin. When I was a boy, I was taught in my catechism quite clearly what was considered mortal sins. Never did I run across a list of such sins: " because I voted for civil laws in contradistinction to a prudential ( or not so prudential!) judgment of my bishop about a civil law."

In my state, we recently had a referendum outlawing capital punishment. The church dis-approves of capital punishment. Most California bishops showed support for the rescinding of capital punishment. Surely, however, I would be egregiously wrong to argue that some Catholic who voted to retain capital punishment was in sin and should be refused communion. Nowhere in canon law do I see any mention of bishops' or pastors' arbitrary ability to claim something new is now a mortal sin! We need someone to guard against such so-called guardians of the faith. Canon lawyers do your job!

There are two ironies in this Minnesota case of egregiously bad pastoral practice by the pastor and his bishop. The referendum was not, as such, one to allow gay marriage. It was an attempt to put into the constitution an amendment that marriage was uniquely between a man and a woman. I could easily conceive of someone opposing gay marriage also opposing the referendum, thinking it was unnecessary so to amend the state's constitution. The point in canon law on this is that canon law assumes that in cases of any kind of punitive penalty, the interpretation of a claimed wrong-doing must be ' strictly' ( i.e., very narrowly) interpreted before any penalties are imposed. That did not happen in this Minnesota case. The  second irony is that in a different Minnesota diocese, Duluth, Father Peter Lambert of Saint Louis parish in Floodwood gave $1,000 to oppose the amendment the Minnesota bishops were supporting. He did not know that this act would become public. When it did become public, he suffered no reprimand from his bishop.

When I recounted the tale of Lennon Cihak and the refusal to allow him confirmation because of a facebook picture ( prescinding from the fact that someone in the parish seems to be spying on the kids' facebook entries! What does that say?), a fellow Jesuit, quite pastorally sensitive, said to me in response: " Is it just me ? I know we have always had some horror tales in Catholicism. But they seem to me to have been growing exponentially and in ridiculous punitive measures in the last year or so!"

Just recently, in other forums, the church has been talking about a ' new evangelization': outreach to non-Catholics and the many, many fallen away Catholics. There have been items in our Catholic newspapers about the church needing to become a more ' welcoming' church. The shock for me in this Minnesota case is the extent to which it shows the many ways the church is often more about ' new excommunications' and punitive measures than " new evangelization". Alas, the nearest other Catholic chruch to Barnesville's Assumption parish is 16 or 17 miles away. I am afraid we have needlessly lost another Catholic to pastoral stupidity and mal-practice.

Code of canon law # 212 states that Catholics ( including the laity)" have the right and, sometimes, the duty to give to their sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful." It is to that canon I appeal in saying that the new slippery slope by which bishops and others declare, on their own mistaken  'claimed authority', things to be mortal sins, introduce loyalty oaths into parish life and talk about a more widespread refusing of communion is doing serious pastoral harm in the church. It is time for our canon lawyers ( and is it too much to hope: some of our, alas too silent, fellow bishops?) to remind them that they are brazenly overstepping their pastoral authority and doing harm to the church on many of these issues.

Frank Gibbons
4 years 6 months ago
Patricia Bergeron,

''Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.''   Matthew 19:4-6


''For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.'' This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;   Ephesians 5:31-32

Mystery here indicates sacrament. Indeed, Christ's love for us is sacramental and covenented. Christ shares his Body with the Church so that we become one with Him and with each other. This love emulates the love between a married man and woman but it does so in an entirely perfect way.  

The Church is not out-of-bounds or uncharitable to want to keep the definiton of a marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman.  



Marie Rehbein
4 years 6 months ago
Jim and Vince,

Thanks for pointing that out.  I had not noticed that. 
Tom Maher
4 years 6 months ago
John Coleman S. J. # 45

You have not made your case that you asserted in this article that Bishops and priests in Minniesota are not conforming to canon laws of the Church by vigorously promoting a Minnesota Consitutional amendment defining marriage as limited to a man and a women.  

To the contrary the canon laws of the Church from the Council of Trent strongly support Church involvment in a counter refromation process that strongly refuted allowing marriage to be dredefined in the Church or in society. 

The idea of marriage being allowed to be redefined in any way other than between a man and a women is not sanctioned in canon law.  Under canon law, Bishops and priests that insist the law define marriage as between a man and a women completely conforms to the Church's definition of marriage in society.  The Church has been is legislatively and consistutionally defending and maintaining the civil definition of marraige across the United States.  You have failed to show any substanitive reason why the Church should not vigorously defend and evangelize its strongly held and well considered views on marriage in society.
Tom Maher
4 years 6 months ago
Marie Rehbein # 50

Father Coleman ends his article as follows: "It is time for our canon lawyers ( and is it too much to hope: some of our, alas too silent, fellow bishops?) to remind them that they are brazenly overstepping their pastoral authority and doing harm to the church on many of these issues."  But Fails to show what specific canon are the Bishops "barazenly overstepping their pastoral autjhority ...". 

The whole of the Father Coleman's article is Bishops have no right under canon law to be involved with the defence of marriage.  But Father Coleman can not show which canon law prevents that involvment by Bishop.  

Actually Father Coleman canon law argument are very legalistic and unlikely on their face.  If one looks at the actual canon laws on marriage from the Council of Trent in effect today thsese canons allow Bishops the power to make anyone anathma who does not support the sacrements including marriage as defined by the Church.  Redefining marriage is a serious threat to the authenticity of Church doctrine that is just not allowed.  The Church had to deal with this threat many times before at the time of the reformation when Luther and King Henry VIII decided for their own political, religious and personal reasons to redefine what marriage and other sacremnet are or are not.  The Council of Trent definitvely disappove of these revisionism of Church doctrine that impact society.   .    is and its rules.  The Church allows Bishops to find anathama people that do not conform to the CHurch view on the sacrements.  If one does not support the Church's definition of marriage in society one does run the risk of sanctions by Bishops that can exclude a person from participating in the sacrements.    

Father Coleman brought up the issue of Bishops not conforming to canon law.  But actually it is Father Coleman's views that are not supported by canon law. The Bishop fully have the authority to vigorously defend and evagelize the sacrement of  marriage ias defined by the CHurch in socieity as they have had done throughout the Church's history.  
Mike Brooks
4 years 6 months ago
It seems to me that the primary issue here is the rules of enforcement of Church teaching.  How many millions of non-Catholics have received communion at a friend's wedding, not to mention the millions of divorced Catholics, Catholics who have committed unconfessed mortal sins, etc... who receive communion at mass? 

So the rule appears to be that as long as the priest or bishop doesn't know about the sin, then it's up to the sinner to self-enforce.  Once the sinful offense becomes known, then the priest/bishop can, at his option, enforce. 

It's kind of like the speed limit laws: it's essentially self-enforcement until a cop catches you.

But speeding laws are (in theory, at least) designed to protect society in this world, and so it makes sense for cops to hand out tickets to the people they catch.  But Church laws, it seems to me, are about setting us up for the afterlife; what good does denying someone communion or any other sacrament do, but make them resent the Church?  We don't comply with Church law to avoid p?unishment by the Chu?r?c?h; we comply with Church law to avoid punishment by God?.  The Church can ?o???nly guide us.?
?
?
?
?????


???The s??inners are breaking Church law all the time; they'll have to atone for that in front ?of God in the hereafter. Let the kid be confirmed and leave it to God to punish him, if that's God's will.  In the meantime, what the Church should do is to try and educate the kid on what the Church teaches and why.  Those little blurbs in wedding programs have probably stopped a lot of people from taking communion?, not for fear of punishment by the Church, but for respect for its teaching and God's law?.

On a broader note, I think that most of the problems that the Church is facing today is allowing outsiders to define it (as tyrranical, hateful, bigoted, antiquated, etc...) , not unlike the Republicans being defined similarly by Democrats.  The publication of this story is just another in a long line of attacks (akin to the story about Todd Akin); no liberal rag is posting/printing stories about all the good work the Church is doing around the world.  The answer is not for the Church (or Republicans for that matter) to change their beliefs; the answer is to get their good message out and to overcome the perceptions generated by its attackers.  And for leaders to avoid stupid things - like stopping people from getting sacraments and saying stupid things about rape and reproduction - that provide fodder for its attackers.
Jim McCrea
4 years 6 months ago
Marie @ 47: "Amy" was once also known as "Nancy Danielson" - among others.


Remember the move:  The Three Faces of Eve?   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051077/


Snip:  A doctor treats a woman suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder.
Marie Rehbein
4 years 6 months ago
Jim,

That is fascinating.  I believe I recall the name Nancy Danielson.  Sybil is another movie about that topic.

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Greg Hicks as "Richard III" (photo: Alex Brenner)
It would be fascinating were the producers able to arrange a quick transfer to a venue somewhere near the White House.
David StewartMay 26, 2017
In the hyper-curated, beautiful world that Dev lives in, a scene that conveys the touching, ugly stubbornness of marriage seems totally impossible.
Eloise BlondiauMay 26, 2017
This image released by the Minya governorate media office shows bodies of victims killed when gunmen stormed a bus in Minya, Egypt, Friday, May 26, 2017 (Minya Governorate Media office via AP).
The attack in central Egypt today killed at least 26 people, including children aged 2 to 4, and wounded 25 others.
Gerard O'ConnellMay 26, 2017
The data and facts are clear: If you care about working families and sound economic policy, SNAP is the program for you.
Meghan J. ClarkMay 26, 2017