Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:01 PM Sep 2014

Archbishop forces music director's resignation after marriage

Father Bob White, who heads the parish in Victoria, Minn., sent out a message to the congregation on Tuesday to say the church's "beloved" director, Jamie Moore, married his partner, Garrett, just this past weekend. White said Nienstedt asked for his resignation afterward, and said Moore intends to abide by the Archbishop's request. The notice sent out to parishioners can be read in full below.

It's clear that subject is a delicate one for the parishioners who are saddened at the loss of their longtime music director and stuck in the middle of a situation some have likened to the one that unfolded one year ago when a lesbian teacher was forced out of her job at Totino Grace High School. Moore is a popular face at the west metro church, where he helped introduce female ushers -- like Doc Schmieg, who was one of the first -- to the congregation. Right now, Moore's on his honeymoon -- and Doc and Chub Schmieg told Fox 9 News they expect lots of questions and tears from those who learn he won't be coming back at this weekend's mass.

"I believe the church has more serious problems to be concerned with than whether a gay or lesbian person is in the church," Chub Schmieg told Fox 9 News. "It has lots of other issues to handle first."

Full article with video

This is just more ridiculous bigotry from the hierarchy of the RCC which shows that there has been no change. Add in to that the "it's because they are having sex outside of marriage" crowd, and it just gets more repulsive.
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
1. these aren't isolated incidents
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:18 PM
Sep 2014

It's not the actions of rogue priests who are surely going to get a swift reprimand crom the vaticN, this is the church policy.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
2. And the Archbishop is a real piece of work otherwise.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:24 PM
Sep 2014
Documents made public Monday in a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis show that Archbishop John Nienstedt made false statements under oath in April about his knowledge of a priest accused of child sexual abuse.

Nienstedt said in an April 2 deposition that he didn't know until March that a priest accused in the 1980s of sexually assaulting at least one teenage girl and "sexually exploiting" several women was still in ministry, a violation of church policy.

"I was not aware that he was publicly in ministry," Nienstedt said, referring to the Rev. Kenneth LaVan. "And as soon as I realized it, I had his faculties removed." Though retired, LaVan continued to assist with Masses at Twin Cities parishes until he was formally removed from all ministry in December 2013. Nienstedt said he learned of LaVan's continuing ministry as part of a review of clergy files conducted by the Kinsale Group, a firm hired by the archdiocese.

However, documents released Monday show that, year after year, the archbishop received updates on LaVan and approved his continuing work at Twin Cities parishes, as recently as Aug. 15, 2013.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/08/11/documents-nienstedt-lavan

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
3. the implications here are sickening
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Sep 2014

Less implied and more "what actually happened" now that I think about it. I'm sure the usual apologists will be here shortly, or are they still flogging the thread from yesterday?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
8. Why the need to call out individuals?
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:09 PM
Sep 2014

Do you think that heightens the level of conversation here?

And do you really think there is anyone here who is going to support this action?

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
13. You tell me the need to call out individuals
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:51 AM
Sep 2014

Do you feel it heightens the level of conversation here?

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. I'm not understanding what you are saying.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 07:32 AM
Sep 2014

Do you think I have called out some individuals? Do you interpret my challenging you on this uncalled for post a "call out"?

Also, just want to note that your prediction did not come true at all. Did it?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
16. Seriously, WTF?
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 08:30 AM
Sep 2014

Last edited Thu Sep 25, 2014, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)

You do that sort of thing ALL THE TIME. You've designated a group of "anti-theists" and you post repeatedly about them and how they ruin everything. And here you have the nerve to chide someone else for that?

Unbelievable.

Editing to add just the first few posts of yours I came across as proof:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=141692
"there's the really (sic) extremists who put all religious people in one box and can't even distinguish between different belief systems"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=134871
"The fact is that there are a significant number of anti-theists who frequent this site"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=134778
"There are some people who post here that I give no berth to, but it's not because they are atheists. It's because they are rabidly anti-theist."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=105026
"...there are many atheists who post here who are in no way anti-theists. ...(but) there are people who denigrate others who are not in their 'camp' and make broad brush sweeping comments about their intelligence, psychiatric state, level of maturation, trustworthiness, etc."

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
4. It also happened in Montana.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 05:52 PM
Sep 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12215284

Like it or not, they would not allow a divorced and remarried straight man or woman hold a parish office as well. How do you find that "more repulsive"?
 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
5. They would
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:12 PM
Sep 2014

if he or she had enough money, I mean justified cause, to get an annulment.

Maybe Jamie could just pay enough money to the church to get this marriage blessed.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
12. I'm sure you have evidence of that.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:45 PM
Sep 2014

But an annulment doesn't solve the matter. If they were cohabiting they would face the same thing.

I will add this. Notwithstanding the above, gay partners are disproportionately singled out for reasons that have more to do with homophobia than doctrine.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
18. Your scenario was remarried
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 09:30 AM
Sep 2014
divorced and remarried straight man or woman

If they had an annulment, they would be OK. Perhaps the RCC needs a pay for gay marriage program.

gay partners are disproportionately singled out for reasons that have more to do with homophobia than doctrine.

I appreciate that. I really do. I think that's the first time I've heard that from you regarding the RCC. Thanks. And there are still far too many times where that happens outside the RCC--Wisconsin still fighting the gay marriage ban as one example.
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
19. To dispel the inaccuracy of the annulment argument.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 11:26 AM
Sep 2014

People openly cohabiting in a sexual relationship are usually not allowed to have a parochial position. Something to do with scandal and role models.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. Shameful. I am glad that the parish priest is voicing his objection to this.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:05 PM
Sep 2014

Some of the comments are even more despicable, which is not surprising as this is a FOX site.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
7. I've met that priest and he's a really nice guy.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:07 PM
Sep 2014

I'm glad he feels comfortable to voice his objection. I've met the music director, too. Fantastic person.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
9. I found some other links and it does sound like both are much loved in this church.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:11 PM
Sep 2014

Perhaps, just perhaps, the archbishop will reverse his decision.

I'm not holding my breath, but that would be a lovely outcome.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
10. That's not going to happen, I don't think.
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 07:14 PM
Sep 2014

As much as the priest and the music director are wonderful people, this archbishop seems like a giant turd.

But they are really genuinely nice people. The kind you can't help but like.

Dorian Gray

(13,469 posts)
14. It's a shame
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 07:08 AM
Sep 2014

that something like this happens to good people.

I am pleased that the priest is voicing objection. And hopefully the parishoners will too.

I am opposed to anything like this.

(Our musical director at our church is gay. Our parish and our priest would be shocked if something like this happened. He's been the director for over 10 years now.)

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
11. and here in the Episcopal church we have openly gay clergy all over the place ...
Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:21 PM
Sep 2014

this just seems so weird and regressive.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
17. If I still believed, I would have left the Catholic Church for the Episcopal church.
Thu Sep 25, 2014, 09:22 AM
Sep 2014

Much better attitude there.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Archbishop forces music d...