Good ol' "Fr." Mich scribbles a missive to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
I am happy to see that University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh professor Bill McConkey's court case might open a door for us in Wisconsin to get to a position consonant with our stated national and state principles
...It was indicative that some of the rhetoric promoting the marriage amendment in Wisconsin stated the exact opposite - let the people of Wisconsin decide - in other words, let the people of Wisconsin decide on the rights of a minority by submitting those rights to a majority vote in the amendment process.
We can stray from our principles; we can also recover as we, I hope, will be able to if we are given the opportunity through this litigation.
Although "Fr." Mich's syntax is somewhat obscure, we infer (as did Belling) that this poor fellow thinks "gays" should have the right to "marry."
What's galling is not "Fr." Mich's "thought"--if you call it that. It's that he's taking perfectly good money from a Church which is diametrically opposed to his point of view.
Of course, it's not exactly the first time. We mentioned him here, when he spent his parish's money to sponsor an event featuring a woman named Maureen Fiedler--a heretic.
He's also a member of the "Priests' Alliance," a wannabe-Union bunch in this Archdiocese.
All contrary to JPII's maxim: "No one has the right to do wrong."
Sad days continue in Milwaukee.
UPDATE: Wiggy comments on the same item.
So why don't they defrock the twit. Wouldn't that take care of the problem he presents, at least as far as image goes?
ReplyDeleteYah.
ReplyDeleteBut then, since there's a shortage of priests (and "Fr." Mich knows that...) YOU would have to re-join the Church, get through the Seminary, and become his replacement.
As you can imagine, the Archbishop has a problem.
All kidding aside, it's something I've thought of. It would give meaning to my life. Shortage or no, getting rid of this nitwit would be a benefit.
ReplyDeleteActually, the current law suit is quite telling. Although neither the good Father nor the Wisconsin Catholic Conference seem to get the point.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear difference between the two sentences of the amendment that was passed. That's the point the court will need to consider.
The 1st sentence bans the State from ever recognizing gay marriage. That action should have the support of both Father and the WCC, given the fact that marriage is a Sacrament.
The 2nd sentence bans the State from enforcing any sort of "similar" contract between non-married persons. This effects health insurance, children, inheritance, pensions, etc. Neither Father nor the WCC should be in favor of preventing people from doing Corporal Works of Mercy.
I wish Father would have made his argument more clearly.
Sorry, Virgil, you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe second sentence does not impinge arrangements made between private parties by contract--thus, health insurance can be awarded to "partners" by (e.g.) Johnson Controls. Inheritances are taken care of by wills, not the State. Pensions, yes, are affected (but no cases have been tried, yet...) and there is no bar to adoptions by 'gay' couples.
What case would Father make? That there is a right to do what is wrong?
I know full well that the suit's substance has to do with "two diverse items" on "one ballot."
The guy is wrong.
Father Mich sounds like the kind of priest we need in our Church. Church teaching is always being updated. It's teaching on condoms and gay sex (and marriage) need to change sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteA lot of mean-spirited rheteric going on here folks, most of it not consonant with the mandate given to all of us to "love one another". It is going to take the Roman Church 100+ years to shake off the baggage it carries regarding how the institution discriminates - what is disapoointing is that it may take another 1,000 years to recover and internalize the the message of Jesus.
ReplyDelete