A New Friend Comes Calling Again

I Love It When People Think Deep Thoughts

So, yesterday, I responded to a delightful comment from Anonymous. I wish that I knew who Anonymous was, not necessarily his real name, but a better moniker than Anonymous. It just sounds so ... how shall I say it ... Anonymous. But as you will read, I am learning more about the good person that he is, and the deep thoughts that he has.

Originally, he responded to a post the other day on "The Theology of the Body", though his comment was at another post. It was so good, I thought, that I made a new posting about his comment and my thoughts in response here.

In my response, I concluded with the following:

It is a good thing to find out that God/Jehovah/Yahweh exists and loves us, but my new friend was able to do so, I believe, because of the faith that his parents had many years ago, when they baptised him in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In many ways, his Baptism took, as that sacramental grace that was imparted to him worked its way into his heart over the years.

I too, was a lapsed Catholic for many years, and then became as Kathy Shaidle calls it a Relapsed Catholic. The Body of Christ needs us all to come home, and so I invite my Commenter above to "Come Home Please." Give the Church a try again. Use your heart, not your head to give her a chance. We all miss you, and are the worse for your absence.

Well, my new friend responded a short while ago with very meaningful input as I published in the comments to the "Bright Spot" post:

Hello, it's me again. I had no idea that my little commentary would have such an impact. My wife observed that it is harder to talk about Christianity than it is to live it - but that's the kind of pithy insight my wife makes.

Well, "A", I used to think it was harder to talk about Christianity, than to live it. But, I have since learned that it is the other way around. Talk is cheap. Following Jesus, even in the tough circumstances of our lives, that's harder because of our conditioning to not trust Him with the details, but I am getting ahead of myself. "A" continues:

On returning to the Church: The last time I attended a Catholic service was when my younger brother married over a decade ago. I have long ago come to terms with the sexual abuse I suffered as an adolescent at the hands of the Christian Brothers, a lay denomination of educators that held many teaching positions when I was a child.

I can relate to the being away part in the first sentence. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. But, the second sentence is a stopper, if only briefly. Not been there, nor done that, and I wouldn't want the t-shirt if there was one. I always wonder if when a person says "I have long ago come to terms" with anything if that is really true.

I long ago came to terms with the fact that my mother had abused us emotionally when I was a child, or so I thought I had. But at about 58, I started therapy that allowed me to not come to deeper terms with what what I had "come to terms with" earlier, but to accept what had happened, its impact on my life and my responsibilities for my life going forward.

I have a dear friend, a woman who was sexually abused for many years by her father, who has come to a deep acceptance as I wrote here:

Many years ago, a woman who was a friend of mine had a father dying in hospital from cancer. She was about 50 at the time, and her father has sexually abused her repeatedly when she was young, which she had spent many years learning to deal with. She was a woman of great faith and her faith and her actions at the time of her father's death inspired me greatly, as to her character and as to the character of God. While her father lay dying, her only concern was for his immortal soul and eternal rest. She received permission from her parish priest to take him communion. She visited with him and took him communion regularly. She arranged for her pastor to hear her father's last confession. On her birthday that year, he passed away, peacefully. She knew that he went into the loving arms of God.

She knew something that I often forget. "God's justice is mercy." She prayed and worked fervently in those final weeks and days, while all the others around her watched and many of them scoffed at her actions. I am sure that God answered her prayers and the dedication of her choice to love her father, not for what he had done, but because of who he was.

Now, my heart saddens every time, I hear the story of someone who had their childhood stolen from them, particularly by sexual abuse. It is such a distortion of the trust that kids should be able to have for adults, particularly for those who have authority over their lives. But, "A" goes on to talk about something else in his life that challenges his faith and which in my anecdotal experience actually follows from the sexual abuse of his childhood. He says:

What I continue to have difficulties with are the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality. You see, my middle son Jude (31 years old) is homosexual. Jude informed us of this when he was 18 years old. We worked hard to accept this and support him in his endeavours to become a mature adult. That meant accepting his partner Eric into our family almost a decade ago, which we did.

Jude and Eric are - like Jude's brothers and their spouses - completely committed to one another and building their marriages. Jude and Eric brought us two grandchildren so far - both adopted (one at birth, the other at 2 years old). Seth and Rachel are. like our other grandchildren, the most wonderful treasures in our lives. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church would not embrace my son the way he is as my family and I have. I would gladly offer my life up to save my son's life. With that in mind, please try to understand my reluctance to embrace the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church.

I doubt that "A" knows what the Church stance is on homosexuality actually, just what he has seen, and that is not the Church stance on homosexuality. I have studied the Church stance on homosexuality, because a young woman that I love as much as my own daughters and her partner who I love equally are homosexual. Like "A's" son and partner, they are kind, loving people, who have been particularly kind and loving to my wife and me in our disabilities, when we have needed their kindness and support.

So, I have studied what I can to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches about homosexuality and how to deal with it. I wrote some of it here in this posting on Bishop De Angelis in his challenges with Jim Corcoran. In summary, the church teaches:

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

But, there is also a summary statement that is very important:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

I don't see where there is any thought that the Church would not embrace Jude and Eric as they are. I have lived in sexual sin, every bit as great as anything Jude and Eric and my young friends could have done, if they have even sinned, which I am not in any position to judge, even if I were so inclined. The Church accepted me back, and I am grateful to be back in Her loving arms.

"A" says that he would "gladly offer my life up to save my son's life. " If that is true "A" come home, and bring them with you. That would be offering up your life. Otherwise, as Mary Poppins says, that would be a pie crust promise, easily made and easily broken.

Of course that is not all, for "A" has his dear love of his life to consider:

Finally, my wife is a "red diaper baby" who has been known to observe that she was 15 years old before she realized that Christmas had nothing to do with Teamsters' events. She became a theist because "...without some kind of God nothing would make any sense whatsoever and would be very depressing and I just couldn't handle it thinking that Humankind was the "bestest most wonderfulest thing ever". You perhaps are beginning to get my drift ...

I had never heard of a "red diaper baby", only brown diaper babies, as in soiled, and after changing a few of my grandson's recently, I know from brown. But, I am not actually beginning to get "A's" drift as it were. I see why "A" drifted away from the Catholic Church if that is what he means. I just don't see why he won't put his heart and soul into coming Home.

But, he goes on respectfully:

What incited me to respond to you originally was simply a wish to point out to you what I had noticed about my own life when I look back. I am thankful for my Catholic upbringing (by a grandmother who converted to Catholicism at age 25). It provided me the kind of grounding that permitted me to release my misgivings and apply what limited intellectual resources and talents I was born with to the task of developing myself as an autonomous, responsible and reasonably fulfilled human being. "Reasonably fulfilled" because it took an intimate, committed bond with another to help me reach my full potential as a human being. It took my wife. When the kids came along, "fulfillment" just got larger and larger.

And what my wife and I know about "how things work" is what we've taught our kids. Maybe we were lucky, but all our kids seemed to "get it". And we include our homosexual son Jude and his partner Eric in that equation. The Catholic Church wouldn't, and there's the rub.

"A" is thankful for his Catholic upbringing, for the grandmother who was a convert at 25, and for the grounding that it provided. As he says, he is "reasonably fulfilled". Of course, the grace of the sacraments he received and the prayers of that Grandmother, who is still praying for his soul and that of his family now.

As he says, he and his wife include their gay son and partner, but he believes erroneously that "The Catholic Church wouldn't, and there's the rub." No rub there, "A". You are mistaken. There are Catholics who do not understand what the Church teaches, who will not accept your son and partner. But, look around you, do you think that the world accepts them now? Don't lay that one on the Church or on Christianity at all. That is a throw away line, with no substance to it. It needs to be looked at deeper. It just comes off as an excuse.

As he says:

I cannot choose to be blind to the commitment, loyalty and devotion between my son and his partner. I cannot be blind to the fact that their children are happy kids who know they are loved and respected at home - are every bit as precious to me as my wife as our other grandchildren are. We simply cannot condemn ANYTHING about our son Jude, including his life as a committed parent and partner in a monogamous relationship. I'm afraid that bringing the Catholic Church into my family and home would destroy both.

I shall continue to live my life as I always have - keeping up a running exchange with Jehovah and doing whatever it is I am supposed to do. Right now, I'm working on a "storyteller" program for children with Down's Syndrome om collaboration with a young teacher-friend of mine. I love working with kids and am indulging myself as retirement approaches. There's a light in their eyes that simply inspires me and I just know I'm supposed to act on it.

All love comes from God. We love one another, because He loved us first, and showed us the way. Here's another throw away, lazy line "I'm afraid that bringing the Catholic Church into my family and home would destroy both." I know it is both throw away and lazy, because I said it myself many years ago. In my case, God spoke to me directly, which showed me how throw away the lines were. He has saved my life, not just here on the earth, but I hope for eternity, because if you care about the hereafter at all, that is what we are here after, to get there.

New friend "A" leaves his best throw away line for his conclusion:

" Remember, if God is in the details, then the details are better left to God."

What a lazy, crock that line is. God gave us a brain to use to discover His love and immense goodness to us, especially the gift of His only begotten Son, who died for "A" and his family, and their loved ones, ALL OF THEM.

"A", I invited you to come Home. We need you to make Home better, to make us all one. You have a free will to choose, but don't choose based on misdirections and lazy platitudes. Explore and think for yourself. Continue to use the intellect that was given to you by the One who loves you more than your wife can possibly do, but gave her to you as a help mate as an example of His Undying, and Dying Love for you. If you would like to move from "reasonably fulfilled" in earthly terms to "joyful beyond measure", come Home.

God Bless You, and your family "A". We love you, and want you to come home. Bring the wife and kids. We are dreadfully sorry that we hurt you in the past. We were ignorant and unkind. Please forgive us.

We miss you, and will pray for you.

Do For Others What God Does For You

Max Lucado Excerpt from "A Love Worth Giving"

Max Lucado speaks a lot of wisdom, which I am grateful to receive.

You and I have the privilege to do for others what God does for us. How do we show people that we believe in them?

Show up. Nothing takes the place of your presence. Letters are nice. Phone calls are special, but being there in the flesh sends a message.

Do you believe in your kids? Then show up. Show up at their games. Show up at their plays. Show up at their recitals. It may not be possible to make each one, but it’s sure worth the effort. Do you believe in your friends? Then show up. Show up at their graduations and weddings. Spend time with them. You want to bring out the best in someone? Then show up.

Listen up. You don’t have to speak to encourage. The Bible says, “It is best to listen much, speak little” (James 1:19 TLB). We tend to speak much and listen little. There is a time to speak. But there is also a time to be quiet. That’s what my father did. Dropping a fly ball may not be a big deal to most people, but if you are thirteen years old and have aspirations of the big leagues, it is a big deal. Not only was it my second error of the game, it allowed the winning run to score.

I didn’t even go back to the dugout. I turned around in the middle of left field and climbed over the fence. I was halfway home when my dad found me. He didn’t say a word. Just pulled over to the side of the road, leaned across the seat, and opened the passenger door. We didn’t speak. We didn’t need to. We both knew the world had come to an end. When we got home, I went straight to my room, and he went straight to the kitchen. Presently he appeared in front of me with cookies and milk. He took a seat on the bed, and we broke bread together. Somewhere in the dunking of the cookies I began to realize that life and my father’s love would go on. In the economy of male adolescence, if you love the guy who drops the ball, then you really love him. My skill as a baseball player didn’t improve, but my confidence in Dad’s love did. Dad never said a word. But he did show up. He did listen up. To bring out the best in others, do the same, and then, when appropriate:

Speak up.

You have the power to change someone’s life simply by the words that you speak. “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Prov. 18:21 NKJV). That’s why Paul urges you and me to be careful. “When you talk, do not say harmful things, but say what people need—words that will help others become stronger” (Eph. 4:29).

Earlier I gave you a test for love. There’s also a test for the tongue. Before you speak, ask: Will what I’m about to say help others become stronger? You have the ability, with your words, to make a person stronger. Your words are to their soul what a vitamin is to their body. If you had food and saw someone starving, would you not share it? If you had water and saw someone dying of thirst, would you not give it? Of course you would. Then won’t you do the same for their hearts? Your words are food and water! Do not withhold encouragement from the discouraged. Do not keep affirmation from the beaten down! Speak words that make people stronger. Believe in them as God has believed in you.

From A Love Worth Giving
Copyright (Thomas Nelson, 2002) Max Lucado

The Speak Up part is a challenge with a blog. Because, nobody is really listening in the normal sense of that word. It's your/my blog and I can say what I want. However, it is my desire to speak words that bring truth, and not hurt, unless a little pain is good for the soul. I am not the judge of that, so hope that my words bring truth. I try to check my ego at the door when I sit down, but do not succeed always, though I hope I am more successful than failing.

I have been hard on Jim Corcoran because he is doing something that is very hurtful to the Church. He didn't start it in one sense, but he is in charge of the pain machine now. Yet, I believe that he is a good man, with a good heart, who desires to do the right thing.

I am hard on the HRCs/HRTs not because the people in them are bad, even though I poke fun at them from time to time. They are people trying to do their best, but what they are doing is not helping, but hurting the people of Canada, and runs counter to the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people in Canada, in the name of political correctness, which is not a name worth doing something in.

Eventually, we shall all have freedom because of the truth, not my truth, or your truth, but because in the fullness of time, TRUTH will be revealed to us all as individuals, and we will have no practical choice but to follow it.

A Touch of Irony

But Will Jim Corcoran Get It?

Dear Readers:

You may recall that I have published a number of posts on Jim Corcoran going after the Bishop of Peterborough, Bishop De Angelis, and the "12" from Cobourg over his being asked to step down from serving on the altar at St. Michael's Cobourg. I started here and went on after that.

Mr. Corcoran and partner are in England and Spain on vacation. All was well except this item he noted in his blog:

The only depressing event has been a rather poor review posted on Ste. Anne´s by a recent guest on TripAdvisor. If you are a true fan, please take a minute and post something positive for me. After 20 years of investing love and sweat into a business, it really hurts when someone takes their best shot at ruining your reputation. Why don´t they just call me when they aren´t happy? Oh well.

He got a bad review and read it if you must, it was a bad review, and also unusual for the spa, as far as I can tell. Surprisingly scathing, I think.

But, to paraphrase Mr. Corcoran, after Bishop De Angelis has invested so many years in his priesthood, and in nurturing and caring for people in his charge, it really hurts when someone takes their best shot at ruining his reputation. Why didn't Jim Corcoran just call when he wasn't happy? Oh Well! There's always the HRT.

You see, the person who complained against Jim's spa isn't from a protected group, so can't go to the HRT to complain and ask for $260,000 for pain and suffering, and of course a public apology. A call would have been nice, or an email first and then a call.

This is why I hate the HRCs/HRTs. They like to help victims with hurt feelings. They are in the victim mollification business, not in the healing business. Now Bishop De Angelis is in the healing business. Mr. C. you knocked on the wrong door. Try door number 2.

Jan Buterman to the Alberta HRC

Why Not - Every Other Lefty Chases Down the Church There

When I first read about the case of Jan Buterman in places like the Globe, I laid off for a number of reasons. Most articles had the following paragraph:

Jan Buterman is praised in a letter of dismissal for his teaching abilities, but told his gender change from woman to man is not aligned with the teachings of the Catholic church or its values.

So, one reason I laid off was that I was unsure of what Church teaching or value that Jan Buterman was offending specifically at first, and did not have the time or energy to chase it up, due to the arrival of our grandchildren.

Jan Buterman would not have been hired in Ontario where I live at all by the Catholic boards likely, because he/she is a Lutheran, so the problem never would have existed here, except for a Complaint that has gone to the Ontario HRC recently from Wellington County, that I reported on previously. But, that's not a criticism of Jan Buterman, not meant to be.

Egale Canada said this about the board decision:

Helen Kennedy, executive director of Egale Canada, called the board's decision sad, but not surprising. She noted that Catholic church doctrine staunchly opposes gender reassignment surgery. Ms. Kennedy said Mr. Buterman's “crime” was not related to his performance in the classroom, but to the fact that “he” began life as a “she.”

The Church teaches that we are born into a gender, that God created us man and woman. It is very biblical. But, the Church does not deal in CRIME, so Jan Buterman did not commit a crime, as Kennedy purports. Kennedy's most significant statement is that the decision is SAD. I suspect that the board and the diocese of Edmonton would call the decision sad, but it was the best that they could do with what they know, and it is within their mandate to decide accordingly. Jan Buterman's story is sad.

The Church does not move with every wind of change in the world, and should not, because most of these winds change course many times, over time. That, of course does not make the Church up to date in world terms, all of the time, nor does it need to be. It is the duty of the Faithful to be faithful to Church teaching and to help the Church to grow as the Body of Christ.

Jan Buterman is not Catholic and so he/she moves to a different drummer as to taking this to an HRC. A faithful Catholic should have dealt with this inside the Church, however that worked out, and accepted the challenges that arose. Jim Corcoran chose not to take that approach in Ontario, so he is taking his Bishop to the Ontario HRC. Seems a pretty popular thing to do when the Church won't roll over and play dead to your whims.

I have empathy for where Jan Buterman is in his/her life, because I have a friend who is now a female, who was raised as a male, and is transgendered, but is not a male anymore, I guess, and maybe never really totally was. I don't begin to understand even the last sentence, let alone the hell my friend has lived, or is now living, nor to judge my friend, nor Jan Buterman. I also don't begin to understand the hell my friend's wife is going through. She had a husband, and now she has a wife. Is this real? And what about their adult children and little grandson, who had a Dad and grampa, and now have two moms and two grammas. What's with that?

So, I can empathise with Buterman, but I have to rely on the Church in times like these, rather than on the perfidy of man, for my guidance. I do not for one instant trust any Human Rights Commission in this country to give a hoot about the Human Rights of the general populace. They are only interested in some left leaning form of rights for special interest groups that make enough noise to get their attention, and Christians of all stripes are not into making noise to be heard, usually, and more's the pity.

I got a note from Stephen Boissoin, who I regard highly, about this case and posted it in my original posting on this case. Frankly, I was wishy washy about the whole thing, for personal reasons, and Stephen took me to task, which I appreciate. Still, my verbal approach might be gentler than his, but my beliefs are in line with his. I have not been through 7 years of HRC hell like he has along the way, so he can surely be pardoned, should anyone be offended by what he says. Frankly, if you are offended by him, take a pill, and think about what he is saying instead of putting your energy to the offense. I doubt he cares if you are offended by his words, and I agree that being offended is irrelevant. The truth is more important, and I get it.

Here is the bottom line for me. I would like to know a good reason why the Catholic Church should not be allowed to decide who can teach in a Catholic school, or serve on a Catholic altar for that matter. And who has the right to tell a Christian, like Stephen that he cannot speak biblical truth by way of a tribunal order? These are signs of a sick and dying society.

I don't want that old chestnut, that schools are funded by tax dollars, thus publicly funded and the public can tell them what to do. That is such crap, and I am sick of it. It is illogical. Catholics are taxpayers as much as any other members of society, so having a say in the education of their children in a world where we have no say on any of our other tax dollars is some minor solace.

Consider that my rant. Sorry for the delay.

Jim Corcoran Comes Calling

I See That Jim Corcoran is Coming to Visit

This IP pops up from time to time in my Log.

Ste Anne's Country Inn And Spa (204.101.39.10) Jim Corcoran
freethroughtruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/latest-word-on-corcorande-angelis-case.html
www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRC_enCA210CA211&q=corcoran deangelis&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

My objective is not to offend Mr. Corcoran, but I sure wish he could see the damage that he is doing to the Catholic Church by his churlish behaviour in Cobourg. It's one thing to have discord in your local parish with your neighbours of many years. Mr. C. just dropped in last August and drives 60 km each week to add insult to his injury; this, to people who were hurt enough over the last few years with the loss of their beloved Fr. Cachia, his friend and co-worker. They don't need the additional trauma in their lives. I can't imagine he needs the stress of this either.

Usually these things only go badly for the condemned. But, in this case, the bloggers and the media are not letting Mr. C. off the hook, which is coming as quite a surprise to him. Since "Shakedown" more eyes are focused on more of these cases and the hinkiest ones are going to get watched more closely and reported on every time someone breaks wind or squeaks.

I wonder what color Mr. C's wind is, which reminds me of lyrics from the song Color of the Wind:

You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You'll learn things you never knew you never knew.

Try to walk in Bishop De Angelis' footsteps, Mr. C. It's very lonely there, and believe it or not, he needs you. You have a lot to offer to the Church. This just isn't it.

How Do I Know That Bishop De Angelis Is Not Discriminating Against Jim Corcoran

Because Bishop De Angelis knows the Church Teachings on Homosexuality and Follows Them

From Catholic Answers here is some of the Catholic teaching on Homosexuality summarised starting with the introduction:

Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Although there is much more worth reading, the conclusion is important:The Catholic Church thus teaches:

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.

Courage,
Church of St. John the Baptist
210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

(212) 268–1010
Web: http://couragerc.net

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Note that there is the presence of the Nihil Obstat, meaning "attestation by a church censor that the above contains nothing damaging to faith or morals." The Imprimatur attached means that it "is an official declaration from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that a literary or similar work is free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine, and hence acceptable reading for faithful Roman Catholics.

This plus what I omitted is what Bishop De Angelis believes and it does not in any way discriminate against Jim Corcoran. The Bishop was asking Jim Corcoran to step down to not put a stumbling block in front of the other parishioners because of their faith not his, as I wrote here. But, of course, the man appears too thick to think that it is not all about him, and so on and on and on we go.

Bishop De Angelis loves Jim Corcoran as a son in Christ, and respects his choice of a life of celibacy, knowing how difficult it is for him to make that choice. He too has made that choice. He probably has a little more difficulty with his stubbornness and recalcitrance with his running off to the Ontario HRC. However, this too shall pass.

What are You Thinking, Jimmy Boy?

Corcorans's Fantasy Unraveling

As Scary Fundamentalist revealed this morning over on the left coast, Jim Corcoran is feeling stressed because Bishop De Angelis used the powers of his spiritual office to respond to the many inquiries that his administrative office has been receiving about the scurrilous charges that Mr. Corcoran has leveled against the Bishop and the "12". Seems they, the Bishop in particular, did not roll over and play dead.

Here's what Mr. Corcoran said on his blog:

This past week was a little stressful as one of the respondents to the HRC case decided to use his office and all of the Catholic Churches in the Peterborough diocese to establish his authority, and my guilt, and to spread his version of recent events that is substantially different than what I perceive the facts to be (sound familiar?).

SF has a well thought out description of what happened at the Inquisitions lo these many years ago, a lot like HRCs they were.

The problem for Jim Corcoran is that his version of the truth is not standing up to scrutiny, and it is part of the battle against the HRCs that must continue. The HRCs are not truth seekers. They are discrimination seekers. When all you have in your toolbox is a hammer, then the whole world is a nail.

First off, Mr. Corcoran got it right when he said "his version of recent events that is substantially different than what I PERCEIVE the facts to be." For people who live in a dream world, perception is reality. But over here in the real world, where people interact as real human beings, the truth is reality.

But, anyway back to the HRC. So, along comes a homosexual man to them. Check Box 1. The HRC has a group that it supports Claims from. Do we have a target? Yes we have a target, a Bishop and 12 parishioners. Check Box 2. Until a few years ago, that's all it took to get a conviction. Some facts, real or made up would help, to fill up the paper work, don't you know.

But, the media are no longer on side with this kind of Kargaroo Justice, nor are the bloggers out here, and the public are getting along side as well. So, it is no longer a skate in the park for the folks like Jim Corcoran who cry wolf whenever their feelings are hurt by the vagaries of life. Perception as reality doesn't cut it anymore. We are interested in the truth, and Jim Corcoran's made up version doesn't cut it, and if it did it's not worth a dime, let alone $260,000. Hurt feelings are a freebie.

If Jim Corcoran had been married outside the church to a woman, and they attended mass at St. Michael's and he wanted to serve on the altar, he would not be allowed to. Would that be discrimination? Nope, just the rules of the Catholic Church, and because he is a white guy, and if he were married to a white woman, he could not complain to Barb's HRC. However, he shouldn't anyway. If you want to join the club, play by the rules, and the referee is the Bishop not the head of the local HRC.

Wake up Jim Corcoran and stop trying to twist the truth to fit your desired outcome. It doesn't work.

No Wonder Catholics Are Such a Peckish Lot

St. Peter is our Model, Our First Leader

Today was one of those cool Gospel readings that makes me realize something about the Catholic Church that I appreciate. There's room for a jerk like me in it. How do I know that? Because Jesus appointed the first jerk, St. Peter to be the first head of the Church. Here's much of today's gospel reading from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops site. It is taken from Mark's Gospel Chapter 8 verses 27-35, and I have omitted the last 2 verses:

Jesus and his disciples set out
for the villages of Caesarea Philippi.
Along the way he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say that I am?”
They said in reply,
“John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others one of the prophets.”
And he asked them,
“But who do you say that I am?”
Peter said to him in reply,
“You are the Christ.”
Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

He began to teach them
that the Son of Man must suffer greatly
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed, and rise after three days.
He spoke this openly.
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples,
rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Peter in one breath raises his hand in class, like an anxious school kid who has to pee, going "Pick me, Pick me," and when Jesus calls on him, he is able to proclaim that Jesus is the Christ of God, the anointed, the Messiah.

But, then Peter proves that he is so much like the rest of us, smart one minute, and dumb as a post the next. After Jesus tells the disciples what it's going to be like in the next while, Peter gets his knickers in a knot, and pulls Jesus aside. He says something along the lines of: "Hey, look JC (He can call him JC now, since he figured out the "C" part), this is not cool. We got a shot of taking over the whole shebang here. None of this dying stuff. You gotta trust me on this. That would not be a good thing."

But, what does Jesus say to Peter? Woe, rebuke of rebukes. "Get behind me, Satan." How small do you think Peter felt right about then? "You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Isn't that the problem for us all? Ted Kennedy thought like man, not like God, thinking abortion "rights" whatever those are, would make the world a better place for who? It sure doesn't do it for the dead babies.

Jim Corcoran thinks that holding Bishop De Angelis and the "12" accountable is better for who? And to whom does he want them to be accountable? Certainly not to God. God doesn't have an HRC. He is His own GRC, and you only have to get on your knees to appeal to it, and wait and wait and maybe wait some more for the answer.

And those who stand by while these poltroons wreak their havoc on the Church, and say nothing or throw lavish funerals in their honour, or kiss their rosy red ???, because they don't want to offend them, we have room for them too. Why? Because Jesus came for sinners, like you and me, and every other you and me.

We are all sinaholics, in need of the Saviour's healing touch, and the best place to get it is in a faith community. In a faith community, the Word of God can heal the broken hearts, minds, souls and spirits. So, welcome one and all. Take a seat, the meeting's starting soon.

Bishop De Angelis Pastoral Letter

You Really Don't Get it Corcoran

Bishop De Angelis wrote a beautiful, thoughtful pastoral letter here to try and smooth the waters after all the tension that has been going on at St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg. Life Site News has a good report of it here, including some interviewing of Jim Corcoran.

Meanwhile, Barb Hall has turned the Ontario HRC from an integrated sausage machining machine into the auto industry model, and we can only hope that it fails like the North American industry has done recently, with no disrespect to that industry. Here's what I mean. Barb has separated the Legal Support Centre which pays all the bills for you and helps you file your claim from the Human Rights Commission, which investigates the claim, and processes the offending parties, and from the Human Rights Tribunal which then slams the door shut on the poor sucker to seal the deal.

So, the only change is that the once integrated sausage making machine is now a dis-integrated sausage making machine, where the left hand doesn't necessarily co-ordinate with the middle hand, which then doesn't necessarily co-ordinate with the right hand.

Here's just a couple of lines from the OHRC web site about the Legal Support Centre:

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre offers legal services to individuals throughout Ontario, who believe they have experienced discrimination. The Centre can be contacted at 416-314-6266 or 1-866-625-5179.

The Legal Support Centre cannot assist employers, landlords, service providers or business operators who have questions about how the Human Rights Code applies to them.

Maybe you'd like to call them up and give them some free advice back. They won't take your call unless you believe you have experienced discrimination, and believe me you are gonna experience discrimination before they are done with you.

So, Corcoran got his advice to proceed from the Legal Support Centre, and unable to think for himself, he took it. Why not, it was free, and worth every penny he paid. About as good as the free advice he gets from Ed Cachia, probably.

So, his response to the wonderful pastoral letter that His Bishop wrote: "The bishop may be subjecting himself to the possibility of a lawsuit."

Corcoran is so busy listening to his own voice that he can't hear anyone else's.

My prayer for Jim Corcoran is that one day he will awaken to the realisation that it is not all about him, and maybe somebody will send him a copy of Max Lucado's book "It's Not About Me".

Here's just one little excerpt:

What would happen if we accepted our place as Son reflectors.

Such a shift comes stubbornly, however. We've been demanding our way and stamping our feet since infancy. Aren't we all born with a default drive set on selfishness? I want a spouse who makes me happy, co-workers who always ask my opinion. I want weather that suits me and traffic that helps me and a government that serves me. It is all about me.

Jim Corcoran's life and the lives of the other members and now former members of St. Michael's Parish are too valuable to throw away on such nonsense, which is the crux of the Pastoral Letter from Bishop De Angelis.

Jim Corcoran is now treading on ground where he is prepared to risk the eternal salvation of himself and of fellow and former co-parishioners by his prideful actions. When he meets Jesus at that final moment, how will he answer for his treatment of his brothers and sisters, because Jesus will not ask him how they treated him, but how he treated them? He'll ask them about their treatment of him. That's for them to make account of themselves.

Barbara Hall will not be standing beside him then, nor his advisers from the Legal Support Centre. But, Bishop De Angelis will have prayed for him as his pastoral leader. It will not be enough though without a change of his heart.

Corcoran Is Making An ?ss of Himself

That He Is A Homosexual Is Beside the Point

Blazing Cat Fur was the first to pick up on it here. He caught wind of the Northumberland Today article that was at the centre of the latest wave of DeAngelis v. Corcoran noise. In fact, it was the first salvo from Bishop De Angelis.

Before I could get my own piece done though, Scary Fundamentalist had dropped his own bomb on the thing and it is a worthy read here.

Seems the good Bishop has had enough and sent a pastoral letter out to the parishioners in the Diocese. As SF points out, we, the blogging universe have said this already, but we are all happy to hear the good Bishop defend himself as well.

He said in part:

"I fail to understand how secular powers and government agencies should think they are in a position to tell the Church that she is wrong in her internal rules and regulations, even though these have directed and shaped the life of the church during the last 2,000 years. However, this is what we face today."

You may recall that the kafuffle resulted from letters to the Bishop by parishioners of St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg, Ontario, complaining about their priest, and mentioning that the head altar server was leading an openly gay lifestyle, and questioning if it was consistent with Church teaching. The Bishop chose to ask Fr. Hood to have him step aside from his voluntary position.

I previously blogged on this travesty here, and here, and here, and here, and here. I highlighted the case a number of times as well in other postings, in total over 15 times.

Northumberland Today also reports about the letter as follows:

In his Sept. 10 letter, De Angelis says it is not a "right" to serve as a volunteer on any parish committee: "Rather, it is an invitation from the pastor or bishop which can also be terminated at any time; particularly when the voluntary service gives rise to tension , animosity, discord or division in the life of the parish. It is for the bishop to regulate, in view of the common good, the exercise of rights proper to Christ's faithful."

The bishop says he had instructed parish priest Father Allan Hood "to kindly invite" volunteers who were objects of disagreement and tension "to step aside and give the chance to other volunteers to serve."

The bishop says "a number of volunteers graciously resigned" in "humility and obedience to the Bishop".

The letter then states, "The only exception was one adult altar server who made the decision to report the Bishop and Diocese to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation".

Jim Corcoran had his say about the Bishop's letter as well in the paper's report:

"The bishop asked me to step aside," Corcoran says, after the bishop was sent a petition signed by 12 parishioners asking for his removal. "I stepped aside -- but I challenged the version of why I was asked to step aside.

"I am not being disloyal to the bishop. I did what was asked -- but I am asking for accountability for the decision. I'm simply asking why I was asked to step down. The only possible answer is because I'm gay."

Actually, a really good reason for asking you to step down is that Father Hood had no right to give you a position of authority in the Parish, without determining if you had sufficient spiritual maturity to be able to handle it.

The paper also reported the following including Corcoran's further comments:

Corcoran does not expect the bishop's Thursday letter is going to alter existing viewpoints within the parish: "There's a group that think I'm right and it was high time the Church was held accountable and another group who don't like homosexuals, do what the bishop says and don't like Father Hood. I don't think (the letter) is going to change opinions of these two groups very much.

"However, there are tens of thousands of people in the diocese who are not aware of this case," Corcoran says. "By putting this document in their hands, it's firstly bringing the attention to me once again and, secondly, identifying me as an abhorrent, disobedient Catholic. It's going to start it all up again within the diocese.

"The bishop may be subjecting himself to the possibility of a lawsuit," Corcoran says.

Corcoran, you really don't get it. The most homophobic person involved in entire thing is YOU, buddy boy.

Here's what Scary Fundamentalist had to say about the held accountable crack of Corcoran's:

Held accountable to whom?

Any honest Christian will confess that the Church is accountable only to Jesus Christ its head, not busybody government agencies. Individual congregations or denominations derive their authority from their voluntary members, and not the state. It's about the same as using the OHRT to force a bunch of guys playing poker to include someone they don't like.

The other group, Corcoran says, "don't like homosexuals and do what the bishop wants". If he's talking about practicing homosexuals, then that is a crude representation of Biblical teaching.

Father Hood, do you have the spine to send Corcoran packing, or are you just a namby, pamby? You started this thing by appointing a man who clearly lacks the spiritual maturity to handle an important, but voluntary position in your church. That alone is a serious indicator that the "12" had a good sense of your competence. Stand up and act like a man.

And you, Barb Hall, back away. You have no business being involved in this issue. This is internal to the Catholic Church. You should give Jim Corcoran the back of your hand for wasting your time with matters that are not your purview. Bet that doesn't happen.

Jim Corcoran said it all when he said "The bishop may be subjecting himself to the possibility of a lawsuit." You sir, are an arrogant ?ss.

Who Gets to Teach In An Ontario Catholic High School

We'll Just Have to Wait for Barb Hall to Tell Us

The other day, the Guelph Mercury reported that out of work and not Catholic teacher Jesse Lloyd was going to the Ontario HRT to seek redress because he was not hired by the Wellington District Catholic School Board.

He, like every out of work high school teacher teaches history, geography and civics. The Board says it is within its rights to hire only Catholics to fill board teaching positions. The Mercury quoted here:

Don Drone, director of education with the Wellington Catholic District School Board, said the board is within its legal rights to hire only Catholic teachers.

“We exercise the right to hire Catholic teachers. It’s our raison d’être. That’s who we are. We don’t make any bones about it,” said Drone, who couldn’t discuss Lloyd’s complaint specifically.

Then there was this quote here from the article:

Lloyd applied to work at the local Catholic board in 2006. One of the requirements for employment is a letter from your pastor, confirming you are an active Catholic.

“I saw those requirements and applied anyway,” Lloyd said. “I didn’t hear back from them.”

In its written response to the Human Rights Commission, board lawyer Eric Roher cites the lateness of the complaint (more than two years after not getting a job) as one of the reasons it should be dismissed as well as the fact Lloyd wasn’t qualified for the position regardless of his religious beliefs.

There was some healthy commentary over at Blazing Cat Fur's site on this topic here.

I was going to leave it alone, but friend Walker Morrow over at The Lynch Mob cross posted BCF's article here, and as I have encouraged him when cross posting, he added his own comment to the article, thereby personalizing the post somewhat. Since I encouraged him, I don't want to rain on his parade, but I do want to comment on his comment.

Walker said:

much as I hate to say it, if this Catholic institution has accepted public dollars, then I think there's an argument to be made that the State can interfere in their affairs.

Interesting point, Walker old (young) buddy, old (young) pal. Except, who do you think pays the taxes that become the public dollars? And don't give me that guff that they are all borrowed from the Chinese or the Arabs. Hmm. In Ontario 45% of taxpayers list themselves as Catholic. Now granted a large number are nominal, but that is beside the point. They still consider themselves to be Catholic. So, methinks that 45% of the populace should be able to have a say in how some of their tax dollars are spent in any given year, as weird as that may sound.

Should Barb Hall wade in on this case, and the Corcoran case, she will get herself a twofer of trouble, indirectly. Dalton McGuinty who claims to be a Catholic, but is of the practicing on Sunday only variety, leaving the other six days for Mammon will find the Catholic vote running away from him in droves, and raining on his parade in a great yellow stream. At least that is my prediction.

Here's a little bit of not so friendly advice Barb. Kick Corcoran and Lloyd to the curb while you still have a career to salvage. My crystal ball tells me that messing with the Micks is not good business. That's one honking big minority group that you ought to shy away from.

Love Described

A Perspective on Love

I met a Jewish Psychologist in London, Ontario today, Doctor Peter Cobrin. That he is Jewish, or a Psychologist specifically is neither here nor there, though both have had an influence on the wisdom that he carries with him on his daily walk.

He told me in our discussion that he has been writing a book on Love, which I hope he publishes, because I would like to read it from what he said to me about it.

He spoke of love in terms of a delicate balance between power and vulnerability, akin to gravity, which does not so much pull the earth to the sun, but holds it in place where it has found its appropriate home. So, loving oneself, is about balancing one's own power and one' own vulnerability, while loving others is about balancing one's own power and vulnerability with that of another. I pondered that in relation to the ebb and flow of my own relationship with my wife and thought that it was a relevant metaphor, and that it could be built upon to better understand loving relationships.

One, of course does not write a book about one's life's work without going deeper than a paragraph, and in fact Dr. Cobrin synthesized it into two sentences for me at the time. Our time was short and we had other matters to discuss, so I did not get the opportunity to delve deeper with him into the mystery of love as he understood it. I am sure that it would have been an interesting discussion. I cannot even guarantee that what I wrote above is correct.

But, here is what is interesting to me most of all. Human beings are designed to love one another. Dr. Cobrin has discovered an aspect of that loving that is interesting to understand. Love is about free choices. Using Dr. Cobrin's balance of power and vulnerability, how I choose to use them both is up to me, using free will.

The government cannot regulate that, no matter how hard they try to so do. In fact, the government with its meddling ways gives us new forms of power that we can exert if we choose. For example, if my feelings are hurt, and I qualify as part of a special interest group, I can choose to file a human rights complaint against the alleged source of my hurt feelings. That's exerting power. On the other hand, I can allow myself to feel my hurt, and be vulnerable to it, and do nothing, or even stretch myself, and share my vulnerability, if I feel safe enough, with what I think is the source of my hurt feelings. Both of these alternatives of course deny that I am the source of my own feelings, and I have chosen to have them, which was not in fact a requirement in the circumstance.

It seems to me that filing a human rights complaint might more often be an act of powerful violence to oneself and to the Respondent, than an act of vulnerability to oneself. In all likelihood, at least in the cases that I have read, it is not a case of self love.

I think to the Jim Corcoran Form 1 for example. If he had looked through his hurt feelings, and thought of what he was about to do next in response to his hurt feelings, as an ultimate act of love, how would he have balanced power and vulnerability?

I wonder what his response would have been.

Queen Babs Latest Annual Report

Premier McGuinty Raves About Her

I have been waiting with some trepidation for the latest Annual Report for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to see what new super powers, she who I wish could not be named, had taken unto herself and her minions.

My trepidation was actually unwarranted. Abject fear, and horror would have been more appropriate as she unveiled in her annual report what had been policy for some time, that now personally unburdened by the screwing up of individual lives for the alleged public good, having delegated that to the new/old Tribunal, which still seems to report to the Ontario HRC, she could go after larger groups.

This is the Barb Hall, who declared a victory for the small percentage of visually impaired people, like the Chair of the Tribunal Mr. Michael Gottheil, in our population when she miraculously enforced a system of call outs for each and every stop on every route on every transit system in Ontario, with a few laggards being roundly beaten into submission. By the way, she did this without leaping a single building. She hasn't declared or even acknowledged any form of defeat for the equivalent percentage of acquired brain injury and otherwise mentally challenged members of our population, like myself, who now find it harder to take public transit, because of the increased confusion caused by this unnecessary noise, and the fear and paranoia it causes for us. Law of Unintended Consequences, anybody?

Wait until she releases her policy on Housing and goes after landlords who are reticent to put their homes, buildings and life savings at risk to low income, and less desirable tenants.

Next up, police and RACIAL PROFILING. That's gonna be a big one. If you want to see where she is heading next, watch the Tribunal cases, and see when she ups the ante. First, she went after Metro Toronto Constable Shaw. Now, it's the Chief, William Blair. Then watch as it shifts from the tribunal back to Barb's Commission for policy for all the police forces of Ontario. There's a pattern here, and if the Police Chiefs of Ontario don't jump on this hard, they will be screwed royally by the time this is all said and done.

But, my abject fear and horror quickly turned to nausea and revulsion when I read the following:

Premier Dalton McGuinty praised the work of the commission and took a shot at new Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, who has been critical of human rights bureaucracy and called for the tribunal to be scrapped.

"I think that the Conservatives are bringing kind of a small view to what we're doing here," McGuinty said. "We are participating in a remarkable adventure largely without precedent in the annals of human history. We're inviting people to come here from the four corners of the world. It's only natural and predictable that in those circumstances from time to time there will be a little bit of friction ... we need a place in a civilized society to address those kinds of concerns," he said.

The Conservatives are bringing a small view, says he. If voicing concern about how the Ontario HRC rides roughshod over the lives of individuals, and silences those whom they have destroyed with gag agreements is a small view, give me some more of the small view, please. Premier McGuinty calling the actions of the Ontario HRC "a little bit of friction" is like saying that World War II was a minor family squabble.

The biggest problem currently is that the truth about the abuses of the Commission are so hard to get at because of the gag agreements, and the shame that those who have been abused feel, not unlike that felt by battered spouses.

So, midst all of this zaniness, I wrote this little poem to calm my frazzled nerves. It didn't work particularly well, but it was fun doing it.

Barb Hall Ontario's Queen of Censors

Barb Hall's annual report came down from on high
Full of promise of peace, love and pie in the sky.
It sounded so good, that Premier McGuinty did say
"Our Barb walks on water each and every day."

Jim Corcoran connected with Bishop De Angelis one day,
When the Bishop asked him to leave the altar and pray.
Gay Jim didn't like it and swore he'd been had,
So he went to Pope Barb, who could feel for the lad.

He asked for some cash, $260k if you could,
then for De Angelis to change church gay teaching if he would.
It ain't gonna happen, a fight's on the rise,
And Jimmy and Barb don't have God on their sides.

This is only one dustup, but Barb doesn't care,
She'll pick fights with anyone, any time anywhere.
Her record has been solid, but the reason is clear,
Her opponents are usually quaking with fear.

So, we'll see how she does when the party is over,
Who's standing, who's sitting and who just fell over.
If she wins this one, I quit. I am leaving.
I'll be heading to somewhere warm to do my grieving.

She's going after Housing, her next port of call
Cheap housing, nay free for one and for all.
Landlords are a nuisance. They're such greedy folk.
Complain about costs, mortgages, debt load, what a joke.

Choose their own tenants, pick one over the other.
What about that broke underage mother?
She's got no money. What's that matter to you?
If Barb's Policy says your stuck, then her word is true.

Now Policing's the big one that she's out to get.
To her it's all 'bout racial profiling, the works you bet.
They ground Constable Shaw. Next up is Chief Blair.
When all's said and done, not a cop safe nowhere.

She'll own every badge, while the bad guys go free,
You won't even be safe in your house, you'll see.
When all's said and done, I'll say I told you so,
But I'll be outta here. We'll just get up and go.

If you want it to differ, here's what you must do
Get up off your duff, and help us out of this stew.
Read "Shakedown". Don't breakdown, there's more of the same.
The only way to stop this is to get in the game.

Write letters. Send emails. Phone friends. Do whatever.
But quit, we must not. Not Now. Not ever.
Barb's dastardly plan must be put to an end
Or, you'll never be sure who's up next, my friend.

The Secret World of the HRCs

Not So Secret Anymore

Each of us operates in two worlds, the one where we are in the public eye, and the one in private. Typically, we are on our best behaviour when we are in the public eye, because that is where our reputation with man is made or lost. Not always, of course, and not everybody, but usually. But, in private where nobody is watching, that's something a little bit different isn't it? When nobody is watching over my shoulder, the real me steps out of the shadows, and the real me is a sinful blighter, not about to burn buildings or rape and pillage, but it is in secret where my worst thoughts and vilest plans are hatched, and fortunately it is where they generally stay. Whew!!!

But, I know God. Personally, I have a relationship with him. I know He sees me in my secret places. In other words, there are no secret places from Him. Does that keep me from thinking evil thoughts? No sirree, Bob. I may be redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, but I am still a sinaholic, and daily I have to work to walk that path He sets before me. Some days I manage to stay on it longer, if I sleep in.

But, what happens if what you do in public is actually able to be kept a secret, at least in your own mind, and your own mind is the only mind you really care about? And what happens if the heady aroma of that power seduces you into thinking that You are your own God, you, the one in the mirror?

What would that look like? Well, until recently it looked like your local HRC. It has puzzled me these last few months why the Barbara Hall's and Jennifer Lynch's of this world, in particular these two apparently intelligent women, who are well educated, have striven to be where they are, and why they are seemingly prepared to do whatever it takes to remain there, particularly when whatever it takes is being unmasked as fictitious, to put it gently. Ezra Levant has called Ms. Lynch a damned liar in the blogosphere, and worse as well. He used some pretty cool words. Tsk, tsk, Ezra. You are a little intemperate with your words, dear fellow. Let's just say she appears to be creative with the truth. But in her defence, we have heard in HRC case testimony that the truth is not an appropriate defence, so maybe she thinks she is testifying in her own star chamber and the truth is just another option.

But things keep keep getting uglier. Just the other day, it made a bit more sense for me when I was reading about a key weapon in their arsenal, SILENCE, here at No Apologies. Neil Dykstra wrote:

Imagine the following scenario. You are accused of a petty crime of which you are innocent. Without any more than a cursory investigation, you are compelled to meet with your accuser and a mediator. There, they tell you that you can either give them five thousand dollars in a settlement, or they will haul you into court and prosecute you for the crime. Even though you would most likely be proved innocent in a court of law, you are not eligible for legal aid and would be on the hook for over twenty thousand dollars in legal fees.

Trapped, you accept their demands. As they push the settlement document forward for your signature, there is a condition on the bottom stating that you are forbidden to talk about any aspect of this agreement. Nobody would ever know about the wrongs you have suffered. It’s the cherry on the top of a sundae of injustice.

Say it ain't so, Joe. Fiction? Maybe in that it is not a real incident. However, the methods are real. As Mr. Dykstra goes on to state, every HRC in Canada has a mediation procedure like the one described here. This mediation procedure doesn't come after there has been some investigation of the complaint. In fact, the only thing that has happened to date is that the complaint has been screened to see if the HRC thinks it is within its purview to deal with it. By the way, that does not mean it is within its jurisdiction legally, just that they think that they can get away with dealing with it. If they deal with it, and you pay up and sign the little keep your yap shut clause, we'll never know, will we?

The existing Ontario HRC case of Bishop De Angelis and the "12" St. Michael's Cobourg parishioners is a case in point. To date, Jim Corcoran has only filed his complaint. The HRC has vetted it to conclude that they can deal with it, and the "12" and the Bishop have responded, mainly to say that the Ontario HRC has no jurisdiction, as well, of course that the complaint is baseless.

So now, the case comes before a mediator. As Mr. Dykstra goes on to say, that's when the fish or cut bait decisions come in. Here, the real victim, and it's not the Complainant, has to decide whether to settle, or let it go forward, whatever that means. Sort of, but I will come back to that later.

Well, whatever that means is this. If the complaint goes forward, the Complainant doesn't pay a nickel, just stands back and lets the investigators for the HRC do their thing. These investigators are not interested in using criminal investigative processes, like digging for all the evidence, or even testing the veracity of testimony from witnesses. Heresay works just fine for them, the more the better. Truth, who cares really? Truer words were never spoken. No, true words might not even get spoken.

The legal fees of the Complainant are paid for, since the lawyers are HRC lawyers. In the event that the case gets to the kangaroo court, it goes to an independent court though, the Human Rights Tribunal. Sure, they're independent. I am able to leap over tall buildings too. It's a sausage machine, folks.

But, the real victims, in the Corcoran case, Bishop De Angelis and the "12" have to hire their own lawyers, 2 sets by the way, since their interests are somewhat different, and the dollars mount up.

So, given a chance, most Respondents (Defendants really) choose to settle if they possibly can, even if they have done nothing wrong. To choose between paying $5,000 in settlement of a bogus claim, or spend 3 years fighting a losing battle where the cards are stacked against you, and the truth is not a valid defence, mainly because nobody is looking for it, listening to it, or would get it if it bit them on the nose, seems like a no brainer, particularly when you factor in the cash cost of legal fees, and the personal humiliation of being there, unless your skin is made of teflon or stainless steel.

But, then you could have the worst of all situations that my friend the school principal found herself in, where the parent who filed the bogus claim is so determined to make a noise that she refused to settle, even when encouraged by the HRC staff member, and so off you go into the sausage machine. My friend would have gladly paid off this woman just to shut her up, and to stop this hateful noise going on all around her over nothing. But the woman was under no compulsion to accept mediation.

Of course, the Corcoran case won't settle in mediation since Corcoran has asked for the sun, moon and the stars, $265,000 and a bunch of grovelling by the Bishop. He's so far off the planet, that he will have to take a space shuttle just to get to the mediation hearing.

But, when it gets down to an actual mediated settlement if you are lucky enough, there are standard forms of documents that are used as a template and this clause is (no surprise here) part of the Ontario template:

The parties agree that these Minutes of Settlement and Release are confidential as between them and will not be disclosed to any third party save as may be required by law or in order to implement the terms of settlement contained herein. It is understood by the parties that the Commission is not so bound. It is understood that the complainant may disclose the terms herein to her/his immediate family members, legal and/or financial advisers.

So, the fact that the funds extorted, are actually called special damages or general damages in the documentation, as opposed to blood money, where in all probability it has never been proven that anyone was damaged is not lost on me. I don't know about you, but this puts noxious fumes up against my BS filter.

And now I get it. I see why people I would take under normal circumstances (of which these of course are not good examples) to be probably sane people are doing what appear to be insane things, why well educated people are behaving like, well children who have been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Thus said Lord Action in 1887 in a letter to Mandell Creighton when he was Editor of the English Historical Review. Rev. Creighton later became Bishop of Peterborough, and then Bishop of London England, and hopefully used these words wisely for counsel. But long before him, Lord William Pitt, British Prime Minister back in 1770, in a speech to the United Kingdom House of Lords said: "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it."

Truer words were never spoken, and they give pause to the situation of our HRCs and the mood we find ourselves in, with barbarians at the gate, like Ezra Levant, clamoring for accountability and more ("Fire. Them. All."), and the inmates manning the bulwarks and shouting down the opposition as mere drivel from malcontents, naysayers and meanies. How dare we question their methods, intentions, and their . . . well right to do what they do.

But, as more troops join the siege, I wonder how long the battlements will stand the onslaught before something is done, before parliamentarians finally say "Enough is enough" or mount a charge of their own to secure their own power bases. Tim Hudak made reform of the Ontario HRC part of his platform to become head of the Ontario Conservative Party. That got my attention, as well as the attention of many others. What will he have to say when session re-opens in Toronto in the Fall? I hope it will be a lot.

And when Ottawa comes back into session, will anyone be on the bandwagon that Ezra Levant and others have started in motion?

How many more people will have their Human Rights trampled by the Human Rights Commissions czars and czarinas with their unlimited powers before this is all over?

And another question. Will anyone find the way to instigate class action suits on behalf of all those who have had their rights taken away by these frivolous settlements, and promises to be silent?

Oh, and one more question. Will Walker Morrow be able to figure out how to get Ontario Freedom of Information access so we can find out what the real story was on these cases that the Ontario HRC is trying to hide from us?

Latest Word on the Corcoran/De Angelis Case in Ontario

Scary Fundamentalist Comments on Corcoran Attempts at Secrecy

As Scary Fundamentalist reports:

[Corcoran] said that it was never his intention for the matter to become public and that someone leaked it to the Catholic Registrar who wrote an item

He has some other choice things to say as well about it all, but read what I have to say tomorrow about power and The Secret World of the HRCs.

These attempts to extort the people of Ontario and the rest of Canada are now seeing the light of day, and as their ugliness comes forward, people of goodwill are stepping out and saying that enough is enough.

Can I Really Feel Your Pain?

Empathy - What's That All About?

I have been giving some thought to empathy and how we come by it, and what it means in our society. First, I was wondering if I have any of it, and if so when and where I got it. After some thought, I realised that I do have some, then I started asking why and for what purpose, and of course what does it have to do with Canada's HRC industry.

Looking at my own personal history with empathy, I concluded that I wasn't born with it. After all, when I was born I was cold, wet, hungry, and my butt hurt from that first slap on it. Empathy was not big on my list of things to do or be right then. For the next 2 years and 9 months, I don't think it was a big thing for me either. I had 2 adults all to myself, and even though the female one was getting fat towards the end of that time period, it was all about me, and I don't imagine empathy was on my mind.

Then, my little sister was born. My amount of attention dropped off, but I learned that I got attention if I was good to her, and also if I was bad to her. The attention when I was bad to her hurt. The attention when I was good to her was much nicer, so I leaned towards good to her. No empathy in that, more about self preservation.

Then I started school. I didn't learn about empathy there either. Can't say that there was a lot of opportunity to learn about empathy in the business world as I studied to become a chartered accountant, and then went into public practice and industry over the years.

No, for me it started to happen when my wife became ill and I was in a car accident several years ago, and not immediately. Being disabled gives you two choices, deal with it or let it deal with you. It took years to get past it dealing with us, to where we could deal with it and then with each other properly, but we are there much of the time, and it includes a lot of empathy for me now in my life.

For me, it took personal losses, deeply felt to be able to empathize with others and their losses at a level beneath the most surface of emotions and words.

For others, like Craig Kielburger (along with his brother Marc) who started a Child Rights advocacy group when he was 12 years old and now runs the successful worldwide organisation Me to We, empathy came at a very early age and seemingly out of the blue. A friend of mine, who is their Chief Operations Director at Me to We, Renee Hodgkinson had her own path to a life of empathy towards others. but, they achieved their empathy by reaching out to others, and meeting them in their own surroundings and could not help but be touched by living with them and hearing their stories.

Meanwhile, most people never achieve any real empathy, because they/we are too busy about our days doing the chores of life, including unfortunately in our society of today, parenting as a duty.

Empathy is defined as "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives" in the American Heritage Dictionary. I don't know, but it seems like empathy would be a good thing to bring to a Human Rights organisation, and if so, then to the investigation of and dealing with human rights complaints.

Take for example the De Angelis/Corcoran case before the Ontario HRC. Not that one again. My latest post on it was here. Now, Corcoran filed a Form 1, and the parishioners and Bishop have filed their response by the deadlines, and there will be a mediation hearing in 4-6 months or so. Doesn't sound too empathetic to me, or likely to bring any healing to the situation either.

What would happen if the Ontario HRC investigator interviewed all the parties separately empathetically (with empathy for all parties, not just the complainant) trying to understand their situation, feelings and motives? I imagine he/she would get an earful, and if he/she was a good listener would have a really good opportunity to do some good in this situation. It would require an open mind, and an open heart. I wonder if they have any of those types among the troops over there. It would be nice. To dream the impossible dream.

If not, then what use is the Ontario HRC or any of the other HRCs really? If not, then they are just glorified sausage making making machines. Put a complaint in at the front end, chew up the Respondent for a lengthy period of time, declare a victory for Human Rights, and move on the next complaint and unlucky schmoe.

I like my concept better, enough to suggest that they either change what they are doing or stop doing it altogether, because it is harmful to our society, not helpful.

The people that I like most on this planet are not those with a cause, but those with empathy for those who are disadvantaged. Empathetic people are more about "We" and less about "Me".

I don't see a whole lot of that in the Human Rights industry. The cause of the Rightists has gotten so distorted as to have lost all focus on its original mission, but that's for another time. Even they deserve some empathy, because they have lost their way, and with the power that they have been given, wouldn't we have done the same under similar circumstances?

The Parishioners at St. Michael's Cobourg Respond to the Ontario HRC

No Surprises Here

The Catholic Register here reports of the response by the parishioners in the Jim Corcoran defrocked altar server complaint against them and Bishop De Angelis in Cobourg, in Peterborough Catholic Diocese. Blazing Cat Fur alerted us to the news yesterday.

Seems these long time local parishioners were trying to get rid of their new pastor for changes in liturgical style and his parish management methods, and only raised particular questions about his activities.

In the original letter to the bishop they said: “Now we have a couple, not from our parish, who are openly and publicly involved in a same-sex relationship serving on our altar at Sunday liturgies. This has to be a grave contradiction. What message is being given here?”

OK, it's not hard to guess who the couple not from the parish is, is it? Jim Corcoran and his partner live about 60 clicks from the church doors, and they are openly and publicly involved in a same-sex relationship. If that is what the letter said, what is the problem here? Am I just dumb?

The Bishop's response to Jim Corcoran citing the particular scripture in Romans for him to meditate on was a wise course of action, and the nuance was missed by Mr. Corcoran obviously. Here is what I said to him in my blog previously about it.

As the Register reports, "It was after De Angelis received this letter that Corcoran was relieved of his duties as master of ceremonies in St. Michael’s all-male Altar Servers’ Guild."

Their response to the Tribunal claims that the Tribunal has no standing to hear this complaint for one, that Altar Server is not a position of employment, and that they were not the employer, in any case.

They also denied acting hatefully towards the complainant and denied spreading innuendo about him as well, none of which can authoritatively be proven in a real court, let alone a kangaroo court, all of which makes me nervous as to the outcome.

The Truth Will Out. It just won't probably matter.

I just came back from Saturday morning mass and as the readings and homily were pertinent to what is going on here, I thought I would mention them.

Yesterday's gospel was about the mountain top experience of Jesus' transfiguration, and of course the disciples wanted to stay there. St. Peter, that out there kind of guy, wanted to pitch a tent on the mountain. But in today's gospel, they are down from the mountain top and back to the grind, and immediately Jesus is called on to heal someone, after the disciples are too weak of faith to get the job done.

Today is also the Feast of St. Dominic, the founder of the preaching order the Dominicans. Our pastor shared with us that Dominic was happily whiling away his life in contemplative prayer in Spain, when his Bishop took him on a journey away from his mountain top and he was confronted with a current heresy in the Church of the day. He felt the need to preach about it and to then found the Dominican order named after him. So, he moved from the joy of the mountain top experience to the reality of day to day existence, using the gifts of the mountain top to fulfill God's call to him in his preaching and teaching.

Jim Corcoran was having a mountain top experience on the altar at St. Michael's, which was interrupted much to his sorrow, as mountain top experiences are. The Bishop called him to step down and meditate on a scripture from Romans. In that was wisdom, and the opportunity for personal spiritual growth, plus the opportunity to then bring the fruit of his own growth to others. However, he did not see it that way, and as he did not have sufficient experience of obedience to his earthly spiritual father, having been away from the Church for 34 years, and only returning several months before, he rebelled as immature children, even spiritual children do. In his rebellion he went from God's ways to man's ways.

The battle may or may not go well, but people of faith know that the war ends well. We have read the end of the book.

A couple of Links for Today

Lazy Day But There is Good Stuff Out There

Ezra Levant has a link to the You Tube taping of The Shakedown Song here. It's Support Ezra Levant Day. While you are at this site listening to the Shakedown Song, make a donation if you can or wish to for his Defence fund.

Deborah Gyapong had it first, but Ezra has a bit of the back story, so I have linked you to his copy of it.

Fellow blogger and buddy Walker Morrow at The Lynch Mob has been posting some cool things (mine included) about stuff and such, including Jim Corcoran. Here is a good posting he cross linked from Scary Fundamentalist. Walker's copy is here, and SF's is over on his blog here below an update on the Corcoran thing.

And, any day is Support Stephen Boissoin Day, so I urge you to drop by his blog and support him too, please.

What is Going on in the Peterborough Catholic Diocese?

What About the OTHER Parishioners of St. Michael's Cobourg?

I don't receive a lot of Comments to my blogs, not a lot of readers either. But I received this comment to the Keep Barb Hall Out of the Catholic Church post I did a while back, and it touched me, and so I am repeating it here, and using it as the start of the detailed blog post I have been working on about what I think is going on in the Peterborough Roman Catholic Diocese.

"THANK YOU SO MUCH for this blog. Out of the several pundits and blogs that have commented on this situation, yours is the only one that I found which genuinely articulated 'Truth in Charity.'

As a man with same-sex attractions deeply in love with Jesus and His Church and striving to be faithful to her teachings, I'm familiar with the pain that come from a Church that is still trying with all good intentions to effectively minister to these her sons and daughter. I don't believe we as a Church have reached that point yet. This experience deeply hurts because there are many men and women with ssa who, by grace, see through the shallowness of the 'gay lifestyle,' have met Christ and are faithful to His Church. Sadly however, many of their brothers and sisters do not know what to do lovingly respond to their sensitive situation. I applaud Bishop DeAngelis for intuiting dynamic in our Church by responding to in light of the Word of God, particularly St. Paul's admonition on idols: He did not attack Corcoran but urged him in Christian charity to avoid scandal.

That being said, there is definitely more to the story than the "gay man vs church" spin off which is what is being regurgitated everywhere. Placing a church into the hands of the state is deeply troubling for me, especially in a context where secular power whose double standard will easily interfere in Church matters yet will silence her from the public square. I much appreciate your emphasis on prayer as ultimately, this is in God's hands. From him all will receive their just sentence.

p.s. "Consider it all joy" Omne gaudium existimate is not from St. Paul but from St. James. (1:2) =)" " Ed. Note. My bad on my bible quote.

But here is what I have been working on. I read Jim Corcoran's blog and the news pieces and realize that the whole story is out there, but it's not Out There. Seems that there's a lot of history in the Peterborough RC Diocese, and particularly in St. Michael's Parish, most of which Bishop De Angelis inherited, and as it clears itself up, or as he himself has to clear it up, the inevitable convergence of manure and fan blades occurs and feathers have gotten ruffled.

And the Ontario Human Rights Commission is the very last place for this to get sorted out. It is a Catholic Church internal matter.

When I read people commiserating with Jim Corcoran on his blog and taking his side against the "12", with really only his side of a very deep story that makes him out to be the victim I find it very frustrating. He is not lily white in this thing, and it makes me want to puke.

Some of this is my conjecture. I am not trying to write a treatise on the subject, but trying to figure out a bit of the insanity that is driving the participants, and people in the background to behave as they are so doing, because people only act in accord with their perceived paybacks. (At least that's what Dr. Phil says.)

This story did not start recently but begins probably over 30 years ago, when the so called "12" were raising their families in St. Michael's Parish. The latest responder to Jim Corcoran's Blog post Welcome (I think), Amy Coghill calls them narrow minded and old fashioned. Not so, methinks. The only narrow minded person I have seen thus far appears to be Jim Corcoran, though the Ontario HRC is far more narrow in their mind set than he can ever imagine.

These people (the 12) all live within a short distance of the parish, and it has been their life blood for probably their entire time living there. They have hatched, matched, and dispatched from there, while attending years of Midnight Masses, Easter Vigils, euchre parties, church picnics, and other social events. The men are probably Knights of Columbus and the women are in the Catholic Women's League. Their children attended the Catholic schools, and received First Communion, and Confirmation, and might have been married there, as well. It is in their blood. They love St. Michael's.

They probably served on Parish Council at various time, and attended parent teacher interviews. Their kids all grew up together. Unless you have tried to raise children in a Christian church setting, while holding onto values that you were taught to believe in you cannot understand where they come from historically.

This may not be their exact experience. In effect, I am juxtaposing the experience of my parents and myself as a child being raised in St. Michael's Parish in London Ontario. However, I am betting that it is pretty close.

I bristle at ignorant people calling our eminents grises, old fashioned and narrow minded. They deserve to be understood, and listened to, not demeened and have their values ridiculed where they feel they have nowhere to turn and have to write letters to the Bishop to be heard over their concerns.

The people of St. Michael's have been traumatized over the last several years.

Back as far as 1998, their much loved paster, Fr. Ed Cachia first openly showed support for the ordination of women priests, and there should have been but was no negative communication to him from Bishop Doyle. However, when Bishop De Angelis became the leader of his diocese, one of the early things he did was attempt to quiet the disruptive dissident mouthings of Fr. Cachia, in the short term unsuccessfully, I might add.

A friend of mine a number of years ago taught me a lesson about obedience to church leadership. One afternoon, we had been working together, and I invited him to go for a beer. He had been a bouncer in a bar in his younger days and had liked a few pops, so I thought nothing of the offer. But, he said to me, that a few years back he and his wife had joined a Baptist Church, and that he no longer drank alcoholic beverages. His explanation to me was that if you were going to be a member of the club and wanted to be, then it was appropriate to follow the rules even if you would like to do other things. It made sense to me then for him, and it makes sense to me now for me, and it makes sense to me for all Catholics.

So, my answer to all the naysayers to what I am about to say is, if you are not Catholic, your opinion does not matter to me about the Church since you have not been there, and cannot understand, any more than I can understand your way of life, other than anecdotally. If you are a Catholic and want to be in disagreement with the Church teachings on something, and want to live out that disbelief as opposed to just explore your thoughts and feelings, then you are not really a Catholic and need to go someplace else. Being a Catholic is not for the faint of heart and it is not a smorgasbord. Sorry, but as Walter Cronkite said every evening at the end of his broadcast "and that's the way it is".

Fr. Ed Cachia was very much loved by his parishioners at St. Michael's Parish in Cobourg, as I understand, and as I also understand it he was by and large a pretty good priest. But, Ed Cachia has a serious blind spot about female ordinations for some reason. In July 2005, 9 women declared themselves ordained as priests or deacons in a wacky, yet secret ceremony on the St. Lawrence River and Fr. Cachia called this a momentous occasion, basically declaring himself a wack job as well. He said in an interview with the Osprey News Network, and in open defiance of the teachings of the Catholic Church:

“I believe that this is the beginning of a new and awesome change in the life of the Church.I feel a deep sense of respect and admiration towards these brave women. I would like to congratulate them for following their conscience and responding to the call of becoming priests and deacons.”

Catholic Church teaching about female ordination is well documented, and readily accessible. It is not going to happen. So anybody performing some kind of female ordination is outside the Church in doing so. There is a formation process for priests that is onerous and lengthy, and it does not end in a secret ceremony on the St. Lawrence River. What is not put forward by those in favour of this nonsense is that of those allegedly ordained, several are homosexuals, whose views of homosexual sexual activity are not in conformance with Church teaching. As well, some are pro abortion, and pro birth control measures that are not acceptable to the Church. This is not simply about ordaining women. It is about overthrowing Church teaching on many important topics. Do your homework before you support this stuff.

Bishop De Angelis had no choice practically but to give Fr. Cachia time to think and recant his public pronouncements of support. When he did not recant, and in fact set up a Church of his own outside St. Michael's Parish, Bishop De Angelis had no practical option but to confirm that Father Cachia had in fact excommunicated himself from the Roman Catholic Church. Frankly, those who have suggested otherwise are talking through their hats. If you have a child, and your child defies you, as a parent you have no choice but to stand by what you have said and take the appropriate disciplinary action. Otherwise your authority is lost. Make no mistake the Catholic Church is not and should not be a democracy. I don't recall Jesus ever putting anything up to his disciples for a vote.

Fr. Ed Cachia VIOLATED his parishioners when he broke his own oath of obedience to the Bishop of his diocese, and his vows of ordination. To say he felt moved by the Spirit to do what he did is a crock of BS. The devil is smarter than Ed Cachia, and loves to twist the truth around to make something that seems innocuous, yet is wrong, look good.

So, in early 2006, the parishioners of St. Michael's were violated by, and lost, a friend, a confessor, a parish priest. I don't know about you, but this would be very traumatic for me. In fact, when it happened that a priest that I really liked as a youth left the priesthood, it had a serious impact on my faith life for several years.

Things bumped along until the arrival of Fr. Alan Hood in August 2008. Fr. Hood among other things is a loyal and esteemed member of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. It seems to me that his involvement in that august order has left his head in the clouds as it relates to his pastoral charge.

Father Hood appears to have taken St. Michael's Parish by storm, as it were, and ruffled feathers on the way, after his arrival in 2008. It seems that there was no money in the kitty for building repairs, but he went ahead anyway, in spite of objections by the building and finance committee. At least that is how I read it. He moved his mother into the rectory, probably without as much as a "by your leave." And he seems to have gone about p?ssing people off at will, probably more by his style than anything else.

One of the things he did that got their goat, was creating an adult altar society of servers, and setting Jim Corcoran up as the leader, which occurred in the Fall of 2008. Jim and his partner David had started coming to St. Michael's from their home in Grafton about 65 km away in August 2008, when Fr. Hood came on board.

There certainly has to be some question as to how sensitive it was of Fr. Hood to invite Mr. Corcoran to the position he offered him. From an optics standpoint, if nothing, when a man, any man who starts coming to church when the Pastor arrives, and suddenly becomes head of ad adult Altar Society, that is peculiar. What about all the other faithful members of the Parish? I am not big on political correctness, but I am big on sensitivity to the needs and feelings of others, and this has a high repugnancy index for me.

So once again the parishioners felt VIOLATED. First, Fr. Cachia, and then 2 1/2 years later, Fr. Hood. As I said in an earlier post, this happens, and people sometimes leave or they may react. In this case, both happened. Some letter writing occurred because the people felt that violation, and felt disconnected from their new pastor. Big surprise there!

The letters were mainly about finance issues and other issues with the leadership of Fr. Hood. I can see why Jim Corcoran is a supporter of his. He has no sense of history (nor does Fr. Hood), and he got what he wanted, until the Bishop asked him to step down.

Corcoran said De Angelis urged him to take his dismissal from the altar in the spirit of Paul’s advice to the Romans on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols (Romans 14:13-23) — refraining from scandal. Instead, Corcoran said that the bishop should have confronted the 12 parishioners and their prejudice. Somehow this got to be all about Jim Corcoran and his partner. News Flash Jimmy Boy, it's not all about you. In fact, it's not about you PERIOD, and it never was.

“This is a man (De Angelis) who needs some help in understanding how to deal with confrontation in his diocese. The Human Rights Commission helps people do that,” Corcoran said. Well, he can run a spa, so a Catholic Diocese should be a walk in the park. What an idiotic thing to say.

But the take of Mr. Lawless, one of the 12 parishioners in the Corcoran crossfire is somewhat different: “We have not discriminated. We have simply asked the bishop to act on a situation which we had been informed on very good authority was in violation of church policy”. That sounds like a reasonable request to me.

Anyway, be all of this as it may, you might have been surprised to know that Ed Cachia surfaced at Ste. Anne's Resort, which is run by Jim Corcoran, as an unofficial chaplain in April 2009. But then this story is somewhat Kafkaesque anyway isn't it?

Timing is everything and there really are no coincidences in life. So that puts Ed Cachia back into the picture. Call him a fly in the ointment if you will, and not my idea of someone who I would choose to be having around me for spiritual direction at a time when I was in conflict with the Catholic Church.

Wally Keeler has some things to say that make sense to me here.

And you know what, somehow faithful Bishop De Angelis has to clean up this mess after first Fr. Cachia violated his parishioners, then Fr. Hood violated them once again, and then Jim Corcoran ran off screaming at the top of his lungs that he had been discriminated against.

Trying to look at it from the perspective of the parishioners of St. Michael's Parish, that's what it looks like to me.

How terribly sad for ALL concerned, and I mean ALL.