# Barnesville teen denied Catholic confirmation after Facebook post supporting gay marriage



## Big Don (Nov 19, 2012)

Published November 14, 2012, 11:40 PM
Barnesville teen denied Catholic confirmation after Facebook post supporting gay marriage


By: Erik Burgess , INFORUM EXCERPT

BARNESVILLE, Minn.  If you want to be a Catholic, you have to be 100 percent Catholic.

Thats the lesson one family here learned after their 17-year-old son was denied confirmation after the priest at the Assumption Church here found a pro same-sex marriage post on the teens Facebook.

The decision by the Rev. Gary LaMoine to deny the religious rite of passage for Lennon Cihak in mid-October shocked his mother, who said her son has gone to church every week and volunteered around the community in preparation for his confirmation this year.

You kind of know the Catholic beliefs, but I never thought they would deny somebody confirmation because you werent 100 percent. I guess thats what shocks me, Shana Cihak said.

The Facebook post in question was a photo of Lennon in front of an altered political sign. Originally reading Vote Yes on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, which would have changed the states constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, Lennon scribbled out the yes and replaced it with NO!

<<<SNIP>>>

You should be able to go to a church for support, help, Lennon said. He pushed me away.

Shana said she contacted Bishop Michael Hoeppner of the Catholic Diocese in Crookston to see what her options were to appeal, but Hoeppner said not much could be done. A more formal appeal could still be filed, she said.

A St. Josephs Catholic School teacher in Moorhead was also let go earlier this year after she expressed concern about Hoeppner preaching to children about the marriage amendment.

Calls to a phone number listed for Hoeppner on Wednesday evening resulted in a message saying the phone was temporarily not accepting calls.

But through it all, Lennon said his faith hasnt faltered.

I dont want the church to be put down. I dont want the Catholic religion to be put down, he said. Its just the way the priest has things running. Hes so strict. He wont loosen up about things.
END EXCERPT
Yeah, you cannot pick and choose which parts of Catholicism apply to you...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 19, 2012)

It's the priests parish, his call.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 19, 2012)

You want membership in the club, you follow their rules.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 19, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, you cannot pick and choose which parts of Catholicism apply to you...



Actually you can, and nearly all members of nearly all religions do exactly that.  82% of American Catholics say that contraception is "morally acceptable" and 98% of American Catholic women have used contraception at some point.  66% of American Catholics favor the death penalty.  53% of all American Catholics say that abortion should be legal in "all or most cases."  Of course, the Catholic Church itself holds that all of these things are grave sins.  And yet we don't find 53%, 66%, 82%, or 98% of Catholics denied confirmation, access to the sacraments, or anything similar.  It is clear that Catholics as a group feel very free to decide what applies to them, and they don't as a group face any sanction for it.  Much like the members of all other religions, hierarchical or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

Whilst I support the young Mr. Cihak's (hmm, familiar-sounding last name) moral convictions, the Catholic Church is under no obligation to 'not be so strict'.  Their rules are their rules. Arbitrary, capricious, double-standard, yes, all of that, I agree.  But that's what it is.  The local diocesan priest has a lot of authority on these matters.  While it is news, and it's frankly a bit disappointing, it's also ultimately not anyone's business but the young man, his family, and the local Diocese.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Actually you can, and nearly all members of nearly all religions do exactly that.  82% of American Catholics say that contraception is "morally acceptable" and 98% of American Catholic women have used contraception at some point.  66% of American Catholics favor the death penalty.  53% of all American Catholics say that abortion should be legal in "all or most cases."  Of course, the Catholic Church itself holds that all of these things are grave sins.  And yet we don't find 53%, 66%, 82%, or 98% of Catholics denied confirmation, access to the sacraments, or anything similar.  It is clear that Catholics as a group feel very free to decide what applies to them, and they don't as a group face any sanction for it.  Much like the members of all other religions, hierarchical or not.



All true, as far as I know (I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I don't doubt yours).

However, we're talking about generalities versus the tip of the spear here.  If a given Catholic woman goes in to confess and says she is taking birth control pills and does not intend to stop, the priest can (if he so chooses) deny her absolution.  If a given person or group of Catholics make a public statement to the effect that they refuse to obey Church teachings on a particular point, the Church can, as it chooses, take action, up to and including removing them from the Church through excommunication (technically, they would have been considered to have excommunicated themselves, but that's not how it plays in the press).

Do Catholics pick and choose?  Yes, they sure do.  Does the Church take action on it?  When they have specific information or public actions, they can and sometimes do.

So the fact that most Catholics do not obey all the Catholic laws doesn't mean anything.  If they are caught, they are punished if the local Diocese that has religious authority over them chooses to do so.

It's like saying most people don't come to a complete stop at stop signs.  True, but if you get caught by a cop who wants to do something about it, you get a ticket.  You can argue that 'everybody does it' all you like, it doesn't matter, even if you're right.

EDIT: And FYI, no matter how many Catholics say that abortion or birth control are morally acceptable, only ONE person gets to make that decision, the Pope.  The Catholic Church is not a democracy in that sense.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 19, 2012)

Just thinking out loud here.  Was it just the comment on FB, or was it the fact that the young man was also actively campaigning in support of gay marriage?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Whilst I support the young Mr. Cihak's (hmm, familiar-sounding last name) moral convictions, *the Catholic Church is under no obligation to 'not be so strict'*. Their rules are their rules. Arbitrary, capricious, double-standard, yes, all of that, I agree. But that's what it is. The local diocesan priest has a lot of authority on these matters. While it is news, and it's frankly a bit disappointing, it's also ultimately not anyone's business but the young man, his family, and the local Diocese.



Nor to my knowledge are most main stream religions.  In fact, I would submit that a group that calls itself a religion and does not stick to its principles isn't worth much.  My opinion of course, and any who belong to a 'church' that changes moral principle at the whim of the congregation, if you are happy, so be it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 19, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Just thinking out loud here. Was it just the comment on FB, or was it the fact that the young man was also actively campaigning in support of gay marriage?



Reading between the lines of the post in the thread, it would seem to be the same thing.  But I think you would have to ask the catholic priest who made the decision to be sure.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 19, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Reading between the lines of the post in the thread, it would seem to be the same thing.  But I think you would have to ask the catholic priest who made the decision to be sure.



I didn't know if there were other news articles that went into more detail or if the priest had made a more complete statement about the process behind his decision.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> I didn't know if there were other news articles that went into more detail or if the priest had made a more complete statement about the process behind his decision.



http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/380452/



> The Facebook post in question was a photo of Lennon in front of an altered political sign. Originally reading &#8220;Vote Yes&#8221; on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, which would have changed the state&#8217;s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, Lennon scribbled out the &#8220;yes&#8221; and replaced it with &#8220;NO!&#8221;
> 
> Shana, who said she was confirmed at the same church, was called into a private conversation with the priest soon after the photo was discovered and was told her son wouldn&#8217;t be allowed to complete confirmation.



View attachment $1115marriagesign.jpg


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 19, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> It's the priests parish, his call.


For Confirmation, it's actually the Bishop's call, based on the pastor's recommendation.  The Bishop is the ordinary person to administer the rite, though in a large diocese, he may delegate it to pastors or auxiliary bishops.  Usually a rubber stamp...  

But Confirmation is the final Sacrament of Initiation for the Roman Catholic Church.  If a candidate for Confirmation is openly espousing views in conflict with Church teaching, it's appropriate for the sacrament to be denied.  Immaturity is another reason that candidates have been denied.  Personal opinion -- this is now a blown opportunity for pastoral formation and education.


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/380452/
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 17418




Uh.. color me confused...does not his sign now read 'vote no to equal rights'?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 19, 2012)

Just to note, I have family that lives in Barnesville Minnesota. It's in the most socially conservative part of the state. For example, an old high school friend is a Biology teacher there as well.  She catches hell from the community for teaching evolution despite being religious herself. So, I guess this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 19, 2012)

Their org. their rules. But they'll put themselves out of business this way...which suits me fine.


----------



## granfire (Nov 19, 2012)

one more reason why I have cut out the middleman....


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 19, 2012)

I understand the priest and bishop denying this young man confirmation, but at the same time I believe they are denying the church an embassador for what a young Catholic can be.  In the story it notes he is active in both the church and the community.  His differences with the church seem to be from a place of compassion for others.  I would think the church would want this type of young man to be associated with the church, despite differences in opinion on one issue.  The Catholic church has a problem with young people right now.  More and more are moving away from the religion and its' authoritism and lack of progressive reforms are major reasons why.  An upstanding young man like this could be a counter balance to those arguements, but instead confirm them for many.  I do hope that the differences between the young man nad his diocese can be worked out.


----------



## Carol (Nov 19, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> For Confirmation, it's actually the Bishop's call, based on the pastor's recommendation.  The Bishop is the ordinary person to administer the rite, though in a large diocese, he may delegate it to pastors or auxiliary bishops.  Usually a rubber stamp...
> 
> But Confirmation is the final Sacrament of Initiation for the Roman Catholic Church.  If a candidate for Confirmation is openly espousing views in conflict with Church teaching, it's appropriate for the sacrament to be denied.  Immaturity is another reason that candidates have been denied.  Personal opinion -- this is now a blown opportunity for pastoral formation and education.



Agree on all counts.  When a person is ineligible for confirmation it generally doesn't mean not now not never, it means not now but maybe later....how much later depends on the person and their relationship with the church.  I didn't want to be confirmed at all when I was a teen so I went back and did RCIA.  I had my own disagreements with the church, particularly over birth control.  Rather than kicking me to the curb my priest and my cardinal both reached out to me.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 19, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Just thinking out loud here.  Was it just the comment on FB, or was it the fact that the young man was also actively campaigning in support of gay marriage?


He probably was actively campaigning, judging from the pic, and he defaced someone else's sign, not exactly the best way to handle disagreement.

Also, if he has been going to that church every sunday, and is active in its community, he should have known his priest was strict about certain things and either not done them, or not complained when he was on the bad end of it. As was already said, his church his rules.

Finally, while I disagree with the catholic church on a lot of things, including refusing confirmation to someone over this (although I suspect it was a lot more than just the photo), it IS a sacrament, and he was going against the church. I have no pity for him or outrage for the church/priest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2012)

http://www.dl-online.com/event/article/id/71314/



> 2nd student denied Catholic confirmation in Barnesville In letter to parish, priest apologizes for actions of family
> BARNESVILLE, Minn. &#8211; The teenager who was not confirmed at the Catholic church here after he publicly supported same-sex marriage was not the only student who was denied the religious sacrament for backing gay marriage, the church&#8217;s priest said in a letter made public Friday.



...



> Lennon&#8217;s parents maintain that their son was denied confirmation by LaMoine soon after he discovered the Facebook photo of the boy encouraging people to vote against a measure that would have amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman &#8211; a measure that ultimately failed.
> 
> In the letter sent out to the parish, LaMoine says Lennon voluntarily withdrew from the program after LaMoine saw the photo and challenged him on why he was &#8220;rejecting a central teaching of the Church.&#8221;


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 19, 2012)

Well, thats a different story entirely! so Lennon voluntarily withdrew , not was forced out. Even if LaMoine would have denied it later, takes courage and conviction to voluntarily leave. I still don't pity him, but I do respect him for what he believes in. At the same time, no hard feelings towards the church, since LaMoine didn't go out of his way to find the photo, and he never actually denied anyone. 
Also, 





> &#8220;We just simply couldn&#8217;t do it no matter what, given what was out there,&#8221; LaMoine told The Forum in an interview. &#8220;He could be confirmed, but he&#8217;d have to change his mind about some things, and I don&#8217;t know if Lennon is going to do that.&#8221;


To me at least, this implies that he can still join, just not until he changes views or the catholic church changes views (ha!)


----------



## Carol (Nov 19, 2012)

much depends on how he was confronted.

You can approach them with efforts to work through a problem, or you can approach them in such a way that the target feels that they have no option except to quit before they are fired (literally or figuratively).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don (Nov 19, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Their org. their rules. But they'll put themselves out of business this way...which suits me fine.





Yeah, and after only 2000 years...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Their org. their rules. But they'll put themselves out of business this way...which suits me fine.



Here's the difference between, say, the GOP and the Catholic Church.  The GOP has to get people elected, or they lose political power and eventually stop being the 'other party' in a two-party system.  So change, one might say, is required, in times where their viewpoints are not as popular as they once were.

The Church, on the other hand, is not in the business of being popular.  It can be a billion-plus strong, or a much smaller entity, and it doesn't matter.  It can choose remain the same without regard to attracting new members or appealing to people who don't really buy into all the beliefs of the Church.

As to your opinions on what happens to the Catholic Church, you've made your antipathy clear in several posts now.  I think we all get it.  Thanks for your comments.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

The Catholic Church, in fact any religion, can set it's own rules, terms for membership, and so forth. As long as those rules don't violate civil law, they can do what they want, and people can decide for themselves if they want to belong and comply.

Personally, I think as we grow past ancient mythologies most current religions will fade to a minimal. They will be replaced by new variations and new faiths, as has always happened. 

I'd just like to see all their tax exemptions removed and taxes paid.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

Side note:
_Bushu-suru - To do the Bush Thing.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush_vomiting_incident


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Here's the difference between, say, the GOP and the Catholic Church. The GOP has to get people elected, or they lose political power and eventually stop being the 'other party' in a two-party system. So change, one might say, is required, in times where their viewpoints are not as popular as they once were.
> 
> The Church, on the other hand, is not in the business of being popular. It can be a billion-plus strong, or a much smaller entity, and it doesn't matter. *It can choose remain the same without regard to attracting new members or appealing to people who don't really buy into all the beliefs of the Church.
> 
> *As to your opinions on what happens to the Catholic Church, you've made your antipathy clear in several posts now. I think we all get it. Thanks for your comments.



I'm not a member of the Catholic Church, and disagree with some few of the things it does or has done.  However, the bolded/underlined I agree with completely.  It is how any religion should be in my opinion.  As always, others are welcome to their own opinions, including any that don't agree with mine.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Church, on the other hand, is not in the business of being popular.  It can be a billion-plus strong, or a much smaller entity, and it doesn't matter.  It can choose remain the same without regard to attracting new members or appealing to people who don't really buy into all the beliefs of the Church.



It does matter though.  The Church, all churches and religions, are human institutions, and share much in common with other institutions like businesses, and they all share some features with biological systems.  Like any species or other biological system, a religion or a church or a business must adapt to a changing environment in order to replicate itself over time, replication in this case meaning new believers to replace the ones that die.  If an institution does not, it will die, much like a species that can't adapt to a changing environment.  Institutions evolve over time as well, with the most successful adapters surviving the best.

The Catholic Church has itself evolved and adapted continuously throughout its history, and its ability to do so means that it has survived.  If the Church cannot do so in the future, then it will die.  History is littered with such belief systems and religions, my personal favorite being the Shakers, who in believing that procreation itself was sinful quite literally could not replicate themselves, nor did they have much luck recruiting new followers to such an unpleasant belief system.

I understand that this systems, biological view does not exactly jive with the view of the Catholic Church as the possessor of a unique truth and special authority and inheritance from Jesus through Peter.  Nonetheless, many belief systems have thought themselves in possession of unique truth, and died out when anyone stopped caring.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 20, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> I understand that this systems, biological view does not exactly jive with the view of the Catholic Church as the possessor of a unique truth and special authority and inheritance from Jesus through Peter.  Nonetheless, many belief systems have thought themselves in possession of unique truth, and died out when anyone stopped caring.



The Catholic Church may well choose to die out rather than change their message.  This is their right, and some might say, the correct way to look at things.  Some would applaud it's demise, others less so, most would probably be ambivalent.  But your point is correct; like any organism, an institution facing diminishing public support must change or die.  *Dying is a valid option, however*.  The Church has indeed changed in the past, but this does not require that it therefore must change again in the future.

In some institutions, we cherish those who refuse to compromise their principles.  In others, we condemn it.  In some future world, perhaps we will have a Catholic Church that believes anyone can worship anything and that's just OK with them, anyone can be a priest, sin doesn't really exist, and by the way, here's some LSD as a sacrament.  Or we may have nothing but a dim memory of a church that no longer exists and is remembered, if at all, as an institution that held to a set of beliefs even when every last human turned away from them.  What is that line that Bob Hubbard likes to quote about 'even Gods may die'?

Personally, I find it gladdening in many ways that at least one human institution still says that it is what it says it is, not what the crowd says it ought to be.  I don't agree with many aspects of my own Church, but I appreciate their point of view on matters.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The Church, on the other hand, is not in the business of being popular.  It can be a billion-plus strong, or a much smaller entity, and it doesn't matter.  It can choose remain the same without regard to attracting new members or appealing to people who don't really buy into all the beliefs of the Church.



Oh please. They're repeatedly changed their positions to match the reality of what their members do and believe in order to retain membership. They're gone from torturing scientists to being relatively pro-science among forms of Christianity to avoid mockery. The Pope has even softened his stance on condoms in Africa in the face of growing outrage. Yes, it has a lot of outdated positions that it still hasn't changed, but there are so many that it has softened, modified, or outright-reversed over the centuries.



> As to your opinions on what happens to the Catholic Church, you've made your antipathy clear in several posts now.



It's not particular to the Catholic Church, or even just Christianity. Anyone promoting superstition over knowledge is acting against the common good.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 20, 2012)

http://www.managementpsychology.com/articles/the-intersection-of-intelligence-and-arrogance/


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 20, 2012)

arnisador said:


> ...
> 
> 
> It's not particular to the Catholic Church, or even just Christianity. Anyone promoting superstition over knowledge is acting against the common good.



I think I can agree with that!  Or at least I can if your definition of superstition agrees with mine.  But somehow I don't think that is going to happen.  My guess is that whatever you religious beliefs, everyone else's is going to be superstition.  I don't say that with rancor, just saying what is usually most people's belief about rival religious beliefs.  If I am wrong, please accept my apologies.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think I can agree with that!  Or at least I can if your definition of superstition agrees with mine.  But somehow I don't think that is going to happen.  My guess is that whatever you religious beliefs, everyone else's is going to be superstition.  I don't say that with rancor, just saying what is usually most people's belief about rival religious beliefs.



I'm talking about any belief in supernatural entities or forces that are at odds with science--gods, vampires, zombies, unicorns, karma,...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I'm talking about any belief in supernatural entities or forces that are at odds with science--gods, vampires, zombies, unicorns, karma,...



LOL






The Most Dangerous Superstition


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 20, 2012)

Why am I now thinking of that South Park episode where Cartman freezes himself to get a Wii?


----------



## Buka (Nov 20, 2012)

I grew up Catholic, but usually only get my religious input from South Park now. 

I notice similarities in the discussion of religion(s) and the discussion of Martial Art(s), maybe because I'm old. Oh, well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, fellas!


----------

