Vatican Did NOT Give Permission for Pro-Abortion, Pro-Gay Priest to Run for Office

LifeSite ^ | November 1, 2006 | John-Henry Westen

[NYer]

JOLIETTE, QC, November 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Diocese of Joliette has issued a press release after the mainstream media erroneously reported that the Vatican had given permission for a Catholic priest who supports abortion and homosexual 'marriage' to run for public office. 

Both a Canadian Press story, published in several papers, and a CBC story claimed that the Vatican granted Fr. Raymond Gravel special permission to run for politics.  Gravel is representing the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party which is also known for its support of abortion and homosexual 'marriage'.

The first line of the press release from the diocese states: "No 'green light' was given by the Vatican."  It continues, "The Bishop of Joliette did not receive any permission from Roman Authorities regarding the plans of Fr. Raymond Gravel." 

See the press release from the diocese:
http://www.diocesedejoliette.org/archives/miseaupointlussier...

See the full coverage from LifeSiteNews.com:
"Pro-Choice", Pro-Gay Priest Given Permission from Bishop but not Vatican to Run for Politics

[NYer]

Earlier Posting from Diogenes at Catholic World News

Raymond Gravel (above) spent the first decade of adult life working the gay bars as a prostitute. When an unhappy customer put him in the hospital in 1982, he quit the pro game and, with astonishingly little difficulty, became a priest for the Diocese of Joliette (Quebec). Did his enthusiasm for deviant sexuality undergo a change in the intervening years? There's precious little evidence of it.

In an August 2003 letter to Montreal's La Presse, Gravel said the Vatican's position against same-sex marriage was"discriminatory, hurtful and offensive for everyone who works to promote human rights and to re-establish justice and equality." He attacked the church's hierarchy as "outmoded and sick," explaining that he's grown tired of the Catholic Church's hypocritical position on matters related to sexuality, such as homosexuality, abortion and the marriage of priests. "Every time the church speaks out on an issue, it's always to condemn. I can't stand it any more," he said. "We're trying to build things with people, and the hierarchy demolishes everything."

OK, Father Gravel "can't stand it any more." Does he take a leave of absence? Leave the priesthood? Leave the Catholic Church? None of the above: he goes public and makes a run for the Federal parliament, claiming ecclesiastical blessing for his candidacy.

Does this blessing involve the requisite ecclesiastical permission? Canon Law expert Ed Peters is extremely skeptical:

Prescinding from other canonically confusing aspects of this case, the only theory by which Fr. Gravel might have been given episcopal permission to seek national office would be in virtue of a dispensation from disciplinary law under 1983 CIC 87 and 90. The standard canonical authors recognize such a possibility, but when commenting specifically on the prohibition against priests holding major governmental office, they stress how low is the likelihood that such permission would ever "contribute to the spiritual good" of those under a bishop's care. In Fr. Gravel's case, of course, the assertion that such permission might serve a "spiritual good" would be laughable.

Laughable indeed. But his bishop may well share Gravel's sense of humor rather than our own. Whence I'd encourage you to keep up the e-mails to the relevant churchmen until we get a straight answer.

[NYer]

Commentary by Diogenes - at Catholic World News

---

It's official. We've been told that the Holy See did NOT give Father Raymond Gravel permission to run for the Canadian Federal Parliament. His diocesan ordinary has issued a statement to that effect (credit to LifeSite). The following is an unofficial translation:

Clarification from the Bishop of Joliette, the Most Reverend Gilles Lussier

No "green light" has been given by the Vatican. The Bishop of Joliette received no permission from Roman authorities concerning Father Gravel's campaign. The Church's legislation is clear: every priest must refrain from all active engagement in politics. However, in particular and truly exceptional circumstances, it can come about that such a thing is possible. This is a matter of a derogation from the usual norm. It belongs to the competent authority, in this case the diocesan bishop, to study the question. He must to take into particular consideration the good of the ecclesial community and the common good of society in order to grant permission -- should the occasion arise -- for a derogation of this sort. He must consult his Presbyteral Council, i.e., the representatives of the diocesan clergy that assist the bishop in his government of the diocese. In the present case, the situation that would justify in our country the derogation from the common rule -- as the Church defines it -- does not obtain .

In making the choice to take an active part in a political party, Father Gravel keeps his priestly status but is released from the exercise of priestly ministry. He may not exercise any activity as a priest during the time of his active political involvement. This measure is intended to preclude any and all confusion among the faithful and to maintain the distinction between political activity and religion. In any case, the fact of renouncing one's conduct of priestly ministry always presents a distressing situation for the Church. 31 October 2006

This clarification raises as many questions as it answers, but it plants a few firm pegs in the turf. Let's take a closer look at it.

The first three sentences were almost certainly written at gunpoint. They read as if the Nuncio dictated them over the phone and demanded that they be made public verbatim. They get the Nuncio and the Holy See almost completely off the hook (more on that later).

The second part, concerning the possible exception to the non-involvement rule, is largely smoke. We get a legal narrative of what the diocesan bishop is required do in order to grant exceptional permission, but we're only told that requisite pre-conditions were not met. It's not even clear whether the Presbyteral Council was actually consulted or not. We can deduce from his clarification that Lussier did not seek a canonical derogation that would legitimize Gravel's candidature, but Lussier never explicitly says that he denied Gravel permission, whether formal or informal, nor does Lussier explicitly say that he disapproves of Gravel candidacy. The concluding line is equivocal, and probably intentionally so: We can read it to mean "it's painful when a priest gives up priestly ministry because he finds secular activity more important," or we can read it to mean "how sad that a wonderful man like Gravel must be released from ministry in order to run for office!"

Obvious Question #1: Why did Bishop Lussier wait this long to announce that Gravel did not have the Vatican's permission? The headlines have been blasting the contrary story for more than a week. Lussier must have known ahead of time of Gravel's decision to run, so why didn't he issue a statement making clear Gravel's status in anticipation of his candidacy?

Obvious Question #2: Did Lussier have any communications with the Holy See about Gravel's candidacy prior to its announcement? If not, why not? If so, what form did they take and what was the outcome? Can Lussier pretend that he figured the candidacy of a priest who was a former prostitute would escape comment by the news media, such that informing the Vatican ahead of time wasn't worth the bother?

Obvious Question #3: Did Lussier inform his fellow Canadian bishops ahead of time? Did he ask their counsel or consent? Did he phone Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary to say, "This isn't in your bailiwick, I realize, but we all may catch some flak from the media coverage. Didn't want you to get blindsided by Ray Gravel's running for Parliament"?

Obvious Question #4: What discussions did Gravel have with Lussier? When was the possibility of Gravel's candidacy known to Lussier? Did Lussier disapprove? Does he disapprove now? Did the question of a public declaration of ecclesiastical permission come up? If not, why not? If so, who fed the press the "Vatican permission" story?

The Most Obvious Question of All: Even leaving his grotesquely problematic past to one side, how is it that a public and contumacious dissenter like Raymond Gravel was not dismissed from the priesthood three years ago?

The tactically-limited truthfulness and sheer subterfuge that we meet in every aspect of the Gravel story is exasperating. It's clear they're not leveling with us. Suppose for a moment that Gravel was not a gay activist but a racist, say, who flaked out in the opposite direction, by accepting the nomination for some kind of "Immigrants Go Home" nativist party. Do you think the diocese would be bashful about distancing itself from him? Do you think we'd be waiting two days, much less two weeks, for a statement of categorical repudiation? Do you think we'd be in any doubt whatsoever about the history of the bishop's dealings with the priest in question? Do you think he'd keep his priestly status as Gravel has, or that we'd be reminded that Church regards his interruption of priestly ministry as pénible?

But more annoying than the bother of having to yank facts like impacted molars out of the chancery one-by-one is the insinuation that the faithful have no business knowing the exact status of Gravel's ecclesiastical permission. It is not unwholesome curiosity to ask whether and to what extent the Church approves of the controversial positions that her clergymen take in public. The distinction between Gravel's priestly status and exercise of priestly ministry may satisfy a canon lawyer, but 90% of the faithful (and the public) will understand simply that a notorious gay-activist priest, who has not been defrocked, is running for office without public opposition from the Church. If this is pastoral solicitude, what does pastoral malfeasance look like?

Diocèse de Joliette
2, rue St-Charles-Borromée Nord
C.P. 470
Joliette, QC
J6E 6H6
Phone: (450) 753-7596
e-mail: communication@diocesedejoliette.org

S.E.R Msgr Luigi Ventura,
the Apostolic Nuncio to Canada
724 Manor Avenue
Ottawa, ON
K1M OE3,
Phone: (613) 746-4914
e-mail: nuntius@rogers.com

[Mercat]

It's a scandel that this guy was allowed in a seminary in the fist place. He can confess his sins and be a wonderful lay person but a priest? It never should have happened and he should be kicked out.

[Suzy Quzy]

Benedict will clean house of these gay priests....I PRAY!!

[Miss Marple]

I am beginning to think a LOT of Bishops need to be replaced with men who will be OBEDIENT. I thought this was a central part of Catholicism, and being a new convert I am absolutely dumbfounded by this stuff. Last night before mass our priest read a statement that the revocation of the indult on purification of vessals would be addressed by our Bishop later, and until such time things would continue as before. In other words, foot dragging.

I am not pleased.

[trisham]

The Most Obvious Question of All: Even leaving his grotesquely problematic past to one side, how is it that a public and contumacious dissenter like Raymond Gravel was not dismissed from the priesthood three years ago?

************

No kidding. It appears the Church is ridden with these destructive and false Catholics.

[Alex Murphy]

It's a scandel that this guy was allowed in a seminary in the fist place.

Bingo.

[Scotswife]

"being a new convert I am absolutely dumbfounded by this stuff"

Us cradle catholics are stumped too.
The priest shortage must be really bad when they can't manage to find better guys to act as competent bishops.

[livius]

What diocese are you in? I know the odious Roger Mahony of LA did the same thing - saying he would "examine" the Vatican's order regarding purification of Eucharistic vessles, and in the meantime, no changes were being made. The arrogance and disobedience of these people is incredible.

[Miss Marple]

Indianapolis.

[livius]

I went to your diocesan website - I noticed that your bishop, Bp. Buechlein, is a Benedictine. They can be either very good or very bad. Weakland was/is a Benedictine, I believe. I don't know much about your bishop, although I see that he was appointed to some Vatican commission on clergy in 2003. It would seem a little surprising that he would take this approach, then, but of course 2003 was pre-BXVI.

[Miss Marple]

Sigh. I don't know. I didn't know anything about this until the other day. The encouraging thing is that a lot of parishioners must have read this on the internet and asked our priest about it, otherwise he wouldn't have made the effort to explain what was going on.

[livius]

That's true. Now I hope the Vatican gives these guys a serious yank on the chain, because if they get away with disobedience in the case of this relatively minor but very clear-cut order, they're going to move on to bigger and better things. This is a test, and I hope the Vatican realizes it.

[Maeve]

Ma has a new title for you, NYer: Catholic Culture Warrior !!!

And you are, dear sister in Christ. Thank you for taking the time to keep us alert and aware of what is going on in the world through the eyes of fidelity to Holy Mother Church.

[Heartofsong83]

Hopefully they will indeed clean house. While it may hurt in the short term, a revival will quickly follow.

[NYer]

Ma has a new title for you, NYer: Catholic Culture Warrior !!!

Lol .... the inspiration must come from praying the Chaplet of St. Michael each morning with Mother Angelica, a living saint, like your Ma.

{{{{{{{{ HUGS }}}}}}}}

to both of you.

[technochick99]

I am beginning to think a LOT of Bishops need to be replaced with men who will be OBEDIENT.

As a revert, I share your surprise and dismay. They (Am bishops and priests) expect obedience, but refuse to give it. Sigh...

[technochick99]

And I've heard nothing whatsoever in my diocese!

[Suzy Quzy]

Amen.

[livius]

I've heard indirectly that they intend to enforce it in my diocese, but I haven't heard anything official, either. Waiting...