56 Comments

• jacersagain | Nov 27, 2012, 07:13 PM EST

  I made a three-part response to The Commentator but only the first appears below, which therefore leaves the one shown incomplete. A few weeks ago, I decided to stop posting on ICentral because some of my comments, having been published by ICentral at first (after preview), were subsequently dropped, changing the tone of the discussion. I changed my mind later and now think I should change my mind again. Irish Central is not Twitter, where one-line comments are de rigueur; it is a debating forum where short, not so short and long-winded comments (like mine!!) make up the mix. Whether this dropping of previously posted comments is deliberate policy of ICentral’s editors or a gremlin at work in ICentral’s computer systems I don’t know but it certainly makes me want to change my mind again. What gives, oh esteemed (not!) editors??

• eiriamach | Nov 26, 2012, 06:11 PM EST

  'Clericalism' defined: "a policy of supporting the influence and power of the clergy in secular or political matters." This definition, from wordnet search, is the mildest definition of 'clericalism' I've ever seen. It applies to Jacers' many many words below, in which he defends the behavior of priests and bishops making pronouncements about political matters, such as whether gays should have equal rights under the law. He also defends clerics excluding people like Lennon from sacraments of his Church simply because the priests disagree with Lennon's political position. I don't think Jacers realizes he is defending interference by clerics in politics and law or the view that religious law is superior to and should determine civil law. I don't think he realizes that every American who values the US Constitution, including the first amendment's protection of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, must reject the suggestion that religious education gives priests authority in matters of civil law.

• jacersagain | Nov 25, 2012, 04:49 PM EST

  Sorry, late in getting back to The Commentator’s comment of Nov 20, 01.11pm. I think your earlier comment IS narrow-minded because it clearly displays lack of knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am very privileged to be a lay member of, despite the enticements of other Christian and non-Christian Churches. I am a true Dublin-born Irishman, living in Ireland, much travelled internationally, reasonably well-educated, experienced in much of life (but not all of it) and lots of what it throws at us. I do not know anything of the Lennon “no Confirmation” case other than what I researched online. I did lapse from the RCC one time but was saved from that huge mistake by a Negro woman in a Catholic Church in NYC without her ever knowing so and without either of us ever speaking with each other (that’s another story). Your imaginary scenario - of “all church hierarchy being completely honest and resigning because they didn’t believe everything in the written Bible” - is a total no-no. (More…)

• eiriamach | Nov 23, 2012, 09:40 AM EST

  Jacers, you're always good for a laugh! When a fallacy of logic is so obvious that no one can miss it, it's what we call a joke. I'm rolling on the floor laughing at your joke: First you insisted that Lennon is too young to know the truth. When I pointed out that a person's age is irrelevant to the truth of his or her words, you replied to me, "you must be in your dotty years." You doubled down on your ad hominem fallacy. Lennon's too young to know, and I'm too old to know. So tell me, which of my many birthday celebrations should have been a dementia party? If I reached the age of dementia somewhere along the way, I became too stupid even to know I was stupid, right? so I need your help. After all, you, Jacers, must be ... uh, let's see now, ... older than Lennon since you know he's too young to know the truth, and younger than me, since you know I'm too old to know the truth, you're probably about the same age as the pope-- who is a glorious font of holy wisdom and speaks only the truth-- right? So, I'd guess you're about 85, a mere adolescent by my reckoning from the hither side of the century mark!

• The Commentator | Nov 21, 2012, 10:41 AM EST

  To jacersagain: If the boy declined to be confirmed, that obviously is his choice, but even if he did it appears he intention was to be confirmed and the article above states that "LaMoine told the press he had no comment but later denied that Lennon was denied confirmation." I did not comment on the mental capacity of a 12 year old to fully comprehend the catholic Church dogma. I agree with you in that aspect. So based on that premise you have stated; it seems that the Catholic Church is so anxious to increase their fold that they don't care that the children do not have the capacity to comprehend what they are doing when they go through confirmation. I do not have the detailed information about the incident other than the article above. You seem to be a member of this church or at least are familiar with this priest. I stand by my comment about the church hierarchy. Although some of the hierarchy may have not been pedophile priests, many of them protected the pedophiles or stood by and did nothing. The basic principles of most religions are about the way we should live and treat our fellow man and are absolutely all that is right and just. The issues are with the "translations" and writings by various people through the ages. Now and in the past religious leaders have "interpreted" or written "rules" for the parishioners to follow. Unfortunately many of these "ideas" have not kept pace with our society. I did not say that the Church was narrow minded, only that there are some religious zealots who blindly espouse radical positions and are not the mainstream rational parishioners who adhere to the Catholic faith. How can the Catholic Church maintain their male only position for priests. This is not the dark ages when men are in absolute control and women and children are subservient.

• jacersagain | Nov 20, 2012, 03:14 PM EST

  Commentator's comment is nonsense. The Church is far from narrow-minded and its teachings, based on Christ's, are full of freedom-leading exhortations, if people would only see through what it is saying. @ eiriamach...jeeze you must be in your dotty years if you believe what you wrote below; you use Sophocles’ ancient fictional thespians to support your argument. Common sense alone would tell you that no boy or girl of age 12 or so would have the same outlook or learned wisdom of a priest like Fr. LaMoine. (I’ve since learned that Lennon is 17 yrs old… more likely to have a smattering of common sense than a 12yr old if he lived by it. It turns out that Lennon himself made the decision not to make his Confirmation; Fr. LaMoine did not ever refuse the Sacrament of Confirmation to Lennon. Incidentally, Lennon’s father supports the Church’s teaching on marriage). It seems YOU, eiriamach, have lost some common sense and YOU are wrong to even think a 12 or even 17-yr old has the learned sense of an adult priest in matters such as gay marriage. Gawd help ya, dotty woman… J/K! :-)

• The Commentator | Nov 20, 2012, 01:11 PM EST

  Imagine if all the church hierarchy were completely honest and resigned from their positions because they didn't believe in "all" that is written in the Bible. There would be nobody left. When the church hierarchy are challenged on aspects of their conduct, they usually resort to the cop out of penance. They say that if they repent they will be forgiven and able to go to "heaven". This story is another example of the church hierarchy being self righteous. Funny how there are bible stories of all types of sinners being accepted. Just a comment about the same sex issue. There are many examples of same sex sex in the animal kingdom. We are supposedly part of the world made by God, so how can a behavior common with man and animal be bad. Remember that the written word is something composed by men and reflect their views, not God's. The narrow minded religious zealots should worry about themselves and not dictate to others how they should live.

• CindyDoyle | Nov 20, 2012, 10:46 AM EST

  I am a devoted Catholic that believes in Birth Control and also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Does that confirm that I should'nt be able receive the sacraments. (ps every Catholic I know also feels the same way!)

• eiriamach | Nov 20, 2012, 10:08 AM EST

  Jacers, you could not be more obviously wrong in your belief that a young man cannot know the truth and a mature man is old enough to know it: "Some are saying a 12 yr old boy ... knows better than a highly trained, educated adult priest? And a lot of posters below think Lennon’s more right than the priest? Good God...." Age has nothing to do with whether a person's beliefs are right or wrong, good or bad. More than once a young person has instructed a mature person in the way of truth and wisdom. As Sophocles wrote almost five centuries before the birth of Jesus, "But if I seem young, look less to my years and more to what I do." Haemon the young man was replying to his father the king, who shouted in anger, "So, men of our age, we're to be lectured, are we? -- schooled by a boy his age?" Logicians call the king's mistake the ad hominem fallacy-- the mistaken bias that some circumstances of life make it impossible for a person to be right about an important matter. The tragic end of Sophocles' drama, "Antigone," makes clear the folly of thinking one has the maturity of years essential to wisdom. You, Fr LaMoine, and Creon the king-- you're all wrong and Lennon is right.

• Smyrnian | Nov 20, 2012, 07:59 AM EST

  One may disagree with the Church and it's teachings but any religion reserves the right not to accept non-believers. Let him find a religion more akin to his beliefs.

• jacersagain | Nov 19, 2012, 08:20 PM EST

  (…more) However, I cannot but challenge the ignorant, vile attacks by those posters below - who were indelibly baptised Catholics as infants, recognised by the Church as ready to receive our Christ’s Body in Holy Communion at 7 yrs of age (and enjoyed the occasion!) and at ard 12 yrs of age “confirming” themselves to believe and trust in Jesus Christ, to believe and trust in His appointed Apostles, in His Nuns (His Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, Sarah, Thecla and many other now-saint women), to believe in His unbroken centuries-old lineally ordained Deacons, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes who were ultimately based in and out of the Italian city of Rome and elsewhere - the posters below who now viciously attack what they originally proclaimed and confirmed their belief to be in, at the incredible “Lennon-sensible age”. Shucks!! Shiver me timbers and shake me out of their ignoramus’ lies, please…?

• jacersagain | Nov 19, 2012, 08:16 PM EST

  (…more) If ever I was to defect from the RCC (God grant me the wisdom not to!) the Coptic Church would most likely be the one I might give my allegiance to; if not possible to practice through it in Ireland, otherwise, I’d go with the Greek Orthodox Church. Anyways, Pope Pius X decreed that, if a single, if even perhaps an unusually-holy, 7-yr old could know who was present in the Holy Eucharist, then all 7-yr olds would know. And so we have the practice of First Holy Communions at 7 yrs of age today throughout the RCC. I admit that I don’t know the age at which the Sacrament of Confirmation was “made” after the age of 12 in those days. Alas! The iggerance of me in all of that too…! However… (more…)

• jacersagain | Nov 19, 2012, 08:12 PM EST

  (… more) I think other Christian Churches (mainly Greek, Russian, Maronite and similar Christian Churches etc (but not the Egyptian Coptic Church) and probably most of the hundreds of Protestant Churches) still hold to those ages; I stand to be corrected on that… and on this: I think it was the RCC’s St. Pope Pius X (the tenth) who decreed that 7-yr olds could receive Holy Communion at age 7 after he met a seven-yr old who, in an impromptu meeting, in answer to the Pope’s impromptu question to him as to whom is received in Holy Communion, the boy replied “the Body of Jesus Christ”. Pope Pius X therefore decreed (not infallibly) that all 7-yr olds could make their First Holy Communion… not necessarily a wise impromptu decision IMHO. I’ve seen the Coptic Church allowing baptised infants-in-arms to receive the Holy Eucharist under the appearance of bread and, yes, even for infants, wine... I’d love to learn more about the why of that, especially as the Coptic Church is said by many to uphold the most stringent practices of the earliest Christians. Info, anyone? (more..)

• jacersagain | Nov 19, 2012, 08:08 PM EST

  (..more) As a matter of fact, as a Catholic in this day and age, I personally don’t agree that children of age 7 should make Holy Communion with Christ for the first time (I’d go for 12-14 yrs of age) and I think the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administered at 18 yrs of age to those who are ready, of their own volition, not of “inductive programming” by any Christian Church, to commit to accepting and living by Christ’s teachings. Of course, they would not know of Christ without being taught about Christ’s teachings through their growing years, which might sound like I’m defeating my own argument… but you get the point. Apparently, First Communions were originally made at age 12 in the early Christian and later Roman Catholic Church (of which I consider myself to be very blessed and privileged to be still a member of, despite the horrors of child and other abuses by a few thousands, including lay people, of its over-a-billion members). (more…)

• jacersagain | Nov 19, 2012, 08:04 PM EST

  (...more) As a matter of fact, as a Catholic in this day and age, I personally don’t agree that children of age 7 should make Holy Communion with Christ for the first time (I’d go for 12-14 yrs of age) and I think the Sacrament of Confirmation should be administered at 18 yrs of age to those who are ready, of their own volition, not of “inductive programming” by any Christian Church, to commit to accepting and living by Christ’s teachings. Of course, they would not know of Christ without being taught about His parable teachings through their growing years, which might sound like I’m defeating my own argument… but you get the point. Apparently, First Communions were originally made at age 12 in the early Christian and later Roman Catholic Church (of which I consider myself to be very blessed and privileged to be still a member of, despite the horrors of child and other abuses by a few thousands, including lay people, of its billion members). (more…)

• jacersagain | Nov 19, 2012, 07:59 PM EST

  Good God! Some are saying a 12 yr old boy (I’m guessing his age, the one presently accepted by the Church as that at which a human being of his age is ready to accept, or not, the confirming Wisdom of the Holy Spirit to go forth and tell everyone the Good News of our Saviour, our Messiah, to confirm his belief in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in His teachings) knows better than a highly trained, educated adult priest? And a lot of posters below think Lennon’s more right than the priest? Good God, help us all to have common sense here, please, especially Lennon. His parents will rue the day they allowed him to ‘be’ himself, to be himself without their parental responsibility to guide him on right and wrong. Alas! The iggerance of it all… (More…)

• SingleDonald | Nov 19, 2012, 07:38 PM EST

  Continued from below. As all on this board know, I utterly reject Matthew 5:28, and the repressive, guilt ridden writings of St. Augustine, regarding human sexuality. I first learned about the Church's teachings on "impure thoughts", in 5th Grade. This was the very year I was confirmed. I DO support marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman. Now, suppose, back in the day, 10-year old Donald had proclaimed that the Church was wrong, that these thoughts were NOT mortal sins? Then, let's suppose our pastor had denied me the sacrament, because of my bold stand. Would he have been right? The answer to both my theoretic exclusion and Lennon's actual one is: NO! The Catholic Church just has to understand that human beings have powers of reason and conscience. We don't want to be blind followers, in 100% of the Biblical and Church teachings. As my father told me, as a teenager, everything is noe "black & white" ; there are GRAY areas, in between. The pastor, Father Gary LaMoine, should reconsider his stance, regarding Lennon. He would have every right to explain to the boy why he felt that the Church's position on marriage is correct. If Lennon still wasn't convinced, he should still be confirmed. After all, he goes to weekly mass, and is leading a good Catholic life. The fact that he can't accept the Church's teaching on marriage is a matter of conscience and reasoning, even for a 10-year old. Lennon, like his famous namesake John Lennon, should not be ostracized for holding contrary beliefs to the Church. He is not alone, nor am I, in that regard.

• olovely | Nov 19, 2012, 07:33 PM EST

  merefalow, if you were right that "the homosexual lobby has achieved full civil parity" then this kid wouldn't have anything to protest, would he? Also, Protestants in England have a "centuries old deeply held religious teaching" that says Catholics should not be monarchs. That means that tradition is not always a good guide to justice or christian charity.

• SingleDonald | Nov 19, 2012, 07:12 PM EST

  Let me attempt to play the role of King Soloman, or of Justice Lewis Powell. The latter was an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice, when the case of Alan Bakke was issued, June of 1978. In that case, 4 justices ruled that Alan Bakke should be admitted into the University of California, at Davis, as he was discriminated against, because he was a white man. Four others upheld the school's affirmative action policy, which set aside 16 (out of 100) slots in the new medical class for minority people. Judge Powell ruled that Alan Bakke, a 38-year old civil engineer, WAS discriminated against, and should be admitted. The rigid 16 slot quota for minorities DID violate the U.S. Constitution. However, race could still be considered, along with other factors, for admission. Such factors could include social and economic background, and life experiences. To be continued, above.

• ciaradexy | Nov 19, 2012, 12:08 PM EST

  Well done Lennon! A future world leader hopefully.

• merefalow | Nov 19, 2012, 11:50 AM EST

  this is about whether peoples of a centuries old deeply held religious teaching are allowed to hold to these convictions or be forced by new civil laws to go against those convictions,even though the homosexual lobby has achieved full civil parity,they seem intent on forcing those convictions on peoples of religious convictions,seems wrong to me,and i am not religious,considering it a divisive fanatical mythological belief system.for example closing down by law a 100 year old adoption society because their beliefs prevented them from giving children into homosexual relationships.

• eiriamach | Nov 19, 2012, 08:38 AM EST

  PiperMac, your assertion about "the immutable teachings of Christ" is completely empty because Christ gave NO teachings about marriage equality or homosexuality. You are placing the teachings of mere human beings-- men-- in place of scripture. That's a dangerous practice! There is no shred of relativism in the thinking of people who support marriage equality-- none that I've ever seen! We give sound reasons both from natural law and scripture, along with the best information from science. You, however, have nothing to rely upon but the confused thinking of an old man who has refused to learn from science and thinks that medieval judgments about human reproduction and sexuality must prevail forever.

• Moirann16 | Nov 19, 2012, 08:01 AM EST

  Who exactly let the parish know about this?? It seems someone ratted on him. I hope he runs as fast as possible away from the church!

• FROGGY | Nov 19, 2012, 07:36 AM EST

  Perhaps if he was tortured he would confess and repent.

• BrooklynIrish | Nov 19, 2012, 12:01 AM EST

  @ Olovely and @ TisEyerish, I couldn't agree more. So no one wants to defend the church's "tolerant" handling of catholics who use contraceptives? The church is quite clear on its teaching yet you don't hear of anyone being denied the sacrament of marriage because they used a condom—and plan on continuing to do so until they are ready to have a family. How is that less of an affront to the church than a boy having a political perspective not even targeted at the church?

• PiperMac52 | Nov 18, 2012, 09:07 PM EST

  Eiriemach:To be confirmed in the faith is more than a ceremony and a prayer. It is in essence a commitment to uphold those teachings and scared traditions of the faith that you have learned. Ohterwise why be confirmed. It is to be born again in the spirit as a follow up to our baptism. To think one can separate the immutable teachings of Christ, which are clear and have been understood for over 2000 years from the faith in place of some feel good relativism that says God is Love and therefore we can pick and chose which teaching we prefer, is ludicrous. Christ is forgiving to those who make every effort to follow his laws, though we all fail, it is in the effort to remain true. Scripture is clear regarding what awaits those who willingly chose sin/evil, no matter what happy face one may apply to it these days.

• olovely | Nov 18, 2012, 08:36 PM EST

  It's pathetic but appropriate that the Church should single out a child to make its stand on.

• TisEyerish | Nov 18, 2012, 06:56 PM EST

  Jesus was all about love, understanding and forgiveness. The Catholic Church (or any organized Christ-based religion, for that matter)...not so much. Of course the Catholic Church will not Confirm this boy...he is going against the grain, and heaven forbid that should happen. Heaven forbid anyone should think out of the box, heaven forbid anyone should be accepting of those who live an alternative life style. To Lennon...congratulations on sticking to your principles...you are a far better person for doing that than you would have been if you had caved in to their brainwashing.

• eiriamach | Nov 18, 2012, 06:16 PM EST

  katiemac, you're not very orthodox, are you? I think you misunderstand Confirmation. Its purpose is strengthening in the faith through the graces of the Holy Spirit. The bishop prays, "send forth upon them thy sevenfold Spirit." The ceremony concludes with a prayer that the Holy Spirit may dwell in the hearts of those who have been confirmed. The "sevenfold" gifts of the Holy Spirit include knowledge, wisdom, understanding, counsel, fear of God, piety, and fortitude, or strength of character. Unquestioning obedience is not among them. If you think Lennon lacks understanding, confirmation may be just what he needs. But perhaps he already has more wisdom than the priest who rejected him. The Spirit works in mysterious ways. In ECUSA, confirmation empowers the person for lay ministry and for adult life in the community, including speaking as young people in their churches and to their churches.

• PiperMac52 | Nov 18, 2012, 06:16 PM EST

  Well Gee, what is confirmation all about? It's about confirming your beliefs and adherence to Christ's teachings and his Church. Homosexual Marriage is the antitheses of what Christ established as the union between one man and one woman who become one flesh and share in the gift of creation. The church would be correct not to confirm the boy. The fact that this is even an issue created by the liberal secular humanist media is the real issue here.

• aloistmartin | Nov 18, 2012, 05:59 PM EST

  You can take The Boy out of the Church, but you cant take the Church out of the Boy :(

• BrooklynIrish | Nov 18, 2012, 05:10 PM EST

  @ katiemac So would that hold for AGREEING with the church on contraception too? Should any Catholic who has ever used OR believes it is OK to use a condom be denied participation in the religion as well? Yeah, I didn't think so. Why is one teaching ok to be against or ignore and the other isn't? Because of the sheer numbers of Catholics who simple ignore the church's position on contraception. There would be no church left if they kicked out every Catholic who used contraception—condoms count! As far as the Boy Scout goes, you said he "he did not believe in any of the things Scouts stand for". I doubt the Boy Scouts would appreciate you reducing their organization to just a homophonic organization in your effort to justify their action. They are that but much more too. The Boy Scout you mention was not against "everything the Boys Scouts stand for" he was FOR being recognized for his achievements like every other boy who did the same. He was denied not because he did not achieve all he did but simply because of who he is. The boy for gay marriage can have the love of the church if he just publicly denies his beliefs and the boy scout could have gotten his badge had he only lied about he is. And as long as everyone buys their condoms and birth control pills and pretend it isn't happening then the sincere love of the church is theirs for the having. The word hypocrisy comes to mind… so not what Christ stood for—as usual.

• stanchaz | Nov 18, 2012, 04:51 PM EST

  The Catholic Church is denying ...reality. And it,s denying its TRUE Christian message. For the BIG GUY didn't go around preaching fear and hate, nor did he rail against birth control ...or abortion....or gay marriage . HIS words and HIS message were simple and "down to earth": 1 Corinthians 13 New King James Version (NKJV)   The Greatest Gift: 13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. I know that their are many good people out there that call themselves Catholic ...many good people searching for answers, searching for community, and searching for a way. ...in this all-too-harsh world. There's only one thing I can say to you: think for yourself, be yourself, trust yourself. Don't just accept something because it comes from a "voice of authority". For ultimately YOU are responsible for your life, and how you try to live it. That’s why you have freedom of choice and a conscience: to choose, NOT just to follow....

• eiriamach | Nov 18, 2012, 04:03 PM EST

  This young man has not challenged his Church's teaching on homosexuality. He has simply advocated equal treatment for homosexuals *under the civil law,* in other words, he opposes legal discrimination against homosexuals. He has exercised his freedom of speech and conscience to take a *political* position on a *political* issue. When the clergy can no longer tell the difference between a political position and a religious teaching of their institution, I see no reason to continue calling their institution a religion. So he is excluded from a sacrament of his *church* because his priest doesn't share his *politics*? I can imagine something like this happening in medieval Europe or a theocratic Middle Eastern country, but this is America--Minnesota--21st century!

• BrooklynIrish | Nov 18, 2012, 03:50 PM EST

  @ironjustice, your analogy is beyond ridiculous and offensive to people who SUFFER from Tourette's to suggest they WANT to go around cursing. What the hell??? Secondly, homosexuality not "abnormal" anymore than having blue eyes when most of the world has brown eyes is "abnormal" @Eschetic thanks for pointing out the fact that 99% of people who engage in this debate miss. We are talking about CIVIL marriage—not religious. Civil marriage is about civil rights. And I agree, I hope this is not coming out of Rome although, frankly, it would not be surprising. There is an air of desperation after the election especially. The church needs to change with the times. They used to burn women at the stake as witches. They tortured countless people who did not agree with them, their history is blood stained and horrific. They obviously evolved from that. If they are to survive they will need to continue to do so.

• rose528 | Nov 18, 2012, 03:47 PM EST

  It isn't his religion if they don't agree with what he believes. Any church who denies a person their rights to believe is not a religion. all religions were started as cults and still are cults. all religions should be taxed

• katiemac | Nov 18, 2012, 03:35 PM EST

  Apparrently a lot of people never knew or forgot what confirmation means. It means that you understand and AGREE with the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. This boy obviuosly does NOT AGREE, and therefore is not eligible to receive that sacrament. This is a growing trend among pro-gay agenda types. Participate in an activity or a group that you know has an opposing view and then pitch a hissy fit, along with media coverage when you get exclude. A boy did this exact same routine recently with the Boy Scouts. Worked on his Eagle Project then stood up and stated he did not believe in any of the things Scouts stand for and was SHOCKED and TRAUMATIZED because they refused to award his badge. All of these are efforts to get the gay agenda sympathy. Doesn't work with me.

• Seanmor | Nov 18, 2012, 03:29 PM EST

  The Minnesota courts should order Rev. LaMoine to approve this boy's confirmation. Then if this priest still refuses to comply with the court order, the court should expell him from the priesthood.

• Eschetic | Nov 18, 2012, 03:08 PM EST

  I dearly want to believe this is the ignorance of a local clergy member and not the current position out of Rome. There is a VAST difference between CIVIL marriage which all citizens *should* have access to in the best interest of a stable society, and the sacrament of marriage which the Roman Catholic Church (and other denominations) may have within their prerogatives (we separate church and state to protect ALL faiths) to discriminate as they choose who they choose to confer in. We have come so far to removing discrimination against Catholics (which was once rife on the misconception that they held their allegiance to a foreign Pope over their allegiance to the American political system), that for this stupid punishment of a student WISE enough to speak out on an issued of basic civil fairness to stand and be broadly publicized would hurt ALL Catholics and the position of the church in a multi-cultural society.

• yourgod | Nov 18, 2012, 02:28 PM EST

  ironjustice- you are so right...disabled people or people with disabilities should NEVER have the same rights as everyone else....and the gay marriage...REALLY? gay people that love each other should not have the right to marry...you sir are an ass......i hope you never get discriminated agianst due to your very low IQ.......

• mreinhar2001 | Nov 18, 2012, 01:12 PM EST

  olovely: Roman Catholic confirmation as a sacrament cannot be rescinded. One can stop practicing what one established that one believed with words at the time of one's Roman Catholic Confirmation. Unlike Presbyterian Confirmation, though, Roman Catholic Confirmation is more than words so the actual mark cannot be rescinded.

• mreinhar2001 | Nov 18, 2012, 01:06 PM EST

  CitizenWhy; Thank you also for your background on this story. There is always something missing in these, so I have gone hunting to learn more info in many cases as you have done.

• mreinhar2001 | Nov 18, 2012, 01:03 PM EST

  CitizenWhy: If by the "traditional Protestant position (they are all different don't ya know), you mean Anglican, it has only been evolving since 1930. In 1920, Anglicans were still devoutly pro-life at all times.

• seamus60 | Nov 18, 2012, 11:50 AM EST

  Handsome68. To take your own life is also a grave sin yet they no longer turn your remains away from concecreted ground. Anyway God made us all differant for a reason , even Gays. Who needs any ten commandments ? especially from a church who wanders well off the path they preach.

• Rebelforce | Nov 18, 2012, 11:31 AM EST

  "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. ---Jesus Christ (John 6:37) The mercy of God has always been far greater than the mercy of the scribes, pharisees and other religious leaders. Allelulia!

• GordonHide | Nov 18, 2012, 11:31 AM EST

  Narrow escape for Lennon then?

• Helen Ferone | Nov 18, 2012, 11:12 AM EST

  Live and let live. It may not be to your liking, but its time the church stopped interfering with other peoples thoughts, and if they allowed their priests to marry maybe they wouldn't have so many sex prblems against them, and they'd be a lot happier. It's time to clean your own house before you judge others.

• Joe Kelsall | Nov 18, 2012, 10:38 AM EST

  The Old Testament is nonsense; end of story!

• gobdawpaddy | Nov 18, 2012, 10:37 AM EST

  CitizenWhy, your knowledge of the bible is more extensive than mine and you make some very good points. The actions of the church in this example are pure nonsense.

• hollabackgurl | Nov 18, 2012, 10:32 AM EST

  Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

• CitizenWhy | Nov 18, 2012, 10:05 AM EST

  handsome68, Please, where in the Ten Commandments is gay marriage forbidden? Where in the Bible is there support for the Catholic Church's position on abortion? In fact the traditional Protestant position on allowing abortion cites Exodus. The passage says that a man who forces a miscarriage on a woman and the fetus dies, then he should be fined. If the woman dies he is guilty of murder. Clearly the death of the fetus is not considered murder but the death of the mother is. If you want to back the Catholic church on gay marriage, the basis is the Catholic Church's peculiar theory of Natural Law, not Scripture. And please do not cite Leviticus - Leviticus commands that adulterers be put to death, and that girls who have sex before marriage (but not boys) should be put to death. Until I see the Catholic church -practicing these commandments from Leviticus within its congregations I take any citation of Leviticus against gay marriage as sheer nonsense.

• pilib04 | Nov 18, 2012, 09:56 AM EST

  Switch parishes! Seriously, there are hundreds of parishes out there that are not homophobic and thousands where the pastor does not violate free speech.

• CitizenWhy | Nov 18, 2012, 09:56 AM EST

  Let's be fair here. Other stories have stated that the priest had had difficulty with this confirmation before he knew of the photo favoring gay marriage - because the parents never went to church, and the priest had asked them to in order to support the young man, plus things the young man had said. There was a final meeting with the priest, the boy, the parents, and the young man in which the priest expressed his misgivings. Then the young man called and said he thought it over and did not want to go ahead with the confirmation. THEN the priest learned of the photo in question. Of course the priest would have banned the young man had he seen the photo earlier. But the photo did not in actual time lead to the cancellation of the confirmation. And the young man himself withdrew from the confirmation. ... P.S. I admire the young man for his support of gay marriage. I believe he will be happier in a different church and that church will be fortunate to get him.

• handsome68 | Nov 18, 2012, 09:46 AM EST

  Imagine my shock to learn from this article that the Roman Catholic Church continues to follow the precepts of the Ten Commandments. While many think the Ten Commandments are the Ten Suggestions, they were actually derived from what Christians call the Old Testament. Christianity derived from Judaism. Like it or not, homosexuality is condemned as a grave sin.

• Portia777 | Nov 18, 2012, 09:32 AM EST

  Lucky boy to escape another contract with the Roman cult.

• olovely | Nov 18, 2012, 09:21 AM EST

  If the next step is for the bishops to rescind confirmation for people who support marriage equality they can have mine back. Taking this out on a child is repulsive (but they excel at that, don't they?)