A 17-year-old Is Denied Confirmation Because Of A Post On Facebook

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

All I have to say is good for the Priests. I'm sure it was not easy to do that. Prayers for all those involved in this event and those similar to it.

[Aloysius]

It is right, not because of the voting preference (as HSmom noted above, there are some that were against that amendment just because they didn't think it should be in their constitution), but because he doesn't adhere to the Church's teaching on morals; which is, I'm sure, the conversation that was had on the phone between the priest and the boy. but it is also sad that it came to this. With due respect to Fr. Z, I would never celebrate something like this on a coffee mug, I've always hated his canon 915 coffee mugs, they make me sick actually.

and of course in the Latin Church there is a right to the sacraments in the sense that priests are forbidden from denying them unnecessarily, for grace is supposed to be freely given. a priest may not arbitrarily decide this or that person doesn't get the grace of the sacrament, leaving it that arbitrary leaves it open to abuse. of course the Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Churches also contains "rights" of the faithful, including the right to receive assistance from the spiritual goods of the Church namely the word of God and the Sacraments (Canon 16), the right to the sacraments when one is properly disposed simply means that priests may not deny them for arbitrary reasons, that they are to offer them freely.

it sounds to me like the priest handled the situation properly. indeed, it sounds as if the conversation basically concluded with the boy not seeking confirmation and then the family got wind of it and got upset and made a big media fuss. based on the facts that have become available, I think the priest handled this pastorally and correctly, I'm not sure what the mother is talking about in terms of not being able to receive communion at the parish but I'd bet that's a whole separate issue if it's true.

[CatherineM]

Well, if the mom doesn't want to step into a Catholic Church again, that sounds as if she is denying herself communion.

[Ash Wednesday]

The sad thing is, this boy strikes me as being a sweet kid who probably thinks he's doing the right thing. The parents were likely born in the 60s and raised Catholic in the relaxed culture that followed the second vatican council (NO I am not blaming the council itself) -- there was obviously a lot that the mother clearly didn't understand, and the boy seems to think the bishop is just being "strict" instead of upholding something of importance. One Catholic I grew up with back home openly supported a group of Catholics lobbying to support the gay marriage law in Washington state -- they knew what the bishops had to say about the matter, but believed they were just plain wrong.

It's not really surprising that so many Catholics dissent like this when we confuse feelings and emotions with reason and conscience, and on top of it we are told that what we support or believe in is "hate" and "intolerance" on a daily basis. A lot of people that do these things honestly believe they are in the right. We are such a confused people.

"[color=#001320][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][background=rgb(249, 253, 255)]Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20)[/background][/font][/color]

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(227, 227, 227)]Lennon said fellow students in his confirmation class “liked” the photo on Facebook, but they were still allowed to be confirmed.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/quote]

Well, there's the problem I have with the decision.

[Apotheoun]

Clicking the "like" button on Facebook is not an endorsement of anything and everything that appears in a picture or story. I have clicked the "like" button on news stories that talk about people losing their jobs, and about a man being arrested because he planned to shoot people at a showing of the new Twilight movie. Needless to say, I am not for people losing their jobs, nor am I for a man shooting people. Heck I am not even for people going to see the new Twilight movie.

The young man involved in this affair was not properly disposed to receive the sacrament of confirmation, and by preventing him from going through with something that he was not prepared for spiritually, the priest kept him from committing an act of sacrilege, which would have simply compounded the spiritual harm he has already inflicted upon himself by dissenting from the Church's doctrine on marriage.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Basilisa Marie]

What part of clicking "like" on a picture of a kid standing next to a defaced anti-gay-marriage sign DOESN'T imply that the kids also support what he was doing? Clicking "like" on a negative story can sometimes mean you're showing solidarity with those affected, or that you approve of the actions of some of the people in the story. There is NOTHING of that nature in a picture of a kid standing next to a sign defaced to support gay marriage. Did he caption the picture with a few sentences talking about how bad it was that the sign was defaced, or something of that nature? Did his classmates supplement their "like" with a comment about how wrong the sign is? Nope.

He may have been in the picture, but his classmates might just as well have been in the picture too. If I "liked" a picture of a person standing next to a defaced pro-life sign, it'd be interpreted that I somehow approved of the actions shown in the picture - namely, the act of defacing a pro-life sign.

Obviously the young man in the picture was indisposed to receive the sacrament. But the fact that there's a very good chance some of his classmates hold the same opinion, and are just quiet about it, and were allowed to receive the sacrament sends mixed messages to the kids, including the one denied the sacrament.

[the171]

I think the all the bishops need a Facebook.

[Nihil Obstat]

It is a pretty grey area to begin with, but the difference in degree between creating and posting the picture, and simply liking the picture, seem enough to me to justify taking action in one case but not the other. Just my opinion though.

[Basilisa Marie]

But if the problem isn't that he's posting things on facebook, but that he disagrees with the Church's teaching on gay marriage, anything that looks like the kids might support gay marriage warrents a conversation with their parents and the priest before receiving the sacrament. It's a grey area, sure, but if you're going to deny one kid the sacrament because he does something on the internet that suggests he supports gay marriage, then you've got to be consistent and talk with the other kids who do things on the internet that suggest they support gay marriage. If they don't, then they're basically saying it's okay to disagree with the Church on a moral issue as long as you don't say anything too loudly about it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353262807' post='2512376']
But if the problem isn't that he's posting things on facebook, but that he disagrees with the Church's teaching on gay marriage, anything that looks like the kids might support gay marriage warrents a conversation with their parents and the priest before receiving the sacrament. It's a grey area, sure, but if you're going to deny one kid the sacrament because he does something on the internet that suggests he supports gay marriage, then you've got to be consistent and talk with the other kids who do things on the internet that suggest they support gay marriage. If they don't, then they're basically saying it's okay to disagree with the Church on a moral issue as long as you don't say anything too loudly about it.
[/quote]
What I mean is that the difference in degree makes interpreting the meaning behind the actions somewhat difficult.
Creating and posting a picture, as this kid did, is marginally stronger evidence that he actively dissents from Church teaching. Liking that picture still might constitute minor evidence, but it is quite a bit less certain, and perhaps uncertain enough that it does not warrant action.

Again, from my perspective that is how I am interpreting it. There may be more to the story, for all I know.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1353262807' post='2512376']
But if the problem isn't that he's posting things on facebook, but that he disagrees with the Church's teaching on gay marriage, anything that looks like the kids might support gay marriage warrents a conversation with their parents and the priest before receiving the sacrament. It's a grey area, sure, but if you're going to deny one kid the sacrament because he does something on the internet that suggests he supports gay marriage, then you've got to be consistent and talk with the other kids who do things on the internet that suggest they support gay marriage. If they don't, then they're basically saying it's okay to disagree with the Church on a moral issue as long as you don't say anything too loudly about it.
[/quote]
And how do you know that the priest did not contact other people. The information originally released made it sound like the priest arbitrarily stopped this young man's reception of the sacrament, while the information in more recent articles indicates that it was a mutual decision after the priest talked to the young man. For all we know the priest did talk to other people, and unless you know otherwise, perhaps you should refrain from making a judgment in an area where you are not fully informed. That said, based upon what has been revealed in connection with the situation the priest's actions seem quite appropriate, both for the safeguarding of the sacrament and for the protection of the young man's soul from further harm by preventing him from committing an act of sacrilege.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1353262970' post='2512379']
What I mean is that the difference in degree makes interpreting the meaning behind the actions somewhat difficult.
Creating and posting a picture, as this kid did, is marginally stronger evidence that he actively dissents from Church teaching. Liking that picture still might constitute minor evidence, but it is quite a bit less certain, and perhaps uncertain enough that it does not warrant action.

Again, from my perspective that is how I am interpreting it. There may be more to the story, for all I know.
[/quote]
True. For all we know many of the people who liked the picture liked it because of the young man's hairstyle (as foolish as that would be). As I pointed out in an earlier post, hitting the "like" button on Facebook is open to interpretation. It does not necessarily indicate consent to a political or theological message.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Apotheoun

[Basilisa Marie]

[img]http://www.inforum.com/media/story/jpg/2012/11/14/1115marriagesign.jpg[/img]

I still don't see how "liking" this picture is open to interpretation. But whatevs.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Nihil Obstat]

Well like I said, there is a difference in degree. Both creating the picture and liking it, to a certain extent, imply some shakiness on Church teaching. But not to the [i]same[/i] extent.
From what we do know of this case, either the priest did talk to the other people and was satisfied by what he heard, [i]or[/i], he did not feel that simply liking a picture constituted enough doubt to withhold Confirmation. Or both, I guess. As we know, Canon Law is quite strict that "the burden is on ministers to justify withholding sacraments from Catholics who seek them “at appropriate times, properly disposed, and not prohibited by law from receiving them”"
So it seems that the priest felt reasonably certain, both from the picture [i]and[/i] from subsequent conversation with the kid, that he was not properly disposed. But he was not reasonably certain about anyone else involved, therefore he was obligated to confirm them.