As I've already stated I was not present for the situation in question, nor was I a member of the church in question (my grandmother was but I was not). So what right do I have in commenting on something outside of my personal experience or participation? My primary concern and the reason for my comment is the chosen course of resolution taken by the apparently wronged party; the Human Rights Tribunal.
Now from what I understand the situation began when a group of congregants took issue with the Parish's new Priest over economic matters. It seems that this group of congregants were unable to reach satisfaction within the diocese concerning this matter and, according to the complaintant in the HRT case, chose to change tactics in their persecution of the Priest by attacking members of the Parish that supported the Priest. This led to the complaintant being asked to step down from his voluntary position as Altar Server by the Bishop.
In his description of the events leading up to his filing of his complaint with the HRT, the complaintant argues that the group of perishoners "felt that they were more qualified to run the church than the pastor, and ultimately more qualified to run the diocese than the Bishop. That is not the Catholic model." Now I have to assume that the Catholic model to which he is speaking is the one where the Church hierarchy is involved and the perishoners accept graciously the decision of the Church whether it agrees or disagrees with them. This however does not seem to be what happened as "in January, the Bishop decided to address the tactics of these parishioners in a letter to all parishioners that accompanied our year end financial report. The Bishop called upon this group to stop their malicious attack of Father Hood. The group was not persuaded by the Bishop's letter and they continued their campaign of slander and libel against Father Hood."
It does appear that despite the decision of the diocese against the group's actions against the Priest, the diocese did agree with the group in the matter of a homosexual person serving as an Altar Server. We are told that not only was the local Bishop involved but so too were the Arch-Bishop and the Papal Nuncio. It was after this that the complaintant was asked to step down from his voluntary position within the church.
The actions of the group against the Priest did not stop but expanded from involving 12 people to include 45 people. The Bishop was once again involved and told the party to cease and desisit from their actions against the Parish Priest as "the Bishop did respond with a very strongly worded letter to the 45, he told them that their accusations were unfounded, their actions were un-Christian, and their claims about the liturgy were not worthy of a response. His letter essentially ordered these people to stop attacking Father Hood and gave them the option of attending another church if they weren't happy."
It was at this point that the complaintant involved a lawyer and told that he "two options. One was to sue the 2 ringleaders of the group, the other was to file a human rights complaint. I opted for the human rights complaint. In my complaint, I have argued that this group of 12, by threatening the Bishop, have recklessly trampled on my rights as a human being, and my right to respond to my calling in the church. As such I have asked for the Bishop to reinstate me, and to preach a sermon on the ills of spreading rumour and innuendo. I have also asked each of the 12 parishioners to make a donation of $20,000 to a charity of my choosing. Finally, I have asked the diocese to cover my legal expenses, up to a maximum of $25,000."
This is my issue with this ongoing situation: the involvement of the secular authority (HRT) in the operation of the Church.
Now in Canada we don't have a clearly deliniated statement of the seperation of Church and State as our American neighbors do. However, it is accepted that the Church has no place to dictate to the State how it must operate just as the State has no right to dictate to the Church how it must operate. The actions of the complaintant work to end this and place the Church, its doctrines and actions under the control of the government. This is wrong.
Some might see this as a good thing. They might see this as a way of forcing the Church to 'evolve' so that it more clearly matches the current social positions of society. The function of the Church is not to mirror society. The function of the Church is speak truth to the world. It is able to do this because the Church is not of the world, it is of God. As Christ Jesus says: "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it." (John 17:14-16)
The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 that "if any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers."
In my opinion (for what that matters) the complaintant should have followed his own advice and followed the Catholic way in Church matters. He can try and wrap his complaint in the notion of defending the Parish Priest but the fact is that his complaint before the HRT is solely about himself and not the Priest. He goes against his own counsel and his Church (his situation went as high as the Papal Nuncio) by not only refusing to accept the counsel and admonition of the Church but by taking the un-Catholic way and presenting an internal Church matter before the State. Something that both Christ and the Apostle Paul said we were not to do. The inclusion of money in the matter only serves to cheapen it.
Too often people argue that the Church should change in order to meet our perception of what the Church should be. Just as people argue that God should be what we want Him to be. Who are we to tell God who He should be? Who are we to tell the 2000 year old Church to blow with the wind of change in society? If that were the case the Church would be built on shifting sands and not on the rock upon which Christ Jesus founded it.
