Small-Town Catholic Church at the Center of Same-Sex Marriage Fight

 

Lewistown, Montana, is a town of roughly 6,000, right smack dab in the middle of the state. Legend even has it that the exact center of the state is a drain in the kitchen sink of an old mansion on Main Street. I like the legend, so I’m not about to research the facts.

Now, however, the town is the center of something else: the clash between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the demands of same-sex marriage advocates.

Earlier this month, Fr. Samuel Stierling, Pastor of St. Leo the Great Catholic Church, forbade a “married” gay couple from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and dismissed them from music ministry unless and until they renounce their marriage, divorce, separate, assume a celibate lifestyle, and acknowledge and abide by the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are gravely sinful.

The two men, Paul Huff and Tom Wojtowick, are longtime members of the Church, and have for years been involved in music ministry and local community activities. Sometime in the recent past, the two men traveled to Seattle and got themselves hitched under Washington law. Although they’ve evidently kept fairly quiet about their ersatz nuptials, word got back to Fr. Spierling, who called Huff and Wojtowick into his office and asked if the rumors were true. Huff and Wojtowick acknowledged that the marriage had taken place, at which point Spierling informed them that, under Canon Law and Church moral teaching, they had effectively cut themselves off from the Sacrament

As was to be expected, the outrage meter is spiking into the red. According to news reports, some Church members have departed for other pastures, while many traditional believers feel beleaguered. The Bishop of the Diocese of Great Falls/Billings, the Reverend Michael Warfel, has firmly stated that, while he empathizes with the gay couple, he is obliged in his role as leader of the flock to affirm Catholic moral truths.

When a Catholic publicly declares, whether in word or action, that he opposes Church teachings, the Church responds by denying him the Sacrament, and demands that he accept and abide by Church doctrine. Under Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law:

“Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Huff and Wojtowick have for years held themselves out as active homosexuals in what they describe as a long-term commitment. This was evidently tolerated by earlier pastors. When they presumed to marry, however, they acted so contrary to Catholic teaching that Fr. Spierling apparently concluded that they were scandalizing the faithful and had to be disciplined; otherwise, their behavior would imply that the Church accepted an immoral lifestyle — and even accepted their ersatz marriage — as consistent with Church doctrine. This, in turn, would suggest to other members of the flock that all of the Church’s moral teachings — not just those on the question of homosexuality — are subject to individual inclination.

Of course, the secular press has responded with the usual pro-same-sex marriage hellfire and brimstone. The editorial staff of the Billings Gazette, filled as it is with many learned theologians, has demanded that Bishop Warfel accept the couple’s marriage, because, after all, the true role of the church is to make people feel good about themselves. The Gazette goes so far as to criticize other Church decisions, such as the discharge of a lesbian teacher at Butte Central Catholic High School after she became pregnant — in utter defiance of Catholic moral teaching —by artificial means. The Gazette also took offense at the firing of a Church employee who worked at Planned Parenthood, because — so goes the reasoning —the Church must be inclusive … even of an employee who had aided and abetted abortion, a species of murder under Catholic Doctrine.

The arrogance of the opinion is matched only by its breathtaking ignorance of Catholic teaching and the role of the Catholic Church. The Church is not Dr. Phil, nor a group of self-indulgent hippies singing “Kumbaya” around a bonfire. The “role” of the Church is to shepherd the flock into the Kingdom of Heaven. That is a tough business. According to Catholic doctrine, as stated quite unambiguously by our Lord, those who persist in sin will find themselves in eternal fire (Mathew: 10:28). This may be a hard message for modern men, but the Church takes this as deadly serious business.

There is no question that the Church is under siege all around the country. Lawsuits challenging morals clauses in Church contracts are being filed in the courts. Atheist groups continue a wide ranging attack against Christian teaching in the public square. And it won’t be long before the Department of Health and Human Services requires churches to provide surgical abortion insurance coverage. In fact, the ACA already does effectively require such coverage.

Persecution is nothing new for Catholics and other Christians. The Middle East offers proof that red martyrdom, actual killing of the faithful, is underway. In America, we are seeing white martyrdom. No killings, but a Church forced to defend its teachings in the courts, press, universities, and the public square.

Christians are being forced to remain inside church buildings and to just stay out of the public square. One wonders when the order will come to burn down the churches—and the faithful in them.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 272 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Sounds to me like this particular church and a few of its congregants might want to consider going their separate ways, but I don’t see anybody being “persecuted” here, on either side.  The church, in an exercise of its undiminished religious freedom, is insisting on its congregants adhering to its teachings.  The congregants, in exercise of their freedom as citizens of this pluralistic republic are refusing to subject themselves to church teachings they consider errant and, there being no middle ground, the church and the congregants are going their separate ways.  No sign of ISIS crucifying anybody here that I can see.

    An interesting story but as you can probably see, I think the leap from “local paper criticizes pastor’s decision” to “middle eastern martyrdom” is a bit overwrought.

    • #1
  2. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Cato: Can you even read this mess? I had a terrible time with editing.

    • #2
  3. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Mike Rapkoch:Cato: Can you even read this mess? I had a terrible time with editing.

    I’m pretty sure I made it through, though yes, I had to jump over a lot of gibberish to get to the islands of text to do so.

    • #3
  4. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    It’s looking better now.  A funny font, but at least it’s just text, not all the code breaking it up.

    • #4
  5. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Cato Rand:It’s looking better now. A funny font, but at least it’s just text, not all the code breaking it up.

    Yea it’s pretty ugly. I’ll try to fix it later after i finish chewing my fingers off. :-)

    • #5
  6. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Cato Rand:It’s looking better now. A funny font, but at least it’s just text, not all the code breaking it up.

    Yea it’s pretty ugly. I’ll try to fix it later after i finish chewing my fingers off. :-)

    LOL.

    • #6
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    From the Billings Gazette:

    Wojtowick and Huff talked with Spiering and Warfel and other diocesan officials in a conference call on Aug. 25. Out of that, Wojtowick said, came an agreement that Wojtowick and Spiering would write a restoration statement, that in part, would support the concept of marriage between a man and a woman, which Wojtowick and Huff were willing to do.

    “It was not our intent to challenge that (concept), but to have the rights of civic protections in our old age,” Wojtowick wrote.

    When Spiering and Wojtowick met to write the statement, Wojtowick said the priest told him they would also have to set up a timeline for the two men to separate and divorce, which Wojtowick said he and Huff did not agree to.

    Though they provided the timeline of events, Wojtowick and Huff are refraining from further comment on the issue until they have heard the bishop speak on Saturday night.

    Imo the priest and the church are completely within their rights, but the issue is not the couple publicly questioning traditional marriage (which they say they don’t want to) but their being publicly homosexual but not celibate.

    • #7
  8. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Great post, Mike, easily readable and absolutely necessary.  Out here in Seattle, the local press and most everyone else denigrates the Catholic Church for requiring its members to uphold and live by Church doctrine.  The majority of Catholics here do not live by church doctrine, and think the Church should change to match their preferences.

    One more thing.  Last week, I read in the Wall Street Journal that the Pope had performed a huge wedding ceremony at St. Peter’s for a large number of couples, many of whom had previously divorced members, and some who had children out of wedlock.  Is that a really good thing for a Pope to do?  I almost did a post entitled “Is the Pope Catholic?”, because that didn’t sound genuinely Catholic to me.

    • #8
  9. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    RushBabe49:Great post, Mike, easily readable and absolutely necessary. Out here in Seattle, the local press and most everyone else denigrates the Catholic Church for requiring its members to uphold and live by Church doctrine. The majority of Catholics here do not live by church doctrine, and think the Church should change to match their preferences.

    One more thing. Last week, I read in the Wall Street Journal that the Pope had performed a huge wedding ceremony at St. Peter’s for a large number of couples, many of whom had previously divorced members, and some who had children out of wedlock. Is that a really good thing for a Pope to do? I almost did a post entitled “Is the Pope Catholic?”, because that didn’t sound genuinely Catholic to me.

    It looks to me that the secular press has again reported selectively on the marriage ceremonies. Here’s a link from Vatican News. The Pope’s homily sounds like a firm re-assertion of Catholic doctrine. Also, although I don’t know, I suspect the various couples who had previously lived together had to renounce such living arrangements before the weddings. Catholics are required to go to Confession before their marriage, and of course cannot take Holy Communion if they are in a state of mortal sin. Although some of what the Pope has said makes me uneasy, I think that’s at least in part because the secular press, like the knot heads at the Billings Gazette, ignore actual Church teachings in hopes of a more touch feely Church.

    • #9
  10. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    The Catholic Church has had way more than its fair share of “rebel” priests – preaching socialist dogma and all that comes with it. It should, therefore, not come as a surprise that now suddenly they, too, are being attacked – by the very forces they once championed.

    Faith is something apart from government. That ought to be abundently clear to any Christian no matter the denomination. As such, the Church should be the repository of the conscience of the people, helping to point the moral way to a good life. When people voluntarily step outside its teachings, not in a small way but in a very large way, they should not be surprised when the Church demands they return to the proscribed path. That would be true no matter the Christian denomination. Catholic has nothing to do with this – it is an assault on religious rites.

    If the two feel so strongly, they have the right to create their own sect. See how well they do. But there is no right to demand the Catholic Church, or any other Church, bend to the local will.

    • #10
  11. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Also, my thanks to whoever fixed the mess of my clumsy editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • #11
  12. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Devereaux:The Catholic Church has had way more than its fair share of “rebel” priests – preaching socialist dogma and all that comes with it. It should, therefore, not come as a surprise that now suddenly they, too, are being attacked – by the very forces they once championed.

    Faith is something apart from government. That ought to be abundently clear to any Christian no matter the denomination. As such, the Church should be the repository of the conscience of the people, helping to point the moral way to a good life. When people voluntarily step outside its teachings, not in a small way but in a very large way, they should not be surprised when the Church demands they return to the proscribed path. That would be true no matter the Christian denomination. Catholic has nothing to do with this – it is an assault on religious rites.

    If the two feel so strongly, they have the right to create their own sect. See how well they do. But there is no right to demand the Catholic Church, or any other Church, bend to the local will.

    I agree. The Church hierarchy has really messed things up with its “social justice” political views. Worse is the pandering to the left. Cardinal Dolan has been in the lead on this is the last few years, including, maybe especially, by yuckin it up with O at the Al Smith Dinner–a slap in the face to Catholics who stand the lines in the culture wars.

    • #12
  13. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Zafar:From the Billings Gazette:

    Wojtowick and Huff talked with Spiering and Warfel and other diocesan officials in a conference call on Aug. 25. Out of that, Wojtowick said, came an agreement that Wojtowick and Spiering would write a restoration statement, that in part, would support the concept of marriage between a man and a woman, which Wojtowick and Huff were willing to do.

    “It was not our intent to challenge that (concept), but to have the rights of civic protections in our old age,” Wojtowick wrote.

    When Spiering and Wojtowick met to write the statement, Wojtowick said the priest told him they would also have to set up a timeline for the two men to separate and divorce, which Wojtowick said he and Huff did not agree to.

    Though they provided the timeline of events, Wojtowick and Huff are refraining from further comment on the issue until they have heard the bishop speak on Saturday night.

    Imo the priest and the church are completely within their rights, but the issue is not the couple publicly questioning traditional marriage (which they say they don’t want to) but their being publicly homosexual but not celibate.

    I think that’s a fair assessment, although I think the marriage thing was probably the last straw. This whole things ultimately resolves around the doctrine of scandal, which involves a Catholic publicly defying Church teaching. I am troubled that this got into the press. I would be very surprised if Fr. Spierling went public. I would even guess that his meeting with the two men was under the Seal of the Confessional. If it was Fr. Spierling would be absolutely prohibited from revealing anything about the get together. He is not even so much as free to confirm that a Confession took place. Violating the Seal is grounds for a priest being defrocked. This probably got out when these gentlemen told others in music ministry that they were ordered to quit. I’m not in the least suggesting a nefarious intent, only that it would be human nature to at least give an explanation. I would also guess that the men told whoever to keep this private, but somebody slipped up, again human nature.

    Personally, I have some sympathy for these men. My mother attends St. Leo’s, and tells me they are both kindly fellows. This has to be difficult for them.

    That said, the Church must defend doctrine. I’ve been to the Confessional many times, and it is no fun to have a priest look at me and tell me that, “yes, that is a sin.”

    • #13
  14. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    To Cato @ #1, I do not agree that the OP makes an overwrought leap. What Mike does do by his comparison is to suggest that martyrdom can come in more ways than by the sword, and that the attacks on the Catholic Church (and, one might add, on religion in general) that originate from a certain secular standpoint may in the long run be as dangerous as those violent acts that arise from a hostile religious standpoint. I think his comparison is apt.

    • #14
  15. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Devereaux:The Catholic Church has had way more than its fair share of “rebel” priests – preaching socialist dogma and all that comes with it. It should, therefore, not come as a surprise that now suddenly they, too, are being attacked – by the very forces they once championed.

    Faith is something apart from government. That ought to be abundently clear to any Christian no matter the denomination. As such, the Church should be the repository of the conscience of the people, helping to point the moral way to a good life. When people voluntarily step outside its teachings, not in a small way but in a very large way, they should not be surprised when the Church demands they return to the proscribed path. That would be true no matter the Christian denomination. Catholic has nothing to do with this – it is an assault on religious rites.

    If the two feel so strongly, they have the right to create their own sect. See how well they do. But there is no right to demand the Catholic Church, or any other Church, bend to the local will.

    They needn’t form their own sect.  It is no longer difficult to find a church that would welcome them.  It just wouldn’t be Catholic.

    • #15
  16. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Sandy:To Cato @ #1, I do not agree that the OP makes an overwrought leap.What Mike does do by his comparison is to suggest thatmartyrdom can come in more ways than by the sword,and that the attacks on the Catholic Church (and, one might add, on religion in general) that originate from a certain secular standpoint may in the long run be as dangerous as those violent acts that arise from a hostile religious standpoint.I think his comparison is apt.

    I think that is nuts.  You want to take a stand in a free society, you run the risk of being criticized.  Grow a pair and get over it.  Verbal criticism is not “persecution,” and to compare criticism of this priest to the terror being inflicted on Christians in the middle east today is deluded.

    • #16
  17. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Cato, This is not about a single criticism. It is about a larger context in which religion is under attack, which Mike clearly lays out in his third to last paragraph. If I were a Catholic, I would be very concerned, and you haven’t convinced me to the contrary by calling me nuts and delusional.

    • #17
  18. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Cato Rand:

    Sandy:To Cato @ #1, I do not agree that the OP makes an overwrought leap.What Mike does do by his comparison is to suggest thatmartyrdom can come in more ways than by the sword,and that the attacks on the Catholic Church (and, one might add, on religion in general) that originate from a certain secular standpoint may in the long run be as dangerous as those violent acts that arise from a hostile religious standpoint.I think his comparison is apt.

    I think that is nuts. You want to take a stand in a free society, you run the risk of being criticized. Grow a pair and get over it. Verbal criticism is not “persecution,” and to compare criticism of this priest to the terror being inflicted on Christians in the middle east today is deluded.

    That’s not quite what I did. I merely pointed out that there is a red martyrdom in the Middle East, there is a white martyrdom here, as the Church is not merely being criticized, she is being sued, forced out of charities for her views, and besieged by the forces of secularism. Cardinal George has expressed concern, legitimately in my view, that if the ACA continues Catholic Hospitals will be gone in short order. No, that’s not the same as in Iraq, but it is far more than “criticism” we should “get over.” When an institution is forced out of the public square, even if by non-violent means, it is being persecuted.

    You can call me alarmist all you want, but statements like this from the Gazette editorial are alarming:

    “In that respect, the Catholic Church has become more of the problem than any solution.” 

    • #18
  19. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Sandy:Cato,This is not about a single criticism.It is about a larger context in which religion is under attack, which Mike clearly lays out in his third to last paragraph.If I were a Catholic, I would be very concerned, and you haven’t convinced me to the contrary by calling me nuts and delusional.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but answer me this, which would you prefer happen to you — criticism in a local newspaper?  Or crucifixion?  Unless you are indifferent between the two, the comparison is overwrought — but maybe you are indifferent, I don’t know.  I know I’m not.

    As an aside, this is a free country for the Billings Beacon or whatever it’s called just as much as it is for Father Get the Gays Away.  The right to practice your religion and hold to your dogmas doesn’t mean the right to demand that everybody else smile and tell you how wonderful you are no matter how much you act like a jerk.  I wouldn’t see him crucified either, but if the local newspaper thinks he’s behaving like a @^&#*(*, it has every right in the world to say so.

    • #19
  20. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Cato Rand:

    Sandy:To Cato @ #1, I do not agree that the OP makes an overwrought leap.What Mike does do by his comparison is to suggest thatmartyrdom can come in more ways than by the sword,and that the attacks on the Catholic Church (and, one might add, on religion in general) that originate from a certain secular standpoint may in the long run be as dangerous as those violent acts that arise from a hostile religious standpoint.I think his comparison is apt.

    I think that is nuts. You want to take a stand in a free society, you run the risk of being criticized. Grow a pair and get over it. Verbal criticism is not “persecution,” and to compare criticism of this priest to the terror being inflicted on Christians in the middle east today is deluded.

    That’s not quite what I did. I merely pointed out that there is a red martyrdom in the Middle East, there is a white martyrdom here, as the Church is not merely being criticized, she is being sued, forced out of charities for her views, and besieged by the forces of secularism. Cardinal George has expressed concern, legitimately in my view, that if the ACA continues Catholic Hospitals will be gone in short order. No, that’s not the same as in Iraq, but it is far more than “criticism” we should “get over.” When an institution is forced out of the public square, even if by non-violent means, it is being persecuted.

    You can call me alarmist all you want, but statements like this from the Gazette editorial are alarming:

    “White martyrdom”?  Neat rhetorical trick.  You get to claim persecution on the scale of the victims of ISIS while denying that you’re doing so.

    • #20
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Cato Rand: White martyrdom”?  Neat rhetorical trick.

    No, it’s a real (Catholic) thing. Catholics know the difference between “white” and “red” martyrdom. In the latter case, you die for the faith. In the former, you’re persecuted for it. But you’re right that no one should believe being criticized publicly should be thought of as persecution. Mike is pointing to more than cheap shots in the local newspaper.

    • #21
  22. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Cato Rand:

    Sandy:Cato,This is not about a single criticism.It is about a larger context in which religion is under attack, which Mike clearly lays out in his third to last paragraph.If I were a Catholic, I would be very concerned, and you haven’t convinced me to the contrary by calling me nuts and delusional.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but answer me this, which would you prefer happen to you — criticism in a local newspaper? Or crucifixion? Unless you are indifferent between the two, the comparison is overwrought — but maybe you are indifferent, I don’t know. I know I’m not.

    As an aside, this is a free country for the Billings Beacon or whatever it’s called just as much as it is for Father Get the Gays Away. The right to practice your religion and hold to your dogmas doesn’t mean the right to demand that everybody else smile and tell you how wonderful you are no matter how much you act like a jerk. I wouldn’t see him crucified either, but if the local newspaper thinks he’s behaving like a @^&#*(*, it has every right in the world to say so.

    I don’t see the sense of your question, unless you believe that Mike is incorrect in his description of what is happening to religion in the United States, but you have not made that argument.  No one wants to be crucified, but religious people do want to be allowed to practice their religions in peace and with the protections of the first amendment, and it seems to me that this is for them a life and death matter.   Editors also have a right to their opinions, and I don’t see that Mike was denying that, but their readers also have a right to be alarmed by those opinions, especially as the larger context has been laid out.

    So this is about private, protected (or formerly protected) rights under the Constitution, and not about who is or isn’t a jerk.  Whatever one thinks about Catholic dogma, as a conservative one ought to be wary of invasions of these rights.

    • #22
  23. x Inactive
    x
    @CatoRand

    Sandy:

    Cato Rand:

    Sandy:Cato,This is not about a single criticism.It is about a larger context in which religion is under attack, which Mike clearly lays out in his third to last paragraph.If I were a Catholic, I would be very concerned, and you haven’t convinced me to the contrary by calling me nuts and delusional.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but answer me this, which would you prefer happen to you — criticism in a local newspaper? Or crucifixion? Unless you are indifferent between the two, the comparison is overwrought — but maybe you are indifferent, I don’t know. I know I’m not.

    As an aside, this is a free country for the Billings Beacon or whatever it’s called just as much as it is for Father Get the Gays Away. The right to practice your religion and hold to your dogmas doesn’t mean the right to demand that everybody else smile and tell you how wonderful you are no matter how much you act like a jerk. I wouldn’t see him crucified either, but if the local newspaper thinks he’s behaving like a @^&#*(*, it has every right in the world to say so.

    I don’t see the sense of your question, unless you believe that Mike is incorrect in his description of what is happening to religion in the United States, but you have not made that argument. No one wants to be crucified, but religious people do want to be allowed to practice their religions in peace and with the protections of the first amendment, and it seems to me that this is for them a life and death matter. Editors also have a right to their opinions, and I don’t see that Mike was denying that, but their readers also have a right to be alarmed by those opinions, especially as the larger context has been laid out.

    So this is about private, protected (or formerly protected) rights under the Constitution, and not about who is or isn’t a jerk. Whatever one thinks about Catholic dogma, as a conservative one ought to be wary of invasions of these rights.

    I think Mike has a point, although I think he (and you) seem to see only one side of it.  Certainly we do have impositions on religious belief going on that I’m uncomfortable with, though none I’d describe as a denial of the right to “practice their religions in peace.”  That’s a bridge we haven’t crossed to my knowledge.  Compelling you to bake a cake for a same sex wedding, while wrong (and unconstitutional) in my opinion, is not the same as prohibiting you from celebrating a mass.

    But that’s really my point.  You and Mike are conflating all these problems or ersatz problems in a kind of moral equivalency when in fact, the differences in degrees are in some cases so incredibly vast as to amount to differences in kind.  That’s certainly true where the anti-Christian violence in the middle east is concerned — which is what started this conversation.  It’s simply at a scale of horror and evil before which all of these other things pale.  It’s like comparing the mass murder Auschwitz to painting a swastika on a synagogue.  Neither act is laudable, but they are hardly comparable.  There’s something both absurd and disingenuous about a rhetorical tack that pretends they are.

    As to the side I don’t think you see — I think it is deeply problematic for the state to deputize the Catholic Church to act as the state’s agent in certain matters if the Church is going to discriminate in the performance of those functions in ways the state could not.  I’m thinking of (and I suspect you were thinking of) the controversy over whether the state should be funding Catholic Charities’ adoptions services if Catholic Charities insists on discriminating against gay potential adopters.  If the Church wants to run an adoption service on its own that discriminates, that’s within its rights, clearly.  But if it’s going to take state funds and act as an agent of the state, it’s got to make the choice to treat citizens with the equality demanded of the state IMO.  I suspect you disagree, no?  Am I wrong in assuming that episodes like that are part of what you consider persecution?

    • #23
  24. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    hoo boy.

    I grew up in Lewistown, Montana.  Along with my wife.

    Your legend is partially correct.  There is a tile at the swimming pool in the Yogo Inn, which also claims to be the exact geographical center.  Most believe it to actually be the kitchen sink at First Christian Church, however.  My wife and I used to go up to the top of main street hill, in the parking lot of that church, and look out over the town – in high school, when we were first dating.  Romantic spot for a couple of teenagers in love.  :)

    I fully support the priests in this question.  It has become national news specifically because we are a small town.  I remember an article published by NY times a while back, where they interviewed some old lady about “the black guy” who worked at Pamida (now Shopko).  The article painted lewistown as a backward racist rural nightmare, but the reality is almost exactly the opposite.  That old lady didn’t care one iota that the guy was black, only that he helped her with her groceries.  She responded honestly to a question, and the “journalist” fit her quite (and her innocent language) into his arrogant narrative.  I’ve never trusted big-city types when they come into my town and try to tell a story.  They are liars with an agenda, and this is no different.  I’ve lived in Denver, Portland (OR), Norfolk, Rochester, Seattle…  Lewistown Montana is the most tolerant, least racist place I’ve ever lived.  Seattle, land of liberals, is easily the least tolerant place I’ve ever been.

    • #24
  25. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Cato Rand:Sounds to me like this particular church and a few of its congregants might want to consider going their separate ways, but I don’t see anybody being “persecuted” here, on either side. The church, in an exercise of its undiminished religious freedom, is insisting on its congregants adhering to its teachings. The congregants, in exercise of their freedom as citizens of this pluralistic republic are refusing to subject themselves to church teachings they consider errant and, there being no middle ground, the church and the congregants are going their separate ways. No sign of ISIS crucifying anybody here that I can see.

    An interesting story but as you can probably see, I think the leap from “local paper criticizes pastor’s decision” to “middle eastern martyrdom” is a bit overwrought.

    I agree with this.  There is nothing wrong with people dividing over issues – although I do think it creates difficulty for the Church (all of Christendom).  That is why we had the council of Nice.  With today’s economic prosperity, these questions become more important (because emotions become more important, I think), and in the short-term, I’m happy to see people just divide over the issues and learn to get along while disagreeing.  Interestingly, small towns like mine are painted as all wanting to string up the Matthew Shepherds of the world – but reality is different.  We want to be left alone.  You’re safer as a practicing homosexual in Lewistown Montana than you ever would be as an outed conservative in Seattle.

    • #25
  26. user_44643 Inactive
    user_44643
    @MikeLaRoche

    My grandmother was born and raised in Flaxville, Montana,  My dad was born in Deer Lodge and grew up in Missoula.  I lived in Missoula myself back in the ’90s.  Montana is a wonderful state.  Hope I can live there again someday.

    All the ignorant, out-of-state leftists who pillory that state can get stuffed.

    • #26
  27. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Cato Rand:

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Cato Rand:

    Sandy:To Cato @ #1, I do not agree that the OP makes an overwrought leap.What Mike does do by his comparison is to suggest thatmartyrdom can come in more ways than by the sword,and that the attacks on the Catholic Church (and, one might add, on religion in general) that originate from a certain secular standpoint may in the long run be as dangerous as those violent acts that arise from a hostile religious standpoint.I think his comparison is apt.

    I think that is nuts. You want to take a stand in a free society, you run the risk of being criticized. Grow a pair and get over it. Verbal criticism is not “persecution,” and to compare criticism of this priest to the terror being inflicted on Christians in the middle east today is deluded.

    That’s not quite what I did. I merely pointed out that there is a red martyrdom in the Middle East, there is a white martyrdom here, as the Church is not merely being criticized, she is being sued, forced out of charities for her views, and besieged by the forces of secularism. Cardinal George has expressed concern, legitimately in my view, that if the ACA continues Catholic Hospitals will be gone in short order. No, that’s not the same as in Iraq, but it is far more than “criticism” we should “get over.” When an institution is forced out of the public square, even if by non-violent means, it is being persecuted.

    You can call me alarmist all you want, but statements like this from the Gazette editorial are alarming:

    “White martyrdom”? Neat rhetorical trick. You get to claim persecution on the scale of the victims of ISIS while denying that you’re doing so.

    The term “white martyr” has a defined meaning in Catholic Doctrine–it means he who suffers for the Church.” This is not a cheap rhetorical trick. You are certainly entitled to ridicule, but please get your fats straight.

    As for Church persecution, there are lawsuits all over the place challenging the Church in its employment practices. In Cincinnati a plaintiff in a discrimination case won a $170, 000 verdict against the Archdiocese because whe was fired for being artificially insemintaed , which the Church declares intrinsically evil. Similar lawsuits are pending in numerous courts. The Butte teacher mentioned in the OP has hired that same Cincinnati lawyer, and filed a similar suit.  Similar case has been filed in Kansas City.

    You may see this as sport, but Christians see a more ominous sign.

    • #27
  28. user_554634 Member
    user_554634
    @MikeRapkoch

    Innocent Smith:hoo boy.

    I grew up in Lewistown, Montana. Along with my wife.

    Your legend is partially correct. There is a tile at the swimming pool in the Yogo Inn, which also claims to be the exact geographical center. Most believe it to actually be the kitchen sink at First Christian Church, however. My wife and I used to go up to the top of main street hill, in the parking lot of that church, and look out over the town – in high school, when we were first dating. Romantic spot for a couple of teenagers in love. :)

    I fully support the priests in this question. It has become national news specifically because we are a small town. I remember an article published by NY times a while back, where they interviewed some old lady about “the black guy” who worked at Pamida (now Shopko). The article painted lewistown as a backward racist rural nightmare, but the reality is almost exactly the opposite. That old lady didn’t care one iota that the guy was black, only that he helped her with her groceries. She responded honestly to a question, and the “journalist” fit her quite (and her innocent language) into his arrogant narrative. I’ve never trusted big-city types when they come into my town and try to tell a story. They are liars with an agenda, and this is no different. I’ve lived in Denver, Portland (OR), Norfolk, Rochester, Seattle… Lewistown Montana is the most tolerant, least racist place I’ve ever lived. Seattle, land of liberals, is easily the least tolerant place I’ve ever been.

    Yea, I only heard of the center of the state legend a few years ago. I was visiting my folks and someone told me the kitchen drain story. I never lived in Lewistown, but my folks moved there after I left high school. Are you living in Lewistown now?

    • #28
  29. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Mike Rapkoch:

    Innocent Smith:hoo boy.

    I grew up in Lewistown, Montana. Along with my wife.

    Your legend is partially correct. There is a tile at the swimming pool in the Yogo Inn, which also claims to be the exact geographical center. Most believe it to actually be the kitchen sink at First Christian Church, however. My wife and I used to go up to the top of main street hill, in the parking lot of that church, and look out over the town – in high school, when we were first dating. Romantic spot for a couple of teenagers in love. :)

    I fully support the priests in this question. It has become national news specifically because we are a small town. I remember an article published by NY times a while back, where they interviewed some old lady about “the black guy” who worked at Pamida (now Shopko). The article painted lewistown as a backward racist rural nightmare, but the reality is almost exactly the opposite. That old lady didn’t care one iota that the guy was black, only that he helped her with her groceries. She responded honestly to a question, and the “journalist” fit her quite (and her innocent language) into his arrogant narrative. I’ve never trusted big-city types when they come into my town and try to tell a story. They are liars with an agenda, and this is no different. I’ve lived in Denver, Portland (OR), Norfolk, Rochester, Seattle… Lewistown Montana is the most tolerant, least racist place I’ve ever lived. Seattle, land of liberals, is easily the least tolerant place I’ve ever been.

    Yea, I only heard of the center of the state legend a few years ago. I was visiting my folks and someone told me the kitchen drain story. I never lived in Lewistown, but my folks moved there after I left high school. Are you living in Lewistown now?

    No, we live in Yakima WA, but my heart is in Lewistown.  My wife’s parents still live in the house where she was born.  If you ever find yourself in Lewistown, give me a call (seriously!) and I’ll get you a place to stay and an itinerary of things to do within seconds.  It is a fantastic city.  Kind of hard to find good employment, though, which is why we’re not living there now.

    Funny thing about Lewistown.  All of my best friends are from there.  We all went to high school (and grade school) together.  We make friends and keep them for life.  A bunch of us moved to Seattle, and we’d have parties…  Seattle people would be amazed:  “YOU’RE from Lewistown, too?!”  Yup.  We stick together.  Most loyal people you’ll ever meet in your life.  If you meet a person from Lewistown, you’ve got an instant friend, guaranteed.  That’s what makes this whole controversy so ironic.  Nobody reporting on it has any idea about the actual place.  It becomes a small-town scapegoat for all the things big-city liberals want to believe about America.  All false.

    • #29
  30. Ryan M Inactive
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    p.s. (and sorry for the self promotion): If you want a slice of Montana, listen to Flyover Country.  My wife and Terry (my co-host) were both born in the same hospital at roughly the same time…  That town of 6,000 has a lot more to offer than what you read about us in the NY Times.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.