Another of those, "hasn't anyone already diaried this?" pieces that I myself only just caught wind of. Into the looking glass you may be thinking, because after all the Catholic Church does not approve of divorce. But wouldn't you know there'd be a wrinkle? The couple in question consists of two gay men.
Details below the squiggle.
Lewistown, Montana, population about 5,900, is located about 100 miles northwest of Billings (Montana's largest city) and about the same distance southeast of Great Falls. That's where Tom Wojtowick was born and raised. Eleven years ago Tom and Bill Huff, his partner of 30 years, returned to Lewistown after having lived in Seattle for many years. Last fall they made a trip back to Seattle to get married. Tom is 73 while Bill is 66; they got married mainly so it would be easier for each to make medical and financial decisions for the other.
It seems Tom was born and raised in the church and both he and Bill were active members. Tom occasionally sat in as organist and both of them sang in the church choir. All was well until Samuel Spierling, the new parish priest, confronted them and told them they could not take confession or sing in the choir or even apparently continue to worship at Saint Leo's as long as they were married. He first told them that they needed to sign a "restoration declaration" supporting the church view that marriage is strictly a man-woman enterprise; they initially reluctantly agreed to take that step. Then Spierling dropped the bomb:
But when the men met with Father Spiering to actually write the statement, the priest told them it would also have to include a timeline for Tom and Paul to cease living together and divorce.
What sort of supposedly spiritual person tells a couple together for over thirty years to just split up, not because their relationship is no longer viable but because HE disapproves of that relationship?
Needless to say Tom and Bill refused to go along with the request.
I've seen any number of people (including friends in real life and on Facebook as well as commenters on the article) deride Tom and Bill for remaining in the Church. I am not Catholic; I don't really have a stake in the issue but it does seem to me that it's for them to decide, just as it is for them--not for a member of the clergy--to decide whether they should stay together or obtain a divorce. If I embraced a particular religion that provided me comfort (and I've gay men and lesbians who were members of churches at least as hostile to the rights of gay people as the Roman Catholic seems to be), why should I be required to give up that faith. Tom and Bill might be better off if they did that; after all the local Episcopal Church in Lewistown supports the freedom to marry. And if they lived in San Francisco they could be members of Most Holy Redeemer Church, a major Roman Catholic church in the midst of the Castro a majority of whose members are gay or lesbian. I daresay not even the Archbishop of San Francisco would have the audacity to tell parishioners there (some of whom are undoubtedly in civil marriages) to up and divorce their spouses.
The article mentions that attendance at Saint Leo's has plummeted since all of this surfaced. Clearly the people in the pews have the same feelings about the issue that most moderately enlightened people everywhere have.
The article I linked to was published on Saturday and mentioned that the Tom and Bill were to have met with the Bishop of the Diocese of Great Falls-Billings that afternoon. I can't find any followup on the meeting though I have gotten the impression that the local bishop is staunchly conservative.