IN THEORY:

Father Geoffrey Farrow, a Roman Catholic priest, was removed as pastor of St. Paul Newman Center in Fresno after his sermon opposing the church’s stance supporting Proposition 8, which would amend the state Constitution to ban gay marriage. Farrow, who acknowledged that he is gay, said the proposition would intimidate “gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives.” Church leaders said he did not consult with them before the sermon, and they apologized to parishioners. The congregation is divided on the issue. Farrow faces further discipline, including defrocking. Do you think the church acted appropriately? If so, should he be defrocked?

This priest does not understand the church’s constant teaching on marriage. The church realizes that there are those who struggle with same-sex attraction and encourages them to strive for chastity. There are support groups in place for that very purpose. The church can never condone same-sex “marriage.”

The bishop was correct in issuing an apology and in removing the pastor. It must be remembered that a bishop is responsible for the eternal salvation of all who reside in his diocese. He cannot allow a pastor to blatantly lead people astray. The priest was responsible primarily for the religious formation of college students and failed in that regard.

His removal by the bishop is known as a “medicinal” penalty. The goal is for him to amend his ways and come back fully into the fold.

Father Stephen Doktorczyk

St. Joachim Church, Costa Mesa

I agree with Father Farrow, who was courageous in speaking out. There are differing views among Catholics about legislation involving sexual issues, and this reality should be acknowledged. Many Catholics recognize that their church’s moral teaching on issues such as homosexuality and contraception should not become the law of the land and apply to everyone.

Church history is replete with dissenters who tried to change things from within, rather than leaving over their disagreements. Some were later seen as right and then considered prophetic.

Women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit. Only those who are ordained as priests and deacons are permitted this teaching function. Because those who are priests are viewed as speaking “officially” for the church, Father Farrow will more than likely be required to either silence his dissent or leave the priesthood. It sounds as if he has already decided to stand up for what he thinks is right, regardless of the consequences.

The Rev. Deborah Barrett

Zen Center of Orange County, Costa Mesa

Preachers should share their beliefs and thoughts after prayer, study, experience and reflection. This seems to be what Farrow has done. Those who disagree with what him should discuss the issues rather than exile him.

When those who ask me to speak elsewhere request my text or otherwise demonstrate mistrust as to what I might say, I decline their invitation. When parishioners here disagree with something I preach or teach, I want dialogue honoring their motivations for different perspectives.

While all Episcopal bishops in California are supporting “No on 8,” I cannot imagine any disciplining a preacher who favors Proposition 8. “No on 8” allows religious officiants to solemnize marriages that coincide their religious beliefs; Roman Catholic priests will not be forced to marry divorced people, clergy may refuse to act as agents of the state in signing marriage licenses, and I will continue to preside only at the blessing of couples I believe are ready for Christian marriage. I wish Father Farrow’s “church leaders” could honor differences as respectfully.

(The Very Rev’d Canon) Peter D. Haynes