Teen who defaced an anti-gay poster raises the wrath of a Catholic priest

Lennon Cihak with the vandalised poster he put on Facebook

A CATHOLIC teen in Minnesota, Lennon Cihak, who supports gay marriage AND the Church was reportedly refused confirmation last month by a local priest who spotted a picture of him with a defaced anti-gay marriage poster on Facebook.

According to this report, Rev Gary LaMoine of the Assumption Church in Barnesville, Minnesota, went apeshit after seeing what Lennon had done to the sign, which urged voters to support an amendment demanding that marriage be restricted to “one man and one woman”

Lennon’s mother, Shana, said that she was shocked to hear of the decision after she was called into a private conversation with the priest.

However, the priest has since told the Associated Press that the teen was not in fact denied confirmation, but declined to explain, calling it an “internal and pastoral” matter.

Lennon said that despite the church’s rejection, the incident has not affected his faith.

I don’t want the church to be put down. I don’t want the Catholic religion to be put down.

At this point Captain Mainwaring popped into my head.

Cihak added:

It’s just the way the priest has things running. He’s so strict. He won’t loosen up about things.

Earlier this year, a fifth-grade teacher at St Joseph’s Catholic School in Moorhead, Minnesota, was fired because she questioned the Catholic Church’s stance on gay marriage.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, the state’s Catholic clergy were among the most vocal supporters of the state’s anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment and actively asked Catholic voters to help pass the measure.

Their pleas fell on deaf ears. Defiant voters told the Church to get stuffed and  rejected the amendment.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

18 responses to “Teen who defaced an anti-gay poster raises the wrath of a Catholic priest”

  1. JohnMWhite says:

    Typical priest is typical. He does what Catholic power always does – fights harder for its right to hate and harm gay people (and usually women) than for its duty to look after the spiritual and material well-being of people. It is more important to him that gay people be prevented from marrying than a soul be confirmed and allowed to ‘level up’ in the eyes of god. And, as they always do, the coward pretends that what he did is precisely not what he did, because he cannot own his own actions. Pathetic.

  2. Lazy Susan says:

    I just received a postcard inviting me to sign a petition “to show your support for retaining the current definition of marriage.” (It is only available in Scotland. See for more.) The petition reads:

    We signatories to this petition are in favour of retaining the current legal definition which has served Scotland well for centuries. We are opposed to redefining marriage in Scotland and we call for a referendum on this issue.

    Marriage is the union of one man to one woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others. It is the best environment for raising children. We note that homosexual couples already have full legal rights available through civil partnerships.

    We are deeply concerned about the implications for what will be taught in schools if marriage is redefined. We are also concerned that the definition of marriage may be rewritten further so that, for example, polygamy may be legalised at some future point.

    Our chief concern is for the general welfare of the people of Scotland. In addition, we do not wish to see the rights of conscience eroded for those who disagree with homosexual marriage.

    Employees should not face discrimination at work because they support traditional marriage, neither should parents be criticised by schools for refusing to allow their children to take part in lessons which promote same-sex marriage. Organisations and people of all religious traditions must retain their freedom to speak and act according to their religious beliefs.

    I’m not sure they would win a referendum on level ground, but it would give the big anti gay organisations a forum in which they could flex their big money to serious effect.

    I notice they don’t recognise divorce. Also, I guess they would like extramarital affairs to be punishable by law.

    I don’t know what they mean by “the implications for what will be taught in schools.” As for polygamy, why stop at that point on the slippery slope? People could marry animals or their furniture. Where would it end?

    Given that their chief concern is “for the general welfare of the people of Scotland” they don’t explain how it is put at risk by same-sex marriage. In any case, if SSM turns out to be a bad idea, we can change the law back. In a few years it will all be history.

    What exactly are “rights of conscience?” No one has suggested that employees should face discrimination at work because they support traditional marriage. Nor if they oppose same-sex marriage. All that is asked of an employee is that they do the job they are paid to do. All opinions are permitted. As for children at school, I don’t know that parents have the right in general to keep their children out of certain classes. But home schooling is always an option.

    The final demand, “Organisations and people of all religious traditions must retain their freedom to speak and act according to their religious beliefs,” is a corker. For a start it’s totally new – this is not retaining a right, it’s a new demand that religion should be above the law in all matters. And the nice thing about it, which demonstrates exactly how well thought-out it is, is that some religions support same-sex marriage. It illustrates perfectly that these religiots have their faith-tinted glasses on and can only see that people in this world are “their” kind or hell-bound.

  3. Broga says:

    I really can’t see what this has to do with RCs, any more than it has to do with me. If RCs want to marry heterosexually, and be married for life, then let them do so. If others want same sex marriages then that is up to them. The marriage for life thing isn’t so attractive if, often as a woman and for example in Thatcher’s supposed Victorian paradise, you are being beaten and thrashed by a brute of a husband and there is no escape.

    As it happens I have been married hetero-sexually for 45 years to the same woman. That suits us. It doesn’t suit everyone.

    If you are an RC with money you don’t have to stay married. A fairly distant relative of mine married a devout RC woman. She had been married before. The first marriage was annulled, after a couple of years, on grounds of non consummation. A likely story. The second marriage has now ended. They are separated.

  4. Lucy says:

    There are many examples that I know of , of annulment on all sorts of grounds. You are right. Any RC with a ‘good’ lawyer and some money can get one, I suspect.
    And good point made by Lazy Susan. All these religiots gloss over divorce, when they claim to define marriage….

  5. Brummie says:

    Amazing how many people put the institution of marriage ABOVE the happiness of the people involved, including children.
    I believe the marriage is outdated, especially when 46% fail. Some renewable contract arrangement should replace it, (for those of any gender who feel they need a legal commitment),that emphasises the equitable division of spoils if it all ends in tears, and most importantly, cares for the welfare of any offspring.

  6. Daz says:

    Traditional marriage. And RC, no less… Link

  7. Trevor Blake says:

    The other day I bought a baby kitten. It looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, walked like a duck, flew like a duck, had duck parents, a bill and feathers like a duck. But i sincerely and personally wanted a baby kitten so it was a baby kitten. Imagine my disappointment when it laid an egg!

    If you sign on as a Catholic, you need to keep that jaw off the floor if you are expected to… sign on as a Catholic. There are other enfranchised superstitions that are gay friendly, or a person could try gay-neutral atheism. But spare me the swooning and fainting when your multi-thousand year old belief system says ‘no, actually I wasn’t joking.’

  8. Matt Westwood says:

    “… We are also concerned that the definition of marriage may be rewritten further so that, for example, polygamy may be legalised at some future point…”

    Wheee! Bring it on!

    I was once involved in a household relationship in which there were two men and one woman. That was interesting. It became further interesting when another woman joined. Then a third woman joined, and at that point the relationship became difficult to sustain so it broke down.

    Looking back on it, perhaps it’s just as well that we weren’t able to get a three-party marriage agreement, as the inevitable divorve would have been messy to negotiate.

    One of the participants in that menage a trois is dead now, but I’m still on cordial terms with the other.

    As for the rest of that slippery slope: I’m happily married to my office-chair. I refuse to trade him in, even if his seat is becoming a little threadbare.

  9. Broga says:

    @Lucy: The couple I am referring to had loadsa money. He was a high earning lawyer (USA). If the marriage was not consummated I really don’t know what that young, attractive couple did on their honeymoon or in bed for a couple of years. Read books? Prayed? Discussed politics?

    In that game, hypocrisy rules. But you do need to shovel quite a bit of cash in the Vatican direction, I understand. I also heard they were questioned many times by their priest. As a supposed celibate I wouldn’t have thought he was the most perceptive questioner. How grotesque. Being questioned about your sexual activities in marriage by a celibate priest!

  10. Matt Westwood says:

    “Being questioned about your sexual activities in marriage by a celibate priest!”

    Is, uh,…Is your wife a goer, eh? Know whatahmean, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?

  11. Stephen Mynett says:

    You said:”I believe the marriage is outdated, especially when 46% fail.”

    I agree. It always amuses me when a couple choose Wagner’s bridal march from Lohengrin. Anyone who knows the plot of that opera will know the marriage goes tits up almost immediately.

    However, It is nice good music.

  12. Buffy says:

    Maybe this nice young man will wake up to the fact that the church is a backwards, bigoted thing that he no longer needs. At any rate, he’s to be commended for being an advocate for equal rights.

  13. Har Davids says:

    I wonder how Lennon can be an advocate for equality, while not wanting the church to be put down. He’s giving it go in his own way, I guess he’ll have to think his own position through a bit.

  14. barriejohn says:

    Give these guys a break, will you? The priest is absolutely right: anyone capable of logical thought processes is eminently unsuitable for church membership; and the kid is still young – the penny will surely drop soon!

  15. Broga says:

    @Mat Westwood: No complaints!

  16. Mark Richards says:

    When the good father is done with his chattering, he should be certain to write out a nice fat cheque to the US Internal Revenue Service. The law is quite clear (although currently unenforced) regarding non profits taking political positions.

    You want to play? You have to pay!

  17. Stuart H. says:

    Why was the priest reading this kid’s Facebook page anyway?
    If he’s a Facebook friend of the lad, fair enough, and double respect to the kid for putting it where the priest would read it.
    But if not….hmmm?

  18. Marriage is a legally recognised SEXUAL relationship. I don’t think there is any requirement to have sex in a civil partnership. If there is then it is really marriage under a different name. Religion and the legal systems only consider a marriage real or valid if penis vagina full sex takes place between a man and a woman. In the interest of equality, this rule has to go. It discriminates against same-sex sexual activity and against heterosexuals who are unable to engage in full sex with their husband or wife. Any form of sex then must be considered to validate or consummate the marriage