“A few parishioners left in tears”

[onmyknees]

marietta,
Well then, I guess you know that the Catholic Church does welcome homosexuals and does not tell them to deny their preference or pretend to be hetero but to live chastely.

 

[fbl9]

wanner47:

Scandal! Oh My!

I would never presume to say I speak for God - that is outrageous.

I visit this forum daily and post occasionally, and to a man the Catholics here are supremely confident that their every interpretation of doctrine, scripture, and dogma are the one, the only, the genuine TRUTH. I saw no sin in what the priest did and, because he was not sexually active, I thought surely no one would find fault with this poor schlub who happens to be gay.

Ah, but I was wrong! Scandal and Disobedience define the man!

I was wrong. There is sin around every corner, under every rock, in every crevice, in every heart, soul and mind.

Makes me wonder why God even bothered to set up this experiment - seems like a set-up to me.

marietta

you have seemed to miss what is going on here…the issue is not the priest being gay but his supporting an active gay life,by his support of homosexual marriages…did have a good laugh at the thought "wouldn’t it be funny if gay marriages actually lasted longer then hetro marriages"given the current divorce rate among hetros…as to the first part are you so sure of your every interpitation?why?why not? no need to post response just something to chew on…

 

[marietta]

…did have a good laugh at the thought "wouldn’t it be funny if gay marriages actually lasted longer then hetro marriages"given the current divorce rate among hetros…as to the first part are you so sure of your every interpitation?why?why not? no need to post response just something to chew on…

What does any of this mean?

marietta

 

[po18guy]

wanner47:

1. The topic was the homosexual priest.
2. The priest never admitted at any time during his “press conference” to being sexually active
3. I remarked: “No sex, no harm, no foul, no sin.”
   a) There was no sex; hence:
   b) The priest caused no one harm.
   c) There was no breach of vows; hence:
   d) There was no sin.

My authority to evaluate the sinfulness (or lack thereof) in this instance is dictated by the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, I’m playing by your rules, as you and others on this forum explain them. If this is incorrect then it is not my “authority” that is lacking, it is your imparting of the dogma.

marietta

The point being who the heck even cares about his sexuality? Many of the homosexuals that I have known are defined primarily by their sexuality. Some elevate it even above gender. How often during an average day do you think to yourself “I’m heterosexual”, or tell others about it? This shows the disordered nature of the inclination.

The possibility exists, though unsaid at this point, that the priest considers himself homosexual first, Catholic second. His “breathtaking and courageous” (or however the fawning press put it) disclosure brings only more scandal to a church that has way too much homosexual scandal already. Disordered.

 

[Cal_Catholic]

Fresno bishop reacts to renegade priest

Full article…

 

[Phemie]

The majority would just lose their sex drive; there are very few who would actually go insane for lack of sex.

It would certainly solve whatever population problems we think we’re having, though.

Lose your sex drive from being celibate for a year??? In what universe? You might sublimate it but it certainly wouldn’t disappear.

While I’m sure no insanity would result from the experiment I suspect not much productive work would get done for a while after the experiment was over – reproductive work, though, would probably increase greatly.

 

[wanner47]

wanner47:

Scandal! Oh My!

I would never presume to say I speak for God - that is outrageous.

Yet, you are. You are claiming that you are the infallible arbiter of what is and is not sin.

I visit this forum daily and post occasionally, and to a man the Catholics here are supremely confident that their every interpretation of doctrine, scripture, and dogma are the one, the only, the genuine TRUTH.

That’s because they are.

I saw no sin in what the priest did and, because he was not sexually active, I thought surely no one would find fault with this poor schlub who happens to be gay.

By what authority do you decide what is and is not sin?

The priest’s sin in this case is not that he is gay. It is that he is promoting the gay lifestyle, which is contrary to Church teaching. As a priest, he has made a solemn vow and obligation to uphold the Church’s teachings, and he is violating that vow – yet another sin.

Do you think it is acceptable to break a solemn oath that one has sworn to God?

Ah, but I was wrong! Scandal and Disobedience define the man!

Perhaps you should read what the Church teaches about scandal:

**2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”**

I was wrong. There is sin around every corner, under every rock, in every crevice, in every heart, soul and mind.

You’re right. Thankfully, God sent us a Redeemer.

Makes me wonder why God even bothered to set up this experiment - seems like a set-up to me.

\

I’m so sorry you think so. Given that this is your opinion of God, by what authority do you claim to speak for Him?

 

[JMMK]

He was gravely wrong, both logically and canonically, for supporting opposition to Prop 8.

Being celibate, his sexual attractions are a moot point and it was irresponsible for him as a priest to bring them up on public television.

Same sex-attractions should be an impediment to the priesthood just as any mental/psychological disorder is. It doesn’t mean that they are going to hell, it just means they are not in the best position to lead a flock.

 

[marietta]

wanner47:

I am running out of fingers and toes in my count of the number of times you have accused me of “claim[ing] authority”, being an “infallible arbiter of what is and is not sin”, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

I am expressing my opinion. This is* my* belief, my evaluation, my conclusion, my personal view. I don’t care that you do not and will never agree with me; but enough with the slander, already.

Phemie writes:

*“Lose your sex drive from being celibate for a year??? In what universe? You might sublimate it but it certainly wouldn’t disappear.” *

It certainly can - mine did. And what a tremendous relief to not have to endure all the mind-games, the misrepresentations, the half-truths that are vomited forth in courtship and in marriage. Yes, yes, wanner47 will try to convince you that I am arrogantly claiming to be the arbiter of all things truthful, authentic, and sincere; let me correct this impression straight out by telling you that I am speaking from my own experience in courtships and in marriage.

---

If this priest were heterosexual and disobeyed his Bishop in the same manner as the homosexual priest, he would be sinning to the same degree as the homosexual priest, is that correct?

wanner47:

Quote [by marietta]:
“I was wrong. There is sin around every corner, under every rock, in every crevice, in every heart, soul and mind.”

Response [by wanner47]:

“You’re right. Thankfully, God sent us a Redeemer.”

The absolute spiritual paralysis that this viewpoint suggests is staggering. How can you breathe without sinning?

marietta

 

[onmyknees]

If this priest were heterosexual and disobeyed his Bishop in the same manner as the homosexual priest, he would be sinning to the same degree as the homosexual priest, is that correct?

Yes, this is correct.

 

[wanner47]

wanner47:

I am running out of fingers and toes in my count of the number of times you have accused me of “claim[ing] authority”, being an “infallible arbiter of what is and is not sin”, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

I am expressing my opinion. This is* my* belief, my evaluation, my conclusion, my personal view. I don’t care that you do not and will never agree with me; but enough with the slander, already.

Thank you for admitting it is only your opinion. Before, you made no such qualifying statement. You simply said, “Such-and-such is a sin,” which implies authority to make such decisions.

Now, on what, exactly, are you basing your opinion?

The absolute spiritual paralysis that this viewpoint suggests is staggering. How can you breathe without sinning?

Quite easily, as sin requires voluntary action.

 

[Lucania]

Nowhere in the article does it state that he is a ‘true practicing homosexual’, he only says he’s gay.

Well, what is the purpose of admitting you are gay then? If he is not a practicing homosexual, why would he need to say anything:shrug: ?

 

[Christy_Beth]

So, he removed his belongings from his office and the rectory. Looks to me like he knew that he was going against the teachings of the church. The church that he can’t claim to support anymore.

Mariette
You definately have an attitude problem here. You don’t answer to anyone? Why should we answer to you? Your opinion is exactly that. Your opinion. As Christians we are to uphold the faith, and encourage each other. So far, from what I have read in your posts, you are extremely judgmental. “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

 

[marietta]

wanner47:

Okay, so is this the rule here? That before, during and after every post I am required to clarify whether my post is derived from opinion, fact, interpretation of fact, fallacy, or fantasy?

Well, let’s try this: I did not state that my post was an o-p-i-n-i-o-n because I was using a device called “s-a-r-c-a-s-m”. I apologize if it flew over your head. If a person makes a statement such as “The sky is blue”, do you immediately require that person to explain by what authority he has claimed that the sky is blue?

Sheesh.

marietta

 

[wanner47]

wanner47:

Okay, so is this the rule here? That before, during and after every post I am required to clarify whether my post is derived from opinion, fact, interpretation of fact, fallacy, or fantasy?

Well, let’s try this: I did not state that my post was an o-p-i-n-i-o-n because I was using a device called “s-a-r-c-a-s-m”. I apologize if it flew over your head. If a person makes a statement such as “The sky is blue”, do you immediately require that person to explain by what authority he has claimed that the sky is blue?

Sheesh.

marietta

This is a Catholic discussion board, marietta. When you make claims about what does or does not constitute a sin, you need to be prepared to back up your claims – either by citing your authority to determine what constitutes sin, or by citing Church teaching that pertains to the alleged sin in question.

Simply saying, “_______ is not a sin” is not good enough. Why should we believe you?

 

[marietta]

wanner47:

My dear, I wasn’t making a CLAIM. I was using the vehicle of sarcasm to illustrate my opinion. Everything in this life is not cut and dried, black or white, with 'em or agin 'em.

The light is shining directly on it! It’s only of mild interest to me that you absolutely refuse to look at it.

marietta

 

[Christy_Beth]

Marietta

You want to play by “opinion” and “sarcasm”? Fine, here’s my take on the matter:

You are an insecure, self-centered twit who needs to go elsewhere to spread your immature tripe.

 

[po18guy]

Well, what is the purpose of admitting you are gay then? If he is not a practicing homosexual, why would he need to say anything:shrug: ?

My point exactly! If he was Catholic first and homosexual second, he would have no reason to even mention this. Unfortunately, it appears that the reverse is true. This is exactly how the evil one attacks the Church. Fr. Farrow certainly must be lifted up in prayer.

Christ’s peace.

 

[TMC]

Fresno bishop reacts to renegade priest

Full article…

I found the Bishop’s response puzzling. According the the article, he said

In response to public comments by the priest, Bishop Steinbock clarified that
“Proposition 8 is not about gay or lesbian orientation, or their legal rights. Proposition 8 is a reaffirmation of the nature of marriage. Proposition 8 reaffirms the dignity of the special covenant between one man and one woman which has been the building block of the church and of society since time immemorial.”

“It is tragic that Proposition 8 opponents have convinced some well-intentioned people that Proposition 8, as a legitimate legislative initiative to define the institution of marriage, is somehow a condemnation of people of same sex orientation,” said Bishop Steinbock. He added, “Nothing could be further from the truth or more confusing to people.”

How is proposition 8 not about the legal rights of gay people? Isn’t the whole point of prop 8 to deny gay people certain rights? Why does the Bishop feel the need to side step that?

 

[po18guy]

I found the Bishop’s response puzzling. According the the article, he said

How is proposition 8 not about the legal rights of gay people? Isn’t the whole point of prop 8 to deny gay people certain rights? Why does the Bishop feel the need to side step that?

It’s a matter of perspective. He is defending marriage. The forces against Prop 8 are trying to force recognition of, and legitimize and normalize their lifestyle by destroying marriage through altering its DNA.