“A few parishioners left in tears”

[po18guy]

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if everyone were celibate for a year? That way we could all understand the demands the Church makes upon its priests.

You might view it as a demand, but it is a grace that preserves his marriage to the Church. Celibacy is not different from chastity within a marriage. Why would the priest want to express his love to a woman, when he daily expresses it to both us and to God? Again, you appear more concerned about this than priests are. Ask a priest sometime. They weren’t drafted - they signed up.

You might be surprised how many married couples past the child-bearing years are celibate.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Some how I think this post missed it’s point. It isn’t about the fact that this priest declared himself as gay. As much as it disturbs me I would not have a problem with a gay priest as long as he was celibate. In fact I would rather receive the sacraments from a celibate gay priest than a unchaste straight priest. I believe the problem is that this priest stands against his bishops on California’s prop. 8 which would legitimize gay matrimony. In that case I would have to boot him also.

 

[po18guy]

Some how I think this post missed it’s point. It isn’t about the fact that this priest declared himself as gay. As much as it disturbs me I would not have a problem with a gay priest as long as he was celibate. In fact I would rather receive the sacraments from a celibate gay priest than a unchaste straight priest. I believe the problem is that this priest stands against his bishops on California’s prop. 8 which would legitimize gay matrimony. In that case I would have to boot him also.

Exactly! Point well made.

Actually, he needs quite a bit of spiritual help, since he seems more attuned to the secular world than the spiritual. However, either he listens to his Bishop, or we just might see another angry former priest polluting the truth. I pray not.

 

[marietta]

po18guy:

Celibacy itself does not surprise me. I have, by choice, been celibate ten years.

marietta

 

[Phemie]

po18guy:

Phemie is correct: the priest is, evidently, homosexual and celibate, as priests should be - not a practicing homosexual.

Now, then . . . considering his celibacy, can you explain why “a few parishioners left in tears” when he announced his homosexuality? What was so sorrowful?

It was the open defiance of Church law that people cried about. As I read the article, he didn’t announce his homosexuality in his diatribe against the church; that announcement was made in the media.

 

[Christy_Beth]

As I tried to say earlier, he should turn his back on that sort of thing. He can’t possibly support homosexual behavior and still stand for the church.

Marietta Why is that a problem for you? You have been celibate for ten years, good for you. But would you be willing to support any form of sex outside of marriage? Unwed mothers?

 

[po18guy]

po18guy:

Celibacy itself does not surprise me. I have, by choice, been celibate ten years.

marietta

Well, look at the demand you placed on yourself! Priests are also celibate by choice. They are aware of the requirement, and proceed willingly toward marriage to the Church.

 

[neat62]

Well this explains the priest abuse scandal.

 

[Pier]

Pier:

“Open to what? Condoning abortion? Homosexuality? Fornication? Adultery? Never…” With the exception of homosexuality, these items are immaterial.

Not really - heterosexual priests (as one poster already pointed out) voluntarily do not engage in sexual relationships either. Christ Himself said it would be so. Why should homosexuality be given different consideration?

And is homosexuality a “problem”? For whom?

Apparently, for the men you yourself have described below - that the Catholic Church “forced” their mothers to have:

Catholics’ aggressive push for women to continue problem pregnancies which ultimately will bring babies into the world who have Tay Sachs, anencephaly, cystic fibrosis, any of the trisomies also lobby for women to carry feti to term who five or ten or twenty-five years after birth discover, as young men, that they are not sexually attracted to women but rather to men. Catholics very nearly demand the birth of these children and then piously close God’s door in their faces.

Which brings up another “immaterial” topic for a different thread - abortion. These are all practices Christ’s Church cannot condone - but Her doors are always open to those who suffer - physically, mentally, emotionally, & spiritually (they are all related, after all) - from the effects of these sins.

 

[neat62]

According to the television report, about half of those present at the Mass gave Fr. Farrow a standing ovation following his remarks, but that “a few parishioners left in tears.”

Oh man, we’re in big trouble. Our religion is being aborted from the inside out. Woman priests are next. Mark my words.

 

[marietta]

As I tried to say earlier, he should turn his back on that sort of thing. He can’t possibly support homosexual behavior and still stand for the church.

Marietta Why is that a problem for you? You have been celibate for ten years, good for you. But would you be willing to support any form of sex outside of marriage? Unwed mothers?

This is not a problem for me, it is a problem for the priest in question.

If sexual behavior occurs outside of marriage it needs neither my endorsement nor my condemnation. People will be accountable for their own actions eventually. And unwed mothers? I have been an unwed mother three times over. I am accountable to God for my behavior, not to you or any other human being unless I have harmed someone.

marietta

 

[marietta]

po18guy writes in reference to celibacy:

“Well, look at the demand you placed on yourself!”

This has not been a demand. It has been an acceptance of circumstances.

marietta

 

[wanner47]

**wanner47: **

“So you believe that God condones and approves of sin?” No sex, no harm, no foul, no sin.

marietta

What is your authority to determine what is and what is not sin?

Do you also believe that, say, virtual child porn is sinful? No harm, no foul there, either, by your logic.

I’d also love to see your proof that active homosexuality is not harmful. The AIDS epidemic alone has caused a great deal of harm.

 

[marietta]

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

 

[wanner47]

wanner47:

1. The topic was the homosexual priest.
2. The priest never admitted at any time during his “press conference” to being sexually active

Doesn’t matter. He caused scandal by endorsing the gay lifestyle.

1. 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.

In your opinion. However, I don’t believe that you have the authority to speak for God as to what does or does not constitute sin. He caused scandal, which is sin.

My authority to evaluate the sinfulness (or lack thereof) in this instance is dictated by the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Excuse me?

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.

What you have said makes no sense. Please elaborate. The Church does not teach that laypeople can arbitrarily decide what does and does not constitute sin.

 

[estesbob]

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

If he is indeed celibate it would appear the biggest problem is that he broke his vow of obedience. He directly contradicted his Bishop and disobeyed him.

There is also problem with him opposing the amendment. Theonly rationale for opposing the amendment is believeing that homosexuals should be allowed to married. That indicates that he is condoning the homosexual lifestyle which is also in direct contradiction of the church he took a vow of obedience to.

I suspect it’s going to be removed from the parish ,perhaps put on administrative duties or perhaps laicized.

 

[marietta]

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

 

[onmyknees]

po18guy writes:

“It is certainly something which can be modified through behavior.”

How does a practicing homosexual modify his behavior in order to be welcomed back into the Church? Deny his preference? Pretend to be hetero? I can see this response coming: “He could pray, refuse to act on his drives, pray, give it up to God, pray . . .” Is it so difficult for a practicing Catholic to entertain the notion that, for true homosexuals, the “lifestyle” is not a dalliance or an experiment or a rebellion? This is the way they are hardwired.

Catholics’ aggressive push for women to continue problem pregnancies which ultimately will bring babies into the world who have Tay Sachs, anencephaly, cystic fibrosis, any of the trisomies *also *lobby for women to carry feti to term who five or ten or twenty-five years after birth discover, as young men, that they are not sexually attracted to women but rather to men. Catholics very nearly demand the birth of these children and then piously close God’s door in their faces.

It’s just a door. A door closed by ignorance. At least God has an open heart.

marietta

marietta,
Why do you think that it is any different for a single, heterosexual, Catholic to remain chaste and have to pray, refuse to act on his or her drives, pray, give it up to God, pray … than a homosexual?

 

[jmcrae]

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if everyone were celibate for a year? That way we could all understand the demands the Church makes upon its priests.

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.

 

[marietta]

onmyknees asks:

“Why do you think that it is any different for a single, heterosexual, Catholic to remain chaste and have to pray, refuse to act on his or her drives, pray, give it up to God, pray … than a homosexual?”

I don’t.

marietta