A priest confesses his greatest secret during Mass

[YinYangMom]

Ortho:

If they lack total obedience to the magesterium and are not worthy to lead a parish, why doesn’t the Vatican dismiss them?

Because the sacrament they enter into is a covenant, like marriage…it is binding for a lifetime.

What the Vatican can do is remove them from parish life and reassign them to a life of prayer. Perhaps that is the best thing for the priest anyway…give him time to contemplate his committment to Our Lord, develop ways to face the cross he bears and learn how to carry it lovingly, and then when he is able to embrace the Truth of the magesterium he would grow into an effective pastoral leader and perhaps at that time the vatican can send him back to a parish.

The Church is here for sinners, she does not cast people aside, she nurtures them, seeks to heal them, support them, guide them to the Truth, for in the Truth happiness lies and the Truth is Jesus.

 

[legeorge]

This is not about homosexuality. It is about more attempts to undermine the Church of Christ. Notice the way this “priest” talks about the Church. He is totally in error. He does not understand. Perhaps he needs to be sent back to school so he can be properly taught about the nature of the Church. Perhaps he should be seeking to lead his flock into the fullness of truth instead of using the pulpit as his own personal soapbox. That is not what the homily is for. If he wants to instruct on the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, that’s fine. But he needs to teach the truth. If he wants to admit that he struggles with homosexual tendencies, that’s also fine. In fact, I would applaud his courage.

That is not what happened though, according to the article. If we assume that the article is correctly representing the situation, we see that this priest is putting forth incorrect information about the Church and what it teaches. He is also not displaying much humility and obedience, in my opinion. But maybe the article is slanted because it was put forth in the secular media? However, the priest is *quoted * calling the Church a human institution and that is greatly disturbing to me and completely colors the way I view the whole situation.

Maybe I am being harsh and judgemental. I usually am. It’s a personal defect. But these types of situations undermine the Church a little at a time, slowly turning people’s hearts away from God and His Church. I can’t stand seeing the beautiful and mystical Body of Christ, so rich with the fullness of truth misrepresented and knocked by one of its’ own. It breaks my heart.

 

[felra]

fix:

But, we do not hear priests coming out about other things. Why is it necessary to speak about these issues, and other issues, so publicly? I can see in a group setting or with friends or interested other parties, but why publicly and at mass? Also, from these many reports we read it often seems these priests say there have this attraction, yet the we do not here things like it is a struggle but with God’s help I am living out Church teachings or I think many have misread what the Church teaches or things of this nature.

We read they are gay and they want others to know it and that is it.

Exactly. Again, is the priest offering this public dislcosure for sake, edification, sanctification of the flock, or is there some self-serving, self-liberating need and/or agenda being met? Priests are called to be servants, not to seek to be ministered to by the whole of the congregation – that is what confidents and appropriate close knit supports are for. It would just as inappropriate if a priest with a heterosexual orientation decided to “come out” and share from the pulpit his struggles with managing his properly ordered sexual attraction. Inappropriate.

 

[YinYangMom]

Mike Dye:

Just to cut to the very core of the matter, I really appreciate everyones opinion and everything but in my world an openly gay priest Will Not Be My Priest!

While I understand your position, you should be aware that carrying an attitude like that, particularly toward a man of the cloth, would be grave matter. It’s discrimination and prejudice plain and simple.

Of course, I’m speaking about the priest offering Mass…we are called to look beyond the person and focus on Jesus who acts through that person, that’s why it’s equally improper to switch lines at communion to make sure you receive from a priest instead of a Minister of the Eucharist (male or female)…yeah, some people do that and it’s wrong.

But, I certainly wouldn’t consider the priest my spiritual counselor, on that I would agree with you. I’ve noticed from these boards that some priests in the confessional advice people poorly about what is sin and what isn’t…I don’t think I could trust this openly gay priest to tell me the Truth since he himself does not acknowledge Truth.

I suppose if I needed the sacrament of healing I wouldn’t have a problem asking an openly gay priest to administer it.

As for baptism and Eucharist, so long as the priest isn’t the one doing the instructing and preparation it wouldn’t make a difference. Anything he does in Persona Christe is protected, but it’s when I’d need to seek counsel I suppose that I’d be reluctant to turn to him.

I would be rejecting his counsel not because he’s openly gay, but because his being openly gay is evidence he is not embracing the Truth of the magesterium so any advice he’d offer could not really be trusted.

 

[YinYangMom]

Ortho:

That’s reasonable. I suppose with that same help seminarians can do the same. I wonder if heterosexuals need that grace, too?

ALL people need the grace of God to accomplish His work on earth.

 

[YinYangMom]

goofyjim:

But we come “out of the closet” with so many other struggles why is same sex attraction one forbidden to speak of. That is where I beleive the hypocrisy also lies. If we do not want to hear about anyone’s struggle with same sex attraction I think it only fair that I don’t want to hear anyone’s struggle.

The time for this man to have spoken about his SSA was when he was in the seminary. To come out now, publicly, and then blame the Church for poor policy is irresponsible and selfish.

He also could have come out privately to his bishop and other church leaders, seeking counsel and help to overcome his SSA…that would have been a better option for the man and for the parish.

 

[davy39]

YinYangMom:

But he hasn’t remained faithful…he’s been deceptive all these years. Had he revealed the truth as a seminarian he would not have been ordained and I bet he knew that…so his entire ministry is based on dishonesty.

On top of that, the fact that after all these years he still considers himself to be gay shows that he has not spent his time as a priest wisely - for the benefit of his own soul. Rather than use the opportunity to help him overcome his same-sex attraction he embraced it as OK, and now he’s telling his flock it’s OK - and it isn’t.

A good role model would be a priest who shares - not during mass - but during some other forum, that when he came into the priesthood he was gay, but through Christ and his service to the Church, the Lord has helped him to overcome his burden - and you can too. Please let Jesus help you as He did me. THAT’s the appropriate lesson to be taught.

One would hope that his bishop will take him and lead him to the nearest door, and remove him from the priesthood. The Vatican says that an active homosexual CANNOT be a priest. Lets follow the Pope for a change.

 

[rlg94086]

If you reread my post, I agree with you 100% on that point. However, words do matter, and he didn’t use it as an opportunity to instruct the parish on a proper reaction to SSA. He just “came out” and made a general “this gospel is for everyone” comment. IMHO, if you’re going to use a homily to discuss this topic, you should instruct people on Church teaching.

goofyjim:

Where is the sin if one has not acted on the attraction? It sounds like this priest fell under this category and just chose his words wrongly. I will not have an actively gay priest but I don’t mind any celibate priest as long as he is celibate. I like to know they are still human otherwise and not some super apostle which St. Paul did caution against.

 

[goofyjim]

YinYangMom:

The time for this man to have spoken about his SSA was when he was in the seminary. To come out now, publicly, and then blame the Church for poor policy is irresponsible and selfish.

He also could have come out privately to his bishop and other church leaders, seeking counsel and help to overcome his SSA…that would have been a better option for the man and for the parish.

I do not advocate the gay lifestyle but I fail to see why everyone must “overcome” SSA. It may not be possible and should not be required. Now if he was homosexually active, yes he should be removed. And he should not have confessed this secret during the Mass.

 

[YinYangMom]

goofyjim:

I do not advocate the gay lifestyle but I fail to see why everyone must “overcome” SSA. It may not be possible and should not be required. Now if he was homosexually active, yes he should be removed. And he should not have confessed this secret during the Mass.

That you ‘don’t see’ why everyone must overcome SSA only indicates you have further reading and research to do with regard to Church teaching on the matter, not that the policy is incorrect. It is up to us to **come to **the fullness of the Truth. Truth is unchanging and everlasting but our comprehension of it is evolving.

 

[YinYangMom]

davy39:

One would hope that his bishop will take him and lead him to the nearest door, and remove him from the priesthood. The Vatican says that an active homosexual CANNOT be a priest. Lets follow the Pope for a change.

Please provide backup resources for that statement. From what I’ve read so far, the Vatican did not say they would remove priests who they find out are homosexual but that they would relocate them to reclusive type settings to live out their vows. If I’m wrong, please educate me, I would appreciate it.

 

[davy39]

YinYangMom:

Please provide backup resources for that statement. From what I’ve read so far, the Vatican did not say they would remove priests who they find out are homosexual but that they would relocate them to reclusive type settings to live out their vows. If I’m wrong, please educate me, I would appreciate it.

From what I read here on the forum and elsewhere, if a seminary student was found to be an ACTIVE homosexual, he would not be allowed to be a priest. If a priest admitted he was an ACTIVE homosexual, and flaunted his lifestyle, I think we can assume he would be removed from the priesthood. I can’t imagine why they would let him continue his functions as a parish priest. If he was not active in the gay “lifestyle”, he may be allowed to stay. If anybody knows any different, please set Ying Yang and me straight.

 

[felra]

davy39:

From what I read here on the forum and elsewhere, if a seminary student was found to be an ACTIVE homosexual, he would not be allowed to be a priest. If a priest admitted he was an ACTIVE homosexual, and flaunted his lifestyle, I think we can assume he would be removed from the priesthood. I can’t imagine why they would let him continue his functions as a parish priest. If he was not active in the gay “lifestyle”, he may be allowed to stay. If anybody knows any different, please set Ying Yang and me straight.

Correct. The new Vatican instruction is addressed solely to those men feeling called to the priestly vocation. Interesting how many people and factions in the Church link the already ordained with this document. A straw man? A threat to the status quo?

CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION
Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies In View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders****

 

[YinYangMom]

davy39:

From what I read here on the forum and elsewhere, if a seminary student was found to be an ACTIVE homosexual, he would not be allowed to be a priest. If a priest admitted he was an ACTIVE homosexual, and flaunted his lifestyle, I think we can assume he would be removed from the priesthood. I can’t imagine why they would let him continue his functions as a parish priest. If he was not active in the gay “lifestyle”, he may be allowed to stay. If anybody knows any different, please set Ying Yang and me straight.

It seems you are correct about the seminary students, Davy39:

Found this in a different thread here on the forums (emphasis, mine to reflect our concerns):

As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people. They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

…

When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination.

…

It remains understood that the candidate himself is primarily responsible for his own formation. He must offer himself in trust to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop that calls him to Orders, of the rector of the Seminary, of the spiritual director, and of any other educator in the Seminary to which the Bishop or General Superior has given the task of forming future priests.** It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality, regardless of everything, to arrive at ordination. Such an inauthentic attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty, and availability that must characterise the personality of one who considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.**

But nothing about priests already ordained and ministering to a parish who “are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”

Though I thought I read somewhere, or perhaps heard on Relevant Radio, that those already ordained would be relocated…

So if anyone can shed some light on Vatican policy about current priests it would be most appreciated.

 

[Mike_O]

Where is the relevant bishop? This calls for a dismissal of said priest in the worst way.

I especially enjoy this tidbit from the article, reflecting the “bastion of objectivity” that is the politicized state of CA:

1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10. “This judgment of Scripture does not, of course, permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

In other words, gays can’t help being gay, but it goes against the natural order anyway.

No, in other words, someone with homosexual inclinations CAN CERTAINLY help “being gay” because “being gay” entails having willfully adopted the behavior. This sort of gross misinterpretation of Scripture and Catholic teaching–such as, in another part of the article, the pleading query: “How can you, a gay man, work for an institution that loathes and condemns a part of who you are?”–is so prevalent as to be taken as truth by an ignorant public.

This is a sad story; if someone has the bishop’s contact information, please post it so that the process of having him dismissed can begin. Imagine being a small child at the Mass, seeing scads of parishioners applauding, and learning that this praise-worthy feat is nothing other than declaring one’s affinity for sexual depravity? As Christ said, those that scandalize the little ones would do better to have a millstone hung around their necks and cast into the sea.

 

[davy39]

YinYangMom:

It seems you are correct about the seminary students, Davy39:

Found this in a different thread here on the forums (emphasis, mine to reflect our concerns):

As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people. They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, together with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, deems it necessary to clearly affirm that the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

…

When dealing, instead, with homosexual tendencies that might only be a manifestation of a transitory problem, as, for example, delayed adolescence, these must be clearly overcome at least three years before diaconal Ordination.

…

It remains understood that the candidate himself is primarily responsible for his own formation. He must offer himself in trust to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop that calls him to Orders, of the rector of the Seminary, of the spiritual director, and of any other educator in the Seminary to which the Bishop or General Superior has given the task of forming future priests.** It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality, regardless of everything, to arrive at ordination. Such an inauthentic attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty, and availability that must characterise the personality of one who considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.**

But nothing about priests already ordained and ministering to a parish who “are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.”

Though I thought I read somewhere, or perhaps heard on Relevant Radio, that those already ordained would be relocated…

So if anyone can shed some light on Vatican policy about current priests it would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Ying. It would be hard to believe that, if a current priest that was gay went around his parish introducing his “friend” or “partner” to the people thus flaunting his lifestyle, that he would be around very long. I don’t believe any bishop should or would permit that to happen. But who knows? I really don’t have much confidence in some of the american bishops.

 

[tdandh26]

To me it is nothing new that the homosexual community is attempting to place catholocism in a bad light. We do not hate them we love them as brothers, and as a brother we must tell them the truth about what they must do for their eternal soul.
But, what really fries my bacon is this priest saying that the Church is a human institution. WHAT? Christ is God and He founded the Church. Yes it has a human element but it is a divinely established Church which God has been building since the beginning. The Jewish religion is the old way in which Christ perfected into the new.

For a priest not to understand this basic principle of Christianity, to me is absurd. Why if it is just a human institution is he in it?

 

[Ortho]

fix:

I think the point is if these folks in these positions did not “come out of the closet” no one would know and it would not raise criticism. Why good is served from a priest doing what this priest did. The article may not be complete in its reporting, but it seems he did not specfically mention how he accepts the Church position and that he asks others to accept it as well and live it out.

Well, if gays cannot properly function as priests, then knowing who they are will allow people to avoid them.

 

[Ortho]

YinYangMom:

Because the sacrament they enter into is a covenant, like marriage…it is binding for a lifetime.

What the Vatican can do is remove them from parish life and reassign them to a life of prayer. Perhaps that is the best thing for the priest anyway…give him time to contemplate his committment to Our Lord, develop ways to face the cross he bears and learn how to carry it lovingly, and then when he is able to embrace the Truth of the magesterium he would grow into an effective pastoral leader and perhaps at that time the vatican can send him back to a parish.

The Church is here for sinners, she does not cast people aside, she nurtures them, seeks to heal them, support them, guide them to the Truth, for in the Truth happiness lies and the Truth is Jesus.

OK. I’m not sure of the proper terms. So, why hasn’t the Vatican removed them from parish life and reassigned them to a life of prayer?

 

[YinYangMom]

Ortho:

OK. I’m not sure of the proper terms. So, why hasn’t the Vatican removed them from parish life and reassigned them to a life of prayer?

That is the million dollar question.

I suspect it’s because the Vatican, responsible for Catholicism world wide and for spreading the Good News to all the ends of the earth, have other matters in other countries which need Her attention more at this time.

These priests ‘coming out’ after Mass to their congregation are testing the Church and that’s why so many of us are concerned. Will anything be done by Rome? If so, how would we find out? Will any dismissal or relocation make it to the media? If Rome really is focused on more serious matters in other parts of the world, as guided by the Holy Spirit to allocate Her time and resources, then what does the seeming silence mean to the faithful here in the U.S. who are waiting for Rome to do something?