A priest confesses his greatest secret during Mass

[Alamedan]

My husband and I were present at the Sunday 7pm mass back in September at St. Joseph’s when Fr. Rich used the Homily as his own personal pulpit and revealed publicly that he is ‘gay’. This isn’t the first time that Fr. Rich has used the Homily for his own personal agenda. On other occasions he has used the Homily to make political commentary that was inappropriate.

After mass, we immediately sent this email to the Bishop:
September 25, 2005
Dear Bishop Vigneron,

My wife and I just returned from the 7:00 pm mass at St. Joseph’s in Alameda. During the homily Father Richard Danyluk announced to the parish that he was a homosexual. It was inappropriate to use the pulpit for a personal matter especially one that goes in direct conflict with church and biblical teachings.
Although he didn’t go into detail about why he was ‘coming out’, I
assume the catalyst for his declaration is the soon-to-be-released
Vatican document that Pope Benedict XVI just approved. He quoted from recent local newspaper articles denouncing church policy even before anything has been released.

It wasn’t the place or time to make this announcement. It was apparent he was displeased and that he was taking it very personally. Our concern is that as a priest he is charged with
espousing the Church’s teachings of Christ’s truth and moral clarity.
After mass ended we were left with a moral relativism that is the
antithesis of 2000 years of Catholic Church teachings beginning with St. Paul.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Michael & Katherine
Alameda, CA​

The Bishop’s reply to our email was:
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:14:39 -0700
From: “Bishop Vigneron” Bpvigneron@oakdiocese.org

Bishop Vigneron has received your email and asked that I convey his response.

The Bishop is grateful for your love of the Church and her priests and thanks you for bringing this to his attention. He will review the
matter and take the action he deems appropriate.

Fr. David E. Staal
Director, Office of the Bishop​

Subsequently, we’ve changed parishes to St. Philip Neri on account of Fr. Rich. This wasn’t an easy decision…but we couldn’t consciously go back to St. Joe’s and seek spiritual truth and guidance from a Priest who is in direct conflict with the Gospel, Christ’s teaching and the Church. This isn’t the Gospel according to Fr. Rich…
I continue to keep Fr. Rich in my prayers especially since he just underwent open heart surgery.
When asked by Fr. Vince at SPN why we left St. Joseph’s, my husband told him. As if trying to assuage our stance, Fr. Vince shared with us that Fr. Rich told him personally that he was sorry for the way that he ‘did what he did’.
Then last Sunday’s FRONT PAGE story of the Oakland Tribune…A Priest’s Confession. Was he truly confessing something he was heartfully repentful of?? Quite the contrary…
In another related article, Alameda Priest Attacks Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality as “Hate”, “The diocese said that they had received no complaints or calls from St. Joseph’s parishioners.” This is utterly false.

There are a lot of St. Joseph parishioners who are trying to rationalize and ‘make sense’ of what Fr. Rich did and who ‘he says he is’. The most recent absurd explanation is that the Church is making all Gay priests, declare their SSA, and that’s why he did it. Totally ridiculous. I was there…he didn’t do it to follow some Church hierarchy edict. He did it because he was pissed off at the barage of articles (ie. NYT, SF Chronicle) coming out ‘presupposing’ Benedict XVI’s approved instruction on the admission of homosexual candidates to the seminary and Holy Orders. The actual ‘instruction’ didn’t come out until 11/29/05. As explained in Homosexual Candidates, the Seminary and Priesthood…"The instruction deals with four categories of candidates. Active homosexuals cannot be admitted to seminaries or ordination. Sacred Scripture and the church’s tradition present homosexual acts as grave sins and intrinsically disordered. Those who support “gay culture” cannot be admitted. Although not defined, this term assumes that identification and support of a gay culture and lifestyle is equivalent to a judgment to be sexually active, support those who are, and have a personal agenda in conflict with church teaching. “Gay” came into popular usage in the 1970s and frequently denotes a homosexual person who is sexually active. However, this is not always the case, as “gay” is sometimes used to suggest a homosexual person with self-esteem."

Personally I believe Fr. Rich falls into the ‘identification and support of a gay culture’ category.

 

[goofyjim]

Apparently there are still those who believe that a person who has even the slightest degree of same sex attraction, even though never stating it or acting on it, is unqualified for the priesthood. After reading Theology of the Body Explained by Christopher West I find that same sex attraction can be a thorn in the flesh for a lifetime. This should not distract from one who may have a calling. St. Paul became one of our greatest apostles and never got rid of his difficulty, whatever it was. It’s just not appropiate it to be discussing what your thorn in the flesh is. That should be between the person and his spiritual director.

That said, if a man feels he has the calling he must be honest but should not be turned away because of this attraction. As long as he does not go public there should be no scandal. There have probably been many saints now in heaven who experienced the same struggles but we’ll never know until we get there.

 

[Ortho]

pnewton:

Again, there are two holes in the thinking. The holy father does not interview or approve priest candidates (reference my previous statement about 1 billion Catholics). Second, not everyone is truthful and open on an apllication or subsequent interviews.

Also saying the Vatican does nothing to stop it is false. Pope Benedict has banned gays from the seminaries. That would qualify as “something”. No approval, tacit or otherwise.

What has the pope done to take gay priests out of the ministry? Nothing. That’s why I say the gay priests must be doing a good job.

 

[Ortho]

Liberalsaved:

You forget; the ultimate measure of a person is in what they are, not what they do. This applies also to money. Rich people are better than poor people.

heavy sarcasm

It is nice to have a convenient and visible group to be better than.

 

[Ortho]

davy39:

Do you have figures that back up your claim that the church is “full of gay priests”? I think you’re getting a little carried away. Maybe you should stop believing everything you read in the secular media.

The book Goodbye Good Men cited 75% gay American priests for a given year. I think that is a bit high.

 

[Ortho]

felra:

We can presume that they are not a cause for scandal if they do not publically proclaim their "gay"identity or advocating for gay lifestyle. Whether they are doing a “good job” frankly is secondary. That homosexual priests are the primary cause for the Church’s sex scandal is statistically established; and that a priest with a strong SSA psychosocial identity is constitutionally limited in ability to assume the fullness of the persona christi vocational identity of the priesthood is apparant.

Doing a good job is secondary to scandal?

The Church’s sex abuse problem was caused by bishops who put avoiding scandal above the welfare of kids. It wouldn’t have become a problem if the bishops had a different priority.

If a priest is not doing a good job, why is he left in the ministry? That implies his superiors are not doiung a good job.

 

[Ortho]

Confiteor:

No, this is not true in general and in this case, there are plenty of reasons that might hamper the Vatican taking immediate action. Sometimes it can take years for them to act and the circumstances may be such in some cases, that they never do. But to interpret such delays or inaction as “approval” is not correct.

Why not?

 

[Ortho]

When was the homo/hetero gene discovered by science? Saying there are homosexual and heterosexual priests seems to be a poor way to phrase it.

Bottom line is that all priests (male, human beings) are called to celibacy. However, it is evident by much higher number of cases of pederasty in the news the last few years, that priests with a disordered, strong attraction to males seem to have a tougher time keeping their vows.

Now, those who have been priests for years and have remained celibate have obviously controlled their attractions, regardless of whether their attractions are normal or disordered. It would be impossible to know a priests desires if he has kept his vows, unless he tells people.

To know if priests with an attraction to males have a tougher time keeping their vows, we would have to know:

1. Total priests attracted to women.
2. Total priests attracted to women breaking vows.
3. Total prietss attracted to men.
4. Total priests attracetd to men breaking vvows.

Do we know this?

 

[Jeffrey]

Sounds like another liturgical abuse… he should be excommunicated. We need to write his Bishop to do soemthing about this.
Tristan daCunha:

I think its a good thing that homosexuals know of others who have remained within the Church and stayed faithful to its teachings. Surely it would be difficult to be gay and to abstain from sex. Fr. Danyluk seems to be a good role model.

 

[James_2_24]

Tristan daCunha:

In light of the October seminary instruction, I admit that I was wrong. The priest should not have made a public statement about being gay. Priests are to be beyond sexual inclinations.

Wow, someone here who actually admitted their position was the wrong one and reversed it. Too often on these forums I notice that once people get behind their argument they hardly ever leave it, even if they may realize it is wrong.

Tristan daChunha, should be applauded for honesty and humility.

 

[rlg94086]

Goofyjim,

Read the link Alamedan provided. (Thanks Alamedan…I had a hard time finding the guidelines when I searched) The Vatican is very clear about the guidelines. There are some with SSA who may be considered for the priesthood if their homosexuality is considered “transitory”.
opusbono.org/home/HomosexualCandidatestheSeminaryandPriesthood.asp

If their homosexuality is pathological, then they will not be considered.

The instruction allows for the “different” possibility of acceptance of a candidate with a “transitory problem.” The example given is a candidate whose “adolescence” has not yet be superceded. In light of the teaching in Persona Humana, transitory means that a person’s homosexuality is not pathological and is rooted in such experiences as an inadequate formation in sexuality, following or imitating another’s example, or the result of a habitus, an acting out without free will. Such problems can be overcome and bishops, religious superiors and seminary personnel are required to reach a “morally certain judgment” about a candidate who experiences a transitory problem” and one who has “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” Those who practice homosexuality, demonstrate such tendencies, or support a gay culture or lifestyle are automatically excluded.

goofyjim:

Apparently there are still those who believe that a person who has even the slightest degree of same sex attraction, even though never stating it or acting on it, is unqualified for the priesthood. After reading Theology of the Body Explained by Christopher West I find that same sex attraction can be a thorn in the flesh for a lifetime. This should not distract from one who may have a calling. St. Paul became one of our greatest apostles and never got rid of his difficulty, whatever it was. It’s just not appropiate it to be discussing what your thorn in the flesh is. That should be between the person and his spiritual director.

That said, if a man feels he has the calling he must be honest but should not be turned away because of this attraction. As long as he does not go public there should be no scandal. There have probably been many saints now in heaven who experienced the same struggles but we’ll never know until we get there.

 

[IsaiahStar]

Ortho:

The Vatican doesn’t know the Catholic priesthood has a large number of gays? Are those seminary applications on the pope’s desk, too?

It’s hard to say there is a problem with gay priests when they continue to do their jobs. Since the Vatican knows the situation, and does nothing to stop it, that is approval. That’s the standard that would be applied to any organization.

To everyone who views the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as an organization, much like major worldwide corprorations with local branches, I encourage you to get your hands on a copy of the most recent (February) edition of This Rock magazine. There is an excellent article in response to the question of why the pope doesn’t “do something” about those disobedient bishops.

I learned so much from the article. For one… The Church, while resembling an organization in many outward aspects, is not one. It is a FAMILY. Literally, not symbolically. We ARE the Body of Christ, and Christ is our Head, and this is not just a nice analogy, it is REAL. When a priest or a bishop is ordained in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, it is permament like marriage. To “remove” a priest from his duties (you can’t ever take away his priesthood, just like once you are married it is forever), is more like cutting off a limb from your body than it is firing a CEO. It is like a surgery where you have to really weigh the risks, you don’t just do it casually. A priest or bishop is a father. Just because a father does a bad job with his family doesn’t relieve him of his status as “father”. You have to find real, concrete, proven evidence of abuse or neglect before removing children from their father.

Also, the church is commanded by Christ to foster unity, and there is a dangerous posibility of creating even greater dissent than there is already by relieving a priest or bishop… many Catholics could decide to leave the church as well and follow their wayward bishop, creating a breakoff group and giving scandal, fostering disunity, etc.

The Church has a lot more wisdom than we do. It’s been around for 2000 years and dealt with heresy throughout that entire time, I think it will survive this crisis as well.

Anyway, the article explains it much better than I do…

Nicole

 

[Ortho]

IsaiahStar:

To everyone who views the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as an organization, much like major worldwide corprorations with local branches, I encourage you to get your hands on a copy of the most recent (February) edition of This Rock magazine. There is an excellent article in response to the question of why the pope doesn’t “do something” about those disobedient bishops.

I learned so much from the article. For one… The Church, while resembling an organization in many outward aspects, is not one. It is a FAMILY. Literally, not symbolically. We ARE the Body of Christ, and Christ is our Head, and this is not just a nice analogy, it is REAL. When a priest or a bishop is ordained in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, it is permament like marriage. To “remove” a priest from his duties (you can’t ever take away his priesthood, just like once you are married it is forever), is more like cutting off a limb from your body than it is firing a CEO. It is like a surgery where you have to really weigh the risks, you don’t just do it casually. A priest or bishop is a father. Just because a father does a bad job with his family doesn’t relieve him of his status as “father”. You have to find real, concrete, proven evidence of abuse or neglect before removing children from their father.

Also, the church is commanded by Christ to foster unity, and there is a dangerous posibility of creating even greater dissent than there is already by relieving a priest or bishop… many Catholics could decide to leave the church as well and follow their wayward bishop, creating a breakoff group and giving scandal, fostering disunity, etc.

The Church has a lot more wisdom than we do. It’s been around for 2000 years and dealt with heresy throughout that entire time, I think it will survive this crisis as well.

Anyway, the article explains it much better than I do…

Nicole

No two organizations are the same. But observation of the behavior of the church indicates it is an organization. It may see itself as unique, divine, family, etc. But many organizations see themselves as unique; it’s a haracteristic of an organization.We can even draw an organization chart.

In the US, the various dioceses (is that the plural of diocese?) are even organized as various types of corporations.

 

[IsaiahStar]

Ortho:

No two organizations are the same. But observation of the behavior of the church indicates it is an organization. It may see itself as unique, divine, family, etc. But many organizations see themselves as unique; it’s a haracteristic of an organization.We can even draw an organization chart.

In the US, the various dioceses (is that the plural of diocese?) are even organized as various types of corporations.

I repeat: the Church may look like an organization and even act like one, but in its essence it is a family. It IS divine; other organizations may see themselves as such but they are not, not in the way the Church is. Please read/learn more about this before posting. Thanks.

 

[IsaiahStar]

And I know this isn’t the apologetics forum, but maybe someone with more theological training on this issue could back me up?

 

[Jeanette_L]

legeorge:

Ortho, I, for one, am growing a bit weary of your baiting. Perhaps, if you want to debate the validity of the Catholic Church, you would best make your points in the *apologetics * forum instead of the *Catholic news * forum where people come to discuss catholic news with other catholics. Perhaps you will find the answers you are seeking there.

Ah, but you forget, he’s not here to seek anything, but to advance his status as the Superstar.

 

[kaymart]

Jeanette L:

Ah, but you forget, he’s not here to seek anything, but to advance his status as the Superstar.

 

[ISTPQ]

gay priests?

oh… wait… that’s been done before

(joking)

but this is nothing unusual, and i applaud him for having the strength to aknowledge his true identity in public.

more people need this man’s strength.

 

[Ortho]

Jeanette L:

Ah, but you forget, he’s not here to seek anything, but to advance his status as the Superstar.

Oh Yeah!!! Right again!!!

 

[krysianka]

In post #92, felra introduces a very interesting link firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html which touches on the issue of “semantics”: what does gay really mean? The meaning varies . . .

Also among those who accept the Church’s sexual ethic, there are significant differences in the understanding of the recent instruction. Father Bruce Williams, a Dominican teaching at the Angelicum in Rome, writes that the term “homosexuality,” as used in this and other Vatican documents, always has reference to genital acts—the doing of them or the desire to do them. Thus the instruction is not so much concerned with what might be called personality types but with people who act or are likely to act in ways clearly incompatible with living a life of chaste celibacy. Fr. Williams explains:

These criteria [specified by the instruction] would appear not to exclude a good number of men who might be broadly described as “gay” in common parlance. Consider a man who was homogenitally active in the past and overcame or outgrew this activity in young adulthood. He still experiences warm affection toward men, but homogenital temptations are extremely infrequent and always dismissed quickly and easily. He has never been sexually attracted to women, though he relates normally and even warmly to them also. He does not participate or take an interest in “gay culture,” though he does favor some particular political initiatives aimed at securing civil rights for homosexual people.

He is comfortable with who he is by the grace of God, and wants to give himself to the Lord’s service as a celibate priest. He is not “in the closet” about his sexuality, but sexual orientation does not enter into his self-definition; it simply is not an issue in his life, nor is he driven to make an issue of it in dealing with others. Many people might still label such a man as “gay”; he might even accept this designation, understanding it as an acknowledgment of some affectional and lightly erotic but essentially non-genital bearing toward other men. One could argue whether the appellation “gay” is appropriate here; but, as far as I can see, one cannot plausibly argue that this man has “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” or “supports gay culture” in the sense conveyed by the new Roman instruction.

What you you guys think of this?