Anti-gay edict stirs priest to step aside

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
fix:
In the end it is that he want’s it his way. That means he places himself above the Church.
Click to expand...
No–he is doing what the church said to do.-- Not be a priest if you have deep seated homosexual tendencies.
 
40.png
snoopy:
The document said that anyone with deep seated homosexual tendencies should not be a priest. Well, he left-- you read between the lines. It sounds to me like he felt like he didn’t meet the criteria anymore.
Click to expand...
It said - “they should not be ordained.”

Here is the full text.

He stated he left because of the Church’s “aggressive anti-gay positions”. This document reiterates the 1961 document.

Does he support the gay agenda? Much different from chaste homosexuality.
 
40.png
snoopy:
Sorry, I didn’t read that into it at all. When did he say the church is wrong and he is right? What I think he is saying, is I can’t win. I’m celibate but still homosexual and so if that’s not good enough, then I will leave–they seem to not want me in the priesthood anyway.
Click to expand...
You may be correct in interpreting this man’s actions. He may very well believe what you have said here. That would be even more reason for me to think he is way off base.

Either he can’t read very well, refuses to accept the wisdom of the Church, or he places the idea of “gay” orientation above all else.
 
40.png
snoopy:
No–he is doing what the church said to do.-- Not be a priest if you have deep seated homosexual tendencies.
Click to expand...
Where does the document imply one ordained should be removed?
 
40.png
fix:
Where does the document imply one ordained should be removed?
Click to expand...
He must have left because he felt he could not be something he is not, which probably is heterosexual.(I am reading between the lines). There is no magic wand. Would you rather he stayed and then be able to complain that he is a homosexual? He obviously thought that if one is not “fit” to become a priest, then one is also not “fit” to stay one.
 
40.png
snoopy:
He must have left because he felt he could not be something he is not, which probably is heterosexual.(I am reading between the lines). There is no magic wand. Would you rather he stayed and then be able to complain that he is a homosexual? He obviously thought that if one is not “fit” to become a priest, then one is also not “fit” to stay one.
Click to expand...
No one asked him if he was a chaste homosexual. A chaste homosexual has no need to declare himself to anyone for it is a private battle. The problem arises is when he declares himself to be gay. This is inconsistent with his vows. He must not feel that he can go on continually violating his vows.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Wait…he did nothing to not obey?

Walking away from the priesthood is a huge something…doing so in protest over a forthcoming document is also a display of disobedience to the magesterium. What else could it be?
Click to expand...
How can you “obey” not to be a homosexual? You can “obey” not to engage in the activity, but you cannot “obey” not to be homosexual.I can “obey” not to be Irish, but I still am. BTW, I think it was more a matter of obedience than disobedience to leave. Anyone with deep seated homosexual tendencies should not be a priest I believe is the quote.
 
40.png
snoopy:
He must have left because he felt he could not be something he is not, which probably is heterosexual.(I am reading between the lines). There is no magic wand. Would you rather he stayed and then be able to complain that he is a homosexual? He obviously thought that if one is not “fit” to become a priest, then one is also not “fit” to stay one.
Click to expand...
Again, you be be correct in what how he was reasoning. What perplexes me is that if that is all true, why does he place his sexual tendencies above his committment to God?

It says to me he thinks his identity as a “gay” is more central to his salvation than his obedience to the will of God.
 
40.png
buffalo:
No one asked him if he was a chaste homosexual. A chaste homosexual has no need to declare himself to anyone for it is a private battle. The problem arises is when he declares himself to be gay. This is inconsistent with his vows. He must not feel that he can go on continually violating his vows.
Click to expand...
He didn’t declare himself to be gay, I am just assuming. I am reading between the lines. Would you rather he stayed and been able to complain that he is a homosexual priest?
 
40.png
snoopy:
He didn’t declare himself to be gay, I am just assuming. I am reading between the lines. Would you rather he stayed and been able to complain that he is a homosexual priest?
Click to expand...
I would rather he stayed, be obedient, submissive to his superiors and lived out the faith as we all should.
 
40.png
fix:
Again, you be be correct in what how he was reasoning. What perplexes me is that if that is all true, why does he place his sexual tendencies above his committment to God?

It says to me he thinks his identity as a “gay” is more central to his salvation than his obedience to the will of God.
Click to expand...
Not to me. I am guessing that he still may very well have a relationship with God. It’s just that the Catholic church does not want him anymore. I also think that he is not placing his sexual tendencies above his committment to God, but the church is.
 
40.png
snoopy:
He didn’t declare himself to be gay, I am just assuming. I am reading between the lines. Would you rather he stayed and been able to complain that he is a homosexual priest?
Click to expand...

From the article - Walker declined to disclose his sexual orientation, but he said he was no longer comfortable “wearing the uniform” of the priesthood.

“It’s like a Jew wearing a Nazi uniform,” Walker said. “I could no longer stay in that institution with any amount of integrity.”
I agree - he did not divulge his orientation. However, in context it seems either he is gay, or he believes the gay lifestyle is OK.

Both go against Catholic teaching and his vows.
 
40.png
snoopy:
Not to me. I am guessing that he still may very well have a relationship with God. It’s just that the Catholic church does not want him anymore. I also think that he is not placing his sexual tendencies above his committment to God, but the church is.
Click to expand...
So, you think the Church does not want him because She refuses to give in to his desires as to how Christ views same sex attraction.

In other words, he will obey the Church as long as the Church “sees” things as he does?
 
40.png
fix:
I would rather he stayed, be obedient, submissive to his superiors and lived out the faith as we all should.
Click to expand...
Then you disagree with the quote that a priest should not have deep seated homosexual tendencies. That it is what you do, not who you are. You are saying then, correct me if I’m wrong, that he should stay and do all the work of a priest, but have to listen to those people and superiors and the catholic church that he is unfit for the priesthood.
 
40.png
snoopy:
Not to me. I am guessing that he still may very well have a relationship with God. It’s just that the Catholic church does not want him anymore. I also think that he is not placing his sexual tendencies above his committment to God, but the church is.
Click to expand...
It was he that made a vow of obedience to the mystical Body of Christ, His Church, and subsequently to the magisterial teaching authority of that same Church. The Church did not take a vow to teach what he wanted to hear. Nor did Jesus Christ.

So the question then becomes: was this priest being dishonest when he took his vows of obedience or is he being disobedient now by rejecting his honest vows?
 
40.png
snoopy:
Then you disagree with the quote that a priest should not have deep seated homosexual tendencies. That it is what you do, not who you are. You are saying then, correct me if I’m wrong, that he should stay and do all the work of a priest, but have to listen to those people and superiors and the catholic church that he is unfit for the priesthood.
Click to expand...
The Church has not said that ordained priests with deeply root tendencies should be booted. They should seek help. Spiritual and medical help. That does not mean more should be ordained with those problems.
 
40.png
snoopy:
Not to me. I am guessing that he still may very well have a relationship with God. It’s just that the Catholic church does not want him anymore. I also think that he is not placing his sexual tendencies above his committment to God, but the church is.
Click to expand...
The Church does not have the authority to change Christ’s teachings. The Church has consistently taught against active homosexuality.

The reason he was ordained was through the failures not of the Church, but by humans in it. Being 58 years old he would have been 14 when the 1961 document came out.

Because the PC gay agenda has made gains, they know are able to twist this to seem as if the Church is now wrong in its actions. This puts the Church on the defensive.
 
40.png
buffalo:
This puts the Church on the defensive.
Click to expand...
Only in the eyes of the world. And we all know who has dominion over the world. This is not a time to be jumping out of the Kingdom.
 
40.png
snoopy:
See-- you just said that just being homosexual goes against catholic teaching. Even if he is celibate.
Click to expand...
Claiming identity as “gay” is different from having homosexual attraction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top