Anti-gay edict stirs priest to step aside

[YinYangMom]

lel:

Wow, a priest who has the integrity to leave when he believes that the Church is heading into error. I know what parish I will be looking into soon!

1. The Church cannot head into error on matters of faith and morals.
2. The priesthood is a gift from God, not a right for anyone, even those who feel the call. It is up to the Church to discern which candidates fulfill God’s requirements for the priesthood.
3. This ‘new’ document is not ‘new’. It is recent, yes, but it is restating the same guidelines which have been in effect for thousands of years. Again, evidence that the Church is not ‘heading’ anywhere on the matter. It’s remaining firm.
4. When God chose His first priests, HE made the selection (the Levites) and HE set specific detailed requirements for the life those priests were to lead until their death, including what they wore, how they wore it, how they prepared themselves to dress themselves, how they prepared themselves to be in His presence and/or the presence of the Tabernacle, how to care for every article in that tent of God’s (which He designed as well).

Such is the same for priests of the New Covenant. Jesus didn’t go into specific details, though He did do the hand-selecting and training of the first 12 bishops from where all our priests come. For the details, He established the Catholic Church, setting Peter as the Head of His Church on Earth until He comes again.

You, me, other priests, the media - we have no authority to determine what the guidelines should be for God’s priests…that is His and His alone and He has already delegated responsibility for maintaining those guidelines to the Pope.

End of subject.

 

[fix]

A gentle word to the wise:

You may not claim to know what is in another’s heart, good or bad, be it a public figure, another poster, or anyone else.

Please limit the discussion to stated facts, not your inferences or assumptions. There has been way too much of the latter posted in this thread this afternoon.

There will be no further warning. If you find yourself suspended with no explanation, just go back and read your posts.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Walt

I apologize if any of my posts led anyone to think I know the intentions of the priest in this piece. I was attempting to make the case in a generic way and may have gone off track.

 

[proud2bcatholic]

eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=54168

Here is another, more detailed article dealing with the situation. What we have here is a priest who is ticked off about the swing to orthodoxy that is occuring in the diocese and the church as a whole, and this was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Anybody that is familiar with the history of the Diocese of Phoenix would not be surprised by this, and frankly I’m expecting more priests to step down in the Diocese.

I think it is sad that priests are breaking their vows, but I would rather have one good quality priest than 10 priests who don’t take their vocation and the Church’s teachings seriously.

 

[fkpl]

I do not know what is in this man’s mind but can infer a great deal his analogy to a “Jew being forced to wear a Nazi uniform.” This rhetorical jab is both repugnant and false.

Having said that, I applaud Leonard Walker for doing the right thing. I think we have in him an example of “deep-rooted homosexual orientation.” It celarly trumps his identification as a Catholic priest given his statements and action.

I pray that he will find God’s grace and the spiritual salve it conveys.

I also fervently hope and pray that any other serving priests who feel as he does emulate his action.

Our Pope does not mean this instruction to be a toothless expression of an intellectual paradigm. It must be implemented, implemented, implemented. Its true wisdom and value will be fully appreciated in the long term but it can also prove an organizing and revitalizing initiative for all American Catholics here and now.

God bless Truth and God bless all.

 

[catsrus]

Anybody that is familiar with the history of the Diocese of Phoenix would not be surprised by this, and frankly I’m expecting more priests to step down in the Diocese

I am familiar with the Phoenix Diocese having been part of it for 5 years and I agree with you.
It was a joyful day for true, practicing, believing, conservative Catholics when Bishop Olmstead came to town! I knew where “things” were headed when he prayed the rosary outside an abortion mill only a couple weeks after arriving in Phoenix.
Bless Bishop Olmstead!!

 

[Riley259]

Found this article in Commonweal magazine (a liberal catholic journal) about a gay priest expressing his dissatisfaction with the impending Vatican ban on gay priests. He calls the proposed (at the time) ban a “serious moral error”. Gays have infiltrated the ranks of the priesthood so much in the last few decades that it will be some time before the psych-sexual health of the men in the priesthood will be restored to a functional (as opposed to dysfunctional) state.

commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=1088

 

[cathgal]

There’s been quite a few articles about gay clerics speaking up. All said something like gay priests can live a life of chasity, gay priests can serve the church as faithfully as hetero priests and all implied that being gay is normal. Some even said it is unfair to blame the pedophile scandals on gay priests. But we all know statistic showed that the majority involved boys. Why do they kept ignoring this fact. Should we call it homosexual pedophile for the sake of accuracy. Maybe then they can’t argue against it. Anyway, NONE of the gay priests can admit that SSA is a disorder. That is really the crux of the problem. So they can have all the excuses they need as to why they can also be priests but as long as they believe SSA is normal, they should just forget it.

 

[fkpl]

cathgal:

There’s been quite a few articles about gay clerics speaking up. All said something like gay priests can live a life of chasity, gay priests can serve the church as faithfully as hetero priests and all implied that being gay is normal. Some even said it is unfair to blame the pedophile scandals on gay priests. But we all know statistic showed that the majority involved boys. Why do they kept ignoring this fact. Should we call it homosexual pedophile for the sake of accuracy. Maybe then they can’t argue against it. Anyway, NONE of the gay priests can admit that SSA is a disorder. That is really the crux of the problem. So they can have all the excuses they need as to why they can also be priests but as long as they believe SSA is normal, they should just forget it.

It is exactly this phenomenon that is meant to be addressed by the instruction. These recalcitrants are either possessed of “deep-rooted homosexual tendencies” or are supportive of the “so-called gay culture”. Their ordinations are not invalid but it is clear that they would be unfit as candidates for ordination presently and in the future.

This disingenuous quibbling by homosexual clergy and their adherents defines rather than obscures the problem in the Church. In time it will be overcome in the fullness of charity and truth.

 

[Riley259]

cathgal:

There’s been quite a few articles about gay clerics speaking up. All said something like gay priests can live a life of chasity, gay priests can serve the church as faithfully as hetero priests and all implied that being gay is normal. Some even said it is unfair to blame the pedophile scandals on gay priests. But we all know statistic showed that the majority involved boys. Why do they kept ignoring this fact. Should we call it homosexual pedophile for the sake of accuracy. Maybe then they can’t argue against it. Anyway, NONE of the gay priests can admit that SSA is a disorder. That is really the crux of the problem. So they can have all the excuses they need as to why they can also be priests but as long as they believe SSA is normal, they should just forget it.

Actually an overwhelming majority of the victims were not children (pre-adolescents) but were post-adolescent males. Pedophilia is technically a situation where someone has sexual relations with someone who is pre- adolescent … so, an accurate description of most of the abuse cases were not homosexual pedophilia but just homosexual relations (unwanted or not). The bottom line is that most homosexuals are not sexual abusers but most of the abuse cases in the church scandal were done by homosexual priests. There was something about those homosexual men being in that situation (the priesthood) that caused them to abuse - is it because they were homosexual? You draw your own conclusion from the facts.

 

[estesbob]

Riley259:

Actually an overwhelming majority of the victims were not children (pre-adolescents) but were post-adolescent males. Pedophilia is technically a situation where someone has sexual relations with someone who is pre- adolescent … so, an accurate description of most of the abuse cases were not homosexual pedophilia but just homosexual relations (unwanted or not). The bottom line is that most homosexuals are not sexual abusers but most of the abuse cases in the church scandal were done by homosexual priests.

True-they were almost NO intances of pediophilia in the sex scandals. Another interesting statisitc is that homosexual men make up between one and 3% of population but accout for over a third of all molestations. I pointed this out in a VIRTUS.ORG seminar I was required to attend to remain a Lector. They stated as a myth that homosexuals were more likely to molest than heterosexuals and backed it up by saying that the majority of molestations were done by heterosexauls . When i pointed out the % stats all I got was dirty looks.

My group handled the pediophilia issue quite well. When i pointed out what you pointed out the group decided that true pediophilia was when anyone over the age of 18 had sex with anyone under the age of 18. Thus ALL the actions by Priests were pediophilic in nature.!

 

[cathgal]

estesbob:

True-they were almost NO intances of pediophilia in the sex scandals. Another interesting statisitc is that homosexual men make up between one and 3% of population but accout for over a third of all molestations. I pointed this out in a VIRTUS.ORG seminar I was required to attend to remain a Lector. They stated as a myth that homosexuals were more likely to molest than heterosexuals and backed it up by saying that the majority of molestations were done by heterosexauls . When i pointed out the % stats all I got was dirty looks.

My group handled the pediophilia issue quite well. When i pointed out what you pointed out the group decided that true pediophilia was when anyone over the age of 18 had sex with anyone under the age of 18. Thus ALL the actions by Priests were pediophilic in nature.!

Why should it matter if it’s pedophilia or not. It seems like the gays think it’s homosexual only if it involved man and man rather than man and boy. There’s only 2 genders in this world, male and female and homosexual mean having a SAME sex attraction (male). They don’t think that a homosexual can like boys too. Being a priest, I wonder if they choose boys to play with because it was easier and safer than playing with big boys. Just using the term pedophilia is not enough. You’d have to ask is it a boy or a girl. Hetero or homo, it can only be determined from that.

 

[estesbob]

cathgal:

Why should it matter if it’s pedophilia or not. It seems like the gays think it’s homosexual only if it involved man and man rather than man and boy. There’s only 2 genders in this world, male and female and homosexual mean having a SAME sex attraction (male). They don’t think that a homosexual can like boys too. Being a priest, I wonder if they choose boys to play with because it was easier and safer than playing with big boys. Just using the term pedophilia is not enough. You’d have to ask is it a boy or a girl. Hetero or homo, it can only be determined from that.

Because those who beleive that openly homosexual Priests shoud be allowed claim the sex scandal had nothing to do with homosexual behavior. The po9int i tried to make at the Virtus.org seminar I attended is that is the Church thinks the solution to the problem is to screen out only those with pediophilic tendecies the problem will not be solved.

 

[buffalo]

estesbob:

. The po9int i tried to make at the Virtus.org seminar I attended is that is the Church thinks the solution to the problem is to screen out only those with pediophilic tendecies the problem will not be solved.

Yes, the PC gang has really missed the boat. When they wake up, the should be really mad they had been so hoodwinked by the MSM.

 

[cathgal]

estesbob:

Because those who beleive that openly homosexual Priests shoud be allowed claim the sex scandal had nothing to do with homosexual behavior. The po9int i tried to make at the Virtus.org seminar I attended is that is the Church thinks the solution to the problem is to screen out only those with pediophilic tendecies the problem will not be solved.

‘Only those with pediophilic tendencies’ ?. Isn’t the Church also screening out homosexual? I don’t get you.
Nevertheless, we can’t allow the gay culture to infiltrate the Church any longer. Just do whaterver house cleaning is required and that’d still be good.

 

[estesbob]

‘Only those with pediophilic tendencies’ ?. Isn’t the Church also screening out homosexual? I don’t get you.
Nevertheless, we can’t allow the gay culture to infiltrate the Church any longer. Just do whaterver house cleaning is required and that’d still be good.

Yes the Church is correctly screening out those with deep seated homosexual tendacies. I think you missed my point but then i am not exactly sure what my point was anyway!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’ll take a gay priest who happens to be kind, gentle, and forgiving over an angry judgmental oaf any day. I’ve seen both kinds, and one serves the flock while the other scatters it – and guess which one is which?

Alan

 

[estesbob]

AlanFromWichita:

I’ll take a gay priest who happens to be kind, gentle, and forgiving over an angry judgmental oaf any day. I’ve seen both kinds, and one serves the flock while the other scatters it – and guess which one is which?

Alan

I am sure that homosexual priests can be angry and judgemental as well. The new Church Document does not call for for the removal of Priests who may have had homosexual tendecies but are chaste and do not openly embrace the homosexual culture. I think its a good policy.

 

[YinYangMom]

AlanFromWichita:

I’ll take a gay priest who happens to be kind, gentle, and forgiving over an angry judgmental oaf any day. I’ve seen both kinds, and one serves the flock while the other scatters it – and guess which one is which?

Alan

The one honoring God’s guiding church, even though he needs to work on charity and patience, which would be the angry judgemental oaf.

Certainly not the wolf in sheep’s clothing, loyal on the surface but not in the heart kind, gentle and forgiving gay priest.

Right?

Alan, there are many wonderful, kind, loving, caring homosexuals on this earth. They are to be respected and valued like everyone else. But no homosexual should be a priest if those tendencies are deeply rooted in his heart and he does not, in his mind, accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality (if he had accepted them he never would have sought to be a priest in the first place). I cannot conceive of Jesus as a homosexual and our priests become Jesus (in persona criste) at the summit of our liturgy and in the confessional. So the two just cannot coexist. It’s dishonest, disrespectful and an insult to Jesus, imho.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

estesbob:

I am sure that homosexual priests can be angry and judgemental as well. The new Church Document does not call for for the removal of Priests who may have had homosexual tendecies but are chaste and do not openly embrace the homosexual culture. I think its a good policy.

If we got rid of the angry and judgmental priests, then we will pick up the gay who is.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

YinYangMom:

The one honoring God’s guiding church, even though he needs to work on charity and patience, which would be the angry judgemental oaf.

Certainly not the wolf in sheep’s clothing, loyal on the surface but not in the heart kind, gentle and forgiving gay priest.

Right?

Either way a human being is both good and bad. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree good fruit. Therefore, since we can both bless and curse, I must conclude that we are neither good nor bad trees.

That being said, how does it honor God’s guiding Church to paint an angry face on Christ? Wouldn’t that be a bit like Peter cutting off the servant’s ear? Peter had a good heart, but was prone to rush into error.

I do not understand how “loyal on the surface but not in the heart” distinguishes the two.

Alan