H
Habemus_Papam
Guest
My priest used the term “gay persons” off the pulpit. When I asked him why he chose vernacular language that the Church does not use in her documents he said that he has the right to do so.
He says he used “gay” because "that is the term they (homosexuals) employ for themselves. But this is absurdist reasoning. Pedophilia is also a sin and a disordered condition. Adultery is a sin as is pornography. His reasoning would be analogous to priests to employing the euphemisms “boy-lovers”, “swingers” and “movie fans” off the pulpit.
I don’t think he does. If he were a theologian publishing and explaining the same concept - the Church’s command to be charitable to persons with “homosexual inclinations”(CDF terminology) then I don’t doubt that his bishop could command him to retract his use of that term.
I doubt there is a literal command from the Holy See to the priests and bishops to not use the language of our enemy, but I can see the common sense need not to use expressions which legitimize an immoral and unhealthy lifestyle.
Also, my reading of Canon Law leads me to believe that he does bring the Church and religion into disrepute when he did that and the ironic thing about this is that his comments came in a prefatory remark to the bishop’s letter reminding us to be kind to “homosexuals” (his term) even though homosexual marriage is now the law of the land here.
I have searched the Vatican website, read the catechism and most of the relevant sections of the current codex iuris.
If you can direct me to any letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Holy Father explicitly directing priests not to use non-ecclesial terminology for matters of faith and morals I would be most appreciative.
He says he used “gay” because "that is the term they (homosexuals) employ for themselves. But this is absurdist reasoning. Pedophilia is also a sin and a disordered condition. Adultery is a sin as is pornography. His reasoning would be analogous to priests to employing the euphemisms “boy-lovers”, “swingers” and “movie fans” off the pulpit.
I don’t think he does. If he were a theologian publishing and explaining the same concept - the Church’s command to be charitable to persons with “homosexual inclinations”(CDF terminology) then I don’t doubt that his bishop could command him to retract his use of that term.
I doubt there is a literal command from the Holy See to the priests and bishops to not use the language of our enemy, but I can see the common sense need not to use expressions which legitimize an immoral and unhealthy lifestyle.
Also, my reading of Canon Law leads me to believe that he does bring the Church and religion into disrepute when he did that and the ironic thing about this is that his comments came in a prefatory remark to the bishop’s letter reminding us to be kind to “homosexuals” (his term) even though homosexual marriage is now the law of the land here.
I have searched the Vatican website, read the catechism and most of the relevant sections of the current codex iuris.
If you can direct me to any letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Holy Father explicitly directing priests not to use non-ecclesial terminology for matters of faith and morals I would be most appreciative.