Bishop Clark to Homosexual Priests: "We Deeply Value Your Ministry"

[contemplative]

Brad:

The problem is they will connect with some souls on the way down.

as in the spiritus christi church in Rochester, NY

 

[Other_Eric]

There is no ministry that a homosexual could possibly have other than the sexual exploitation of the innocent. By ignoring this objective reality, this bishop appears to be guilty abdicating his role as shepherd of his flock.

 

[contemplative]

There is no ministry that a homosexual could possibly have other than the sexual exploitation of the innocent. By ignoring this objective reality, this bishop appears to be guilty abdicating his role as shepherd of his flock.

Other Eric…here we go again. Can you support these comments you make? These black and white comments of yours on CA forums always set the stage for havoc.

 

[Other_Eric]

contemplative:

Other Eric…here we go again. Can you support these comments you make? These black and white comments of yours on CA forums always set the stage for havoc.

Do I really need to cite every single one of the thousands of newspaper articles published over the last three years that show the fruits of attempting to ordain homosexuals? Are you ignorant of the John Jay Report, commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, showing the disproportionate preference for male adolescents among homosexual priests? Have you not yet read the two works of Mary Eberstadt detailing how pedophilia forms the keystone of the homosexual condition? Have you perhaps not read the concurring article from NARTH? Or the analysis of the Family Research Institute? Perhaps you and this bishop find yourselves in the same position? To deny any of this, or worse, to know of it and refuse to believe that which it makes so obvious, is a willful ignorance. In a bishop, it is doubly serious.

 

[vern_humphrey]

contemplative:

Other Eric…here we go again. Can you support these comments you make? These black and white comments of yours on CA forums always set the stage for havoc.

I think we should remember the motto of the Knights of the Round Table, "Never rescue a maiden who owns a dragon ranch."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

We know that statistically in any large group of men there will be those who are to some degree sexual predators That being the case, we should at least try to screen out those with obvious sexual problems.

 

[Crow]

I think this article is one of the best versed and most well worded which I have read that show ‘the other side’ of my coin. I agree that homosexuality should be greatly considered when choosing candidates to the priesthood, because the condition itself forms a barrier to mature sexual state. but that is only my opinion.

What I admire from the article however, is that it does not condemn either side, but sheds a few facts and opinions, that i believe sincere. I would take such an article as an invitation for discussion, but certainly not confrontation. The bishop does state;

My intent is not to deal with all of the questions that could be addressed. That would be impossible here. I wish only to encourage all to be patient with the process of the visitation and fair in the reading of the rumored document, if and when it is published.

 

[contemplative]

Crow:

What I admire from the article however, is that it does not condemn either side, but sheds a few facts and opinions, that i believe sincere. I would take such an article as an invitation for discussion, but certainly not confrontation. The bishop does state;

Ahhh but with the Bishop’s own words he does cast condemnation when he throws this into the pile of his concerns.

I have thought about and prayed for these men because I know that two recent developments have caused them a lot of pain. One is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program now in progress. The other is a long-rumored document from the Congregation for Catholic Education about the admission of gay men as candidates for the priesthood.

Bishop Clark throws the

Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program

into the pile too. Why?

Who is he trying to appease? Publicly?

Who in their right mind would deny we needed

Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program

???

Who is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program painful for?

two recent developments have caused them a lot of pain. One is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program now in progress.

Bishop Clark is not talking about the upcoming document only.
Clearly Bishop Clark is agitated by two entirely seperate items.

• The possibility of a document banning homosexuals from the priesthood

and

• the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program

These two seperate items piled together in the Bishop’s article reveal much about him.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

**Notice: There has been a lot of judgement and condemnation in this thread, both of people with SSA and of a bishop. **

By adding to the bishop’s statement, some of you are professing to know what is in his heart. This, of course, is a violation of forum rules and is most uncharitable. I will be watching this thread closely. If the tenor of the posts does not improve, it will be closed. Repeat violators may be subject to suspension of posting privileges.

---

Thanks for your cooperation.

---

Walt

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Brad:

What did him being homosexual have to do with all of the good things that he did?

Nothing! That was my point. His sexual orientation had no effect on his ministry - and he did a great deal beyond his position as NYFD Chaplain as well.

I would hope that any SSA priests of the future act as he acted.

 

[contemplative]

What I really find disheartening is the fact the Bishop Clark is more willing to directly and publicly address these homosexual concerns and issues instead of the issues much discussed in this recent thread

Karl Keating’s E-Letter of October 25, 2005

For thirty years this diocese has been plagued by woman and layperson homilists. Unfortunately for the people in this diocese…no direct words on this matter have passed the Bishops pen and went to the press. This I don’t understand

 

[contemplative]

Arba Sicula:

Fr. Mychal Judge, OFM, the NYC Fire Department Chaplain, who died at the World Trade Center attending to the dying there, and who was honored by being Victim # 00001, the first official fatality of the attack, was not only a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, he was also a chaste homosexual. Who would not value his ministry and his ministry over the years that he was an official Chaplain? Who would hold his homosexuality against him?

You might try reading a September 11th Hijacking before asking these questions again.

 

[estesbob]

Arba Sicula:

Fr. Mychal Judge, OFM, the NYC Fire Department Chaplain, who died at the World Trade Center attending to the dying there, and who was honored by being Victim # 00001, the first official fatality of the attack, was not only a member of Alcoholics Anonymous, he was also a chaste homosexual. Who would not value his ministry and his ministry over the years that he was an official Chaplain? Who would hold his homosexuality against him?

It ws a shame how the Homosexual Rights community smeared this man after he was dead and couldnt defend himself. He was not homosexual.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

estesbob:

It ws a shame how the Homosexual Rights community smeared this man after he was dead and couldnt defend himself. He was not homosexual.

There was no smear. Not a single account of his life, his service to all people, and his sacrifice of his life was anything but positive. Whether the speaker was heterosexual or homosexual, it was all praise for Fr. Judge - not a word of smear or any attempt to minimize what he did.

 

[Other_Eric]

Arba Sicula:

There was no smear. Not a single account of his life, his service to all people, and his sacrifice of his life was anything but positive. Whether the speaker was heterosexual or homosexual, it was all praise for Fr. Judge - not a word of smear or any attempt to minimize what he did.

To call a man a homosexual is a smear.

 

[fix]

estesbob:

It ws a shame how the Homosexual Rights community smeared this man after he was dead and couldnt defend himself. He was not homosexual.

The source of the mis-representation, says Lynch, was due to the quoting by the newspapers of gay activist Brendan Fay, who said Fr. Mike (who ministered to gays as well as AIDS victims) was a homosexual. Writes Lynch "After the first series of newspapers stories reported that Father Mike was a homosexual, suddenly politicians were standing up in Congress lamenting the death of “Father Mike, the gay priest.”

Mr. Lynch recounts the shocking response of one newspaper editor who was challenged on the paper’s reporting. “The editor wrote that it really didn’t matter if Fr. Mike was a homosexual or not. Homosexuals are a disadvantaged group, the editor said, and if the story helped them with their self-esteem, then Father Mike would be happy. In other words, the truth about Father Mike being a faithful Catholic priest didn’t matter in our Politically Correct world.”

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092805.html

 

[Brad]

Crow:

I think this article is one of the best versed and most well worded which I have read that show ‘the other side’ of my coin. I agree that homosexuality should be greatly considered when choosing candidates to the priesthood, because the condition itself forms a barrier to mature sexual state. but that is only my opinion.

What I admire from the article however, is that it does not condemn either side, but sheds a few facts and opinions, that i believe sincere. I would take such an article as an invitation for discussion, but certainly not confrontation. The bishop does state;

When someone takes up one of these invitations for discussion, the discussion is generally one-sided and increasingly hostile the more that you side with the Church. This would likely be the case here when someone is willing to premptively strike at a Vatican document. Rather than spread rumours or try to shape opinion prior to the document, he too should wait for the document to be released.

 

[Brad]

Nothing! That was my point. His sexual orientation had no effect on his ministry - and he did a great deal beyond his position as NYFD Chaplain as well.

I would hope that any SSA priests of the future act as he acted.

Me too. But, in general, they have not.

 

[contemplative]

Brad:

When someone takes up one of these invitations for discussion, the discussion is generally one-sided and increasingly hostile the more that you side with the Church. This would likely be the case here when someone is willing to premptively strike at a Vatican document. Rather than spread rumours or try to shape opinion prior to the document, he too should wait for the document to be released.

I totally agree with you on this
but I think there is more to all this.
Unfortunately Bishop Matthew Clark throws this into the pile

I have thought about and prayed for these men because I know that two recent developments have caused them a lot of pain. One is the Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation program now in progress. The other is a long-rumored document from the Congregation for Catholic Education about the admission of gay men as candidates for the priesthood.

The Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation programs are not rumor but factual. Does not anyone else see that the Bishop is using this article as a vehicle to sympathize with the homosexual ‘pain’ and agenda?

If the Bishop mentioned the The Vatican-sponsored Seminary Visitation programs once, then why did he not mention it again later in his writing?

 

[st.jerome]

Other Eric:

To call a man a homosexual is a smear.

This cuts too close to the bone. To call a man a homosexual who is a homosexual is not a smear. To call a man who is a schizophrenic a schizophrenic is to announce a fact, not smear his name. Its a fact that, despite what a person might want for him/herself, he/she is attracted to members of his/her sex. In the catechism, sexual identity is a fact, not grounds for a smear. We cannot make progress until we look soberly at the realities.

 

[Brad]

st.jerome:

Its a fact that, despite what a person might want for him/herself, he/she is attracted to members of his/her sex.

That does not make them a homosexual. That means they have a disorderd attraction. It also does not make someone who is not attacted to members of the same sex attracted to members of the same sex(i.e. Fr. Judge)

st.jerome:

In the catechism, sexual identity is a fact,

The acknowledgment that some struggle with a disorderd sexual attraction is in the catechism. Labeling a person with this disordered attraction with an entire identity of homosexual, casting his/her heterosexual nature aside, is not in the catechism.

st.jerome:

We cannot make progress until we look soberly at the realities.

Exactly.