Gay priest speaks out about Episcopal Church controversy/Hit the stop button now

[contemplative]

Gay priest speaks out about Episcopal Church controversy

********11/26/2005 6:30 PM
(Joylynn Whitfield, WROC-TV)

“I really don’t give my sexuality a second thought here. I think for the most part my parishioners don’t either. To them I’ m a Priest, and I happen to be gay,” said Rev. Michael Hopkins. Read more

I hope the Catholic Church is hitting the emergency stop button of this business of being accepting of the gay agenda. I would hate like heck to see my local priests freely talking like this. It is so very close to those Catholics with a gay agenda they can almost taste it on their lips.


Hit the emergency stop button now on the gay agenda in the Catholic Church!

 

[contemplative]

You are traveling through another dimension
a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind.
a journey into a wonderous lands whose boundaries are that of imagination.
You next stop?
The Twilight-Zone.

Now, I think the Holy Spirit teaches the church about the evils of homophobia, discrimination of gay and lesbian people," Bradley said.

 

[contemplative]

You are traveling through another dimension
a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind.
a journey into a wonderous lands whose boundaries are that of imagination.
Your next stop?
The Twilight-Zone.

The diocese has 30 churches that have announced they welcome gays and lesbians. Some members of the committee believe the church has tackled the issues of race and sex, and is now being taught a new lesson.

Now, I think the Holy Spirit teaches the church about the evils of homophobia, discrimination of gay and lesbian people," Bradley said.

 

[Contarini]

Of course, the huge difference between the debate in ECUSA and in the RCC is that with us the debate is whether homosexual practice should be sanctioned. I don’t know any Episcopalians who think that celibate people with homosexual orientation should be barred from the priesthood (I’m sure there are some who think this, but it isn’t the position of most conservatives). That’s one of the reasons that I, for one, find the position articulated in the recent Vatican document distressing and bewildering. We conservative Episcopalians have spent a lot of energy trying to explain that we are not trying to discriminate against people based on their “orientation” but are concerned only with immoral behavior. Then the Vatican comes out with this document, and liberals are convinced all over again that we are really being dishonest and that all conservatives despise gay people as a matter of course.

I understand why the Vatican has taken the position it has. But I think it’s a serious mistake, because it surrenders the main point at issue–whether people should be defined by their sexual desires or by their choices. Conservative Episcopalians generally argue the latter. It now appears that the Vatican agrees with liberals in defining people by their desires. I think this is a retreat from a full-blooded, bold articulation of Christian sexual morality. Contrary to first appearances, it’s actually a compromise with modern liberal thinking.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

Of course, the huge difference between the debate in ECUSA and in the RCC is that with us the debate is whether homosexual practice should be sanctioned. I don’t know any Episcopalians who think that celibate people with homosexual orientation should be barred from the priesthood (I’m sure there are some who think this, but it isn’t the position of most conservatives). That’s one of the reasons that I, for one, find the position articulated in the recent Vatican document distressing and bewildering. We conservative Episcopalians have spent a lot of energy trying to explain that we are not trying to discriminate against people based on their “orientation” but are concerned only with immoral behavior. Then the Vatican comes out with this document, and liberals are convinced all over again that we are really being dishonest and that all conservatives despise gay people as a matter of course.

Have you actually read the Vatican document? If you stopped for a minute to read it, then commented, then I wouldn’t have a problem with what you are saying. What you are saying is not the position of the CC, and you would know this had you read the document. But all that the Vatican document did was basically restate our position. I think it’s fairly obvious that the ECUSA has been condoning the homosexual lifestyle in practise, with the ordination of an openly gay bishop, who left his wife and kids for a man, and was cheating on her at the same time. Not only that, but he speculates that Jesus was a homosexual and him and Peter were “lovers”, which is not what the Gospel says. On the contrary, the Gospel says Peter was married and had kids. With the ordination of female “priests”, lesbians, etc. it’s fairly obvious that the Anglican Communion doesn’t wish to work for unity any longer with the CC, which is sad. The Catholic Church doesn’t despise homosexuals per se, she despises the acts of anything that goes against the Gospel. And as shepherds, practising homosexuals should not be ordained into the priesthood, just as a practising heterosexual isn’t, because they’re not married (unless given specific permission from their Bishop or the Vatican, or unless they are in our Eastern Rite).

 

[oat_soda]

We conservative Episcopalians have spent a lot of energy trying to explain that we are not trying to discriminate against people based on their “orientation” but are concerned only with immoral behavior.

ontologically, nobody is homosexual. either you have a healthy sexual orientation in line with natural law, or you have a disordered one. most of us do not, because we are fallen, and are in need of Christ to redeem our sexuality. even lust in marriage between and man and women is disordered. so it is not that we are picking on homosexuals.

homosexuality the church teaches is intrinsically disordered. so while sexual attraction to the same sex may not be sinful, it is disordered, unlike sexual attraction between a man and women which is inherently good. the church has an obligation to allow only the best candidates into the priesthood. our sexuality is a reflection of how we treat one another and is a reflection of how God loves. this is why it is an important issue.

so basically the church is saying that if a priest candidate has a seriously disordered sexual orientation -of which homosexuality is one, is not fit for the priesthood. it is akin to preventing people who suffer from fetishes from the priesthood. in both cases the people are not “bad”, but have a disorder of one or another which can lead to evil acts, even if they don’t act on them.

 

[Contarini]

Semper Fi,

I’m a bit baffled. I have read the document, at least in its translation available on the Web. I wonder if you have. The debate is not about homosexual acts. That’s my point. We conservative Episcopalians oppose the policies currently being pursued by our denomination precisely because we distinguish between homosexual acts and persons who happen to have homosexual desires.

Oat soda,

I understand the point, but I still disagree. People should be judged by how they respond to their temptations. I don’t think the fact of having homosexual desires is particularly significant. That’s precisely the error that liberals make–to define homosexual desire as constitutive of a person’s identity.

People can commit evil acts of all sorts. You won’t keep bad people out of the priesthood by keeping out people who have that particular temptation. I think it would be much better to focus on the general moral and spiritual character of seminarians–and, yes, on their orthodoxy as well.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

Gay priest speaks out about Episcopal Church controversy

********11/26/2005 6:30 PM
(Joylynn Whitfield, WROC-TV)

“I really don’t give my sexuality a second thought here. I think for the most part my parishioners don’t either. To them I’ m a Priest, and I happen to be gay,” said Rev. Michael Hopkins. Read more

I hope the Catholic Church is hitting the emergency stop button of this business of being accepting of the gay agenda. I would hate like heck to see my local priests freely talking like this. It is so very close to those Catholics with a gay agenda they can almost taste it on their lips.


Hit the emergency stop button now on the gay agenda in the Catholic Church!

The catholic Churhc has added 20 million new members in the last 20 years-the episcopal Church has lost 30% of their membership. this is another example of why.

 

[fix]

Contarini:

People should be judged by how they respond to their temptations. I don’t think the fact of having homosexual desires is particularly significant. That’s precisely the error that liberals make–to define homosexual desire as constitutive of a person’s identity.

It is a central problem in one’s understanding of their identity. To overlook such a problem, particularly in light of all the cultural chaos, would be a terrible disservice to those with the affliction and to the faithful.

I can’t see how it can be minimized, not only from a theological position, but from a psychological position.

 

[oat_soda]

Oat soda,

I understand the point, but I still disagree. People should be judged by how they respond to their temptations. I don’t think the fact of having homosexual desires is particularly significant. That’s precisely the error that liberals make–to define homosexual desire as constitutive of a person’s identity.

this is why homosexuals are not bad people per say. they are slaves essentially to their disordered passions as many of us are. but Jesus did say if we look at someone lustfully even in our hearts we are committing adultary. assuming Jesus has reconciled the world to himself and has redeemed us, we strive to be perfect as he is perfect.

through the grace of God we can love one another as God loves us- which is unselfish and open to life. i suppose if you don’t see a problem with contraception in marriage you wont see the problems of ordaining a chaste homosexual either. the issues are both realated to the cosmic orientation of the sexual act and our call to be saints.

 

[Contarini]

fix:

It is a central problem in one’s understanding of their identity. To overlook such a problem, particularly in light of all the cultural chaos, would be a terrible disservice to those with the affliction and to the faithful.

I can’t see how it can be minimized, not only from a theological position, but from a psychological position.

But making it an issue contributes to the cultural chaos rather than fighting it. If someone understands their identity primarily in terms of their sexuality, then that’s a problem. But asking them to discern whether or not they have “deep-rooted” tendencies is encouraging them to understand their identity in this way. That’s my point.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

oat soda:

this is why homosexuals are not bad people per say. they are slaves essentially to their disordered passions as many of us are.

This doesn’t make any kind of sense at all. Being a slave to one’s disordered passions *is *being a bad person. But a chaste person is not a slave to their passions, by definition. The question is, why does the nature of the passions to which one is not a slave matter so much?

but Jesus did say if we look at someone lustfully even in our hearts we are committing adultary.

This is a common confusion. Obviously when I speak of a chaste person who is not committing homosexual acts, I mean in principle acts of any kind (physical or mental). Although obviously when it comes to sexual thoughts it’s hard to draw the proper distinctions and enforcement is well-nigh impossible. I would tend to say that any standard not enforced on heterosexual seminarians should not be enforced on homosexual seminarians. But certainly in principle chastity of mind as well as body should be expected. That is not the issue.

through the grace of God we can love one another as God loves us- which is unselfish and open to life. i suppose if you don’t see a problem with contraception in marriage you wont see the problems of ordaining a chaste homosexual either. the issues are both realated to the cosmic orientation of the sexual act and our call to be saints.

This doesn’t make any sense either–it seems completely irrelevant as far as I can see. First of all, I do have problems with contraception. I’m not sure the Catholic Church is entirely correct in its stance on the subject, but it is certainly correct in stressing the importance of the sexual act being open to life. At the very least, I think NFP is far preferable to artificial methods.

However, since chaste homosexuals by definition are not committing any sexual acts at all, I can’t see how on earth any of this is relevant. Of course the cosmic orientation of the sexual act rules out homosexual *activity. *But how is it relevant to a person’s temptations? Nor is the call to sanctity dependent on the absence of certain kinds of temptations. I simply don’t see that you have even the beginnings of an argument here.

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

Contarini:

But making it an issue contributes to the cultural chaos rather than fighting it. If someone understands their identity primarily in terms of their sexuality, then that’s a problem. But asking them to discern whether or not they have “deep-rooted” tendencies is encouraging them to understand their identity in this way. That’s my point.

Edwin

It is the potential candidate’s psychologists and spiritual directors who are asked to discern this, not the man himself. Enormous damage to their fellow seminarians/monks and to youths in their care, has been done in the past few decades by people who had your idea that it is wrong to “discriminate” against apparently chaste homosexual candidates.

Far from the “cracking down on gays” depicted in the mainstream media, the new document is actually a significant watering-down of the previous policy issued by Pope John XXIII, which had called for ALL candidates with ANY degree of homosexual tendency to be refused admission to the priesthood or religious life.

 

[fix]

Contarini:

But making it an issue contributes to the cultural chaos rather than fighting it. If someone understands their identity primarily in terms of their sexuality, then that’s a problem. But asking them to discern whether or not they have “deep-rooted” tendencies is encouraging them to understand their identity in this way. That’s my point.

Edwin

Msgr. Anatrella said that homosexuality is “a tendency and not an identity.” The Catholic Church, he argued, has a duty to warn against the acceptance of an “incomplete and immature” approach to human sexuality.

In practice, Msgr. Anatrella said in the I Media interview, experience has shown that when homosexual men become priests-- even if they are committed to chaste living-- “pastoral relations are very much complicated, and sometimes the teaching of the Church is neglected.” Even if homosexual men struggle to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church, he explained, “the psychological effects of their tendency have repercussions on the pastoral level.” Thus the Church has recognized the “collateral effects” of same-sex attraction, and concluded that such men should not be ordained.
lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113001.html

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Contarini:

Of course, the huge difference between the debate in ECUSA and in the RCC is that with us the debate is whether homosexual practice should be sanctioned. I don’t know any Episcopalians who think that celibate people with homosexual orientation should be barred from the priesthood (I’m sure there are some who think this, but it isn’t the position of most conservatives). That’s one of the reasons that I, for one, find the position articulated in the recent Vatican document distressing and bewildering. We conservative Episcopalians have spent a lot of energy trying to explain that we are not trying to discriminate against people based on their “orientation” but are concerned only with immoral behavior. Then the Vatican comes out with this document, and liberals are convinced all over again that we are really being dishonest and that all conservatives despise gay people as a matter of course.

I understand why the Vatican has taken the position it has. But I think it’s a serious mistake, because it surrenders the main point at issue–whether people should be defined by their sexual desires or by their choices. Conservative Episcopalians generally argue the latter. It now appears that the Vatican agrees with liberals in defining people by their desires. I think this is a retreat from a full-blooded, bold articulation of Christian sexual morality. Contrary to first appearances, it’s actually a compromise with modern liberal thinking.

My goodness! The Faith is NOT a political stance of liberal or conservative or anything in between.

The Faith is true to Jesus’ teaching. Love the sinner… hate the sin. Period.

Holy Orders is a calling… not a political right.