Here goes another priest who revealed he's gay

[felra]

Forest-Pine:

I see here a tendency to jump all over him and assume he is trying to change or attack the church simply because he is publicaly identified as homosexual. In him, I see a desire to fully live out his calling to the priesthood and fully submit himself to church teaching. I simply don’t understand what the problem is.

I don’t see the problem here.

I don’t agree.

Article excerpt: http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4334358

---

Popular priest tells parish he’s gay, but celibate

---

THIBODAUX, La. (AP) - Deciding he had to practice the honesty he preached, a popular priest has told his family, his bishop and the people in his parish that he is gay.

Why pray Lord does this priest feel compelled to go public with declaring his [psychosexual] identity as a “gay”? The term “gay” is all but politically and lifestyle advocacy charged, that the priest is declaring more than his struggle and affliction with same sex attraction. The good bishop needs to realize that this incurs the sin of scandal to the flock entrusted to this priests care.

 

[cathgal]

Forest-Pine:

He fully supports the recent Vatican document as he does not identify himself as “gay,” considering his homosexuality a moot point as his vow of celibacy comes first. His only problem is if he, someone who has done everything correctly and by the book, will be unjustly punished by being removed from his teaching position. I contend that this is the type of priest we need in such positions. Ones who put the CHURCH first.

He told those he counselled to face those they love and to embrace church teaching.

“someone who has done everything correctly and by the book, will be unjustly punished by being removed from his teaching position.”

Does this include what he thinks about homosexuality? I doubt it. Any priests who ever came out never said anything about it being a disorder, only that he’s gay. That’s why they can’t teach in seminaries.

"He told those he counselled to face those they love and to embrace church teaching. "
Where did it say he counseled them to embrace church teaching?
What it did say was:
“In all of these situations, I reassured these individuals of the unconditional love of God and encouraged them to live open and honest lives.”

“live open and honest lives”. What does he mean by THAT?!

 

[cathgal]

felra:

I don’t agree.

Article excerpt: http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=4334358

**
**Why pray Lord does this priest feel compelled to go public with declaring his [psychosexual] identity as a “gay”? The term “gay” is all but politically and lifestyle advocacy charged, that the priest is declaring more than his struggle and affliction with same sex attraction. The good bishop needs to realize that this incurs the sin of scandal to the flock entrusted to this priests care.

He came out cuz he was ‘insulted’ by the Vatican document and therefore need to defend his homosexual stance. His '“I have come to realize that while I was encouraging others to be honest, I was not putting these words into practice in my own life” was just an excuse. He could’ve just leave at that and I would’ve believed him BUT he just HAD TO criticized the Vatican document.

 

[Forest-Pine]

cathgal:

He came out cuz he was ‘insulted’ by the Vatican document and therefore need to defend his homosexual stance. His '“I have come to realize that while I was encouraging others to be honest, I was not putting these words into practice in my own life” was just an excuse. He could’ve just leave at that and I would’ve believed him BUT he just HAD TO criticized the Vatican document.

Not true. He started writing the letter in October and it is only now an issue worthy of media attention because he is facing his teaching position being taken away from him for no reason.

 

[cathgal]

Forest-Pine:

Since when can one not have a respectful and honest opinion? It is not dogmatic that those who have SSA cannot teach in a seminary. He is completely within his rights to disagree on this issue. The true marker is if he respectfully follows the rule while he works to change it. We’ll see what happens…

Right, but if your moral thinking is screwed up, can’t teach.

This priest said whatever suit him but never anything about the disorder of homosexualilty. If he believes homosexuality is normal, then he has no right to question the Church. Any priest who says he’s gay, I would first ask him what he thinks about homosexuality. Good gay priest or not is based on his answer.

 

[cathgal]

Forest-Pine:

Not true. He started writing the letter in October and it is only now an issue worthy of media attention because he is facing his teaching position being taken away from him for no reason.

‘no reason’? I would double check on that.

 

[Forest-Pine]

‘no reason’? I would double check on that.

He has done nothing wrong. He has remained celibate. He has no problem with removing those who have not remained celibate. He takes his vow of celibacy seriously and does not believe a person with SSA should act on such. He supports the Vatican’s recent document. (It is only a single restriction in the cover letter that he finds to be unfairly applied.) He practices what he preaches and he upholds the teachings of the church. And yet, he is facing being removed from his teaching position and some on these boards (in another thread) have called for him to be removed from ministry entirely!

His point is that priests are celibate. If they are not, they should not be in positions of authority. That goes for homosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia, beastiality, whatever. If they do not live in accordance with the canons then they should not be in a position of instruction or formation. We need men who do submit to the church’s teachings by bringing their will into alignment with the church’s and their actions into alignment with their will. He is willing to be open and honest about what he’s done in order to show that, in his case, he’s done nothing wrong. He’s facing losing his position for no reason.

 

[goofyjim]

Folks, let me share a little of my story again. I am one of those that has worked through homosexual temptations w/o ever having acted on them. The first person I spoke to was a priest, not under the seal of confession. He asked me if I ever considered becoming a priest and was recommending a counselor to go to that apparently he would accompany me with. Since then the seeds have been planted. I have often felt that was my calling to the priesthood but from the looks of things as they are today that will never be. Once you admit to having faced the temptations how do you ever show you are completely free from ssa.

Of course, what threw me into a frenzy was a conservative Marian movement up in Bayside, New York that said AIDS is a punishment for homosexuality. Fortunately the local bishop there condemned the apparitions and Rome has said nothing more. But how was I supposed to feel? I was frightened as heck. Then I felt I needed the support of my family so I revealed my struggle to them. I was never kicked out of the house or anything like that. I was accepted for myself with no call for change whatever. As long as homosexual men and women are not acting out why can we not do the same with them. The Narth psychologists even admit that only a third of those treated are successful at changing their orientation.

 

[fix]

Forest-Pine:

He has done nothing wrong. He has remained celibate. He has no problem with removing those who have not remained celibate. He takes his vow of celibacy seriously and does not believe a person with SSA should act on such. He supports the Vatican’s recent document. (It is only a single restriction in the cover letter that he finds to be unfairly applied.

But that is central to the discussion. The Vatican does not want folks with this problem in charge of formation or teaching in seminaries. It is much more than simply being celibate. That was a central point in the directive.

 

[bones_IV]

Forest-Pine:

He has done nothing wrong. He has remained celibate. He has no problem with removing those who have not remained celibate. He takes his vow of celibacy seriously and does not believe a person with SSA should act on such. He supports the Vatican’s recent document. (It is only a single restriction in the cover letter that he finds to be unfairly applied.) He practices what he preaches and he upholds the teachings of the church. And yet, he is facing being removed from his teaching position and some on these boards (in another thread) have called for him to be removed from ministry entirely!

His point is that priests are celibate. If they are not, they should not be in positions of authority. That goes for homosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia, beastiality, whatever. If they do not live in accordance with the canons then they should not be in a position of instruction or formation. We need men who do submit to the church’s teachings by bringing their will into alignment with the church’s and their actions into alignment with their will. He is willing to be open and honest about what he’s done in order to show that, in his case, he’s done nothing wrong. He’s facing losing his position for no reason.

Somehow many a folk thinks that “my personal opinions coincide with the law of God”. Since when? What the Vatican says is not in juxtaposition with God’s law. They go together. You think that “because it’s not dogmatic, we don’t have to except it”. Sin is still sin, and disobedience is still disobedience no matter how much one tries to sugar coat it. Even St. Basil had to obey. Forest-Pine, you must obey the directive from the Vatican even if you don’t agree with it. Homosexuals teaching at a seminary is not a good role model for priests. When God speaks on matters like this, He makes the call through the Vatican.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

cathgal:

He’s celibate cuz he’s a priest. At least he’s sticking to his vow. But who knows what he thinks if one is not a priest. We still don’t know what he thinks about homosexuality, disorder or not. That’s why Vatican is so prudent about homosexual priests teaching at seminaries. The parents of those kids he counseled should check up on what kind of counseling he gives if they haven’t already.

I agree, he didn’t take the opportunity to affirm and uphold the Church’s teaching. That is regretable and I think suspect.

 

[Franze]

Please the priests bothered by the instructions and they want to be gay and not celibate, they must leave the priesthood!! It´s better few priests and good that more and bad.

 

[felra]

Forest-Pine:

He has done nothing wrong. He has remained celibate. …And yet, he is facing being removed from his teaching position and some on these boards (in another thread) have called for him to be removed from ministry entirely!

His point is that priests are celibate. If they are not, they should not be in positions of authority. …He’s facing losing his position for no reason.

The bishops are simply being prudent in following the Vatican directives. The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) made this very same prudent recommendation to the bishops (see excerpt below). This is not about an individual priest’s rights to _____, but about protecting the Flock and sparring the Church future risk scandal or watered down teaching. “Better safe than sorry”.

**
An Open Letter to the Bishops

by the Catholic Medical Association Task Force

May 29, 2002

(excerpt):

“One of the major problems we have discovered in discussing this issue with the clergy and the laity is the enormous amount of misinformation about the nature, origins, and treatment of homosexuality/SSA. This is not accidental. For over twenty years, activists, intent on changing the laws on sexual orientation, have put forward a massive public relations campaign specifically designed to spread misinformation that will change the social acceptance of homosexuality.”

“Finally, priests should be screened for homosexuality by their bishops or religious superiors prior to being considered for a position of responsibility in a diocese, religious community or in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

**

cathmed.org/publications/openletter.html

 

[cathgal]

Forest-Pine:

He has done nothing wrong. He has remained celibate. He has no problem with removing those who have not remained celibate. He takes his vow of celibacy seriously and does not believe a person with SSA should act on such. He supports the Vatican’s recent document. (It is only a single restriction in the cover letter that he finds to be unfairly applied.) He practices what he preaches and he upholds the teachings of the church. And yet, he is facing being removed from his teaching position and some on these boards (in another thread) have called for him to be removed from ministry entirely!

His point is that priests are celibate. If they are not, they should not be in positions of authority. That goes for homosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia, beastiality, whatever. If they do not live in accordance with the canons then they should not be in a position of instruction or formation. We need men who do submit to the church’s teachings by bringing their will into alignment with the church’s and their actions into alignment with their will. He is willing to be open and honest about what he’s done in order to show that, in his case, he’s done nothing wrong. He’s facing losing his position for no reason.

You keep goin’ around the circle. Let’s get to the point. Do you know what he thinks of homosexuality??

“In all of these situations, I reassured these individuals of the unconditional love of God and encouraged them to live open and honest lives.”

What does he mean by “live open and honest lives”?

You can defend him when you have answers to these.

 

[Libero]

You keep goin’ around the circle. Let’s get to the point. Do you know what he thinks of homosexuality??

“In all of these situations, I reassured these individuals of the unconditional love of God and encouraged them to live open and honest lives.”

What does he mean by “live open and honest lives”?

You can defend him when you have answers to these.

Maybe he means that those who feel the need to lie about their orientation are wrong. Maybe he thinks this lying can infact have a negative effect and make lying itself seem like less of a sin.

There is no need to be cynical and assume that his intentions are to order all homosexuals to start acting on their orientations.

One should not have to feel ashamed to admit they are a homosexual - I believe that it is this agressive “christian” anti gay attitude that makes people feel so bad about being homosexual, before they have acted on it.

 

[fix]

Libero:

Maybe he means that those who feel the need to lie about their orientation are wrong. Maybe he thinks this lying can infact have a negative effect and make lying itself seem like less of a sin.

There is no need to be cynical and assume that his intentions are to order all homosexuals to start acting on their orientations.

One should not have to feel ashamed to admit they are a homosexual - I believe that it is this agressive “christian” anti gay attitude that makes people feel so bad about being homosexual, before they have acted on it.

It is not about lying, but placing things in their proper perspective. A moral disorder should not be viewed as natural as meaning it is no different than having brown eyes versus blue eyes.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

The Houma Courier (Louisiana paper) has a poll question on their home page today(Thursday) (bottom right corner) regarding this.

houmatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

This is the paper in his diocese.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

Folks, the church has infallibly spoken on homosexual tendencies -it is an “intrinsic disorder”. Up until VERY recently (30 or 40 years ago) it was even called a psychiatric disorder by the entire secular psychiatric world. And medical evidence has NOT proven that it’s something you’re born with.

Now,I think the folks in the pews have enough to deal with without someone with an “intrinsic disorder” trying to help!!

Yes, they might be kind and loving - but they have a problem that colors EVERYTHING! They shouldn’t be counseling men and women and ESPECIALLY children and students at a college. If they believe they were born that way - then “God made me that way”, so I don’t have a problem, so you might be that way, too. Sure, you, too, can be a priest!"

If that were true then WHY does the church have Courage?

Fr. Morrison does not agree with the teachings of the church - he said so - the church has spoken infallibly on the subject - he must not preach or counsel. HIS thinking is disordered.

Let’s not let the culture color our belief of SSA.

Read, learn - but in ALL cases believe the infallible teachings of the church.

God Bless,
Angel

 

[cathgal]

Libero:

Maybe he means that those who feel the need to lie about their orientation are wrong. Maybe he thinks this lying can infact have a negative effect and make lying itself seem like less of a sin.

There is no need to be cynical and assume that his intentions are to order all homosexuals to start acting on their orientations.

One should not have to feel ashamed to admit they are a homosexual - I believe that it is this agressive “christian” anti gay attitude that makes people feel so bad about being homosexual, before they have acted on it.

That’s the problem with this priest. He wants you to GUESS what he’s saying. Why???
I understand that he makes it clear that people w/ homosexual orientation shouldn’t hide it but make it known, especially to family. But that’s the only clear counselling he claimed.
This can refer to ‘live open’ but what is ‘honest lives’? Live it out? I mean you can’t be honest unless you live it out. If one wants to get a point across, one just directly say it. Like live a chaste live. Dang! How complicated can that be! My only guess is the priest does not believe a homo need to live a chaste life so he uses other terms to confuse us. Any other way would be scandalous!
An honest priest who believes in teachings of Church would not have any qualm to say it like it is!

 

[Libero]

It is not about lying, but placing things in their proper perspective. A moral disorder should not be viewed as natural as meaning it is no different than having brown eyes versus blue eyes.

Brown eyes are more dominant in people, they shall be passed on if a parent has them, what are you implying here exactly? A moral disorder? He is discussing sexual orientation, nothing more.