Priest Suspended for denouncing Abortion and Homosexuality

[beehumble]

We don’t know exactly what the priest said; at the moment our only source is an agenda-driven website.

That said, what you say is wrong on so many levels I’m not sure where to start. But I’ll attempt to do so with this. All of us, and I mean all of us are manifestly stubborn in sin. Without exception. By your understanding, none of us would ever be admissible to the Eucharist. And this makes a mockery of God’s infinite grace and mercy available at all times to all of us as often as we need it.

Let’s remove the word “homosexual” from the discussion for a moment. Let’s replace it with, oh, say an alcoholic who gets into a barroom brawl every Friday night. Nobody will argue with the “truth” that getting drunk is evil and a “grave disorder”. Nobody will argue with the “truth” that beating the snot out of someone every Friday night is gravely disordered.

However, if the alcoholic regrets his act and drags himself to confession before Mass, with a firm purpose of amendment …

Full stop. There’s your mistake right there. The drunk can have a firm purpose of amendment if they seek treatment. A person living with another person, outside of marriage, whom they identify as their lover can only have a firm purpose of amendment if they decide to live in a platonic manner - no sexual acts.

Other than that, there is no firm resolve, and no absolution of the sin in Confession. So they remain in a state of grave sin and thus cannot receive and might lose the Kingdom. The priest is right. Just a couple of weeks ago the readings at Sunday Mass in fact warned us to counsel our brothers in sin, and if we fail to do it, we too are responsible for them. This priest was doing his job, God bless him, and he will see his reward when he hears, “Well done true and faithful servant.” As for his leaders…well, prayer will help them.

And yes, God’s mercy and grace are always available…in the case of a grave sinner (and that means most of us including me) that grace and mercy is available in the Confessional. Absolution requires firm resolve though, as I described above for these cases. Note I did not mention gays; divorced and remarried Catholics w/o annulment also must live platonically or they are not absolved.

We need to strive to follow the mind of Christ, not the spirit of the age. Christ made these rules; our job is to follow them. “If you love me you will keep My commandments,” He told us.

God bless you.

 

[hawkeye]

“It was mainly the pastoral approach that was lacking,” Fr. Wade said. ** “A lack of respect, perhaps, for the people identified, for the groups of people as well,** which caused a division in the community. It was a difficult decision.”

What a joke above if it wasn’t so serious and ridiculous, " A LACK OF RESPECT" not to mention the heinous crime of butchering an infant who will never see the light of day…what respect did it get ?

 

[OraLabora]

Full stop. There’s your mistake right there. The drunk can have a firm purpose of amendment if they seek treatment. A person living with another person, outside of marriage, whom they identify as their lover can only have a firm purpose of amendment if they decide to live in a platonic manner - no sexual acts.

Full stop. There’s your mistake right there. You are assuming that the homosexual does not have a firm purpose of amendment. That is something only known between the sinner, God, and his or her confessor. You also seem to be assuming that the complainant says he lives with his lover, but we have no basis in fact to make that claim.

Moreover even if their resolve crumbles and they head back to confession and start all over again, they are at least in a state of grace between the confession and the next time they sin. Most of us do relapse, with our habitual sins, sexual or otherwise.

As Catholics, we’re called to be charitable and assume the best, not the worst, of people and not be busybodies about their lives. That’s why neither the layperson in the pew, or a priest who does not know the person, have any business determining their worthiness to receive the Eucharist; and why our very orthodox priests in our abbey will never refuse communion to someone they do not know.

And that I believe, is where the priest may have run afoul of the pastoral part of his vocation. However we’ll never know until we read his homily, and until then he deserves the benefit of the doubt too. And we also have to give the benefit of the doubt to the bishop who we have to presume, made his decision based on facts. So until we know, this thread seems to have been inspired by just another agenda-driven website. The thing is… with an agenda, either a good one or bad one, objectivity tends to fly out the window.

What we have is he says-he says-he says: priest, bishop, and complainant. Without all the facts, we risk falling into calumny. Now THAT’S something we should take to confession

We need to strive to follow the mind of Christ, not the spirit of the age. Christ made these rules; our job is to follow them. “If you love me you will keep My commandments,” He told us.

He also commanded us to love one another. He commanded us to even love our enemy. And St. Paul says:

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3

What a joke above if it wasn’t so serious and ridiculous, " A LACK OF RESPECT" not to mention the heinous crime of butchering an infant who will never see the light of day…what respect did it get ?

Again we don’t know the context of the comments. Surely you don’t attach the same culpability to a young woman caving into the pressure of her abusive boyfriend, or to a minor to the pressure of her parents, with the culpability of the parent or the boyfriend?

 

[hawkeye]

Again we don’t know the context of the comments. Surely you don’t attach the same culpability to a young woman caving into the pressure of her abusive boyfriend, or to a minor to the pressure of her parents, with the culpability of the parent or the boyfriend?

No, but I do attach it to those butchers masquerading as doctors, I know many young girls are pressurised by their boyfriends, husbands etc; homosexuals have a choice, people who cohabit have a choice, babies however, don’t.

 

[OraLabora]

No, but I do attach it to those butchers masquerading as doctors, I know many young girls are pressurised by their boyfriends, husbands etc; homosexuals have a choice, people who cohabit have a choice, babies however, don’t.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I too would tend to shift the blame more to those making abortion so readily available and I would widen the field to include legislators too, in addition to various lobby groups who have managed to convince said legislators that abortion is somehow a “right”.

As for homosexuals having a choice though… well we all have a choice to not sin, but we all still do. I’ll condemn homosexuals for their imperfections when I stop having imperfections of my own…

 

[hawkeye]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I too would tend to shift the blame more to those making abortion so readily available.

As for homosexuals having a choice though… well we all have a choice to not sin, but we all still do. I’ll condemn homosexuals for their imperfections when I stop having imperfections of my own…

I’m not in a position to condemn anyone, I know like everybody else what is right or wrong, but abortion has to be the greatest evil since creation, since it’s against creation.
I can however give my opinion against this heinous crime, it’s up to God what happens them and myself…after we depart this life.
I’ve heard the statement " Do not Judge " taken out of context here, we can judge actions, but we can’t judge souls, that’s up to God…

 

[followingtheway]

Well they might as well suspend the Bible because the Bible says “thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20:13 and “thou shalt not lie down with mankind” in Leviticus 18:22. The Bible condemns abortion and homosexuality, do you?

 

[OraLabora]

Well they might as well suspend the Bible because the Bible says “thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20:13 and “thou shalt not lie down with mankind” in Leviticus 18:22. The Bible condemns abortion and homosexuality, do you?

As I was adopted, rather than aborted, as an infant I am 200% against abortion.

The Bible though, does not appear to condemn homosexuality, which not a sin, but homosexual acts.

It says “thou shalt not lie down with mankind”. It does not says “you are condemned if you feel like lying down with mankind even if you don’t actually do it”.

Nor does it say “if you lie down with mankind, the mercy and forgiveness of our Saviour does not apply to you, should you ask for it in confession”.

 

[hawkeye]

As for homosexuals having a choice though… well we all have a choice to not sin, but we all still do. I’ll condemn homosexuals for their imperfections when I stop having imperfections of my own…

Not to sin, yes, babies have no choice, neither to sin, breathe, cry, smell, hear, touch, crawl, walk, need I go on… ?

 

[followingtheway]

It says “thou shalt not lie down with mankind”. It does not says “you are condemned if you feel like lying down with mankind even if you don’t actually do it”.

Well I’m undecided as far as homosexual origin, but wouldn’t “feeling like doing it” be temptation? In fact, a friend of mine mentioned that same-sex attractions are temptations.

 

[OraLabora]

Well I’m undecided as far as homosexual origin, but wouldn’t “feeling like doing it” be temptation? In fact, a friend of mine mentioned that same-sex attractions are temptations.

Yes that is “temptation”. Temptation doesn’t apply only to homosexuals. In fact we are all subject to temptation.

Being tempted is not a sin in itself. The sin is caving into temptation. Being tempted and not giving in is hardly reprehensible behaviour, it is what the saints did! Even Jesus had to face temptation when Satan attempted to bait him, but He resisted it.

We can’t always avoid temptation, it is around us constantly in our over-sexed, over-fed and over-stimulated society. What we can do is fight it.

But even if we fail, forgiveness is possible. St. Augustine led a debauched life before his conversion. Then he became a saint.

Not to sin, yes, babies have no choice, neither to sin, breathe, cry, smell, hear, touch, crawl, walk, need I go on… ?

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. I said that sinning or not is a choice we all face, and we all end up choosing sin at some point or another. What do babies have to do with that point? You make it sound like you think I am somehow defending abortion. I am not. I thought I was quite clear on that point.

 

[Melchior_1]

Here’s the deal:

Straight or gay, if you look lustfully at someone you’re committing adultery.

Straight or gay, if you have sex outside of marriage it’s a sin.

You need marriage for sex to not be a sin. Homosexuals can’t get married (I am aware that they can be civilly married some places, but in the eyes of the Church they simply cannot get married to one another), therefore their act of sex will always be a sin. Straight folks can commit sin while having sex being married as well, so it’s not all roses for them.

Straight or gay, if you lead a chaste life you’re safe. A chaste homosexual can receive the Eucharist just as much as a heterosexual can.

I don’t know, it seems like a fairly easy concept to me,.

 

[hawkeye]

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, I said that sinning or not is a choice we all face, and we all end up choosing sin at some point or another.

What do babies have to do with that point?

My point is, babies who get aborted don’t sin, apart from original sin, they don’t have a choice.

You make it sound like you think I am somehow defending abortion. I am not. I thought I was quite clear on that point.

In conclusion,… a homosexual can stop what he is doing, a cohabiting couple can stop living together, an unborn baby cannot stop itself from being murdered.

A cancer victim cannot stop him/her self from having cancer, it’s all about choice, the baby has** NO CHOICE !**

 

[Credendum]

Here’s the deal:

Straight or gay, if you look lustfully at someone you’re committing adultery.

Straight or gay, if you have sex outside of marriage it’s a sin.

You need marriage for sex to not be a sin. Homosexuals can’t get married (I am aware that they can be civilly married some places, but in the eyes of the Church they simply cannot get married to one another), therefore their act of sex will always be a sin. Straight folks can commit sin while having sex being married as well, so it’s not all roses for them.

Straight or gay, if you lead a chaste life you’re safe. A chaste homosexual can receive the Eucharist just as much as a heterosexual can.

I don’t know, it seems like a fairly easy concept to me,.

Agreed.

In any case, the priest should not have been suspended.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Well they might as well suspend the Bible because the Bible says “thou shalt not kill” in Exodus 20:13 and “thou shalt not lie down with mankind” in Leviticus 18:22. The Bible condemns abortion and homosexuality, do you?

The Bible also condemns eating pork and shellfish, should we deny communion to anyone who eats either of these things?
Now, I’m not much of a shellfish fan, and could live without it, and
I know for a fact I could never stop eating pork- no bacon, ever?! No baby back ribs, loin -cut chops, sausage of every variety?!
The horror!! :crying: :bigyikes:

By the standards set forth by some in this thread- if the Catholic Church followed all the laws of Leviticus like some would have us follow a few of the laws,
I should never receive communion again, as I would most definitely fall into the “manifest sinner” catagory, with my love of everything pork!!

Leviticus 11: 7-11
and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
You shall not eat their meat, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
Of the various creatures that live in the water, you may eat the following: whatever in the seas or in river waters that has both fins and scales you may eat.
But of the creatures that swarm in the water
or of animals that otherwise live in the water,
whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you, and shall always be loathsome to you.
Their meat you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall loathe.

This whole discussion really is pointless,
and just goes to prove that sometimes we Christians can be most “un-Christian”!
We do not know for sure what this priest said
and I for one, will look to the Bishop as the one with the authority here,
until someone higher than him says otherwise.

 

[Melchior_1]

Agreed.

In any case, the priest should not have been suspended.

If he said something along the lines of “all gays are Hell. Even if they live a chaste life, they’re going to Hell. And Abortion is totally unforgivable, not even Confession will save you” he should suspended.

We don’t know what the fellow said in his homily. Until we do, we’re left speculating.

 

[Will_S]

The Bible also condemns eating pork and shellfish, should we deny communion to anyone who eats either of these things?
Now, I’m not much of a shellfish fan, and could live without it, and
I know for a fact I could never stop eating pork- no bacon, ever?! No baby back ribs, loin -cut chops, sausage of every variety?!
The horror!! :crying: :bigyikes:

By the standards set forth by some in this thread- if the Catholic Church followed all the laws of Leviticus like some would have us follow a few of the laws,
I should never receive communion again, as I would most definitely fall into the “manifest sinner” catagory, with my love of everything pork!!

This has nothing to do with Leviticus. The Church teaches that homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered, and that homosexual actions are gravely sinful. This teaching will never change.

and I for one, will look to the Bishop as the one with the authority here,
until someone higher than him says otherwise.

No one denies that the bishop has authority. However, that does not mean that what he has done is right.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

And then…how do you also explain admittedly gay Catholic priests? Who are up there at the front administering the Eucharist? They can give it, but they can’t receive it? An actual priest?

And you see nothing wrong with this? A man who is a priest has no business discussing his sexuality and flaunting his preferences. He is celibate. That means something. And the term is having SSA, especially if the person is celibate. The society we live in is truly sick in the way that people feel they must talk about sex all the time and base their identity on sexual activity.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

1. There is a shortage of details and an excess of speculation.
2. This is not a Traditional Catholic subject, but one for Catholic News

CLOSED