Quebec Priests Bash Church on Homosexuality - Real Problem is the Bishops

[WanderAimlessly]

No. A real problem is priests like this:

Quebec Priests Bash Church on Homosexuality - Real Problem is the Bishops
LifeSiteNews Publishes All Names of Rebellious Priests
By John-Henry Westen

MONTREAL, February 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Making international news from Canada today is a letter signed by nineteen priests in Quebec denouncing the Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality. The nearly 1000 word missive rejects the recent submission by the Canadian Conference of Catholic bishops to Parliament on same sex marriage, and also the recent Vatican documents barring persons with deep seated homosexual tendencies from the priesthood.

Published in La Presse yesterday, under the headline “Enough is enough”, the letter takes issue with the Church’s official teaching that the homosexual tendency is disordered, suggesting that the teaching contributes to “homophobia”, and is grossly outdated.

Full Story

PF

 

[Jeffrey]

Those priests should be excommunicated if they refuse to teach according to doctrine.

 

[Aureole]

I read this and I have to say that I’m still shocked! I didn’t expect something so blatant to come from priests. No doubt the mainstream media will have a hayday over this.

Anyhow, seeing as the bishops of the local dioceses don’t have a wonderful past in correcting these individuals, but contacting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith seems to be one step too many. Wouldn’t it be better to first contact the CCCB or some other such group? (I’m no expert on this kind of thing, I apologize if I say something that seems odd.)

 

[Catholic29]

Quebec priests challenge Vatican on homosexuality

Last Updated Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:50:40 EST
CBC News

A group of 19 Roman Catholic priests from Quebec has published an open letter criticizing the church’s stand on homosexuality.

The 980-word letter, published Sunday in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, is in response to two recent church decisions: the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ opposition to same-sex marriage and the Vatican’s refusal to ordain homosexuals.

Titled “Trop, c’est trop!” (“Enough is enough!”), the letter asks: Does the church "have the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life? “In these matters, the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong,” the letter warns.

continued: cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/27/quebec-priests060227.html .

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Being discussed here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101001
PF

 

[Petergee]

the Quebec priests who signed the letter dispute the Vatican’s position that homosexual acts are “immoral and contrary to the natural law,” writing that throughout human history, mankind has evolved and redefined what is natural to them. The church’s views must reflect human evolution, said the priests.

It’s hard to believe that the people who wrote this twaddle completed high school, let alone qualified for the priesthood. Human nature is exactly the same as it has been since the Fall. Humans can’t change human nature or make it “evolve” by redefining it. If this report is accurate, it’s both amazing and very sad.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Quebec Priests Bash Church on Homosexuality - Real Problem is the Bishops

Source URL: lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022706.html

LifeSite Home - Canadian Edition

Monday February 27, 2006

Quebec Priests Bash Church on Homosexuality - Real Problem is the Bishops
LifeSiteNews Publishes All Names of Rebellious Priests

By John-Henry Westen

MONTREAL, February 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Making international news from Canada today is a letter signed by nineteen priests in Quebec denouncing the Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality. The nearly 1000 word missive rejects the recent submission by the Canadian Conference of Catholic bishops to Parliament on same sex marriage, and also the recent Vatican documents barring persons with deep seated homosexual tendencies from the priesthood

Published in La Presse yesterday, under the headline “Enough is enough”, the letter takes issue with the Church’s official teaching that the homosexual tendency is disordered, suggesting that the teaching contributes to “homophobia”, and is grossly outdated.

continue reading
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022706.html

 

[Eileen_T]

Canon 751 defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt, after the reception of baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. . . .” There are a number of teachings of the Church that must “be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” We must believe, for instance, that Jesus is true God and true man. To deny or doubt this, with obstinacy, is heresy. We must believe the God exists in Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We must believe that He ascended into heaven. These phrases will all be familiar because they constitute the Creed that we recite each Sunday. It may come as a bit of a shock, but there are a number of Catholic theologians who now seriously call into question these basic teachings, these Creedal tenets.

There are also moral teachings that constitute a part of the deposit of faith that must be accepted and adhered to, “firmly embraced and retained.” Canon 750 concludes: “therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.” It is certainly necessary to exercise a great deal of caution and care in arriving at a founded conclusion that someone accepts or teaches heresy. There is something terribly harsh about calling a person a heretic. This is not something that is ever done lightly or capriciously. Nevertheless, there are those of the household of Faith who obstinately deny some truth that is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

• Bishop Robert Vasa (17 Feb. 2006)

Although the good bishop was addressing the issue of abortion, it would also apply to any of the Church’s moral teachings.

These priests have openly and defiently gone against Church moral teaching in a way that is public and liable to cause scandal. When this happens and their bishop does not take clear and authorative action, it leads one to wonder if he (the bishop in question) secretly sympathises.

Much PRAYER is needed for all priests and especially for those who have been appointed Shepherds over the flock.

 

[Eileen_T]

One of the effects of sin is a Dulling of the Intellect.

 

[bones_IV]

Dialoguing is the code word for “let’s keep discussing this until you see that I’m right”. Jesus predicted that we would be persecuted. But what’s knew. St. Augustine said that, “Sin blinds the conscienceness”. It was predicted at Akita that it would be bishop against bishop, cardinal against cardinal, priest against priest. Pope Paul VI said it best “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church”. Hopefully the Holy Spirit will correct these errors that have been rampant since Vatican II.

 

[Franze]

These news are very depressing. I know that the church doesn´t remove these priests but it must make it.

 

[Melanie01]

These priests have the right of it…homosexuality is a sin crying to heaven for vengenance, the sinner should always be welcomed by Christians and helped to reform …

I will be praying for these priests in remaining faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and not deluded by the wishywashy happerclappers that have infected the Faithful

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Aureole:

Anyhow, seeing as the bishops of the local dioceses don’t have a wonderful past in correcting these individuals, but contacting the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith seems to be one step too many. Wouldn’t it be better to first contact the CCCB or some other such group? (I’m no expert on this kind of thing, I apologize if I say something that seems odd.)

No. Since the problem has broken through the Bishops’s line of defence, then emails can be sent to the CDF, to the Vatican Envoy to Canada, and to Cardinal Ouellete who is the Prelate of Canada.

A copy of the email may also be sent to Bishop Henry in Calgary since he is defending himself in court against the gay lobby.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This is a rough translation of the letter:

La Presse
Forum, dimanche, 26 février 2006, p. A11

Too much, it’s too much!

Nineteen priests expressed their dissent before two Church interventions relating to the civil wedding of same sex couples and access to the priesthood.

By way of an open letter to the bishops of Quebec the following text is co-signed by priests André Anctil, V Arruda, Jean-Pierre Langlois, Claude Lefebvre, Claude Lussier (diocese of Montreal); Éric Genereux, Raymond Gravel, Bernard Houle, Pierre-Gervais, Majeau Guylain, Prince Claude Ritchie (diocese of Joliette); Jean-Yves Cédilot, Jocelyn Jobin, Alain Léonard, Lucien Lemieux (diocese of Saint-Jean-Longueuil); Benoit Fortin, Michel Lacroix, Claude St-Laurent (diocese of Gatineau); and Jacques Furrier (diocese of Gaspé).

Two recent interventions connected with the church were addressed to people of homosexual orientation: one related to the civil wedding of same sex couples here in Canada, the other dealt with access to the priesthood and came from the Vatican. In the first case, the Church responded to the report of the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of Canada (CECC) attached to the legislative Committee in charge of the bill C-38; the other document emanated from the Congregation for Catholic Education in Rome. In both cases, the total attitude that was expressed there, as well as the argumentation which was deployed, bring up for us – as well as for others – perplexity and discord.

Perplexed by the negative attitude

Vatican Council II clarified a fundamental given: the Church loves the world. She accomodates it with its riches and its miseries. She is shown laid out to accompany it in its walk. She wishes and desires to contribute to the life of the societies which form part of it, and she also expects to enrich herself through contact with them.

With the presentation of the legislative Committee memorandum on gay marriage, what a difference in attitude! You seem to give a course on law and anthropology to our political representatives. You denounce the poor state of the marriage to the country and you announce an even larger degradation if Bill C-38 becomes law. You unfortunately make us think of those “prophets of misfortune” evoked by John XXIII at the opening of the Council [Vatican II].

How far one feels from the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the world of this time! One could read there: “the joys and the hopes, sadnesses and the anguishes of the men of this time (…) are also the joys and the hopes, sadnesses and the anguishes of the disciples of Christ, and there is nothing really human which does not find echo in their hearts.”

As for the compassion which impregnated every step of Jesus on Earth, does any trace of it exist? Not a paragraph, not a sentence in your memorandum takes into account the historical discrimination exerted toward homosexual people, and the tragedy of their social or ecclesial exclusion so deeply felt by a great number of them. It is however in this human suffering that the entire search for social recognition of the gay movement finds its roots in its multiple expressions. Is it not there which we find our perplexity?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

It is this same attitude which is found in the Instruction of the Roman Congregation in connection with admissibility of homosexuals to Holy Orders. However, Thimothy Radcliffe, the former Master of Dominicans, affirmed recently in connection with this document, according to what The Tablet (November 27, 2005) reports: "I do not have any doubt that God calls homosexuals to the sacrament of the Order; and it is among those people that I find the most committed priests and most impressive that I have known. And we can assume that God will continue to call homosexuals as much as heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the qualities of both "

He concludes from that: "We should show ourselves more concerned for those whom our seminarians would be inclined to hate rather than for those whom they like. Racism, the misogyny, and homophobia are sufficient signs that a person might not be a model worthy of Christ "

Dissent with argumentation

All the argumentation attached to these texts does not convince us. One speaks there about “natural law” as if it dealt with a given as immutable as it is obvious. For our part, we consider that human beings have not yet finished seeking and discovering their “true” nature. The human condition is grasped only by means of a precise cultural bias which does not cease evolving/moving in time. Thus, that which was “natural” in a civilization and at a previous time can appear unacceptable now. Of course, this speaks of an evolution which spreads out over much time, and it is necessary to speak about it in terms of centuries rather than years. Let us take an example: slavery endured for centuries as natural, even in the Church, whereas it appears to us today as “against nature”.

The responsibility for the research and the definition of natural law falls on everyone since it deals with a condition common to humanity. The Church can draw on sources of inspiration of great value, of which some are particularly fitting. But the Church is in solidarity with all humanity and forms part of this world. Could it be that the Church alone holds all the keys which open the doors of the authentic human adventure? Would the Church necessarily have the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family, sexual life? Would the Church hold “all truth” on human existence? History and common sense show the opposite. In these matters, the official teaching of the Church has more than one once proven erroneous.

We wish that in this domaine the entire Church be considered the recipient of the human adventure: the Church herself, with her own riches and limits, without hesitation but without undue pretension vis-a-vis “the” truth. How supportive and trustful she is! It seems to us that it is in this state of mind and with these provisions of the heart that John XXIII and Vatican Council II invited the People of God to open themselves to the “signs of the times.”

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This concerns everybody

Why do we go down the road of public opinion? Firstly, we want to say aloud to the many Christians and to Christian women of the country who refuse the approach and the language of the authorities connected with the church: "You are no less Christian for doing so! "According to us, the essence of the Christian faith is not cause for debate. Your dissidence does not excommunicate you. Oh that you might not exclude yourselves so!

Secondly, we wish a Church dialogue on all questions concerning homosexuality. This dialogue is unfortunately not practical within our Churches at present, especially when one has a presentiment of differences in opinion. And mainly when Rome has already expressed herself on the subject. We wish that Christians place within earshot the lives experienced by their homosexual brothers and sisters. And that this take place both within their local communities as well as in broader consultation with their bishops. We hope that our bishops speak with each other on that topic and begin the debate in their respective Churches. We also hope that theologians may contribute to these exchanges. Whether or not meetings are formal or informal, announced or discrete, broad or restricted: that matters little. Most important is that free debate is revived, a forum for open and authentic speech.

As for us, we have taken time to witness to homosexual reality in the Church and we have decided to make public our initial reaction. The Andre Naud Forum is already growing and the subjects of our intervention multiply. We shout our desire publicly to carry out the great project of evangelization that was the Vatican Council II. Above all we do not want to return to the XIXe century: ultramontanism has had its day! Responsible dissidence is possible in the Church. We want to make use of this right, because we love the Church of Christ and we hope for the realization of its mission in the world of this time.

end of post

 

[Colm_O_Higgins]

Thanks, Ani Ibi, for posting the letter. Even as a layperson, its hard not to be offended by its condescending nature. Apparently, these priests are beyond Tradition, Scripture, 2,000 years of reason & faith, and (sic) Christ.

But then it’s harder not to take these priests to task, and remember to pray for them. For example, their ‘reasoning’ is more than a little suspicious: “Vatican Council II clarified a fundamental given: the Church loves the world. She accomodates it with its riches and its miseries. She is shown laid out to accompany it in its walk. She wishes and desires to contribute to the life of the societies which form part of it, and she also expects to enrich herself through contact with them.”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

See A Priest of Outstanding Character [scroll down to February 28] has an interesting discussion of the background of Father Raymond Gravel, a leader of the dissent.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Colm O'Higgins:

Thanks, Ani Ibi, for posting the letter. Even as a layperson, its hard not to be offended by its condescending nature. Apparently, these priests are beyond Tradition, Scripture, 2,000 years of reason & faith, and (sic) Christ.

But then it’s harder not to take these priests to task, and remember to pray for them. For example, their ‘reasoning’ is more than a little suspicious: “Vatican Council II clarified a fundamental given: the Church loves the world. She accomodates it with its riches and its miseries. She is shown laid out to accompany it in its walk. She wishes and desires to contribute to the life of the societies which form part of it, and she also expects to enrich herself through contact with them.”

I don’t see the problem with the section which you quoted. Vatican II was an opening into the world.

I have read the letter carefully. Of course on matters of faith and morals I disagree with the conclusions drawn therein. Nevertheless I applaude its courage or – if you will – its audacity.

I have often felt a “hole” in our relationship to singles and to homosexuals. I believe that this letter – although wrongheaded – gives us a window of opportunity to examine our own need for community and thereby to offer love to others. By love I mean charitable concern and care. Not sex.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Joe Kelley:

See A Priest of Outstanding Character [scroll down to February 28] has an interesting discussion of the background of Father Raymond Gravel, a leader of the dissent.

This commentary is detraction by innuendo. It does not even attempt to provide evidence. It just goes straight for the jugular by means of guilt through association; the association comprising placement in the same unfortunate sentence.

No, this kind of accusation imho is not worthy of Catholic dialogue.

My :twocents: