A little bit blown away by this...

[Ree]

OK...I've been struggling with whether to post this or not, but I was emailed a news story last night that completely blew me away.

I shared it with the mods, because I just wasn't ready to post, but I needed to share it with somebody.
I felt that it was a perfect fratching discussion, and they agreed, but told me to post it when I felt ready.

This man is my former parish priest, and was like a member of our family for many years. He officiated at the weddings of at least 3 of my family members, and the baptisms and First Communions of several of their children.

He was often at our dinner table on Christmas Day, and would sit and have breakfast with our family after church.

We all knew he was gay, but for us, because he was a Catholic priest and celibate, his sexuality was irrelevant. He was an excellent priest.

When he publicly came out in 2005, it was a bit of a "ho hum" moment for us. (It was similar to when kd Lang and Rosie O'Donnell made their announcements.)

I have been reading various message boards today trying to get a feel for the public opinion, and it angers me that, just because he is a priest and is gay, it's assumed he molested his altar boys. To me, that's like assuming all gay men molest boys.

I realize that sexual abuse by Catholic priests is a hot topic, but to be honest, not one of my brothers has ever reported being touched in any way by him.

All of that aside, I am also angered at him for this latest action.

I don't know the whole story on how he came to lose his parish and ended up banished to Toronto, but there was a bit of a smear campaign started by people who didn't like the fact that he had a young HIV+ man living with him in the rectory, so they started making accusations of misappropriation of funds.
As far as I know, it wasn't true, but the fact that he refused to put the young man out on the street angered the powers that be in light of all the other scandal within the church. Added to that, he was an admitted alcoholic, and there were signs that he was falling off the wagon due to the stress.

To me, his public "outing" in 2005 was more of a slap in the face to his bishop than anything else. In my opinion, it was less about his own personal convictions, and more an attempt to embarrass.

I may be wrong, but I see this latest act as something similar.

The fact is, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic church demands that its priests be celibate. He chose to become a priest and make the vows that came with that job.

How can he now turn his back on those vows?

I would be just as upset if he had chosen to marry a woman.

In my opinion, it makes everything he ever taught to me seem hypocritical, and that upsets me.

[Boozy]

I am a bit confused by how this is going to work. The Catholic church demands celibacy for its priests, no? So if he gets married...will he be fired? Excommunicated?

[Arcade Man D]

The fact is, whether you agree with it or not, the Catholic church demands that its priests be celibate. He chose to become a priest and make the vows that came with that job.

How can he now turn his back on those vows?

I would be just as upset if he had chosen to marry a woman.

In my opinion, it makes everything he ever taught to me seem hypocritical, and that upsets me.

To my knowledge, the Catholic vow of Celibacy in the Latin Rites is only as long as they remain a priest. Now that he is retired, he is no longer bound by that vow.

And secondarily, was he ordained in the Latin Rites, or was he ordained under rites (which, though rare, do exist) that do not require celibacy?

[Ree]

Well, I believe excommunication is one route. I know several bishops have been excommunicated for ordaining married priests.

If I'm not mistaken, in the Catholic church, under canon law, it's once a priest, always a priest, as evidenced by the words used in the ordination ceremony, taken from Hebrews 7:17 "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

Any Latin-rite priest is automatically suspended under Canon Law 1394 the moment he gets married.
That law states:

"A cleric who attempts marriage, even if only civilly, incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) suspension. If, after warning, he has not reformed and continues to give scandal, he can be progressively punished by deprivations, or even by dismissal from the clerical state.”

I believe that covers both retired as well as active priests.

[Flyndaran]

So ignoring one catholic rule that doesn't matter is ok, but when he chooses to ignore another rule that doesn't matter, the op gets upset?
It doesn't sound like the priest is the one being hypocritical.

[Ree]

So ignoring one catholic rule that doesn't matter is ok, but when he chooses to ignore another rule that doesn't matter, the op gets upset?
It doesn't sound like the priest is the one being hypocritical.

Excuse me?

The fact that he was gay was not a choice he made. As far as I knew, he was remaining celibate when he was in our parish.

How does it make me a hypocrite because I was fine with his homosexuality because he wasn't acting on it, but am angered that he has now chosen to not only act on it, but to break his vow of celibacy in the process?

[Flyndaran]

Excuse me?

The fact that he was gay was not a choice he made. As far as I knew, he was remaining celibate when he was in our parish.

How does it make me a hypocrite because I was fine with his homosexuality because he wasn't acting on it, but am angered that he has now chosen to not only act on it, but to break his vow of celibacy in the process?

I thought the church likes to kick out gays? If not, then never mind.
I don't see any problem with not being celibate when there isn't any chance of children. That is why the whole thing started; too many kids being a drain on the parish.

[Ree]

I don't see any problem with not being celibate when there isn't any chance of children. That is why the whole thing started; too many kids being a drain on the parish.

No it was not.
Celibacy in the Catholic church is not only historical and traditional, but it is also scripture based.
"And Peter said, 'Behold, we have left all and followed You.' And He said to them, 'Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting."' (Lk. 18:28-30)
It is believed that Christ lived a life of celibacy, and the role of priest is to represent Christ in the church.

Celibacy allows for a priest to better able make his church and his parishioners a priority. It has nothing to do with a parish having too many mouths to feed.
After all, protestant churches manage quite nicely.

[BlaqueKatt]

In my opinion, it makes everything he ever taught to me seem hypocritical, and that upsets me.

why because he changed his mind after the fact?

look at it this way-if he had been say a science teacher, that decided after you graduated decided that evolution was wrong and strictly believed in ID and that darwin was wrong would he still be a hypoocrite?

People are allowed to change their minds/beliefs-doesn't make them hypocrites.

Am I a hypocrite because I was formerly a youth minister for a church and am now a Buddhist?

[Ree]

People are allowed to change their minds/beliefs-doesn't make them hypocrites.

To me, this is more than a case of changing one's mind about something.

He continues to call himself a Catholic priest, yet he is doing something that completely flies in the face of the Catholic church.

If someone is standing up for years in front of a congregation and talking about the teachings of the church and instructing us on them, asking us to apply that in our lives, it seems a bit hypocritical to then go against those teachings.

Divorce is forbidden in the church, because marriage is performed as a sacrament. He performed marriages and instructed my family on the importance of the vows of marriage.

When he baptised their children, he asked for the godparents and parents to make a vow to raise their children as Catholics, and he expressed the importance of those vows.

When I was confirmed, while the Archbishop administered the sacrament, he provided the instruction and stressed the importance of the vows we would be making on that day.

He was ordained as a priest in the church, and he took those vows in the sacrament of ordination.

Doesn't that make him hypocritical, after years of instructing others in how to live their vows and follow the teachings, to then turn around and break the vows that he made, yet still refer to himself as a "Catholic priest"?

[Arcade Man D]

To me, this is more than a case of changing one's mind about something.

He continues to call himself a Catholic priest, yet he is doing something that completely flies in the face of the Catholic church.

If someone is standing up for years in front of a congregation and talking about the teachings of the church and instructing us on them, asking us to apply that in our lives, it seems a bit hypocritical to then go against those teachings.

Divorce is forbidden in the church, because marriage is performed as a sacrament. He performed marriages and instructed my family on the importance of the vows of marriage.

When he baptised their children, he asked for the godparents and parents to make a vow to raise their children as Catholics, and he expressed the importance of those vows.

When I was confirmed, while the Archbishop administered the sacrament, he provided the instruction and stressed the importance of the vows we would be making on that day.

He was ordained as a priest in the church, and he took those vows in the sacrament of ordination.

Doesn't that make him hypocritical, after years of instructing others in how to live their vows and follow the teachings, to then turn around and break the vows that he made, yet still refer to himself as a "Catholic priest"?

That's all true if he's a Latin-rite priest. Is he? Or is he a priest who was ordained under an ordination rite that doesn't require a celibacy vow?

[Ree]

That's all true if he's a Latin-rite priest. Is he? Or is he a priest who was ordained under an ordination rite that doesn't require a celibacy vow?

This is the second time you have mentioned it, but I thought it was obvious that he was Latin Rite, or I wouldn't be so upset.

[Flyndaran]

No it was not.
Celibacy in the Catholic church is not only historical and traditional, but it is also scripture based.
"And Peter said, 'Behold, we have left all and followed You.' And He said to them, 'Amen I say to you, there is no one who has left house, or parents, or brothers, or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive much more in the present time, and in the age to come life everlasting."' (Lk. 18:28-30)
It is believed that Christ lived a life of celibacy, and the role of priest is to represent Christ in the church.

Celibacy allows for a priest to better able make his church and his parishioners a priority. It has nothing to do with a parish having too many mouths to feed.
After all, protestant churches manage quite nicely.

So you call all other christians not following the bible? Wow, bigot much? The bible has so many internal contradictions that wildly opposing factions can still say they follow it.
You just don't like it when someone doesn't follow the edicts you like, even when they don't follow others you don't like.
So a catholic priest must follow all edicts dictated by the church? There is no such thing as dissent?
I say that not showing dissent is sign of agreement. He would only be hypocritical if he didn't show his dissent.

[Ree]

So you call all other christians not following the bible? Wow, bigot much?

Ummm...what?

Did you miss a word, because that didn't make sense.

You just don't like it when someone doesn't follow the edicts you like, even when they don't follow others you don't like.

Again..what?

I assume you are referring to the fact that I did not have an issue with his homosexuality.
If homosexuality was actually a choice, then I would have had an issue, but the fact is, people are born with their sexual preferences. My church calls it a sin when a person engages in a homosexual relationship.
The church believes that any sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. Since same sex marriages are forbidden in my church, then, yes, his having a gay relationship is a sin in the eyes of my church.
As I said before, if he had been acting on his sexual preference when he was in my parish, then I would have had a problem with it.

So a catholic priest must follow all edicts dictated by the church?

Duuuh!! Of course, if he is going to call himself a Catholic priest".

There is no such thing as dissent?

Again, not if he's going to refer to himself or the media is going to refer to him as a "Catholic priest".

Did you even read anything I wrote, or did you just decide messing with Ree when it comes to the topic of her religion seems like a fun way to kill a few hours, just because you don't subscribe to the same beliefs that I do, and you find them ridiculous.

I'm not here to debate whether my Catholic religion is valid, or whether any of the edicts of the church have merit in your opinion.

The fact is, I am Catholic, and this was my priest, and he has chosen to go against everything he has been taught, everything he taught me, and everything for which he chose to take a vow, and that upsets me.

[Arcade Man D]

This is the second time you have mentioned it, but I thought it was obvious that he was Latin Rite, or I wouldn't be so upset.

You didn't explicitly mention it, and I never assume anything in cases like this. Too many times it's come back and bitten me in the butt.