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.
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.
Comment