A little bit blown away by this...

[Ree]

You didn't explicitly mention it, and I never assume anything in cases like this.

Fair enough.
I guess I take things for granted.

It's just that I thought I had shown that I do know a bit about my religion, and for me to be upset would mean that he must be a Latin rite priest.

[gremcint]

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

I agree it is hypocritical in this case.

As for how you should feel...

The original lessons he taught do not all come from him he is using thousands of years of teachings and presenting it to you in a way that is to help you, just because he goes against it later it doesn't change what it means. Further did he ever preach about homosexuality or say that marriage is a man and woman only? because if not it doesn't actually go against his teachings. Also just because something's in the bible doesn't mean it's worth following (condoning of slavery, eating shellfish) so people are choosing to pick which lessons they want to take from the bible for themselves all the time so he has chosen to go against one specific one in this case, it doesn't make him a hypocrit. The reason he is a hypocrite is because he joined a group with an oath of celibacy and still claims to be in that group while breaking that vow.

[Ree]

Further did he ever preach about homosexuality or say that marriage is a man and woman only?

Actually, yes he did.

The reason he is a hypocrite is because he joined a group with an oath of celibacy and still claims to be in that group while breaking that vow.

Exactly!

Thank you for getting my point.

[gremcint]

Actually, yes he did.

Exactly!

Thank you for getting my point.

in that case he's even more of a hypocrite. and you're welcome.

[BlaqueKatt]

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

from what I got out of the article-the media is refering to him as a "Catholic Priest" he himself is not, he refers to himself as a "man of the cloth"-which has been used for those that were defrocked as well-so not the same.

Divorce may not be "allowed" in the Catholic faith, but while I was going through my second divorce and becoming a single mother a Catholic priest blessed me and my son, and told me we were welcome in the church-and explained to me that it was part of God's plan, and that he(God) understood humans are fallible.

Maybe this is part of God's plan*, maybe God spoke to him to stand up against the injustice carried out in his name-I don't know, no one does-but as per your faith you are not to judge(Matthew:7, v1-3), that is the domain of God himself-yet you are, are you now a hypocrite?

Not trying to argue, just pointing out, you're upset that he has gone against the teachings of the church, and in judging him you are doing the same.

*and if you truly believe in God, it kinda has to be or it wouldn't happen-God knows everything-God couldn't write the bible himself, and if you believe it was "inspired" by God-well it had to filter through imperfect human minds/hands-and is it not possible their own prejudices tainted what they wrote? Maybe he's trying to correct that through this man.

[BlaqueKatt]

No it was not.
Celibacy in the Catholic church is not only historical and traditional, but it is also scripture based.

actually no it's not-it's church law only

Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could inherit anyway in society).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives.


Another article on the subject

[Ree]

from what I got out of the article-the media is refering to him as a "Catholic Priest" he himself is not, he refers to himself as a "man of the cloth"-which has been used for those that were defrocked as well-so not the same.

He does state "the first man of the Catholic cloth." I have no doubt that he privately speaks of it as "first Catholic priest" nor do I doubt that he still thinks of himself as a Catholic priest.

Knowing him, though, I suspect he has used that term publicly simply to avoid accusations that he is referring to himself as a priest, since he knows he's probably going to be in enough of a pile of crap.

Divorce may not be "allowed" in the Catholic faith, but while I was going through my second divorce and becoming a single mother a Catholic priest blessed me and my son, and told me we were welcome in the church-and explained to me that it was part of God's plan, and that he(God) understood humans are fallible.

And that's wonderful for you, but I was referring to the teachings and examples of this particular priest, who spoke of the breaking of the marriage vows as wrong.

as per your faith you are not to judge(Matthew:7, v1-3), that is the domain of God himself-yet you are, are you now a hypocrite?

Not trying to argue, just pointing out, you're upset that he has gone against the teachings of the church, and in judging him you are doing the same.

Thank you for reminding me of that. That certainly helps me a bit to reconcile myself with the situation.

I really don't see myself as judging him, though.
He certainly never judged me when I went to him to confess my sins, so it's not for me to judge him.
In fact, I am praying for him.

I don't see how I am judging him because I am upset that a man who was like a member of my family and was such a part of the development of my faith in my teen years has turned against that faith by his actions today.

Maybe he was being called by God to do this, I don't know. I just can't help but feel that a large part of it was done as a slap in the face to his superiors.

A few years ago, he tried to run for a seat on the Catholic school board. Some time in the late early 80's, because of problems with priests holding public office, there was a ruling made that priests could not run for public office without permission from their bishop.

Since he was pretty much a priest without a parish, and he was in a diocese that didn't belong to him, but was being forbidden from celebrating mass publicly in that diocese, I think he felt it was OK to run for that seat.

The Archbishop of that diocese sent out a letter to his churches explaining that this priest did not have permission to run.
He was basically telling people not to vote for him, without actually doing it.
He ended up losing with only 29% of the vote.
It may have been because of the letter, or it may have been public disapproval of his lifestyle. I don't know. I think he blames his bishop, and this is his way of throwing it in his face.

That's my take on it.

Again, I may be completely wrong on that. I am certainly far from perfect.

[Ree]

actually no it's not-it's church law only

Not disputing it, but you are aware that this is a thesis written under the guidance of a priest who is no longer active in the priesthood, and is now married, and is an advocate for marriage in the priesthood?
Not disputing any facts given. Just pointing out that a thesis is slanted to the writer's own personal view.

Another article on the subject

From that link, "priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule".

Yes...and the rule right now is that priest are not to marry, and certainly not to engage in a same sex marriage.

As far as I know, there is nothing currently in the works to change that ruling in the church.

In my words that you quoted, I said it was historical, traditional, and scripture based.
I see nothing in what you posted that refutes what I said.

[BlaqueKatt]

In my words that you quoted, I said it was historical, traditional, and scripture based.
I see nothing in what you posted that refutes what I said.

David Rice presents a comprehensive historical look at celibacy in his book about resigned priests entitled, Shattered Vows. Rice credits Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx in The Church with a Human Face with asserting that clerical celibacy originated in "a partly pagan notion of ritual purity"

that is not scripture based-and there is actually no scripture that supports it-it was the council of Trent that was worried about losing church property to the priest's family upon death, prior to the council of trent and decisions of the popes it was allowed and encouraged-until the property disputes began, why else allow marriage and declare all male offspring illegitimate, and have them agree that their children could not inherit-the scripture you quoted was about the rich man entering the kingdom of heaven.

[BroomJockey]

Ree, him being a hypocrite or not, your feelings are incredibly selfish on this subject, I think.

He devoted a large part of his life to the Church, putting everyone before himself. Now he's found someone who presumably means as much to him as your husband did to you, and since his time preaching is finished, he decided to legitimize that relationship. And all you can think is "now does anything he taught mean anything?"

And I do think it matters that he's gay. You can say it'd upset you as much if it was a woman he was marrying, but your statement of "as long as he wasn't having sex, his sexual preference didn't matter" puts the lie to that. That tells me you were able to comfortably push the issue to the side and ignore it before, but now it's being thrown directly at your face, and you can't dodge it. *That* is why you're questioning everything he taught. Because you no longer can think of him as just a priest, but as a regular human with wants and needs, and those wants don't line up with your morality. How can anything he taught be worth anything if he's so immoral?

If he was still preaching actively, it might matter. But he's not. If God can't allow someone a few years of selfishness after 33 years of sacrifice, God's a dick. So be happy for him, and take those lessons for what they were worth to you when they were taught, not for what you want to add to them now.

[HYHYBT]

Not being at all Catholic myself, I may be completely wrong on this, and I realize that this is not what he did in this case, but aren't priests allowed to leave the priesthood to marry?

I just can't help but feel that a large part of it was done as a slap in the face to his superiors.

Sometimes, superiors NEED to be slapped in the face, and in my non-Catholic highly biased opinion, within the Roman Catholic Church the subjects of both non-celibate homosexuality and marriage for priests fit in that category.

[Ree]

And I do think it matters that he's gay. You can say it'd upset you as much if it was a woman he was marrying, but your statement of "as long as he wasn't having sex, his sexual preference didn't matter" puts the lie to that.

Actually, no.
It was poor wording, but the fact that he was gay didn't matter to me at all.
Flyndaran was accusing me of selecting what to be offended by in overlooking one thing that was against the church teachings and being upset by others.

His sexuality doesn't matter to me at all. If he had been heterosexual, I wouldn't care, either. I meant it was irrelevant because, presumably, he was living a life of chastity and celibacy, while preaching to us the importance of chastity and celibacy outside of the marriage.

Now, he is acting on it. Whether he is gay or not, he has been carrying on an out of marriage sexual relationship, which is against his own teachings, and he is married, which is against the vows he took.

Personally, I wouldn't have any issue if the church decided to allow priests to marry. As I said, though, there are no plans to do that any time soon.

As for him finding someone who means as much to him as my husband did to me, that's lovely for him.
However, he knew going into it what he was being asked to do, but he chose to be ordained and take that vow of celibacy.

There was a time when I did consider entering the religious life, myself. What stopped me was that I knew I wanted to be married and have a family, so I never pursued it.

Cal me selfish and judgmental if you wish, but I can't help how I feel on this.

[Rapscallion]

Many moons ago back when I was unemployed and unemployable, I watched quite a bit of morning TV. There was a programme called GMTV or TVAM (they kept changing the names) and one of the presenters was Mike Morris. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnLyt4bM5Ig he's in that clip with Kylie Monologue.

Anyway, there was a 'news' story about how a priest had begun a sexual relationship with a female sunday school teacher, and the Catholic church had dismissed him from service or something along those lines.

They were there in another studio being interviewed and broadcast into his on a screen, and he asked them what their problem was. They were stunned.

"Well, we don't think they should have done it..."

"Hang on, it was part of your conditions of employment, and you broke them, and they dismissed you from service. What's to complain about?"

"Well, we don't think they went about it very nicely."

It stopped being a news article after that.

Anyway, for me the worry about the initial post is whether or not the conditions of work are do-able. We're human - we're supposed to go out and breed by our nature. However, the terms are ones that he accepted, and he's supposed to be an example for everyone in his parish. If he can't follow the rules he's spouting, why should anyone else?

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

I have to side with Ree on this (yep - Pagan and Catholic, hand in hand )

He seems to be a massive hypocrit (again with that word!! What's going on here??).

He (the priest) makes a very long and vocal stance on an issue in one direction, and then goes and does the exact opposite. It would throw up doubts and confusions in anyone's mind. After all, she must be thinking "Is all he said in all of those years a pack of lies?" Is his vow completely meaningless???

If a Catholic priest led a life-long journey of espousing peace and love thy neighbour, and then goes and goes on a murderour rampage - what would you be thinking?? Or led a life preaching equality to all, and then blurts out racist propaganda, you'd be left pretty gobs-smacked too!

So now, Ree, you've somehow got to reconcile those two opposing thoughts... have you tried to contact him? Cos I'm damn sure you're not the only one to think like this!

(btw, I do actually admire his stance though! Well, other than making a vow, and then throwing it away.... damn that 'sacrifice' thing! Lucky he won't get crucified for it! oh, snap!)

[Ree]

I have to side with Ree on this (yep - Pagan and Catholic, hand in hand )

Not so far fetched.
I have many pagan friends and acquaintances, and I have great respect for their beliefs.