FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/p...res-he-gay 

                                           A few references to a life of chastity, but the overall tone seems to be one of rejection of Catholic teaching.
Quotes from the article:


Quote:Since my days in high school seminary in the 1980s, I was taught that homosexuality was something disordered, unspeakable and something to be punished.
 
It is disordered, but it isn't unspeakable and shouldn't be treated as such, and the inclination itself deserves no punishment. It should keep a man out of seminary, however, because the priest is father, and the role of father is a heterosexual, masculine one. 
  
Quote:This was until one day, at the age of 24, on a five-hour drive back to seminary, when the truth broke through the denial. I finally admitted to myself, "I AM GAY!" I was driving down a road trying to keep from veering out of my lane or off the road itself, repeating to myself again and again, "I am gay!" Years of built-up, toxic shame came pouring out of me as the tears were flowing down my cheeks.

Maybe if you'd learned Catholic teaching, there'd have been no shame for having a disorder, and you would have not tried to become a priest in the first place. 

Quote:I kept repeating and pondering my truth: "I am gay."

What was I going to do now? Where would I go from here? I remembered the words of the high school seminary rector, that if I were to say anything to anyone, then I would be thrown out. For years now, I had felt a calling to ministry in the church and have had a desire to serve people.
 
You could have served the Church and people in a million ways without trying to become a priest. Girls do it all the time.
   
Quote:With support from the director of spiritual formation at the seminary as well as my own spiritual director, both of whom assured me everything was going to be OK, I moved forward with ordination to the priesthood and with my ministry in the church.
 
Your spiritual director failed you and the Church by encouraging your ordination. 
  
Quote:By choosing to enforce silence, the institutional church pretends that gay priests and religious do not really exist.
 
Oh, we know gay priests exist. We have the clergy sex abuse scandals to remind us.
I had read this article yesterday.

The first thought that came to my mind was that this priest seems awfully self centered.

It seems incredibly imprudent and out of place to announce to your parish that you have a certain sexual temptation, and it should speak volumes about the problems with the Church, first that he was allowed to be ordained, then, that he felt the need to announce to his parishioners that he was gay, presumably during his homily at mass, that his parishioners stood up and applauded him for his "courage".
(12-19-2017, 10:10 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]I had read this article yesterday.

The first thought that came to my mind was that this priest seems awfully self centered.

It seems incredibly imprudent and out of place to announce to your parish that you have a certain sexual temptation, and it should speak volumes about the problems with the Church, first that he was allowed to be ordained, then, that he felt the need to announce to his parishioners that he was gay, presumably during his homily at mass, that his parishioners stood up and applauded him for his "courage".
Of course it is self centered. Narcissism seems to go hand in hand with this disordered behavior.
Quote:I went to the fifth floor of the seminary building, opened the window and climbed into it — with one leg inside the room and the other leg dangling outside. There I sat straddling the window for three hours contemplating whether I could face the truth of being gay or simply jump out of the window ending this once and for all.

If his disorder psychology and attraction was not enough, this incident he recounts here is one of the clearest reasons he should never have been allowed any farther down the road toward ordination.

Contemplating suicide shows he not only has zero understanding of the moral law, and zero prudence in judging the relative importance of things, but also that he simply does not understand what the priesthood is, when his mental conversation was : "Should I decide that I'm a homosexual, should I commit suicide and suffer in Hell for all eternity? I know what I'll do, I'll become a priest!" 

He's lost the plot and the point of the priesthood of Christ, which is all about sacrifice. A real priest is the first victim of his own priesthood.

This poor man still cannot give up himself. He can't decrease, so Christ can increase. He has to be the center of attention.

The worst part is that when it comes time for his Judgment, he will be judged not merely on these gruesome details we see, but on his priesthood as well, and to what extent he used that priesthood as he should have. Unless something changes, I seriously doubt that will go well for him.

Let's be sure to pray for priests, but especially men like these that were so let down by their seminaries who should have either weeded them out or formed them correctly. They will need a great deal of grace to overcome that disadvantage.
(12-20-2017, 03:54 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I went to the fifth floor of the seminary building, opened the window and climbed into it — with one leg inside the room and the other leg dangling outside. There I sat straddling the window for three hours contemplating whether I could face the truth of being gay or simply jump out of the window ending this once and for all.

If his disorder psychology and attraction was not enough, this incident he recounts here is one of the clearest reasons he should never have been allowed any farther down the road toward ordination.

Contemplating suicide shows he not only has zero understanding of the moral law, and zero prudence in judging the relative importance of things, but also that he simply does not understand what the priesthood is, when his mental conversation was : "Should I decide that I'm a homosexual, should I commit suicide and suffer in Hell for all eternity? I know what I'll do, I'll become a priest!" 

He's lost the plot and the point of the priesthood of Christ, which is all about sacrifice. A real priest is the first victim of his own priesthood.

This poor man still cannot give up himself. He can't decrease, so Christ can increase. He has to be the center of attention.

The worst part is that when it comes time for his Judgment, he will be judged not merely on these gruesome details we see, but on his priesthood as well, and to what extent he used that priesthood as he should have. Unless something changes, I seriously doubt that will go well for him.

Let's be sure to pray for priests, but especially men like these that were so let down by their seminaries who should have either weeded them out or formed them correctly. They will need a great deal of grace to overcome that disadvantage.

Have to admit, I'm pretty disappointed by Cardinal Listecki's comments. Thought he was a conservative.
This doesn't surprise me.

In my very humble (and probably not so charitable opinion) John Paul II surveyed the grounds of the seminaries early on in his pontificate and found them to be somewhat empty.  Trying to find a way to fill the empty seats, he latched on to one of the Vatican II buzz words "in personam Christi" and his engaged his theologians who quietly began certain reforms to bolster this concept "in personam Christi" in the seminaries' teaching agenda placing it higher than the concept of "ministry" or service to the people.  The idea of course is that by helping the seminarians identify so closely to being "other Christs" it would offer prestige or desirability to the priesthood.  And to some extent it worked.  Enrollment picked up.

Unfortunately, many times those who seek prestige are precisely those who feel that they lack it.  Those who feel dirty.  Those who feel ashamed.  Those who feel like the world doesn't accept them.  By offering "prestige" the seminaries quickly became centers of refuge for many who suffer identity crisis, orientation crisis, self-worth crisis, and the like.  The seminaries began to produce little "demi-gods".  In fact, in the diocese where I live, a 1st year seminarian who has never so much as comforted a grieving widow or taught a bible class ranks head over heals above a veteran permanent deacon of 35 years who has worked tirelessly for the Church, teaching classes, comforting grieving families, feeding the homeless, working at the local shelters.  Nothing too good to keep the seminarian numbers up.  

The other posters in this thread have it right - this priest is 100% self-centered.  But that is because this self-centeredness is what the seminaries are teaching.  Even if the seminarian isn't "homosexual", often he has some personality disorder that drives him to seek recognition and prestige - and the modern seminaries are designed to do just that, stroking his frail ego until it grows to an enormous ego by the time he is ordained.  

Christ sought the lowly, the fishermen actually.  But, he sought those who were well adapted to being who they were and who were not looking for an ego boost but were looking to actually serve Him in love.  Unlike our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters, the Romans say, sorry "no wives".  So here we set the standard, a prospective priest must abandon his legitimate, God-given sexual drive and paternity drive to enter into this ministry.  (Yes, I think if guys are honest, they will say that they want a family just as much as women do.)  Second, you have to be willing to live alone.  You see, celibacy was practiced by monks who live in community.  The celibate priesthood evolved as a concept of a "monastic priesthood" and for a while it worked because the rectories were full.  Parishes were full.  But nowadays, diocesan priests rarely live in community.  So basically, no sex and extreme isolation.  Not very pleasing to most people.  Even priests who start out sane often succumb to the isolation.  On the other hand, this lifestyle could be very attractive for someone who (a) doesn't want to marry a woman and (b) doesn't want someone looking over his shoulder (I.E. isolation may be a good thing for some).  I think the Roman Church is reaping the rewards of this recipe that she has created.  Unfortunately, it feels like we have an emasculated priesthood with a lavender bishopric.

By the way, don't blame the "spiritual director".  More likely than not, the spiritual director shares the same "cross" as the seminarian.  There is a definitely a code of silence.  I have a close friend who was entering seminary and was approached by a priest who tried to force an intimate kiss.  This was back in the 80's.  When my friend said "hell no" the priest's response was "Well I am surprised that you are rejecting this love that I am offering you."  It was years before he said anything to anyone out of fear.

So, are we surprised that scandals continue?  Are we surprised that our Priests proclaim publicly their "pride" at being homosexual?  I have said it before, I would rather receive the Eucharist from the hands of a married priest who has just left the embrace of his wife than from a "celibate" priest who just left a bathhouse.
(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]Unlike our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters, the Romans say, sorry "no wives".  So here we set the standard, a prospective priest must abandon his legitimate, God-given sexual drive and paternity drive to enter into this ministry.

Which is of Apostolic origin ... so it's what Christ clearly demanded of his ministers.

(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]Second, you have to be willing to live alone.  You see, celibacy was practiced by monks who live in community.  The celibate priesthood evolved as a concept of a "monastic priesthood" and for a while it worked because the rectories were full.

False. Celibacy is of Apostolic origin.

Granted, that married men could become deacons or priests, but that was if they observed afterward perfect continence. St. Paul's remark on deacons and bishops being "of one wife" only makes sense in such a case (i.e. they were not permitted to enter marriage after Orders because this would demonstrate their inability to remain continent).

As Fr Christian Cochini, SJ writes in his The Apostolic Origin of Priestly Celibacy:

Quote:The study that we have undertaken of the documents and of the historical facts demonstrates [the requirement of celibacy/continence], we think, with enough certainty. Let us conclude that the obligations demanded from married deacons, priests, and bishops to observe perfect continence with their wives is not, in the Church, the fruit of a belated development, but on the contrary, in the full meaning of the term, an unwritten tradition of apostolic origin that, so far as we know, found its first canonical expression in the 4th century.

Ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas, nos quoque custodiamos —What the apostles taught, and what antiquity itself observed, let us endeavor also to keep. The affirmation of the Fathers of Carthage will always remain an essential link with the origins.

(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]Parishes were full.  But nowadays, diocesan priests rarely live in community.  So basically, no sex and extreme isolation.  Not very pleasing to most people.  Even priests who start out sane often succumb to the isolation.

Becoming a priest is not about a pleasant life. It is about becoming an alter Christus, and doing Christ's work, living Christ's life, and giving up one's life for one's friends. It is about, in a word, self-sacrifice.

Giving up a family and sexual relations is something everyone who is not married must do. If you live as an unmarried layman, you must observe chastity. It is not an undue burden on a priest. Ask a serious and faithful priest and he will tell you that celibacy is as much a great gift as it is a sacrifice. It is a protection of his dedication to Christ and his Church, to whom he is "married".

Further, no one is owed the priesthood. If a man choose it, he does so knowing precisely what is expected of him.

"Married" priests were not supposed to be having sex. They violated a vow in doing so and committed a grave sin. They were expected to be perfectly continent and live as brother and sister. The abuses often rampant, because it was such a serious and near occasion of grave sin, the Church mandated celibacy, not merely continence.

The Easterners ignored this, and eventually the abuse was so rampant in the East, a non-continent priesthood was tolerated. In the East a married man could become a priest and did not have to observe continence, but a priest still cannot marry. That was a toleration of an evil, and as our Lord said of a similar toleration, it was allowed "by reason of the hardness of your heart ... but from the beginning it was not so."

(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]On the other hand, this lifestyle could be very attractive for someone who (a) doesn't want to marry a woman and (b) doesn't want someone looking over his shoulder (I.E. isolation may be a good thing for some).

A faithful priest before the laxity of present laws said Mass each day (about an hour with preparation and thanksgiving), had to pray his Breviary every day (about 75 minutes), was expected to do an hour of theological study, a half-hour of Scripture reading, a half-hour of meditation, a half-hour of spiritual reading, a spiritual communion and visit to the Blessed Sacrament. That was all before any pastoral work such as writing his sermons, visiting the sick, hearing confessions, meeting with parishoners, marriage instructions, convert classes and the like. That is a completely full day with just a bit of time for some legitimate recreations.

It should be noted that is hardly a life of solitude (especially if one has a large parish), and certainly not one where he is not supervised. Firstly, there is hardly time for much "freedom". Secondly, in the "good old days" the parishes were tight-knit and covered very small territory. A priest who was misbehaving or enjoying his "freedom" too much would certainly be a source of scandal and be reported. Thirdly, bishops actually took their job of being the fathers of their diocese seriously. Diocesan statutes from all over the world clearly demonstrate that priests were held to a high ideal and that their superiors, generally, took their job seriously.

A traditional seminary formation required daily accountability and supervision. As a young priest, a man was always put under a senior priest as a supervisor for several years to learn what the books could not teach. He was never given much "freedom". He would hear childrens' confessions, then old ladies, then men, and only after several years of these, would he be given full faculties. He was not, as you suggest, a loner.

One can have a variety of motives for not wanting to marry.

A traditional seminary formation demanded that the candidate manifest positive signs of a vocation, which include a supernatural motive. A lack of a desire to marry would not be sufficient. Even one's own personal sanctification would be insufficient.

The spiritual director would need to be certain that this existed before allowing a man to proceed to Orders. Manuals for such directors before the 1960s always demanded as a grave duty the immediate dismissal of anyone who had some perverse sexual disorder, or of any lack of perfect chastity. For instance an article on the topic by Fr William O'Connell in the American Ecclesiastical Review, suggested that if a seminarian confessed any sexual impropriety, even willfully impure thoughts, he should be required to promise not to ask for Orders under pain of refusal of absolution, until it was clear after a period of probation of at least six months that he had not committed any such sins. If he confessed a sexual act with another, or homosexual fantasies he was to be sent away immediately, not as a punishment, but because the good of his own soul demanded it.

So the traditional formation would weed out those who had a bad motive for not wanting to marry, and a desire for "freedom".


(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]I think the Roman Church is reaping the rewards of this recipe that she has created.

The Roman Catholic Church is doing only what Christ demanded from the example He gave, and the Apostles handed on. Are you then suggesting that Christ demanded too much? His priesthood is too difficult?

(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]By the way, don't blame the "spiritual director".  More likely than not, the spiritual director shares the same "cross" as the seminarian.

A spiritual director has a serious and important duty. No matter his background, his faults, his sins, he still has an office and will be judged on whether he fulfilled that office well. He shares a serious blame for this man if he, as the man suggested, failed to follow the Church's guidelines, and even just standard common sense, and allowed a man who not only has a sexually deviant attraction, a narcissistic personality, but also a self-admitted record of suicidal thoughts while at the seminary, to proceed to Orders.

(12-20-2017, 04:47 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: [ -> ]So, are we surprised that scandals continue?

When the Church was faithful to her principles, the celibate priesthood was not the cause of scandals. The connection is false, and even in today's grave crisis in the Church, the statistics don't show priests are any more deviant than the rest of society.

The best analysis regarding pedophilia suggests that about 0.6% of the Catholic clergy have this disorder (Jenkins, Philip : Pedophiles and Priests). This is much lower than the rest of society, where in men the disorder is estimated to affect about 5%. If we also consider ephebophilia estimates put the two disorders among Catholic clergy at about 1.8%. That is slightly less than the statistics for married men.

Celibacy has absolutely no causal relation to deviant sexual behavior. Firstly, as noted above, if this were true we would see a statistically higher predominance among the celibate clergy than married men. Instead we see it is the same, meaning marriage or vowed celibacy has no effect on one's tendency toward sexual deviant behavior. Secondly, the standard child molesters profile never includes a normal adult who becomes erotically interested or attracted to children or adolescents as a result of abstinence. So suggests Fred Berlin in his "Compulsive Sexual Behaviors" in Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors and many other authors on the subject.

Because married men are just as likely to abuse children as celibate priests, married clergy does not solve the problem. Neither being Catholic nor celibate predisposes a person to becoming a pedophile or sexual deviant.

To demonstrate that the problem is not vowed celibacy (and hence married clergy is not the solution), we could ask precisely how many proven sex offenders took a vow of celibacy? If the vow of celibacy did not cause a statistical significant number of abusers to abuse, that the problem is not celibacy.  

I also have personal experience in dealing with insurance for schools. When we were searching for a new policy for our school, I asked if the fact that there were clergy teaching at the school meant higher rates because of the chance of accusations of sexual impropriety with regard to the students. The adjuster laughed and said, Catholic clergy are "not even in the top ten" and Catholic School rates are usually much lower than secular schools. The top category of abusers are, in fact, unmarried male lay teachers in secular schools.
(12-19-2017, 09:28 AM)Eric F Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/p...res-he-gay 

                                           A few references to a life of chastity, but the overall tone seems to be one of rejection of Catholic teaching.

this happened in a parish NO that i used to attend.. time for the homily, priest stands up, tells everyone he wanted to 'share' somethings, and proceeded to come out of the closet.. said he was no different from any hetero priest, b/c he too like them took a vow of celibacy so if we accepted straight pruests, we could accept him as well.... never went back there after that day
(12-20-2017, 11:57 PM)catholicschoolmom Wrote: [ -> ]said he was no different from any hetero priest, b/c he too like them took a vow of celibacy so if we accepted straight pruests, we could accept him as well.

The $40.000 question then is, why even mention it?

Clearly he does see it as different, otherwise, there would be no reason to publicize his problem.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6