Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay
#31
(12-28-2017, 09:09 AM)prostrateinawe Wrote: The point that is to be understood with the concept of validity is that neither celibacy nor continence is required for validity.  Our Lord does not require either to effect His sacraments.  
 
And the Sacrament of Penance could be validly offered while the priest plays Candy Crush on his iPhone, and the penitent repairs a Roomba. The Sacrament of Matrimony would still be valid if the bride and groom were wearing swimwear during the ceremony at the Duomo di Milano. Mass would still be valid if the priest were doing his best Aretha Franklin impersonation while singing the chant, all while dressed in one of those sexy French maid costumes and balancing a bowling pin on his nose. 


Quote:We have no teaching that sexual relationships between married spouses is in any way evil (absent of course contraception and I would include NFP in the list of contraception but that is my opinion only). 

 
And no one has said otherwise.

Quote: It is merely Ecclesial law that would make it a sin for married priests to engage in sexual relationships with their wives. 
 
No, it's what Christ and His Apostles arranged.


Quote:Unfortunately, there is only a diocesan EF available in this area.  It seems somewhat futile to attend only to have a priest who swishes about the Church for the Asperges as if the aisle were a runway for models sporting the latest in shimmering copes.  

 
Meh. It's valid, right?


Quote:My position remains, I would rather have a married priest (continent or incontinent, doesn't matter to me).  Maybe celibacy and continence are more preferable for the personal holiness of the priest, but whether or not he is married or continent that doesn't affect the validity of the sacraments and thus doesn't affect me or anyone else in the laity.  When celibacy becomes a hiding place for those who will cause scandal, then that practice should come under scrutiny.
 
Maybe we should get rid of hospitals, too, since some people with Munchausen's and Munchausen by proxy use their disease to exploit others' sympathy and pity, in many cases using up taxpayer money in the process. We should also reconsider feeding the hungry since so many feign poverty because of greedy motives. And why allow women to have children when so many mothers are abusive and only have kids to get prolonged welfare payouts? Should parenthood should "come under scrutiny" -- or should the actual problems be addressed (in our case, weeding out homosexuals, getting rid of bad gatekeepers who allow homosexuals and the immature into our seminaries, and restoring decent liturgy and catechesis so people, including those exploring the possibility of priestly vocations, know what the priesthood is, know what's demanded of priests, and don't mistake the priesthood for winning a popularity contest, the means to get props, or taking up a gig as a stand-up comic)?
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#32
(12-28-2017, 11:29 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: About that Bokenkotter you cite as your source for your thinking: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/200...rs_hi.html

Or there's this from Kirkus Review, which reveals that this priest-writer (one who should've been laicized a long time ago) doesn't even accept that Christ rose from the dead. Nor does he dig the Virgin birth, the idea of original sin, etc.:
 
Quote:'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone'--or so readers familiar with traditional Catholicism may think when they finish this broad, balanced, startlingly pluralistic account of the Church's doctrine and practice. Bokenkotter has good orthodox credentials: a church historian, former seminary professor (of theology), and currently a pastor in Cincinnati--but on many key issues, he sees lots of latitude. The ""empty tomb"" has always been the cornerstone of apologetics for the Resurrection; Bokenkotter weighs the scriptural evidence pro and con, decides it may or may not have been a historical fact, but it's not all that important anyway. Many Protestant scholars reject the Virgin birth (Bokenkotter consistently works from an ecumenical standpoint); the magisterium has taught it since the year 200; but it's not really part of the ""core of the Gospel."" There are good reasons for the Reformers' criticism of sacramental confession as Pelagian, magical, legalistic, a tool of clerical tyranny, etc.--and then again there are good reasons for faulting these charges. Original sin has only a doubtful basis in the Bible (Augustine followed a misreading of Paul by Ambrosiaster); but suitably reinterpreted by the ""situationists"" and ""personalists,"" the dogma still has merit. These days, Catholic sexual ethics bristles with conflict and confusion, now that the age-old taboos against contraception, abortion, premarital sex, married clergy, women priests, and so forth, have been challenged. Bokenkotter clearly favors the left on most of these questions, but he stacks up the arguments and stands aside. He crams in an enormous amount of material and effectively draws on secular thinking to explain the psychology of faith (e.g., Erik Erikson on ritual as a way of transcending separateness). If he fails to define ""essential Catholicism,"" that's because his crisp summaries of doctrinal development and present-day divisions show there scarcely is such a thing (except in the mind of the Vatican). 
 
Ever read Rudolph Hochhuth's play "The Deputy", a work which, like John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" has been almost thoroughly discredited but which I've personally had thrown in my face as "proof" that "Church=Bad"? Some "historians" and others took that seriously, too. Even certain of our hierarachs did, likely those who were hierarchs because they infiltrated the Church with an agenda, just like Pope St. Pius X warned us was happening. From that Wikipedia page on "Hitler's Pope": Michael Phayer notes that during the Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church a direct reference was made by Bishop Josef Stangl to Hochhuth's play when he declared to the council: 'If we speak in the name of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, as the deputies of the Lord, then our message must be [a clear] 'Yes, Yes! [or] 'No, no' - the truth, not tactics'. His 'moving address'" made a significant contribution "to reversing the church's anti-semitism" (see Nostra aetate).'" 

"The Church's anti-semitism." Chyeah. 

Bad sources --> bad conclusions --> bad action.

Your point is well taken.  There are conclusions that Bokenkotter draws to which I do not ascribe.  On the other hand, there are historical facts that he reports that are accurate.  Even among the Church Fathers there are certain things in their writings that the Church now rejects.  While they remain Church Doctors (although not saints), there are two I believe that eventually left the Church and promulgated teachings contrary to the faith.  Nevertheless, we still accept that which they wrote that was good and true.  

"Traditionalism" has many, many positive aspects.  Perhaps it holds the key to the restoration of the Church, I don't know.  But it does not appear that we will see any time soon a mass return to traditionalism by the clergy or the laity.  I am willing to make concessions to preserve the true faith and I will not hold to idealistic standards if ultimately they play into the hands of the modernists.  In my humble opinion, the clergy of the NO Church have been highjacked and, right now, celibacy seems to be a contributing factor to the perpetuation of the lavender club and their boys and is being used to bolster their numbers.  I truly believe that there are "gatekeepers" who are actually motivated to promote the entry of deviants into the ranks of the ordained.  I heard the story of a young man who quit seminary after only a month or two and told his family that he was too straight to make it there.  I don't know if it is true or not but it wouldn't surprise me.  The thought that pink friendly seminaries are frightening away holy men is outrageous.  We need priests who are not simply pretending to be holy and there needs to be a way to break the stronghold of the lavender influence.  Maybe established men who don't frighten so easily might be a good thing.
Mater Dei, Ora pro nobis.
Reply
#33
Maybe instead of married priests we need a further expansion of the existing traditional orders so that the men who wish to become priests and not go through the diocesan process can go into those orders. It's a pipe dream to hope for the FSSP, ICKSP, etc overtake diocesan churches, but it certainly would be nice if their footprints grew at a faster pace especially considering how fast diocesan churches are closing... plenty of opportunity to swoop in and take over some churches.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#34
Sadly, some of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard against a celibate priesthood, came from Catholics. "We'll always have pedophilia in the church until we allow priests to marry" (that's typically the way it's stated) to which one must naturally conclude that all unmarried men and women are also potential pedophiles, since they too are called to chastity. Or, the less offensive, but still illogical "How can I discuss by marital problems with a 70 year old celibate who's never even had a girlfriend" and the supposedly well meaning "I'd really prefer to discuss my problems with a man who's raised children of his own and know's what it's like".  People can make any argument they like, but quickly they'll find that a 70 yr old celibate priest will never know what it's like to be a teenage girl, or a once stunning looking woman who can't shed the 30 pounds she gained from the last baby, and that sought after married priest with kids, might not understand what loneliness or the fear of aging feels like. Personally, if I ever had to choose between going to a married or celibate priest, I'd prefer discssing my problems with the man who has sacrificed all for the glory of God.
Reply
#35
(12-28-2017, 12:01 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: "Traditionalism" has many, many positive aspects.  Perhaps it holds the key to the restoration of the Church, I don't know.  But it does not appear that we will see any time soon a mass return to traditionalism by the clergy or the laity.  I am willing to make concessions to preserve the true faith and I will not hold to idealistic standards if ultimately they play into the hands of the modernists. 

There will be a restoration, IMO. The NO is dying out, and for good reason. Meanwhile, it's trad parishes, chapels, seminaries, and religious orders that are booming. It's trad families who have 9 kids. The NO will die because Math. And then there's the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell will never prevail. Pope Benedict predicted a much smaller but much holier Church Militant. I think he was absolutely right.
 
Quote:In my humble opinion, the clergy of the NO Church have been highjacked and, right now, celibacy seems to be a contributing factor to the perpetuation of the lavender club and their boys and is being used to bolster their numbers.  I truly believe that there are "gatekeepers" who are actually motivated to promote the entry of deviants into the ranks of the ordained.  I heard the story of a young man who quit seminary after only a month or two and told his family that he was too straight to make it there.  I don't know if it is true or not but it wouldn't surprise me.  The thought that pink friendly seminaries are frightening away holy men is outrageous.  We need priests who are not simply pretending to be holy and there needs to be a way to break the stronghold of the lavender influence.  Maybe established men who don't frighten so easily might be a good thing.

I think you're spot on about the earthly manifestation of the Church having been hijacked. Francis is clear proof of this, as clear as it gets. Vatican II and it's evil "spirit" is further proof. The decline is so obvious, one has to be truly blind not to see it. 

Our seminaries' gatekeepers are too often just as you describe. I, too, wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if the story of the seminarian who quit after a few months is absolutely true. Things are bad in the dioceses. But at FSSP and SSPX seminaries, the very opposite is the case, praise God. Have hope! And, please, don't toss aside priestly celibacy and continence because some evil-doers have gotten a foothold. That is exactly what our enemies want.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#36
(12-28-2017, 12:21 PM)Eric F Wrote: Sadly, some of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard against a celibate priesthood, came from Catholics. "We'll always have pedophilia in the church until we allow priests to marry" (that's typically the way it's stated) to which one must naturally conclude that all unmarried men and women are also potential pedophiles, since they too are called to chastity. Or, the less offensive, but still illogical "How can I discuss by marital problems with a 70 year old celibate who's never even had a girlfriend" and the supposedly well meaning "I'd really prefer to discuss my problems with a man who's raised children of his own and know's what it's like".  People can make any argument they like, but quickly they'll find that a 70 yr old celibate priest will never know what it's like to be a teenage girl, or a once stunning looking woman who can't shed the 30 pounds she gained from the last baby, and that sought after married priest with kids, might not understand what loneliness or the fear of aging feels like. Personally, if I ever had to choose between going to a married or celibate priest, I'd prefer discssing my problems with the man who has sacrificed all for the glory of God.

I also think it's partly because there are many Catholic men who either a) secretly wish they could become priests, but are already married or b) through their pride think they could do a better job than those who are priests. So they make up stupid excuses as to why celibate priests are bad. 

It always boggles my mind when people throw out the celibacy = pedophilia argument. I'm sorry, but if any heterosexual man is going to break his vows of celibacy he has plenty of options available with adult women from just going to a bar without his priestly attire to getting a prostitute. Same idea goes with homosexuals. The bigger risk occurs once they're dealing with teenagers. Even still a heterosexual male is not going to start putting the moves on a 15 year old boy because he's sex starved. In fact surrounding male priests with 15 year old girls now is surrounding them with a temptation. There are certainly plenty of 15 year old girls who physically look like adults.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#37
(12-28-2017, 12:32 PM)GangGreen Wrote:
Eric F Wrote:(snip) "How can I discuss by marital problems with a 70 year old celibate who's never even had a girlfriend" and the supposedly well meaning "I'd really prefer to discuss my problems with a man who's raised children of his own and know's what it's like".  People can make any argument they like, but quickly they'll find that a 70 yr old celibate priest will never know what it's like to be a teenage girl, or a once stunning looking woman who can't shed the 30 pounds she gained from the last baby, and that sought after married priest with kids, might not understand what loneliness or the fear of aging feels like. Personally, if I ever had to choose between going to a married or celibate priest, I'd prefer discssing my problems with the man who has sacrificed all for the glory of God.
 
I also think it's partly because there are many Catholic men who either a) secretly wish they could become priests, but are already married or b) through their pride think they could do a better job than those who are priests. So they make up stupid excuses as to why celibate priests are bad. 

It always boggles my mind when people throw out the celibacy = pedophilia argument. I'm sorry, but if any heterosexual man is going to break his vows of celibacy he has plenty of options available with adult women from just going to a bar without his priestly attire to getting a prostitute. (snip)

Not to mention that the sex scandal in the Church wasn't a matter of pedophilia in the first place; it was homosexual ephebophilia. Almost all of it was a matter of gay priests going after teenaged boys, not little, prepubescent boys or girls.

I'd wager, too, that priests know a lot more about the ins and outs of marriage and raising kids than most people think, aside from knowing the healthy spirituality of it all. After hearing confessions for a few years, they likely know a helluva lot more about human behavior than pretty much anyone else.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#38
(12-28-2017, 12:57 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: I'd wager, too, that priests know a lot more about the ins and outs of marriage and raising kids than most people think, aside from knowing the healthy spirituality of it all. After hearing confessions for a few years, they likely know a helluva lot more about human behavior than pretty much anyone else.

Amen! I'm reminded of an old joke. A newly ordained priest asked an older priest to 'sit in' on his confessions (I know that's an absolute no-no, but it's a JOKE!). Afterwards, the young priest asks the older one how he'd done. The older priest replied, 'Not bad, but there really should be more tsk-tsk, and less oh! wow! involved.

After years of hearing the confessions of fallen, broken sinners, e.g., all of us, I'm sure there's nothing new to any of them.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#39
Homosexuality completely takes over the sodomite.  It seems to become a sort of manic obsession.

I'm yet to meet a homosexual who I KNEW was homosexual that didn't have that characteristic smartalec, show-off, melodramatic way about them.  They are truly the most annoying people on the planet.
Reply
#40
Peace....there are mentions in Scriptures of man not lying down with man - don't recall where or the exact wording, but it is there.  So, we are either following the Scriptures or not, as I see it.  Also, when one has to have a parade in the streets of dancing around in their underwear to make a point - there really is no point.  It draws crowds for fun and even mockery and especially in the teen years whether heterosexual or not.  Marriage for the heterosexual as I see it now, should be referred to as Holy Matrimony since it is in line with Scriptures and for procreation.  Procreation fulfills the purpose with no improvising.  I agree with comments posted referring to the SSPX for FSSP or any Tridentine Community where there is no teaching outside the teachings of Christ.  When that happens, it is not Christ's Church as was founded, but somebody elses - one we don't recognize.  angeltime
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)