AmericanPapist Comments
Sorry, I think the Popes have always hid from this area and only they can do something drastic about it. If they don't, you will be filing reports like this ten years or twenty years from now that are carbon copies. If you have time as Pope to inaugurate bronze doors, then you have time to look into the Jesuits and their state of health.
The Popes have hid from condemning sodomy? JP2 and B16 sure haven't.
From HV to EV and the Catechism as well as directives from the CDF, it's been clear that sodomy is a sin and the 'orientation' is an disorder/illness. (As phenomenologically proven by the spontaneous combustion of those who suffer it and continually confuse a mere begging to differ with them with 'personal attacks').
What has happened is the failure of local church authorities and the theological/academic communities to echo the Papal directives in this and other areas of human sexuality.
As in abortion, for many the reason they were and are AWOL on the issue or have sided with the culture, is simply that they believe the culture's right and not the Church - or they're 'personally involved' and so are either blackmailed or kept from their ministry out of a fear of hypocrisy.
The Pope only has 'volunteer' divisions - he can't draft whole armies of followers against their will. If the Pope's divisions go AWOL on this it's hardly his fault - there not being an Inquisition and all... They bear most of the responsibility anyway for bringing the teaching to bear on their culture, social scene, area of ministry.
I fear we get buffaloed into false either/or 'pastoral solutions': either 'the gay lifestyle is wonderful' or 'all those with same sex attraction are damned, just because'. Both are wrong and thus pastorally harmful....
No one is damned for an inclination, illness, weakness, proclivity. But neither is one 'saved' or given a moral pass to follow one's whim blindly by them either.
Twin studies have proven SSA is NOT entirely genetic, (some identical twins were straight while their twin experienced SSA), so for SURE, no one can claim "to be born gay" anymore than one is "born depressed" as though that makes one a perfectly healthy individual of a different species and not simply an individual of our single human species with a cross to bear with dignity while we seek to care for the with respect.
We need to pray for and work to save the minds, hearts, and souls of those in the grip of all vices, illnesses, and self-destructive tendencies. Mercy and love bid we not call good evil and evil good.
You know, if a man like this priest doesn't care about the time or the place as to "coming out" at Mass, obviously he doesn't care enough about the Mass or the congregation to announce such shocking news.
This isn't the first time either. Richard Danyluck (sic), SSCC, did the same thing at his parish in Alameda, California.
I pity their cross and pray for them, but their selfishness is glaring when they use the Mass as their personal forum for their own whining!!
In the second place, is this "priest" going to be allowed to stay on? Hasn't Pope John Paul II and the Magisterium declared being gay and the priesthood are incompatible? Or, is that once they sneak in, oh, that's okay?
Matt, what do you mean by "stay on?" Do you mean dismissal from the clerical state? Or do you mean removal from public ministry?
The first seems rather hard to do here, and would depend on two things: (1) whether the Holy See would be willing to grant a rescript dismissing the priest from the clerical state, which for priests is granted only for the "gravest of reasons," and (2) whether the provincial superior (since he's a Jesuit) would be willing to make such a request to the Holy See.
I guess it's possible that the Holy See could see as the gravest of reasons the fact that a priest who, despite practicing perfect continence, is homosexual. The provincial superior, however, would be quite hesitant to ask for such a rescript.
The second one is much easier. Either Cardinal Rigali or the provincial superior can remove him from whatever pastoral office he's currently exercising without needing the consent of the other. If he's just a chaplain, the vicar general can remove him too under the same circumstances. Then again, if he clarifies that he's not practicing and that practicing is sinful, the two really easy reasons for removing him from ministry go away and his superiors would have to judge as to whether being a homosexual practicing perfect continence is a just reason for removal from public ministry.
Paul is right. The most ridiculous proposition of those who are so fundamentally opposed to "homosexuality" is the totally unfounded presupposition that homosexuality = sexual activity whereas heterosexuality is confined to the bonds of matrimony. Why is this same "criterion" not suspected or expected of heterosexuals? That is, when a man proclaims that he is heterosexual, we simply presume that he is engaging in sexual activity with women, regardless (or in spite of his) of his marital status. When I served as a missionary in Peru, I learned that it was a very common practice of fathers to take their sons to a local prostitute before marriage, so their sons could have some "practice." And my experience in the U.S. Navy, where the Navy bussed local prostitutes onto our bases for the "use" of the sailors, single or married, gives me a rather different view of the "sanctity of marriage" in actual practice... It's a wonderful theory, but the practice leaves much to be desired!
I refer you to the statements made by the Church regarding homosexuality and the priesthood. The two are not compatible. The heterosexuality argument used is short-sighted. The sexual behavior of a hetero can very much be considered when evaluating the worthiness of ordination or continued ministry. In this regard, yes, there is no difference because the issue is behavior and behind that a given mentality which bepseaks of unsuitability. On the other hand, homosexuality as defined by the Church is incompatible with the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Bishops with these cases need really to evaluate the theological and canonical status the priest has placed himself in.
This is not to imply in any way that the human dignity of a homosexual individual is any less than the next person. It is just that their condition is perhaps not suitable to the priestly ministry.
Commenting by HaloScan
