Vatican dismisses gay priest who came out...

[GMDino]

http://www.thejournal.ie/vatican-gay-priest-2366369-Oct2015/?utm_source=facebook_short

...on eve of meeting regarding homosexual believers.

Quote:THE VATICAN REACTED furiously today after a priest employed as a senior official publicly declared his homosexuality on the eve of a synod of bishops that is due to touch on the divisive issue of the Church’s relationship to gay believers.

In a statement, a spokesman for Pope Francis said Polish priest Krzystof Charamsa’s action had been “very serious and irresponsible”, and that he would be automatically kicked out of his post as a theologian in the Vatican.

Flanked by his Catalan boyfriend and sporting his priest’s collar, Charamsa told a news conference in Rome he had been compelled to speak out against the hypocrisy and paranoia that he says shapes the Church’s attitude to sexual minorities.

While appearing resigned to the fact that his life as a priest is over, he said: “I’m out of the closet and I’m very happy about that.”
Visibly moved at times but always smiling, the 43-year-old added in Italian: “I want to be an advocate for all sexual minorities and their families who have suffered in silence.”


In an indication that Charamsa had planned the move for some time, he presented a 10-point “liberation manifesto” against “institutionalised homophobia in the Church”, which he said particularly oppressed the gay men who, according to him, make up the majority of priests.

He also revealed plans for a book about his 12 years at the heart of a Vatican bureaucracy only just recovering from a scandal under previous pope Benedict XVI over the influence of a “gay lobby” among senior clergy.

“I dedicate my coming out to all gay priests,” Charamsa said. “I wish them happiness even if I know that most of them will not have the courage to make the gesture I have made today.”

To my Church, I want to say that I reject and I denounce the current atmosphere of exasperating homophobia. Open your eyes to the suffering of gay people, to their desire for love.



Media impact

Charamsa, 43, timed his announcement for maximum media impact, coming as it did on the eve of a synod that is the second and final round of a review of Catholic teaching on the family.

Although the issue of homosexuality forms only a tiny part of the synod’s agenda, it has dominated the run-up to the three-week meeting and become a lightning rod for a broader debate between reformists and conservatives in the Church.

It was the timing of Charamsa’s action rather than the substance of what he said that infuriated his superiors.

In its statement, the Vatican said “the decision to make such a pointed statement on the eve of the opening of the Synod appears very serious and irresponsible, since it aims to subject the Synod assembly to undue media pressure.”

Msgr. Charamsa will certainly be unable to continue to carry out his previous work in (Vatican body) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical universities, while the other aspects of his situation shall remain the competence of his diocesan Ordinary (local bishop).
Catholic attitudes to sexuality were already making headlines this weekend after the Vatican confirmed that Francis had hugged an old gay friend and met his partner during his recent visit to the United States.

The highly symbolic gesture, indicative of Francis’s personally tolerant attitude towards gays, came a day before he met prominent gay marriage opponent Kim Davis – another private encounter that the Vatican said did not indicate support for her stance.


Last year’s first round of the synod also sparked global headlines when a draft working document included a passage saying that loving same-sex relationships had qualities that the Church should recognise. But after a backlash from conservatives, that groundbreaking phrase was excised from the final conclusions.

Doctrine

Official Catholic doctrine holds that homosexuality is an “intrinsic disorder”, but this teaching is interpreted in different ways and a distinction has always been drawn between homosexual feelings and acts, which, as with all sexual acts outside of marriage, are considered a sin.
It is this that makes Charamsa’s defrocking or resignation as a priest inevitable, according to Vatican experts. “I place myself in the hands of God,” he said today.

Increasingly, progressive theologians have come to accept that sexuality is innate, a premise that makes it harder to maintain a stance of outright condemnation.

But that view is not shared by conservatives who hold that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and that the task of the Church is to help gays to live celibate lives.

I also imagine it was more about him having a boyfriend than being gay. I know a few priests who are (if not openly) gay. I also know a few priests who had female lovers and at least two that had children that everyone "knew" about...but nothing was ever said.

I suppose going to the media like this one did probably sealed his fate.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-03-2015, 02:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.thejournal.ie/vatican-gay-priest-2366369-Oct2015/?utm_source=facebook_short

...on eve of meeting regarding homosexual believers.


I also imagine it was more about him having a boyfriend than being gay.  I know a few priests who are (if not openly) gay.  I also know a few priests who had female lovers and at least two that had children that everyone "knew" about...but nothing was ever said.

I suppose going to the media like this one did probably sealed his fate.

It's one of the things about the Catholic church that I never really understood.  I mean I understand their stance on homosexuality and sex and general, not that I agree with it.  I never really understood why priests had to be celibate and couldn't marry.  I had heard that it had something to do with not being able to pass money, wealth, and church property on to family or something like that.

Seems like the world just keeps moving on without them and then they are forced to play catch up and review and revise their stances in order to stay relevant.

[BmorePat87]

are we suppose to be surprised?

[Beaker]

He can't be gay...he's celibate.

[StLucieBengal]

Good, he isn't fitting the job description.  

I hope this is a trend and we bounce out priests who aren't doing their jobs.

Sexual attraction should be a non issue since they gave up that in becoming a priest. If they can't give that up then they should be booted.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-03-2015, 02:25 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It's one of the things about the Catholic church that I never really understood.  I mean I understand their stance on homosexuality and sex and general, not that I agree with it.  I never really understood why priests had to be celibate and couldn't marry.  I had heard that it had something to do with not being able to pass money, wealth, and church property on to family or something like that.

Seems like the world just keeps moving on without them and then they are forced to play catch up and review and revise their stances in order to stay relevant.

They make that sacrifice to put others ahead of their needs. If they are married it's hard to put others in front of your wife or children.

It's a calling, and if they find they need a wife then they can always walk away and become a deacon.

[*bfine32*]

Suppose it's like the Kim Davis situation: If you can't do your job, resign.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2015, 06:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Good, he isn't fitting the job description.  

I hope this is a trend and we bounce out priests who aren't doing their jobs.

Sexual attraction should be a non issue since they gave up that in becoming a priest.   If they can't give that up then they should be booted.

Sexual attraction is something they will never make a non-issue. It is human nature. But whether a priest's sexual orientation is gay, straight, bi, whatevr, it doesn't matter as long as it is not acted upon.

[GMDino]

(10-03-2015, 07:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Suppose it's like the Kim Davis situation: If you can't do your job, resign.

No, not really. 

He's capable of doing his job.  He isn't elected either.

He's not following one of the requirements of the job....but still doing the job correctly.

Kinda actually they opposite of Kim Davis.

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2015, 08:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: He's not following one of the requirements of the job....but still doing the job correctly.

Did that sentence make sense in your head?

[Brownshoe]

(10-03-2015, 08:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: No, not really. 

He's capable of doing his job.  He isn't elected either.

He's not following one of the requirements of the job....but still doing the job correctly.

Kinda actually they opposite of Kim Davis.

How was Kim Davis not capable of doing her job other than one requirement of it?

[GMDino]

(10-03-2015, 08:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did that sentence make sense in your head?

One of the requirements to HOLD the job.  He is still performing the DUTIES of the job.

Clearer for you?

(10-03-2015, 08:32 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: How was Kim Davis not capable of doing her job other than one requirement of it?

She fulfilled the requirements to HOLD the job but refused to do the DUTIES of the job.

Clearer for you?

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2015, 08:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: One of the requirements to HOLD the job.  He is still performing the DUTIES of the job.

Clearer for you?

Yeah, that's a little clearer. But you should have all capped requirements instead of hold in your explination.

Like I said sorta like Kim Davis. You can't do your job (requirements/duties) resign.

[GMDino]

(10-03-2015, 08:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, that's a little clearer. But you should have all capped requirements instead of hold in your explination.

Like I said sorta like Kim Davis. You can't do your job (requirements/duties) resign.

What part of his job duties can he not do?  Or, to be like Davis, what job duties has he refused to do because of his religion?

[Blutarsky]

(10-03-2015, 02:25 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It's one of the things about the Catholic church that I never really understood.  I mean I understand their stance on homosexuality and sex and general, not that I agree with it.  I never really understood why priests had to be celibate and couldn't marry.  I had heard that it had something to do with not being able to pass money, wealth, and church property on to family or something like that.

Seems like the world just keeps moving on without them and then they are forced to play catch up and review and revise their stances in order to stay relevant.

Priests are supposed to emulate Jesus...supposedly they cant both be devoted to God and their flock, and at the same time be devoted to all the responsibilities and dedication that goes into raising a family. Its about God 24/7.

Being celibate elevates the priest above everyone else including the Protestant pastor or minister. Elevates not in a condescending way, but in a way that makes him special or unique.  
He's a man so he's got to get horny...so to be able to stay pure, reject carnal desires and remain devoted to God no doubt makes him special in my book.

That all sounds nice in a perfect world, but after so many cases of priests molesting kids, I wonder how many actually are celibate. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-03-2015, 09:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: What part of his job duties can he not do?  Or, to be like Davis, what job duties has he refused to do because of his religion?

The requirements? If you don't meet the requirements of the job, you cannot perform the duties.

I would take a wild stab and suggest that he might not be willing to preach a sermon on the sins of homosexuality if the Vatican directed; of course I'm just guessing on that one. 

Like I said, sorta like Kim Davis, if you can't do the job (requirements/duties) resign. I have zero idea why you are having issues with his concept.

I suppose they are different in the aspect that Kim Davis can at least point to religious freedoms as why she cannot do her job. The preist can only point to same sex attraction.  

[GMDino]

(10-03-2015, 09:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The requirements? If you don't meet the requirements of the job, you cannot perform the duties.

I would take a wild stab and suggest that he might not be willing to preach a sermon on the sins of homosexuality if the Vatican directed; of course I'm just guessing on that one. 

Like I said, sorta like Kim Davis, if you can't do the job (requirements/duties) resign. I have zero idea why you are having issues with his concept.

I suppose they are different in the aspect that Kim Davis can at least point to religious freedoms as why she cannot do her job. The preist can only point to same sex attraction.  

Solid post.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2015, 09:14 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Priests are supposed to emulate Jesus...supposedly they cant both be devoted to God and their flock, and at the same time be devoted to all the responsibilities and dedication that goes into raising a family. Its about God 24/7.

Being celibate elevates the priest above everyone else including the Protestant pastor or minister. Elevates not in a condescending way, but in a way that makes him special or unique.  
He's a man so he's got to get horny...so to be able to stay pure, reject carnal desires and remain devoted to God no doubt makes him special.

That all sounds nice in a perfect world, but after so many cases of priests molesting kids, I wonder how many actually are celibate. 

It would be an interesting study to find out the actual celibacy rate. There has definitely been trouble with that for centuries and it is something the Pope is petitioned with regularly in modern times as well.

[Belsnickel]

(10-03-2015, 09:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: What part of his job duties can he not do?  Or, to be like Davis, what job duties has he refused to do because of his religion?

He has a partner. If he had simply said he was attracted to men then it wouldn't have been as much of a thing, but he has a partner. Is that not breaking his vows as a member of the clergy?

[GMDino]

(10-03-2015, 10:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He has a partner. If he had simply said he was attracted to men then it wouldn't have been as much of a thing, but he has a partner. Is that not breaking his vows as a member of the clergy?

If they are having sex...yes.

If they are legally married...yes.

But while that would disqualify him from holding the position...it would not keep him from performing his duties if they allowed him to continue the job.