You can't make this stuff up and Flannery O'Connor of my neck of the woods could write a novel about it. I wonder if it was this kind of thing that caused Pope Benedict to give up in despair????
And I have it from a reliable source,that more sordid information will come out which seems to be implied in Fr. Lombardi's reaction below. This is what my reliable source writes:
"... before that he went to all of the Polish liberal media and had told them he was going to do it today so they could get ready their blood thirsty cameras..."
Remember the Miami priest Fr. Alberto Cutie caught in a relationship with a woman who now has become an Episcopalian priest? Perhaps this will be the road that Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa will take showing how much more inclusive and non-homophobic the Anglican Communion is:
Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa:
Father Alberto Cutié,
And this on the heels of Kim Davis and Pope Francis gay friends! Stunning to say the least:
From Vatican Radio!
Fr Lombardi reacts to revelations by gay prelate (priest, not bishop)
43 year old Polish Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa has been living in Rome for 17 years and has worked at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 2003. He also serves as assistant secretary of the International Theological Commission and teaches theology at two of Rome’s Pontifical universities , the Gregorian and the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum.
In the brief statement, Fr Lombardi 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”. He added that Msgr. Charamsa “will certainly be unable to continue to carry out his previous work in 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” (bishop).
Please find below the statement by the director of the Holy See press office Father Federico Lombardi:
With regard to the declarations and interview given by Msgr. Krzystof Charamsa it should be observed that, notwithstanding the respect due to the events and personal situations, and reflections on the issue, 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 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.
MY COMMENT: Just wait until the gay propagandists in the liberal media get a hold of this! The Vatican fires a gay priest! That isn't going to be taken lightly! Just wait for the commentary on this! And just when they thought they had a supporter of their lifestyle in Pope Francis!
Look, don't get excited. You have to deal with the blatant incidents to keep the people placated. We have to wait until the time is right and gradually create an accepting atmosphere so that gays and other perverts can be brought in through more gradual means. This Priest is hurting our cause by being so blatant; we are firing him because he is stupid, not because he is gay. But, that's ok. Let the people think we are righteously outraged. It only works in our favor.
So the sin of calumny means nothing to you? It is as mortal of a sin as unnatural sex acts. Don't forget that!!!! Prove your gossip or retract it!
One bit of good news!
Hopefully, it may be a sign of conservative pressure mounting in the Vatican - no doubt Cardinal Muller saw to this priest's sacking.
This is what we've known, or at least, strongly suspected, all along. That there is a "gay mafia" embedded in the Church. These articles came out in Europe late, Pentin Tweeted it, I blogged it last night, late; this morning, he is sacked from CDF and the two Pontifical Universities.
This is not going away; rumours are, as you've written, there will be more from him and maybe others.
The light must shine on this.
Poor Pope Benedict, the wolves must have been vicious.
Quite right, Vox. I remember a few years ago the disclosure by a Polish priest:
" KRAKOW, February 26, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent paper by a Ph.D. priest from Poland has been circling the globe in recent weeks and given heightened prominence by the recent revelations of a Vatican inquiry into a “gay mafia” inside the Vatican. “Standing with the Pope against homoheresy,” was written in late 2012 by Fr. Dariusz Oko, Ph.D., a priest of the Archdiocese of Krakow and Assistant Professor at the John Paul II Pontifical University in Krakow.
Fr. Oko notes that his discovery of a “huge homosexual underground in the Church” came from his work in philosophical criticism of homosexual propaganda and ideology, a study he was encouraged to undertake by various bishops and cardinals.
“I began my work as a struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then gradually discovered,” he said, that “the enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well,”
It isn't gossip, it is merely speculation and certainly not calumny.
No! Spreading a false rumor which is also a lie, unless you can back it up is calumny. Back it up or retract it!
It is not even a rumor. It is my personal take on the situation. I could be wrong..it is an opinion. But, I know how lib/progressive minds work.
Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. The pope should ask all homosexual priests to resign. The local diocese should then help them find employment elsewhere. I know the technology isn't perfect, but seminaries should consider using lie detectors as an admissions requirement to weed out disordered applicants before they create problems.
Anonymous' first post did state the idea as a fact or rumor. But I think it is a healthy paranoia. The West's obsession with homosexuality is interesting in itself and makes me curious as to how psychoses can spread or be shared.
I think the Vatican is making a statement that is loud and clear - no homosexuality in the priestly vocation.
"The pope should ask all homosexual priests to resign."
But, but, but... mister Dialogue! The pope said "Who am I to judge"!
The pope should ask all homosexual priests to resign.
The pope shouldn't ASK them anything. They should be defrocked.
Homosexuals do not have a priestly vocation; they infiltrate the priesthood, knowing that they do not belong there. They should be defrocked, each and every one of them.
Whatever this priest's sexual orientation, he is expected to maintain a life of celibacy and chastity, and this he patently is not doing.
There's no way to know who they are, so he should make a paternal request. It seems unlikely that they deliberately corrupt the Church. Rather, their disorder prevents them from making good vocational decisions.
Celibacy makes no sense to those suffering from homosexuality. How can a man without desire for marriage give it up "for the sake of the Kingdom"?
Will someone please explain why a man cannot be gay and a good priest? I am not talking about acts but about inclinations.
It's about both celibacy and the priesthood. The priesthood of Christ is oriented towards the Bride of Christ: the Church. A homosexual cannot relate to this. Celibacy is the promise to remain unmarried as a witness to the eternal marriage between Christ and His Church. A homosexual cannot relate to this, either.
An openly gay Priest is counter to Biblical teaching and morals.
Dialogue, I don't think celibacy is the issue but chastity. Homosexuals seem to have a heated affectation for sex as a condition of affection. Everything homosexuals claim to desire for relationships is available to them with no barrier at all; caring relationships, mutual economic support. But people with distorted views of relationships see these things as barter for something else. In the case of sex obsessed people the barter is always for sex. Homosexuals are constantly trying to publicize and justify their sex practices. That alone is annoying as well as disordered. People are equally caring and passionate about the environment, species of animals, even furniture. They put their fortune and lives into those things and deserve support and admiration. If they were saving the whales for sex, however, we would almost universally agree that is disordered. We have been training ourselves to be cowards but labeling it "tolerant" and are afraid of the fit a sex crazed person will throw if we merely state the obvious. So we sit quietly and try to rationalize that we are sophisticated in our acquiescence.
There's no way to know who they are, so he should make a paternal request. It seems unlikely that they deliberately corrupt the Church. Rather, their disorder prevents them from making good vocational decisions.
There's no way to know who the homosexuals in the priesthood are? No way? At all?
You don't believe that most homosexuals who have entered the priesthood haven't given evidence of their homosexuality?
And when the pope makes his "paternal request," what do you suppose will take place?
Homosexuals deliberately corrupt the Church when they enter the priesthood. That, in itself, is a corruption.
Homosexuals do not have a priestly vocation. To enter into the priesthood, knowing that one doesn't have a vocation, is a corruption.
And they most certainly know they are wrong.
The matter was settled February 2, 1961, by Pope Saint John XXIII.
"Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."
Careful Selection and Training of Candidates For the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961)
Nothing has changed since then.
For your consideration, I refer you to the following quotation from Pope Emeritus Benedict: "Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who don't want to get married anyway." (God and the World: A Conversation With Peter Seewald)
No, I don't believe that a homosexual orientation is compatible with the priesthood. With due respect, it is like allowing a pyromanical to work in a factory that produces match sticks and hoping he will have the strength to overcome temptation. Also, the priest is too involved with children and that is an additional temptation for a homosexual because the majority of those abusers in the Church were found to be homosexuals not pedophiles because the vast majority of those abused were boys OVER the age of puberty.
The TRUE story is over at the blog site Rorate!!!! The Vatican and Pope are being uncovered for what is really going on in the Church, SCHISM is going to happen very shortly how very very sad indeed. My friends here is the real FRUIT of Vatican II on full display, oh how our Holy Father Pope Benedict said the WOLVES were after him and by God they bit him hard!!!!!
In the interest of spreading light instead of heat, I have been doing a bit of research on the question whether homosexual inclination (as opposed to acts) is compatible with the priesthood:
In 2007 Pope Benedict approved an Instruction of the Congregation for Catholic Education that addressed the issue. The Instruction distinguishes between “those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’” and “the case in which one [is] dealing with homosexual tendencies that [are] only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded.” Those in the former group could not be admitted to the priesthood; those in the latter group could be admitted on the condition that “such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.” Here is a link to the full text of the Instruction:
However, in his press conference on the return flight from Rio in 2013 Pope Francis made his well-known (if not well understood) “Who am I to judge?” comment. He said:
“I see that many times in the Church . . . people search for “sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, ‘I have sinned in this’, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying ... wait a moment, how does it say it ... it says: ‘no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society’. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem.”
Has Pope Francis thereby modified the approach set out in the 2007 Instruction approved by Pope Benedict? Here is a link to the English translation of the full text of the press conference:
And here is a link to a nuanced and reasonably balanced treatment of the question in a 2000 article in America magazine:
Correction: The Instruction was approved in 2005 not 2007.
Dialogue, far be it from me to argue with Pope Benedict, but I think that sentence has an assumed subject, which would be "and who see no need for chastity." I think the demand for acceptance of homosexual couples into the sacrament of marriage, at least universally as it now seems to be, is a shock offensive even for many of the homosexual clergy that have been undermining the Church for decades.
Well, Anonymous, Anon 2, when we know that Eucharistic Prayer II was cobbled together late at night in a Roman bar then, yes, it is quite possible that the Pope has cobbled togther further instructions on who can be admitted to the priesthood on a transatlantic flight. Nothing would surprise me anymore. Like everyone else I am just waiting it out ...
Oh, heck, why not let the boys cross pork swords anywhere and anytime they please?God is love and Jesus thinks it's cool.
Celibacy has no more meaning for the homosexual than meatless Fridays have for the vegetarian. The whole point of celibacy is that a man who desires marriage instead freely chooses to forgo it as a testament to the Kingdom. Celibacy looses its evangelical value once homosexuals are publicly associated with it. There must certainly be a place in society for the chaste homosexual, but the priesthood is not that place.
Why don't we just get rid of the pretense and make homosexuality a requirement for the Priesthood? Declare doctrine ideology, which is what the Pope believes it is, and move the Church into the normal world of sodomy, adultery, pedophilia, murder, and perversion. God is love man. Get with the program. Anything goes with Jesus.
Celibacy - forsaking marriage for the sake of the kingdom and abstaining from sexual relations - is not integral to the priesthood. There have been many married priests, bishops, and popes.
Many of those who are ordained and who do not forsake marriage for the sake of the kingdom are splendid priests, great teachers, fine theologians, and, one hopes, good husbands and fathers.
I imagine there are not a few heterosexual men who, not having the desire to be married, have answered the call to the priesthood. If they do not have the desire for marriage and choose celibacy and the priesthood, are they, too, to be asked to resign?
Dialogue, I accept you point, but still think your point refers to chastity. Marriage and celibacy are exercises of chastity. Your analogy about meatless Friday for a vegetarian is, as we say 180 out, because the homosexual priest in question practices no abstinence. I think our host can speak to the attraction the priesthood holds for homosexuals from his experience with screening candidates for seminary. I suspect there is a European tradition of vectoring young homosexuals toward the priesthood in the erroneous assumption that is the place for a young man that does not marry and that the Church, like the military, will keep him in line. We now know that seminary was, as I have been told by exseminarians, a great place for sex. That is not universal, of course; but I am afraid it was prevalent.
Consider another direction. The priests remain celibate, but are not chaste. The priest that has a girlfriend or mistress knows that he is failing in the social, if not also Christian, requirement for legitimacy as well as proper care of the woman and offspring. The homosexual, up until now, has not had that additional consideration, so his sexual indulgences we essentially stand alone sins. Both of these problems are legacy issues the Church has struggled with since the beginning.
Celibacy as it pertains to the Catholic priesthood, involves the renunciation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of God. A person who becomes a Catholic priest voluntarily gives up the opportunity to marry. In marriage, the spouses make a gift of themselves to each other. The person who chooses to becomes a priest makes a gift of himself to the Church. A homosexual cannot renounce marriage since his inclination is to marry someone of the same sex. Such a union is not recognized as a marriage in the eyes of the Church. Chastity is a virtue which is to be practiced by all - both heterosexual and homosexual, both married and unmarried. Anyone who is a practicing Christian true to God's teaching is to practice chastity. Chastity can mean one abstains from all sexual intercourse , or in the case of those who are married, sexual activity which is sinful and not in accordance with that which is permissible and God-ordained. A person, whether a priest or a wedded spouse, can both become unchaste, but that does
not necessarily affect their calling in life. It represents the interposition of a sinful choice or choices which can be repented of, confessed and forgiven.
Not only a homosexually inclined priest, but a heterosexual one as well can also have a problem with being and remaining chaste. Is it more of a problem for a homosexual? I don't know. If that is found to be the case then it must be factored in when looking at candidates for the priesthood. The fact that celibacy as it relates to the renunciation of marriage cannot apply to those who are homosexual is also a factor.
I should have typed in my comments above:
A person, whether a priest or a wedded spouse, can become unchaste, but that does not necessarily affect that person's calling in life.
I get too much in a hurry typing sometimes.
I understand the reasoning about celibacy and renunciation of marriage, which you explain very well. However, isn’t the premise now in question? The Catholic Church already allows married priests (converts from another denomination). Therefore, renunciation of marriage is no longer an indispensable universal requirement to become a priest. Given this fact, and moreover that (as Concord suggests) there are likely many Catholic priests who prefer not to marry anyway, why must such a requirement be applied so as to exclude priests who are homosexuals?
Again, celibacy is neither an essential element nor an integral part of ordained priesthood. If, tomorrow, the Church made celibacy optional, there would be no change whatsoever in the the theology of priesthood.
The desire to marry is also not a quality the Church requires in candidates for the priesthood. A willingness to embrace celibacy is, for most Latin Rite priests, required at present.
A heterosexual with no desire to marry is not excluded, nor should he be, from ordination. Should the gay man with no desire to marry, be excluded?
The desire to serve is, I contend, essential to the nature and the identity of the priest and the exercise of sacerdotal ministry as the Catholic Church understands it. Some may disagree. But the nature of the priest is not primarily based on what he does not choose - marriage - but on what he does choose - service.
Gee, Concord, I thought it was based upon belief. Silly me.
No. Every Christian believes. Some believers are called to serve as ordained ministers of the Sacraments. The desire to serve as a priest is fundamental to the call to priesthood.
"The Catholic Church already allows married priests (converts from another denomination). Therefore, renunciation of marriage is no longer an indispensable universal requirement to become a priest."
The Church has made an accommodation to married Anglican priests who have converted. This was special dispensation given to them. Celibacy is a discipline, so of course it can be changed. I was explaining in part why the Church considers celibacy as being superior choice in being an integral part of the priesthood. The Church did not arbitrarily impose this requirement. It has it's benefits and advantages.
No, a heterosexual with no desire to marry is not to be arbitrarily excluded, nor should he be. However, such a person should be carefully screened for any psychological problems. Also, a person with a strong desire to marry would in all likelihood NOT make a good candidate for the priesthood. I think a priest who becomes (or is) an exemplar in the Church is someone who would have also made a good (even great) husband and father, had he chosen to go that route. It is true, as you say, that the priesthood is about service and not just about renunciation of marriage.
A person choosing to become a priest however, is not like someone choosing another vocational path, such as the military . Many people choose vocations that involve service to others. The priesthood is different because it involves a special commitment to God. Holy Orders is a sacrament just as Holy Matrimony is. Both of them represent covenantal agreements between the persons involved and God Himself. For the person who chooses the priesthood,renunciation of marriage is part of that commitment, a sacrificial giving of himself in a special way to God in the service of the members of His Church, the Body of Christ. For the priest, service to God and others supplants the vocation to married life.
George said, "I was explaining in part why the Church considers celibacy as being superior choice in being an integral part of the priesthood."
George, that there have been married priests in the Catholic Church since Day One shows that celibacy is not integral to the priesthood. Were it integral, no "accommodation" to admit married clergy could be made. The Church cannot set aside that which is "integral." For example, fidelity is integral to marriage - it cannot be set aside as an "accommodation" in any circumstances.
Also, the notion that priesthood is a "superior" choice is also not correct. It is a different calling, but not a superior one.
I didn't say in my comment that the priesthood was a superior choice although I consider it to be so.
I was saying that the Catholic Church by requiring celibacy of her priests considers that state for various reasons to be optimum (superior to the married priesthood) for various reasons. If you want to look at it from the aspect of an occupational choice, then yes, I consider it superior to all others.
Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:8, “Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do.” And, in 1 Cor. 7:24,27, “Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called . . . 27 Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.”
Did not Jesus say in Mathew 19:12 that "...there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven"?
Corinthians 7:7:"For I wish that all men were even as I myself."
1 Corinthians 4:14-16 - "I became your father in Christ Jesus ... be imitators of me."
Jeremiah 16:1-4 - (Jeremiah told not to marry or have children)
Matthew 19:12 - (celibacy praised by Jesus, who was, himself, celibate)
1 Corinthians 7:8 - (St. Paul was celibate)
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 - (St. Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers.)
1 Timothy 5:9-12 - pledge of celibacy taken by older widows
2 Timothy 2:3-4 - no soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits
See also: - 1 Samuel 21:4-5, Isaiah 52:11, Malachi 1:10-11, Acts 14:22-23
If celibacy were not integral, no accommodation would be necessary.
However, such a person should be carefully screened for any psychological problems.
Yeah, because not wanting to marry is totally a sign of being mentally ill.
Are you serious?
I'm always amazed by discussions like these. They almost always suggest that there really isn't a place in parish life for those with same-sex attraction. And, it's not just here. On other places in the Catholic blogosphere, there's a similar attitude. Those with same-sex attraction are pretty much supposed to go to Mass and then go home, as though they were lepers.
And please, don't dare tell me it's not this way. I don't think anyone here or elsewhere would want even a chaste same-sex attracted person participating in any sort of role in a parish. When this is brought up, the response by supposedly-loving Catholics is 'well, that's your cross to bear'. Whatever.
On this blog (as well as other blogs— FrZ's being the most egregious) commenters have named off several roles that SSA people should be excluded from, including lector.
God forbid they should publicly read a lesson on Sunday morning!
But, I guess it's easy to just write off such people when you've never been, say, 20 and had to think 'Well, I'll live the next 60-80 years and never be married or know any sort of romantic or sexual intimacy'. And, no, it's not the same as choosing to take clerical vows.
Given that most people on this blog have indicated in previous posts that they are either married or are priests, one wonders about the competency of the commenters here to judge matters concerning people who don't get such a choice.
George, is fidelity integral to marriage? Yes, it is.
Is there some "accommodation" that can be made under certain circumstances by which a spouse is not expected to be faithful? No.
Celibacy, if it is integral to priesthood, cannot be set aside simply because a married minister from another denomination is called to be a Catholic priest.
An "accommodation" is made in the Latin Rite discipline of celibacy. The discipline is not an integral aspect of priesthood. We know that this discipline can change - and if it can change, then celibacy cannot be integral to priesthood.
Flav - There are, I think, strong overtones of Manichean dualism in our religious and/or political discussions and arguments today. It is evidenced in the "zero sum" thinking that many follow. This way of thinking gives the appearance of certainty, clarity, and, therefore, a sense of security. But it’s only an appearance.
One is either IN or one is OUT of the Church.
One is either a TRADITIONAL Catholic working to build up the Reign of God or a PROGRESSIVE Catholic bent on destroying the Church.
One is either a PATRIOTIC American, which means you are an American who agrees with me, or you are a loathsome, nation-hating marplot who needs to move to Canada.
The truth most certainly lies somewhere between the extremes. I know some will quote Revelation 3:16: "So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.", but that's a misappropriation of the pericope.
My apologies for not coming across clearly in what I posted.
It, along with the scripture passages I referenced, is integral to the Catholic THEOLOGY of a celibate priesthood. It also has practical aspects, which are its benefits and advantages, both in and of itself and to episcopal governance.
Is it not integral, theologically or otherwise, to the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican priesthoods.
Yes, it is a discipline and can be changed, but there are (to me) sound reasons why it is still a requirement of the Catholic priesthood after all these years.
Are you contending that it is just an arbitrary imposition, with little or no substantive reasons or theological basis to require it?
Blogger Flavius Hesychius said...
" However, such a person should be carefully screened for any psychological problems.
Yeah, because not wanting to marry is totally a sign of being mentally ill."
In some cases it may be, but certainly not all . From what I read somewhere some Catholic seminaries have put in place very extensive psychological evaluations for prospective candidates. The fact that a disproportionate number of serial killers and mass murderers are single males is no reason to paint all single males with a broad brush. Most single males are within the normal and acceptable range of social and psychological behavior. Still,I can't blame these seminaries or even prospective employers from putting in place mechanisms to filter out those who might pose a problem.
I meant to type above @ 8:01 PM in the fourth sentence:
It is not integral, theologically or otherwise, to the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican priesthoods.
Post a Comment