Homosexual Catholic Irish Priest,

[CrossCuT]

I do not think we, Phatmassers, actually care that "oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) THAT PRIEST IS TEH GAYZ (ICKY!)". We care very much that he turned the Mass into an occasion of celebrating himself and - in this case - his sin. That and his support for positions which are incompatible with authentic Catholicism.

 

I dont think you can say he knew people would celebrate him (taking that gamble in a Catholic church doesnt really promise a positive outcome) so I dont think its fair to spin the situation as self celebration. Also, he isnt celebrating his sin since like FH has said many times its not a sin to be homosexual unless you know of some of his personal sins?

 

And even if so, no one in that church is perfect. We all have sins. We should stop judging people because they sin differently than we do. Besides, the homily is often about things that are difficult. Whether its sins (his sins or someone elese sins) or current events, or bible stories etc...give people more credit.

Edited January 19, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

So if a deacon gets up and starts talking about marriage, and says, "Oh, by the way, I'm married," you would also take issue? I'm putting aside, of course, the way you imagine a priest would out himself. I imagine if my parish priest came out to us, it wouldn't be in the way you suggested, nor would it detract from his teaching. If anything, I think it would illustrate quite well how grace enters the picture and the manner in which we are to conduct our lives.

I would think that that line is somewhat inappropriate inasmuch as it is not necessary and draws attention to himself. How is it relevant in a solid homily?

It would be more inappropriate if instead of being married, whatever his example was actually constitutes, again, an intrinsic disorder.

I feel like I keep repeating myself. The Mass, and the homily (when there is one) is not the appropriate context for personal stories and anecdotes. Few, minor, and uncommon at most. I do not go to Mass to hear the priest's life story. (I stay after Mass and go to the bar on Thursday for that.)

It is not that I do not want to hear the priest's personal stories. It is that I do not want to hear them at Mass as he exercises his teaching authority.

[Nihil Obstat]

I dont think you can say he knew people would celebrate him (taking that gamble in a Catholic church doesnt really promise a positive outcome) so I dont think its fair to spin the situation as self celebration. Also, he isnt celebrating his sin since like FH has said many times its not a sin to be homosexual unless you know of some of his personal sins?

 

And even if so, no one in that church is perfect. We all have sins. We should stop judging people because they sin differently than we do. 

I do not think it was much of a risk. If a priest knows his parish, then he knows how they would feel about such an announcement.

While it is not sinful simply to have homosexual inclinations, it is an intrinsic disorder. For that reason I do not think we can 'celebrate' it without obscuring Church teaching on the subject.

And in this case, this particular case (not our hypotheticals we are discussing) it also deals with the priest's own failings, at the very least in his support for "gay marriage" in Ireland.

We all have sins, but we do not celebrate our failings. We repent of them. I would be saying the same thing if a priest admitted in his homily that he was strongly tempted towards serial fornication. (Except the intrinsic disorder part, because it would not apply in that case.)

Edited January 19, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[CrossCuT]

I do not think it was much of a risk. If a priest knows his parish, then he knows how they would feel about such an announcement.

While it is not sinful simply to have homosexual inclinations, it is an intrinsic disorder. For that reason I do not think we can 'celebrate' it without obscuring Church teaching on the subject.

And in this case, this particular case (not our hypotheticals we are discussing) it also deals with the priest's own failings, at the very least in his support for "gay marriage" in Ireland.

We all have sins, but we do not celebrate our failings. We repent of them. I would be saying the same thing if a priest admitted in his homily that he was strongly tempted towards serial fornication. (Except the intrinsic disorder part, because it would not apply in that case.)

 

I really think it just comes down to an opinion in this case. You made the point that it was wrong due to it being shocking and distracting during mass. But you could say the same thing about discussing the evils of abortion. Those homilies are often sobering and upsetting.

 

But depending on your perception of the topic, you may or may not find something altogether distracting. I think someone who is more inclined to view homosexuality as very negative would indeed be upset by the priests announcement and be furthermore apt to find it inappropriate. 

[Anomaly]

The bottom line for a Roman Catholic priest is to be celibate, regardless of his sexual preference. Stating in his homily that he is attracted to men is as inappropriate as being more attracted to preferring a nice butt vs breasts. His sex attraction has no bearing in an instructive homily to the general congregation.

[franciscanheart]

I would think that that line is somewhat inappropriate inasmuch as it is not necessary and draws attention to himself. How is it relevant in a solid homily?
It would be more inappropriate if instead of being married, whatever his example was actually constitutes, again, an intrinsic disorder.
I feel like I keep repeating myself. The Mass, and the homily (when there is one) is not the appropriate context for personal stories and anecdotes. Few, minor, and uncommon at most. I do not go to Mass to hear the priest's life story. (I stay after Mass and go to the bar on Thursday for that.)
It is not that I do not want to hear the priest's personal stories. It is that I do not want to hear them at Mass as he exercises his teaching authority.

You seem exasperated. I don't know why, but I'm sorry if I've contributed to your discomfort.

I think this becomes even more of a divisive issue when you consider your "no personal anecdotes" policy when it comes to the homily.

We have two solid priests at our parish right now. We have three permanent deacons. Obviously, everyone has their own style, their own experiences, and their own situation. Naturally, they all give very different homilies. If you ask me, most days I would probably tell you I prefer the homilies of our pastor. His homilies are intricate and detailed and circle back upon themselves in a brilliant way. He assumes intelligence and challenges his congregation often. He's an amazing orator. But I also very much benefit from the homilies given by our other priest, who is younger and uses a more relaxed, conversational style in his homilies. He tells more stories to convey his points, but he does an excellent job of doing what he is there to do.

I happen to be among the minority with regards to preference. The majority of our very lovely, traditional parish prefers homilies from our younger priest or one of our deacons. They are all far more conversational and anecdotal than our pastor. They feel they can understand better, relate, and not tune out under some notion of intellectual requirements they'll never meet.

I understand that priests can modify their style without anecdotes to reach all "levels" of intellect in their parishes, but I also don't see the harm in priests including it as it is beneficial to their parishes, individually. Their pastoral decisions are, I'm sure, much more complicated than I (or you) might make them out to be when we dismiss them as celebratory of oneself.

[veritasluxmea]

I thought of another question for you: How long is such a letter, typically, and how often are they published?

At my current parish they are about a page long and are published every week in the bulletin. They can actually be really interesting. Most parishes in my current diocese do this, most in my last one didn't. One parish I went to years ago didn't even have a bulletin. 

[Not The Philosopher]

I've gotta admit: when a priest starts rambling on about his life during a homily, I typically start to zone out.

[superblue]

okay now we have an actual debate,  seems like there is a general agreeing  on certain things.

 

I would say I think this priest missed an incredible opportunity to bring the Gospel and the love of Christ to more in the homosexual community who for what ever reason feel not wanted in the Church, and that he missed the mark as others have stated by stating his opinions and making an announcement at the pulpit either in place of the homily or after the mass.  Heck he could have easily anonymously posted his opinions online and be done with it....

 

if anything he deserves our prayers or at least one, and hopefully his bishop will find a way to kindly correct the situation this priest has caused.

[superblue]

I've gotta admit: when a priest starts rambling on about his life during a homily, I typically start to zone out.

 

 

Pope Francis has a wonder full book out about the Joy of the Gospel, and he specifically addresses in one chapter his views on how to compose a great homily.

 

and i have zoned out of many a homily before so no worries there. it happens.

[Nihil Obstat]

You seem exasperated. I don't know why, but I'm sorry if I've contributed to your discomfort.

I think this becomes even more of a divisive issue when you consider your "no personal anecdotes" policy when it comes to the homily.

We have two solid priests at our parish right now. We have three permanent deacons. Obviously, everyone has their own style, their own experiences, and their own situation. Naturally, they all give very different homilies. If you ask me, most days I would probably tell you I prefer the homilies of our pastor. His homilies are intricate and detailed and circle back upon themselves in a brilliant way. He assumes intelligence and challenges his congregation often. He's an amazing orator. But I also very much benefit from the homilies given by our other priest, who is younger and uses a more relaxed, conversational style in his homilies. He tells more stories to convey his points, but he does an excellent job of doing what he is there to do.

I happen to be among the minority with regards to preference. The majority of our very lovely, traditional parish prefers homilies from our younger priest or one of our deacons. They are all far more conversational and anecdotal than our pastor. They feel they can understand better, relate, and not tune out under some notion of intellectual requirements they'll never meet.

I understand that priests can modify their style without anecdotes to reach all "levels" of intellect in their parishes, but I also don't see the harm in priests including it as it is beneficial to their parishes, individually. Their pastoral decisions are, I'm sure, much more complicated than I (or you) might make them out to be when we dismiss them as celebratory of oneself.

Not exasperated, but: 一 you have seen how this topic typically ends up on this site, and 二 the site has been more tense than usual in the last couple weeks.

 

Basically, on a fundamental level I have an issue with priests using the Mass or homily to talk about themselves. Aside from any issues about homosexuals or any other topic, I think it is preferable to avoid personal references in homilies, and that applies even greater to the Mass itself. Personally I have never felt that any personal inserts have added anything to a homily.

I think that such personal references are always better in contexts outside the Mass. Whether that is a parish meeting, a small group recollection, a retreat, a priest having dinner with parishioners, I think all of those situations are preferable.

The Mass is not about the priest. It should not and cannot be about him. Who he is, what he believes, what his troubles are, none of that means a thing when he is in persona Christi. Yes, the homily is technically not part of Mass, but since it is in the middle of Mass, in that context, I think we should apply the same principle.

As the pastor of a parish (or associate pastor, or whatever) the priest has a very grave obligation to teach and lead his parishioners. I think it is obvious that the Irish priest above has been gravely derelict in his duties, and he will answer for that sooner or later. Probably later.

But since it is the priest's job to instruct and lead, it means his own preferences are totally subordinate to his obligations. His personality is subordinate to the Church.

 

If I were wanting to be glib, I would say that personalities are not welcome at the Mass. :hehe: And that is closer to true than to an exaggeration, IMO.

In the homily, a somewhat lesser extent than the Mass. That is why I am more than willing to tolerate (not that it is my place to tolerate or otherwise) occasional personal inserts in a homily, but I am not willing to extend that latitude to the Mass itself. (Again, not that my opinion matters in that regard.)

[franciscanheart]

Not exasperated, but: 一 you have seen how this topic typically ends up on this site, and 二 the site has been more tense than usual in the last couple weeks.
 
Basically, on a fundamental level I have an issue with priests using the Mass or homily to talk about themselves. Aside from any issues about homosexuals or any other topic, I think it is preferable to avoid personal references in homilies, and that applies even greater to the Mass itself. Personally I have never felt that any personal inserts have added anything to a homily.
I think that such personal references are always better in contexts outside the Mass. Whether that is a parish meeting, a small group recollection, a retreat, a priest having dinner with parishioners, I think all of those situations are preferable.
The Mass is not about the priest. It should not and cannot be about him. Who he is, what he believes, what his troubles are, none of that means a thing when he is in persona Christi. Yes, the homily is technically not part of Mass, but since it is in the middle of Mass, in that context, I think we should apply the same principle.
As the pastor of a parish (or associate pastor, or whatever) the priest has a very grave obligation to teach and lead his parishioners. I think it is obvious that the Irish priest above has been gravely derelict in his duties, and he will answer for that sooner or later. Probably later.
But since it is the priest's job to instruct and lead, it means his own preferences are totally subordinate to his obligations. His personality is subordinate to the Church.
 
If I were wanting to be glib, I would say that personalities are not welcome at the Mass. :hehe: And that is closer to true than to an exaggeration, IMO.
In the homily, a somewhat lesser extent than the Mass. That is why I am more than willing to tolerate (not that it is my place to tolerate or otherwise) occasional personal inserts in a homily, but I am not willing to extend that latitude to the Mass itself. (Again, not that my opinion matters in that regard.)

I see where you're coming from and can appreciate your stance on the subject. I feel much the same, though I find my ideas have been challenged over the last few years by the experience of others at Mass. More often than not, I default to, "If this is beneficial to so many, I can deal."

[CrossCuT]

Well in reference to the turning the mass spotlight on themselves, Ive been to many masses were various missionary representatives took to the pulpit to discuss their charity and raise money. Is that self serving? Or maybe wedding masses where it is most definitely about the couple. Is that considered to be focused too much on personality? When the priest discusses the couple during the homily?

[franciscanheart]

Well in reference to the turning the mass spotlight on themselves, Ive been to many masses were various missionary representatives took to the pulpit to discuss their charity and raise money. Is that self serving? Or maybe wedding masses where it is most definitely about the couple. Is that considered to be focused too much on personality? When the priest discusses the couple during the homily?

Hadn't actually thought of these things.

I will say I was quite displeased with the twenty minutes it took yesterday to discuss our diocesan capital campaign during Mass. We heard about the plans for the money (percentages and projects), and then filled out our pledge cards before proceeding with the Mass. I was sitting with three visitors, two of whom are not Catholic, and was so... I don't know what the best word is. I just had to laugh and say, "Of all weeks!"

[Nihil Obstat]

Well in reference to the turning the mass spotlight on themselves, Ive been to many masses were various missionary representatives took to the pulpit to discuss their charity and raise money. Is that self serving?

I think such an appeal is better outside of Mass. For a solid religious charity, I think it is perhaps less self-serving. 

Or maybe wedding masses where it is most definitely about the couple. Is that considered to be focused too much on personality? When the priest discusses the couple during the homily?

Yeah, not into that. As usual, perhaps a small, minor mention in the homily, in the context of the meaning of married life and sacramental theology. My preference would be, if it seems very pastorally appropriate, the priest could mention the couple, but not discuss the couple. Not make it a major point in the homily.

Same principle for no eulogies permitted at funerals, IMO. A brief reference, in the context of the need for prayer for souls, sure. In that case the personal reference is subordinate to the theological point. A 'mini-canonization'? Never.