Priest banned from writing

[Wolfman1982]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1113/1224283236782.html

An Irish Catholic priest has been banned by the Vatican from publishing any more of his writings after he suggested homosexuality is “simply a facet of the human condition”.

PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent

AN IRISH Catholic priest has been banned by the Vatican from publishing any more of his writings after he suggested homosexuality is “simply a facet of the human condition”.

This follows an article on homosexuality by Capuchin priest Fr Owen O’Sullivan, published in last March’s edition of the Furrow magazine. Described as “a journal for the contemporary Church”, the Furrow is published at St Patrick’s College Maynooth.

Commenting on teachings that “homosexuality is unnatural”, Fr O’Sullivan wrote that “nature is a loose peg on which to hang a theology of human relationships”. The Concise Oxford Dictionary listed nine meanings for “nature” and 14 for “natural”, he said.

He noted it was argued that the natural purpose of sexuality is procreation “and that, since homosexual relationships are not procreative of life, they are therefore unnatural”.

Throughout history “same-sex attraction and acts have been a consistent feature of human life . . . Same-sex attraction is simply a facet of the human condition,” he said. He recalled church teaching says it is not wrong to be gay, ‘‘but it is wrong to act gay”.

He suggested: “Imagine someone saying... ‘There’s nothing in itself wrong with being Irish... But that doesn’t mean you may act on it. So, no more Guinness, going to Croke Park, singing rebel songs into the early hours of the morning, waving Tricolours, no more craic.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican contacted the Capuchin secretary general in Rome with an instruction Fr O’Sullivan was no longer to write for publication without first having his articles approved by it.

Capuchin headquarters in Rome contacted Fr O’Sullivan’s superiors. Contacted by The Irish Times , Fr O’Sullivan did not feel free to discuss it nor did Fr Ronan Drury, editor of the Furrow .


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Damn, the vatican are a bunch of wankers. But then again I am not really surprised, with the Nazi pope they have. And also I suddenly have some respect for this priest. Or am I misunderstanding the article ? Cause to me, the priest just does this to being gay.
"So you are gay mate ? well let me have a fag, and let us have a beer and a poker game". So do I understand the article correct ?



fag = cigarette people, if some body wants to go bugger all crazy on me for using a British English NON homophobic slang word for a cigarette. And yes I am a smoker myself. So again, do not give me flack for using the word in a NON homophobic way.

 

[Stella_Omega]

many of us know what fag means in English...

I learned it from the Cockney, fag-smoking, vampire Spike on Buffy The Vampire Killer.

 

[Wolfman1982]

many of us know what fag means in English...

I learned it from the Cockney, fag-smoking, vampire Spike on Buffy The Vampire Killer.

Great TV series actually, but the last time I used the word. Then I got flack for it, and it was in the sense of smoking a cigarette too. So let us just say, Some times it takes time, as long you explain it into minuscule particles, even though some people just want to hunt you down for "making a mistake". Anyway Stella, did I understand the article correct ?

 

[Stella_Omega]

yes, you did.

Are we surprised at the Vatican's reaction? Nope.

What surprises me is that a Catholic Priest is willing to think that way-- and speak up about it.

 

[ultimatefntsy]

yes, you did.

Are we surprised at the Vatican's reaction? Nope.

What surprises me is that a Catholic Priest is willing to think that way-- and speak up about it.

I think we would all be surprised by how many Priest's think this way but they just cant come out and say it for fear of losing their jobs.
We Catholics tend to be a bit more opened minded than the Vatican, at least in my experience.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're right, I would be surprised, because they keep it secret because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

If people don't speak up, nobody knows.

 

[none2_none2]

You're right, I would be surprised, because they keep it secret because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

If people don't speak up, nobody knows.

There are many reasons why someone keeps secrets. Fear of job loss is just one. I once was involved with a closeted protestant minister. At the time he broke up with me, he told me he kept some of his thoughts to himself to preserve his own identity. He explained that ministers have so little privacy, that there are things one keeps to one's self for self-identity reasons. Thoughts that didn't belong to his congregation, to his church hierarchy, to family, friends, loved ones, but rather just to him.

 

[Stella_Omega]

There are many reasons why someone keeps secrets. Fear of job loss is just one. I once was involved with a closeted protestant minister. At the time he broke up with me, he told me he kept some of his thoughts to himself to preserve his own identity. He explained that ministers have so little privacy, that there are things one keeps to one's self for self-identity reasons. Thoughts that didn't belong to his congregation, to his church hierarchy, to family, friends, loved ones, but rather just to him.

I feel badly for them, too.

That does not negate my point in any way.

 

[none2_none2]

I feel badly for them, too.

That does not negate my point in any way.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to "negate", but rather to say there can be more to the story.

In all seriousness, if I were ever single again, I would avoid people in the ministry as possible mates. It isn't that I'm atheist. Rather, that as closeted as I may be in general about my sexuality, I'm pretty much an open book with those that I'm involved with. I never was a good liar with someone I cared about. In fact my jaw starts to look like Nixon's if I try to lie. I guess I just don't have a very good poker face.

Just the other day, I actually wrote an email to a megachurch pastor who just recently came out. He wasn't one who condemned gays, but he never talked about it. Well he came out because he said too much bullying and suicide has come out recently in the nation. I simply wrote and told him that if/when he does decide to date another man, he has to figure out what he wants and let any potential gay friend/boyfriend/lover needs to know where he is at from the beginning.

Though it was 14 years ago that I was dumped, it still bothers me. It isn't about longing for him -- I wouldn't trade my guy for that ex any day. (My guy may not say or do exactly the right thing every moment of our relationship, but what he does do is "real". That it is why we can be together so long. You can only pretend to be partners for only so long.) Also the time with that ex wasn't the first time that I had ever been dumped. Rather it was the first time anybody had ever said that they had never been in love with me from the start. Breakups suck enough as it is. However, it is one thing for someone to say it is over from that point going forward: ie that they don't love you anymore. It is a whole other thing for someone to say they never did and all the supposedly happy times all along were about acting in love.

People in some professions do a great deal of acting. Besides acting, you have preachers, politicians, etc (other typically leadership roles). People in such positions may do more to act like they know you WANT them to act then how they really are. Until you have been in a close relationship with such a person, you may have a great respect for them. Once you are in it, the feeling is more one of pity. The one complement my ex gave me at the end was that I was the most authentic/genuine person he knew. Personally, I developed some of that from 12-step. I still wear a mask in the general public, but I don't BS with those that know my sexuality. Life is too short to lie. Plus usually the truth is usually more interesting anyway than trying to memorize lies you tell this one or that one.

The ex will probably always tell you what you want to hear. Then there comes a point where if it truly isn't what he feels, he'll explode one day. An analogy would be talking to someone when you have to go to the bathroom. You can chat and postpone it for a while, but eventually you tell them you GOT to leave.

So when you are dealing with such people, you may be dealing with a lot more closets than just the sexuality. Just realize that in their defense, many people expect them to be perfect. Who would go to a church where a minister shared his doubts about God. Who would elect a politician who said he didn't have all the answers. Who would follow a military leader who said he has a fear that his side will loose?

Finally, it is interesting if you look up the origins of the world personality -- it's origins is from Greek meaning "mask". How appropriate for such people.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Like you, I am leery of close friendships with religious people. Part of it is that I can be pretty sure I will offend them at some point.

The other half is that, if I learn that they are tolerant-- but silent about it-- I will feel betrayed by that silence. If they are wonderful people that only makes the betrayal feel worse to me.

I don't have the luxury of silence. I resent people who can make the choice and take it.

Sorry, but there it is.

 

[none2_none2]

Like you, I am leery of close friendships with religious people. Part of it is that I can be pretty sure I will offend them at some point.

The other half is that, if I learn that they are tolerant-- but silent about it-- I will feel betrayed by that silence. If they are wonderful people that only makes the betrayal feel worse to me.

I don't have the luxury of silence. I resent people who can make the choice and take it.

Sorry, but there it is.

I should add that there was a minister who was VERY tolerant of gays. Then a few years later he came out of the closet. I felt a bit betrayed from another standpoint. I felt as if he was tolerant only because he was one of us. I had always seen him as a straight ally. After he came out, it made me feel as if he of course supported us because he was one of us. I understand the closet; I myself find comfort in it. However, I'm in no public position to sway the masses for or against us.

Regardless, to use the public pulpit to say "We must love and support them [gays]", then turn out to be "one of them [gays]" just seems SO deceptive and self-serving. Imagine how it also must play for heterosexuals to find out that same deception. He was a very, very kind man, but in some ways in my mind his pedestal shrunk after that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I should add that there was a minister who was VERY tolerant of gays. Then a few years later he came out of the closet. I felt a bit betrayed from another standpoint. I felt as if he was tolerant only because he was one of us. I had always seen him as a straight ally. After he came out, it made me feel as if he of course supported us because he was one of us. I understand the closet; I myself find comfort in it. However, I'm in no public position to sway the masses for or against us.

Regardless, to use the public pulpit to say "We must love and support them [gays]", then turn out to be "one of them [gays]" just seems SO deceptive and self-serving. Imagine how it also must play for heterosexuals to find out that same deception. He was a very, very kind man, but in some ways in my mind his pedestal shrunk after that.

YES!

.