GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

The Left Turns On The Pope. (Phrasing. Boom.)

by

A lot of gheyfolk who formerly loved Pope Francis because he seemed to be socialist and metrosexual have now decided they hate him because he met with Kim Davis (who was the object of last month’s left-wing hatefest) and because, oh yeah, he fired a gay priest from his job at The Vatican. So, now they’ve decided he’s either a homophobic racist tea-bagger, or a victim of the anti-gay mafia or something.

The thing is, though, Monsignor Krzysztof Charamsa wasn’t fired for being gay; he was fired for being in a gay relationship. “What’s the difference?” gay lefties may ask. Actually, as explained by Mollie Hemingway, it’s a pretty big difference that can be summarized thusly:

Gay priests are not allowed to have boyfriends.

Lesbian nuns are not allowed to have girlfriends.

Straight nuns are not allowed to have boyfriends.

Straight priests are not allowed to have girlfriends.

Equality isn’t one-way street, it also means you have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Comments

  2. And this brings up something else.

    An argument that appears to be unspoken by gay activists. It seems that if you have the desires for your own sex, you might as well indulge them. They see no difference between someone who is straight and celebate and one who is straight and married with children. They therefore see no difference between someone who is gay and one who is gay and married to someone their own sex.

    So, one must ask the obvious question: what is the difference between a pedophile and a practicing pedophile, and why should they be treated differently? (No, I am NOT forgetting priests here…)

  3. The very straight and very beloved Priest in my home town’s Parrish resigned because he fell in love and could not be in a relationship and a priest. He didn’t demand that the Pope recognize his relationship. That’s the problem with many gay rights people-their gay comes first and the religious rules should t apply to them. This priest was also apparently flaunting the relationship.

    Now I’m not catholic and don’t believe priests/pastors should take vows of celibacy but that vow is a pretty central part of being a Catholic priest.

    This Pope seems pretty communist in his thinking but he still seems pretty conservative in other ways but I do have one belief-the Catholic Church has been bleeding members but the answer to the bleeding membership isn’t removing all the rules. It’s a pretty sure way to cause a schism in the church.

  4. One of the management tenets of the Roman Catholic Church is to avoid even the appearance of scandal. It is why many abusive and misbehaving priests were transferred to different parishes and locales rather than dealt with on their own merits (or lack thereof). Ironically, this made the problem worse so that an even bigger scandal erupted down the road. However, it’s not much different than the secular world, where troublesome employees are often transferred somewhere else.

    While it is true that many clergy and other religious professionals have illicit relationships (and have had for centuries), simply having or desiring them does not make them right or proper. So having Father Hottie’s “special friend” sit in the front pew every Sunday (be they male, female, or indeterminate gender) simply can’t be tolerated, especially when it is plainly obvious what is going on. That those who keep perpetuating and indulging in these barely covert entanglements can’t seem to understand how improper they are is mystifying in terms of their training and education. It’s like a lawyer who doesn’t see anything wrong with borrowing money from his client’s trust accounts.

    Unfortunately the problem was exacerbated under the reign of St Pope John Paul II who had an Old World mentality, particularly when it came to ecclesiastical management. For years his Vatican refused all laicization requests, under the “once a priest, always a priest” rubric. I’m not sure this was ever a wholesome attitude towards those who serve the church, but under massive incidence of improper behavior, it borders on willful misconduct in and of itself.

    Under new and current management, one need not be subject to lifelong clerical shackles, which is why it is even more important that those who feel they can’t abide by the job requirements take themselves out of official commission before they force someone else to do it for them.

  5. Notg every priest who becomes smitten and marries, remains as a layman, in the Roman Church. There was a young handsome hispanic priest who appeared regularly on Univision. Photos of Fr. John, appeared in a gossip newspaper obviously romantically involved with the young lady. He admitted that they had been romantically involved, since he had no intentions of leaving her nor the priesthood, he applied to the Episcopal Church, which recognized his prior ordination. He married the woman loves and he either has a parish or is an assistant. This is not unique. Roman Catholic priests in Britain and the continent of Europe have crossed over to the Anglican Communion or occasionally on of the Orthodox Churches, and vice versa. Anglican Episcopalian priests who become Roman are said to have swum the Tiber, and Romans who become Anglican to have swum the English Channel.

  7. James: even if he wanted to, Pope Francis is still not allowed to officially support gay marriage or homosexual acts and not capable of changing Church teaching on the subject or allowing priests to conduct gay weddings anyway.

    Every conclave, “teh medias” make it sound like there’s hope that the next pope will be “progressive” and allow divorce, same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, fornication, homosexual acts, and so forth, but they don’t realize (or want to say) that it’s not in the pope’s power to change the rules.

  8. I would add that in a recent article in the Washington Blade, a spokesperson for the dissident Catholic group “Dignity” was careful to make it sound as though the Vatican’s position were terribly confusing: “Gosh, Pope Francis had earlier said ‘Who am I to judge?’ if a priest is gay, and now the Cardinals have declined an invitation to meet with ‘Dignity’ — like what’s up with that?!” (There’s no inconsistency here, because Francis was talking about a celibate priest who happens to be tempted by men, not women; while Dignity explicitly rejects the Church’s position that God wants EVERYONE who’s not in a heterosexual marriage to be celibate, whether they’ve taken religious vows or not.)