Would you accept an active homosexual priest in your parish?

rant_and_rave

In 1994 Father Liam Cosgrave, a curate from Baldoyle died in a gay sauna. He was given the last rites by two other Catholic priests who happened to be in the club and emerged from their cubical on hearing crys for help. Two homosexual priests have coitus interruptus in a gay club because another priest in the same clubs drops dead from a heart attack and requires the last rites. The club owner says about 20 RCC priests are regular patrons.

Renegade priest Pat Buckley says 30-40% of priests are actively gay.

How does the hierarchy react? There was no condemnation of Cosgrave from Desmond Connell and no attempt to admonish the other two priests who were with him in the club. While RCC doctrine condemns homosexual acts RCC Bishops tacitly accept homosexual acts between clergy. If the Bishops cannot act on their own belief system and remove active homosexual priests from the ministry then is it no wonder that they see child abuse as a trivial issue and offer succour and protection to sex offenders.

Would you accept an active homosexual priest in your parish and if so how would you reconcile your position with the doctrine of the RCC.

Priest died in gay sauna.

AS MANY as 20 Catholic priests are regular visitors to the gay Dublin
sauna club where an elderly priest died suddenly over the weekend, the
owner of the premises, Mr Liam Ledwidge, told The Irish Times last
night.

He said that Father Liam Cosgrave (68), who apparently died of a heart
attack early on Saturday morning, was a regular visitor to the
Incognito sauna club, on Bow Lane East off Aungier Street, for many
years.

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Desmond Connell, said yesterday
that he was ``shocked and saddened'' by the circumstances of Father
Cosgrave's death. In a statement, Dr Connell said the death of the
curate was a tragedy. ``The circumstances of his death have shocked
and saddened us all and make his death even more tragic.''

The Incognito's owner, Mr Ledwidge, said the Baldoyle curate, who was
a member of the Montfort Fathers, was just one of a number of priests
who frequented the premises. ``We do have a lot of priests visiting,
around 20 of them. Of course they wouldn't all congregate at the same
time and they don't form a higher proportion than any other
profession. They don't wear their clerical collars, but over the years
you do get to know what people do,'' said Mr Ledwidge, a partner in
the club which opened 12 years ago.

DublinWriter

I lived in the area at the time and I knew Liam Cosgrave personally.

He was a nice man, well thought of by all the community.

The press were all over parishioners after the incident and not one single person had a bad word to say about him, especially the more elderly ones.

His sexually wasn't known about before he died.

I think you'll find that there isn't such a thing as an 'active' homosexual priest in the Catholic Church...at least none that are 'out'.

Fanny Cradock

I feel it is important to make the distinction between someone being gay and someone choosing to live a lifestyle that Orthodox Christianity holds to be incomparable with the fundamentals of a life in Christ.

gosplan

Not too surprised at the double standards from the RCC to be honest.

Curious as to how the priests themselves reconcile with it though.

It's like a pro-apartheid coloured person.

gosplan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I feel it is important to make the distinction between someone being gay and someone choosing to live a lifestyle that Orthodox Christianity holds to be incomparable with the fundamentals of a life in Christ.

errm?

Can you explain that a bit more for me please. perhaps I'm not reading it right.

Do you mean the difference between simply being gay and living a gay lifestyle?

Fanny Cradock

gosplan wrote: »

errm?

Can you explain that a bit more for me please. perhaps I'm not reading it right.

Do you mean the difference between simply being gay and living a gay lifestyle?

Sorry, that should have read "incompatible", not "incomparable".

Yes, it's the difference between being gay and living a gay lifestyle.

rant_and_rave

DublinWriter wrote: »

I lived in the area at the time and I knew Liam Cosgrave personally.

He was a nice man, well thought of by all the community.

The press were all over parishioners after the incident and not one single person had a bad word to say about him, especially the more elderly ones.

His sexually wasn't known about before he died.

I think you'll find that there isn't such a thing as an 'active' homosexual priest in the Catholic Church...at least none that are 'out'.

Depends on your definition of nice. Cosgrave was a liar and a hypocrite devoid of any integrity. He should have resigned his ministry. He was living a lie.

The RCC demands that Catholics be sin free before receiving the Eucharist but Cosgrave thought it was OK to say mass in the morning, distribute communion and then head off to a gay sauna to fornicate with fellow priests. You see nothing wrong with this. No wonder the RCC is sick.

I just wonder whether all those baptisms and confirmations he officiated at are still valid.

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, that should have read "incompatible", not "incomparable".

Yes, it's the difference between being gay and living a gay lifestyle.

Yes, its important to point out that the Bible never condemns anybody for having a sexual orientation that happens to be homosexual. It only condemns homosexual acts, and homosexual acts can be perrformed by anybody, including heterosexuals.

homer911

Just to be fair, I'm sure this question is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

I've come across a number of Protestant ministers that would make you ask "Is he or isnt he?" but its generally the case of don't ask and don't tell.

To broaden the question beyond homosexuality - Would you welcome a priest/minister into your parish who was openly having a sexual relationship with an unmarried partner? (e.g sharing a home/bed, not having sex in public!)

For me personally, the answer would have to be no - whether straight or gay

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes, its important to point out that the Bible never condemns anybody for having a sexual orientation that happens to be homosexual. It only condemns homosexual acts, and homosexual acts can be perrformed by anybody, including heterosexuals.

What about Jesus' teaching about sinning in ones heart? Do you reckon that the lesson he taught was with regards to sinning in ones heart gives birth to sin? I.E, that dwelling on such desires will eat away at you and lead you into sin. OR, does he teach that the actual desire is sinful also?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

What about Jesus' teaching about sinning in ones heart? Do you reckon that the lesson he taught was with regards to sinning in ones heart gives birth to sin? I.E, that dwelling on such desires will eat away at you and lead you into sin. OR, does he teach that the actual desire is sinful also?

To be tempted to commit an act is not sin. To cherish the thought and fantasize about an act would be sin.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

To be tempted to commit an act is not sin. To cherish the thought and fantasize about an act would be sin.

So that means that its not just homosexual 'acts' or adulterous 'acts' etc that are taught as sinful?

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

What about Jesus' teaching about sinning in ones heart? Do you reckon that the lesson he taught was with regards to sinning in ones heart gives birth to sin? I.E, that dwelling on such desires will eat away at you and lead you into sin. OR, does he teach that the actual desire is sinful also?

Jesus was addressing self righteous people when He said that. People who thought that just because they don't commit certain deeds that they were sinless. They're not. If you hate someone in your heart then you are as guilty as the murderer, or if you lust in your heart then you are as guilty as the adulterer. It was to show the Pharisees up for what they were. Their spotless robes might be able to fool the ordinary man on the street but they cannot fool God. Paul says that we are corrupt according to deceiving desires, (Ephesians 4:22) not to desires per sé. People who have a sexual orientation that happens to be homosexual are sinners just like everyone else. We can't judge them, because as soon as we do then God judges us with the same judgment. Plus we can't pride ourselves on the fact that we never acted in such a way because we all know deep down inside if we have ever had a homosexual thought in our hearts or not, so before we jump to judge the performers of those acts, we should think long and hard about what goes on inside our hearts first. Only somebody who is perfect has the right to judge anyone, and the One who was perfect never did, He didn't even condemn the woman who was caught in the very act of adultery.

kumate_champ07

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I feel it is important to make the distinction between someone being gay and someone choosing to live a lifestyle that Orthodox Christianity holds to be incomparable with the fundamentals of a life in Christ.

so being gay is not a choice then? If someone was born gay that would mean god made them gay?

BrianCalgary

Anyone who is in a leadership position has to be free from a lifestye that would be sinful.

That is not to say they have to be sinless, because that is impossible. They woul dhave to hold to a lifestyle that would be above reporoach.

BrianCalgary

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so being gay is not a choice then? If someone was born gay that would mean god made them gay?

Don't go here. Fanny's post says no such thing and you are putting words into his post that are not there.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

So that means that its not just homosexual 'acts' or adulterous 'acts' etc that are taught as sinful?

Jimi, I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

Fantasizing and dwelling on the thought of any sin is, according to Jesus, sinful. If I wanted to murder my next door neighbour, and spent every day imagining how much fun it would be to kill him, then that would be sinful - even if I was sufficiently afraid of the cops to refrain from actually killing my neighbour.

The same goes for homosexual behaviour. Feeling attracted to someone of the same sex (or indeed anyone of the opposite sex who is not a feasible marriage partner) is not sinful. But homosexual acts, or adulterous acts, are sinful. And, according to Jesus, it would be sinful to spend all day fantasizing about those acts, even if you never acted out those fantasies.

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

And, according to Jesus, it would be sinful to spend all day fantasizing about those acts, even if you never acted out those fantasies.

Does it have to be all day for it to be sinful?

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

Does it have to be all day for it to be sinful?

No, I'm simply trying to explain it in terms people can understand.

Ickle Magoo

homer911 wrote: »

Just to be fair, I'm sure this question is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

I've come across a number of Protestant ministers that would make you ask "Is he or isnt he?" but its generally the case of don't ask and don't tell....

Or are even completely open...

gay minister appointed

Handsome Bob

I never really understood this "no gay priests" thing. I mean, either way, they are going to have to be celibate so what's the problem?

MagicMarker

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I never really understood this "no gay priests" thing. I mean, either way, they are going to have to be celibate so what's the problem?

Well, Jesus says it's sinful to fantasize about sinful things, so....

Turtwig

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so being gay is not a choice then? If someone was born gay that would mean god made them gay?

No you misunderstood Fanny's point.
Being Gay is not regarded as a sin; it's homosexual or gay acts that are sinful.

Edit : Ah rats didn't see the second page until now

MagicMarker

Malty_T wrote: »

No you misunderstood Fanny's point.
Being Gay is not regarded as a sin; it's homosexual or gay acts that are sinful.

Edit : Ah rats didn't see the second page until now

40 posts per page FTW.

You're right though, it appears that PDN & Fanny Cradock hold differing opinions, unless I'm reading it wrong?

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

40 posts per page FTW.

You're right though, it appears that PDN & Fanny Cradock hold differing opinions, unless I'm reading it wrong?

Yes, I think you're reading it wrong. How do we differ on this issue?

Turtwig

MagicMarker wrote: »

40 posts per page FTW.

You're right though, it appears that PDN & Fanny Cradock hold differing opinions, unless I'm reading it wrong?

Yeah I think you are.

Edit : Ahh C'mon that's twice I've been beaten in less than 10 minutes.

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I think you're reading it wrong. How do we differ on this issue?

It seemed to me Fanny Cradock was saying that just because a priest may be gay, doesn't mean they are sinful, provided they choose not to follow the lifestyle and engage in homosexual acts.

Whereas PDN, you are saying that it is sinful (according to Jesus) to fantasize about such acts.

They just seem like contradictory points, based on my interpretation of course.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I feel it is important to make the distinction between someone being gay and someone choosing to live a lifestyle that Orthodox Christianity holds to be incomparable with the fundamentals of a life in Christ.

PDN wrote: »

Fantasizing and dwelling on the thought of any sin is, according to Jesus, sinful.

DublinWriter

rant_and_rave wrote: »

Depends on your definition of nice. Cosgrave was a liar and a hypocrite devoid of any integrity. He should have resigned his ministry. He was living a lie.

Did you know the guy? No, you didn't.

It's very easy for someone on the internet to anonymously and merrily throw stones in the Greenhouse. Have a look in your own heart of hearts and tell me that you're morally squeaky clean yourself.

Liam Cosgrove was held and tied up at knifepoint over a twelve-hour period while a couple of gougers raided the church. He went out of his way to visit the sick and elderly of the parish during his many years in Baldoyle.

And before you start accusing me of being an apologist, I renounced my Catholic faith back in 1982 and I'm as tough a critic of the Catholic Church as you'd ever hope to meet.

Canonical arguments aside, he put more back into his community than you ever have.

Liam Cosgrove was a lovely man. End of.

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

It seemed to me Fanny Cradock was saying that just because a priest may be gay, doesn't mean they are sinful, provided they choose not to follow the lifestyle and engage in homosexual acts.

Whereas PDN, you are saying that it is sinful (according to Jesus) to fantasize about such acts.

They just seem like contradictory points, based on my interpretation of course.

I am 100% certain, based on previous discussions, that Fanny would agree with me about such fantasizing being sinful.

And I am 100% in agreement with his statement that just because a priest may be gay, doesn't mean they are sinful, provided they choose not to follow the lifestyle and engage in homosexual acts.

What we have both stated in this thread is that having a disposition to being attracted to others of the same sex is not of itself sinful.

krudler

Surely you cant be a homosexual unless you've actually had some kind of experience with a homosexual act? by that logic a man who's never had sex with another man, nor fantastises about it for fear of it being a sin can be gay?

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

I am 100% certain, based on previous discussions, that Fanny would agree with me about such fantasizing being sinful.

And I am 100% in agreement with his statement that just because a priest may be gay, doesn't mean they are sinful, provided they choose not to follow the lifestyle and engage in homosexual acts.

What we have both stated in this thread is that having a disposition to being attracted to others of the same sex is not of itself sinful.

But priests are humans, and all humans fantasize, therefore gay priests must be sinful?

Fanny Cradock

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

so being gay is not a choice then? If someone was born gay that would mean god made them gay?

I don't particularly want to go down this route again. However, seems as there is some confusion, I'll elaborate.

I have no idea if a persons sexuality is genetically determined, if external factors can be a deciding factor, or if it a little of both. Please note - and this is important - that I didn't include the option "God made them gay" in the last sentence.

Homosexuality isn't something that greatly bothers me, tbh. I have better things to be focusing on than a person's personal preference when it comes to wobbly bits. I accept that people are gay - whatever the reason - and this is why I don't have a problem with two people of the same sex entering into a civil union where they are afford the same rights by the state as heterosexual couples receive. We don't live in a theocracy - and for that I am profoundly thankful - so I see no reason to force others into my way of thinking.

I don't pretend this is an issue I easily understand, or that I'm not conflicted in some way. But I do see it as different when, in the context of Christianity, and specifically with regards to leadership, we are dealing with a head of the church who is effectively practising a lifestyle (which not to be confused with being gay - having a sexual preference) that Orthodox Christianity holds as incompatible.

On this, I believe, PDN and I are largely in agreement.

krudler

so being gay is not a choice then? If someone was born gay that would mean god made them gay?

Exactly, if god has a plan for everyone then gays are born that way by his design, so its a bit hypocritical for a religion to consider someone sinful when they supposedly had no choice in the matter, if a gay man was to try hide the fact and go his life pretending to be straight, is that going against gods will?

PDN

MagicMarker wrote: »

But priests are humans, and all humans fantasize, therefore gay priests must be sinful?

All humans may indeed fantasize, though not necessarily about sex.

You could just as well argue that heterosexual priests must be sinful.

MagicMarker

PDN wrote: »

All humans may indeed fantasize, though not necessarily about sex.

You could just as well argue that heterosexual priests must be sinful.

Since you brought it up, according to Jesus, they must be, yes.

Fanny Cradock

MagicMarker wrote: »

But priests are humans, and all humans fantasize, therefore gay priests must be sinful?

Who said priest weren't sinful? As if we needed reminding, clearly some priests (hopefully former priests/ inmates) were not without sin.

PDN

krudler wrote: »

Exactly, if god has a plan for everyone then gays are born that way by his design, so its a bit hypocritical for a religion to consider someone sinful when they supposedly had no choice in the matter, if a gay man was to try hide the fact and go his life pretending to be straight, is that going against gods will?

Your leaps in logic are truly Beamonesque - so let's just clarify a couple of issues.

1. It is far from proven scientifically that people are born gay. So the jury is still out on that one.

2. Even if people were born gay, it does not follow that God designed them to be so. Some babies are born addicted to crack cocaine. Some babies were born limbless because of their mothers use of thalidomide (sp?). Some babies are born already infected with HIV. I know of very few people who would claim they were born that way because God wanted it to be so.

3. God has a plan for everyone. But it would be folly to assume that doing whatever we feel like is therefore part of this plan.

It does get irritating that anytime we start discussing homosexuality that people seem unable to think clearly.

Fanny Cradock

krudler wrote: »

Exactly, if god has a plan for everyone then gays are born that way by his design, so its a bit hypocritical for a religion to consider someone sinful when they supposedly had no choice in the matter, if a gay man was to try hide the fact and go his life pretending to be straight, is that going against gods will?

Are you actually reading all the replies?

gosplan

This all sounds a bit silly to me tbh.

So being gay is fine but acting on it is a sin ... or thinking about it too much is a sin.

That's some confused thinking right there.

Do you both personally believe this?

lmaopml

rant_and_rave wrote: »

In 1994 Father Liam Cosgrave, a curate from Baldoyle died in a gay sauna. He was given the last rites by two other Catholic priests who happened to be in the club and emerged from their cubical on hearing crys for help. Two homosexual priests have coitus interruptus in a gay club because another priest in the same clubs drops dead from a heart attack and requires the last rites. The club owner says about 20 RCC priests are regular patrons.

Renegade priest Pat Buckley says 30-40% of priests are actively gay.

How does the hierarchy react? There was no condemnation of Cosgrave from Desmond Connell and no attempt to admonish the other two priests who were with him in the club. While RCC doctrine condemns homosexual acts RCC Bishops tacitly accept homosexual acts between clergy. If the Bishops cannot act on their own belief system and remove active homosexual priests from the ministry then is it no wonder that they see child abuse as a trivial issue and offer succour and protection to sex offenders.

Would you accept an active homosexual priest in your parish and if so how would you reconcile your position with the doctrine of the RCC.

Priest died in gay sauna.

AS MANY as 20 Catholic priests are regular visitors to the gay Dublin
sauna club where an elderly priest died suddenly over the weekend, the
owner of the premises, Mr Liam Ledwidge, told The Irish Times last
night.

He said that Father Liam Cosgrave (68), who apparently died of a heart
attack early on Saturday morning, was a regular visitor to the
Incognito sauna club, on Bow Lane East off Aungier Street, for many
years.

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Desmond Connell, said yesterday
that he was ``shocked and saddened'' by the circumstances of Father
Cosgrave's death. In a statement, Dr Connell said the death of the
curate was a tragedy. ``The circumstances of his death have shocked
and saddened us all and make his death even more tragic.''

The Incognito's owner, Mr Ledwidge, said the Baldoyle curate, who was
a member of the Montfort Fathers, was just one of a number of priests
who frequented the premises. ``We do have a lot of priests visiting,
around 20 of them. Of course they wouldn't all congregate at the same
time and they don't form a higher proportion than any other
profession. They don't wear their clerical collars, but over the years
you do get to know what people do,'' said Mr Ledwidge, a partner in
the club which opened 12 years ago.

God bless Mr. Ledwidge :rolleyes: Perhaps he should out them all now huh? He's so brave.

Op, without reading through the thread at all, so forgive me if I am repeating....however, I fail to see the connection between somebody who is 'Gay' and a 'Pedophile'?

Ickle Magoo

lmaopml wrote: »

Op, without reading through the thread at all, so forgive me if I am repeating....however, I fail to see the connection between somebody who is 'Gay' and a 'Pedophile'?

I think the only connection being made was the shared blind eye the RCC has turned towards each in relation to the members of it's clergy....

liamw

PDN, if God is omniscient then he knows that the person is going to have homosexual tendencies whether they are genetic or not. So your point is mute.

lmaopml

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think the only connection being made was the shared blind eye the RCC has turned towards each in relation to the members of it's clergy....

The RCC Church is being careful about 'who' is allowed to administer to it's flock at the moment....and no doubt, it's about time too. However, I must say, I highly disagree that a Gay person is automatically a Pedophile.

I totally get the idea that both may be more inclined to think more 'secretly' about sex etc. etc. but I certainly do not agree with descriminating against someone who is born Gay with a 'huge' cross to bear today as regards other peoples 'outlook' and this priest who for whatever reason decided to choose the Catholic faith. I have no doubt whatsoever the guy was probably one of the nicest guys on the street. The FACT remains, that he signed up to administer a Gospel he was NOT adhering to. We are all born with crosses to bear....

Gay doesn't nececessarily translate into pedophilia though.....


...and I think a hell of a lot more study needs to be done in this area.

As an RCC, with a Gay brother in law, I am entirely empathetic to him, but it's 'his' road, and 'his' choice....and there is only one perfect judge.

...and it ain't the RCC church, or you or I, or anybody else.

MagicMarker

No one said gay = pedophile.

lmaopml

MagicMarker wrote: »

No one said gay = pedophile.

LOL, well I apologise if I took the op up wrong so...

Ickle Magoo

lmaopml wrote: »

However, I must say, I highly disagree that a Gay person is automatically a Pedophile.

I've read the thread three times now & the only person making that leap is you. The similarities being drawn by the OP are that the RCC hierarchy has knowingly & deliberately ignored the fact that members of it's clergy are participating in homosexual activity - and have also ignored accusations of paedophilia made against other members. Ignoring both does not = the same activity being ignored.

Edited to add.

lmaopml wrote: »

LOL, well I apologise if I took the op up wrong so...

I got distracted mid post & took so long to type it, I missed the above first time around, sorry.

Stercus Accidit

rant_and_rave wrote: »

If the Bishops cannot act on their own belief system and remove active homosexual priests from the ministry then is it no wonder that they see child abuse as a trivial issue and offer succour and protection to sex offenders.

The OP did equate overlooking a priest being gay with overlooking a priest molesting children.

Isn't that putting homosexuality on par with child abuse by the OP?

PDN

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The OP did equate overlooking a priest being gay with overlooking a priest molesting children.

Isn't that putting homosexuality on par with child abuse by the OP?

No, it isn't. Stating that the hierarchy overlooked two separate practices in no way implies that the two practices are equated.

Any more discussion about homosexuality=paedophilia will be deleted.

PDN

gosplan wrote: »

This all sounds a bit silly to me tbh.

So being gay is fine but acting on it is a sin ... or thinking about it too much is a sin.

That's some confused thinking right there.

Do you both personally believe this?

Yes, people round here do personally believe the Bible. If you don't like that I suggest you avoid posting here.

Ickle Magoo

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The OP did equate overlooking a priest being gay with overlooking a priest molesting children.

Isn't that putting homosexuality on par with child abuse by the OP?

I don't see any equating other than being on par with some members of the RCC in terms of blatant hypocrisy...

Fanny Cradock

liamw wrote: »

PDN, if God is omniscient then he knows that the person is going to have homosexual tendencies whether they are genetic or not. So your point is mute.

At the risk of proving Skitt's Law correct, I believe you meant to say, "your point is moot". But it's not!

The issue being raised in this thread isn't about being gay - I believe a number of people have been at pains to point this out. It's about being a sexually active gay person while also serving as a member of authority within the church. According to Orthodoxy, this lifestyle is unacceptable. (Please reread the thread if you are confused.)

Of course, if one wishes, there is always the option of seeking out other denominations and splitter groups (Unitarianism, for example) that bare only the faintest whispers of a union with Orthodoxy (and, dare I say, Christianity) but allow such things.