Diocesan Paper: Homosexual Relations Not Sinful

Church Militant ^ | 10/9/15 | Joseph Gonzales

[markomalley]

On Monday, the Catholic Voice, the official publication of the diocese of Oakland, California, published a homily telling Catholics not to condemn active homosexual relationships.

Retired pastor Fr. Dan Danielson asserts in his homily — originally said on June 28, the Sunday following the U.S. Supreme Court's revolutionary ruling legalizing gay "marriage" in all 50 states — that some people are born gay and that "no one simply chooses" to be gay, despite overwhelming sociological evidence to the contrary. He insists that being gay is not "sinful or wrong" or even "bad."

He goes on to attack those who "discriminate" against homosexuals, saying that their so-called hateful behavior reveals "insecurities" about their own sexual identity.

Father Danielson admits that although a heterosexual marriage is the "best environment," there are also "many homosexual couples who raise children with great love." He says no one can judge the "stable" and "admirable" qualities of homosexual relationships, and that these relationships are "not to be simply condemned as sinful."

He says that while the Church's teaching on marriage is "generally correct," it "does not work out" in "many instances." He concludes that we must accept gay persons "as God accepts us all — without judgment or superiority."

Father Danielson has a long history of supporting gay "marriage" and suppressing authentic Catholic liturgy.

California Catholic Daily reported that in 1998, then Bishop John Cummins expressed displeasure with Fr. Danielson and told him to stop talking to the press after news got out that he was allowing gay "marriages" at his parish, St. Elizabeth Seton.

One lesbian wedding was attempted on May 9, 1998, but was canceled after a number of faithful Catholics publicly protested the event. At the time, Fr. Danielson bragged that he would simply continue blessing gay unions outside the church building.

This scandal was brought up again in 2009 by California Catholic Daily and Catholic News Agency (CNA) when it was announced that Fr. Danielson would become the new interim administrator for the Oakland diocese while Abp. Allen Vigneron was transferred from Oakland to Detroit. When CNA asked Mike Brown, the Oakland diocese director for communications, about this scandal, he denied that Fr. Danielson had performed any gay marriages, claiming he had merely tried to "pray over commitments of love." When CNA asked Brown whether the blessings of sinful unions was a public scandal, Brown punted. "That sounds like a theological question."

To this day, Fr. Danielson's old parish, St. Elizabeth Seton, does not refer to itself as a church but rather as "the Catholic Community of Pleasanton" per the wishes of Fr. Danielson, who once said in a homily, "This is not a church but a gathering space."

When the parish's new $5 million church building was completed, Fr. Danielson ordered that there be no statues, Stations of the Cross, kneelers, corpus on the crucifix, or tabernacle (the tabernacle was stored in a different building). He told his congregation, "There is no sanctuary because this is all holy ground now."

But that's not all. When Fr. Danielson retired from St. Elizabeth Seton in 2007, there was public outcry about the priest who was to be his replacement, Fr. Padraig Greene. Father Danielson defended Fr. Greene, despite the fact that he was arrested for lewd behavior at the public bathroom of a children’s park.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) protested, arguing that Fr. Greene "shouldn't be placed in positions in which he's in charge of Catholic kids." At the time, the diocese of Oakland reportedly responded that then-Oakland Abp. Allen Vigneron considered the arrest "a single isolated incident." Father Danielson also defended Fr. Greene, saying that SNAP's view was "understandable, but it can lead to a misinterpretation of the facts."

Now the Oakland diocesan paper has published Fr. Danielson's pro-gay homily. This situation is similar to a recent one in the Boston archdiocese; last month Churchmilitant.com broke a story about Msgr. Paul Garrity, who wrote a pro-homosexualist piece for the archdiocese of Boston's official newspaper, The Pilot. Some of the faithful wrote an open letter to Cdl. Sean O'Malley, head of the archdiocese, to retract the scandalous article.

The timing of these two pro-gay publications has not been lost on the faithful, who are asking: Is it pure coincidence that these dioceses are publishing such articles just as the Synod on the Family gets underway?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Umm.. OK... what in the world do you mean by “despite the teachings of the Catholic Church”?

[NetAddicted]

Well, yours is my first bookmarked comment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well then... thank you!

[xone]

In the scripture you referenced, Jesus was not repeat not making a statement about capital punishment. As He knew the Pharisees had no interest in adultery other than the chance to force Him into making a stand about Mosaic law or affirming their right to use capital punishment while under Roman rule where the Empire reserved that capability to themselves.
He not only thwarted them, but pointed out their hypocrisy in only presenting the woman ‘caught in adultery’. If they had caught her at it, where was the man? Mosaic law would have them both stoned. By saying ‘those without sin cast the first stone’, He in effect challenged them to put up or shut up regarding the use of capital punishment without the Roman empire’s sanction.
Finally, since Jesus was all about repentance and turning from sin, He didn’t condemn the woman after the Pharisees had balked but instead admonished her to ‘go and sin no more’.
Paul’s letter to the Romans chap 13 affirms rightful authority to administer capital punishment because all authority on earth is derived from God.
The current stance of the Catholic church is anti-capital punishment is it not? The question is at what point in history did it change? They encouraged it use against its enemies in the past.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The "current stance" of the Church acknowledges, as it always has, the legitimacy of capital punishment under specific circumstances, as well as the Christ-like practice of foregoing it in the interests of the sinner having a fuller chance of repenting and turning away from sin.

From the Catechism:

#2267 (LINK) Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

The last paragraph ("Today, in fact...") is a prudential judgment, not a universal doctrine. That is, an attempted assessment of particular times and places where the severity of capital punishment could be foregone by the substitution of, for instance, life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Many have noted, with reason, that even a murderer with a life sentence can still aggress against others, e.g. by assault upon a guard or another prison staffer or another prisoner, and that these cases there would be no other recourse except the death penalty.

[xone]

So when did this change? Were there no prisons before when the Catholic church used the practice? Also, the words the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

add an element to Paul's words recorded in Romans where that determination belongs to the legitimate authority.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The emphasis, I think, is that the state has the right and the duty to protect society--- and ever member in it --- from aggression. If the aggressor cannot be stopped without killing him, then you can justly kill him. But if he can be stopped by non-lethal force, then the state should use that non-lethal force (the force involved in imprisonment.)

I personally doubt -- and as a Catholic, am permitted to doubt --- the "prudential" part that says that modern societies can now effectively do this. We have all seen how difficult it is to get a real life sentence that cannot be overturned by appeal, by resentencing, by parole, by escape, but a judge letting people go to relieve overcrowding or for some other bogus reason.

No to mention that convict-against-convict aggression is extremely common, which ought to result in a lot more capital sentences, since such reoffenders have demonstrated that imprisonment alone is not sufficient to restrain them.

Bottom line, the Catholic Church will not, and cannot, say that executions are never just, or equate the just application of the death penalty with murder. The death penaly, even if very rare, must always be an option if it is the only way to protect society (even prison society) from the continuing predations of violent offenders.

[xone]

Again, when did this change occur from past practice?

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not, strictly speaking, a change in doctrine but probably in emphasis. It has never been considered obligatory to execute criminals for capital crimes; for instance, the courts of the various Church Inquisitions had a lower rate of capital punishment than secular or royal courts. Historian Thomas Madden points to documentary evidence that accused criminals sometimes tried to have their trials transferred to ecclesiatical courts, where there were higher standards of evidence and procedural due process, and much lower rates of capital sentencing.

[xone]

Obligatory really isn’t the question, as much as that CP is the province of legitimate gov’t not the church. If this isn’t a recent change, why would there ever have been a death penalty levied and carried out in an ecclesiastical court?

[Mrs. Don-o]

As far as I know, even if the trial was conducted in an ecclesiastical court, people convicted of capital crimes were always handed over to the “civil arm” for punishment. This rendition, however, did not mean that the Church required a particular punishment to be carried out. The Church, itself, was authorized only to impose ecclesiatical punishments, e.g. excommunication.

[PA-RIVER]

Thanks for setting me straight.

[PA-RIVER]

Thanks for setting me straight.