Posted on 02/02/2016 6:32:53 AM PST by Citizen Zed
The Chicago Archdiocese is responding to a published report in which a local priest comes out as gay, but it wasn't clear whether there would be ramifications for the clergy member.
In a column by Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein, Rev. Michael Shanahan is interviewed at length about his decision to disclose that he is gay.
"I'd like to be one of those priests, who, with great respect for the church's teaching, can say: I'm a human being. I'm a son -- one of six -- I'm gay and I'm a priest, period," Shanahan, a more than 20-year veteran of Chicago parishes, is quoted as saying.
A Michael Shanahan is listed as pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church on Chicago's North Side. In response to inquiries from CBS 2, a spokesperson for the Chicago Archdiocese on Monday said Shanahan would not comment and released a one-sentence statement from Archbishop Blase Cupich:
"We support all our priests as they live out the promises they made on the day of their ordination."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.cbslocal.com ...
Father Pfleger from St. Sabina?
Excellent point.
The act of identifying itself is an indication of being unrepentant.
Had he said that he struggled with the sin, that would be different. But he said he was gay. Even followed it with “period”. It is his self professed identity.
I tend to agree with you.
To go 20 years as a priest, and suddenly proclaim one's sexuality, suggests the priest is no longer practicing celibacy and abstinence.
The same is true if a priest were to suddenly declare that he's attracted to females. Declaration of heterosexuality is a lot less creepy than declaration of homosexuality, but it's still creepy and either indicates that the priest is not trustworthy.
No such thing as a celibate homosexual.
Archbishop Blase Cupich, that is a most lame statement that you released.
+1
Well said.
Declaring that "I'm gay" answers that question. You can't be "gay" and not endorse it. It's a political term.
Did he make ANY EFFORT to try to show that he’s not using his position to recruit innocent little kids.
Probably not...
Well, he said he wanted to help homosexual kids, so, I don’t think he thinks homosexuality is a sin.
Another excellent point.
I kinda got that feeling from his quote, as it gave of the whole “this is me and you need to accept that” vibe.
And, if that’s the case, we shouldn’t be surprised. I would not necessarily expect those who are in a Romans 1:18-32 trending situation to realize it. As with many things, people are led from one place to another when they choose actions or beliefs that often seem unimportant at the time but, when looking back, are actually distinct branches on the road. Follow enough of the forks in the winding paths of life that lead away from the straight and narrow road and you can end up in places where you’d have never thought you have gone to begin with.
It’s kinda like the one quote from a Simpsons episode set in the future where Homer remarks that FOX’s slide to become a hard core porn channel was so gradual he’d never really noticed it happen.
By the same token, we can see that Quayle’s Murphey Brown comment was on the mark, because some of those who scoffed then are now championing outright perverted lifestyles and all that goes with them and they may have never noticed how their attitudes have shifted as they were mindlessly tugged along by the popular culture, confused as they were by the thought that its (inherently transient) cobbled together judgments are right and valid.
Interesting how homosexuals led to this current time, when people aren’t allowed to judge deviant lifestyles as perverted and deviant. When did homosexuals get allowed to rule our thoughts? Sounds very Satanic.
It would have been unavoidable once many so-called “progressives” basically started to define progress as change away from what has been with no sense of where it leads.
We can see how this plays out, for example, in their attitudes towards scandals involving Democrats: a process of accommodation and acceptance.
Unless something is so utterly horrific that it can disabuse them all at once, they are able to get over it, accommodate it, maybe even justify it. Thereafter whatever comes along that is only about that bad, or just a bit worse, is easier to cope with. Over time all of this becomes old news, unimportant scandal mongering of the right and only petty partisans keep bringing it up. It is also cumulative: as disabusing them all at once becomes ever harder to do. Which is to say, once the proverbial wagons were circled their wheels assumed a set, letting them circle without effort.
It is an irrational process at work on the left, just as the slide of the culture into the depths of the cesspool on moral issues like homosexuality or abortion.
There is, to be blunt, no sense that there can ever be an accumulation of misdeeds to portent worse things to come. They are the knee-jerk heirs of those who once read the DoI and were bored.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.