Replies

Well the guy probably was gay, although whether he indulged in the physical act at some point in his life I don't know or care. I do think discussion of his sexuality one way or another is unfortunate, since that is not what his life in large measure was about. But of course, it was inevitable that it would come out. Folks love to gossip, and it does have its political uses, which I also think are unfortunate. If that makes me destestable in your eyes, so be it. I call them as I see them.

Well the guy probably was gay,....

Pardon me for horning in, but what is your basis for so believing? Other than the accounts which the article posted here disputes as contaminated? Or are you just saying that the article's writer is somehow deluding himself?

By the way, this priest wasn't "gay" if he was celibate, even if he was homosexual. Which hasn't been proven, but has only been claimed by people who have an ideological axe to grind. Mike Barnicle is not what I'd call the gold standard of credibility, as ontos-on has pointed out, and the activists at Dignity, if Fr. Mychal ever spoke to their group (did he? really?) or ministered to them, may have labored under a misapprehension at least as great as the one you impute to the writer.

Care to discuss?

"And so are you, Torie, if you do not think that it matters."

You are too cavalier in dismissing me. Do you pretend not to see the conditional in my statement about you: IF YOU DO NOT THINK IT MATTERS. The issue is not whether YOU think the man was a homosexual or engaged in such acts. The issue is not whether YOU care about it either. The original poster was posting about the claims shouted from the rooftop about this priest, to the effect that he WAS "openly gay" i.e. that he did engage in homosexual acts even though he was a priest. The "unfortunate" thing was that campaign to charaterize him as a"gay priest".

That is where the discussion of his sexuality began. That was character assination and impugning the integrity of the church, catholics, this priest, and most slyly, the firemen. You should not try to paint this as both sides are bad situation. That is where you are detestable if you insist on doing that.

Do not foul the issue by complainng about a discussion of the priest's sexuality. Only one side did that. The other is correcting it by saying it was false. There is no room for you to inject your desire to be morally equivalent.

I am going to speak the truth and say your evident wish to cloud this issue is, indeed, detestable. Calling something as you see it does not relieve you of the responsibility of trying to be responsible and getting it right. Your distillation of my original posting into pablum about " a discussion about sexuality" and your trying to make yourself appear as the victim of mindless "name-calling" only amounts to another indulgence of your moral blindness.

Why the term PROBABLY GAY? That is disrespectful. Is it all right for anyone to say anything about someone and make it true. There was a time when one did not say anything about someone unless it was a fact and even then to say something negative one had to think it could ruin someones reputation. What they did to Father Mike was a scandal to his reputation because he was a Catholic priest. They did not care about how good a priest he was but it was to take a slap at the church. And PROBABLY he was not gay. I say that because I do not know.