Replies

You mean like a pedophile?

38 posted on 11/13/01 6:35 PM Pacific by RobertBauman

You really should give up on this. There are many Roman Catholics on FR, and *not one* would defend a pedophile priest, but I'll bet most (if not all) will defend a homosexual priest who died a hero, as much a hero as any other of the rescue personnel who died at the WTC.

You really should give up on this. There are many Roman Catholics on FR, and *not one* would defend a pedophile priest

I wasn't referring to a pedophile priest. I was just saying how the argument the person was using didn't make sense. Just because someone is a part of a maligned minority group (like pedophiles) doesn't automatically mean we have to bend over backwards to give them special legitimacy.

And regarding Father Mike, why do you refer to him as a 'homosexual'? None of the firefighters who knew him ever did. I would think they knew him best.

but I'll bet most (if not all) will defend a homosexual priest who died a hero, as much a hero as any other of the rescue personnel who died at the WTC.

As a RC-FReeper, yes I would defend a "homosexual" priest, or any other hero who gave his life to save others. It's moot in Catholic tradition, however, it doesn't apply to a priest who keeps his vow of celebacy. It doesn't even enter into the equation.

I think Mr. Baumann's reason for posting the article, from my take on it anyway, was that he was pointing out the fact that the gay "agenda" can't leave "sleeping/dead dogs lay". We didn't need to "hear" that he was gay, it didn't make him more/less of a hero. The gay agenda took it upon themselves to "point" to the issue, instead of letting the rest of us remember who we was. The man was a hero, and was well respected in the community and the fire dept. Just imho.....