The pathos of a gay priest

Have we entered voyeurism territory with this post? It is so hard to tell these days...

Posting this is truly over the top Rod.

Has this man, to your knowledge, committed a crime? Do you even know if he did, in fact, break his vow of celibacy? And if he did, isn't that a matter between him, his confessor, and God?

This email was written to people who, for whatever reason, he felt he could trust with personal concerns. It's not material for you to republish, for the Conservative Catholic Commentariat to salivate over gleefully. For who else is it that would take delight in the public airing of a gay priest's personal troubles? You and they won't be happy until every gay man - no matter how good a priest he is - is hounded out of the Church.

Because - we all know - heterosexual priests never... but NEVER!... break their celibacy vow... or are even tempted to! Gimme a break. Why aren't you hounding straight priests who've been tempted, or have given in to sin?

You recognize this man's "frail humanity" - yet you still posted this. You don't think that's cruel?

What possible good is going to come, to him, to you, to any of us - by posting this? After all, he's already been chased out of his parish, hasn't he? For what, because he's gay?

So now what Rod? On to find another gay priest to out? Unbelievable.

To Anne, John and John E.,

Nothing we post on the internet is really private ... including any comments we post on weblogs such as those like beliefnet.com. As for the St. Sebastian's ring, these folks on that group were quite "up front" about revealing themselves including posting photos, identities, etc.

In support of Rod's main point, it needs to be stressed that all baptized Catholic men, including priests, have a variety of venues within the Church that they can use in the event that they are led to same-sex attraction. One of these is the "Courage" group which I understand was started by Terrence Cardinal Cooke here in NYC, which means it has to have been around at least 25 years. Apparently the "Courage" apostolate has chapters throughout the country which are organized like AA on a strictly confidential basis. They run small ads almost every week in our diocesan newspaper. In addition, we can assume I think that priests with same-sex attractions have other Church-supported "support groups" to help them deal with this stuff. All the men in this St. Sebastian's ring could have availed themselves of these various Church-supported organizations.

This Saint Sebastian's ring, however, had very different purposes than the church-supported groups. Those purposes were NOT consistent with the Church's call to holiness on the part of all the baptized.

The priesthood is not a right. It is a calling. Any man who considers the priesthood (and every woman who considers serving as a religious sister) has to keep in mind that not everyone who may be attracted to this life is actually suited to this life.

This particular priest undoubtedly has many good qualities and is blessed with a variety of talents. Like all baptized Catholics he is called to holiness. He may even be called, as John put it, "to ministry." But not necessarily as a priest.

In the last sentence of his post, Rod refers to the role of the bishop here. That role is critical. Unfortunately, some bishops fail to assume their role as a pastoral father to the brother priests in their diocese. Instead, they assume a merely administrative role and work through assistants (which is a disservice to their priests). This particular priest and his bishop need to invest time in prayer and some heart-felt discussions to discern whether this priest still has a vocation to the priesthood.

Rather than rail against Rod for having the guts to take on this issue, let's all instead keep this priest in our prayers.

I'm not sure what's worse: the way this priest is being treated here by publishing this alleged email, the reliance on the odious Roman Catholic Faithful, or Paul's post.

It's shameful.

But I deeply doubt that anyone so conflicted about the tension between his nature and his calling as a celibate priest has any business in active ministry. Surely Father Mallinson's superiors at the chancery when this was discovered must have been able to see that here was a priest in crisis. And yet?

I would say persecuting Christians is a worse crime than being gay, and would be more of a disqualifier than being gay.

I eagerly await Rod Dreher's post taking Peter to taks for allowing St. Paul to actively minister.

What Mr. Dreher proposes is antithetical to everything Christianity promises. We are not our sin. We believe in the forgiveness of sins.

If that isn't true, if our sins define us forever, then what the hell is the point? Why bother with the crucifixion?

Christianity is about more than telling people not to have sex.

JohnMcG:

Take a deep breath and get a grip here. No one is persecuting gays, or Christians, or anyone else on this post. Our sins don't define us forever (assuming we sincerely repent of them). The point is that someone in this case (the priest, the diocese, or both) are not being entirely truthful with the public about the nature of this Saint Sebastian's group.

As so many others have commented here, you can't be actively gay (or actively heterosexual, for that matter) and remain a priest or a religious sister or a religious brother. It's like a married person sleeping around on their spouse. It's not just about the sex. It's more about violating a vow, breaking a promise.

Being a priest or a nun isn't for everyone. Those best suited to this life have a deep personal relationship with Jesus Christ that is fueled by a well-exercised prayer life. They have an intimate spiritual relationship with God that is pretty awesome. That relationship is so nurturing that they don't need to run around like some stray alley cat. That doesn't mean they don't need -- or aren't enriched by -- good solid human friendships. It just means that their need for emotional intimacy is fulfilled through their relationship with Christ and the communion of saints.

I pray for every priest and nun I know. Not that they keep their vows, maintain their vocation, yada, yada, yada. No, I pray for something far more important: that they continue to enjoy that incredibly prayerful and intimate relationship with God. It's an extraordinary blessing to receive. Without it, their vocation is in trouble. With it, they'll be just fine.

Fr. John Harris, the moderator of St. Sebastian's Angels, was the pastor of one of my parishes growing up, St. Anthony of Padua in Jackman, Maine. One of our earlier pastors was also involved (but cursorily, so I will not type his name here). I remember the first time I saw the screen captures of that site at the Roman Catholic Faithful webpage. It was utterly pornagraphic. Fr. Harris retained his faculties for four or five years after the RCF notified our bishop, and then even after Mr. Brady went public with the revelation due to inaction. It took old photos of Father swimming nude with teenagers surfacing for him to be finally removed.

I still ache about all of this. I don't know what to think about it. I have no ill will toward Father (whom I never knew, because I moved away for almost the exact period he was assigned to our parish) but I knew the other priest well, when I was in junior high.

Two other pastors of my adolescence have left the priesthood of their own accord, one to become a "Rent a Priest," the other a Lutheran minister.

As I say, all of this is wrenching, and I've lost a lot of trust in our shepherds. I believe strongly, however, that Rod's focusing on these sorts of things is worthwhile. We need to know. Otherwise, the complicity and conspiracy will only metastasize again. Only a vigilant press can protect us. So I'm with Rod on this.

Incidentally, Fr. Harris wreckovated our church. We've quite a lot of pastels, now. Most especially the stations. Pink, orange sherbet and powder blue. No joke.

"But I deeply doubt that anyone so conflicted about the tension between his nature and his calling as a celibate priest has any business in active ministry."

So do I. So a lot of us.

I didn't say he was lying about sex. There's no reason to believe, on evidence presented, that he ever had sex. He's lying about the supposed innocent nature of the site, and how he left it when it turned pornographic. According to the diocese, Mallinson told them that the site was a support group for helping gay priests live celibately, but he left in 2001 when it became raunchy. That's not true, and it's easy to prove it's not true. For one thing, RCF made the site public in Jan. 2000; for another, it was super-raunchy in 1999, when Mallinson was still part of it.

Well, you could try living out your vow of celibacy, for one. Or joining a support group of priests struggling to deal with their sexuality in healthy ways, and not dealing with it by arranging anonymous encounters on the Internet.

I didn't say he was lying about sex. There's no reason to believe, on evidence presented, that he ever had sex.

Well....okay....

I'm actually sympathetic to the main point of Rod's argument - that a fellow who participated in a raunchy sub-culture shouldn't be pastoring a church unless his superiors are sure he has worked through his issues.

"It took old photos of Father swimming nude with teenagers surfacing for him to be finally removed."

Lord, from WHAT did he have teenagers surfacing!

[Sorry, I couldn't help myself.]

"Witch hunt"? Oh, please. The last refuge of someone who cannot defend the accused on the merits. Five minutes spent looking at the SSA website reveals that to be a complete canard.

John: While St. Sebastian's Angels might be shocking, the little bit that I looked at made clear to me that these men are desperate for community.

Was it the tape loop of the ejaculating penis that led you to this conclusion, John? Was it the bare bottoms of the men at the beach? Was it the priest who posted that he'd had his balls sucked through the tip of his penis? Or perhaps the bishop who fantasized about poisoning Cardinal Ratzinger?

I'm sorry to be blunt, readers, but if you haven't seen this site, you should know exactly what it's about. It's not about seeking the comforts of community.

John, if you are comfortable with a priest who frequented that site pastoring your parish, then I can't help you. But I would suppose most people would not, absent clear and credible evidence that the priest had repented of his participation there, and had worked through the struggles that led him there in the first place.

Also, I'm less disturbed by all that than by his atrocious spelling. For God's sake, don't priests need years of education any more? :)

Mercy, I thought the same thing!

Rod, you have nothing to apologize for. This Catholic is grateful that the sordid and seedy mess that was SSA has been exposed. Clericalism indeed!

How quickly we forget that the merciful and forgiving Savior also said "Go and sin no more." These priests obviously think it doesn't apply to them.

The relevant question here is whether or not Fr. Mallinson sincerely repents of his participation in that site, and whether or not he's resolved the internal conflicts that led him to associate with that bad company. If so, he should give people to whom he would minister credible reason to believe he has. If not, he should not be in active ministry.

Isn't it just possible that this man is called to ministry but not to celibacy? Can your orthodox brain even entertain such a notion? Is it really so impossible to imagine?

Where to begin? You are confusing celibacy and chastity. Catholic priests are called to celibacy, meaning that in the Western, Latin rite they may not marry. No one is forced to become a priest. The conditions are laid out upfront. When a priest involves himself in something like SSA he has already gravely betrayed the vows he entered into at ordination.

ALL Christians are called to chastity. If one is a single lay person, that means no sexual activity outside of marriage.

If one is married, that means a commitment to one's spouse alone.

If one is ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church, it means forsaking all others for the sake of the Bride of Christ, the Church.

Difficult sometimes? To be sure. But that's the way of the "narrow gate" that Jesus spoke about.

Somebody needs a martini. Or two.

I agree that it is Rod Dreher, not Art Mallinson, who has thoroughly internalised, and is acting in accordance with, the true spirit of the RC church (somewhat ironically, given that Dreher is no longer a member of that communion). And I sincerely hope that Dreher and people essentially similar to him -- be they Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, fundamentalist protestant or fundamentalist Muslim -- find an ever broader audience for their views. That could only have a beneficial effect on people of good will.

I would say too, Sig, that it is a mistake to think that the laity, on the whole, much care. When a Dallas area priest was removed from ministry a couple of years ago after a group of people at his parish complained about his dodgy behavior (keeping as music director a man who had been arrested in a shopping mall men's room soliciting an undercover cop for sex), and it emerged that the then-bishop had moved him out of a Catholic high school and into that parish after multiple complaints that he was coming on to boys, the members of the parish who got dear old Father Bill removed were treated as pariahs. There's already a petition drive at Fr. Mallinson's old parish to get him back.

We've reached agreement! (Too bad I don't drink.)

You could always start.

I may have to join in the (virtual) tee many martoonies of agreement here. Rod, you may be right that the Catholic faithful in general do not care enough. In their defense, though, I would offer the thought that they've been carefully taught for many years to believe that any priest is sacred ("alter Christus!") simply by virtue of his ordination and without any regard for his personal behavior. The total failure of the ecclesiastical superiors to deal with priests who were alcoholics, philanderers, abusers, embezzlers, or simply boorish, ignorant, abrasive, and deficient in spiritual practice has certainly helped to confirm the laity in the feeling that "Father" has the Mandate of Heaven and will never lose it no matter what he does. They have also not been given any official channels through which to communicate their disapproval if they did feel any. Short of picking up their pitchforks and torches and storming the episcopal residence, what are they to do? If they join an extra-ecclesial group of some kind to present their grievances, they're more likely to be tagged as fringe elements or troublemakers than they are to get a respectful hearing. This happens both on the left and the right.

"Catholics have learned, via "the Scandal", that they cannot trust their bishops to do the job of pastoral oversight. These lay Catholics will drag every last dirty secret into the light, and God bless them for it. They are doing whatever they can to make sure that children will be protected.

They are saying : "We are watching you."
They are saying : "Never again."

Posted by: Quinn | May 15, 2008 1:04 PM"

I'll drink to that (but beer, not a martini).