Categories
Uncategorized

NEW ORLEANS PRIEST CONDEMNS FOOTBALL CLUB FOR SUPPORTING GAY PRIDE.

New Orleans priest Fr. Andre Metrejean is being attacked for publicly defending the truth in love

KARLO BROUSSARD • 7/13/2020

There’s yet another uproar over Catholics opposing the celebration of same-sex sexual activity. Recently, Fr. Andre Metrejean, pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Erath, Louisiana, criticized the New Orleans Saints for their decision to light up their stadium with “Pride” rainbow colors in honor of Pride month.

His Facebook post reads:

“Come on NOLA Saints. We want to support you. But this kinda of stunt hurts society and souls. Don’t bow down to these pressure groups. Kids have rights. Children deserve to have a dad and a mom. Plz dont support immorality. Cancel the PC Culture”.

The post blew up on social media, attracting more than 500 comments, some of which accused the parish of “hatefulness” and “bigotry.” One woman, a native of Erath, has even requested the Diocese of Lafayette to remove Fr. Andre Metrejean as pastor because she views his comments as “homophobic.”

Fr. Metrejean responded to the backlash saying his disapproval was not one of hate, but simply a message about “the truth about sexuality and God’s plan for it.” As his message says, “Plz don’t support immorality.”

What’s interesting is that Fr. Metrejean’s message is nothing more than a reiteration of the Catholic Church’s teaching on same-sex sexual activity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved (2357; emphasis added).

Fr. Metrejean was simply echoing Catholic teaching and inviting the New Orleans Saints to not celebrate that which the “Pride” movement celebrates: same-sex sexual activity. So, it’s not really Fr. Metrejean that the offended have a problem with. It’s Catholic teaching that they can’t stomach.


Now, it’s one thing to disagree with Catholic teaching on same-sex sexual activity and think it’s wrong. But it’s another to say such a teaching is homophobic, bigoted, or hateful.

Think about what this entails. The Catholic Church, and in this particular case Fr. Metrejean, is viewed as being mean-spirited simply for making a negative moral evaluation about a certain behavior.
But, if to make a negative judgment about the morality of a certain behavior were mean spirited, then it would be mean-spirited to make negative judgments about the morality of any behavior. And I assume that’s not something these folks want to go with.

For starters, it would undermine their criticism of Fr. Metrejean. If it were mean-spirited to make negative judgments about the morality of behaviors, then it would be mean-spirited for them to judge Fr. Metrejean’s behavior as homophobic, hateful, and bigoted. That’s a negative judgment about the morality of someone’s behavior.

Moreover, if we shouldn’t make judgments about the way people behave, then we wouldn’t be able criticize any type of behavior. We wouldn’t be able to criticize the evil of racism. We wouldn’t be able to criticize the evil of physical and sexual abuse of children. The list goes on.

According to the logic of those who opposed Fr. Metrejean, none of these behaviors could be judged as immoral. And if someone did make such a judgment, the same labels of hatred and bigotry could be applied.

But, surely the folks who are opposing Fr. Metrejean wouldn’t label the disapproval of the above morally deviant behaviors as being hateful or bigoted. I assume they would view such disapproval as just right reason.

If they wouldn’t label disapproval of these immoral activities as hateful or bigoted, then they shouldn’t label Fr. Metrejean’s, and the Catholic Church’s, disapproval of same-sex sexual activity as hateful or bigoted.

Fr. Metrejean responded to the harsh criticisms by calling to mind that love is the reason why the Catholic Church teaches what it does when it comes to same-sex sexual activity:

My parish, my Church, my Bible, my Catholic tradition, my Lord, we don’t hate you, we love you. That’s why we preach what we do. This is not about exclusion, this is not about judging others, this is about saving souls and bringing people the power of the blood of Christ.

The motivation of love for Fr. Metrejean expressing his negative views (and the Catholic Church’s views) about same-sex sexual activity reveals the real issue at hand: whether this activity is something morally good or bad.

If same-sex sexual activity were not good for us insofar as we are human beings, then it would be harmful in that it would harm our moral character. And if such behavior were morally harmful, then we shouldn’t accept or celebrate it, even if civil authorities might tolerate it.

And the choice to not accept and celebrate such human behavior wouldn’t be any more mean-spirited or disrespectful than it would be to not accept or celebrate human behavior that involves racism, child abuse, murder, thievery, or rape. On the contrary, such a choice would be an expression of love because love is to will the good of another.

So, the real issue is not whether someone like Fr. Metrejean (or the Catholic Church for that matter) is mean-spirited and disrespectful for not accepting and celebrating same-sex sexual activity. It’s whether such behavior is morally good or bad, and thus worthy of acceptance and celebration or rejection and lamentation.

Moreover, if those who oppose Fr. Metrejean’s views desire to exemplify love, then they might want to stop throwing around labels that demean a person without giving a reasoned argument as to why his views are wrong. For such behavior is the essence of bigotry. There is nothing kind and respectful about being unwilling to give a fair hearing to opposing views and insulting the person rather than reasoned debate.

PAT SAYS

Here we go, another younger priest, trying to force RCC teaching on society at large.

The RCC is entitled to believe anti scientific bullshit but they should most certainly not be allowed to impose their beliefs on society.

In a modern society gay rights are recognized and should be recognized.

A proper modern democracy recognises that homosexuality is a valid, stand alone sexual orientation.

As a result a proper modern democracy recognises civil same sex marriage and the civil same sex couples right to have, adopt or foster children.

Such a society should regard discrimination against gay people in anyplace, including RCC schools, hospitals and institutions, as criminal.

Society should “tolerate” religions and denominations, but NEVER allow them to influence the secular order.

The RCC, as far as society is concerned, shoukd simply a private members club, like a golf club.

We would not allow a private golf club to interfere in society.

Nor should we allow a private religious club to interfere either.

I wonder if this Metrejean bloke is a repressed homosexual?

107 replies on “NEW ORLEANS PRIEST CONDEMNS FOOTBALL CLUB FOR SUPPORTING GAY PRIDE.”

Homo sex isn’t wrong when you’re out to sea. Inviting women onto a ship is bad luck!

Like

Actually, it’s quite taut, like two hard-boiled eggs side by side.

That’s squats for you. Try them. You’ll see.🆒

Like

How can two men “have” a child?
They might adopt or have a step child but this isn’t healthy.
Ideally children should have a father and mother who live together. Artificial families cause problems.

Like

If Catholic Defence believes that fathers and mothers are so important to children , why were Catholic priests and nuns in Irish orphanages creating orphans so that they could sell their babies to infertile Catholic couples in American or to British drug companies to test their wares on. Artificial Catholic orphans cause problems, too, as can be seen from the infant bones in the sewers and anonymous graveyards of such institutions. The Church was not concerned with nature or health, but their own warped idea of secret sex.

Like

no, IDEALLY a child should have a mother and father. However, that is not always possible as parents separate, there may be a death of a parent, or it may not be possible to place a child with two parents.

Like

Yes and ideally a mother and father. That way they experience the masculinity of a father and femininity of a mother, following the best example of family life- the Holy Family.

Like

Brendan Symth was dysfunctional. How? well he was a serial abuser of children? why? I don’t know

Like

What powerful points did he make? I listened but couldn’t perceive any. He talked in generalities, um, ‘in principle’, a lazy man’s way of debating.

Like

Sadly Pat, the RCC has an utterly cruel and shameful history of not tolerating differing opinions; on the contrary, it has crushed those who expressed them with brute violence and with murder.
I don’t doubt that this priest (too fond of food and drink, by the look of him) would, had he the freedom to do so, physically crush any who who opposed the teachings of his historically violent and murderous church.

Like

British Empire, Colonials, Slave Trade, Crusades, Boko Haram. The RUC, Gardai, politicians, abuse in homes. sure EVERY organisation under the sun has a back story

Like

Our Lady of Fatima said the traditional family would come under attack.
We see this even on a Christian blog

Like

10.28, in what way? What was she alleged to have said?
Odd that she mentions everyone and anything other than the bloody, great, stinking elephant in her room: child raping and child sodomising priests, her ‘beloved’.
Odd, isn’t it?

Like

Oh yes, Pat, anyone who expresses an alternate view that doesn’t resonate with you is deemed a ‘repressed homosexual. Really? That judgment alone is nasty and intolerant. Those who don’t follow your trendy views are hated by you. Get real.

Like

Orientations are in the habitus (a deep seat of body language and socialisation, of any / all causes) which is the individual’s affair and no-one should claim to interfere with them.
(We should no more finnick about stout jackets, or a gait derived from kilt-wearing. Silk stockings on the other hand – thumbs down!)
(People may be gathering in a group informally, as per SSA, because comfortable to do so.)
St Paul was advising in regard to a kind of fruitfulness in the Kingdom in regard to a kind of acting that had occurred in Roman society – very distinct from being saved. Unlike the present Church, that of St Paul didn’t ration Holy Spirit from helping us in whatever way He (HS) decides.
We have to see what (of many things) Holy Spirit will help us in. Church now doesn’t seem to have any teachings about spiritual fruitfulness (and I did enquire, a lot).
(An S-word has not had continually fixed usage or connotations. And Jesus said people in whom the pharisaical attitude overrules will find themselves judged harsher than the S-place.)
I like the signs I see in shops (mostly closed) because they remind me of Noah’s Ark, and not the Titanic of the bad politicians.

Like

Now if a friend had children who were at a school which tried to foist on them anything unsuited to them (and I don’t actually know much about this), I would pray to God about it. Prayer power in one’s own or others’ dilemmas (if they occur) is unknown because it is untried, and outcomes are often unexpected.

Like

The corollary of Broussard’s article is that moral judgements inspired by racism, homophobia, etc are really non-existent; on the contrary, they are based on pure ethical principle. And this (according to Broussard) includes the teaching of the RCC on homosexuality, which is based on the ethically pure, non-homophobic teaching in Scripture. This, actually, is correct, because the condemnation here of supposedly homosexual sex is nothing of the kind, since the ancient authors were not cognisant of homosexuality as a distinct orientation and attributed same-sex acts as the result of unrestrained, heterosexual lust, and, therefore, morally and ritually reprehensible.
I believe (I really do) that young priests, like Metrejean, should be obligated to take a vow of silence, beyond the church buildings in which they minister, until they are at least fifty years of age. Because until this age, the vast majority of them are incapable of independent, critical, and informed thought, so eager are they to prove themselves ‘loyal sons of the Church’. It’s that cringingly deferential and anti-intellectual; it really is.
And it is so f*****g pathetic.😕

Like

1.09
Interesting perspective on the age issue.

That was why the leaders in the early communities were ‘elders’ literally ‘rather old/older/quite old.’ – presbuteroi – the origin of the current ‘presbyterate’ or priesthood. A young presbyter is an anomaly.

The problem would be that if we waited until they reached 50 before ordaining priests, by that stage most would have taken on a spouse.

Worth thinking about all the same.

Like

To the poster at 1.09 you are the kidder for telling the people that backdoor sex us dead on the HOLY GOD says it is abominabKe and you will be PUNISHED for your miral laxative to that sex you will quake in frontnof the HOLY GOD and itnwill be curtains for you you wait

Like

To the person at 10.32 the HOLY GOD says NO to backdoor sex between the men but he says johing about the backdourbbetween the nen and wemen so i suppose ok

Like

Now, it’s one thing to disagree with Catholic teaching on same-sex sexual activity and think it’s wrong. But it’s another to say such a teaching is homophobic, bigoted, or hateful.
Now, it’s one thing to disagree with Catholic teaching on Judaism (up to recently) and think it’s wrong. But it’s another to say such a teaching is antsemitic, bigoted, or hateful.

Like

Moreover, if we shouldn’t make judgments about the way people behave, then we wouldn’t be able criticize any type of behavior. We wouldn’t be able to criticize the evil of racism. We wouldn’t be able to criticize the evil of physical and sexual abuse of children. The list goes on.
Moreover, if we shouldn’t make judgments about homophobic hate speech, then we wouldn’t be able criticize any type of hateful behavior. We wouldn’t be able to criticize the evil of racism. We wouldn’t be able to criticize the evil of physical and sexual abuse of children. The list goes on.

Like

This article is so circuitous it’s ridiculous – the whole could have been said in one paragraph.
Let him carry on as he is – his attitude will bring the whole sorry circus to an end faster than anything else.
Strange how he speaks like a evangelical – the idioms of God’s plan and the power of the blood sound misplaced.

Like

I dont know how many may remember but in the 90s, the Archbishop of Toulouse said publicly that if condoms save peoples lives they should use them….he was alluding to Africa and HIV…..I was climbing a mountain in Wicklow within days of his comment with the head of a very conservative catholic organisation….In discussing the subject, my companion said: ” there is nothing wrong with him a little arsenic wouldn’t cure.” That led to further discussion , our outings on a Monday ended shortly afterwards. He continued to pass by Dunleer for a cup of tea sometimes on his way to Belfast and Derry as he canvassed clergy of his choosing to sign up to his organisation.

I engaged the services of a Dublin solicitor in dealing with Armagh in 2018…..they engaged their usual Belfast legal people……I asked my solicitor what a certain phrase Belfast kept using…I asked him what they meant…..he asked me ‘ do you not know what they are saying?’…..I replied no…..he then told me the term they were applying to me and further explained thats what corporate bodies do to discredit those from within who move out and start talking.

The references on this blog to mental health are like that clergyman on that mountain , intended to destroy the reputation of the one who speaks…..its not arsenic…..it is more powerful. I, thank God, am thriving.

When you poke a wasps nest ( and one should not )……there is only one consequence unless you are suited up.

Like

8.11: More crazy, disjointed and lines of banality. Have you your gun or samurai sword at the ready to slice your enemies which seem legion at this stage? You are bonkers.

Like

I think that non medics should not ascribe flippant diagnosis on people. The RCC has often used the tactic against people of saying they were mad. John Vianney was a case in point. A priest said to his bishop”Father Vianney is mad”. The bishop replied: “I wish the rest of you were half as mad”.

Like

By Post Author

@ 8:11 am

You are right, Bill.
Gaslighting is the number 1 tactic used to discredit people who speak out. It’s another example of abuse. It’s regularly seen on this blog by those claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ. Am I right in thinking Jesus was also considered mad?

Like

Eamonn Martin is not a bad fellow…..and he leads what is called ” a blameless life”…….but he sold his soul to them…..as they do……

Like

Eamon Martin is not a good fellow. He continued to support Gaynooth after the 2016 scandal etc. He is a company man longing for his red hat. He has no sense of rightness or justice. He is simply an unthinking cog on a lethal wheel.

Like

no red hat anytime soon. The next Ab of Dublin will get a red hat, if they keep to rotating it. Cardinal Leahy of Dublin.

Like

10.09: How smugly arrogant and self righteous a comment. To boldly claim that Eaminn Martin has no sense of rightness or justice is an absurd lie and a defamation of his integrity. Aren’t you so brave to say this, Buckeye? Wish that you had his spiritual decency and moral goodness?

Like

“I wonder if this Metrejean bloke is a repressed homosexual?”. I’m surprised you even need to ask that question, + Pat ! In my experience, the more outspoken someone is about homosexuality and how evil it is and how much sin there is about it, especially when it is a priest, it is an indication to me that person / priest has deeply unresolved issues about his own sexuality, and is using the well worn tactic of deflection and denial in order to avoid having to confront his own issues. Classic ! So, yes, this idiot needs to pipe down and go get some help for himself rather than railing against others.

Like

Interesting notion that a person who condemns fudge-packers is himself an uphill gardener. Does that mean that BLM protesters are repressed racists, Extinction Rebellion protesters are repressed Tories and that those who go on “Pride” marches are repressed heteros?

Like

11.18, you were on a roll there until that flat-tyre flop with the final clause of your post. Pride marchers don’t protest heterosexuality.

Like

11:18
Your peculiar use of terminology displays your bigotry and undermines your argument.

Like

A lot of “Pride” marchers are there to protest about what they see as discrimination. They must secretly favour it.

Like

While your point is valid – the language is appalling- I’m surprised Pat allows it unedited. Border line hate speech.

Like

Oh, this is so yesterday ! Do we even need to be concerned or listen to the likes of this idiot ? Except in a very small corner of certain Churches, the issue of sexuality, particularly homosexuality and gay relationships, is something that has been resolved and is part of the mainstream of most peoples’ lives. Metrejean and his Catholic zealot views are the last kicks of a dying donkey. Let’s not give them the oxygen of publicity. There are much more important things to think about.

Like

I read this article and thought that freedom of speech is important. Fr Mettrejean is entitled to make the choice about what he teaches; but so is the team. Both have an equal right to espouse their views and those who listen have the right to accept or reject them.
Plurality in any society is a good thing, not least because the choices members of that society take are likely to be more meaningful and based on a real choice rather than silent acceptance. The rapid rejection of Catholic moral and social teaching in Ireland after a period in which state and Church worked hand in archiepiscopal glove shows what can happen when control is too monolithic.
And how would the Church react if a sporting team started telling its supporters to ignore or reject Church teachings? I can just imagine …
As to promotion of the traditional family, like all stereotypes it’s often far from reality. Surely the most important thing is that children are brought up in a loving environment in which their needs are central. I have seen a colleague in a same-sex relationship with her partner adopt two severely abused boys and do a tremendous job. I’ve seen other children having a wretched and alienating time in a traditional and godly family.
It would be lovely to think that we could all stop trying to make others think exactly like ourselves: it’s never a good thing. I hesitate to quote the Bible as I’m no Biblical scholar, but when I look at any situation, I always think “By their fruits, you will know them.”
Look at the end product of their teaching and their lifestyle and see whether it is good or bad.
An uncomfortable truth for some organisations, I feel.

Like

9.54, excellent points, not least because they are enlightened and truthful.
I particularly like your remark about whether the Church would be happy if a sporting organisation told Catholics to reject the moral teaching of their church. This had never occurred to me, but you are absoluely right: the Church (the episcopate) isn’t in the habit of thinking itself anything other than a teacher to the world, with absolutely nothing to learn from it. It really is that arrogant, so arrogant, in fact, that it took enormous public pressure to bring it to the point it now is at on dealing with the sexual abuse of children by its priests.

Like

the GAA now march in gay pride. will they be marching in the gay black and transgender protestant parade? or the white working class parade?
worlds gone mad

Like

Pat, genuine question. there’s a rumour on watts app that you were in a police station last night. is that true?

Like

No. But if I had a £ for every time I’ve been in a police station since coming to NI in 1978 I would be a very wealthy man 😁

Like

A brilliant article – and worth staying with – analysing the US Catholic Bishops’ response to the civil rejection of discrimination of people on the grounds of sexual orientation. In a nutshell: the bishops went against Catholic theology in collapsing the distinction between orientation and activity. The author argues that this was done in the hope of winning a legal victory In the cultural war – which they lost.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/taking-freedom-too-far?utm_source=Main+Reader+List&utm_campaign=15de448e0b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_407bf353a2-15de448e0b-92435453

Like

10.26, I read the article, but it does overlook the significance between the different forums here: law and morality.

The USCCB was not actually seeking the legal right to terminate the employment of workers purely on account of their sexual orientation, even though it was doing so prima facie. In reality, it was making a pre-emptive strike to ward off any future attempt to prevent Church employers from exercisng the ministerial exemption that allows them to dismiss employees found to have violated Catholic moral teaching, for example, gay workers who enter same-sex marriages.

To my knowledge, no Catholic Church employee in the US has ever been terminated owing solely to his or her sexual orientation. That would be a direct and clear violation of Church teaching that prohibits unjust discrimination against gay people.

Like

12.02
“In reality it was making a preemptive strike to ward off any future attempt to prevent Church employers from exercising the ministerial examption that allows them to dismiss employees found to have violated Catholic moral teaching, for, example gay workers who enter same-sex marriages.”

This argument seeks to explain why the USCCB did what it did: i.e. it seeks to identify bishops’ motivation in collapsing the aforementioned distinction between identity and activity. By seeking such an outcome in the legal sphere they were ignoring, if not actually deliberately undermining the distinction at the moral level. And that is their major error (I would go so far as to call it an immoral action), if I am reading the author of this article correctly.

Like

12.54, I take your point, but I believe the collapse you speak of was just a legal tactic, not an actual abandonment of an important catechetical principle: it was apparent rather than real. This is made credible by the fact that no Church employee in the US was ever terminated just for being gay.

Like

To be terminated to marrying the love of your life is worse than being terminated for being gay. Literally, the RCC is terminating a person for LOVE!

Like

By Post Author

1.25
I regret I cannot agree with you.
The distinction in question between orientation and action is at the heart of Catholic moral theology. It hinges on the related issues of knowledge and consent. Sexual orientation does not fall within the remit of either of these since it is already there before the person comes to self-knowledge and assents, or not, to it.
The US bishops’ action was far more than a divergence from a catechetical principle. It was a denial of this fundamental pillar of Catholic moral theology.
It was also not just a matter of appearances, if by that argument, you seek to make the point that it was not a real deviation from fundamental moral theology.
It was a cynical moral gamble to persuade the legal authorities of the rightness of their cause, and thereby, also, as cultural warriors, to win a battle – a gamble which they lost.
You are attempting to make something of the fact that, supposedly, no one in a Catholic context in the U.S. lost their job because of their orientation. As much as I would like to believe you, I have my doubts.

Like

2.32, no matter a person’s sexual orientation, whether he be gay or straight, once he becomes aware of it, then it becomes a form of knowledge, of which the acting out is then a matter of consent or denial. I cannot agree, therefore, with your statement that sexual orientation does not ‘fall within the remit of either of these’ (knowledge and consent).

You are quite wrong about the USCCB’s legal brief: its purpose was not to persuade the Supreme Court judges ‘of the rightness of their cause’, because the entitilement that allows Church employers to dismiss ANY employee (not just gay workers) for violation of Church moral teaching (ministerial exemption under Federal Law) is ALREADY their legal right.

This brings us to the heart of the USCCB’s brief. As I have already said, its apparent purpose was not its actual purpose; to say otherwise is a deliberate twisting of the truth. But USCCB was constrained, through the possibility of future legal threat to its ministerial exemption, to use the argument that being gay alone should provide sufficient legal ground for a Church employer to terminate an employee. Had the Supreme Court judgement found in favour of the employers in this case (and therefore, indirectly, the USSCB), the Church would never have exercised the right to terminate an employee owing solely to his sexual orientation.

I said in a previous post that the article in question overlooks the distinction between the legal and moral frameworks here; the two are not the same. Action in one, therefore, should not be construed as an attempt to invalidate principle in the other.

You have credited the USSCB with too much autonomy and authority: it is not entitled by either to overturn such an important catechetical principle as the social-justice protection stated there for people who are homosexually inclined.

Like

5.39
We can agree to differ on this one. I find the original article compelling and am not even remotely persuaded by your counter arguments.

However, you have misunderstood my point about orientation not coming within the remit of morality. What I wished to argue was that because a person’s orientation is already fixed before they come to know it or know about it, being gay i.e. the orientation per se, cannot be judged as a moral phenomenon. In that sense, the fact of being born gay is not within the remit of moral judgement.

This is my last posting on this matter. Thank you for your engagement.

Like

10.34
Apologies for disagreeing with you Bishop Buckley….this time publicly….but his eye might be on red…..his eyes and his intentions are on white……….
He has been studying further languages.

Like

You be careful now, Buck. If those sharp wee molars of Beeee-leen start gritting, gnashing, gnawing and grinding in your direction you’ll think Maggie Cartwheels was Cilla Black.

Like

Pat did you ever meet Stephen Wilson in Panti Bar in Dublin. Wilson liked a wee gay drink after the Male waxing of his Bum in Temple Bar.

Like

And this is why we very rarely hear a priest publicly opppose such issues and cross swords with his bishop.
There is a price to pay for showing moral courage, but most priests haven’t the courage to pay it.

Like

This is the future of Catholicism, and it is more of the same, supercilious, ontologically superior nonsense that has landed, and entrenched, the Church in the moral cesspit of clericalism.
When you think about it, the only power these losers possess is YOUR empowering them with their self-aggrandising belief that they are, as the nerd in the video says, a ‘sacramental being’, another way of expressing the conceited delusion that these men bring God to his people and that there is no getting to God except through their hands.
Onwards and downwards, eh?

Like

1.20
Where has this man been for the last number of years?
After his time of study at the seminary, during which he presumably graduated in theology, he is blissfully ignorant of the fact that after he has been ordained a priest he will also still be a deacon.
O tempora, o mores.

Like

Watching this video made me feel quite anxious. I loved the young man’s enthusiasm but he looks and seems so young. It seems wrong to be allowing him to sign up to something so life changing at such a young age, with so little life knowledge and so little awareness of how tough it’s going to be.

Bishop Pat, you were I think ordained at a young age. What are your thoughts on the right age for ordination, especially if you are going to stick firmly to everything the RCC expects (I’m not getting into whether that is right or wrong here or having a swipe because you’ve pursued your vocation differently). What age would you need to be to make these choices maturely, in full knowledge of the cost and with the ability to respond sensibly to pastoral needs and in confession? This young deacon seems painfully young. I would feel odd confessing to him and receiving his spiritual direction. What are your thoughts?

Like

It’s a complicated question. We allow people to make a life long committment to marriage at 18.
I was ordained at 24. Of course, now I realise how little I knew then.
To be asked to give up such an important part of life the outward expression of your sexuality, is a very big deal. I think the only real answer is optional celibacy.

Like

By Post Author

Sounds very much like Wilson rejected you or had no interest in you. Keep posting about him because you seem to be desperate each time you do so. You are a sad lonely nobody @2.48pm. Sounds like Amy has given up on you too.

Like

FFS, what a gobshite young idiot. All that stuff about being made in to a new being, a sacramental being etc. etc. He’s swallowed that whole ontological change stuff, hasn’t he. Well, he better realise that he is going to be the same person, and watch out, because he is going to have a great fall if he thinks that things are going to be different. Let’s come back in a few years and find if he is still about. It’s gag making stuff, and one day he will look back at himself and be so embarrassed at his naivety, silliness, and egotism.

Like

5.14: You are some filthy gobshite yourself.. all your comment are horrible, nasty and utterly meaningless. You are speaking hatred.

Like

Regarding the deacon’s age, I think I’m right in saying that the minimum age to be ordained a priest is 25. That’s not very young and they have had at least six years of formation. Many lay people have a number of children by that age, and that’s a heavier responsibility than being a curate. We don’t insist that only older people get married and that people postpone having children.

Like

6.33, very interesting: “Many lay people have a number of children by [25], and that’s a heavier responsibility than being a curate.” That’s exactly the lighthearted way we used to look at the better sort of clergy in my young day, before they decided to turn themselves into world figures.

Like

The depth of nasty, bigoted, hate filled and discouraging commentary about this priest and deacon are most reprehensible. When a person, man or woman, sets out on a new journey, profession or vocation, it’s encouragement they need not harsh condemnation. We all learn the real lessons of life as we live each day. Wisdom comes with age. New insights come with lived experiences. I began my ministry with some naive ideals but life taught me differently. I trust I have learned the essential lessons of ministry and from my interactions with people. I believe many comnents are from ex seminarians, ex priests and some nasty, anti church bigots. They are so destructively mean spirited that I would not, on the evidence of their vitriol, ever seek advice or counsel from these malcontents. .

Like

9.39: Well said. Some unnecessary and unjustifiable comments expressed today. These comments reveal a moral and spiritual bankruptcy in their thinking. Moral cowards – the lot of them.

Like

Leave a comment