Daily Archives: May 2, 2012
I have written rather often that those who (try to) thunder against the Church’s rules very often have their own private reasons to do so; they are homosexual, say; or pedophiles; or have a “girlfriend” under the bed; things like that.
How true this is, is shown by the example of the priest who actually excommunicated himself – but was, I think, also kicked out – for having secretly “married”.
The chap now complains about the Church’s rules, after he accepted her and was unable to keep his word. A true example of moral steadfastness, this one. In Germany they call people like him schwanzgetrieben, which can be loosely translated as “cock-driven”, though I am sure he’ll care to give to the entire matter a more romantic aura.
My considerations on the matter:
1) “married” is here, clearly, intended purely in a secular way. Whilst he contravened to the Church’s rules, the man is certainly not sacramentally married.
2) He continued, then, to function as a priest for several months after this. The list of grievous sins he has committed in this time must have been impressive, and I can’t see how he can have confessed his sin with any contrition, if we consider he not only hasn’t repented, but even defends his action. Congratulations, sir; you’re a real devil.
3) Of course, as these people are never wrong he now finds grievances against the Church, and laments a pedophile would have been treated better than he was. I doubt this very much, and at least I am sure a pedophile priest who would “come out” and say what he did is right wouldn’t be treated any better. But hey, whatever makes him feel better….
4) I wonder what has become of us as a people. Once upon a time people were expected to make commitment, and honour them. They became friars or priest (let alone monks) and didn’t think they could ever say they just “didn’t choose” not to want to be a friar or a priest anymore. People were treated like adults, and were expected to behave as such, instead of acting like adolescents who think they can throw every commitment away because they happen to have changed their mind.
I have written many times I am personally not interested in private sins. I do not expect priests to be perfect, and whilst I hope they may be an example to me, I am painfully aware of how difficult it it to be of any sort of example.
Still, I see a huge difference between being weak and being obdurate in sin, publicly unrepentant and even in open hostility to the Church after being caught red-handed. There’s a big difference between being weak and being rebellious, and an even bigger one if one is openly so.
I do not know whether the (ex) priest’s defence was really that “you don’t choose to fall in love”. Surely, no one is so stupid and unjustified in saying such absurdities; least of all a priest, who should be trained in an half-decent way about these matters.
It might be – and I doubt it – that one cannot choose to fall in love. I doubt it, because there are things which can be killed in the cradle; and a priest should know about the importance of praying that they are, at least if he is worth anything as a priest. Either way, even after having more or less culpably fallen in love one can always choose not to act in accordance with it. To believe anything differently is to think one has the right to do absolutely everything, because he “didn’t choose” it; like, say, going away with his sister-in-law, or the like. “hey, I didn’t choose it”, he’ll say to his brother and relatives.
No, actually you did.
What we see here is a huge self-centredness, mixed with the usual self-righteousness of attacking the Church in the vilest way. And by the way, if an heterosexual priest can say he didn’t choose, then why should a pedophile priest say anything different?
The passive-aggressive attitude of the chap is revealed also by his “fearing” that now his so-called “wife” could be “ostracised” for having married (not in church, for sure) a Catholic priest.
You don’t say? Who would do that? She must be soooo nice…
I read the delirious rant of this chap and wonder what kind of priest he must have been even before knowing the woman, or more probably this woman.
The V II type, no doubt.