Saturday, July 21, 2007

We Answer Back!

Last week, we linked to a bunch of letters (including one by a Catholic priest!) in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking Fr. John for having the temerity to publicly assert Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

Fr. John's letter was prompted by this article in the Chronicle, published the day before the "Gay Pride" parade.

This week, we answer back!

Update: Thanks to Quintero, at "LA Catholic" for covering this!

Posted by Gibbons.


Unknown said...

Ok, I read the article and I read Father Malloy's letter and I have to admit to a bit of confusion.

Where in the article did it say or even insinuate that Father Rich was undermining the Church's teaching on homosexual acts? Where does it say that Father Rich was advocating sin?

A central pillar of the Church's teaching on homosexuality is that it makes a clear differentiation between living with a degree of same sex attraction and actually committing homosexual acts . Experiencing the temptation to homosexual acts, while disordered, is not in and of itself a sin. And further, the catechism of the Catholic Church is very firm in paragraph 2357 that people living with a degree of same sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

So I am assuming there was something else which triggered Father's letter since the piece did not indicated that the priest was advocating a departure from Church teaching.

Struggling Sinner said...


When you read the article you undoubtedly noticed that Fr. Danyluk "came out" in September of 2005, nearly 2 years ago. Why, then, did the Chronicle choose to print the story on June 23, 2007? Simple: it was the day before the "gay pride" parade, when the story would have maximum impact.

Quoting: "In September 2005, Danyluk was angered by the Vatican's proposed guidelines about gay seminarians. As eventually adopted, they prohibit the acceptance into seminary of "those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' Danyluk thought it was time to speak up to his parish."

So, he did not agree with Church teaching, and, as I read the above, that motivated him to "come out" publicly. There is a word for that: scandal. It’s not all about Fr. Danyluk: it’s about the right of gay Catholics (and all of us) getting correct Church teaching. You ask: “Where does it say that Father Rich was advocating sin?” Well, thank heaven for that, but it’s a mighty low bar for a Priest of God.

Note what Fr. Malloy said in his follow up: “I was only expounding the Catholic teaching in reference to sexual actions. Many people, also of the Catholic faith, seem unclear about Christ's teaching in this regard.” Fr. Danyluk’s actions help to muddy that teaching; Fr. Malloy’s writing was a needed correction.

Your brother in Christ,