LA priest suspended for lobbying for same-sex “marriage”

During my London sojourn, several people have asked me about the state of the Church in the USA, and have usually also added a query about how Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles is doing.

Here is a story from CNA:

Los Angeles, Calif., Sep 21, 2012 / 03:04 am (CNA).- Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles has suspended local priest Father Joseph Palacios from ministry over his promotion of same-sex “marriage.”

Tod Tamberg, director of media relations for the Los Angeles archdiocese, confirmed to CNA Sept. 20 that Fr. Palacios was put on inactive leave in June.

[...]

Fr. Palacios is a founding member of Catholics for Equality, a group which advocates for same-sex “marriage” and other social benefits for gay, [Again, I object to the appropriation and distortion of this word.] lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals.

He has identified himself as “a gay man and a celibate gay priest.”

According to the National Catholic Register, he will be suspended as long as he remains politically active. In a Sept. 10 interview with the paper, he said he does not present himself as a priest when promoting same-sex “marriage.”

However, in a Feb. 2011 panel discussion called “Same Sex Marriage in the United States: Where We Are as a Nation,” hosted by the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, he appeared in a priestly collar and was introduced as “Father Joseph Palacios.”

During the event, he said that the Washington, D.C.-based Catholics for Equality are trying to portray support for same-sex “marriage” as a pro-life position, adding that “pro-life means pro-gay.”

[...]

Blech.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Dogs and Fleas, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Priests and Priesthood and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to LA priest suspended for lobbying for same-sex “marriage”

  1. disco says:

    God bless Archbishop Gomez. He is brave to have taken this step.

    I can’t wait to hear what hell’s bible and its Boston branch have to say about this story.

  2. Sixupman says:

    In England & Wales the Bishops’ Conference sponsored Catholic Marriage Care Limited promotes Lesbian, Homosexual and Transgender aims. Only last June did it drop Catholic from the name, though one Catholic priest and a Permanent Deacon remain as Director/Trustees. It is known if the ++Westminster remains as Patron – as was the historic position. CMCL’s involvement in the “Gay” agenda was promoted, according to CMCL, by the E&W Bishops’ Conference.

  3. Pingback: Did You See What Father Z Did There? - Catholic Bandita

  4. frjim4321 says:

    We don’t know if this was a case like Belleville in which there were numerous other problems and finally a “last straw,” so this could be a matter of trying to silence a priest or simply sidelining a priests with whom there had been other difficulties.

    If the former, I don’t think it would be all that effective in the long run because the suspension just brings more attention to the priest’s advocacy of marriage rights, somewhat undercutting the motive for the suspension. If the latter, it is perhaps more understandable in a limited sense, but still draws greater attention to the situation than had the priest not been molested in this fashion.

  5. Scott W. says:

    I’m sending up prayers for this archbishop as a shield against the angry hornets this is likely to kick up.

  6. Scott W. says:

    The cat’s out of the bag, so in the end one has to stop worrying about the optics of what attention an act brings and do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. Whether this priest was squeaky clean except for his support of the Balrog, or he had a string of abuses including support is irrelevant. Cheerleading for the Balrog is more than enough to warrant the pink slip.

  7. Indulgentiam says:

    This Bishop is an excellent example of what a man, especially a Bishop should be. Bishop Gomez clearly cares more for the soul of this disobedient Priest than his own popularity. Finally a Bishop with the testosterone to issue a fraternal correction, so that a Priest and the faithful he confuses don’t all end up burning in hell b/c no one bothered to “molest” them with the TRUTH.
    I will be saying some extra prayers for Bishop Gomez, a true shepherd.

    Matthew 25:13
    …you know not the day nor the hour.

  8. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    If the former, I don’t think it would be all that effective in the long run because the suspension just brings more attention to the priest’s advocacy of marriage rights, somewhat undercutting the motive for the suspension.

    I think it would be the other way around. In the short term it might not be effective, but in the long term it will, cf Hans Kung.

    If the latter, it is perhaps more understandable in a limited sense, but still draws greater attention to the situation than had the priest not been molested in this fashion.

    In so far as Christ is the Truth and gay “marriage” is not, anyone who encourages such homosexual behavior molests the Truth–and molests Christ.

  9. Southern Catholic says:

    There is no “right” to marriage, it is a vocation that some people may be called to, but not everyone has a “right”‘ to marry.

  10. ncstevem says:

    This ‘priest’ admits to having a disordered sexuality. Therefore he presented himself for ordination under false pretenses since at the time of his ordeination, those with homosexual tendencies were to be barred from the seminary.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Vatican_instruction_on_homosexuals_in_the_priesthood

  11. ncstevem says:

    check that, ‘ordination’

  12. jeffreyquick says:

    “pro-life means pro-gay”?? I think a remedial biology lesson is in order here. The Bogomiles used it as birth control.

  13. Sue in soCal says:

    I am glad that, at last, Archbishop Gomez has done something to buck the tide in this diocese. He has signed on, apparently, as have all California Catholic bishops, to support throughout the archdiocese for a proposition on the ballot this fall to ban the death penalty. There are training sessions for those helping to promote this and activities such as preaching from the pulpit, bulletin inserts, voter registration drives at parishes, etc., all to be launched on October 7, the Feast of the Holy Rosary. What about abortion? Oh, there will be a Mass here and there – nothing organized, mind you. I have been trying to get a flyer into my parish bulletin outlining Catholic teaching on intrinsic evils such as abortion with no luck because it is too political. We stand on the sidewalk to gather signatures to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn the law in California that has inserted homosexuality in all subjects for all grades because the Church does not want to be seen as against the government. We had to also stand on the sidewalks to gather signatures to get an initiative on the ballot for parental notification in cases where their minor child is seeking an abortion. So, you see, I wonder at this archbishop’s “courage”. I’m still hoping and praying. . .

  14. Elizabeth M says:

    , he said he does not present himself as a priest when promoting same-sex “marriage.”

    How can a priest EVER not present himself as a priest? Such strange language. It’s not like he can dress in plain clothes and that takes away the indelible mark God has placed on his soul.

  15. Scott W. says:

    How can a priest EVER not present himself as a priest? Such strange language. It’s not like he can dress in plain clothes and that takes away the indelible mark God has placed on his soul.

    Exactly. His is an utterly bogus argument. It’s little different than the Catholic school teacher who moonlights by escorting pregnant girls to the abortuary.

  16. robtbrown says:

    Southern Catholic says:

    There is no “right” to marriage, it is a vocation that some people may be called to, but not everyone has a “right”‘ to marry.

    There is a natural right to marriage because it is a natural institution. Homosexuality is opposed to the natural law, so by definition, there is no right to an unnatural institution.

  17. Sissy says:

    frjim4321 said: “the suspension just brings more attention to the priest’s advocacy of marriage rights”

    Putting the teachings of the Church aside for moment, Father, I wish you would stop use dishonest phrases like “marriage rights”. Regardless of whether you personally believe same-sex “marriages” should be permitted under secular law, the Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized such a right. So, therefore, it does not exist in positive law. We know it doesn’t exist in natural law. Therefore, it exists nowhere. Making an assertion like that is to state an untruth. Until the Supreme Court says there is such a right under the 14th Amendment, there isn’t one.

  18. acardnal says:

    In my arguments with pro-homosexual “marriage” folks, I often ask them to name one mammal which mates with members of its own sex (gender). They can’t . . . because it’s unnatural or as scripture calls it, sodomy.

  19. Cathy says:

    frjim4321, has a very good point, simply suspending him for political activism highlights his activism as a “catholic” voice in the public square and offers him the popular public credential as one who has been slighted by the “meany haters” in the Church. The priests political activism is not the problem, the problem is what he advocates for is in direct conflict with the absolute truth of what the Catholic Church teaches. Priestly celibacy is giving up the good of marriage and family in this world for the greater marriage to the Bride of Christ and begetting of children spiritually for the kingdom. In essence, what this priest is saying in his self-proclamation of being “gay and homosexual”, is that he gave up pleasure, not the good of marriage, wife and a one-flesh union which produces offspring in this world. He did not give up that which is both right and good in God’s eyes, and making a mockery of marriage through civil law will not change that fact. How can this poor impoverished soul ever propose to teach the good of marriage and offspring to a flock if his own heart cannot conceive that this is the good and the right of marriage?

  20. dominic1955 says:

    I say good for Archbishop Gomez. I think it would be great if all progressivists and 5th Columnist traitors in the Church would face a similar punishment. Too much scandal has been given by prelates taking the Fr. Jim route to try not to cause a stir, or worse yet, because they are modernists themselves and support the evil promoted by their underlings.

    Let the BS alphabet-soup nazis get their knickers in a knot, we shouldn’t care what the advocates of a sin that cries to heaven and flies in the face of natural law think of our decisions.

  21. wmeyer says:

    How can a priest EVER not present himself as a priest?

    More to the point, WHY would he? His ordination left an indelible mark on his soul. He is a priest, now and always. That he might try to present as not-a-priest suggests rather strongly that a) he knows he is speaking wrongly, and wishes to dissent, and b) he chooses to usurp the teaching authority of the pope and the bishops. Is it too much to suggest this is a demonstration of evil intent?

  22. Scott W. says:

    frjim4321, has a very good point, simply suspending him for political activism highlights his activism as a “catholic” voice in the public square and offers him the popular public credential as one who has been slighted by the “meany haters” in the Church.

    Perhaps we are getting too hung up on the “political activism” part when clearly it is the content of that activism that is in play here. Obviously, merely ceasing political activity on this subject would not be satisfactory for a return. There would have to be on his part a public re-affirmation of the Church’s teaching on true marriage and chastity and repudiation of error before the bishop should even consider a restoration. And yes, if he refuses, sexular progressives (that was a typo, but an appropriate one, so I’ll leave it :)) will hail him as a brave martyr. Nothing we can do about that. What we can’t do is keep someone leading souls to ruin just because removing him will give the enemy PR ammo.

  23. Marriage isn’t a right, I can’t marry anyone I choose..otherwise…there is a certain person, I could ask, and they’d be under complete obligation to marry me. There is a right to the institution of marriage, but that’s different.

  24. jessicahoff says:

    The teaching of the Church on this has always been clear – good to hear the trumpet giving a steady sound.

  25. Fr Jim:

    “Mariage rights”?

    This business of redefining marriage is going to end badly–not so much for the Church, who will be vindicated–but for society. It is going to be a lot like the contraception business, with folks, even clerics, who fall over themselves trying to be oh-so-up-to-date, get stuck there, only to watch the fusty, unloved message of the Church be slowly, surely, and devastatingly, be demonstrated true.

  26. VexillaRegis says:

    One of my best friends happens to be a non practicing homosexual guy in his sixties. He’s a convert. When same-sex marriage was launched here, I asked him what they thought about this in his circles. (Most of his gay friends are not catholic and live a gay, but not happy!, life style.) What he said baffled me.
    ” Neither I, nor any of my buddies understand this. I mean, the whole point of being gay is that you do not have a family! You are free to live as you want without any ties or responsibilities and there is no risk of begetting children. After all, there *is* something wrong with us, and you should not drag children into such relationships.”

  27. AA Cunningham says:

    frjim4321 says:

    21 September 2012 at 7:34 am

    We don’t know if this was a case like Belleville in which there were numerous other problems and finally a “last straw,” so this could be a matter of trying to silence a priest or simply sidelining a priests with whom there had been other difficulties.

    If the former, I don’t think it would be all that effective in the long run because the suspension just brings more attention to the priest’s advocacy of marriage rights, somewhat undercutting the motive for the suspension. If the latter, it is perhaps more understandable in a limited sense, but still draws greater attention to the situation than had the priest not been molested in this fashion.

    What a load of cr**ola, you nitwit.

  28. Scott W. says:

    What he said baffled me.

    I can understand why this would seem baffling. But it is important to remember that most of the fuel for the same-sex “marriage” juggernaut comes not from homosexuals, but ideologically-addled heterosexuals. As one chaste person with SSA put it:

    The worst, by far, are heterosexuals, who are all about gay rights, though. This may be because they are the majority, but in a certain way I think it’s deeper than that. I think their defending of homosexuals is driven by a couple things. One, it comes from this weird perverted notion that you always have to protect the weak and “not judge” No Matter What. It’s derived, I think, from Christian notions of love, but it has to turned into this terrible monster known as modern liberalism. It’s actually become the case that defending the weak is more important than identifying the truth. This whole idea is rampant, and it’s pretty much suffocating to any real discussion on moral issues. “Don’t judge! What makes your life any better! You’re just filled with hate!” etc. etc. etc. Everyone has to be equal, no matter the stakes, no matter what. If you imply Anything to the contrary, you’re basically Hitler who wants to kill all gay people. And while this push is definitely from the gay community (it’s how they gain their power), it’s most strong (and most despicable) from straight people. It’s despicable because they don’t know what they’re doing. They just bandwagon on someone else’s slave morality to the degradation of everything around them. And worst of all, they’re Zealous about it. They get mad, scary mad about it.

  29. frjim4321 says:

    What a load of cr**ola, you nitwit.

    Well it’s hard to argue with such a carefully reasoned response.

  30. VexillaRegis says:

    Scott W: I have noticed the same thing as you and your friend. What baffled me was not so much *what* he said than *that* he said it. In discussions with pro-weird-marriage people I sometimes pull that quotation-card, but I don’t tell them the guy is catholic, because they will dismiss him as being opressed by the Church (and then they will go ballistic in the coffee room…)