Is Being Gay More Offensive than Sexual Abuse?

A parish priest in Fresno recently came out to his congregation which resulted in a furious reaction from the diocese. Find the rest of the story here (my emphases below).

"With California Proposition 8 on the state's November ballot, and his own bishop urging priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break "a numbing silence" about church prejudice against homosexuals.

"How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives?" he asked parishioners of the St. Paul Newman Center. "I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8."

Then Farrow – who had revealed that he was gay during a television interview immediately before church services – added a coda to his sermon.

"I know these words of truth will cost me dearly," he said. "But to withhold them … I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights, but of their human dignity as well."

Thursday, Fresno Bishop John T. Steinbock removed Farrow, 50, as pastor of the St. Paul Newman Center, which primarily serves students and faculty at California State University Fresno.

"Your statement contradicted the teaching of the Catholic Church and has brought scandal to your parish community as well as the whole church," Steinbock wrote in a disciplinary letter that also admonished Farrow against "using the Internet as a means of continuing your conflict with the church's teaching."

The priest was stripped of his salary and benefits and ordered to stay away from all church communities he served in the Central Valley."

The Bishop was very quick to cut off the priest from the communities he served, and the priest was sure enough that this was going to happen that he began packing before his announcement. The priest in question has not been under scrutiny or accused of any sexual misconduct or charges of pedophilia or abuse. Granted, Rev. Farrow did not do this the right way and should have tipped his hat to someone or held a private conversation with the Bishop beforehand before bringing this to the congregation. It looks like his pastoral duty of preaching the Gospel confused the pulpit with a political soapbox.

However, what we see here is quick action to cut the priest off. This has not historically been the process for what the Church has done with priest found guilty of sexual abuse and pedophilia. Perhaps it's the public disclosure of Farrow that does not lend the situation to cover-up. However, it is amply evident that archdiocese cover up has been the norm in sexual abuse cases. The evidence trail has been so cryptic that some have charged arch-bishops for leaving priests who have had unfair and slanderous charges against them hanging out to dry. In LA county as of 2005,

"…most victims appear to be male. Removing the 46 priests for whom no details of alleged molestation are given, out of the 76 remaining names, 46 have been accused of molesting males and 25 of molesting females (some priests are accused of molesting both males and females). The sex of some, at least, of the alleged victims of 23 priests cannot be determined from the record.

The number of priests reassigned after accusations of abuse numbers 20. Only eight priests (as far as one can tell from the summaries) were removed directly after the archdiocese learned of abuse allegations. The summaries note that the archdiocese deemed at least four accusations against priests unfounded."

As one abuse victim noted in the same article regarding the cover-up of the crisis of sex abuse:

"Church leaders, said Grant, cannot be trusted to handle abuse cases involving molesting clergy. Without full disclosure of every allegation, the guilty will too easily escape. "The priest who abused me," said Grant, "was arrested and let go after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the criminal statute of limitations. This is a public safety crisis, and the public should not be under a false sense of security that if a molester is not convicted, the crime did not occur. There are many molesters who are not convicted because of time technicalities that have nothing to do with whether the crime occurred or not or have nothing to do with their being less of a risk to kids."

Is the situation with Rev. Farrow the result of his lack of judgment with how to handle a disagreement with Bishop Steinbock? Or is this a situation of continued hypocrisy on the part of Archbishops' treatment of the sexuality of priests? It seems to be a bit of both, but the emphasis of the Bishop on the doctrine of the Catholic church seems to favor the latter as the foundation for the situation. The misjudgment of Farrow would have only fueled such theological discord. Finally, we do not know of the history of these two persons so there might be a long backdrop of conflict that lead to this situation.

The problem is that the congregation will now have to question a lot a cope pain as a result. They are the biggest casualty here – again.

No related posts.