The Monsignor & His Boyfriend: Proving the True Gay Activist Mentality?

Krzysztof_CharamsaI’ve just finished reading, “Vatican sacks gay priest after highly public coming out” and I’m beyond ticked off.  But then, I guess I should appreciate the fact that the X-Monsignor actually painted a true picture of the gay activist mentality.  He proved that activists aren’t necessarily seeking equality with the heterosexual, but rather, special treatment.  A special treatment that one dare not challenge lest he or she be labeled a homophobic hater.

Krzysztof Charamsa didn’t just come out as gay.  He didn’t present himself as a gay person, who has lived faithfully by the rules and deserved respect as a person, who just happened to be gay.  Quite the contrary.  He proved sex and his sexual orientation outweighed all else.  He really looked proud of himself for introducing his boyfriend.  Like he had some special right to have a relationship and the church was wrong to try and deny him such.  Really?

I saw comments that tried to make this an unfairness towards gays.  Sorry, but a priest that comes out as heterosexual and proudly introduces his girlfriend on television is going to be in trouble too!

Ted Cruz 2016


Priests aren’t allowed to have romantic relationships with anyone.  That’s the rule.  Did Charamsa miss that part of the studies prior to taking his vows?

Does he somehow think being gay excludes him from the requirements and responsibilities of keeping vows and following rules that the heterosexuals must abide by?

Krzysztof Charamsa is the picture of a gay activists to me.

We are to rejoice in him breaking the rules that everyone else has to abide by — if we don’t — we are homophobic haters and he the little angel.  I don’t think so!  Priests take vows.  He broke his.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Carrie K. Hutchens
View all articles by Carrie K. Hutchens
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • DCM7

    The Catholic rule of forced celibacy for priests really isn’t Biblical, or a good idea otherwise. But it is interesting how this priest expected to be a special exception, in a way that a “straight” one wouldn’t be allowed to be. Well, that’s just one of those features of fallen human nature, and it’s by no means limited to “gays”: everyone thinks they should somehow get to be a special exception in some way.

    • Carrie_K_Hutchens

      This man knew that celibacy was part of the deal when he chose to be a priest and long before he took his vows. (If he didn’t wish to follow these rules, he could have gone on to become a baker of wedding cakes or something.) Regardless of whether celibacy is a necessity or good thing — what he did was totally disrespectful and proved nothing more than he thought he shouldn’t have to abide by the rules as everyone else.

      I agree the “special exception” attitude isn’t limited to gays, but the activists mentality seems to be one where they see themselves as due and owing special treatment, while claiming they only want to be treated equally. They seem to take pride in “shocking” others and putting people on the spot. Definitely, they seem to love to tell us about their sexual preference and expect us to enjoy hearing about it or watching their lewd public behavior. Dare we complain — we are called haters, homophobic and such.

      Let’s say this man wants to change the church’s opinion on homosexuals. He really thinks going on television and announcing that he is not only gay, but has a boyfriend and in a relationship, is going to make the church think good of his position and thoughts?

      I don’t know how they would have reacted if he had merely said he was gay, but the proud boyfriend announcement and behavior before the camera…? Now that was totally disrespectful and uncalled for. He thumbed his nose at the church and his vows. And he seemed so proud. If he felt proud of his behavior, then he should have left the priesthood once he realized he could not live up to his vows and obligation to following the teachings. No one made him be a priest or Catholic. That was all his choice. So was his wrongful behavior and flaunting of it.

      I’m sorry. I’m ranting. I’m really ticked. He needn’t expect my support any time soon!

      • DCM7

        Well, your ranting is well-ranted!

      • Thisoldspouse

        I’ve heard it argued, unbelievably, that since homosexual relationships aren’t “the same” as procreative opposite-sex relationships (they just keep on countering their earlier arguments, don’t they?) that the same standards are not involved and they shouldn’t be held to them.

        In other words, this priest thinks he is understandably prohibited from any romantic attachment to women, but men are just fine. This is the level of “rationale” we are dealing with, and unfortunately many installed judges have it as well.

        • DCM7

          “they just keep on countering their earlier arguments, don’t they?”

          You can take pretty much any “liberal” position and find arguments for it that contradict each other. That’s because the positions are not based on logic, but get justified based on whatever rationale seems necessary in any given situation.