The Los Angeles Times article proclaims the priest is true to his faith, but at odds with his church.   After reading the article it sounds more like he is true to no one, including himself, and has lost his faith:

So who is this Catholic priest from Fresno who stood up and spoke out against Proposition 8, putting his career on the line? As a gay man who finds the church’s views on homosexuality so objectionable, why has he been a priest for more than 20 years and subjected himself to such moral conflict?

Yes, why indeed?   Is it possible that now as a “gay” priest who has come out (conveniently during an incredibly contentious political and moral debate on traditional marriage) that the world which seeks only after its own, now seeks after him as well?

Farrow agreed to meet me for lunch in the middle of a schedule that’s gotten very busy since he became persona non grata to his employer. He’s been asked to appear all over the state for rallies against Prop. 8, which would amend the California Constitution to say marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Persona non grata?  So this is the Catholic Church’s fault?  The gay priest who lies to the church for decades, now publicly denounces official church teaching is somehow surprised when the church deigns to discipline him for apostasy?

Father Farrow, who was suspended by his bishop two weeks ago, strolled into the lobby of the Kyoto Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles wearing the collar.

“I’m still a priest,” he said over lunch, though he fully expected to be disciplined for speaking to his congregation about Prop. 8 and wouldn’t be surprised if he’s ultimately fired.

For the moment, he’s staying with friends in Los Angeles. Farrow, 50, doesn’t know what he’ll do after the election. He was suspended without pay and said his medical benefits run out at the end of the month.

OK.  So how is the church out of bounds here?  Why is the church to blame for this priest’s choices and the unavoidable and very predictable consequences?  The Church has no right to discipline those of its own clergy who turn their back on its teachings and openly criticize its official doctrine?

Wasn’t it a suffocating compromise? I asked. He had given himself over to a church that has, despite moderating its views in recent decades, condemned homosexuality and marginalized gays, even though in Farrow’s opinion a sizable percentage of priests are gay. Farrow conceded that he has considered church teachings “monstrous,” especially given the history of violence and suicide victimizing gays. But he said he has always believed in the church, if not in the men who led it. It’s like loving a family member despite a falling out, or loving your country even as you doubt its leaders.

A suffocating compromise?  Suffocating for whom?   Who chose to openly, affirmatively and shamelessly lie to obtain a pastoral position of trust and power?  How does he know a sizable number of priests are gay?  Or, is this just a convenient conclusion because it’s very popular right now to tow the “gay rights” political banner?  And, heaven forbid, if anyone dares express an opposing religious or political opinion, they are branded as bigots and haters.  (Don’t think so?  Wait and read some of the comments that will show up here, and inevitably label me either bigoted, or hateful, or the like–they’ve certainly shown up on other posts).

The church’s teachings on homosexuality are monstrous?  I don’t get that from a quick review of those teachings.  To the contrary, it is clear the Catholic Church like many teach compassion and love for the sinner, while calling out the sin.  The idea that the Catholic Church, or any church, LDS, Protestant, or otherwise is somehow responsible for violence against and suicide by gays is preposterous.  As tragic as those circumstances certainly are:  No church is to blame for these actions and horrible consequences.  To suggest otherwise is simply a lie.

Farrow then had his epiphany when he was asked by a Prop. 8 supporter in Fresno to speak up in favor of the measure. He knew he couldn’t and that in fact he had to do just the opposite.

“I am morally compelled to vote no on Proposition 8,” he told his congregation, saying he had to break “a numbing silence” about church prejudice against homosexuals.

An epiphany?   How about jumping on the political and culturally popular bandwagon of gay rights = civil rights = marriage for everyone?  Morally compelled to vote no on 8 because the church is prejudiced against homosexuals?  It is equally prejudiced against those engaging in other sinful acts, adultery, fornication, abortion, murder?   When does affirmative sinful conduct cross into the fantasy world of simple prejudice? Suggesting the church, any church is prejudiced against homosexuals is simply a cop out and a way to avoid personal responsibility.  Most traditional churches, the LDS included, are in the morality business.  It is their job to look after the spiritual welfare of their flocks and congregants–regardless of its popularity.  It is not their job to acquiesce in the world’s adulation and tolerance of every different and politically popular lifestyle that happens to come along.

To Farrow, condemning gay and lesbian marriage is as offensive as the condemnations of interracial marriage not too many decades ago.

This is the most absurd and illogical comparison ever made,  (One that continues to be made everyday to justify genderless marriage).  There are absolutely no similarities in the plight of the “gay rights” movement of the last several years, and the Black civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s.  There is no similarity or comparison between anti miscegenation laws of decades past, and the definition of marriage, since time began.

No self identified homosexual has ever faced the legal-both defacto and dejure-discrimination that Blacks faced from the time their ancestors were hauled over to U.S. shores aboard slave ships, up through the the Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, the real Civil Right’s movement, and even up through today.  The two movements are not now, have never been, nor will they ever be in the future the same–or even remotely similar.  To suggest otherwise is untrue.

Gay or genderless marriage cannot be justified, legally or morally on the back of the anti miscegenation laws of years pasts  Those laws were a perpetuation of the white supremacy movement post Civil War.  They were laws that criminalized marriage, mostly between white races and any other–rather than just the union of nonwhite races.  Often those laws were felonies, punishable by prison sentences.  Those laws never, ever, had anything to do with marriage or its definition (which is the only question at issue in today’s debate and in Proposition 8).  The white supremacy movement hijacked marriage for its own purpose–perpetuating white supremacy.  It was not interested in marriage per se.  Rather it used marriage to further their political causes.

Likewise, today’s “gay rights” moment has appropriated marriage for its own political agenda.  Courts were right to strike down anti-miscegenation laws.  They properly used the 14th amendment, equal protection and due process arguments to strike down those laws based on a constitutionally protected class, i.e. race.  They were not re-defining marriage.  Had the cases giving rise to striking down these laws been based on homosexual couples, the out comes would have been much different.

It is laughable to compare today’s “gay rights” agenda to hijack marriage and the anti miscegenation laws.  They were not the same then.  They are not the same now.  They will never be the same in the future.  This debate is about the wholesale redefinintion of marraige for all of society by an extremly vocal and small minority.  This is not a debate about civil rights, or any other kind of rights.  Homosexual couples as of the date of the supreme court’s wrongly decided opinion enjoyed all the rights California law could afford married couples.  As I have said many times before, and will continue to say in the future–this debate is about societal acceptance–nothing more and nothing less.  Dressing it up civil rights lipstick . . . well, you can get the gist of the rest.