According to a credible and trustworthy witness, Your Excellency was aware that a certain man presented with homosexual tendencies, and yet he was admitted into the seminary under your authority…
Meet Ross McKnight & Michael Matt this November 8th!
Click the flyer for tickets:
Archbishop Gregory Aymond
Archdiocese of New Orleans
7887 Walmsley Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70125
Your Excellency,
The following letter, dated 8 September 2025, was mailed to your office on 10 September 2025 (received by your office on 11 September 2025). As this issue has been drawn out for months, and as we have received no response to the private version of this letter, we have made the decision to make the following text available to the public.
I write to you as a faithful son of the Holy Catholic Church, grateful for your episcopal ministry and mindful of the reverence due to your sacred office. My only intention is to fulfill my duty as a baptized Catholic, as expressed in Canon 212 §3 of the Code of Canon Law, which grants the faithful “the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church.”
Grave Concern Regarding Seminary Admission
According to a credible and trustworthy witness, Your Excellency was aware that a certain man presented with homosexual tendencies, and yet he was admitted into the seminary under your authority.
This appears to contradict the explicit teaching of the Holy See, which states:
“In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture’. (Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders, §2, 2005)
By admitting such a candidate, the requirements of Canon 241 §1 (only those judged to possess requisite moral and pastoral qualities are to be admitted) and Canon 1029 (requiring sound faith, good morals, and other qualities for ordination) are disregarded. This also conflicts with Canon 1025 §2, which requires that all prerequisites established by competent authority be fulfilled before ordination.
In response to the Vicar General’s denial (during our meeting of August 14, 2025) that the priest in question fits one or more of the criteria for exclusion from admittance into seminary, the following citations are submitted:
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski (Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education), 2005 press conference:
If someone has had homosexual experiences in his past but has completely overcome them for at least three years before ordination to the diaconate, this may be considered a transitory problem. But if it is a matter of a deeply rooted tendency or of repeated acts, this is something else: he must not be admitted. (Press briefing, Vatican, Nov. 29, 2005)
NB: This is where the “single adult homosexual act vs. adolescent lapse” distinction first appears publicly. According to witness testimony, the scenarios in question do not represent mere “adolescent lapse”.
Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P. (then Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education), 2008 interview:
We cannot allow seminarians who have homosexual tendencies that are not transitory. For example, a young man who experimented briefly in adolescence, but has now grown and matured, may be admitted. But if a candidate has had homosexual relationships as an adult, this is an indication of deep-seated tendencies. (Interview with La Croix, Feb. 2008)
Ratio Fundamentalis Institutionis Sacerdotalis (2016): “The burden of proof rests with the formators to ensure that candidates are capable of living celibacy with affective maturity. Any doubts in this regard must result in the candidate not being admitted.” (n. 199)
NB: If there is a history of homosexual behavior in adulthood, the presumption is against admission, since the formators cannot be morally certain of affective maturity.
Edward Peters, J.C.D. (In the Light of the Law, 2006) notes that any same-sex sexual activity after adolescence will normally be interpreted as evidence of deep-seated tendencies.
J. Huels, C.Ss.R. (Canon Law Society of America Proceedings, 2007) states that “transitory” cannot reasonably cover adult homosexual acts, since these indicate maturity of choice, not adolescent confusion.
Additional Pastoral Misconduct
Gravely compounding the above concern are several other actions attributed to the same priest:
1. Threatening to Deny Holy Communion
The priest reportedly threatened to deny the Sacrament to a man solely because of his association with a Franciscan group of which he disapproved and for wearing the Franciscan scapular. Such an act violates Canon 843 §1 (sacred ministers may not deny sacraments to those properly disposed) and Canon 915 (only those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin may be denied Communion). This also offends the faithful’s right under Canon 213 to receive the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the sacraments.
2. Dishonesty, Imprudence, and Negligence in Pastoral Matters
The priest’s actions in these areas contravene Canon 128 (requiring reparation for harm caused through culpable negligence) and Canon 275 §1 (clerics must foster unity and cooperation). While Canon 384 applies directly to bishops, its principle — that clergy must diligently fulfill their duties for the good of souls — applies by analogy here.
3. Detraction Against a Witness
The priest detracted against the good name of the credible witness who testified to his admission of homosexuality. This is a direct violation of Canon 220 (protection of reputation), potentially punishable under Canon 1390 §2 (injury to another’s good name through false accusation) and Canon 1373 (inciting animosity or hatred against the faithful because of legitimate testimony).
Meeting and Refusal to Act
On Thursday, August 14, 2025, myself and two other complainants met with Your Excellency and the Vicar General to address these matters. Both of you declined to take corrective action. This refusal leaves the situation unremedied and risks grave scandal to the faithful, as it conveys a tacit acceptance of conduct contrary to Church teaching, canon law, and priestly integrity.
Appeal
I do not write from animosity but from a deep concern for the integrity of the priesthood and the salvation of souls. Permitting such a candidate to enter formation, and allowing such pastoral misconduct to go unaddressed, is not merely imprudent; it is disobedience to the directives of the Holy See and a cause of grave scandal.
Request for Action
In the spirit of filial respect, I urge Your Excellency to:
- Publicly reaffirm the binding force of the 2005 Instruction and your adherence to it.
- Remove from seminary formation any man who falls under the prohibitions contained therein.
- Investigate the priest’s pastoral misconduct, with appropriate disciplinary measures taken if the allegations are found credible.
- Provide assurances to the faithful that the diocese will faithfully observe the Church’s criteria for admission to Holy Orders.
In Conclusion
May the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary guide us all in truth and charity. I assure Your Excellency of my prayers, even as I implore you to act in accordance with the mind of the Church.
I remain, in Christ,
Ross McKnight
7 October 2025
Also signed:
James Hitt
John Caire
Must Watch — “LGBTQ+” SCANDAL in ST. PETER’S: Bishops Launch Act of Global Reparation
