Bishop Malone’s relevance fades as activists raise questions about his sexuality

Bishop Richard Malone, who leads the Diocese of Buffalo has angered Buffalo area activists with a “bitter” statement opposing today’s decision by the Supreme Court to legalize same sex marriage. Malone’s statement appears below and was widely circulated on Twitter and social media.

I am bitterly disappointed that the majority of justices of the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to overturn the definition of marriage, which has remained unchanged for more than two millennia. Marriage is the lifelong exclusive union of one man and one woman, a font of unitive life and love as well as the foundation of a stable family and society.

Marriage is rooted in creation: God created marriage in the very same breath as He created the human person, and for the Catholic Church, that will not change.

It is my prayer that despite today’s developments, we will embrace anew the truth, beauty and goodness of marriage as it has always been and always will be, between a man and a woman. 

Malone is, presumably, celibate — as required by church doctrine. His praise of traditional marriage has activists wondering why he didn’t chose to marry, and they want a public explanation.

Many activists are raising questions about Malone’s sexuality, and how a presumably celibate man would identify. Does the absence of sex make him “hetrosexual” or “homosexual” or altogether “non-sexual”?

Passing judgement on people may be a longstanding church practice, but it makes the institution increasingly irrelevant in a modern, educated, diverse, and tolerant society. It is unclear how Malone’s comments will affect attendance levels at area masses. The Buffalo Diocese has long struggled to keep parishioners and has had to close both dozens of catholic schools and churches across the region. The comments come at a time when Pope Francis has made overtures towards the gay community, promoting a theme of inclusion.

Malone has been more politically active than most of his predecessors on issues like tuition tax credits for parochial schools, and has made several trips to Albany to actively lobby the state legislature on a range of issues.

It’s unclear if rank-and-file Catholics will begin speaking out against Malone’s leadership.


  1. This is a poorly-crafted personal attack on a bishop who merely stated 2,000 years of church teaching. “Many activists”: who? What did they say? More like the author couching an editorial as a news story.

  2. It is an ad hominem attack in response to a stated theological position.Of what possible relevance is his sexuality? There are plenty of supporters of gay marriage regardless of sexual orientation, so why would his be relevant to his or his church’s position? “His praise of traditional marriage has activists wondering why he didn’t chose to marry”? His religion says you can marry or be ordained. Sounds like he supports both. I would not expect a religion to change its theological position in order to remain “relevant” or to maintain adherents.

  3. His sexually it totally not relevant … His IGNORANCE is ! The diocese spends millions of dollars to lobby anti -gay… Looking for tax rebates WHEN NO DIOCESE PROPERTIES PAYS TAXES !!!
    This money is not being spent to feed the hungry or house the homeless … It’s for him to LOBBY ! If the man wants a career in politics for heaven sake GET ONE ! But stop destroying and tearing apart what is left of our beloved Catholic Church !!!!

  4. The bishop’s particular sexuality is relevant only to the extent to which folks care to highlight his hypocrisy. But again, we have an article that quoted unnamed sources. This is not journalism. It is a rehash of the late Joe Illuzzi’s particular form of Internet-based protection racket. QUOTE ONE REAL PERSON. JUST ONE. ONE TIME.

    • There have been dozens of named sources over the last several month. Indeed, I am willing to extend sources anonymity in exchange for candid perspective. That’s part of the publication’s tone and brand. I am disappointed that you would liken me to the late Jie Illuzzi. I would in no way liken his publication or his content to mine. The suggestion is preposterous.

    • It must be up to the reader on this type of post. I read it as an editorial. So I had no problem with it, regardless of your comparison to ‘pay to play’ postings (or for future postings) as referenced in Mr. Illuzzi. And I think the author has every right to write this regardless of the community leader involved. The bishop’s harshness no doubt opened him up for criticism. Perhaps the bishop should have toned it down himself, maybe even use the pope’s “who am I to judge” instead “bitter” as part of his statement.

  5. Dozens? Dozens? Seriously. You’re trying to sell that? The definition of “dozens” would be at least 2 dozen. 24. In all of your “stories” that you have written, have you even hit 20% of that number (4 or 5, depending on how you round that number)? Give me a break.

Leave a Reply