Admitting gay seminarians to a school full of men?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnjacob2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the issue is that these men aren’t around a dorm full of women; which could lead them to temptation.
 
commenter said:
The Church needs to affirm strong masculine men as priests. The old image of a pastor was someone who will fight to protect his sheep. The recent image is a kind of social worker who wants the sheep to have good self esteem, maybe break down their needless fears about wolves, lonely creatures so often misunderstood.
Click to expand...
Priests, like any group of men, are going to have a variety of personalities and skills. But I absolutely agree that we need more traditionally masculine priests. Jesus, our example, is both compassionate and strong, even fierce.
 
commenter said:
The Church needs to affirm strong masculine men as priests.
Click to expand...
And that’s what married clergy can do. No, married clergy are not immune to committing abuse. But the point is that we want to attract good solid men to the priesthood.

As a heterosexual male with a normal sexuality, given the choice between joining a seminary where I know the percentage of gay men is higher than the population average, and getting married and raising a family (which is what I did), my choice would be obvious.

The current model for the priesthood is simply unattractive to most men: going into seminaries with a high population of gay men, and going out alone into a parish somewhere in Podunk, USA or Canada with the prospect of a very lonely life.

The Communauté St. Martin in France, which has a seminary and forms young priests, has a healthy sports program, and they never send new priests out alone into a parish, to at least cover the loneliness angle.

Put even a good strong man in a lonely position like that and there’s a good chance he too will go off the rails. Perhaps not sexual abuse, but perhaps alcohol or other addictions, porn addiction, unchaste adult heterosexual behaviour, etc.
 
OraLabora said:
And that’s what married clergy can do. No, married clergy are not immune to committing abuse. But the point is that we want to attract good solid men to the priesthood.
Click to expand...
I am a convert from Mainline Protestantism. They have married clergy. Women are taking over and the men aren’t in general what I’d call strong. The problem is really cultural. We don’t have strong men in general. We have an effeminate culture.
OraLabora said:
The current model for the priesthood is simply unattractive to most men: going into seminaries with a high population of gay men, and going out alone into a parish somewhere in Podunk, USA or Canada with the prospect of a very lonely life.
Click to expand...
A strong man can endure these challenges. The whole point of life is sacrifice. Priests are called to sacrifice in a particular way. If a man doesn’t want to sacrifice then he isn’t fit to be a priest, married or not.
 
I’ve never seen or heard of a chaplain housed inside a convent with the sisters. Actually, I don’t think it would be allowed.
 
Then explain the abuse in the Protestant churches with married men (you don’t hear of as much because it’s not popular with the media, but it’s definitely going on). And if disordered men are attracted to the church why would they stop being attracted if priests were allowed to marry? Married priests would require private family homes, not rectories, and who will pay for those homes, the education, health care, and all other expenses of their wife and children? What if there are 2 or 3 priests in a rectory who are married men with families? Many/most parishes have a hard enough time just paying the expenses of the parish. Then with marriage comes adultery and divorce. Let us not be wannabe Protestants, that just creates different problems.
 
GUYMAN said:
Exactly right. There are some men who are called to be celibate and they will make fine priests, monks, etc. But very men fall into that category. The Church will continue to attract disordered men until it allows married priests (heterosexual marriage of course).
Click to expand...
So disordered men will just go away once priests are allowed to marry?

Celibacy isn’t the problem and marriage isn’t the solution.
 
We need chaste men in seminary. Not heterosexual men. Our goal should not be to ask a seminarian what their orientation is, but to ensure they are capable of living out their vow of celibacy in a chaste manner.

We have very heteronormative ways of pursuing sexual purity. A lot of it doesn’t actually involve cultivating chastity. There is still some tendency to confuse purity culture with the promotion of chastity, to teach that boys will be boys and that women are more morally culpable for the sins of their brothers than they are.

If we want truly chaste men in the priesthood, then a heterosexual man should not be afraid of women. Afterall, he will be ministering to women.

We need to recognize too that chastity is not cultivated through repressively never making sexual mistakes or never falling into sin. It is cultivated through the self-knowledge acquired through the sexual mistakes we all make. It is one thing to deliberately jump into a mistake. It is another thing to just rely exclusively on removing every situation that could result in you losing self control again to deceive yourself to believing you are chaste.

And with that view in mind, we should not presume that the one who has never had sex is more chaste than the one who is married. It is good to have celibate priests, but it’s more important to have chaste celibate priests, and what’s even more important than celibacy is their chastity. If we stand for mandatory celibacy because we equate it with chastity, than we are very confused about chastity and the nature of sexual sin.

I’m not opposed to mandatory celibacy, but if the only reason we’re keeping it is the presumption that celibacy equals chastity, then we need to ask ourselves if we should look at how the Orthodox do it. If we have more reasons for the mandatory celibacy, then fine, keep it.
 
Its not the only answer to the problem. but it should be part of it.
 
It’s not hard to understand. It’s hard to understand anyone following through with becoming a priest who has failed to be chaste.

The fact that they are doing it means they are NOT fit for priesthood. This is a time of discernment and devotion. It’s not going to get easier.
 
Last edited:
WillPhillips said:
40.png
johnjacob2004:
An environment where all men are around and sleep in dorms together for 7-9 years… seminaries should be careful…
then in priesthood all men living in a rectory
Click to expand...
Beware the gays…

But seriously, why so afraid of gay guys? You realize most sexual assault is straight guys right? Even in the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Please show your source for this! With regards to the abuse crisis in the church I would have to say that most of the abuse was perpetrated by gay clergy!
 
Allowing priests to marry does nothing to solve the problem. Giving men a “sexual outlet” won’t help the child abuse problem.

You want to treat the symptoms, not the illness.
 
There will be issues with it to be sure. The Eastern Catholic churches manage somehow. I’m not saying all priests should be married. But it should not be forbidden either.
 
dconklin said:
40.png
johnjacob2004:
seminaries should be careful…
Click to expand...
What care can the seminaries take? My guess no one is announcing they are sexually active, let alone homosexual. I am pretty sure the “gaydar” is not a real thing.
Click to expand...
Ummm… then they aren’t confessing it either?
 
It would only cause more problems. The Church would need then to support the families, during the time they are married and the widows after the priest dies. How would they handle divorce?

It is true the Eastern Church manage but I have a suspicion they have their own problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top