Bishop Gene Robinson Led Retreat for Gay Catholic Priests

[Sufjon]

Hi Sufjon,

Yes, the sexual impulses of a priest are to be under control so that they do not affect his interactions with others.

It matters to the Catholic Church because it runs counter to Catholic teaching. Homosexual activity is not to be encouraged and any normalizing of acceptability of gay identity is to be discouraged. According to Church, thinking homosexual impulses are not blameworthy, but they are not the basis for a self-identity.

Here is the 2005 Vatican document, signed by Pope Benedict, which addresses homosexuality among priests.

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

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Thanks Dale. That’s interesting. It seems that the Vatican took care to have a rule prohibiting a particular sexual orientation from being a part of one’s identity, when one has a job where sexual orientation is of no consequence because one is celibate. I mean that’s fine if those are the rules of your church - they have the right to have whatever rules they like. I just find that one curious.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Thanks Dale. That’s interesting. It seems that the Vatican took care to have a rule prohibiting a particular sexual orientation from being a part of one’s identity, when one has a job where sexual orientation is of no consequence because one is celibate. I mean that’s fine if those are the rules of your church - they have the right to have whatever rules they like. I just find that one curious.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Thanks Dale. That’s interesting. It seems that the Vatican took care to have a rule prohibiting a particular sexual orientation from being a part of one’s identity, when one has a job where sexual orientation is of no consequence because one is celibate. I mean that’s fine if those are the rules of your church - they have the right to have whatever rules they like. I just find that one curious.

Your friend
Sufjon

This is a twisted interpretation and is in no way is what the Vatican has ruled.

A person’s knowledge of himself and his tendencies and temptations do not need to be broadcasted to the world. For example, alcoholics who are in recovery may be reticent of the fact, or they may share it with close friends or those in AA. They might share their struggles with others in the hopes that the others may be encouraged in their own battles. But the alcoholic who recognizes that this is a problem, a disordered attraction to alcohol, doesn’t publicly identify himself as one in order to say, “I’m an alcoholic and proud of it.” He may be proud that he is fighting his tendency toward addiction but he isn’t proud of the tendency; it’s a trial, a difficulty. The fact of it isn’t a matter for shame but neither is it something to be proud of.

A faithful priest who has homosexual tendencies but remains chaste could be an inspiration to those with whom he may come in contact in the organization Courage. However it would not be helpful to publicly identify himself as gay, as though this is a matter for pride.

You say that the priesthood is “a job where sexual orientation is of no consequence because one is celibate”. This is untrue. As it was quoted by another poster, “Such persons (those with deep seated homosexual tendencies), in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” Because of this, the church says the orientation may well by of great consequence. The fact that you disagree with this assessment doesn’t make it invalid.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I understand Bp Robinson’s lover left him, so maybe he’s looking for a new one.

I hope all 75 become ECUSA priests. I am so over the Lavendar Mafia and their “gay gifts to the Church”–which apparently includes sex with teenaged altar boys. We can’t afford those gay gifts any more!

 

[Sufjon]

This is a twisted interpretation and is in no way is what the Vatican has ruled.

A person’s knowledge of himself and his tendencies and temptations do not need to be broadcasted to the world. For example, alcoholics who are in recovery may be reticent of the fact, or they may share it with close friends or those in AA. They might share their struggles with others in the hopes that the others may be encouraged in their own battles. But the alcoholic who recognizes that this is a problem, a disordered attraction to alcohol, doesn’t publicly identify himself as one in order to say, “I’m an alcoholic and proud of it.” He may be proud that he is fighting his tendency toward addiction but he isn’t proud of the tendency; it’s a trial, a difficulty. The fact of it isn’t a matter for shame but neither is it something to be proud of.

A faithful priest who has homosexual tendencies but remains chaste could be an inspiration to those with whom he may come in contact in the organization Courage. However it would not be helpful to publicly identify himself as gay, as though this is a matter for pride.

You say that the priesthood is “a job where sexual orientation is of no consequence because one is celibate”. This is untrue. As it was quoted by another poster, “Such persons (those with deep seated homosexual tendencies), in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” Because of this, the church says the orientation may well by of great consequence. The fact that you disagree with this assessment doesn’t make it invalid.

Dear Claire: It seems you read a lot more into what I wrote than is there. I did not say that the assessment of your church is invalid. I only said that in my opinion I find it curious.

I also question something you brought up, and that is the assertion that homosexuals are gravely hindered in relating correctly to men and women. Firstly, are they not also men and women themselves? How is their ability to relate to other members of their own species hindered by their sexual orientation? How is this supposed inability to relate manifest? Can you elaborate if you would please on how their homosexuality hinders them in their day to day dealings with men and women? Would that stop a gay paramedic or emergency room nurse from saving you or me if we were in need of treatment? Can a homosexual person not feed the hungry? Does a gay person not understand the tears and smiles of another person who is heterosexual? Do they not have the same hopes and fears and longings for love as the rest of us? Lots of people have been given sacraments by gay priests and schooled by gay nuns. Were these interactions in any way sullied by the sexual orientation of the givers or recipients? I bet not.

To cut to the chase, my point is simple. I do not in any way care whether someone is gay or not. God calls on me to love people. That is the path to God. It is not any of my concern to assess the nature of the people I am trying to love or to pass judgment on them for how they were made. If others would like to make someone’s sexual orientation their business, I guess that’s what they’ll find themselves doing. I find it a totally unworthy endeavor. I would never join a faith tradition that spent a minute of the time God gave them on the subject. It’s just totally beneath spiritualism of any sort. That is my opinion, and my firm belief. I am not asking you to believe that or agree with it. It is simply the way of the God I know.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Elizabeth502]

Most, if not all of the women who dare to aspire to become priests are homosexuals. Don’t need data, I’ve seen enough of their photos to know. Downward spiral would thus be an accurate description if such an abomination was ever allowed in the Catholic Church.

Well, I do know for a fact that some of the women who claim they’ve been ordained as priests are in fact lesbians, because they have stated so on their bios. I don’t know that we can verify “most if not all.”

 

[Dale_M]

It seems that the Vatican took care to have a rule prohibiting a particular sexual orientation from being a part of one’s identity, when one has a job where sexual orientation is of no consequence because one is celibate.

I think the Church would take an equally dim view of a priest who proclaimed his heterosexual identity. The prohibition against a gay idenity likely was prompted from a number of incidents where priests announced, sometimes at Mass, that they were gay (but celibate.)

I understand Bp Robinson’s lover left him, so maybe he’s looking for a new one.

I’m not sure that is true. A November 2010 news article about the retirement mentions Bishop Robinson and his partner of 20 years, which implies they were together.
nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07bishop.html

 

[Sufjon]

I think the Church would take an equally dim view of a priest who proclaimed his heterosexual identity. The prohibition against a gay idenity likely was prompted from a number of incidents where priests announced, sometimes at Mass, that they were gay (but celibate.)

IHi Dale: Okay, what you’re saying makes sense now, and I would have to agree with you. Thanks for the clarification.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[gamewell45]

I understand Bp Robinson’s lover left him, so maybe he’s looking for a new one.

I hope all 75 become ECUSA priests. I am so over the Lavendar Mafia and their “gay gifts to the Church”–which apparently includes sex with teenaged altar boys. We can’t afford those gay gifts any more!

Do you have link to back up your allegation? Or is it just a rumor?