P
- Status
And elsewhere on this same page:
Sadly, that isn’t often possible for gay people. “Pray the gay away” doesn’t always work. But sometimes it does, and I rejoice for this man and his beautiful family.
Sadly, that isn’t often possible for gay people. “Pray the gay away” doesn’t always work. But sometimes it does, and I rejoice for this man and his beautiful family.
P
puppson
Guest
" O’Reilly acknowledges, “the fact that they [homosexual priests] do not experience a natural attraction to members of the opposite sex cannot but obscure the symbolism intrinsic to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Christ, the Bridegroom, offers his whole being in sacrifice for His Spouse, the Church.”
Last edited:
Just saying, and I’ve wondered this before, does the non-existence of this attraction in asexual men (men who do not experience sexual feelings) also “obscure” this symbolism? In other words, they are not giving up anything when they practice celibacy, at least not anything they want in the first place.
Having said this, it is entirely possible for an asexual person to desire emotional intimacy and companionship, even if sex isn’t part of it.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If a person simply never acts on their sexual feelings, or doesn’t have any, there’s no way anybody can even tell what their sexual feelings are in order to make pronouncements about them. There are probably asexual priests and also gay priests out there right now whose priesthood will never be analyzed because they aren’t causing trouble for the Church or making big announcements about their sexuality.
I’m sure priests like every other human can have emotional intimacy and companionship. They simply don’t have sex or the preliminaries along with that.
Last edited:
I should have said “the emotional intimacy and companionship that is part of marriage”. That’s what I meant.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The major things that set marriage apart is that you have sex and generally also children.
Blessed Cardinal Newman, soon to be canonized, clearly had a long term friendship of great emotional intimacy, presumably sexless or he wouldn’t be getting canonized. I’m willing to bet he had more emotional intimacy with his friend than many married couples.
Blessed Cardinal Newman, soon to be canonized, clearly had a long term friendship of great emotional intimacy, presumably sexless or he wouldn’t be getting canonized. I’m willing to bet he had more emotional intimacy with his friend than many married couples.
P
puppson
Guest
Fr. O’Reilly doesn’t condemn chaste homosexual priests whatsoever. But I find that he has an incisive insight into how problematic it can be where the attraction does exist and how it conflicts with the masculine-feminine mystical dynamic of Christ and His Bride the Church. Then of course there’s the immense damage that those who have been unchaste have caused.
I assume that, as a Dominican moral theologian, O’Reilly is well-versed in classical Catholic moral theology, a moral theology that is utterly impervious to secularist influences and maintains its otherworldly and divine character (largely thanks to the Angelic Doctor).
I assume that, as a Dominican moral theologian, O’Reilly is well-versed in classical Catholic moral theology, a moral theology that is utterly impervious to secularist influences and maintains its otherworldly and divine character (largely thanks to the Angelic Doctor).
P
puppson
Guest
That is an interesting perspective. I agree that priestly celibacy and chastity must be across the board.
Emeraldlady
New member
What do you understand to be “homosexualisation” of the priesthood?
P
puppson
Guest
I think it’s self-evident what Fr. O’Reilly means by the phrase. However, he does elaborate at the very beginning of the “full talk,” to which a link is provided at the end of the LifeSite News article.
Last edited:
P
puppson
Guest
From the latter part of Fr. O’Reilly’s “full talk:”
“Sexual symbolism is intrinsic to Holy Orders. At this point we reach one of the central crises which afflicts the Church today, a crisis that has arguably contributed to the culture of death. The crisis in question is of course that of the homosexualization of the Catholic priesthood.80 There is perhaps a reason as to why a nuptial theology of priesthood is not particularly well developed in our time. On the basis of the analysis that I have offered it is clear that although one cannot doubt that homosexual priests are validly ordained, the fact that they do not experience a natural attraction to members of the opposite sex cannot but obscure the symbolism intrinsic to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Christ, the Bridegroom, offers his whole being in sacrifice for His Spouse, the Church. The heterosexual ordinand foregoes a wife and children in order to sacrifice His life for the sake of Christ’s Bride. That nuptial relationship is especially pronounced when the priest acts in persona Christi in confecting the Eucharist. The sacramental character proper to Holy Orders is impressed on the soul of the homosexual priest and he validly confects the Eucharist. Yet the nuptial dimension of his priestly being is somewhat lacking and this lack penetrates to the heart of the Church’s worship.”
As I interpret it, in part, the homosexual priest isn’t really giving up what the heterosexual priest is: conjugal love, since there is no possibility of a homosexual lay Catholic enjoying said conjugal love. It’s a hard truth, perhaps, but only heterosexual priests are making this extraordinary sacrifice.
“Sexual symbolism is intrinsic to Holy Orders. At this point we reach one of the central crises which afflicts the Church today, a crisis that has arguably contributed to the culture of death. The crisis in question is of course that of the homosexualization of the Catholic priesthood.80 There is perhaps a reason as to why a nuptial theology of priesthood is not particularly well developed in our time. On the basis of the analysis that I have offered it is clear that although one cannot doubt that homosexual priests are validly ordained, the fact that they do not experience a natural attraction to members of the opposite sex cannot but obscure the symbolism intrinsic to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Christ, the Bridegroom, offers his whole being in sacrifice for His Spouse, the Church. The heterosexual ordinand foregoes a wife and children in order to sacrifice His life for the sake of Christ’s Bride. That nuptial relationship is especially pronounced when the priest acts in persona Christi in confecting the Eucharist. The sacramental character proper to Holy Orders is impressed on the soul of the homosexual priest and he validly confects the Eucharist. Yet the nuptial dimension of his priestly being is somewhat lacking and this lack penetrates to the heart of the Church’s worship.”
As I interpret it, in part, the homosexual priest isn’t really giving up what the heterosexual priest is: conjugal love, since there is no possibility of a homosexual lay Catholic enjoying said conjugal love. It’s a hard truth, perhaps, but only heterosexual priests are making this extraordinary sacrifice.
Emeraldlady
New member
I went to that link. He states "In the sense intended here, even if only
0.01% of priests were homosexual, one could speak of the ‘homosexualization’ of the priesthood. "
In 1179, the Third Council of the Lateran were dealing with the phenomenon of gay priesthood significantly enough to include it in a canon of prohibitions.
Canon 11 forbade clerics to have women in their houses or to visit the monasteries of nuns without a good reason; declared that married clergy should lose their benefices; and decreed that priests who engaged in sodomy should be deposed from clerical office and required to do penance - while laymen should be excommunicated.
I get a distinct sense that Fr O’Reilly is of the ilk to blame Vatican II for the ills of the Church.
P
puppson
Guest
One can infer whatever one like, according to one’s bias. However, one can only accurately discuss what he has actually written. And he is clearly highly trained in moral theology. Can you refute his theological arguments? I can’t, and I took moral theology from one of the best.
Last edited:
How is this squared with the growing number of married priests (usually non-Catholic ministers of the gospel who have converted) or Eastern Catholic priests, many of whom are married according to the disciplines of their particular churches?
P
puppson
Guest
Perhaps others want to discuss that. I’m only interested in what Fr. O’Reilly is actually saying, so I’ll sidestep that topic for now. That said, it’s clear that Fr. O’Reilly is only discussing celibate, chaste, unmarried priests. But even a married priest would have a rightly ordered nuptial relationship, I guess, though he wouldn’t be making the same personal sacrifice.
Guess I didn’t sidestep after all.
Guess I didn’t sidestep after all.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Male-female and masculine-feminine aren’t the same thing. It seems to me that since he’s not talking about priests who violate chastity, he’s actually talking about the problem with an effeminate priest: a priest who is a male but yet is not masculine. There are effemininate heterosexual men, and it seems to me they would be problematic in a way that a masculine priest who is actually married to a woman (as in the Eastern Churches) would not be problematic. Perhaps the problem is not the “homosexualization” of the priesthood, but the “de-masculinization” of the priesthood. Even a heterosexual priest has to discern how his masculinity is vital to his vocation, no? (It is not as if a lesbian could be a priest because she’s attracted to women!!)
I mean to say that the relationship between a priest and the Church is not sexual nor pseudosexual nor quasi-sexual. It is masculine-feminine, not male-female. I mean it reflects Heaven, where “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” but where we will all of course still be masculine males and feminine females, as we will still have our bodies.
I do think gender ideology has had a lot to do with the diminishment of motherhood and fatherhood to neutered child care. I don’t think that came from Catholic priests, not even the homosexual ones. One also has to wonder how much marriage, the priesthood and the human person have been devalued by the idea that a person who is not expressing himself or herself in a genital way is denying his or her full personhood. It’s right up there with assisted suicide as an option for a life that is “not worth living” because the person is not capable of doing as much independently as they would hope. That’s why I think it is wrong-headed to suppose that a priest isn’t really a priest who can love the Church as God intends unless he has a genitally-based attraction for women. I would not discourage a man who does not have a strong sex drive from becoming a priest nor suggest that priests with stronger sex drives understand their vocations as priests better than priests who don’t.
After all, what was Our Lord talking about when he said “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matt. 19:12) He made the evangelical counsel of chastity parallel to being made incapable of sex; I don’t think it follows that a priest has a sexual relationship with the Church, rather than a masculine-feminine one, because if he chooses not to marry in order to serve the Church, he’s clearly renounced that. What he has not renounced is actually being a man and self-identifying as a man.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It really depends on the person. Some of us marry our spouses precisely BECAUSE we are looking for a spouse who will also be our closest friend, and that is actually more important to us than sex or romance or other things that may motivate other people.
Other people definitely want to have friends and in a separate category, spouse.
There’s no right or wrong about it, it’s just what people want, what they’re looking for in a marriage and/or in a friendship.
My husband was my best friend. For 33 years including the 10 years we weren’t married.
Other people definitely want to have friends and in a separate category, spouse.
There’s no right or wrong about it, it’s just what people want, what they’re looking for in a marriage and/or in a friendship.
My husband was my best friend. For 33 years including the 10 years we weren’t married.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
I’m not to sure if this is that important.
P
puppson
Guest
Please read and discuss the article, written by a Catholic moral theologian, from a Catholic moral theological perspective.
Last edited:
- Status