Dear Gay Catholics, don’t go to NewAdvent.org for your news

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
Dear Catholics with same-sex attraction (or what most people know as “gay”), please don’t go to NewAdvent.org for your news.

You will be discouraged.

At least, I am.

I used to like this website. But as a Catholic with SSA, I’m incredibly saddened to see new unfriendly articles towards gay people every day now.

Oh yes, these articles will pretend to have your good in mind. But they clearly see things one certain way. You can’t favor Fr James Martin. You can’t call any priest homophobic. You must accept that the priest abuse scandal is essentially one of homosexuality. And so forth.
 
Last edited:
I’m not wedded to the gay identity, and it bothers me. I suspect catholic1seeks has other motivations for not liking this website. And I don’t see a defense of anything but common sense from any of the OP’s posts.

There is some witch hunting going on in the past few weeks.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, what I see there isn’t more or less worse than what I see other places. But I’m not gay, so probably am less sensitive.
 
I think it is totally understandable for a person with SSA to feel unfairly maligned by the national Catholic conversation right now. There are a lot of people who are not being careful with their words right now.
 
Last edited:
Forget being careful with words. A majority of the abused children were raped by priests of the same sex. How is this not a homosexual problem?
 
I just a read a detailed (fact based) article on Cardinal Obrien, and his coverup of 80% gay priestly abuse and other failures in the vows, related to sex among US military chaplains.

It may seem unfair to you…but again and again the 80% truth has come out in these last few weeks, and many Catholics are sadder than you about all these same/sex priests soiling the Church and abusing others.

It’s too hard to ignore 80% numbers, from multiple different sources (USCCB), Pennsylvannia, the article on Chaplains in the US military, etc.

Some cardinals and bishops are finally addressing it.

Where Fr Martin wants to sweep it under the rug and call it all “clericalism”.
 
Last edited:
OP, as I’ve said before on your threads(and not recieved any response to), the current crisis is three-fold: A)historic cases of child abuse/cover up, B) McCarrick’s predatory sexual behavior towards seminarians and young men, and C) the (reported) homosexual subculture that exists in seminaries.

Like it or not, homosexuality is necessarily part of the discussion of the current crisis we’re facing.
 
I think we can both acknowledge that the vast majority of people in the church are not clergy let alone clergy abusers. So, when one speaks about this issue without regard for the many lay Catholics with SSA, one should expect that one will wound many innocent people.

Certainly, the issue of homosexual abuse and the clergy needs to be addressed, but we should be careful not to paint with too broad a brush.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been a CAF member for 10 years. I’m tired of defending my orthodoxy, and to be frank, I don’t have to defend it from anyone one.

If you can’t see that we need to be careful how we approach gay people in the Church, then that’s unfortunate for you. We wonder why LGBT people are pushed to away from the Church. Part of the reason, I think, is a lack of sensitivity and compassion.
 
Last edited:
I agree we can nuance it in an appropriate way.

But if you look at the kind of articles promoted by Catholic sites like NewAdvent, you will notice that the conversation is not nuanced. It is slanted a certain way.

Let’s blame homosexuality in itself, as it were.

But why do we blame homosexuality (as an inclination) in itself for these horrible same-sex acts, and NOT heterosexuality itself for horrible opposite-sex acts?

It’s because, sadly, many in the church regard homosexuality as inherently sinful: That is, they may say that same-sex attraction is “not sinful.” They may say only the “acts” are sinful. But often, what they really mean is that same-sex attraction inclines one to deviancy. So the homosexual is ultimately viewed as “sinner” — it’s just a matter of degree, of how bad.

So a person like me, a Catholic who is also SSA and tries to follow church teaching as best I can, reads these articles as ESSENTIALLY saying that I am bound to mess up horribly. That I have a pre-disposition to pedophilia, or molestation, or sexual abuse. That I’m not able to pursue chastity as nobly as the straight person is.

That I’m objectively disordered beyond my same-sex attraction: That I’m more or less inevitably ordered to engage in some horrendous deviant sexual act.

That’s what is sounds like to me.
 
Last edited:
Many of us are of the opinion that identifying yourself by your sexual preferences is part of the problem. It’s not a lack of compassion. It’s fighting back against the secular world that tries to pidgeon hope people over something that is ultimately superficial in the grand scheme of things.
 
Well it will help to view this problem from another perspective.

It would be like finding out that a high percentage of Catholic school teaches are promiscuous adulterers and covering for each other, moving adulterers around the schools, perhaps even inviting adulterers to be teachers.

The moral credibility of all the teachers would suffer; and of course is one adultering principal covered for another adultering teaching, it would erode the FRATERNITY and strength of all the teachers.

As the Church teaches, people with even s/s inclinations are unsuitable. The pope has said this even recently.

Cardinal Weurl paid off and sent a s/s abusive priest to CUBA…where he was later murdered by a gay lover…and then Wuerl brings him back and gives a funeral for him.

s/s Catholics need to understand this righteous anger…and need to do a better job of policing.
 
Last edited:
Here’s my point put more simply: The way some (many?) Catholics are talking about it is as if a SSA priest is inevitably going to commit a heinous sexual act act while in the priesthood. That’s bothersome to me, as a Catholic with SSA, because it sounds like we’re being called out as sexual deviants, only in view of our sexuality.

Single out active homosexuals if you want. That may be closer to the problem. But even then, it’s not as if all acts are equally horrendous. Not all active homosexuals (inside or outside the church) are preying on children, for example.

So again, let’s just be careful in how we talk about it. That’s all I’m asking.

And we don’t even know how much of the clergy IS same-sex attracted. There could be a great number, and the vast majority could be living chaste, holy lives in service of Christ and the Church.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don’t think anyone is saying “every/all” s/s priests would do this.

But given the numbers…80% of abuse cases are s/s…one has to focus on this group. Given that s/s are very likely a minority (10-40%?)…the 80% is even more problematic. They are WAY over represented…and then there is the gay bishop covering up for the gay priest problem.

This ERODES brotherhood. You have priests struggling to holy, heroic priest…and you have a gay bishop moving chess pieces around in the middle of the night, paying off some, etc.

That erodes fraternity unbelievable. That’s a huge offense to the priesthood.
 
Last edited:
Just nuance it. That’s all I’m saying. Tell the truth, but be sensitive and compassionate.

There is TOO much scapegoating going on right now. Not just blaming homosexuals, but celibacy. Patriarchy. Vatican II. Pre-Vatican II. Catholicism itself. The Devil. etc…
 
Last edited:
No, I don’t think nuance is healthy at this point.

An oncologist who nuances is dangerous.

We need names, numbers, facts, reality. Nuance is for the faint of heart or for political types.
 
Last edited:
So in other words, the dialogue is pointless, and you are not listening to me.

If you are unwilling to say that not all SSA priests are sexual deviants, then OK. I can’t entertain the conversation anymore.
 
Dialog is absolutely needed. But it has to be honest, sincere. Facts, names, dates, actions, next actions, complaints, orientations of priests.

A dialog rich in data, reality, not nuance, and sweet and softened words.

A return to truth.

“Catholics” who really “seek” the full on truth and history.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Single out active homosexuals if you want. That may be closer to the problem.
Click to expand...
I’d agree with this. most of the articles I’ve personally read these last few weeks have tried to do this I think. But I suppose there’s a lot of room for interpretation either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top