"deep seated homosexual tendencies?"

[challam2010]

Thanks, Br. JR, for bringing reason and light to this discussion that started out with such prejudice.

 

[ncstevem]

is that it seems women are more sympathetic of homosexuality then normal men (i.e. heterosexual men) are.

I believe that the Catholic Church had it right when the Vatican issued a document in 1961 barring homosexuals admission to seminary - no exceptions. The money quote from the document is:

“Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.”

The full document:

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm

 

[ncstevem]

“Treating homosexual sin as worse than heterosexual sin (fornication) or any of the other mortal sins is prejudicial. They are both equally mortal and disgusting.”

The sin of sodomites is one of the four sins the Bible identifies as sins which cry out to God for vengence.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

So fornication and sodomy are not equal in gravity according to the Bible.

 

[notredame_999]

Here are my reasons why I am uncomftorable with priests who have same-sex attraction, even if they are chaste:

1. They don’t have very much credibility with masculine male laity- the cop, the bus driver, the soldier, the butcher, the business executive etc. What I mean by this is these people loose interest and some even leave the church because religion is seen as a feminine ideal. I can attest to this loss of faith in my own family.
2. They scare off orthodox heterosexual seminarians who are uncomtorable being with men who have homosexual attractions.
3. The seminary becomes an occasion of sin.
4. Its un-biblical. “Some are eunuchs because they were born that way, some are eunuchs because they were made that way by man, others will be eunuchs for the kingdom of God.” Sounds like 2 very different vocations.
5. The fact that they suffer from a disordered attraction to begin with makes it less likely they will be chaste- 80% of the childeren abused in the church, according to the John Jay study, were boys. If a heterosexual priest wanted to break his vows he could have a woman on the side, engage in an affair, go to a strip club, or even call a hooker. But it seems inconceivable that a man who is heterosexual would scandalize a young boy.

 

[notredame_999]

Thanks, Br. JR, for bringing reason and light to this discussion that started out with such prejudice.

what is wrong with prejudice? We all have them, some good some bad. If you are calling me prejudice then you have to call the entire Roman Catholic Church before 1961 prejudice. Read my post above. Please tell me where I am wrong.

 

[roadsend]

A look at most scientific studies reveals that the majority of men who abuse children sexually were not gay to begin with. The vast majority of children in the US are abused by men who live heterosexual lifestyles. It is unfair and fallacious to accuse homosexuals of automatically being pedophiles.

…

All homosexuals are obviously not automatically pedophiles.
That said, about 80% of kids molested by Catholic clergy are males, mostly teenagers.
It is pretty obvious that most of the molesting does involve the (apparent) minority of priests that are homosexuals.

 

[Phemie]

All homosexuals are obviously not automatically pedophiles.
That said, about 80% of kids molested by Catholic clergy are males, mostly teenagers.
It is pretty obvious that most of the molesting does involve the (apparent) minority of priests that are homosexuals.

Cast your mind back to the times when much of the sexual abuse occurred. How much contact with little girls and adolescent girls did priests have back then? There were no female altar servers, no girls hanging around the rectory, etc. What access did priests generally have to pre-pubescent children at all, except perhaps when invited into a family’s home? We know from court cases that in that context little kids were abused.

I know that in this area it seems that when there was access to both genders there was abuse of both genders. Not saying that applies to all but the historical cases have to be viewed based on the situation that existed at that time.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, you know, there is evidence of people recovering from homosexuality:

narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

 

[roadsend]

Most clerical abuse involved teenagers.
The almost ubiquitous use of the term pedophilia is misleading.

 

[tskrobacz]

Referring to Pope Benedict XIV recent letter banning homosexuals from the priesthood with “deep seated homosxual tendencie.” This seems way to vague for me. I feel the Church isn’t doing enough to root out homosexuals in the priesthood. I have a problem with Pope Benedict XIV recent letter described in some of these posts that allow for homosexuals to become priests if they have “given up those feelings” for three years. That seems ridiculous. How does a person stop being a homosexual after three years? Either you are naturally attracted to men or naturally attracted to women, I don’t understand the wiggle room. I also feel that Church should give seminarians polygraph examinations and ask them, “are you, or have you ever been, a homosexual or carry homosexual attractions?”

Would I be admitted to a seminary for the priesthood if I was this honest about my desire to purge the clergy of homosexuals?

Whether homosexual or heterosexual the underlying issue is sensuality or the pursuit of pleasure instead of wisdom. While homosexuals are an obvious form, it would seem that many heterosexuals engage in the identical pursuits of self-pleasure - separating themselves from the will of God. What began as Eve pursing the wisdom available from the tree of life has been bookended by Adam seeking pleasure from sensual exploits - neither centered on Christ.

 

[mytruepower2]

It seems to me that the church’s teaching on the subject of homosexuality should be studied first, if we want to understand the nature of the Pope’s letter.

The church teaches, in the Catechism, that homosexuality is a disordered passion; meaning that it’s something people desire in the wrong order. Their first desire should always be God, and the Paradise that he offers, regardless of any other desires they may have.

This is the case because of the dignity of the human person, and of human sexuality. God wants people to be perfect, in a sense (“be you perfect, as your heavenly father is perfect,”) and because of that, we should be looking for the perfect way in everything we do.

In the case of sex, the perfect way is well-outlined by church tradition and teaching. A holy union between one man and one woman, established by the sacrament of matrimony within the Catholic Church, blessed by God, and open to sharing in the creative act of God himself; the making of new life. This is the full and essential dignity of sex, and what all faithful Catholics; homosexual or otherwise, should be either pursuing, or at the very least, paying close heed to.

In the case of priests with homosexual tendencies, we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that because a person is tempted to homosexuality, it is therefore impossible for them to remain celibate. A celibate life for anyone, in fact, is awarded a special crown of honor in paradise. However, much of the sex abuse scandal was caused by homosexual priests who gave in to the temptations they were feeling, and broke their vow of celibacy.

Because of this, I don’t think Pope Benedict is asking them to take three years to renounce their temptations. If people could renounce temptations to evil actions, the world would be a much better place. I think, rather, that he’s asking them to prove their devotion to celibacy, to which the church calls all Catholics, who are burdened with the temptation of homosexuality.

 

[GloriousOrder]

I would simply like to address the first three points, for the final two are damning in of themselves.

1. They don’t have very much credibility with masculine male laity- the cop, the bus driver, the soldier, the butcher, the business executive etc. What I mean by this is these people loose interest and some even leave the church because religion is seen as a feminine ideal. I can attest to this loss of faith in my own family.
2. They scare off orthodox heterosexual seminarians who are uncomtorable being with men who have homosexual attractions.
3. The seminary becomes an occasion of sin.

1. A man with S.S.A. tendencies who is open and very feminine is not likely to become a priest. I always say to myself that the biggest gay-pride-parade-goers and degenerates who meet men in bath-houses and demand “equal rights” are about as likely to go into Seminary as a porcupine is likely to fly. The types that are being excluded from the priesthood in this document are the homosexuals with wild lives of socialism, liberalism, unapologetic sex with men, and unorthodox opinions. They are the type who march into a church during Communion, take the holy Body, and throw it on the floor with a mocking grin. These people simply hate the priesthood, and would never have anything to do with it.

What of a ‘homosexual’ who has struggled for 3+ years in burying and burning his unfortunate desires, and who is more manly than some very unmanly heterosexual priest? There are many righteous, manly, disciplined, responsible, celibate homosexuals who practice the Roman Catholic faith. As I said before, you are not likely to meet them as they are rare compared to the general population, but they exist. The best part is that none of them self-identify as “gay”, just as “human beings”.

1. The Seminary is not a place for men who have strong sexual attractions whatsoever. I remember a story of a seminarian who was on kitchen-cleaning-duty one day, and the house was visited by a group of nuns in formation, on a cleaning crusade. These religious ladies were sent off around the kitchen to aid in the cleaning thereof. One of them happened to bump into the seminarian in question, and dropped something. As they both leaned down to pick it up, the seminarian was very noticeably taken by her prettiness. He said “boy, you’re pretty” in that stereotypically enraptured male way. The poor little nun ran from the scandal, and the seminarian was packed off the next day as unsuitable for this particular life. Now he is an English teacher with a large family!

No one who is lacking a commitment to absolute celibacy in thoughts, actions, and words can be a priest or religious. This holds true for every single person.

1. You might as well say that the sacristy becomes an occasion of sin whenever a beautiful woman walks in after the heterosexual priest is finished divesting. He could very easily go to the bathroom after she has left, and commit the “solitary sin” if his will is not concrete and absolute. We must be more worried about raising disciplined human beings in society with a strong Roman Catholic faith, than being worried about gays infiltrating the seminary. If the culture* itself* allows effeminacy among men, and fascistic feminism among women, the effects are on all gays, straights, men, and women. Many straight men are very effeminate today; just walk down the street of a major city and you’ll see them with long hair, dangerously skinny bodies, and girls’ jeans to fit them. This is a degeneracy in the culture itself.

If you find a man whose every quality points to the priesthood: manliness, righteousness, humility, love of the sacraments, intense worship of God at all hours, unflagging conviction to follow the Roman Catholic Church, and a fixation on celibacy, why should you cast him out because he once regretfully and ashamedly let his eyes fall upon men 10+ years before? The healing grace, power, and justice of God creates a priestly vocation in the most unlikely candidates… why, Pius X didn’t even want to be Pope, and he turned out to be the greatest of them all (a confirmed saint).

 

[Layman]

A look at most scientific studies reveals that the majority of men who abuse children sexually were not gay to begin with.

I said pederasty, not paedophilia. Most of the problem priests are/were homosexuals who had sex with 11-15 year old boy-men.

Treating homosexual sin as worse than heterosexual sin (fornication) or any of the other mortal sins is prejudicial. They are both equally mortal and disgusting.

Wrong. Sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to God for vengeance.

The argument that putting a man with SSA in an environment of all men is wrong doesn’t hold any water. A priest will often find himself in tempting situations, regardless of his sexual orientation. The pastor at my last church constantly dealt with advances from women (ultimately giving in and disqualifying himself).

Yes, it would better to say that putting a homosexual into an all-male seminary is just stupid. The possible gain of a priest is outweighed by the potential for ruining the souls of other priests and the homosexual’s own. And the ensuing scandal would damage the church.

I recall a saint saying that homosexual acts were worse than murder. A murderer can only kill the body, once, while homosexual acts kill the soul.

A priest having sex with a woman is at least doing something natural - that might lead to children. Sodomy leads only to spiritual death. It is barren and makes vile use of a divine power.

 

[challam2010]

Here are my reasons why I am uncomftorable with priests who have same-sex attraction, even if they are chaste:

1. They don’t have very much credibility with masculine male laity- the cop, the bus driver, the soldier, the butcher, the business executive etc. What I mean by this is these people loose interest and some even leave the church because religion is seen as a feminine ideal. I can attest to this loss of faith in my own family.
2. They scare off orthodox heterosexual seminarians who are uncomtorable being with men who have homosexual attractions.
3. The seminary becomes an occasion of sin.
4. Its un-biblical. “Some are eunuchs because they were born that way, some are eunuchs because they were made that way by man, others will be eunuchs for the kingdom of God.” Sounds like 2 very different vocations.
5. The fact that they suffer from a disordered attraction to begin with makes it less likely they will be chaste- 80% of the childeren abused in the church, according to the John Jay study, were boys. If a heterosexual priest wanted to break his vows he could have a woman on the side, engage in an affair, go to a strip club, or even call a hooker. But it seems inconceivable that a man who is heterosexual would scandalize a young boy.

Your points 1-2. Are you under the impression that gay men are all effeminate, or that they wear a rainbow pin on their lapel? The obviously gay men seen so often on TV now are NOT the homosexual priests found in the Church. If a man displays effeminate mannerisms, I guarantee you they would be noticed and investigated during the application process for the seminary. Your argument about cops, butchers and bus drivers holds no water – (you think none of THEM are gay?).

1. Any place is an “occasion of sin” if sin is on one’s mind. Seminarians DO get vacations, you know – what about a heterosexual seminarian being around women his age? Uh oh, occasion of sin.
2. What the heck do eunuchs have to do with this conversation? Do you even know what a eunuch is? Are you equating the state of a eunuch to that of a homosexual? (I’m not a scripture scholar, so pardon me if I’m wrong in this statement.)
3. You have no statistical basis for this statement – you have NO idea who can remain chaste under which conditions, and who cannot… I believe that might be within the province of God. If you look at the individual abuse cases, MANY of them occurred 30-40 years ago, before gay people had the opportunity and courage to admit to their orientation without grievous societal sanction. They were homosexuals who had perfected the fine art of hiding their orientation – maybe a few of their superiors had suspicions, but these abusing priests certainly weren’t known by the public to be gay. Of course they targeted male children and adolescents, due to their disordered proclivities. That has no bearing on the ability to remain chaste or not simply because of sexual orientation – none. You might want to ask yourself how many homosexual priests (and there are many) do remain chaste.

Oh, and by the way, being a homosexual man absolutely does not automatically consign that person to being a pederast or predator. As someone points out in this thread, most male and female child abuse, is perpetrated by heterosexual men, usually a family member or close friend of the victim.

Because you’re discerning your vocation in life, I assume that you are a young person and thereby your opinions reflect your immaturity, ignorance of this subject, uninformed opinions, and yes, prejudice. You have only to re-read your original post to see the insulting, un-Christian and biased tone in it… to say nothing of your arrogance that Benedict XVI isn’t measuring up to your standards in his recent message about screening homosexual candidates for the seminaries.

I think you need to do some real research if you are so concerned that you might be at risk in the seminary.

 

[Julian0404]

I read nothing in notredame_999’s post to suggest he does not “love the sinner”. **CYB: Suggest you read notredame original thread again. He is on the verge of becoming “THE CHURCH POLICE” for the express purpose of purging all those who have homosexual tendencies - that is not expressing love and that is a scary concept.**However, the issue here isn’t even really about “hating the sin” - if we’re assuming the would-be priest in question is a chaste homosexual. (Sin only enters the picture when homosexual behavior is involved).

The issue is the health/ability of a seminarian. Would-be priests need to be robustly healthy people - in body, mind, and spirit. This is why men are given medical and psychological examinations as part of the application process. A serious disease, a psychological disorder, a communications disorder, are all examples of issues that would bar a man from entering seminary. An inclination toward homosexual behavior is another such issue.

I would doubt the Pope is “guessing” as to the 3 year rule, but that doesn’t mean that the source of this criteria isn’t in error. Unless a Pope is speaking on faith and morals, he is capable of making errant statements. Case in point: Pope John Paul II’s praise of Marciel Maciel.

A (good) priest’s life is not his own. He must devote all his time and energy in service of Our Lord. How can he commit to do this if he struggles with a physical/psychological/emotional/behavioral problem which consumes much of his energy?

For those of you who find no problem with a homosexual entering the seminary, how do you explain all the rampant homosexual activity that has taken over so many of our seminaries?

Notredame_999: You may be interested to know that the Marians of the Immaculate Conception are clear that they do not accept homosexuals. Fr. Donald Calloway has made this clear; you can google it.

 

[JHow]

… If you look at the individual abuse cases, MANY of them occurred 30-40 years ago, before gay people had the opportunity and courage to admit to their orientation without grievous societal sanction. They were homosexuals who had perfected the fine art of hiding their orientation – maybe a few of their superiors had suspicions, but these abusing priests certainly weren’t known by the public to be gay.

Actually, they occurred in a time when the traditional sanctions were being challenged. Even prohibitions against adult-child sex were being challenged (remember Polanski?). What we have now is the backlash against this experiment of promoting open homosexuality - it has worked so well on so many levels.

Since you claim to be so concerned for the facts, here are some additional facts: a disproportionately high percentage of priests is gay. These proportions vary by seminary and diocese, an indication that some places tolerate this more than others. Some studies of AIDs rates (also disproportionately high) among priests suggest how well they are able to control this urge.

You may object to statistics, saying that individual results may vary, but an institution cannot ignore the probabilities.

Of course they targeted male children and adolescents, due to their disordered proclivities. That has no bearing on the ability to remain chaste or not simply because of sexual orientation – none.

Well, you can tell yourself that, but the statistics tell a different story. For instance, abusers are disproportionately likely to have been abused themselves. Similarly, homosexuals are more likely to report fist-time sexual experience with and older (same-sex) partner than heterosexuals (pattern of recruitment, if not abuse).

You might want to ask yourself how many homosexual priests (and there are many) do remain chaste.

Well, I have noticed that gay activists like to claim a very high proportion. Evidence is hard to come by, but here is an anecdote reported by Paul Shaughnessy in his article “The Gay Priest Problem” (which all should read) from a 2002 Kansas City star article that, of 26 novices who entered the Missouri Province of the Jesuit order in 1967 and 1968, only seven were eventually ordained priests. Of the seven, three died of AIDS, and a fourth is an openly gay priest. This suggests both a high proportion of homosexuals and a low proportion of self-control.

Oh, and by the way, being a homosexual man absolutely does not automatically consign that person to being a pederast or predator.

There is a continuum from predator to recruitment to seduction, but my above comment stands, homosexuals more often report first sexual experience as a same-sex experience, and that experience is with an older person, while for heterosexuals, same-age partner is the norm. See Vagina Monologues, as just one example from gay literature.

Or, here is an example (again from Shaughnessy) from a National CatholicReporter article from the 1990s:

Father Smith (not his real name) is a Jesuit priest working in a Philadelphia parish in one of the older parts of the city. He is a closeted gay priest and does not want his name used. … “In my worst moments,” he said, “I fear I will have been a collaborator in supporting an institution that oppresses gay people…” He said he became a Jesuit after falling in love with an older, 40-year old Jesuit priest. Smith was 20 then and studying at St. Joseph’s College in Philadelphia. “As a Catholic priest, I know there would be no church without gay people. … I assume priests are gay until proven otherwise.”

As someone points out in this thread, most male and female child abuse, is perpetrated by heterosexual men, usually a family member or close friend of the victim.

We are not talking about child abuse - we are talking about adolescent boys - almost grown up. Nearly ALL the cases that concern the church involved man-boy incidents. There was no outbreak of man-girl child abuse in the church.

What we are really talking about is a refusal to face hard facts about the influence of homosexuality on the seminaries, and an activist homosexual population determined to fight any reform.

Here is another quote from Shaughnessy that illustrates the depth of the problem:

To this end, it is instructive to ponder the following message to his fellow gay clergy by South Africa’s Bishop Reginald Cawcutt, penned in response to a rumor that the Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was about to issue a letter prohibiting the acceptance of gay seminarians.

“Kill [Ratzinger]? Pray for him? Why not just f-- him??? Any volunteers – ugh!!!.. I do not see how he can possibly do this – but… if he does, lemme repeat my statement earlier – that I will cause lotsa s-- for him and the Vatican. And that is a promise. MY intention would be simply to ask the question what he intends doing with those priests, bishops (possibly ‘like me’) and cardinals … who are gay. That should cause s-- enough. Be assured dear reverend gentlemen, I shall let you know the day any such outrageous letter reaches the desks of the ordinaries of the world.”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Here are my reasons why I am uncomftorable with priests who have same-sex attraction, even if they are chaste:

1. They don’t have very much credibility with masculine male laity- the cop, the bus driver, the soldier, the butcher, the business executive etc. What I mean by this is these people loose interest and some even leave the church because religion is seen as a feminine ideal. I can attest to this loss of faith in my own family.
2. They scare off orthodox heterosexual seminarians who are uncomtorable being with men who have homosexual attractions.
3. The seminary becomes an occasion of sin.
4. Its un-biblical. “Some are eunuchs because they were born that way, some are eunuchs because they were made that way by man, others will be eunuchs for the kingdom of God.” Sounds like 2 very different vocations.
5. The fact that they suffer from a disordered attraction to begin with makes it less likely they will be chaste- 80% of the childeren abused in the church, according to the John Jay study, were boys. If a heterosexual priest wanted to break his vows he could have a woman on the side, engage in an affair, go to a strip club, or even call a hooker. But it seems inconceivable that a man who is heterosexual would scandalize a young boy.

How do you, or a person in the pews, know if a priest suffers form SSA?

 

[GloriousOrder]

What we are really talking about is a refusal to face hard facts about the influence of homosexuality on the seminaries, and an activist homosexual population determined to fight any reform.

In all charity, we should be rooting out the activists, not every potential homosexual. There are many straight priests who struggle with lust when they see a beautiful woman, but not all of them are liberal wrecking-balls of Holy Tradition. Can’t we just kick the freaks out, and let the humble men of whatever circumstances rule? They’ll come out of the woodwork if called.

All this nonsense about “recruitment” is just the same old misunderstanding of the problem. Homosexual warping of the natural sexual state is a corruption from Satan, not something men can just ‘recruit’ other men into. I dearly wish some sensible, manly, solemn, intelligent gay person existed to live a saintly and chaste life to dispel all these notions. The unfortunate fact remains: gays tend to identify their very souls with homosexuality, whereas it’s really just a defect of the physical body on Earth, like Vertigo or Multiple Sclerosis.

Too many poor souls are trapped in a malfunctioning body, and groan for God in pure asexual agape. Being afflicted with this disordered malady myself, I can say that it isn’t something to be “proud of”. If the Roman Catholic Church is “oppressing” homosexuals, I dare say that we should oppress all the more. This is a good sort of oppression, for the righteous moral life must be upheld at all costs.

Sursum Corda…

 

[notredame_999]

I would simply like to address the first three points, for the final two are damning in of themselves.

1. A man with S.S.A. tendencies who is open and very feminine is not likely to become a priest. I always say to myself that the biggest gay-pride-parade-goers and degenerates who meet men in bath-houses and demand “equal rights” are about as likely to go into Seminary as a porcupine is likely to fly. The types that are being excluded from the priesthood in this document are the homosexuals with wild lives of socialism, liberalism, unapologetic sex with men, and unorthodox opinions. They are the type who march into a church during Communion, take the holy Body, and throw it on the floor with a mocking grin. These people simply hate the priesthood, and would never have anything to do with it.

What of a ‘homosexual’ who has struggled for 3+ years in burying and burning his unfortunate desires, and who is more manly than some very unmanly heterosexual priest? There are many righteous, manly, disciplined, responsible, celibate homosexuals who practice the Roman Catholic faith. As I said before, you are not likely to meet them as they are rare compared to the general population, but they exist. The best part is that none of them self-identify as “gay”, just as “human beings”.

1. The Seminary is not a place for men who have strong sexual attractions whatsoever. I remember a story of a seminarian who was on kitchen-cleaning-duty one day, and the house was visited by a group of nuns in formation, on a cleaning crusade. These religious ladies were sent off around the kitchen to aid in the cleaning thereof. One of them happened to bump into the seminarian in question, and dropped something. As they both leaned down to pick it up, the seminarian was very noticeably taken by her prettiness. He said “boy, you’re pretty” in that stereotypically enraptured male way. The poor little nun ran from the scandal, and the seminarian was packed off the next day as unsuitable for this particular life. Now he is an English teacher with a large family!

No one who is lacking a commitment to absolute celibacy in thoughts, actions, and words can be a priest or religious. This holds true for every single person.

1. You might as well say that the sacristy becomes an occasion of sin whenever a beautiful woman walks in after the heterosexual priest is finished divesting. He could very easily go to the bathroom after she has left, and commit the “solitary sin” if his will is not concrete and absolute. We must be more worried about raising disciplined human beings in society with a strong Roman Catholic faith, than being worried about gays infiltrating the seminary. If the culture* itself* allows effeminacy among men, and fascistic feminism among women, the effects are on all gays, straights, men, and women. Many straight men are very effeminate today; just walk down the street of a major city and you’ll see them with long hair, dangerously skinny bodies, and girls’ jeans to fit them. This is a degeneracy in the culture itself.

If you find a man whose every quality points to the priesthood: manliness, righteousness, humility, love of the sacraments, intense worship of God at all hours, unflagging conviction to follow the Roman Catholic Church, and a fixation on celibacy, why should you cast him out because he once regretfully and ashamedly let his eyes fall upon men 10+ years before? The healing grace, power, and justice of God creates a priestly vocation in the most unlikely candidates… why, Pius X didn’t even want to be Pope, and he turned out to be the greatest of them all (a confirmed saint).

If calling a woman pretty makes someone unsuitable for the priesthood, then I guess St. Joesemaria Escrivia was in the wrong vocation. Go on youtubue, look up his videos, he constantly jokes around and tells the women how pretty they are, how their husbands were “rascals” for getting them. He is not doing it out of lust, but appreciation for the God-gvien beauty. I find it ridiculous that someone could get kicked out of the seminary for calling a pretty woman…pretty.

 

[PatriceA]

If calling a woman pretty makes someone unsuitable for the priesthood, then I guess St. Joesemaria Escrivia was in the wrong vocation. Go on youtubue, look up his videos, he constantly jokes around and tells the women how pretty they are, how their husbands were “rascals” for getting them. He is not doing it out of lust, but appreciation for the God-gvien beauty. I find it ridiculous that someone could get kicked out of the seminary for calling a pretty woman…pretty.

I would feel very uncomfortable if my priest joked around with me or my husband in that manner.