N
notredame_999
Guest
What if your priest told your husband, hey johnny you have great kids, a beautiful wife…would that priest be lusting after you because he stated that you were beautiful?
- Status
P
PatriceA
Guest
Its one thing to say to a man that he has an attractive family, it is quite another to say to a man that he is a “rascal” for getting his wife and to constantly comment on attractive women as you said in the post I quoted. ANY man, a priest or not, that constantly has to comment on beautiful women, can be found to be inappropriate.
J
JHow
Guest
Well, what else do you call it when a younger person is “introduced” into an activity by an older one? How do you account for the disparity in ages in first sexual experience? How do you account for how common this theme is in gay literature? Homosexuals themselves are not all persuaded that their condition is entirely genetic and they have no say in the matter.
Yes, in theory, a man with homosexual tendencies can keep them in check and serve as a priest. In practice, we have lots of evidence that it doesn’t work out well, particularly in large numbers.
My sense is that a lot of you approach this from a liberal / conservative dialectic, and you simply don’t want to “give in” to what you see as a "conservative viewpoint. Think about this then, from a not-at-all conservative viewpoint (Fr. Andrew Greeley):
“The laity, I suspect, would say it is one thing to accept a homosexual priest and quite another to accept a substantially homosexual clergy, many of who are blatantly part of the gay subculture.”
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Sorry but your “facts” are nothing more than your opinion unless you show credible sources for them.
The only “study” on aids in the priesthood was discredited. It was turned down by a peer reviewed journal and published by a newspaper. The biggest problem with the study was that for each priest that answered in the affimative that they knew a priest with aids was counted as a case of a priest with aids, so if two priests knew the same priest with aids this study counted that as two aids cases even though it was really only one case of aids that two priests knew.
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
I do apologise if I was too gruff in attacking your convictions, but it’s just not workable to believe that I’m in this ‘fight’ due to liberalism! I’m a conservative in every aspect of the word: politically, socially, and especially with regards to faith. All the theories of accepting “homosexual priests” reek of progressivism and inclusiveness, which are silly and wrong. I am only opposed to this blank-statement coverage because I am a deeply-committed anti-gay-agenda homosexual who has an eye on the manly vocation of God’s eternal priesthood.
It is all about the discipline of administering the holy Sacraments and being a true spiritual father to my beloved fellow human beings - something I can never do as a layman, thanks to my cross. To think that I am excluded from this glorious calling of pure sweeping joy for the hard work of Jesus Christ… well, it makes me very sad. The agenda of the general gay movement is purely evil; however, allegorically-speaking, not every Latino in America is an illegal-alien working for the downfall of capitalism, you know?
J
JReducation
Guest
I do not mean to be rude; but I think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion for many reasons. As I said before, I’ve been in religious life for a very long time. During my tenure in religious life I have also served as: formator, seminary professor, postulancy director, spiritual director for those in formation, vocation director, local superior and superior general. I’m currently a local superior. I can tell you two things.
First of all, no priest or brother has any business telling anyone whether he likes vanilla or chocolate. Unless the person tells, the average person would never know. A person who has sexual integrity does not share this kind of information with anyone except his confessor, spiritual director and his therapist. Any priest or brother who talks about his sexual feelings, to any one, is a very poor role model, even if he’s straight. Sexual intregrity demands that we show self-respect and respect for the gift of our sexuality. Therefore, we do not wave it like a banner.
Second, the term disorder is used here in a very different manner that we use it in everday language. In philosophy, anything that is contrary to natural law is disordered. The Church is not using it to say that the person is sick. In fact, the Church believes that no one knows the etiology of same-sex attractions and we may never know. She only knows that it is a cross for many people. However, she also says that such people are called to chastity. Therefore, if a person with SSA is called to chastity and God wishes that person to live that chastity in a religious order or a diocesan seminary, who are we to tell God what to do? The Church herself believes that people with SSA can live chaste lives, otherwise she would not say that they are called to celibate chastity. The Church does not place demands on people that they cannot meet. If she believed that a person with SSA could not be celibate, she would state that the act between such persons is not moral culpable, because there is not way that the person can do anything else. But this is not what she says. She says that these persons are called to celibate chastity. Therefore, she believes that they can do it.
In conclusion, the poe is correct in saying that those who have “deep seated” tendencies have to be excluded, not everyone. Because he believes what the Church teaches on the matter, that people with SSA can be celibate/chaste. The ones to be excluded are those who are not celibate, because they are entrenched in this behavior. As I said above, these rules already existed for heterosexual people.
By the way, the Church does not admit anyone to religious life or the seminary who has no sexual attractions. The reason is simple. A person who has no sexual attractions usually lacks the capacity for empathy. The absence of sexual attractions can often be a sign of indifference toward others and too much focussing on self. That kind of person cannot deal with other in a manner that is wholesome and fraternal.
Those are my two cents on the matter. But they come from my personal experience forming others and heading religious houses.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- There are more men who get into trouble with heterosexual relationsips than homosexaul relationships.
- Homosexual relationships get more air-time because it’s more interesting.
First of all, no priest or brother has any business telling anyone whether he likes vanilla or chocolate. Unless the person tells, the average person would never know. A person who has sexual integrity does not share this kind of information with anyone except his confessor, spiritual director and his therapist. Any priest or brother who talks about his sexual feelings, to any one, is a very poor role model, even if he’s straight. Sexual intregrity demands that we show self-respect and respect for the gift of our sexuality. Therefore, we do not wave it like a banner.
Second, the term disorder is used here in a very different manner that we use it in everday language. In philosophy, anything that is contrary to natural law is disordered. The Church is not using it to say that the person is sick. In fact, the Church believes that no one knows the etiology of same-sex attractions and we may never know. She only knows that it is a cross for many people. However, she also says that such people are called to chastity. Therefore, if a person with SSA is called to chastity and God wishes that person to live that chastity in a religious order or a diocesan seminary, who are we to tell God what to do? The Church herself believes that people with SSA can live chaste lives, otherwise she would not say that they are called to celibate chastity. The Church does not place demands on people that they cannot meet. If she believed that a person with SSA could not be celibate, she would state that the act between such persons is not moral culpable, because there is not way that the person can do anything else. But this is not what she says. She says that these persons are called to celibate chastity. Therefore, she believes that they can do it.
In conclusion, the poe is correct in saying that those who have “deep seated” tendencies have to be excluded, not everyone. Because he believes what the Church teaches on the matter, that people with SSA can be celibate/chaste. The ones to be excluded are those who are not celibate, because they are entrenched in this behavior. As I said above, these rules already existed for heterosexual people.
By the way, the Church does not admit anyone to religious life or the seminary who has no sexual attractions. The reason is simple. A person who has no sexual attractions usually lacks the capacity for empathy. The absence of sexual attractions can often be a sign of indifference toward others and too much focussing on self. That kind of person cannot deal with other in a manner that is wholesome and fraternal.
Those are my two cents on the matter. But they come from my personal experience forming others and heading religious houses.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JHow
Guest
Good point as far as it goes. I introduced several things which might be considered controversial - you took exception to the AIDS stat, so we can start with that.
First, I had in mind the Kansas City Star series of articles in 2000 by Thomas (Thomas, J. L. (2000). AIDS in the priesthood (series)).
There are actually two main thrusts to this work: one a survey of priests, which you “debunk” above, and the second part an analysis of causes of death from death certificates from which the rate of AIDs infection is claimed to be higher than average. It is this second analysis we are concerned with, not the survey of priests.
Critics of the analysis of death certificates point to primarily three mistakes made in the analysis (which was admittedly carried out by a newspaper reporter):
- That a comparison was drawn to the general population, not to adult males, for which the rate is higher
- The KC Star followed up on death certificates to try to estimate deaths that might have been due to AIDS but listed under proximate causes (pneumonia, etc.) - the same estimate was not carried out for the general population, potentially undercounting AIDs deaths in that population
- A potential error in the base, that is, the actual number of priests serving in the time period in question (KC star had base on order or 46K, others estimated 58K)
My opinion (this is the opinion part) is that that is not very impressive for a group of catholic males. At best we get AIDS at the same rates as everyone else? Catholic training has no impact on our behavior? The other part of my opinion is that given the subject matter (sin, sex) all estimates are likely to be lower than the actual number.
As to other facts I introduced, such as a higher incidence of homosexuals among priests than general population, there are a number of studies that get this result. As with the AIDs rate, I didn’t cite a number, because the numbers from the different studies varies, but it is consistently in the direction of overrepresentation.
You can have a look here to see some of this discussion from an expert (not a cranky layman like myself): richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report.htm
Personally, I agree mostly closely with Richard Neuhaus in First Things (which is where I first heard of the Star article, by the way):
“That having been said, and the Star’s sensationalism notwithstanding, any incidence of sexually–contracted AIDS among priests reflects a grave and undeniable moral failure.”
leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0004/public.html
- Status