Getting Rid of Homosexual Clergy

  • Thread starter Thread starter aspiringthomist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. I am not a fan of the term SSA. In fact, I have only ever seen it used here, and I think that is because there is more homophobia on this forum than I have seen in many years.
Yes, I agree it is only certain quarters that confuse what “gay” means, for example. Words often have several connotations depending on your own experience, sure. But most people today simply understand “gay” to mean “same-sex attracted.” If I tell you I’m “gay,” that says nothing of whether I’m sexually active or even looking for a sexual partner. This is why people like Pope Francis and the Vatican can use “gay” and “LGBT” — they know what its more general meaning is.
I understand why so many people think that the Church hates gay people.
Sadly, there is plenty of it – or at least insensitivity and ignorance – on here. However, thankfully, the Church is big. The Catholic Church is over 1 billion. Not all people think the same. And there ARE compassionate and understanding folk, both clergy and laity. Pope Francis, anyone? 🙂
 
Demonizing homosexuals as perverts is not at very charitable Christian attitude, especially those who serve God.

Everyone has a cross to carry. If you have issues with them, then pray for them.
 
I do.

Look up the true definition of charity, and you will see that dancing around the truth in grave matters is not charitable. Words matter. As blunt as I can be…I use them correctly. Truth should not offend those who hold the Catholic faith.
 
You deny this, or you just think it’s OK to allow perverts?
You think homo behaviour is not a perversion?
I was under the impression that we were talking about celibate priests who happen to be gay. No, I do not think such men are perverts: not in the slightest.
 
People committed to the perversion of the God given sexual gift against it’s true purpose = Pervert

You deny this, or you just think it’s OK to allow perverts?
You think homo behaviour is not a perversion?
BTW, you’re getting all this grief because most everyone here is talking about chaste priests who happen to have SSA and you’re calling them perverts. We’re not talking about behavior.

Of course, the OP set this conflict up entirely by failing to differentiate between inclination and activity. Which, now that I think of it, is how most of these threads on CAF deteriorate. We can’t even have a conversation if people can’t differentiate between the two.
 
Last edited:
I think we should get rid of any sort of “-sexual” clergy. If they are having sex or the preliminaries then this is a problem and they need to be suspended or if they can’t stop what they’re doing, removed.

If they are not having sex or engaging in any sort of preliminaries to it such as porn, inappropriate contact or innuendo, then it’s a moot point.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner!
 
In the case of SSA priests…

Can we agree that at some point, a man’s “sexual attraction” could prohibit them from the priesthood?

Like…“I’m sexually attracted to ________”. Well…that blank could be a problem, eh?
 
Sure, but do they get grilled about what they are “sexually attracted to”?

I can see asking someone about their past sexual relationships, sexual behavior, lifestyle etc., but feelings?
 
That would be a bad idea. However, I do not think we are doing men who have SSA should be admitted to the seminary. We have an all male priesthood. I think we are not doing men with SSA a favor by housing them in all male seminaries and rectories.
 
Do pedos go into their interview for the seminary and tell the superior in charge that they struggle with feelings of pedophilia? Or worse yet, gay pedophilia?
 
Then how are you going to keep from housing the guys in all-male rectories, dorms etc. ?

Also, how does the US Military manage to have gay soldiers and officers living in the same barracks with dozens of other men without stuff happening?

People are supposed to have some self-control…
 
Last edited:
I myself have struggled with SSA since the age of thirteen or so(I am now fifty-five), and I can tell you that the vast majority of men I have met in my same situation are moral, upstanding, contributing members of society. The militant and promiscuous element that gets so much exposure in the mainstream media is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of us live quiet and, dare I say, humble lives, trying our best to do the right thing and keep our heads above water in this increasingly frightening world. We do not speak in exaggeratedly feminine tones, wear gaudy clothing and bizarre makeup, and nor do we gesticulate in a wildly theatrical manner, as some here have insinuated. The few people to whom I have revealed my inclinations have all expressed surprise: they had no idea I was ‘that way’. Neither am I and many of my fellow SSA-afflicted brethren trying to push some kind of agenda whereby people would be forced to approve what they condescendingly refer to as our ‘lifestyle’, as if the mysterious and all-encompassing field of romantic and affectional experience could be reduced to a mere lifestyle. We merely want what we, as citizens of the USA, are guaranteed in the documents of the founding fathers: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As far as homosexual clergy, I agree with the Holy Father in Rome that it is inappropriate for SSA-afflicted persons to be ordained to the priesthood. Much as we might like to think so, we are NOT the same as heterosexual persons, as if it were a mere difference in whom we loved. Homosexual persons have a whole baggage of emotional and spiritual wounds that have been inflicted upon them through their life experience, wounds that are directly traceable to their having been marginalised and ostracised from society. These wounds leave us prone to ‘acting out’ upon what we see as unjust treatment. This is not the proper emotional nor spiritual context for a priest to be caring for his flock from. I have no answer to the problem of currently-serving homosexual priests. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I am sorry if I have left an impression of rancor or self -aggrandizement, as such was the furthest intent from my mind.
 
Last edited:
Left un-checked…sure. But, it’s not a problem with my mind or inner wiring…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top