homosexual priests and seminarians: your thoughts?

[deborahssong]

We are not bashing homosexuals…and that is the grave danger facing the church today…that the word of God says it best, and why not it is the word of God! IF God calls it an abomination, which is by the way a very serious offense with God…should we call it anything else? The tolerance of sin in the body of Christ is why we have such a corrupt aspect of church still existing today! To love someone the way Gods word calls for us, to never allow them to walk in any way other than what is best for them in Gods eyes…not our own! Gods love is honest and pure…always. So how can we be any other way but that.
Paul taught against homosexuality strongly…Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for what? Just the heck of it? That society had become so corrupt and evil that even they wanted to have sex with the angels? Please hear me when I say this…IF the catholic churches teaching is anything other than Gods word…then I am sorry…we are sinning as well. Now I realize those who are caught in this sin may not all receive the truth…but it should never be because it was never presented to them! To God be the glory great things He has done and is doing!!!

Deborah

 

[NPC]

We are not bashing homosexuals…and that is the grave danger facing the church today…that the word of God says it best, and why not it is the word of God! IF God calls it an abomination, which is by the way a very serious offense with God…should we call it anything else? The tolerance of sin in the body of Christ is why we have such a corrupt aspect of church still existing today! To love someone the way Gods word calls for us, to never allow them to walk in any way other than what is best for them in Gods eyes…not our own! Gods love is honest and pure…always. So how can we be any other way but that.
Paul taught against homosexuality strongly…Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for what? Just the heck of it? That society had become so corrupt and evil that even they wanted to have sex with the angels? Please hear me when I say this…IF the catholic churches teaching is anything other than Gods word…then I am sorry…we are sinning as well. Now I realize those who are caught in this sin may not all receive the truth…but it should never be because it was never presented to them! To God be the glory great things He has done and is doing!!!

Deborah

I am quite reluctant to come back into this discussion as many of my points have been taken up wrongly as if I am in favour of having homosexual priests for the sake of political correctness or some such reason - this has never been my point, but one of my points (as others have made) is that people are still not making the distinction between ‘homosexuality’ and ‘homosexual acts’. This is an essential distinction in such an argument and the Church makes this distinction. Is it wrong to do so? Is it contrary to Scripture? The answer to both questions is ‘no’. Having thoughts is not a sin (although acting on them or consciously dwelling on the thoughts could be). Would Adam and Eve have been expelled from Eden had they only considered eating the forbidden fruit? What then, would have been the point of God giving free-will to people? The sin followed from acting on the temptation, not the fact that they were tempted. Most of us would be condemned a million times over if we were judged on thoughts regardless of what we do with them (i.e. acting on them or not).

SenorSalsa- you are right to point to the Catechism on the issue, but unfortunately this will not solve the issue, as I have found out!! There has been ‘bashing’ of homosexuals here - and it’s quite sad to see how many people on CAF trust the Magisterium so much, but when it comes to this issue some people blatantly ignore it even though it’s teaching is a logical and compassionate one which is clearly not opposed to Scripture. Another thing some people must accept, which is somewhat alluded to in the Catechism, is that a person with homosexual tendencies is not incapable of understanding that acting on these tendencies is contrary to the Word of God- if the Church accepts that through prayer and sacramental grace such persons can approach ‘Christian perfection’, then why can’t we? That’s not to say then that these people are necessarily fit for the priesthood, but what it comes down to for all men is the question ‘is God really calling me to the priesthood?’ Now, I know the ‘powers that be’ in seminaries can only use their own judgement and that given to them in guidelines from the Church, but one thought which I am sure would be sinful is for us to think we have the wisdom of God to decide outright that such-and-such a person, for whatever reason, cannot possibly have a true vocation to the priesthood.

 

[CradleCath]

I am quite reluctant to come back into this discussion as many of my points have been taken up wrongly as if I am in favour of having homosexual priests for the sake of political correctness or some such reason - this has never been my point, but one of my points (as others have made) is that people are still not making the distinction between ‘homosexuality’ and ‘homosexual acts’.

I honestly have not seen that, here. One’s sexual orientation does not change the fact that every person is a child of God & to be treated with dignity & respect. That would be true of homosexuals, adulterers, & women who have had abortions. I know what you are saying…but, I’m adding a little. Even if a gay man or woman is sexually active, they deserve to be treated with decency, just as the adulterer does, the abortionist & the person who cheats on his/her taxes. We are ALL sinners & we cannot judge the hearts of others.

If a gay man IS celibate, he is still the victim of a disordered sexuality. If one’s sexuality, at least partially, is an intrinsic part of the person himself…& I believe it is…it, again at least partially, defines the person. My voice is of a higher pitch & softer than that of my husband, my sexuality affects the way I walk, the way I think & feel, the way I communicate with other women & the way I communicate with men.
What we are speaking of here is the priesthood. No one has a “right” to become a priest. I think it’s very risky to ordain anyone with any kind of personality disorder…be it homosexuality or alchoholism or chronic depression. (&, I know that it’s not PC to call homosexuality a disorder, but I believe that it is (see above)>It would be totally unrealistic to ordain a homosexual man after the sexual abuse cases which were recently unearthed. These cases were primarily instances of pederasty by homosexual men:

“As a phenomenon, pederasty resists formal classification. Anthropologists, however, have formulated a broad historical perspective of male homosexual practice according to three cultural models: the Greek model, the Melanesian model, and the Western model[2]… A further classification proposes three subdivisions of homosexuality as ‘age-structured’ **(man-boy), **egalitarian (man-man) and gender-structured[3]. The research has shown that pederasty as a cross-cultural phenomenon is the predominant expression of male-male sexuality as viewed through historical record, though the practice has varied significantly within different cultures”

It would be harmful for them to live in close proximity with men for their years in the Seminary & the priesthood. It could be harmful for them to be put in close proximity to young boys & it would definitely be harmful to young Catholic boys. Harmful because they could be in actual danger of being seduced & used by a pederast & harmful because our kids need strong male role-models to follow.

 

[SenorSalsa]

one more post from me, why is it up to bishops to decide who can and cannot be a priest?

God calls priests, bishops do not, and poster’s on Catholic Answers do not. Until an infallable statement is made saying otherwise(which i dont expect to see) i will continue to agree that homosexuals can be priests

 

[Deborah_Kloos]

I agree with you. God calls people to be priests. Priests take a vow of chastisy thus why would their sexual orientation matter when they consecrate their life to God? We are all sinners so if this is the case then that means no one can be a priest, but it says in the bible that we are all priests. We are covered by Jesus’ sacrifice and suffering on the cross for our sins. I know a homosexual priest and I think his homilies are the best I have ever heard. He is a very kind man and quite capable priest. The man himself suffers with depression. It is a burden he carries, but he is a very effective priest. His sexual orientation means nothing to me. Personally, I don’t have a lot in common with him, but he is a dynamic priest. We must pray for vocations to the consecrated life. It should be part of our prayers and we also should pray for those who have consecrated their lives to God, because it is a difficult vocation and there is a shortage.

 

[deborahssong]

Quite honestly I am amazed at this repsonse…there is still missing from this post that we are tlaking about sin and making excuses for it. If a lay teacher is an adulterer should eh be teaching us about marriage? absolutely not, he is teaching from a corrupt mindset…how is it that we think it is ok i other avenues of our christian walk? that Paul said in 1 Cor5:11,12, not to have anything to do with an immoral brother…that is a brother or sister liivng in immorailty…homosexuality is sin! A priest who is gay but not practicing… that we know of and by the way how do you know that? how? It is worng…
Depression comes from within…it has been called anger tunred inwards, it is a sign in most cases that something is wrong in our thinking…I know I have been there and been delivered! When I applied the word of God to my life inthose areas where i was suffering? I got better and better and stayed better! and finally healed! Our thought life is powerful and satan knows that. He always comes to us in thoughts first…and he lies to us and tell us that we are different and that it is ok to have these feelings about the same sex or tell us we are born this way! H e is th father of lies…that is what Jesus called him…and doing anything other than what scripture calls for in the church is a lie!
As beleivers we will be accountable for steering someone in the wrong direction…we are to snatch them from the fire…if need be, and what do you think that means. All people deserve respect and love and I would never treat anyone any other way however it also is important to stand for what is right according to the bible and the church! It cannot be any other way…and if it is? we will be held accountable for that …scripture says so…
I watched the men from Exodus International who use to live as homosexual men and I learned much… They told how their thinking was distorted and how they were deceived into the lifestyle…and they are giving hope to thousands of men and women…If Paul said we cannot or willnot see heaven IF we live like this…how is it we can receive from someone who claims this? Is this not a distortion of Gods truth? I think so. Loving an alcoholic is right but enabling then to continue is not. This sin isnt any different and actually? is an abomination to God…even more serious! I just see why there is much confusion withiin the body of Christ in this area…we have compromised big time…and by all means we should be praying for them…for their deliverance…He is able to deliver anyone from anything in order to glorify Himself and so we can live in freedom of bondage…To become the perfect people( mature in Chirst is what perfect means) we are called to be… God Bless

Deborah

 

[SenorSalsa]

Loving an alcoholic is right but enabling then to continue is not. This sin isnt any different

Your right, and I cant think of any way to ensure they will not be enabled to continue than allowing them a job that not only promotes chastity, but in fact, requires it.

Once again, Homosexuality is NOT a sin homosexual ACTS are. there is a difference

 

[CradleCath]

I agree with you. God calls people to be priests. **Priests take a vow of chastisy thus why would their sexual orientation matter when they consecrate their life to God? **

We are all sinners so if this is the case then that means no one can be a priest, but it says in the bible that we are all priests.

Because 80+% of the priests who abused young boys were gay. Being “tolerant” isn’t worth the harm that could come to our boys. There are areas in which homosexual men may serve the Church, the priesthood is not one of them.

 

[CradleCath]

Your right, and I cant think of any way to ensure they will not be enabled to **continue **

than allowing them a job that not only promotes chastity, but in fact, requires it.

To continue what???

Once again, Homosexuality is NOT a sin

Correct. no one here has claimed differently…What is your point?

BTW. Are you in favor of ordaining pedophiles who are not engaging in sex with children. How about those inclined toward Bestiality. Is it OK. to ordain them as long as they are not engaging in their perversity?? Then, of course, there are those who suffer from Bipolar Disorder & chronic depression…neither are sinful at all. Do you also believe that these men would make good priests?

 

[SenorSalsa]

God wouldn’t call somebody if He didn’t think they woul do a good job, and if its good enough for Him its good enough for me

 

[lak611]

God wouldn’t call somebody if He didn’t think they woul do a good job, and if its good enough for Him its good enough for me

But was it a true calling? From this article in Time:

I think I knew I was homosexual, on some level, but I would never really allow myself to say that about myself. And it surely wasn’t a topic for discussion–except in jokes. Basically, I never grew beyond junior high from a psychosexual-development point of view. That was when I began having to really experience my own sexual feelings and was very confused about it. But there were no resources to help me. When I entered the seminary, it was to escape a girl friend who wanted to get married.

 

[CradleCath]

But was it a true calling? From this article

in Time:

Thanks for the article. As you probably know, it would have been up to the Seminary rector & the Bishop…along with this man…to discern whether he had a true vocation to the priesthood or not. My guess is that it wasn’t God Who called him…the priesthood was a way out of an adolescence that this priest (if he told the truth) couldn’t handle.

 

[deborahssong]

Senor Salsa…

Romans chapter 1 is pretty clear about homsexuality…and please explain the difference if you would…Just because they are taking that vow doesnt mean a thing! It seems that we are still aluding the subjest of what the HOly Word of God says…it is in black and white…it is sin…

Matthew 1;20-24…Jesus mentioned Sodom in a punishment sort of way???why did He do that…Because Sodom was a city full of homsexual and immoral behavior…

Then in Matthew 11;43-45 He is talking about unlcean spirits.

What is an unclean spirit…it is related to fleshly things…Galatians 5:16-21.

I beleive it is safe to say that homsexuality, and beibg homosexual IS sin and not only that if Paul says in 1 Corinthian 5:11,12…to stay away from a brother who is immoral…then how can we subject ourselves to the teaching and leadership of a priest that we kNOW is homosexual? That just deosnt fly with scriprue…and im sorry? Even if he is not practicing…he has still admitted that he is…and that means he still has desires, he still identifies himself with that behavior therefore how can we allow him to teach us Gods PERFECT plan…perfect means mature and grown up in the Lord! Holy a set apart people…we are to be different than the world because we are…we have been delivered from evil…now whether we walk in that or not says a lot about where we are in understanding WHO JESUS really is!! Amen! To God be the glory!

Deborah

 

[ASimpleSinner]

anyone could lie about their sexual orientation & be accepted into a seminary. There will probably be SOME pederasts who will do so, simply because the priesthood offers access to young boys,

This may be neither here nor there… and I am not offering a defense or support (AT ALL!) for pedarests… But having been to seminary for a time (leaving for altogether different reasons!!!) I find it supremely hard to imagine that men would gravitate towards this field soley for intent of having access to children. Seminary is a rather gruelling and sometimes painful process that, in this remarkably permissive cyber-age, any pedarest could easily bypass and just hang out in chat-rooms a la Dateline “To Catch a Preditor” sickos.

Apart from this disorder and sickness inclining these sorts of men to this disordered perversion, I think most will find a number of additional pathologies up to and including personality disorders that helped motivate some of these sad individuals to proceed through the ranks of clerical formation and life.

Maybe I am just sensitive to hearing, for years, the baseless and silly accusation from non-Catholics that celibacy fosters or actually demands pedarests become priests. When I hear this, I just do my best to not roll my eyes. Certainly, becoming a priest to get your hands on young vicitms seems like the most backwards, needlessly complicated way to get to victims. On the face of it, being a school teacher, a police officer, a nurse, or a counselor seems like far easier vocational paths that are less monitored and in the public spotlight if victimizing children is the goal.

In other words, that is a hell of a lot of hoops to jump through if one’s goal is just to engage in those sorts of crimes.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Senor Salsa…
Romans chapter 1 is pretty clear about homsexuality…and please explain the difference if you would.

Homosexuality is (according to the belief of most scientist in the field) a genetic identity that people have(if those who just “think” they are are disregarded, becuase they eventually figure it out), and homosexuality acts is if the attraction to another of them same sex is acted upon in some way that would be consired a sexual act

 

[NPC]

Senor Salsa…

Romans chapter 1 is pretty clear about homsexuality…and please explain the difference if you would…Just because they are taking that vow doesnt mean a thing! It seems that we are still aluding the subjest of what the HOly Word of God says…it is in black and white…it is sin…

Matthew 1;20-24…Jesus mentioned Sodom in a punishment sort of way???why did He do that…Because Sodom was a city full of homsexual and immoral behavior…

Then in Matthew 11;43-45 He is talking about unlcean spirits.

What is an unclean spirit…it is related to fleshly things…Galatians 5:16-21.

I beleive it is safe to say that homsexuality, and beibg homosexual IS sin and not only that if Paul says in 1 Corinthian 5:11,12…to stay away from a brother who is immoral…then how can we subject ourselves to the teaching and leadership of a priest that we kNOW is homosexual? That just deosnt fly with scriprue…and im sorry? Even if he is not practicing…he has still admitted that he is…and that means he still has desires, he still identifies himself with that behavior therefore how can we allow him to teach us Gods PERFECT plan…perfect means mature and grown up in the Lord! Holy a set apart people…we are to be different than the world because we are…we have been delivered from evil…now whether we walk in that or not says a lot about where we are in understanding WHO JESUS really is!! Amen! To God be the glory!

Deborah

I don’t accept that “…it is safe to say that homosexuality, and being homosexual is a sin…”. I am quite amazed that you are refusing to accept the immense difference between homosexual thoughts or tendencies and homosexual acts. You are most certainly to be commended if you are able to simply decide not to think about such-and-such a thing - indeed I would say you are unique if you can do so. The fact is that people at different times and circumstances have both good thoughts and bad thoughts and these cannot simply be suppressed- the sin follows from how one pursues such thoughts. If one is to pass a poor beggar on the street, they have (at least) two options - to help the person if they have the means to do so, or to committing a ‘sin of omission’ by walking by even though they had the means to provide help. The person did not commit sin by considering that they might just ignore the beggar. The sin would have come about had they acted on this. Conscience leads people to examine both sides of the coin- what was the point of giving man free will if he was doomed to fail and sin at every decision he had to make because he has the capacity to examine both good and evil consequences?

You (and others) also seem to assume that because one has homosexual thoughts they cannot respect God’s Word which tell them that to act on such thoughts would be sinful. Do you assume that because one has had homosexual thoughts necessarily thinks that homosexuality is therefore justifiable? The passage you quote from Galatians about sins of the flesh is interesting - a person with homosexual thoughts who tries to accept and respect the Word of God is not committing sin of the flesh. You omit to mention that this passage is followed by reference to the fruits of the Holy Spirit - one of which is ‘self-control’ -against these ‘there is no law’. So such a person can reject sin of the flesh by accepting and cultivating the fruits of the Holy Spirit. If, as Paul says, we are to avoid our brothers who are immoral, this must be immoral in action, not in thoughts since only God knows truly the heart and mind of each person. We would all be hermits if we were psychics who rejected all who had had a bad thought…

Finally, just a bit of historical context which I remember from my Classics education - homosexuality was quite widely practiced in the Roman World at the time. Even though it was illegal, it persisted from the Greek tradition of men having sexual relations with teenage boys - the sole purpose of marriage was to produce legitimate children who would benefit the State. The letters of Paul in which he condemns homosexual acts are a response to the situation which was before his eyes - he was referring to those (many) who were actively involving themselves in such acts. This is what he was condemning, rather than peoples’ thoughts - and thankfully the Church is still holding on to this important distinction.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Homosexuality is (according to the belief of most scientist in the field) a genetic identity that people have…

I don’t believe that has been established at all. Some “studies” have suggested it, but no cause/effect relationship has been established. Given that the homosexual “community” generally wants there to be a genetic difference so change cannot be considered an option, the results of such studies, even though not definitive, have to be doubted.

Unfortunately, since the psychological community is now effectively banned from researching homosexuality, alternative theories are not allowed to compete.

 

[CradleCath]

Finally, just a bit of historical context which I remember from my Classics education - homosexuality was quite widely practiced in the Roman World at the time. Even though it was illegal, it persisted from the Greek tradition of men having sexual relations with teenage boys - the sole purpose of marriage was to produce legitimate children who would benefit the State.
The letters of Paul in which he condemns homosexual acts are a response to the situation which was before his eyes - he was referring to those (many) who were actively involving themselves in such acts. This is what he was condemning, rather than peoples’ thoughts - and thankfully the Church is still holding on to this important distinction.

I agree that a person’s thoughts & feelings are not sinful. No one knows what causes a person to have disordered sexual tendencies…whether it is “nature or nurture”. I, myself, believe that it has much to do with one’s environment as a child…but that’s simply a theory based on my own observances. I do not believe that one chooses to be gay in most instances, nor do I or the Church believe that the orientation itseld is sinful. Acting upon it is sinful.

Pope Benedict’s latest statement, “homosexuality is a strong tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil”, is also true. I, for one, know only one gay man who is celibate & that came about after he turned 35 & had fought & prayed for deliverence from acting on those tendencies for years.

While ancient Greece (not Rome) was, as you said, rampant with Pederasty, I do not believe that St. Paul wrote solely of this…but of homosexual acts, in general. He spoke of “men with men, leaving the natural use of women & burning in their lust for one another” & **women lying with women **changing nature for that which is unnatural."
As for your claim that he was speaking of pederasty, I have no doubt at all that, if he were condemning pederasty…he would have taught about “men lying with boys”.

Also, as far as I know, the first actual defining of pederasty came from Plato in the fourth century. Though archaelogists suggest that it MIGHT have been a pre-Christ “activity” on the isle of Crete. In other words, if you make the claim that Paul, in Romans, was speaking ONLY of pederasty…you’ll need to provide evidence. Thank you.

 

[lak611]

I agree that a person’s thoughts & feelings are not sinful. No one knows what causes a person to have disordered sexual tendencies…whether it is “nature or nurture”. I, myself, believe that it has much to do with one’s environment as a child…but that’s simply a theory based on my own observances. I do not believe that one chooses to be gay in most instances, nor do I or the Church believe that the orientation itseld is sinful. Acting upon it is sinful.

Paul is definitely referring to pederasty in 1 Corinthians 6:9. From the NAB:

9
2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites

From the NAB footnotes:

3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

 

[SenorSalsa]

I don’t believe that has been established at all. Some “studies” have suggested it, but no cause/effect relationship has been established. Given that the homosexual “community” generally wants there to be a genetic difference so change cannot be considered an option, the results of such studies, even though not definitive, have to be doubted.

Unfortunately, since the psychological community is now effectively banned from researching homosexuality, alternative theories are not allowed to compete.

thats why I put belief. While I admit there have been very few studies at all, and none with consistant, repeatable results, the science community largely holds the hypothesis that it is a nature and not nurture thing