homosexual priests and seminarians: your thoughts?

[CradleCath]

CradleCath;3283091:

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

That’s why my post said:
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. If you make the claim that Paul, in Romans, was speaking ONLY of pederasty…you’ll need to provide evidence. Thank you.

I read the OP. as saying that Paul was referring to pederasty only when he condemned homosexual acts & have heard that same thing from gay activists & it just isn’t true. St. Paul condemned ALL homosexual acts & that was my point.

 

[lak611]

lak611;3283305:

I read the OP. as saying that Paul was referring to pederasty only

when he condemned homosexual acts & have heard that same thing from gay activists & it just isn’t true. St. Paul condemned ALL homosexual acts & that was my point.

Ok, now I understand what you are saying. I agree with you. Paul was condemning ALL homosexual acts, not just pederasty.

 

[NPC]

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.

Yes, I expect you’re right that he was talking of homosexual acts in general, but my point is that he most likely brought up the point of the sinfulness of such acts because it was quite prevalent at the time- he was aware of it. After all, if it wasn’t happening, he wouldn’t have had to admonish people for it! As far as I can recall from my studies of Roman society, homosexual acts were illegal, and if (when it did occur) it followed the Greek ‘model’ it would have involved adult males and adolescent boys.

I don’t know if Plato was the first to define pederasty, but in his time, homosexuality was normal- a man would ‘woo’ an adolescent boy by giving gifts. Certain poems (I can’t remember off hand) refer to men giving gifts of apples and even horses! On the other hand, literature from pre-Christian Greece provides no evidence of romantic love between the man and his wife - the sole purpose of marriage being to provide legitimate children to continue the family line and benefit the state. The poet Sappho was a lesbian in more ways than one, since she was from the island of Lesbos and she had sexual relationships with adolescent girls - one can see in her poetry how distraught she becomes when one of these girls eventually leaves her to get married. If I remember correctly, Plato’s Symposium also refers to the sexual practices of those at the symposium.

I know I have digressed greatly there, and I don’t think homosexuality was as prevalent by Roman times due to the illegality of such practices, and there is also a change in marriage - the main reason is still for legitimate children, but contemporary literature does suggest that romantic love did exist between husband and wife (sorry I can’t give the texts - I just remember being given these points!)… Whatever did happen - whether children were involved or not - my earlier point was really to give my view that Paul was admonishing the acts rather than condemning people who merely had homosexual thoughts…

 

[elt1956]

Hello. I too disagree with the Pope on his decision to ban homosexuals from the seminary. However, I do think that being around an all men group would cause quite a bit of mental anquish.

Also need advice. I posted the following on another forum and was told it was derogatory. Please read and tell me what you think. I meant for it to be an explanation of misconceptions about homosexuals and lesbians. Yes.

Some questions and statements regarding homosexuality.

1. Statement: If a person has homosexual
   tendencies, this does not automatically make
   him a pedophile. Question: Has anyone seen a
   report regarding the priests who have been
   charged as pedophiles stating they are also
   homosexuals? If so, what is the percentage? If
   not, why not? I ask this as the defenses I have
   read by homosexuals state they are not
   pedophiles. Pedophilia and homosexuality are
   two different tendencies. Or could they be
   combined? Possibly, I guess.
2. Question: What causes one to be homosexual?
   Are homosexuals just evil? Or could it be as in
   the case of some alcoholics, their alcoholism is
   caused by a chemical imbalence? Therefore,
   alcoholism can be a disease. Perhaps an
   imbalance of emotions plays a part, or
   aggravates the tendency. I don’t know. I’m not
   a doctor, just passing on what I have
   learned,/noticed at least up to now.
3. Question: Could homosexuality be a disease, or
   is it a moral issue? Apparently there are drugs
   pedophiles can take which decreases their
   unnatural desires. Is there one for homosexuals?
4. Question: If alcoholism is sometimes/always?
   caused by a chemical imbalance and is
   regarded as a disease, and some studies state
   that homosexuals are lacking one or the other
   gene, or chromosome (can’t remember which),
   could homosexuality be a disease?
5. Question: If in heterosexuals, denying ones
   tendencies toward sex is called celebacy, what is
   this denial called in homosexuals? If one can
   be “celebate” whether heterosexual, or
   homosexual, why the ban on homosexuals in the
   priesthood? With either tendency, the
   breaking of vows is still a sin. I would imagine
   though it would be quite a strain to be
   surrounded completely by men if one is
   homosexual. Even in convents, those aspiring to
   be nuns are told not to become too fond of, or
   form a close relationship with another woman in
   the convent. Would this be fear of exposure to
   lesbianism, or whatever it’s called, under a more
   subtle guise?

“Knock and the door shall be opened”.

 

[elt1956]

Yes, whatever girl. This is just what I have tried to say. However, I did forget to include the one thing, the actions of either herterosexual or homosexual. This is what makes the difference…

 

[elt1956]

Oky estesbob, I’ll have to admit I didn’t read the nitty gritty regarding the priest scandal here in the US, but I thought the problem was about pediophilia, not homosexuality? I don’t believe the two conditions equate??

 

[marymol]

chastitysf.com/q_priest.htm

Let us hope that the cure and answer for homosexuality would come from The Church through its glorious role to reveal The Father .

Father hunger and deficiency and the urge to use /seduce other men to fill that void may be essential deficits in homosexuality .

Condoning such through misguided pity would only allow the the cancer to grow .

The cure may not be all that difficult and nothing outside of the ordinary and joyful means of holiness that The Church so abundantly provide - Sacraments, fasting , reading and hearing The Word -esp. in the context of The Liturgy ,which is to be lot more effective ; reading the O.T - may be all the war and victory events in there ; meditating on The Passion and on The Father’s love for us (amazing what the saints describe as the joy to be had , from such , esp.when they join their own interior or physical sufferings with our Lord’s !)

And thus men would be able to have the fullnes of manhood , in the image of The Father !

May the compassionate care of our Bl.Mother too be there for each of them !

 

[johnnydigit]

priests are expected to have a stable mental and physical health.
-have only one hand? sorry, you need two.
-only one leg? um, not sure how that would go.
-have an obsessive-compulsive disorder that makes you wash your hands 50x a day, but otherwise a holy man? might be a problem, sorry.
-have an extensive criminal record, but are clean and holy now? possible, but extensive review is required.
-had a few homosexual thoughts in the far past? possible, but extensive review is required.
-frequent, struggling homosexual tendencies but does not engage in any homosexual activity and is in all cases a holy man? sorry, probably not safe for you to become a priest.

take up your cross, trust and accept our Church. wanting to become a priest does not mean God wants it for you.

 

[elt1956]

Hey, hey hey. What about herterosexual priests who suddenly come opon “the woman of their dreams” and have a difficult time handling it? We all have struggles.

 

[tmcc9755]

I just had this discussion with my spiritual director. We were discussing homosexuals and same-sex marriages as pertaining to the bible. I told her that being homosexual was not at issue. It was engagin in homosexual activity. I told her that a protestant minister in our town believe that because 2 people LOVED each other that God was a LOVING God and that this was OK. I told her that I believe in Romans it states against this minister.

Anyway, back to the subject, I believe a homosexual priest would be a great witness to other homosexuals by explaining that the are children of God but would need to lead a chaste life. I believe the pedophile crisis misdirected blame on homosexuals and the Pope should have correctly informed the laity regarding Christ and homosexuals.

And just to clarify, I am a heterosexual so I have an unbias opinion.

I also believe in married priests. I believe priests became celibate because abuse was taking place among the family of the clergy by inheriting Church property ages ago.

Correct me if I’m wrong.
God Bless, Tom.

 

[qubica]

The issue with the abuse was not truly pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction to small children - truly a disorder. It was actually grown men who were homosexual and making advances on mainly teenagers. Look at the facts, not how the media spun the issue to put it in the worst light possible.

Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to understand the vow of chastity that is taken by the priests, and leave the protestant conspiracy theories behind.

 

[Shlomey]

88% in the molestations by Catholic priests in America were homosexual rape of post-pubesecent boys. The fact that some heterosexual priests were involved some molestations simply cannot undo this statistic. The fact that some homosexual priests did not molest negligent if they continued to allow homosexuals to be Priests.

So the argument then is this:

1. We bar ALL homosexually-oriented males from priesthood and take the good ones as a “fair” sacrifice
2. We do nothing about the heterosexual offenders in the past, present and future: since - after all - they are “straight”

Oddly enough, the early Church seemed to be wiser on disciplinary teaching:

St. Basil the Great ( a BIG name in terms of religious life):

“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).

 

[qubica]

Good post, Shomley-

ALL need to be treated equal, because it is equally abhorrent that a man of God would abuse the fiduciary trust, especially with a young innocent.

My issue has been that it is always portrayed as ‘pedophile’ priests, which does a disservice to the Church, and is not accurate. Technically, they are not pedophiles in most cases, simply homosexuals (and some heterosexuals) who are seeking young men, NOT children, or at least putting themselves in the near occasion of sin.

It’s interesting to note that there has been a rash of female teachers who abuse young men also, but we don’t see them being called ‘pedophiles’. It is an attempt by those who hate the church to cast it in the worst light possible, thereby taking as much moral authority away from the priesthood.

Just a reminder, I think these crimes are atrocious and need to be prosecuted, but if the issue is related strongly to homosexuality, then we need to call a spade a spade so that the appropriate measures can be implemented to prevent abuse from occuring in the future. Right now, the world thinks that EVERY priest is a pedophile in waiting…the devil has done some fine work here!

 

[Nino]

First of all,that old slander against the ancient Greeks re rampant homosexuality is very bad and sinful in its self…find for me many vases and works of art depicting men and young boys going at it? and to quote that children were had just to work for the state is also nonsense…in all dictatorships…as in those behind the iron curtain and now in china…population always drops when the state is cruel. As one who taught in a catholic (small c) high school,where an evil man posing as a chaplain was abusing some dozen boys …this post is quite upsettng…their lives will never be the same again…many have left the church for good…the sacred trust as been destroyed…and of course that is the agenda of those who enter the RCC…to destroy innocence in youth and trust in the clergy! Rock Hudsons disease is no joke.so many young men die of HIV every day because of that un-natural life style,we must pray for them to forgive their daddies for making love to their mommies and grow up. The hatred that some groups have against decency and fidelity to God and HIs ten commandments is frightening. …and their power and influence far out weigh their numbers…it is not easy raising a family and those of us who do and have are lampooned somehow as being outdated and naive and ‘hateful’…how scary…

 

[Shlomey]

Good post, Shomley-

ALL need to be treated equal, because it is equally abhorrent that a man of God would abuse the fiduciary trust, especially with a young innocent.

My issue has been that it is always portrayed as ‘pedophile’ priests, which does a disservice to the Church, and is not accurate. Technically, they are not pedophiles in most cases, simply homosexuals (and some heterosexuals) who are seeking young men, NOT children, or at least putting themselves in the near occasion of sin.

It’s interesting to note that there has been a rash of female teachers who abuse young men also, but we don’t see them being called ‘pedophiles’. It is an attempt by those who hate the church to cast it in the worst light possible, thereby taking as much moral authority away from the priesthood.

Just a reminder, I think these crimes are atrocious and need to be prosecuted, but if the issue is related strongly to homosexuality, then we need to call a spade a spade so that the appropriate measures can be implemented to prevent abuse from occuring in the future. Right now, the world thinks that EVERY priest is a pedophile in waiting…the devil has done some fine work here!

I believe that the Church actually is adding to the bad light shed upon her.

1. We know that this problemg to so big because of the rather odd way the American leadership reacted to it: by sendign the guilty ones to other parished.
2. As things came out: the Vatican also got involved. Still, we have the cases wherein some are just sent to certain places.

So in an effort to somehow “make good” what simply worsened the whole situation, we have these very strict rules on a certain group of people. And I see people like St. Aloysius who may not be able to follow God’s calling simply because of a failed effort to upkeep the Church’s image.

My solution would have been very simple:

1. Fire all those guilty: those directly and indirectly associated as well.
2. Excommunicate if necessary - I think they ought to be excommunicated as these people knew what they were doing.
3. File lawsuits against them, get them behind bars!

These were the things the Church should have done.

I sometimes ask myself what they are planning to do in Rome

No disrespect intended

 

[Shlomey]

Originally Posted by qubica
Simply put: One with SSA will find it ‘going against the grain’ to speak out against SSA to the souls he has charge of. There will be an inner conflict.

Perhaps it’d be interesting to note that I have come across cases of religious homosexuals (orthodox Jewish and Christian) who hid not their sexual preference, but were amongst the best debaters against the sinfulness of homosexual lust in thought, word and deed.

I found that since they knew how it was to be in their shoes, they actually presented better and more qualified presentations against homosexual behaviour/actions.

Therefore, the quoted assumption is merely an over-simplified view of a matter that is far more complicated and deserves more honest researching.

I actually - in debating with some atheists (of whom some were homosexuals - also had experiences of non-religious homosexuals admitting that there is indeed something wrong with the act as it does not seem to serve any “real” biological purpose - other than the egostical drive for sexual pleasure.

Let’s see if I get accused of some “agenda” too

 

[Jerome42]

Hi everyone,

I was just thinking. Do you really think Pope Benedict XVI made a wise decision when he ruled that homosexual men cannot become priests? Sometimes I wonder.

I truly do believe that a homosexual man can be just as good a priest as a heterosexual; heck, perhaps even better. I think that the main problem with this is that true homosexuals need to live their lives with their love mate and thus feel the need to consumate their relationship with all forms of deviant behavior.

Plus, we all know that the church is in a priesthood crisis. **I do not agree, e.g. South America, Africa.**I say “priesthood” and not “vocation” crisis because we’re flourishing with permanent deacons, but not with the sacred priesthood. I don’t know… I think I’d much rather attend a Mass celebrated by a homosexual priest Even though it may be valid, I don’t think anyone wants attend a Mass celebrated by a homosexual sinner! than a Communion Service celebrated by a deacon.

Your thoughts?

 

[Shlomey]

What about those who actually get ordained like Fr. Mychal?
Are they then disqualified or guilty of mortal sin/disobedience?
Were they “not ordained” in the first place?

Or is once ordained, ordained?

 

[bpp85]

Well here is my opinion on this subject
Celibate homosexual men who agree with what the church teaches on homosexuality should be priests. And after reading the Vatican’s text on this, i think that only practicing homosexual men are banned from the priesthood. Some of the arguments against homosexual men becoming piests are the same as me saying:" a lot of heterosexual men should not be allowed to enter the priesthood because men have a strong sexual drive, and while abstaining from sex they will probably end up masturbating, and after being surrounded only by men they will seek after women even more and end up having lots of sex"
or :“good looking men should not be allowed to enter the priesthood because lay men and women might end up having impure thoughts” ( i actually heard a person saying this )

That’s my humble opinion and pardon my grammar, english is not my first language

 

[abchavez]

So I didn’t get through all pages of posts, but from what I did see nobody mentioned what the priesthood represents. It is a marriage between the man and the Church. The same type of marriage that Jesus has with the Church. Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride. Sooooo does that make sense that someone who is attracted to men would want to marry a female entity, which the Church is. I’m not saying this to bash anyone by the way, I’m just simply trying to be logical.