Homosexual undercurrent in our nation's seminaries?

  • Thread starter Thread starter matt487
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matt487

Guest
I hate to revive this topic yet again, but I need to know.

I had been reading reviews for Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose, about a supposed underground gay culture present in America’s seminaries today. There seem to be horror stories about young men, well suited for the priesthood, being turned away from seminaries because they do not support homosexuality or are not “gay friendly” enough.

Also, a number of reviews are given by seminarians who seem not only to support this claim, but even also mention that many seminarians are not being chaste - in other words, many seminarians are in open relationships with each other and some even go cruising at gay bars during the evenings.

I initially believe that Rose’s claims may be exaggerated, but I am still a little wary. I have no problem studying alongside holy, celibate men who feel an attraction to the same sex, men who are chaste and commit to a life of service to God (I had a roomate, Catholic too, for my first year of college whom I suspect is attracted to the same gender, and we got along well), but I do not want to be in an atmosphere with “open relationships” and “cruising gay bars.” As someone who is called for the priesthood, I want to live in an environment in which everyone else is committed to serving God and being honorable priests within the Church.

Like I said, I’m a little skeptical and think he may exaggerate, but I would like some other (name removed by moderator)ut. Any (name removed by moderator)ut perhaps from young men studying in seminaries right now would be greatly appreciated.

God bless
~Matt
 
A lot has changed since Rose’s book was written. You CAN find good seminaries (though I am sure there will ALWAYS be people under the lavender sail in seminaries). Contact good bishops: Myers, Chaput come to mind.
 
Any information on Archbishop Brunett of the Seattle archdiocese? I was actually going to contact them soon to get information on the priesthood.

Glad to hear things are changing. I will keep the priesthood of the Church in my prayers…O Lord, may our priests be honorable, chaste and wholly committed to serving you!
 
matt487 said:
Any information on Archbishop Brunett of the Seattle archdiocese? I was actually going to contact them soon to get information on the priesthood.

Glad to hear things are changing. I will keep the priesthood of the Church in my prayers…O Lord, may our priests be honorable, chaste and wholly committed to serving you!
Click to expand...
I know nothing about Seattle. Can you google him? Talk to people you trust in the diocese? What does your pastor say? I know that one criticism of Bishop Myers before he came to Newark was that he welcomed “outcasts” into the Peoria seminary from places where they were considered “too rigid” and “too conservative.”
 
I’ll google around. It’s hard for me to talk to priests currently in the archdiocese (as I’m in college across the state and in another diocese) but I’ll see what I can find.
 
Wow, apparently Archbishop Brunett experienced what I am currently concerned about now.

*While the rest of the country was reeling from war protests in the 1960s, Alex Brunett was a young academic dean stirring up his own protest at a Roman Catholic seminary in Michigan.

As he tells it, his students included a “large colony of homosexual people” who liked to go to gay bars at night. This upset Brunett so much that he complained loudly to his archbishop and tried to block the ordination of some students. In return, he was deemed “counterproductive,” booted out and sent back to parish work.*

From: seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/194798_brunett12.html

Cool! Got to get a hold of him soon though, he’ll be retiring next year!
 
matt487 said:
Wow, apparently Archbishop Brunett experienced what I am currently concerned about now.

While the rest of the country was reeling from war protests in the 1960s, Alex Brunett was a young academic dean stirring up his own protest at a Roman Catholic seminary in Michigan.

As he tells it, his students included a “large colony of homosexual people” who liked to go to gay bars at night. This upset Brunett so much that he complained loudly to his archbishop and tried to block the ordination of some students. In return, he was deemed “counterproductive,” booted out and sent back to parish work.

From: seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/194798_brunett12.html

Cool! Got to get a hold of him soon though, he’ll be retiring next year!
Click to expand...
Getting God-bumps here! Grab him QUICK!
 
I’ll give a call later this morning, perhaps even before mass!

God bless everyone, and thanks for the help MercyGate - I appreciate it!
 
matt487 said:
I had been reading reviews for Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose, about a supposed underground gay culture present in America’s seminaries today. There seem to be horror stories about young men, well suited for the priesthood, being turned away from seminaries because they do not support homosexuality or are not “gay friendly” enough.
Click to expand...
Do you all still believe homosexuality is a sin? Well, Jesus defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40, 7:12; Luke 6:31) . Paul then expanded this love definition in Romans 13:8-11 and Galatians 5:14. So what is sinful about a loving same-sex relationship? Who is the victim being unloved, hurt or sinned against?
Sin is basically disrespect for God and lack of love for self or others. We are to serve God and others lovingly or we serve Satan and death. That sums up all the laws and teachings of the prophets.
Man-to-man loving sex is OK. It is inherently a non-sin and non-crime.
If God wanted to condemn sex between men, couldn’t He have said “Man shall not lie with man” PERIOD. He tacked on the “…as with woman “ because He is offended by straight men imagining they are having sex with a woman as they unlovingly rape their prisoner, cellmate, tearoom contact, etc. (Leviticus 18:22)
Code: 
There is no word for “homosexuality” in the  Bible's  Hebrew and Greek source texts.   Since the word “homosexual” was coined about 1865, it is not even in the King James Version. Any Bible using that word is a mistranslation.  Instead the KJV and translations thereafter  (Matthew's 1549, Geneva 1560 and Tyndall 1536)  condemn  “sexual immorality” such as heterosexual  male-male rape of Leviticus 18:22.
Fear of homosexuality does strange things to a homosexual.  Psychologically it is called “reaction formation”.   For example, notoriously homosexual King James had his Bible translators render Luther's translation as “with a man” to throw unwise critics off his trail.  Substituting MAN for BOY has stuck in all subsequent translations, thereby condemning all man-man sexual relationships, even the loving kind.
Freud theorized that a "heterosexual" individual exhibits strong "homophobia" to cover-up  deep-seated homosexual desires.  This reaction formation relieves anxiety for  the confused emotions of a "homosexual" living a lie. This obsessional neurosis can become a permanent personality disorder.
Have you noted the number of belligerent homophobic preachers who have been arrested with hustlers in restrooms and back seats of theaters?  “The ladies doth protest too much.” 
Some other possibilities you should consider when obsessing about 
Leviticus 18:22:

Does it prohibit only anal sex between two men?
Does it prohibit only pagan-temple sex between two men?
Does it prohibit sex only between two men in a woman's bed?
Does it allow oral sex between two men?
Does it allow sex between two women?
Does it condemn only pederasty with boys ( Martin Luther's Bibel -1545)

Oral same-sex relationships are evidently not covered in scriptures.  I presume it is possible to make it an unloving act (sin) if it is not consensual.

Treating a male partner  as a woman would be as adulterous as having sex with other women (Leviticus 18:2-20).   In the Jewish social order, a boy is two steps down from men; women are one step down.  A woman’s job is to make babies.  Evidently, sex with another man is not objectionable because they are of equal status, neither degraded.

Consider the attempted male gang rape at Lot's door .  For Sodom (and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-9),  God had already judged the cities for their selfishness toward the poor, pride, laziness, arrogance and general slothfulness. (Ezekiel 16:48-50)  That was enough for God to wipe them out.  Their  abominable attempt to rape God's angels confirmed His decision. 

While I am on the subject of reproduction, Gay people are exempt from that order given to Adam and Eve.  He intends Gays to be unencumbered by children (Mt 19:12) so they can serve with spectacular love in medicine, education, science, arts,  sports, military, politics/government,  and even religion.  Jesus and Gay people are part of God's plan.

God made it abundantly clear in His word about Who is to be judging us sinners. (Mt 7:1-5, Acts 17:31).  And it is Him, not the Pharisees, priests, clergy-people or quasi-religious organization - no one!   Paul cautioned the Romans (2:1) and others who are into pre-judging Gay people.  So beware lest people discover your secret life.
Jesus defines sin as lack of love. What is unloving about homosexuality?
Code: 
About deciding to be Gay: what about the bad “decision” my cat made to be homosexual?  I hope the unlicensed psychologists running ex-Gay ministries have a “therapy” for her condition.
Do what God already told you - love one another! Don’t make Him come down here again!
 
If I understand OP concern correctly, he has chosen to be celibate, and forego relationships that are of the flesh at this time in living sacrifice to our Lord.

Just as he has forgone relationships with the sex he is attracted to, he expects the same sacrifice from his peers- regardless of their orientation.

That was my understanding of what he was saying… because he has chosen to be a priest and takes his vows seriously- I didn’t think it was a debate about the inherent sinfulness of a homosexual orientation.
 
That’s exactly it, Jasmine. Thank you.

This thread isn’t, nor ever was intended to be a debate about whether homosexuality is a sin or not. I wrote this thread because I was concerned future priests weren’t living celibate, chaste lives while in seminary, regardless of their orientation.

I’d be just as concerned if young seminarians were bringing girls back to their rooms each night.
 
This is to Mexjewel:
If your interpretation is correct, don’t you find it a little odd that for thousands of years, both the Jews and Christians had been examining the exact same texts and coming to the wrong conclusion? Is it not a little arrogant (to say the least) to assume that the Church founded by the Apostles - men who knew Christ personally - was very, very wrong in its exegesis on the issue of homosexuality? Don’t you think that they, of all people, would know exactly which type of Church Christ desired - spiritually, liturgically, and morally?

Or is it more plausible that now, 2,000 years after the foundation of the Church, we have finally got it right? It doesn’t seem very respectful for a Catholic to say, “Oh, you poor Apostles and saints - you were too conditioned by social norms (or maybe just too wicked!) to realize that homosexuality isn’t actually sinful. But don’t worry; finally, we have come to correct your error on this serious moral issue.”

Something doesn’t seem right about that to me. It’s the same problem I see with Catholics arguing for women’s ordination; it presumes a great deal of arrogance.
 
Mexjewel said:
Do you all still believe homosexuality is a sin? Well, Jesus defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40, 7:12; Luke 6:31) . Paul then expanded this love definition in Romans 13:8-11 and Galatians 5:14. So what is sinful about a loving same-sex relationship? Who is the victim being unloved, hurt or sinned against?
Sin is basically disrespect for God and lack of love for self or others. We are to serve God and others lovingly or we serve Satan and death. That sums up all the laws and teachings of the prophets.
Man-to-man loving sex is OK. It is inherently a non-sin and non-crime.
If God wanted to condemn sex between men, couldn’t He have said “Man shall not lie with man” PERIOD. He tacked on the “…as with woman “ because He is offended by straight men imagining they are having sex with a woman as they unlovingly rape their prisoner, cellmate, tearoom contact, etc. (Leviticus 18:22)
Code: 
There is no word for “homosexuality” in the  Bible's  Hebrew and Greek source texts.   Since the word “homosexual” was coined about 1865, it is not even in the King James Version. Any Bible using that word is a mistranslation.  Instead the KJV and translations thereafter  (Matthew's 1549, Geneva 1560 and Tyndall 1536)  condemn  “sexual immorality” such as heterosexual  male-male rape of Leviticus 18:22.
Fear of homosexuality does strange things to a homosexual.  Psychologically it is called “reaction formation”.   For example, notoriously homosexual King James had his Bible translators render Luther's translation as “with a man” to throw unwise critics off his trail.  Substituting MAN for BOY has stuck in all subsequent translations, thereby condemning all man-man sexual relationships, even the loving kind.
Freud theorized that a "heterosexual" individual exhibits strong "homophobia" to cover-up  deep-seated homosexual desires.  This reaction formation relieves anxiety for  the confused emotions of a "homosexual" living a lie. This obsessional neurosis can become a permanent personality disorder.
Have you noted the number of belligerent homophobic preachers who have been arrested with hustlers in restrooms and back seats of theaters?  “The ladies doth protest too much.” 
Some other possibilities you should consider when obsessing about 
Leviticus 18:22:

Does it prohibit only anal sex between two men?
Does it prohibit only pagan-temple sex between two men?
Does it prohibit sex only between two men in a woman's bed?
Does it allow oral sex between two men?
Does it allow sex between two women?
Does it condemn only pederasty with boys ( Martin Luther's Bibel -1545)

Oral same-sex relationships are evidently not covered in scriptures.  I presume it is possible to make it an unloving act (sin) if it is not consensual.

Treating a male partner  as a woman would be as adulterous as having sex with other women (Leviticus 18:2-20).   In the Jewish social order, a boy is two steps down from men; women are one step down.  A woman’s job is to make babies.  Evidently, sex with another man is not objectionable because they are of equal status, neither degraded.

Consider the attempted male gang rape at Lot's door .  For Sodom (and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:4-9),  God had already judged the cities for their selfishness toward the poor, pride, laziness, arrogance and general slothfulness. (Ezekiel 16:48-50)  That was enough for God to wipe them out.  Their  abominable attempt to rape God's angels confirmed His decision. 

While I am on the subject of reproduction, Gay people are exempt from that order given to Adam and Eve.  He intends Gays to be unencumbered by children (Mt 19:12) so they can serve with spectacular love in medicine, education, science, arts,  sports, military, politics/government,  and even religion.  Jesus and Gay people are part of God's plan.

God made it abundantly clear in His word about Who is to be judging us sinners. (Mt 7:1-5, Acts 17:31).  And it is Him, not the Pharisees, priests, clergy-people or quasi-religious organization - no one!   Paul cautioned the Romans (2:1) and others who are into pre-judging Gay people.  So beware lest people discover your secret life.
Jesus defines sin as lack of love. What is unloving about homosexuality?
Code: 
About deciding to be Gay: what about the bad “decision” my cat made to be homosexual?  I hope the unlicensed psychologists running ex-Gay ministries have a “therapy” for her condition.
Do what God already told you - love one another! Don’t make Him come down here again!
Click to expand...
Oh my, what a warped misunderstanding of sexuality, scriptures, natural law, Church teachings, and common sense. Please tell us that you’re not a seminarian! :confused:
 
I wonder if the group couragerc.net/ could help you with the info. you are looking for?

God’s Love and Blessings on your discernment.

Bob
 
lepanto said:
Oh my, what a warped misunderstanding of sexuality, scriptures, natural law, Church teachings, and common sense. Please tell us that you’re not a seminarian! :confused:
Click to expand...
No, just a spammer. That text was taken directly from here:

slayerment.com/blog/being-homosexual-gay-right-or-wrong

Have google will travel.

If I had to guess, MJ acts on homosexual attraction, thinks it is fine and dandy, and posts this sort of stuff as thought it were authoritative. Funny how Christians and Jews with the same texts got it so wrong in the last 4 millenia. Ah well, they did not have Will & Grace.

If he (or she) has such agenda that is common enough.But one can’t ignore the numbers or not take time to explain the pandemics, promiscuity, and other health risks so prevalent in this community.

The preponderance of the data on STDs alone point to much higher rates of infection and transmission among the community of men who have sex with men. HIV/AIDS infections among non drug-users, non-hemophiliacs in the West is in the single digits. The myth of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in America has pretty much been quietly laid to rest…
Quoting Public Health Laboratory figures over a ten year period, but not engaging in the wider controversy over HIV and testing, the programme claimed that of the 7388 heterosexual men and women diagnosed HIV+, 2928 were infected by drug use, 2790 were infected from a foreign source, either living abroad or back in Britain, 1369 were infected by blood products (the vast majority of them hemophiliacs), a mere 119 from bisexual partners (another myth exploded, in the programme’s view), that left a further 182 HIV+ people in the category “None of the above.” These, an average of less than 20 cases a year, constitute the totality of heterosexual Aids in the UK.
Click to expand...
Making allowance for human nature, for people denying they had had sex with any of the other categories, or not knowing that they had, the number may well disappear completely. (source)
Click to expand...
For heterosexuals to get HIV/AIDS, cross-contamination (most frequently from needles shared among drug users) is pretty much required. Not so for men who have sex with men - the sex alone is THE cause.

Greater social acceptance and some artificially sanitized but pozitive sterotypes of men who have sex with men (think Will & Grace) have certainly challenged the notions that problems of mental and physical health in the communities of persons practicing homogenital sexual behavior could be laid at the feet of “heterosexual homophobia”. In the city I live in - with at least three distinct “gayborhoods” and over 2 dozen bars, 2 bathhouses, and a number of other localities and business oriented toward serving the gay community, estimates are that as many as 1 in 5 men who have sex with men have HIV/AIDS… The crystal methamphetimine crisis in same community is outrageous.

All the acceptance in the world does not seem to have improved the health of this community. In fact all I believe it has done is created a viable second option for predominately heterosexually oriented pansexualists (sexual opportunists) to have acess to more options.

The statistics on that has been telling - more and more heterosexual men (far from becoming “bi”) accept homogenital behaviors and actions as a legitimate means to an end - sex for the sake of sex and fullfillment of sex addiction. As the porn industry continues to make more money than the four major networks or all of pro-sports, the average age of first time exposture to internet porn is 11, and sex addictions are increasong, I believe and suspect that these numbers will increase. See here.

Folks who want to persist in the notion that the sex habits of men who have sex with men are roughly similar to heterosexual patterns have a lot of statistics to ignore. Folks who persist in pointing to heterosexual anomoalies like Hugh Hefner, Wilt Chamberlain or Gene Simmons who grossly claim partners in the thousands, need to consider the math - these guys are notable by their unique and disturbing (and sadly celebrated) conquests and records need to come to terms with what makes these sad fellows cause celebres - they are notable because they are rare.

More on topic with the OPs question - I believe that bishops with growing priestly formation programs know this already. And they act accordingly - you won’t find Bishop Bruskiwitz’s men at the “Pink Palace”. (Yea, that is really a nickname for a sem in the US).

There are still some out there to be sure, but it is NOT like it was 20 years ago. Happily, good men no longer say “Good bye” - they say "I am off to a decent program, so long!" and head to another seminary in another diocese or with a religous order.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
More on topic with the OPs question - I believe that bishops with growing priestly formation programs know this already. And they act accordingly - you won’t find Bishop Bruskiwitz’s men at the “Pink Palace”. (Yea, that is really a nickname for a sem in the US).
Click to expand...
Which seminary has this nickname?

Thanks for the great post, BTW.👍
 
lepanto said:
Which seminary has this nickname?

Thanks for the great post, BTW.👍
Click to expand...
You know I heard it ten years ago and can’t recall now which it was. I think I half remember - but it is as likely as not that I am wrong, so I won’t name names. Besidesm 11 years on, I don’t know that it would be fair to do that anyway.

Mostly the point was it definately was out there and NOT hidden. An open secret like a pink elephant dressed like a member of the Village People right there in the middle of the room…
 
ASimpleSinner said:
You know I heard it ten years ago and can’t recall now which it was. I think I half remember - but it is as likely as not that I am wrong, so I won’t name names. Besidesm 11 years on, I don’t know that it would be fair to do that anyway.

Mostly the point was it definately was out there and NOT hidden. An open secret like a pink elephant dressed like a member of the Village People right there in the middle of the room…
Click to expand...
ASimpleSinner:

I think I’ve heard of the place from a few - I think you probably shouldn’t have mentioned it. I’m glad you didn’t name the place - Neither will I.

I’m sorry you experienced it - I’m thankful you didn’t lose your faith because of your encounter with the place.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Traditional_Ang said:
ASimpleSinner:

I think I’ve heard of the place from a few - I think you probably shouldn’t have mentioned it.
Click to expand...
I only mention it to make it known that that sort of (sub)culture existed widely, but is being successfully supplanted.
 
Back in 1995, my brother was in the seminary here. In his first year he was approached by one of his fellow semininarians. (crusing my brother). When my brother was moving to leave after his first year, he told me about what happened. Apparently the guy in question decided to go into a religious order and left the seminary.

Today my brother has been a priest for 7 years (he is Roman Rite). And about the gay seminarian, he just died this past September. I read the guys obit online.

I still question whether the ‘gay underground’ is still going on in the seminary here. I do know that a member of my parish, who was trying for the deacante, quit his endeavor because he knew of many gay members of the seminary and our bishop won’t do anything about it. Before you jump to conclusion, I belong to a Byzantine Church. We have problems just like the Roman Rite. It is certainly Satan putting things into overdrive!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top