D
dixieagle
Guest
My dh is Byzantine rite, as well, and we have heard PLENTY about this situation…very sad.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
goofyjim
Guest
If two otherwise uninfected men were to have sex nothing would be transmitted. And if they stayed in that relationship monogamously, never doing drugs or anything else chances are they would nevercontract HIV.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…
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.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Fair enough, goofyjim…If two otherwise uninfected men were to have sex nothing would be transmitted. And if they stayed in that relationship monogamously, never doing drugs or anything else chances are they would nevercontract HIV.
Why don’t we see more of that? The monogomous gay couple - oft portrayed in the pro-gay media *a la *Will & Grace… How common is that?
M
matt487
Guest
Back to the original subject…
This once dissuaded me before. I think two years ago, I was devoted to my faith and felt the calling. Then I read something about a huge gay presence in the seminaries and decided not to go after it. Not long after this, I fell out of my faith.
As I’ve come back to my faith, I also still find the calling waiting for me, as if it’s wondering “Where have you gone?” This time, I need to go through with my intentions and let nothing get in the way.
We need good men in the seminaries to produce good leaders in the Church, and overall, a healthy Church here on earth. This much is obvious. If every “good man” says “goodbye,” who will be left to really show an unbelieving world the splendors and glories of our Church?
If seminarians want to party, have sex, and lead lives that are not chaste - no matter which orientation - they will do so. Yet I don’t believe that these sort of men are the norm, I believe they are the exception. God is still in our nation’s seminaries, and there are still men wholly committed to God by committing themselves to chastity, celibacy and right behavior.
This is what I’m saying now: just because there are more than a few bad apples does not mean I should ignore what is God’s calling on my life. If we want our present and future Popes, Bishops and Priests to deal with this problem, then we must first have the good men who will become our future Popes, Bishops and Priests to enter the seminary in the first place. I am committed to going to seminary, and those who do give it a bad name are not enough reason for me to ignore God’s purpose in my life.
This once dissuaded me before. I think two years ago, I was devoted to my faith and felt the calling. Then I read something about a huge gay presence in the seminaries and decided not to go after it. Not long after this, I fell out of my faith.
As I’ve come back to my faith, I also still find the calling waiting for me, as if it’s wondering “Where have you gone?” This time, I need to go through with my intentions and let nothing get in the way.
We need good men in the seminaries to produce good leaders in the Church, and overall, a healthy Church here on earth. This much is obvious. If every “good man” says “goodbye,” who will be left to really show an unbelieving world the splendors and glories of our Church?
If seminarians want to party, have sex, and lead lives that are not chaste - no matter which orientation - they will do so. Yet I don’t believe that these sort of men are the norm, I believe they are the exception. God is still in our nation’s seminaries, and there are still men wholly committed to God by committing themselves to chastity, celibacy and right behavior.
This is what I’m saying now: just because there are more than a few bad apples does not mean I should ignore what is God’s calling on my life. If we want our present and future Popes, Bishops and Priests to deal with this problem, then we must first have the good men who will become our future Popes, Bishops and Priests to enter the seminary in the first place. I am committed to going to seminary, and those who do give it a bad name are not enough reason for me to ignore God’s purpose in my life.
M
mercygate
Guest
While you were out to lunch, it seems that the Lord was ‘growing you up.’Back to the original subject…
This once dissuaded me before. I think two years ago, I was devoted to my faith and felt the calling. Then I read something about a huge gay presence in the seminaries and decided not to go after it. Not long after this, I fell out of my faith.
As I’ve come back to my faith, I also still find the calling waiting for me, as if it’s wondering “Where have you gone?” This time, I need to go through with my intentions and let nothing get in the way.
We need good men in the seminaries to produce good leaders in the Church, and overall, a healthy Church here on earth. This much is obvious. If every “good man” says “goodbye,” who will be left to really show an unbelieving world the splendors and glories of our Church?
If seminarians want to party, have sex, and lead lives that are not chaste - no matter which orientation - they will do so. Yet I don’t believe that these sort of men are the norm, I believe they are the exception. God is still in our nation’s seminaries, and there are still men wholly committed to God by committing themselves to chastity, celibacy and right behavior.
This is what I’m saying now: just because there are more than a few bad apples does not mean I should ignore what is God’s calling on my life. If we want our present and future Popes, Bishops and Priests to deal with this problem, then we must first have the good men who will become our future Popes, Bishops and Priests to enter the seminary in the first place. I am committed to going to seminary, and those who do give it a bad name are not enough reason for me to ignore God’s purpose in my life.
Good men need to be able to stand the heat in the furnace. I’ll bet there’s a 'net support group for solid, orthodox seminarians. One of the things is surviving any process that attempts to weed out “dissenters” – i.e., men like you.
I once heard Mitch Pacwa speak of having to keep his head down during seminary. You might consult with him.
How did it go with the diocese?
M
matt487
Guest
I’ve yet to meet with the diocese. I can’t get back to home until December - all I’ve done yet is talk to the Vocations Director some over email. But once I go home for Christmas, I’m going to a “future seminarian” luncheon with both the Archbishop and one of the other Bishops…can’t remember his last name though.
M
mercygate
Guest
Sounds like a plan!I’ve yet to meet with the diocese. I can’t get back to home until December - all I’ve done yet is talk to the Vocations Director some over email. But once I go home for Christmas, I’m going to a “future seminarian” luncheon with both the Archbishop and one of the other Bishops…can’t remember his last name though.
Be sure you get all the names before you have that luncheon.
Godspeed, my friend.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.