How can the church have a gay priest?

[CatherineofA]

I saw a priest or monk in the news who was supposedly known to be gay. This is my question: How can a man be in the church in this position and be allowed to stay? If he is acting in a way that conflicts with church teaching, why isn’t he let go?

 

[jmcrae]

I saw a priest or monk in the news who was supposedly known to be gay. This is my question: How can a man be in the church in this position and be allowed to stay? If he is acting in a way that conflicts with church teaching, why isn’t he let go?

As long as he is celibate, he is fine. Being gay is not a sin - only the actual act of sex outside of marriage, regardless of who with. Feelings are not sinful in and of themselves.

 

[CatherineofA]

So, you are saying that Catholicism says that being gay is fine. Just don’t act on it. How is that not contradictory? If being gay is seen as a natural state of being, then why isn’t the act?

By the way, was this the Catholic position prior to Vatican II?

 

[catholicbudgie]

Rather than cross posting, this is what I think in a related thread. So if he is gay but celibate, as far as I can see no issue. I think!. As to pre Vatican 2? I dunno.

 

[jmcrae]

So, you are saying that Catholicism says that being gay is fine. Just don’t act on it. How is that not contradictory? If being gay is seen as a natural state of being, then why isn’t the act?

It’s a disordered state of being (just like an addiction to pornography, or alcoholism), but if he doesn’t act on it, then he hasn’t sinned.

By the way, was this the Catholic position prior to Vatican II?

I don’t think there was ever anything official, other than that priests need to be celibate.

 

[jmcrae]

PS: According to the Catechism, the homosexual act falls under the same category as masturbation, fornication, adultery, and the use or creation of pornographic media.

 

[Contarini]

So, you are saying that Catholicism says that being gay is fine. Just don’t act on it. How is that not contradictory? If being gay is seen as a natural state of being, then why isn’t the act?

By the way, was this the Catholic position prior to Vatican II?

From a theological point of view (orthodox theology, that is) there is no such thing as being “gay.” It’s irrelevant. It’s not a “natural state of being” because it’s not a “state of being” at all. It’s simply a deep-rooted, complex set of sexual and emotional urges–and like all such psychological phenomena, it’s deeply shaped by cultural norms (try to use the “gay-straight” vocabulary to describe classical Athens–with the exception of the tongue-in-cheek myth of Aristophanes in the Symposium, it simply doesn’t work).

My understanding of the orthodox Christian position here is that we are all called to chastity (either marriage–which can’t be redefined to include a union with someone of the same sex–or celibacy), whatever our temptations may be. But at the same time, God understands our weaknesses, and someone struggling with same-sex attraction may not be anywhere near as guilty in God’s sight as, say, a husband who selfishly exploits his wife. That doesn’t mean homosexual activity is OK. But since most of us do not struggle with that particular temptation, we should be very slow to condemn those who do.

Edwin

 

[batteddy]

PS: According to the Catechism, the homosexual act falls under the same category as masturbation, fornication, adultery, and the use or creation of pornographic media.

Yes and no. Obviously they are all sexual sins, sins of lust.

It definitely falls under the same category as contraception, pornography, and masturbation (“sodomy” in the broad sense, or “unnatural vices,” which are one of the sins which “Cry out to heaven for vengeance”)

But it isn’t the same as fornication or adultery. Theologically, as long as no contraception is used…those can still be “natural” (ie, the natural penile-vaginal procreative sex act)…and it is only the somewhat more supernatural understanding of the Marriage Bond which makes them wrong.

Sodomy is obviously wrong under Natural Law. Hetero-fornication, however, is not as obvious.

 

[Church_Militant]

All are called to chastity! As is a chaste heterosexual, and per capita more prevelent than the other. Both are temptations to abuse the gift of God that is human sexuality. An hetreosexual who is promiscuous is just as guilty of abomination and violating the laws of God as any homosexual. There are not different commandments for each group that make it acceptable for us to condemn one sin more than the other, (regardless of how abhorent I may find one practice over the other.). The call of Christianity is to chastity, regardless of one’s personal temptation.

This is the same for all sin and something that the 2nd chapter of James brings out when it says, “9: But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10: For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
11: For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.”

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Pax tecum,

 

[KindredSoul]

Because…if someone is “gay” (which, in popular lingo, refers to anyone who simply has the feelings) but (1) Doesn’t act on it and (2) Doesn’t condone homosexuality in any way, that person’s only facing a temptation. The temptation may be considered highly unusual, but it is a Temptation, not a Sin. That person, left to his/her own devices and desires, is more prone to homosexual sin, but still has not actually sinned in this way.

Sin is sin, whether natural or unnatural.

By the same token, temptation is temptation, whether natural or unnatural. In either case, a person who is *tempted *cannot be called guilty of the sin the temptation entails…if that were the case, even Jesus would be considered sinful (the scriptures say He was tempted as are we all). Admittedly, to willingly entertain such thoughts would be to commit the sin “in the heart,” but to be battling the desire, but to simply realize it is there, is still merely a temptation.

With regards to the issue of homosexuality, it’s vitally important to separate the temptation from the sin. I for one have grown to be somewhat puzzled that homosexuality is one of the few sins for which even someone who is tempted is accused of being guilty. I’ve a feeling a great many practicing homosexuals, having religious backgrounds, only took the final leap into the actual sin because they felt that they were already sinful in merely being tempted. If we separate sin from temptation, this mistake would be less frequent.

 

[jimmy]

It’s a disordered state of being (just like an addiction to pornography, or alcoholism), but if he doesn’t act on it, then he hasn’t sinned.

I don’t think there was ever anything official, other than that priests need to be celibate.

He must also understand that it is a disordered state and be opposed to those who act on it and support it. It is not enough to simply not act on the sin, you must outright oppose those who suport it.

 

[jmcrae]

He must also understand that it is a disordered state and be opposed to those who act on it and support it. It is not enough to simply not act on the sin, you must outright oppose those who suport it.

He should probably not go out of his way to put himself in the road of those who promote such a lifestyle, I think (since this could lead to temptation, in his case) - but yes, if they approach him, or if anyone asks him, certainly he needs to promote the chaste/celibate lifestyle and the teachings of the Church.

 

[ttg]

I saw a priest or monk in the news who was supposedly known to be gay. This is my question: How can a man be in the church in this position and be allowed to stay? If he is acting in a way that conflicts with church teaching, why isn’t he let go?

I think “don’t ask, don’t tell” should apply here, obviously along with “don’t act on your urges.” Which brings up the question of why would anyone know he is “gay” unless he is speaking or acting out?

BTW, I believe the Church prefers the term “same sex attraction.”

 

[CatherineofA]

Because…if someone is “gay” (which, in popular lingo, refers to anyone who simply has the feelings) but (1) Doesn’t act on it and (2) Doesn’t condone homosexuality in any way, that person’s only facing a temptation. The temptation may be considered highly unusual, but it is a Temptation, not a Sin. That person, left to his/her own devices and desires, is more prone to homosexual sin, but still has not actually sinned in this way.

Sin is sin, whether natural or unnatural.

By the same token, temptation is temptation, whether natural or unnatural. In either case, a person who is *tempted *cannot be called guilty of the sin the temptation entails…if that were the case, even Jesus would be considered sinful (the scriptures say He was tempted as are we all). Admittedly, to willingly entertain such thoughts would be to commit the sin “in the heart,” but to be battling the desire, but to simply realize it is there, is still merely a temptation.

With regards to the issue of homosexuality, it’s vitally important to separate the temptation from the sin. I for one have grown to be somewhat puzzled that homosexuality is one of the few sins for which even someone who is tempted is accused of being guilty. I’ve a feeling a great many practicing homosexuals, having religious backgrounds, only took the final leap into the actual sin because they felt that they were already sinful in merely being tempted. If we separate sin from temptation, this mistake would be less frequent.

I completely agree with you that being tempted is not the actual sin and that people often rush to put both in the same category. However, I don’t think that a man struggling with this should be in the position of leadership as a priest. He may not be acting on a temptation, but he has internal lust for other men he cannot fullfull. This is different from a priest lusting after women. He has the ability to step down and get married and carry on other duties as a Catholic or Christian. A homosexual cannot and has a desire for something that may prevent him from counseling others. I would feel the same way about a priest who deeply struggles with alcohol and falling off the wagon. It is true that everyone sins, but there are some lifestyle issues in which a priest has to have the credible reputation to lead. A man of God if you will.

If a priest says he is gay, it is a contradiction with his faith. He can’t say he is a gay man and then say to act on it is what’s wrong. In fact, he shouldn’t use the term gay at all. I think there was a priest or monk involved in 9-11 counseling with firemen and he died. There is a famous gay actor narrating a documentary on him. Some of the public and the man saw him/himself as gay. If that’s the case, there was recognition of a state of being that was not seen as unnatural. I find it hard to understand how the church can say they do not support homosexuals and allow a priest to call himself gay.

 

[DeltaForce]

PS: According to the Catechism, the homosexual act falls under the same category as masturbation, fornication, adultery, and the use or creation of pornographic media.

Really? I would have thought it would be a little less serious for something like pornography on one end compared with homosexual acts on the other?

 

[Scottgun]

Really? I would have thought it would be a little less serious for something like pornography on one end compared with homosexual acts on the other?

All of them are objectively wrong. One can usually find a debate over bad, worse, worst among objective wrongs, but all have in common the stone cold fact that they are indeed wrong, gravely so, and perilous to the immortal soul if one is sufficiently culpable.

 

[KindredSoul]

If a priest says he is gay, it is a contradiction with his faith. He can’t say he is a gay man and then say to act on it is what’s wrong. In fact, he shouldn’t use the term gay at all. I think there was a priest or monk involved in 9-11 counseling with firemen and he died. There is a famous gay actor narrating a documentary on him. Some of the public and the man saw him/himself as gay. If that’s the case, there was recognition of a state of being that was not seen as unnatural. I find it hard to understand how the church can say they do not support homosexuals and allow a priest to call himself gay.

Yeah, I can agree with that…but mainly because a Priest who claims a gay identity is somewhat boosting the temptation from a mere temptation to a state…it’s too easy to get it mixed up with thinking he accepts it as a normal part of himself, then. But then, even if a straight Priest was to say “Y’know, I’m a h**ny person,” (I just can’t type that word outright, lol) just because he had a sex drive, it might have the same effect. In other words, he’s taking it too lightly, and therefore those who admire him may do so too.

However, other than that…I still think that temptation, if fully resisted, is temptation. If one temptation, though resisted, can bar a man from the Priesthood, then I find it hard to justify letting anyone become a Priest. Temptation isn’t at all something that someone can necessarily help. They can help accepting it as a legitimate part of themselves, but if it’s there, and they hate it being there, and would clearly refrain from it with all the vigour that a priest without that temptation might refrain from fornication, I can’t really judge that as different from any other temptation.

I guess I think a clencher is whether or not the Priest thinks it’s a passing temptation like any other, no more a part of who he is than any other (no matter how long lasting–even if somehow it may or may not persist for his whole life), or if he thinks it’s an actual (though unfortunate) part of his nature that will not and cannot change. If the former is true, then I see no reason that it should bar the Priest more than any other temptation…if the latter is true, I see your point entirely, as that lends credence to the thoughts of homosexuality being natural, even if undesirable.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

The Church is not to have ‘gay’ priests! That does not mean there are not a number of them and even in the episcopate. “Amchurch Comes Out” and "The Rite of Sodomy’ write of the lurid history of gay clergy quite clearly and the repercussions of this.

No gay men are supposed to be ordained.

But this still happens. The Church teaches that SSA is intrinsically disordered and affects everything about a person.
It counters the ability to act in persona Christi**

Those that disregard the Church instructions here, will disregard them in other areas as well.

Personally, I do not think a man with SSA has a true vocation to the priesthood.

Ave Maria!

 

[jmcrae]

Personally, I do not think a man with SSA has a true vocation to the priesthood.

If he is invalidly ordained (which would seem to be the logical consequence of not having a true vocation), wouldn’t that mean that he does not have the ability to confect the Sacraments?

And if so, then we’re all in deep trouble, especially in Dioceses where there have been gay Bishops (even secretly) in the past, since no one in that Diocese could have been validly ordained by that Bishop, if this is the case.

 

[jmcrae]

Really? I would have thought it would be a little less serious for something like pornography on one end compared with homosexual acts on the other?

Really? We have totally different world views, I think, since I would have put homosexuality, pornography, and masturbation on one end (destroys the individual, but is essentially victimless) and adultery, divorce/remarriage, fornication, and the like at the other end (destroys the lives of children and other innocent bystanders, and impacts society as a whole).

The Catechism disagrees with both of us, though - it classes all of these as the same sin, in the section on the Ten Commandments.