'I’m gay and I’m a priest, period.’

[FollowChrist34]

I can think of any number of scenarios where outing a chaste gay priest might occur, and without playing a “what if” game all day, I will give you one: for whatever reason, the priest counsels someone with SSA, and the individual is aware during the conversation (because the priest, in an attempt to show that chastity is neither impossible nor wrong) indicates he has lived chastely with the issue for years; the one seeking counseling rejects the Church’s position and in a fit of anger decides to “out” the priest.

Given the amount of anger which has come from active SSAs to the Church, this is an easy scene to see, and the priest moves to head off the angry outing by doing it himself.

There could be any of a number of other scenarios where the priest felt that open honesty beats the snot out of rumor and innuendo, or attacks.

I have no idea why the priest went public, but I am neither shocked, nor am I quick to accuse the priest of bad motives - as some posters seem to have implied.

Fair enough.

I would just add that there is a gay lobby in the Church, whether we like it or not. It is counterproductive to deny it or look the other way, hoping it will disappear if we just ‘think positive.’ The liberal media is also very engaged in this effort to update, modernize the Church.

Not saying this is what is up here; I am saying that this is out there.

 

[otjm]

Fair enough.

I would just add that there is a gay lobby in the Church, whether we like it or not. It is counterproductive to deny it or look the other way, hoping it will disappear if we just ‘think positive.’ The liberal media is also very engaged in this effort to update, modernize the Church.

Not saying this is what is up here; I am saying that this is out there.

I would agree.

I don’t want to go down the rqabbit hole of “what if”. There are all sorts of scenarios which could be spun out on this; if someone is really serious about this or upset by it, the priest would be the best person to ask - and he might or might not tell you exactly why.

The point I was really trying to make is that there have been several posts which seemed to be rather judgmental concerning this. Given that there could be very legitimate reasons for him to admit he has SSA, it seems that wihtout knowing more, people have made statements which do not have a foundation, It is possible they are correct; but they have no information; only negative comments. That is at a minimum improper.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It’s the same reason why you don’t allow 18 year old girls to share a dorm room with an 18 year old boy.

Co-ed dorm rooms are bad because EVEN if no one physically does anything because sinful or undesired thoughts can creep in or develop.

For example: 1) accidentally seeing roommate naked or partly naked. 2) Unintentionally falling in love with the roommate. 3) developing romantic or lustful feelings for roommate’s good friend who comes to visit

Just because you have not fallen in love with or been secretly attracted to your roommate for your roommate doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

This is less about what you do and more about the struggles that go on inside.

Also, if it’s OK for a gay man to share a room with a straight man, then the argument becomes that it’s OK for a straight woman to share a room with a straight man. It’s not, but logically it flows. As someone who used to work with the Boy Scouts and was trained in Youth Protection, this is the exact issue I have with allowing gay boys to join. Who do they share a tent with when camping? They can’t share a tent with another gay boy because that would be like having a girl and boy sleep in the same tent. And they can’t have them share with a straight boy because that is still the same as sharing with a girl (at least one way). And a gay boy still can’t share with a girl (if a girl was present via a Venture Crew team) because you risk chances of the girl seeing boy parts and the girl is still sleeping with a boy. So the only chaste rooming situation is for a gay boy/man to have a single dorm room.

In college, young gay men often interact with girls (not always, but often have girls to interact with too). In the seminary, they don’t. It can be difficult for a chaste gay man to only be around men, just like it could be difficult for a straight, chaste man to be in a school only with women.

In practice there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue regarding gay men having male roommates. While heterosexual men don’t seem to be very capable of having a genuinely platonic relationship with women, gay men seem to be able to pull it off fine.

Before the 70’s homosexuality was considered a disorder and medically was changed by pressures of the gay lobby. Regardless of that the Catholic Church, as psychiatry did prior to the 7p’s, currently considers homosexuality a disorder. Here we are talking about seminars that the Catholic Church has so from this point of view it is a disorder and should be a disqualification.

The Catholic Church doesn’t consider it a mental illness.

I’m just pointing out the silly pretense that I see so often that most heterosexual people keep everything about their sexuality private.

They don’t realize it because they never thought about it.

Homosexuals are barred from the priesthood for good reason. Another poster gave a link to a CAF article that says, “Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem. Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.” The very fact that someone has homosexual tendencies indicates that they have a mental disorder, which is often accompanied with other mental problems.

That 95% statistic is definitely inaccurate as many were under 14.

Shouldn’t the priest consult with his superiors before making statements that would impact the Catholic Church or are Catholic priests allowed to speak freely on any topic? Could a priest speak out in the press with a Pro-Choice position for an example?

Unlike being pro-abortion being openly gay per se isn’t explicitly against any Catholic teaching

 

[zamyrabyrd]

In practice there doesn’t seem to be much of an issue regarding gay men having male roommates. While heterosexual men don’t seem to be very capable of having a genuinely platonic relationship with women, gay men seem to be able to pull it off fine.

Says you. So many kids get started on that path by molestation by an older adult.

The Catholic Church doesn’t consider it a mental illness.

OK, deviant.

They don’t realize it because they never thought about it.

Plenty have indeed thought about it and what are the limits in polite society to flaunt it.

That 95% statistic is definitely inaccurate as many were under 14.

This figure was taken from studies, where are your sources?

Unlike being pro-abortion being openly gay per se isn’t explicitly against any Catholic teaching

Those in a position of authority scandalizing others and making it seem as though this is identity, not behavior, sure is.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Says you. So many kids get started on that path by molestation by an older adult.

There is no solid evidence that child sexual abuse makes people LGB other than assertions that gay men molesting boys makes them into gay men who molest boys.

OK, deviant.

And every man, heterosexual or homosexual, who has every been involved in fellatio with a male or female is a filthy sodomite. No need for bellicose rhetoric, all it does is degrade the conversation.

Plenty have indeed thought about it and what are the limits in polite society to flaunt it.

In polite society it is unacceptable to talk about your spouse or have a photo of you and them on your desk at work?

This figure was taken from studies, where are your sources?

The John Jay Report for example

Forty-three percent of clerics are said to have offended against children younger than age 12, and the majority of abusive acts were focused upon boys
(80%).

a 12 year old is most definitely not post-pubescent.

Those in a position of authority scandalizing others and making it seem as though this is identity, not behavior, sure is.

Identifying as gay is an identity.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

There is no solid evidence that child sexual abuse makes people LGB other than assertions that gay men molesting boys makes them into gay men who molest boys.

Here we go again as with the often heard:“give me solid proof Scripture is true”! This is freely admitted so much that all you have to do is Google it. This is called “initiation”, so admired by the National Socialists when trying to imitate what they thought was Ancient Greek macho militarism, also echoed by Yukio Mishima.

And every man, heterosexual or homosexual, who has every been involved in fellatio with a male or female is a filthy sodomite. No need for bellicose rhetoric, all it does is degrade the conversation.

This is why I hate discussing this subject, it inevitably degrades into racy, rude speech.

In polite society it is unacceptable to talk about your spouse or have a photo of you and them on your desk at work?

No problem since that is the only kind of spouse there is.

The John Jay Report for example

Relating to your first comment as well: "The John Jay study found that, ‘Like in the general population, child sex abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse.’ According to the study, “many (abusers) appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse…The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male.” Not Holy Writ, but still very high.

a 12 year old is most definitely not post-pubescent.

Still a kid.

Identifying as gay is an identity.

Not according to the Catholic Church, it is a behavior. In other words, NOT born that way.

 

[clem456]

It’s almost impossibe for a layman to write a coherent article about the Catholic Church. Terms are confused, teaching is misunderstood, the Pope’s words are used incorrectly.
It’s like me trying to write a chemistry paper.
I don’t know WTH I am talking about when it comes to chemistry.

And so, here we have jounalists wading into religious philosophy and moral theology, who have not the slightest clue what they are talking about.
That’s what really fries me about this article, not the fact that a priest has a weakness.

So, what do I care what this priest thinks about in his private moments of temptation?
Do you all want to know what I think about? I hardly think so. Why would I want to know that a priest thinks about men when he walks down the street?

Or is he a practicing homosexual?
That would be different than a priest having sexual thoughts about men.

Really, what is the article about, other than a weak attack against what the Church teaches? What’s the point?

 

[zamyrabyrd]

So, what do I care what this priest thinks about in his private moments of temptation?
Do you all want to know what I think about? I hardly think so. Why would I want to know that a priest thinks about men when he walks down the street?
Or is he a practicing homosexual?
That would be different than a priest having sexual thoughts about men.

I don’t care to hear that either and don’t see how that is different.

 

[clem456]

I don’t care to hear that either and don’t see how that is different.

Temptations are temptations.
Practicing is practicing.
Two related but different things with different consequences in the eyes of the Church.

The article is so ambiguous I cannot figure out exactly what they mean by he’s “gay”.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Temptations are temptations.
Practicing is practicing.
Two related but different things with different consequences in the eyes of the Church.
The article is so ambiguous I cannot figure out exactly what they mean by he’s “gay”.

You’re right, the article is equivocal, leading the reader by the nose, rather than appealing to the brain.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Here we go again as with the often heard:“give me solid proof Scripture is true”! This is freely admitted so much that all you have to do is Google it. This is called “initiation”, so admired by the National Socialists when trying to imitate what they thought was Ancient Greek macho militarism, also echoed by Yukio Mishima.

See, the problem is that while those who identify as gay are more likely to report being sexually abused as children (correlation) there is no solid evidence to indict that the sex abuse caused their sexuality (causation).

This is why I hate discussing this subject, it inevitably degrades into racy, rude speech.

You called them deviants.

No problem since that is the only kind of spouse there is.

There is only one kind of spouse, so is that husbands or wives? Because if husband is a kind of spouse and there is only one kind of spouse so what are wives? Or is it the other way around?

Relating to your first comment as well: "The John Jay study found that, ‘Like in the general population, child sex abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse.’ According to the study, “many (abusers) appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse…The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male.” Not Holy Writ, but still very high.

Still a kid.

My point is precisely that we are talking about pre-pubescent or early in puberty not post-pubescent as you said

I read your link which is similar to a cross-reference in this blog.
catholic.com/blog/karl-keating/myth-buster

In fact, it shocked me to learn from both articles that:

"The National Review Board, recruiting a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, released its initial report in 2004. The results were conclusive: This was not a “pedophile” scandal, but a homosexual scandal. Eighty percent of the alleged victims were male, and nearly 90 percent were post-pubescent, with “only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.” An updated report, issued in 2011, revealed similar numbers: 81 percent of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were post-pubescent."
taken from: churchmilitant.com/news/article/priestly-sex-abuse-would-not-have-happened-without-homosexuals

And also different from what Karl Keating said

Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem.

Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.

Not according to the Catholic Church, it is a behavior. In other words, NOT born that way.

Having checked the CCC and various encyclicals I have never found that to be the case.

 

[unafraid]

I am mortified that in this post-clerical sex abuse environment, when so much damage has been done, and our church is found still bleeding from such scandals, that there is debate on this subject. What have we learned?! It is this: Homosexuals should NEVER be allowed to serve as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Never! The two states of being are diametrically opposed, and the overwhelming evidence supporting this fact is irrefutable. Homosexuality and the priesthood has proven to be a toxic combination.

On this feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, let’s reflect upon the sacredness of purity, and remember what are true beliefs are, and what we, as Catholics, really stand for.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

See, the problem is that while those who identify as gay are more likely to report being sexually abused as children (correlation) there is no solid evidence to indict that the sex abuse caused their sexuality (causation).

Not at all, it is freely admitted that this is the introduction into the life style. It hasn’t escaped the notice of astute adults that the sexualization of the schools is precisely to lower the age of consent.

You called them deviants.

Deviant behavior is to deviate from the norm. Are you insulted by this?

There is only one kind of spouse, so is that husbands or wives? Because if husband is a kind of spouse and there is only one kind of spouse so what are wives? Or is it the other way around?.

According to Christian teaching there is only one husband for one wife. You can’t have two of the same kind, only different. This was only commonsense 40 years ago, not to mention in almost all recorded history of high civilizations (not when they disintegrated).

My point is precisely that we are talking about pre-pubescent or early in puberty not post-pubescent as you said…And also different from what Karl Keating said.

I don’t know what point you are trying to make by splitting hairs about age.

Having checked the CCC and various encyclicals I have never found that to be the case.

Let’s put it this way, if it is identity, then it is God-given (a conflict that one poster was trying to sort out for himself on this forum). But it would be a contradiction in terms not to mention natural law, if you don’t want to recognize a religious explanation. In fact, that is what so objectionable about the article, that the poor guy just couldn’t keep his orientation to himself even if it is against Church teaching and practice. This to me, is playing to the peanut galleries, trolling for attention and sympathy outside the Church, pretty pathetic.

 

[unafraid]

I am mortified that in this post-clerical sex abuse environment, when so much damage has been done, and our church is found still bleeding from such scandals, that there is debate on this subject. What have we learned?! It is this: Homosexuals should NEVER be allowed to serve as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Never! The two states of being are diametrically opposed, and the overwhelming evidence supporting this fact is irrefutable. Homosexuality and the priesthood has proven to be a toxic combination.

On this feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, let’s reflect upon the sacredness of purity, and remember what are true beliefs are, and what we, as Catholics, really stand for.

 

[GEddie]

Unlike being pro-abortion being openly gay per se isn’t explicitly against any Catholic teaching

Depending on how “openly gay” is defined.

Making a public issue of gay identity or gay pride certainly is.

ICXC NIKA

 

[unafraid]

Depending on how “openly gay” is defined.

Making a public issue of gay identity or gay pride certainly is.

ICXC NIKA

There is no ambiguity in church teaching regarding homosexuality. While we are commanded to be merciful, we are clearly instructed that carnal activities between members of the same sex are abominations in the sight of God.

God declared the veracity of these things to man both in the Law, and by His Holy Word( Jesus). Homosexual priests, like the moneychangers in the Temple, would be removed by Christ from His Holy Church in much the same way. Our Lord was very clear in His actions and His deeds. Jesus and th Church are ONE: that is why we kneel before His Holy Alter.

You see, Jesus Christ, Son of God, reached out to repentant sinners with an unmatched mercy, but to those who would defile a Holy Place, he was clear in His negative reaction.

Homosexual priests upon His Holy Alter, officiating at Mass, must be a great affront to Him. We should ALL feel the shame. There is no place in our Church for such things. It is a grave offense to the lord.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Not at all, it is freely admitted that this is the introduction into the life style. It hasn’t escaped the notice of astute adults that the sexualization of the schools is precisely to lower the age of consent.

What do you think they are trying to lower the age of consent to, 16? 14?

Deviant behavior is to deviate from the norm. Are you insulted by this?

Sodomites engage in sodomy and fellatio is sodomy therefore anyone who has engaged in fellatio is a sodomite, are you insulted by that fact?

According to Christian teaching there is only one husband for one wife. You can’t have two of the same kind, only different. This was only commonsense 40 years ago, not to mention in almost all recorded history of high civilizations (not when they disintegrated).

My point is there are two kinds of spouses, husbands and wives.

I don’t know what point you are trying to make by splitting hairs about age.

Homosexuals are attracted to post-pubescent males.

Let’s put it this way, if it is identity, then it is God-given (a conflict that one poster was trying to sort out for himself on this forum). But it would be a contradiction in terms not to mention natural law, if you don’t want to recognize a religious explanation. In fact, that is what so objectionable about the article, that the poor guy just couldn’t keep his orientation to himself even if it is against Church teaching and practice. This to me, is playing to the peanut galleries, trolling for attention and sympathy outside the Church, pretty pathetic.

There are other forms of identities such as nationality, race, ethnicity, language and culture.

There is no ambiguity in church teaching regarding homosexuality. While we are commanded to be merciful, we are clearly instructed that carnal activities between members of the same sex are abominations in the sight of God.

God declared the veracity of these things to man both in the Law, and by His Holy Word( Jesus). Homosexual priests, like the moneychangers in the Temple, would be removed by Christ from His Holy Church in much the same way. Our Lord was very clear in His actions and His deeds. Jesus and th Church are ONE: that is why we kneel before His Holy Alter.

You see, Jesus Christ, Son of God, reached out to repentant sinners with an unmatched mercy, but to those who would defile a Holy Place, he was clear in His negative reaction.

Homosexual priests upon His Holy Alter, officiating at Mass, must be a great affront to Him. We should ALL feel the shame. There is no place in our Church for such things. It is a grave offense to the lord.

Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they are engaging in sex.

 

[adowcday]

I am mortified that in this post-clerical sex abuse environment, when so much damage has been done, and our church is found still bleeding from such scandals, that there is debate on this subject. What have we learned?! It is this: Homosexuals should NEVER be allowed to serve as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Never! The two states of being are diametrically opposed, and the overwhelming evidence supporting this fact is irrefutable. Homosexuality and the priesthood has proven to be a toxic combination.

Homosexual priests are no more responsible for the clergy sex abuse crisis than are straight priests. Research shows that gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. Celibacy doesn’t seem to be a determining factor, either, by the way. 80 percent of the victims were male, but many offenders assaulted children of both sexes. For example, Fr. Maciel abused boys and fathered children with several women. One factor in the preponderance of male abuse victims may have been that priest abusers had better access to boys; an adult male couldn’t go on overnight trips with girls or take them away from home unchaperoned.

The Church may be opposed to homosexual priests for a number of reasons, including scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior, but the clergy sexual abuse scandal shouldn’t be one of the reasons for that opposition.

 

[unafraid]

Homosexual priests are no more responsible for the clergy sex abuse crisis than are straight priests. Research shows that gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. Celibacy doesn’t seem to be a determining factor, either, by the way. 80 percent of the victims were male, but many offenders assaulted children of both sexes. For example, Fr. Maciel abused boys and fathered children with several women. One factor in the preponderance of male abuse victims may have been that priest abusers had better access to boys; an adult male couldn’t go on overnight trips with girls or take them away from home unchaperoned.

The Church may be opposed to homosexual priests for a number of reasons, including scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior, but the clergy sexual abuse scandal shouldn’t be one of the reasons for that opposition.

The clergy sex abuse scandals should be of paramount consideration, when advocating for the absolute ban of homosexuals ever gaining the honor of becoming Roman Catholic priests. This is unarguable fact; unless one is party to an underlying homosexual agenda designed to harm the Church. Any attempt at arguing against this truth, with the preponderance of evidence supporting this reality, betrays a bias…or worse, a subversive perspective.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

What do you think they are trying to lower the age of consent to, 16? 14? Homosexuals are attracted to post-pubescent males.

So who is attracted to pre-pubescent boys? Taking the 81% of sex abuse cases are man on boy (which might be a low figure), this shows disproportionate pederast molestation if in the general population the percentage of homosexuals is around 2%.

Just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they are engaging in sex

Conceivably, not while they are speaking about it but promoting the lifestyle is almost as bad and certainly should not come from a priest.

Sodomites engage in sodomy and fellatio is sodomy therefore anyone who has engaged in fellatio is a sodomite, are you insulted by that fact?

I really didn’t want to answer you because of your rude language. so I’ll stop here. The “in your face” is typical and some of them do love to talk about it…