'I’m gay and I’m a priest, period.’

[Thorolfr]

The disorder is not just about attraction or orientation but a package of values. If I haven’t witnessed it over and over personally, I wouldn’t have believed it but it is logical, considering the damage that this movement is wreaking in Western countries. When one (name removed by moderator)ut idea is changed, the whole setup likewise follows suit. The end result is the destruction of natural marriage which in turn will take down our civilization just as happened in the Fall of the Roman Empire.

There is the narcissistic element already present in a decadent society but exponentially increased with loving one’s own sex. The fact that so many of these unions fall apart after a few years or that they can only be held together by the possibility of letting off steam with outside relations just shows the basic psychological incompatibility of two people of the same gender. This becomes exponentially worse with women who don’t have the checks and balances of a male figure, the most probable reason for the higher percentages of violence in their communities.

The basic lack of complimentarity is at the basis of freely admitted promiscuity, in turn, rampant disease. Also known to them is the importance of getting them early, recruitment, that is. If a kid can be convinced he is she is already gay due to phases of attraction during adolescence that would not registered a blip in the past, then the pool is increased. This is a devious consequence of having so-called gay and straight alliances in schools, to reinforce passing whims, to inflate the importance of identifying with a particular sexuality.

All of the above and more cannot be reconciled to religion, any religion. People weren’t stupid in the past, even outside Christianity. They knew how this is not just a personal disorder but chaos making for everyone.

Women need to be checked by men, gay people increase their numbers by “recruiting” young people, it’s all going to lead to the downfall of Western civilization, etc., etc…one tired old stereotype after another.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The disorder is not just about attraction or orientation but a package of values. If I haven’t witnessed it over and over personally, I wouldn’t have believed it but it is logical, considering the damage that this movement is wreaking in Western countries. When one (name removed by moderator)ut idea is changed, the whole setup likewise follows suit. The end result is the destruction of natural marriage which in turn will take down our civilization just as happened in the Fall of the Roman Empire.

There is the narcissistic element already present in a decadent society but exponentially increased with loving one’s own sex. The fact that so many of these unions fall apart after a few years or that they can only be held together by the possibility of letting off steam with outside relations just shows the basic psychological incompatibility of two people of the same gender. **This becomes exponentially worse with women who don’t have the checks and balances of a male figure, the most probable reason for the higher percentages of violence in their communities. **

The basic lack of complimentarity is at the basis of freely admitted promiscuity, in turn, rampant disease. Also known to them is the importance of getting them early, recruitment, that is. If a kid can be convinced he is she is already gay due to phases of attraction during adolescence that would not registered a blip in the past, then the pool is increased. This is a devious consequence of having so-called gay and straight alliances in schools, to reinforce passing whims, to inflate the importance of identifying with a particular sexuality.

All of the above and more cannot be reconciled to religion, any religion. People weren’t stupid in the past, even outside Christianity. They knew how this is not just a personal disorder but chaos making for everyone.

More likely it is due to poverty and substance abuse both of which are strongly correlated with domestic violence rates.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

More likely it is due to poverty and substance abuse both of which are strongly correlated with domestic violence rates.

Oh, puleeze, the gay community is on the whole, richer and has more clout than your average struggling nuclear families.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Oh, puleeze, the gay community is on the whole, richer and has more clout than your average struggling nuclear families.

Gay white men are richer, everyone else is poorer, especially lesbians of color.

 

[Thorolfr]

Gay white men are richer, everyone else is poorer, especially lesbians of color.

Are you trying to destroy one of zamyrabyrd’s cherished stereotypes?

 

[CompSciGuy]

I’ve had male roommates- JUST roommates- and didn’t feel a desire to be wanton with them (I’m a woman). Proximity with the gender you find attractive doesn’t necessarily mean sin will follow. You can set your mind to not think that way, the same as a heterosexual person might make the decision to never find a married person attractive - or when they themselves marry to simply not look at the opposite sex that way. There’s a significant amount of choice here- you can choose to let your body control you, or you can control your body. I don’t see much difference between what a straight priest would go through vs what a gay priest would go through- both are expected to put a clamp on their sexual desires.

If a person is in such a situation that they are not allowed to have any kind of intimate romantic or sexual relationship in spite of their desire for it, and are then required to live with other people of a gender they are attracted to, and are around them 24/7, then it could be a problem. In your roommate example, if your roommate wasn’t dating anyone and for some reason wasn’t allowed to, or it was not possible for him to, then rooming with you could be a potential issue for them. Even if nothing happened between you, it could be a major chastity issue for him.

I doubt that the rule would exist if it were not for the fact that it has caused problems in the past.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Another thing - perhaps someone can shed some light on this…

What does ‘deep-seated’ homosexual tendencies actually mean (I’m English, so of course, I am now giggling at this term!)

I believe in the context of seminary training its means unable to be “cured” of homosexual tendencies.

So, is saying those with ‘deep-seated’ tendencies similar to saying straight men with problems controlling their lust for women aren’t cut out to be priests?

St Paul would agree with you. It is better to marry than burn with desire.

While I am in question-asking mode, the term, “intrinsically disordered act” always gets me thinking. If acting on homosexal feelings i.e. having same sex physical relations, or deliberatley encouraging and enjoying lustful thoughts, is what is ‘disordered’ (as we are talking about an 'intrinsically dispordered act’) then is it fair / unfair to describe the man himself as ‘disordered’?

Both acts and physical dispositions can be said to be disordered. However the first is of the moral order (ie disordered acts are sins] the second the physical.
If the sexual organs and sexual tendancies are not integrated as reason suggests they should be for reproductive purposes then that suggests a disorder at the physical level.

What exactly do we mean by ‘disordered’ anyway? Do we mean ‘against the natural order’? I often wonder if this phrase somehow loses some meaning in translation because there is a risk of interpreting it as though the homosexual man is, in himself, somehow sub-human, rather than a human being lovingly created by God and with a purpose in life and a right to life.

Mother nature gets the order of nature wrong in so many ways. Handicapped persons are just as “human” as anybody else despite their “disorder”.

I’ve always thought of it as meaning ‘against the norm’ - contrary to the way human bodies are designed to function and respond. That way, it is a defect for which the affected person is not responsible, any more than, say, a person on the autistic spectrum is responsible for his / her condition. It does not undemine the humanity of the person, or their ability to be a wonderful human being.

I agree with you, that is pretty much what the Church means by “disorder” at the physical level it seems to me.

However, even though a homosexual person can’t help but be attracted to the same sex, as a human being with free will, he has the capability of controlling his behaviour and living according to the teaching of the Church.

At 56 years of age I think free-will is highly over-estimated in the area of sexuality and youth.

However, to be living in the secular world as a cellibate person, knowing that you will never enjoy a physical relationship with a person with whom you can form that deep connection that marraige and physical intimacy bring…That’s a massive cross to bear!

I agree with you. More so now when withdrawal from sexual relationships (for whatever reason) means pretty much a denial of all chance of deep human intimacy. We live in an age where intimacy and sex are almost synonomous. Everyone deserves a hope of intimacy outside of a sexual relationship with whoever “fits”. I admire Pope JPII all the more for having the courage and humility to accept the love of that woman. Such a chance for a priest is very rare now, and many priests would prob reject such a possibility as their training would lead them to believe neither sex nor intimacy is on the table.
Although their are difficulties to consider - the husband! Any relationship with a priest that causes a husband to be left in the cold, or marital difficulties escaped, would seem wrong to me. I wonder how JPII’s relationship handled that issue .

 

[CompSciGuy]

If a kid can be convinced he is she is already gay due to phases of attraction during adolescence that would not registered a blip in the past, then the pool is increased. This is a devious consequence of having so-called gay and straight alliances in schools, to reinforce passing whims, to inflate the importance of identifying with a particular sexuality.

Not that this is entirely related… but I remember in high school there were some girls who claimed to identify as bisexual. The thing is, I only ever saw them dating guys. It made me wonder if they were only saying it to get attention.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Are you trying to destroy one of zamyrabyrd’s cherished stereotypes?

It is a common misconception.

If a person is in such a situation that they are not allowed to have any kind of intimate romantic or sexual relationship in spite of their desire for it, and are then required to live with other people of a gender they are attracted to, and are around them 24/7, then it could be a problem. In your roommate example, if your roommate wasn’t dating anyone and for some reason wasn’t allowed to, or it was not possible for him to, then rooming with you could be a potential issue for them. Even if nothing happened between you, it could be a major chastity issue for him.

I doubt that the rule would exist if it were not for the fact that it has caused problems in the past.

LGBT people can have emotionally intimate relationships with people of the same sex.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Are you trying to destroy one of zamyrabyrd’s cherished stereotypes?

Not mine, they have more disposable income than those struggling to feed kids:
homearoundtheworld.com/page/gay-travel-stats-2

*“Gay men and lesbians travel more, own more homes and cars, spend more on electronics, and have the largest amount of disposable income of any niche market.”

“Lesbians and gay men are a dream market for the tourism industry.”

• Based on tourism industry data, the annual economic impact of LGBT travellers is approximately $63 billion in the US alone.

Gay People have higher disposable Incomes:
• For gay men and women, the average household income is $81,500 per year, almost 80% above the average U.S. household income of $46,326.

• 40% of gay men reported household incomes in excess of $100,000 per year. 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000 per year.

• Gay men and lesbians with household incomes of $250,000+ travel more, spend more and cruise more than other gays and lesbians and indicate they prefer places that are restful, luxury oriented, and either mostly LGBT or exclusively gay.

• Over 55% of gay men and 65% of lesbians are partnered or live with a significant other.

Higher Incomes = More Travel:
• 83% of U.S. lesbian and gay men have a current passport, compared to 34% of all adult US citizens.

• Gay men and lesbians travel more widely than their mainstream counterparts both domestically and internationally and those with higher incomes travel even more frequently, especially for leisure purposes.*

Quite frankly, fake victimhood makes me want to puke, remembering how we were all supposed to feel sorry for “victims” of AIDS 30 years ago because some people just could not control themselves the same way they are still spreading it now.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

So…are gay women told not to be nuns for the same reason?

I hate to tell you the stories going around my all girls’ high school.

Being attracted to the same gender versus wanting to have sex with children are two completely different things.

Then why are the molestation rates for same sexers much higher than in the general population? I can give two idea and they are not mutually exclusive. 1) If the initiation into this lifestyle comes from molestation, then frequently there is a compulsion to repeat the trauma. 2) The ideal of male beauty as in the film “Death in Venice” (although honestly I don’t think Gustav Mahler was attracted to men), is that young, nubile, in some ways even feminine combination that is supposed to be so irresistible. It is known that precisely the downside of this lifestyle is just that, getting old and thrown away like last week’s garbage.

Heterosexuals get AIDS, too. If these priests would stick to their vows of chastity–whether they are homosexual or heterosexual–they won’t get AIDS.

That may be true but the percentages are much lower. Then again, as with molestation if all things are equal they should have the same rates, but they don’t. Also it is known that “bi’s” frequently infect their at home mates.

WHO has psychological problems? People who are homosexual???!!! .

If attraction does comes from molestation, trauma or neglect of a stable father figure, then yes, there are psychological problems mixed in. That is why reparative therapy (assuming it is good) should not be forbidden. There may be other pressing problems that a person might want to get at the root at.

 

[clem456]

It’s good for parishioners to be aware that there are many gay priests, probably way more than people think.
Since gay men cannot marry in the church, becoming a priest most likely becomes more of a vocation to many.

Priesthood is a vocation.

Allowing priests with SSA to be open about it would certainly dispel the belief among many that the Catholic church “hates” gay people.

Catholics simply need to stop hating. We all do it to one degree or another. No excuse. A person’s sexual thoughts and struggles should not be a focus of their ministry. There might be some called to speak about certain things pastorally, but///

For those who say gay men should not be allowed to be priests…I think if we take away all the gay priests in the world, you would be shocked at how the number of priests are greatly reduced.

I don’t agree but this is a matter of speculation anyway. I know a lot of priests and don’t know one single sexually active priest or either inclination.
We had one who acted out improperly here 30 years ago and that is it.
I don’t think stereotypes help anything.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

It’s good for parishioners to be aware that there are many gay priests, probably way more than people think.
Since gay men cannot marry in the church, becoming a priest most likely becomes more of a vocation to many.

For the young people who are gay and have been made to feel badly about it by some people, it will make them feel better about themselves–and remind them that being gay is far from being a “sin”.

And for those who bully or make gay youths feel bad about themselves, I would hope it would help prevent that.

Allowing priests with SSA to be open about it would certainly dispel the belief among many that the Catholic church “hates” gay people.

And, the priest can be a good example to other gay kids/adults to follow doctrine and be celibate.
Instead of all this conversion therapy talk…how about a gay priest who talks to the kids? Much better.

For those who say gay men should not be allowed to be priests…I think if we take away all the gay priests in the world, you would be shocked at how the number of priests are greatly reduced.
In this day when everyone is trying to build the number of priests and not lower it…it would not be a good thing.

For those who say removing gay priests will solve the child-sexual-abuse problem…ssa and pedophelia are two very different things, for goodness sakes. Read up on it.
And if you think removing gay men from the priesthood would solve it…then you’d have to remove heterosexual men from the priesthood, too, because young girls have also been sexually abused.
And…you’d have to remove gay women from being nuns…
etc, etc…

.

Thank you for these comments. It is worth repeating over and over so that perhaps one day it will sink in.

One of the dilemmas that many gay clergy express (to me, at least) is… do I stay in the Church in hopes that things/attitudes will change? Or do I leave so I can be who I am? I have seen many friends struggle. Of the ones who have left, many are now priests in the Episcopal Church. Good for us - they are the brightest and best. Of the ones who stay, some are ‘out’ and some are a bit quieter about it.

 

[clem456]

Thank you for these comments. It is worth repeating over and over so that perhaps one day it will sink in.

One of the dilemmas that many gay clergy express (to me, at least) is… do I stay in the Church in hopes that things/attitudes will change? Or do I leave so I can be who I am? I have seen many friends struggle. Of the ones who have left, many are now priests in the Episcopal Church. Good for us - they are the brightest and best. Of the ones who stay, some are ‘out’ and some are a bit quieter about it.

That’s a fairly rigid black and white viewpoint.

Either
The Church changes it’s “attitude”
Or
I leave the Church to live my life the way I want.

How about option 3
I remain celibate.
Or option 4
If I can’t remain celibate, I do what I need to do, in order to be conformed to Christ. Not sure what priests who can’t stay our of sexual relationships do. Not my area.
Other options?

Your 2 rigid options are entirely centered on the self.
Either others change to conform to me, or I leave to go someplace where life suits me.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

That’s a fairly rigid black and white viewpoint.

Either
The Church changes it’s “attitude”
Or
I leave the Church to live my life the way I want.

How about option 3
I remain celibate.
Or option 4
If I can’t remain celibate, I do what I need to do, in order to be conformed to Christ. Not sure what priests who can’t stay our of sexual relationships do. Not my area.
Other options?

Your 2 rigid options are entirely centered on the self.
Either others change to conform to me, or I leave to go someplace where life suits me.

Not MY options. I’m just sharing what friends seem to be struggling with. Are they rigid options? I don’t think so. Vocation is always a struggle and a fluid one at that, don’t you think? Discerning where God wants us?

 

[Thorolfr]

If attraction does comes from molestation, trauma or neglect of a stable father figure, then yes, there are psychological problems mixed in. That is why reparative therapy (assuming it is good) should not be forbidden. There may be other pressing problems that a person might want to get at the root at.

As usual, your analysis of what “causes” homosexuality is overly simplistic. The issue of sexual orientation is much more complicated than you try to make it sound. Even if the number of gay men, for example, who report having been sexually abused is significantly higher than that of straight men who report having been sexually abuse, the majority of gay men still do not report any such abuse. So for most gay men, another “cause” must be found.

Also, establishing a causal link between having been abused in some way and being homosexual is very difficult to do. A very high percentage of gay men report having been gender non-conforming as children and the higher rates of abuse could just as likely arise from such children being more likely to be targeted for abuse by sexual predators or even parents.

 

[clem456]

Not MY options. I’m just sharing what friends seem to be struggling with. Are they rigid options? I don’t think so. Vocation is always a struggle and a fluid one at that, don’t you think? Discerning where God wants us?

I know a priest, 2 priests in fact, who left the priesthood for relationships.
One for a long term marriage, one for a fling. The flinger simply discovered he wasn’t called to celibacy.
No problem. He was an overall good man and friend who made a mistake and knows it, and he does not demand the Church change to meet him. He moved on and is furthering his education now.

Most priersts are chaste and probably struggle with it like everyone else. Married people struggle with chastity.

A vocation serves God. It is not about my own fulfillment alone. Fulfillment comes from serving God. No one forces a person to be a priest. It’s a free country, as they say. Likewise, it’s a free country for the practice of the faith.

 

[at9009]

That’s a fairly rigid black and white viewpoint.

Either
The Church changes it’s “attitude”
Or
I leave the Church to live my life the way I want.

How about option 3
I remain celibate.
Or option 4
If I can’t remain celibate, I do what I need to do, in order to be conformed to Christ. Not sure what priests who can’t stay our of sexual relationships do. Not my area.
Other options?

Your 2 rigid options are entirely centered on the self.
Either others change to conform to me, or I leave to go someplace where life suits me.

I apologize for the wall of text but here is my perspective

It is a kind of false dichotomy but for many they feel like its the only options sadly.

For me, Options 1-2 are there but neither is appealing to me.

Option 3: remain celibate and struggle to deal with this cross basically on my own because their is essentially no support within the church in my area.

So basically resolved to remain in the background at church because it often feels like my mere presence would make people uncomfortable if my SSA ever become known (and it feels implied it is my fault for any hostility I would experience because I didn’t keep it secret enough). This kind of encourages me to keep my distance at church and further isolating.

There aren’t a any single ministries (except pre-marriage counseling stuff) and often the 1st or 2nd question from people is if I’m dating (I’m at the dating/marriage age) and explaining why I’m not would require skillful deflection or mentioning my SSA eventually (so I guess that’s a no-no?). Not to mention it feels like if I mention my SSA, some people automatically (at least some in these forums and elsewhere) assume that I’m some especially broken person, plagued by probable substance abuse/mental disorders with a checkered sexual background, sexual abuse, bad parental relationships and that I’m apparently shoving my sexuality (or lack there of) in their face rather than the dorky/geeky celibate (striving to be chaste) virgin guy I am (with a normal childhood, no abuse, and good parental relationships but who has this particular cross). Not to mention that despite saying that my primary identity should be only in Christ, they are often the same people who would then only see me as the broken SSA person rather than fellow brother in Christ.

Option 3 isn’t very appealing for many and often feels like more weights are added to this particular cross unnecessarily so many people move to options 1 or 2 because to them there doesn’t seem to be other options because 3 can feel unsustainable (it leads them to that false choice option).

Having high profile people who have SSA and are striving to live chastely can be extremely encouraging. You have celibate people like Eve Tushnet, Joseph Prever, and Ron Belagau who are in secular vocations who are trying to find a 4th option that is in accordance with Church teaching. A priest who is (I assume striving to live a holy and godly life within his vocation unless I see evidence otherwise) is helpful for many people, particularly teenagers dealing with SSA who are too afraid to talk to their parents or seek help from Christian leaders because of perceived hatred towards SSA individuals. Just my two cents on this particular loaded topic.

 

[clem456]

I apologize for the wall of text but here is my perspective

It is a kind of false dichotomy but for many they feel like its the only options sadly.

For me, Options 1-2 are there but neither is appealing to me.

Option 3: remain celibate and struggle to deal with this cross basically on my own because their is essentially no support within the church in my area.

So basically resolved to remain in the background at church because it often feels like my mere presence would make people uncomfortable if my SSA ever become known (and it feels implied it is my fault for any hostility I would experience because I didn’t keep it secret enough). This kind of encourages me to keep my distance at church and further isolating.

There aren’t a any single ministries (except pre-marriage counseling stuff) and often the 1st or 2nd question from people is if I’m dating (I’m at the dating/marriage age) and explaining why I’m not would require skillful deflection or mentioning my SSA eventually (so I guess that’s a no-no?). Not to mention it feels like if I mention my SSA, some people automatically (at least some in these forums and elsewhere) assume that I’m some especially broken person, plagued by probable substance abuse/mental disorders with a checkered sexual background, sexual abuse, bad parental relationships and that I’m apparently shoving my sexuality (or lack there of) in their face rather than the dorky/geeky celibate (striving to be chaste) virgin guy I am (with a normal childhood, no abuse, and good parental relationships but who has this particular cross). Not to mention that despite saying that my primary identity should be only in Christ, they are often the same people who would then only see me as the broken SSA person rather than fellow brother in Christ.

Option 3 isn’t very appealing for many and often feels like more weights are added to this particular cross unnecessarily so many people move to options 1 or 2 because to them there doesn’t seem to be other options because 3 can feel unsustainable (it leads them to that false choice option).

Having high profile people who have SSA and are striving to live chastely can be extremely encouraging. You have celibate people like Eve Tushnet, Joseph Prever, and Ron Belagau who are in secular vocations who are trying to find a 4th option that is in accordance with Church teaching. A priest who is (I assume striving to live a holy and godly life within his vocation unless I see evidence otherwise) is helpful for many people, particularly teenagers dealing with SSA who are too afraid to talk to their parents or seek help from Christian leaders because of perceived hatred towards SSA individuals. Just my two cents on this particular loaded topic.

We as Christians are terrible at living our call. That has to change. It’s always been a problem. I get it.
Isolation. Alienation. Being ostracized. Can’t fit into the local culture. Not quite welcome at the quiet gatherings of friends around the parish, where friends just spend time with those they are comfortable with, sharing their dreams and struggles. Hey, that’s me! (long story not related to SSA).
I think people should talk about SSA and a host of other issues, and more importantly, other people should listen. And think about incorporating people who are different from them into parish culture.

That fact that we all fail at being Christians doesn’t change what the priesthood is though. The priesthood simply is not about acting sexually.
Trying to change what the priesthood is won’t help.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other