'I’m gay and I’m a priest, period.’

[Rose71]

Thanks to those who have helped explain the meaning on ‘intrinsically disordered’.

My concluding post on this thread is that a cellibate man is a cellibate man. If he’s cellibate and has the support from his community, the mental strength and conviction in his beliefs to stay cellibate, then does it matter if he is homosexual or not?

Sounds simple eh?

Let’s look at that again…

“the support from his community” - that means religious community, parish community and his neighbourhood.

“the mental strength and conviction” - that’s infludenced by the above and the life of a priest can, I have no doubt, be incredibly demanding, draining and sometimes quite depressingly lonely at times.

So, maybe it’s up to all of us, as parishoners, to give something back to our priests and show some more appreciation and support for them in their vocation.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Yes, it is. They are surrounded by men throughout their formation and their ministry, so they will have a very difficult time remaining pure. It has been seen that homosexuals are largely responsible for the many sex abuse cases and many priests and even Bishops have died of AIDS and currently have HIV because they have found other homosexual men in the priesthood or outside of it. This, in addition to harming the priests themselves, is costing the Church a lot of money. They also have psychological problems that hinders their ability to guide their parishioners well.

It is interesting that for the most part, heterosexual priests can be chaste and celibate, but for the most part homosexual priests cannot. The reason of course is that the homosexual inclination is profoundly disordered, and becomes more like an addiction than anything else.

 

[clem456]

It is interesting that for the most part, heterosexual priests can be chaste and celibate, but for the most part homosexual priests cannot. The reason of course is that the homosexual inclination is profoundly disordered, and becomes more like an addiction than anything else.

I don’t think that is true in any verifiable way.

It may be true in that we had some people intentionally enter the priesthood for the purpose of engaging in such, but I don’t believe the same sex inclination is any more compulsory in nature than hetero.
The fact that same sex is dis-ordered does not make it more inherently addictive than hetero.

In any case, a priest is not called to be a sexually acting person.

 

[at9009]

It is interesting that for the most part, heterosexual priests can be chaste and celibate, but for the most part homosexual priests cannot. The reason of course is that the homosexual inclination is profoundly disordered, and becomes more like an addiction than anything else.

Okay so the reason that a homosexual inclination is considered profoundly disordered is because the object of the inclination cannot ever be morally permissible according to Catholic teaching. So the object, another person of the same sex, is objectively disordered because its the wrong object. The opposite corollary is that an opposite attraction is not objectively disordered but can be situationally disordered (i.e. attraction to someone other than a person’s spouse).

It does not say that a person with this particular cross is then suffering from an addition or anything or that they cannot control it and remain chaste/celibate. There are plenty of people with this inclination who are celibate and chaste (just as there are some that are not).

 

[Deus_tecum]

I don’t think that is true in any verifiable way.

It may be true in that we had some people intentionally enter the priesthood for the purpose of engaging in such, but I don’t believe the same sex inclination is any more compulsory in nature than hetero.
The fact that same sex is dis-ordered does not make it more inherently addictive than hetero.

In any case, a priest is not called to be a sexually acting person.

The promiscuity rate for male homosexuals is enormous with many of them having had over 500 different sexual partners. And please don’t tell me it is simply because they were denied marriage, because anyone can be roommates with anyone they want. Anyway that type of promiscuity is similar to addictive behavior.

 

[otjm]

The promiscuity rate for male homosexuals is enormous with many of them having had over 500 different sexual partners. And please don’t tell me it is simply because they were denied marriage, because anyone can be roommates with anyone they want. Anyway that type of promiscuity is similar to addictive behavior.

Which again, as to your post and clem456’s response, has nothing in particular to do with showing or not showing that homosexual priests are more or less sexually active as a group, and nothing whatsoever to do with the article which is the subject of this thread.

I know of no - as in, not any - studies showing the number or percentage of priests with SSA. And lacking any studies as to how many have SSA, your comment that “for the most part, homosexual priests cannot be chaste” is absolute pure unadulterated speculation.

Not fact. Pure speculation. And that adds absolutely nothing to this conversation, as there is at least an implication in your comment that the priest in the article either is not, or is highly likely to not be, chaste.

That borders on libel.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Which again, as to your post and clem456’s response, has nothing in particular to do with showing or not showing that homosexual priests are more or less sexually active as a group, and nothing whatsoever to do with the article which is the subject of this thread.

I know of no - as in, not any - studies showing the number or percentage of priests with SSA. And lacking any studies as to how many have SSA, your comment that “for the most part, homosexual priests cannot be chaste” is absolute pure unadulterated speculation.

Not fact. Pure speculation. And that adds absolutely nothing to this conversation, as there is at least an implication in your comment that the priest in the article either is not, or is highly likely to not be, chaste. That borders on libel.

Oh boy, get out the big guns when in politically incorrect territory!
The past two posts before yours, as I understood them, are pointing out that this is called a disordered tendency because of the object of attraction in question.
It’s pretty clear that in an environment with the same sex, those who are attracted to them would have a hard time, and vice versa.
The fact remains that the percentage of molestation by men on boy are much higher than in the rest of the general population when they comprise only 1.5 to 2% as a group. This alone should be a cause for alarm.
Promiscuity is another thing, not difficult to speculate why this is so.

 

[otjm]

Oh boy, get out the big guns when in politically incorrect territory!

Libel is not political incorrectness. It is a lie which is printed. Deus Tecum cited no facts to support his allegations.

The past two posts before yours, as I understood them, are pointing out that this is called a disordered tendency because of the object of attraction in question.

I believe you are confusing my posts with someone else’s, although I do not disagree with your statement.

It’s pretty clear that in an environment with the same sex, those who are attracted to them would have a hard time, and vice versa.

The OP was noting an article which did not indicate that the priest was “in an environment with the same sex”, so your comment is irrelevant to the article. In the seminary, yes, they would be in such an environment, but that is off topic. However, the topic is the priest, not seminaries; certainly that could be the subject of a different thread.

The fact remains that the percentage of molestation by men on boy are much higher than in the rest of the general population when they comprise only 1.5 to 2% as a group. This alone should be a cause for alarm.

I am not aware of your source of the percentage - which I presume you to mean the general population; Kinsey said 10% and it was fairly widely acknowledged that Kinsey lied. The statistics I have seen are about 3%. However, again, the topic is the article of the priest stating that he has SSA. I am well aware of the John Jay report and results, but that, too, is irrelevant to the article. Deus Tecum made an assertion that most homosexual priests cannot maintain celibacy, That is totally unsubstantiated. It also tends to the implication that the priest of the article either is not or is highly likely to not be celibate. Sorry, but I will stand by my comments to that.

Promiscuity is another thing, not difficult to speculate why this is so.

Again, this is irrelevant to the article and to the priest in the article. Let’s stick to the topic, instead of going off half cocked about all sorts of speculation that are irrelevant to the topic.

And while we are at it, it might do everyone a bit of good to review what the Church has to say about gossip. At this point, this thread certainly gives the impression of heading that direction.

It is not like I am some naive babe in the woods; I have had one pastor die, of publicly acknowledged AIDS. That was a tragedy of multiple dimensions, and I presume he died in reconciliation with the Church and God. As I have said, estimates circulated during and after the majority of the crises of abuse allegations, that anywhere from 10% to 80% of priests had SSA - and it was all speculation, because I have yet to find any legitimate study indicating how many have SSA.

Further, a woman acquaintance of mine got pregnant by a priest, who left his order and married her subsequently (“poor” is barely a description of that process), although 35+ years later they are still married. Celibacy is hard for many priests no matter what their sexual orientation - as I knew a number of priests who left and got married in the '60s through the '80s. Again, irrelevant to the article. Allegations that it is harder for priests with SSA to remain celibate than those who don’t have it are pure speculation and need to be called for what they are - to put it politely, poppycock.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Which again, as to your post and clem456’s response, has nothing in particular to do with showing or not showing that homosexual priests are more or less sexually active as a group, and nothing whatsoever to do with the article which is the subject of this thread.

I know of no - as in, not any - studies showing the number or percentage of priests with SSA. And lacking any studies as to how many have SSA, your comment that “for the most part, homosexual priests cannot be chaste” is absolute pure unadulterated speculation.

Not fact. Pure speculation. And that adds absolutely nothing to this conversation, as there is at least an implication in your comment that the priest in the article either is not, or is highly likely to not be, chaste.

That borders on libel.

Well, if homosexual priests were chaste, then why were the majority of boys molested post-pubescent? They were molested by homosexual priests. The number of post pubescent girls molested by heterosexual priests pales in comparison.

 

[estesbob]

Well, if homosexual priests were chaste, then why were the majority of boys molested post-pubescent? They were molested by homosexual priests. The number of post pubescent girls molested by heterosexual priests pales in comparison.

Correct 88% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubescent males.

 

[JimmyG88]

Yes, it is. They are surrounded by men throughout their formation and their ministry, so they will have a very difficult time remaining pure. It has been seen that homosexuals are largely responsible for the many sex abuse cases and many priests and even Bishops have died of AIDS and currently have HIV because they have found other homosexual men in the priesthood or outside of it. This, in addition to harming the priests themselves, is costing the Church a lot of money. They also have psychological problems that hinders their ability to guide their parishioners well.

So according to that it must be a well known fact that gay men feel attracted to all other males with a pulse and have absolutely no self restraint. Muddled thinking like that would simply make the aspiration of the church for all gay people to be celebrate virtually impossible. I didn’t realise that the church demanded things that were virtually impossible nor do I believe Almighty God has singled out a particular group to almost certain failure. If you are saying that they may need to overcome temptation, in the same way as other men then you are correct but your statement seems badly thought through theologically

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Libel is not political incorrectness. It is a lie which is printed. Deus Tecum cited no facts to support his allegations.

I believe you are confusing my posts with someone else’s, although I do not disagree with your statement. The OP was noting an article which did not indicate that the priest was “in an environment with the same sex”, so your comment is irrelevant to the article. In the seminary, yes, they would be in such an environment, but that is off topic. However, the topic is the priest, not seminaries; certainly that could be the subject of a different thread.

I am not aware of your source of the percentage - which I presume you to mean the general population; Kinsey said 10% and it was fairly widely acknowledged that Kinsey lied. The statistics I have seen are about 3%. However, again, the topic is the article of the priest stating that he has SSA. I am well aware of the John Jay report and results, but that, too, is irrelevant to the article. Deus Tecum made an assertion that most homosexual priests cannot maintain celibacy, That is totally unsubstantiated. It also tends to the implication that the priest of the article either is not or is highly likely to not be celibate. Sorry, but I will stand by my comments to that.

Again, this is irrelevant to the article and to the priest in the article. Let’s stick to the topic, instead of going off half cocked about all sorts of speculation that are irrelevant to the topic.

And while we are at it, it might do everyone a bit of good to review what the Church has to say about gossip. At this point, this thread certainly gives the impression of heading that direction.

It is not like I am some naive babe in the woods; I have had one pastor die, of publicly acknowledged AIDS. That was a tragedy of multiple dimensions, and I presume he died in reconciliation with the Church and God. As I have said, estimates circulated during and after the majority of the crises of abuse allegations, that anywhere from 10% to 80% of priests had SSA - and it was all speculation, because I have yet to find any legitimate study indicating how many have SSA.

Further, a woman acquaintance of mine got pregnant by a priest, who left his order and married her subsequently (“poor” is barely a description of that process), although 35+ years later they are still married. Celibacy is hard for many priests no matter what their sexual orientation - as I knew a number of priests who left and got married in the '60s through the '80s. Again, irrelevant to the article. Allegations that it is harder for priests with SSA to remain celibate than those who don’t have it are pure speculation and need to be called for what they are - to put it politely, poppycock.

I really don’t know what poppycock is, so I can’t catch the meaning of your statement. One assumes that there are homogeneous environments for religious men and women. Even after seminaries, they don’t often live with members of the opposite sex. So that in itself is a problem. No one accused the priest in the article of anything, except I thought it was inappropriate and even to some extent, whining.

I don’t see anyone going half-cocked about anything. That is speculation on your part, I’m afraid.

 

[ProdigalSun]

So according to that it must be a well known fact that gay men feel attracted to all other males with a pulse and have absolutely no self restraint. Muddled thinking like that would simply make the aspiration of the church for all gay people to be celebrate virtually impossible. I didn’t realise that the church demanded things that were virtually impossible nor do I believe Almighty God has singled out a particular group to almost certain failure. If you are saying that they may need to overcome temptation, in the same way as other men then you are correct but your statement seems badly thought through theologically

That is not what he is saying here, not sure where you come up with all this for your response. I think your reading comprehension is lacking here.

Peace!

 

[JimmyG88]

That is not what he is saying here, not sure where you come up with all this for your response. I think your reading comprehension is lacking here.

Peace!

I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with, either my reading or my powers of comprehension. I am completely nonplussed that you fail to understand the implications of the reactionary thinking expressed in the comments above. It seems to me that nothing is unclear

 

[otjm]

Well, if homosexual priests were chaste, then why were the majority of boys molested post-pubescent? They were molested by homosexual priests. The number of post pubescent girls molested by heterosexual priests pales in comparison.

The number of priests who molested boys has been put at about 3% of all priests.

Did I say all homosexual priests were chaste? Please remind me of the post number.

Shall we get back to the topic - which is the article the OP posted?

And while we are at it, since you seem to not want to stay on topic, please cite the study which shows that “for the most part, homosexual priests cannot be chaste.”

 

[zamyrabyrd]

The number of priests who molested boys has been put at about 3% of all priests.

First of all, 3 out of 100 is not a small number if we are talking about victims. Again, this figure bears out the general profile, if not a slightly higher percentage of this group in the priesthood than in general society.

 

[Rose71]

Poppycock means ‘nonsense’

I wholeheartedly agree that for the victims, the knowledge that their abusers only made up 3% of all priests is not going to lessen their pain one iota and I don’t think anyone is suggesting it should.

I wonder (I don’t know of any published research, so it is just wondering) how many of the priests who were found guilty of abuse entered the priesthood via seminary schools. I’m wondering, because (as I have said before in this thread) many boys in the UK at least, who failed their 11+ exam and therefore would be forced to leave school aged 14 and almost certainly end up in a job with limited prospects were more or less told they had a vocation to religious life so they could enter a seminary school and be fed, clothed, educated and have the chance of a respectable career.

A boy of 10 or 11 years old may snigger at the word ‘sex’ and know the basic differences between male and female and even the mechanics of reproduction, but since the vast majority are pre-pubescent, how on earth would they know if they are straight or gay?

Once in the system, it was incredibly difficult for a boy, or young man to turn round to his family and say, “actually, no, I’m not cut out for this and it’s not my vocation.” I can’t imagine what it would be like going through puberty in an all-male environment; being told you had been called by God to lead a cellibate life and knowing too, that this was basically the only way your family could afford (in a lot of cases) to have you fed, clothed and educated…and going through the hormone surges and the confusion that puberty brings everyone.

I believe, from what I have read, that homosexual tendencies are what people are born with, but also that some people have very definite and strong leanings one way or the other and some are, in effect, bissexual. Also, sex drive varies greatly and this can be dulled or exacerbated by environmental factors, including depression and mental illness.

I’m not excusing the behaviour of men who abuse children or men, or who break their vows with the consent of another man. I just wonder if the conditions that these men were expected to grow up in had a bearing on their behaviour? After all, Satan works best in secret and in days gone by, it would have been shameful enough for a young man to announce he was leaving the priesthood, or the seminary and even more so if his explanation was that he realised he was attracted to other men and was struggling to control his desires!

I’m going to repeat my earlier comment about ‘post-pubsescent’ boys too. Altar girls are a relatively new tradition and in days gone by, priests were much more likely to find themselves alone with boys than girls. Just because an assualt takes place on a boy who is post-pubescent, this is still child abuse as far as I can see - unless the victim was fully mentally and physically mature and resembled an adult man in every way.

 

[eamonnroma]

I wish this priest well, and will pray for him to havecontinued help and guidance in his priestly ministry.

 

[otjm]

First of all, 3 out of 100 is not a small number if we are talking about victims. Again, this figure bears out the general profile, if not a slightly higher percentage of this group in the priesthood than in general society.

If you want to get in the middle of a conversation, it helps to understand what the other person has said, and to which I am responding.

Your comments miss the point.

 

[otjm]

I wonder (I don’t know of any published research, so it is just wondering) how many of the priests who were found guilty of abuse entered the priesthood via seminary schools. I’m wondering, because (as I have said before in this thread) many boys in the UK at least, who failed their 11+ exam and therefore would be forced to leave school aged 14 and almost certainly end up in a job with limited prospects were more or less told they had a vocation to religious life so they could enter a seminary school and be fed, clothed, educated and have the chance of a respectable career.

I am only familiar with one high school seminary (which no longer exists). to enter that one, a boy had to pass an entrance exam. Most high school seminaries are now closed and gone.