I'm tired of the "Gay Priests Are Evil" stuff

[fix]

EJ79:

Then, my friend, there will REALLY be a priest shortage problem

Smaller and purer is fine by me. The Church started with only 12 and did fairly well.

, if not a crisis, and Rome will also have to figure out what to do with her already ordained “SSA-suffering clergy,” - hopefully with some regard and consideration to their reputations,

Who would know if they kept it to themselves an acted as they ought to act?

contributions, levels of sanctity and othodoxy, and (to spare the Church plenty of embarrassment) even their vertical locations within the hierarchy…not to mention seminaries, that will presumably have to develop a lie detector system when screening possible candidates.

They are evaluations made now for all types of things, they are not foolproof, but what is?

Or Rome could take a more balanced approach by screening and eliminating the “lavender mafia” type, immoral candidate, and the orthodox, healthy, faithful-minded candidate who may have some degree of SSA, and has proven to overcome it to the point of it becoming a non-issue.

A balanced approach would be to eliminate candidates with such a disorder. It would be fair to them and to the faithful.

 

[ChristFollower]

The Church started with only 12 and did fairly well.

• The RCC ?

 

[fix]

The Church started with only 12 and did fairly well.

• The RCC ?

Yes.

The apostles.

 

[EJ79]

fix:

Smaller and purer is fine by me. The Church started with only 12 and did fairly well.

Who would know if they kept it to themselves an acted as they ought to act?

They are evaluations made now for all types of things, they are not foolproof, but what is?

A balanced approach would be to eliminate candidates with such a disorder. It would be fair to them and to the faithful.

Please don’t misquote the Holy Father. He spoke of a “smaller and purer” community of believers within an entirely different context as that of this particular debate. And you’re right… “who would know?” … that’s the issue = if it’s a non-issue, it’s a non-issue…NEXT.

And just who are “they” and how are “they supposed to act”? Isn’t there a universal call to holiness that “we” are all called to hear and cooperate with?

With all due respect, you seem to contradict yourself. You don’t seem to have an issue with homosexual priests who don’t “act” homosexual and keep it to themselves - or at least towards those who you personally can’t identify as such - and if that’s the case, then we’re really arguing for the same thing, I just seem to do a better job avoiding clichés. Peace to you.

 

[felra]

EJ79:

Then, my friend, there will REALLY be a priest shortage problem, if not a crisis, …

I hardly think so. The priest shortage concern hardly rests on the rule out of homosexual seminarian candidates filling the slots. Besides, the actual problem is not a shortage of priests, but a shortage of holy priests.

 

[EJ79]

ChristFollower:

EJ79, I can’t judge someone regarding their salvation, but as a Christian I am to use sound judgement (discernment). I would especially apply the use of good judgement towards those I choose to be my spiritual leaders. A professed homosexual imho has not laid his life before the cross in order that he be reborn. To ask how dare I judge my spiritual leaders in this sense, I would answer “how dare you not?”.

I don’t know how to answer that other than by making a distinction between a priest who has been faithful from day one, and always will be, and a priest who has no intention of being faithful and is not. There is a huge distinction. To say that there isn’t is beyond unjust.

I have no idea what you mean by “professed” homosexual, I think that if we’re going to debate this issue seriously, we should start by getting our language right. There are also “professed” heterosexuals that “have not laid their lives before the cross” and are not “reborn.” There are homosexuals that are chaste and those that are not. Those capable of chastity and those that are not.

Therein lies the distinction - and it’s a very important distinction.

 

[fix]

EJ79:

Please don’t misquote the Holy Father. He spoke of a “smaller and purer” community of believers within an entirely different context as that of this particular debate. And you’re right… “who would know?” … that’s the issue = if it’s a non-issue, it’s a non-issue…NEXT.

I did not misquote anyone. I gave my opinion. Who would know is the issue. Those who have SSA would not be known if they did not speak of it or act on it. In that one sense it is a non issue.

And just who are “they” and how are “they supposed to act”? Isn’t there a universal call to holiness that “we” are all called to hear and cooperate with?

Yes, there is a call to holiness. The issue of SSA is relevant particularly when a priest starts acting on it and speaking about it in terms that are at odds with Church teaching. In other ways it can be a timebomb and by the time it goes off it is too late.

The call to holiness does not mean anything goes and ordination is an open door. As I said before there are certain obstacles to ordination that cannot be overcome.

With all due respect, you seem to contradict yourself. You don’t seem to have an issue with homosexual priests who don’t “act” homosexual and keep it to themselves - or at least towards those who you personally can’t identify as such - and if that’s the case, then we’re really arguing for the same thing, I just seem to do a better job avoiding clichés. Peace to you.

Perhaps I should make it clearer for you? Those who self identify, or can be identified in any authentic way, to have SSA should not be ordained. Those that are already ordained and have SSA should be left alone unless they act contrary to the mind of the church.

The larger issue is that many, or perhaps most, with the inclination act on it all too often and also tend toward heterodoxy. These issues often go together. Why do you minimize it by claiming such a serious disorder is always so easily overcome? The “gay” agenda is pervasive and well respected in too many seminaries and other areas of Church life. To handle this situation is to face it head on and deal with it, not use cliches as you do to marginalize it.

 

[EJ79]

felra:

I hardly think so. The priest shortage concern hardly rests on the rule out of homosexual seminarian candidates filling the slots. Besides, the actual problem is not a shortage of priests, but a shortage of holy priests.

This will be my last reply in this forum.

I was specifically referring to those HOLY seminarians, priests, bishops, etc. who also happen to be homosexual to some degree or other, and ofcourse, are chaste individuals. We do not always know who is or isn’t a homosexual - we can tell by the fruits of their labor, by their reputations, spirituality, etc., whether they are holy priests or not.

I was referring to a shortage of holy men, homosexually-oriented or not, who would suffer from an all out campaign of scapegoating and witchunting. I do not favor ordaining unholy, unchaste, unfaithful, self-serving men to the priesthood. I favor making a fair distinction between who is capable of leading a holy life as a priest, and who isn’t… but orientation in and of itself is not the only indicator of this!

Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater or punish the innocent in a misguided but well-intentioned effort to clean up the Church.

 

[EJ79]

fix:

I did not misquote anyone. I gave my opinion. Who would know is the issue. Those who have SSA would not be known if they did not speak of it or act on it. In that one sense it is a non issue.

Yes, there is a call to holiness.

Perhaps I should make it clearer for you? Those who self identify, or can be identified in any authentic way, to have SSA should not be ordained. Those that are already ordained and have SSA should be left alone unless they act contrary to the mind of the church.

The larger issue is that many, or perhaps most, with the inclination act on it all too often and also tend toward heterodoxy. These issues often go together. Why do you minimize it by claiming such a serious disorder is always so easily overcome? The “gay” agenda is pervasive and well respected in too many seminaries and other areas of Church life. To handle this situation is to face it head on and deal with it, not use cliches as you do to marginalize it.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist hitting back on this last one.

I do not marginalize anything, I make distinctions, very clear distinctions. You are not dealing with numbers here and statistics here, you are dealing with human beings.

Give me one graph proving what you say - and I quote you, “The larger issue is that many, or perhaps most, with the inclination act on it all too often and also tend toward heterodoxy.” Give me and the readers here any proof that this is true, that MOST will act on it. First of all, how do you know how many have the inclination to begin with? If is the larger issue as you say, then how do you base your convictions of this - other than by saying essentially that you expect those with SSA to “act on it all too often and also tend toward heterodoxy.”

"The issue of SSA is relevant particularly when a priest starts acting on it and speaking about it in terms that are at odds with Church teaching. In other ways it can be a timebomb and by the time it goes off it is too late. "

That is very unfortunate to say - that every priest with SSA is a walking timebomb. I will let that sink with its own bad smell.

And by the way, I NEVER said it was easy to overcome, but I did say it can be overcome. There may be heterosexual seminarians who come in with addictions to sex, alcohol, pornography, or who might have some other mental illness or trauma here or there - that can all be overcome, albeit not easily.

I will pray for you, and I ask that in charity you please pray for me also.

 

[ChristFollower]

To clarify, I say “professed” homosexual because a closet homosexual could be anyone’s spiritual leader and no one would be the wiser - it’s not that what they dont know wouldnt hurt them because the truth is that this person who is teaching God’s word is not only homosexual, but a liar as well.

 

[felra]

EJ79:

I favor making a fair distinction between who is capable of leading a holy life as a priest, and who isn’t… **but orientation in and of itself is not the only indicator of this! **

Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater or punish the innocent in a misguided but well-intentioned effort to clean up the Church.

But orientation in and of itself can be the primary/determining indicator of fitness for priesthood depending on the individual candidate. What I believe is still to be decided by the Church hierarchy, is whether or not a seminarian with a predominant homosexual orientation is a fit candidate for the priesthood. This does not preclude the person from living a life of chaste holiness and heroic virtue in a lay capacity.

However, what I believe many fail to appreciate is that the priest takes on the very priesthood of Jesus Christ Himself. I would think that proportionate to how pervasive to his identity is a seminarian’s homosexual orientation; this would pose a significant limitation (and unfitness) in his capacity to assume and function in the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Homosexual orientation shoud be evaluated and treated as an intrapersonal disorder in need of reparative therapy, not just the ability to remain celibate; as in, the “addict” needs to more than just abstain, he needs to be in ongoing recovery to reestablish/establish the fullnes of his capabilities for living.

My humble :twocents: .

 

[Robert_in_SD]

kev7:

No I would have a hard time trusting him. Being homosexual implies that you are having sex and in a state of sin.

That’s not what the Catechism teaches. There’s a distinction to be drawn between having same sex attraction on the one hand, and acting on that attraction. To be “homosexual” is to have that attraction, but it does not imply a “gay lifestyle” any more than a person’s status as an alcoholic implies that the person is presently drunk.

A person’s state of sin is determined by his or her actions not by his or her attractions.

That being said, I think homosexuals can be good priests if they remain chaste as all priests must, and conform their conduct and their teaching to the morals and doctrines professed by the Church. I do not think it is out of line, however, for homosexual priests to be assigned to locations and duties where they are less likely to be exposed to occasions for sexual sin. In other words, don’t assign homosexual priests to teen or young adult groups, or other such assignments where - history has shown - priests have harmed those under their pastoral care.

Peace

 

[fix]

EJ79:

I do not marginalize anything, I make distinctions, very clear distinctions. You are not dealing with numbers here and statistics here, you are dealing with human beings.

Very true. Does that mean we should overlook a serious disorder?

Give me one graph proving what you say - and I quote you, “The larger issue is that many, or perhaps most, with the inclination act on it all too often and also tend toward heterodoxy.”

Please see the last 5 or so years of homosexual abuse scandals in the Church.

Give me and the readers here any proof that this is true, that MOST will act on it.

Promescuity is rampant in the homosexual community. The disorder, particularly its expression in our current culture, has shown that many of those who suffer from it act on it. I can find studies if you wish. They have been posted on these fora many times.

First of all, how do you know how many have the inclination to begin with?

I do not know. Too many have it in the priesthood. How many exactly vary from study to study. Should we gamble with immortal souls?

If is the larger issue as you say, then how do you base your convictions of this - other than by saying essentially that you expect those with SSA to “act on it all too often and also tend toward heterodoxy.”

I think any reasonable person can see that dissent is plaguing the Church. Violations of the moral law are common among the heterodox and common knowledge reveals too often today those who act on homosexual tendencies within the Church are heterodox. Are you claiming, for example, that most of those priests involved in the recent scandals were noted for their orthodoxy?

That is very unfortunate to say - that every priest with SSA is a walking timebomb. I will let that sink with its own bad smell.

You disagree? I guess all those cases, and probably many never reported, are all imaginary? Why take the risk of ordaining those with a known serious disorder?

And by the way, I NEVER said it was easy to overcome, but I did say it can be overcome.

It is possible, but why do such individuals need to be placed in positions like that of a priest?

There may be heterosexual seminarians who come in with addictions to sex, alcohol, pornography, or who might have some other mental illness or trauma here or there - that can all be overcome, albeit not easily.

Who said those with such tendencies should be ordained either?

I will pray for you, and I ask that in charity you please pray for me also.

Thanks. I will. Please pray for me.

 

[felra]

Robert in SD:

That being said, I think homosexuals can be good priests if they remain chaste as all priests must, and conform their conduct and their teaching to the morals and doctrines professed by the Church. I do not think it is out of line, however, for homosexual priests to be assigned to locations and duties where they are less likely to be exposed to occasions for sexual sin. In other words, don’t assign homosexual priests to teen or young adult groups, or other such assignments where - history has shown - priests have harmed those under their pastoral care.

This post evidences a superficial understanding of the priesthood/holy orders and chastity. Fitness for priesthood needs objective along with subjective criteria for discerment of capacity and calling to the priesthood; not just good intentions.

 

[fix]

felra:

But orientation in and of itself can be the primary/determining indicator of fitness for priesthood depending on the individual candidate.

This is a central issue. Your friend, EJ79, fails to see that ordination is not some right. Many things may preclude one from ordination. Certainly a significant disorder, that may be volitile, like SSA should be one of those items that prohibit ordination.

That SSA may be overcome or alleviated does not mean it is a green light for any occupation. We have bought into the idea that SSA is not a psychological disorder and that there is a cure for each case.

Why would the priesthood, or the individual with SSA, suffer from a prohibition against ordination? IMO, we have accepted the faulty reasoning that homosexual inclination is just a variation of normal such as eye color. It is not insignificant.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

Very true. Does that mean we should overlook a serious disorder?

Please see the last 5 or so years of homosexual abuse scandals in the Church.

Promescuity is rampant in the homosexual community. The disorder, particularly its expression in our current culture, has shown that many of those who suffer from it act on it. I can find studies if you wish. They have been posted on these fora many times.

I do not know. Too many have it in the priesthood. How many exactly vary from study to study. Should we gamble with immortal souls?

I think any reasonable person can see that dissent is plaguing the Church. Violations of the moral law are common among the heterodox and common knowledge reveals too often today those who act on homosexual tendencies within the Church are heterodox. Are you claiming, for example, that most of those priests involved in the recent scandals were noted for their orthodoxy?

You disagree? I guess all those cases, and probably many never reported, are all imaginary? Why take the risk of ordaining those with a known serious disorder?

It is possible, but why do such individuals need to be placed in positions like that of a priest?

Who said those with such tendencies should be ordained either?

Thanks. I will. Please pray for me.

Hi fix!

Let me see if I understand your position correctly:

An individual with SSA should be denied access to the priesthood because:

1. 
   *]They are all ticking time bombs who will inevitably succumb to their temptations. They are compelled to do so, eventually they will have no choice.
   *]The nature of their condition prevents them from forming an orthodox spirituality.
   
   I guess the question is not so much why we would allow such a person into the priesthood as it is why we would bother allowing such a person into the Church. If they can never be made chaste, good Christians, then Courage and every ministry to the homosexual community is a lie and a fraud. They will never attain salvation and the only vocation that they are worthy of is eternal damnation. The distinction between temptation and act falls apart because the temptation now compels the act. We need not turn to the Word of God because we have perfectly good psychological treatises to back up the rampant promiscuity and disease that is the destiny of every homosexual.
   
   If, when presented with a man who has same-sex attraction, the Church’s point of view should be that this one temptation should predefine and govern the entire assessment of the candidate, then the decision of such a man to seat his entire identity in his sexuality is no longer unreasonable. It is, after all, what the Church would do. He is no longer a man who happens to have same-sex attraction, he is a “homosexual” and that word summarizes the sum total of his being. Everything else is a pointless detail.
   
   I admit, it’s a gloriously unifying point of view. It neatly explains why one can look to the calendar of saints and find murderers, thieves, traitors, adulterers, and all manner of assorted human vermin but not one who has struggled with this issue. So please, bring on every case study, analysis and psychological commentary you can find to illustrate how depraved, how untrustworthy and how invariably promiscuous and hedonistic these people are. Let us use these to dispense with the notion that such people have a prayer of ever seeing the face of God.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Let me see if I understand your position correctly:

An individual with SSA should be denied access to the priesthood because:

1. 
   *]They are all ticking time bombs who will inevitably succumb to their temptations. They are compelled to do so, eventually they will have no choice.
   *]The nature of their condition prevents them from forming an orthodox spirituality.

1. 
   They have a condition that is often unstable. In 1961 the Vatican had a directive that said they should not be ordained. I think that is a good idea. Is it a good idea to ordained men with psychological disorders? Has the recent past made no impression on you?
   
   And yes, those with such an inclination often fall. Should we gamble with souls and teenage boys lives?
   

   I guess the question is not so much why we would allow such a person into the priesthood as it is why we would bother allowing such a person into the Church.

   Why do you want to jump to such an absurd position? Those with SSA can lead holy lives and attain salvation. That does not mean they should be priests.
   

   If, when presented with a man who has same-sex attraction, the Church’s point of view should be that this one temptation should predefine and govern the entire assessment of the candidate, then the decision of such a man to seat his entire identity in his sexuality is no longer unreasonable. It is, after all, what the Church would do. He is no longer a man who happens to have same-sex attraction, he is a “homosexual” and that word summarizes the sum total of his being. Everything else is a pointless detail.

   The specfics are being worked out right now by the Vatican. I will accept their position. At this point I believe it is a serious mistake to ordain those who have such an inclination.
   

   It neatly explains why one can look to the calendar of saints and find murderers, thieves, traitors, adulterers, and all manner of assorted human vermin but not one who has struggled with this issue.

   Is that your argument? So, why bother with any standard for ordination?
   

   So please, bring on every case study, analysis and psychological commentary you can find to illustrate how depraved, how untrustworthy and how invariably promiscuous and hedonistic these people are. Let us use these to dispense with the notion that such people have a prayer of ever seeing the face of God.

   You are distorting my position. Why does your profile say you are a lapsed Catholic?

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi fix!

fix:

They have a condition that is often unstable. In 1961 the Vatican had a directive that said they should not be ordained. I think that is a good idea. Is it a good idea to ordained men with psychological disorders? Has the recent past made no impression on you?

And yes, those with such an inclination often fall. Should we gamble with souls and teenage boys lives?

Well again, if these men are inherently predatory, it hardly makes our children safer if we move them from the altar to the pews. We are still gambling with the souls and lives of teenaged boys if we allow such a man any measure of respectability in the Church?

fix:

Why do you want to jump to such an absurd position? Those with SSA can lead holy lives and attain salvation. That does not mean they should be priests.

Ah, but your thesis up till now has been that they cannot lead holy lives. The conditions breeds heterodoxy. This does not just speak to the man’s ability to be a priest. It also speaks to his ability to follow Christ.

fix:

The specfics are being worked out right now by the Vatican. I will accept their position. At this point I believe it is a serious mistake to ordain those who have such an inclination.

If the Church’s position should be that the inclination will compel the act, then why all of this pointless argument about drawing a distinction between the two?

fix:

Is that your argument? So, why bother with any standard for ordination?

Why similarly bother with any standard for baptism?

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!Well again, if these men are inherently predatory, it hardly makes our children safer if we move them from the altar to the pews. We are still gambling with the souls and lives of teenaged boys if we allow such a man any measure of respectability in the Church?

Huh? What does one have to do with the other?

Ah, but your thesis up till now has been that they cannot lead holy lives. The conditions breeds heterodoxy. This does not just speak to the man’s ability to be a priest. It also speaks to his ability to follow Christ.

I said those who engage in heteodoxy are more likely to break the moral law and that is accurate. I said it is possible for them to lead a holy life, but that does not intend that should be priests. The standrads for ordination are in place for a reason. What other disorders should we overlook and what other standards ought we eliminate?

If the Church’s position should be that the inclination will compel the act, then why all of this pointless argument about drawing a distinction between the two?

The inclination often leads one to act. It is a serious and objectively disordered inclination. Do you support putting in positions of authority over children those with other psychosexual problems? Which ones?

Why similarly bother with any standard for baptism?

All are called to be baptized. Not all are called to Holy Orders and not all who think they are called have any right to it? The Church decides.

Why does your profile say you are a lapsed Catholic?

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Well again, if these men are inherently predatory, it hardly makes our children safer if we move them from the altar to the pews. …Ah, but your thesis up till now has been that they cannot lead holy lives. The conditions breeds heterodoxy. This does not just speak to the man’s ability to be a priest. It also speaks to his ability to follow Christ.If the Church’s position should be that the inclination will compel the act, then why all of this pointless argument about drawing a distinction between the two?Why similarly bother with any standard for baptism?

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined–this is a gay activist propoganda myth. Those who are not actively seeking to sanctify/heal their disordered SSA desire/inclination are more at risk of heterodoxy and rebellion to suit their denial/needs that SSA is a disorder in need of treatment.

For a more informed understanding of the intricate issues at hand, see this article:
**http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html – Letter to the Catholic Bishops: The authors offer suggestions for improved methods of screening and training candidates for religious life, including those candidates who are homosexually oriented.
**
*(Excert): *
***"There is ample evidence that same-sex attraction has many different causes. These lead to significant childhood and adolescent emotional pain and psychological problems. Among males, these could include a weak masculine identity, social isolation and loneliness, peer rejection or a poor body image and in females, a mistrust of male love or a weak feminine identity.

"Bishops would also see this healing if they encourage priests with SSA to pursue appropriate therapy with those loyal to the Church’s teaching. Most males with SSA had painful childhood and adolescent peer relationships. Under the stress of loneliness and insecurity in adult life, there can be an unconscious association to this adolescent and childhood pain. Attractions to children, adolescents or adult males then develop in an unconscious attempt to gain acceptance and lessen the pain of sadness, loneliness and lack of male confidence. The treatment of this emotional pain is essential in order to protect the Church and her children from further sorrow and scandal.

"Our experience over 25 years has convinced us of the direct link between rebellion and anger against the Church’s teaching, and sexually promiscuous behaviors.

"Protocols should be developed which will allow those professionals who screen candidates for the priesthood to identify those individuals with serious problems, to recommend therapy for those with correctable problems, and to accept those who can live chaste celibacy and pose no threat to others. Simply asking a candidate if he is a heterosexual or a homosexual, or if he is sexually interested in adolescents or children is not sufficient. Proper history taking, a clinical interview, and psychological testing correctly interpreted will uncover most current and potential problems.

"When screening reveals probable SSA, the candidate is not automatically excluded from consideration. If he is willing to do the hard work required to come to freedom from his emotional pain, his same-sex attractions will be resolved and then he can reapply later. The Church should not take the moral risk of allowing someone with SSA to enter the seminary.

“It should be noted, that many men with SSA will have problems besides their SSA which could make admission to the seminary inadvisable. For example, men with SSA are more likely to have problems with compulsive masturbation, other sexual addictions, substance abuse problems, history of childhood sexual abuse, and depressive illness.”

Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D.
Peter Rudegeair, M.A.
Eugene F. Diamond, M.D.,
For the Catholic Medical Association
**
**
**