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

[Lisa_N]

Honesly djmac you get way too emotional about this issue. I was NOT responding to Dj Roy Albert who asserted there was no biological basis for SSA. I believe he claimed it was a disease of the spirit. I didn’t even respond to his comments because they seemed to be based on his own experiences. You can’t argue with someone’s experience. So I didn’t even respond directly to him but to your post. FWIW this is a public forum and you can expect anyone to engage with any poster. If you wanted to have a private conversation with DjAlbert there is always the PM feature. If you make a public post though, you might expect more than one person to respond.

I was responding to your posts or at least trying to. I really find the use of the green typeface very difficult to follow and tried to wade through your last three posts without much success. You seemed to be arguing against your own premise and kept bringing another poster with whom I was not engaged into the discussion.

I didn’t realize someone had to be a debate major and know the “rules” to participate in this forum. I’ll avoid engaging with you in the future since obviously my skills in rhetoric are not sufficient.

Lisa N

 

[KBarn]

If this guy suffers from SSA, then how is it that he was so attracted to a girl who was his best friend? Though this thread has born good fruit, I think the whole premise that RomanRyan suffers from SSA is suspect. It’s just my intuition. If I am wrong, I apologize.

 

[dcmac]

“Honesly djmac you get way too emotional about this issue.”
With all due respect LisaN, I believe we both got too emotional.

“I was NOT responding to Dj Roy Albert who asserted there was no biological basis for SSA. I believe he claimed it was a disease of the spirit. I didn’t even respond to his comments because they seemed to be based on his own experiences. You can’t argue with someone’s experience. So I didn’t even respond directly to him but to your post.”
I know you were. I was trying to make it clear that the quotes you took from me were to Dj Roy Albert and that my point was to him and when you took it up… well we ended up with what we ended up with.

“FWIW this is a public forum and you can expect anyone to engage with any poster.”
Thanks for the point of clarification, though as dense as I am I was aware that this was a public forum and that we all post to whomever we want to. But thanks anyway.

“If you wanted to have a private conversation with DjAlbert there is always the PM feature.”
Again, thanks for advising me of this, though, again, as dense as I am I’m already aware of this. One last time for clarification: I was responding to Dj Roy Albert. You responded to my response to him. I responded to you. I thought it easy to follow, but it was apparent you did not so I reminded you of what I was saying in the first place by pointing to whom I responded to in the first place so you could look it up.

“If you make a public post though, you might expect more than one person to respond.”
Agreed. Thanks for reminding me of how to participate in a public MB, tough, again, as dense as I am, I am aware of such basic things. But thanks anyway.

“I really find the use of the green typeface very difficult to follow and tried to wade through your last three posts without much success.”
??? All of my posts in this thread have been in green. How is it you had trouble this time? I am sorry that you had difficulty following my comments due to their hue.

“You seemed to be arguing against your own premise…”
Sorry, but all I can politely say is that this is inaccurate.

“…and kept bringing another poster with whom I was not engaged into the discussion.”
One last time: I did this to help you see what I was saying… nothing more.

“I didn’t realize someone had to be a debate major and know the “rules” to participate in this forum.”
Did I say you did? No. I was pointing out that you wanted me to lay out my cards before you did, when it was you who called… that is all. This is the same kind of thing one hears on CA radio when a non-Catholic calls in and demands Catholic proofs against their (the non-Catholics) position. For the record, however, I am not a debate major. I am a Psy.D. (ya know ‘headshrinking’ stuff) , a B.A. (history) and a B.S. (psychology), A.G.S. (business administration), and an A.A. (art history)… no debate major… just way too much schooling. Do any of these degrees really amount to anything, other than debt, for either you or I? No not really. Many more people who never stepped foot in an institute of higher education are more intelligent than I.

“I’ll avoid engaging with you in the future since obviously my skills in rhetoric are not sufficient.”
This would be sad. One need not refrain from engaging with another over this. While I did have problems with your approach and did not agree with some of your assertions, I did enjoy the debate. The only problem was that we both let our emotions get the better of us… and for me in particular that was very sad. I would suggest we do engage in the future but remember the way this one spiraled out of control and not let that happen again.

Until we talk again I am your unworthy brother in Christ.

 

[rsagebrush]

Roman- Pray. This is your cross to bear.

 

[Lisa_N]

dcmac, please reread your post. All of the sarcasm is really uncalled for IMO. And yes the itty bitty green ink is hard to see. Maybe it’s the background color that makes it difficult to sort out. I know it’s time consuming to use the quote feature but it really makes the quote stand apart from the response. I’d suggest giving it a try.

As to the subject, since you have all letters behind your name, I assume you can point to all of this research documenting a biological basis for homosexual behavior. If we’re into the kind of game playing 'Show me yours and I’ll show you mine" I’ll call it a draw.

I’ve never seen any documentation that provided substantial proof of a ‘gay gene.’ I suspect that because homosexuality manifests itself similarly to other ‘brain disorders’ there might be a biological component. But again, so what? My family has had multiple members with alcoholism and breast cancer. Does that mean I will become a drunk or get breast cancer? No. Particularly when someone is aware of a possible predisposition, it’s easier to avoid the problem.

Further it’s harder to track a biological basis because homosexual relationships don’t result in children. And along with that, when you have a family situation, there is always the shared enviornment to consider. That’s why those “twin studies” were rather poor examples of proof of biology rather than behavior. In order to have such a study and factor out environment, not only would the subjects have to be random but they’d have to be raised separately.

Anyway if we could get back to the subject of the thread and quit focusing on the potshots it might allow others to engage as wel.

Lisa N

Lisa N

 

[huskerfan]

Gay gene? I doubt it but I do believe there are those born with gay tendencies. I will also tell you of all the gay people that I have met, there isn’t a one that I don’t like. For the most part they are very kind and genuine people. That said, I believe homosexuality is wrong. I had someone once explain to me that there are people more prone to a lot of bad things but in order to be good people you have to fight those urges and remove yourself from situations that take you down a bad road. The biggest way to help is prayer, prayer, and lots more prayer.

 

[dcmac]

“dcmac, please reread your post. All of the sarcasm is really uncalled for IMO.”
I did read my post - all of them. In fact I sent a “self report” post to the three I posted previous to the last. “All of the sarcasm is really uncalled for…” Give me a break! You have been more than sarcastic the whole way through… and given your other posts on other threads… sarcasm is the order of the day for you – hypocrisy comes to mind…

“I know it’s time consuming to use the quote feature but it really makes the quote stand apart from the response. I’d suggest giving it a try.”
Speaking of sarcasm… hello!!! I do it this way because unlike those people with thousands of posts I don’t have the time to sit around all day long and post here there and everywhere… I have to work, study, pray the Hours, meditate, and generally live a life… talk about sarcasm… you appear to be the reigning queen when one looks up your other posts. For the record I was being as considerate and conciliatory as I could in my last post. I was honestly confused about why you could not read my posts at this juncture though you apparently could before. I was truly confused… not sarcastic. Yet you remain combative…

“I’ve never seen any documentation that provided substantial proof of a ‘gay gene.’”
I never said “gay gene” in my position, rather a biological connection. This is one of the cards I had yet to lay down. This repeated attempt is childish at this point. And yes, I, as could Dr. Ray of CA fame, or any other competent person, could point to a number of credible studies that indicate biological connections… of course your ilk would never listen to them… I even went so far as to say that after we BOTH calmed down I would post them on another thread I created. You never responded to that, rather simply took so more shots at me, so I assumed that you did not care to calm down and engage in this on another thread… now you bring it up again? Please…

“Further it’s harder to track a biological basis because homosexual relationships don’t result in children.”
This is a complete fallacy! They do have children (many living a “double life” other with artificial medical aid) and they are themselves children. How unbelievably limited and devoid of fact…

“Anyway if we could get back to the subject of the thread and quit focusing on the potshots it might allow others to engage as wel.”
You obviously don’t read! I said that several posts ago, to which you completely ignored it! Simply unbelievable…
Finally; whereas I tried to give you an olive branch and asked we continue to debate but with charity; and whereas as you are completely combative, sarcastic, and devoid of charity towards me; and whereas I do not have to deal with such a poster any longer; I must act and enable another of those wonderful features of this forum you try to hit me over the head with sarcastically and place you on my ignore list… so goodbye and God bless madam.

 

[Lisa_N]

"

Speaking of sarcasm… hello!!! I do it this way because unlike those people with thousands of posts I don’t have the time to sit around all day long and post here there and everywhere…

No it was not a sarcastic suggestion but a sincere suggestion. It is much easier to read a response when the quote is set apart.

“I’ve never seen any documentation that provided substantial proof of a ‘gay gene.’”
I never said “gay gene” in my position, rather a biological connection.

And you will see I’ve never denied the possibility of a biological connection. In fact I have said the same thing numerous times. Homosexuality seems to have a very similar pattern as other behaviors as alcoholism and that seems to run in families. What I object to is using biology as an excuse to fall into the “gay” lifestyle.

“Further it’s harder to track a biological basis because homosexual relationships don’t result in children.”
This is a complete fallacy! They do have children (many living a “double life” other with artificial medical aid) and they are themselves children. How unbelievably limited and devoid of fact…

Maybe you can explain how homosexual RELATIONSHIPS result in children. That is specifically what I said. I did not say homosexuals could not procreate with as you call it medical aid. However two men or two women cannot have a child together. That is a fact.

dcmac:
You obviously don’t read! I said that several posts ago, to which you completely ignored it! Simply unbelievable…
Finally; whereas I tried to give you an olive branch and asked we continue to debate but with charity; and whereas as you are completely combative, sarcastic, and devoid of charity towards me; and whereas I do not have to deal with such a poster any longer; I must act and enable another of those wonderful features of this forum you try to hit me over the head with sarcastically and place you on my ignore list… so goodbye and God bless madam.

Well yes I do read but apparently you have decided to interpret every comment as combative. As you say in your signature, until we meet again.

Lisa N

 

[dcmac]

Ryan,

There is something else you should consider – a life of consecration.

While there is a canonical barrier to the priesthood for homosexuals, there is no such barrier for a man, or woman, to live a consecrated life.

This is a holy state of life that the Church recognizes whereby a layman/woman consecrates themselves to Christ and lives as a consecrated in the real world. It is a chance for a holy life and a witnessing life at the same time for every layman/woman. In my archdiocese this is done with much celebration and public ceremony. The consecrated have special masses throughout the year and form a quasi-community while still retaining their individual lives. The only requirement is to remain a holy consecrated. Since you already are chaste and since you desire to serve the Lord, perhaps it is in this manner that He is calling you to do so.

Think about it and contact your diocese to see what is available for you.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

KBarn:

If this guy suffers from SSA, then how is it that he was so attracted to a girl who was his best friend? Though this thread has born good fruit, I think the whole premise that RomanRyan suffers from SSA is suspect. It’s just my intuition. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Ok, I hadn’t looked at this thread in a long time, but let me get something straight. If I HAD to define myself as something using modern day american terms, it would be BISEXUAL (It does exist you know). About that girl I had a crush on, she turned out to be my couisn (Small world huh?). But as I speak, I try to pursue HETEROSEXUAL relationships with girls that I am attracted to. No, no, NO, i would never act on my feelings, ( At least, I pray I never do). And another thing, this is to Kevin Walker , your commet about the whole “Gay priest are horns of the devil”, that was just the nicest christian thing to say, God, I love your charitable ways of doing things. I read your profile, and i noticed that you are a construction Worker, Hmmm… My dad is also a construction worker, and believe me, he hates those “Dumb Fa*s”, prehaps it has something to do with the whole Macho, Construction worker thing, who knows? Well im out, and I want the REAL nice charitable people on here to know one thing, I thank God for people like Ya’ll (There is that good ole’ southern talk), and I thank ya’ll, well, i’m out for real now, I hope you guys have a good night, and God bless us, every one (Even Kevin)

                                                       Your brother in Christ,
                                                                Ryan .R.

 

[kev7]

RomanRyan1088:

Ok, I hadn’t looked at this thread in a long time, but let me get something straight. If I HAD to define myself as something using modern day american terms, it would be BISEXUAL (It does exist you know). About that girl I had a crush on, she turned out to be my couisn (Small world huh?). But as I speak, I try to pursue HETEROSEXUAL relationships with girls that I am attracted to. No, no, NO, i would never act on my feelings, ( At least, I pray I never do). And another thing, this is to Kevin Walker , your commet about the whole “Gay priest are horns of the devil”, that was just the nicest christian thing to say, God, I love your charitable ways of doing things. I read your profile, and i noticed that you are a construction Worker, Hmmm… My dad is also a construction worker, and believe me, he hates those “Dumb Fa*s”, prehaps it has something to do with the whole Macho, Construction worker thing, who knows? Well im out, and I want the REAL nice charitable people on here to know one thing, I thank God for people like Ya’ll (There is that good ole’ southern talk), and I thank ya’ll, well, i’m out for real now, I hope you guys have a good night, and God bless us, every one (Even Kevin)

                                                       Your brother in Christ,
                                                                Ryan .R.

If you are a practicing catholic then you should not be having sex before marriage. How can you justify having sexual relationships and then say that you also want to be a priest?

It would seem to me that if you only had SSA then it would be your cross to carry in life. That would be your burden and it would be up to you not to fall into temptation. The good news is that you can change and it will take a lot of hard work. You will have to pray to God for mercy and for his help.

Anyway, I can only hope that you are not committing sinful sexual acts. A man should be at one with himself and he should not be pursing lustful relationships.

 

[snoopy]

Werner:

Maybe it escaped your attention, but RomanRyan never ever acted sinful (refered to homosexuality) and intents to live chaste as the church wants him to.

Why for God’s sake should he try to “change” something that cannot be changed when he doesn’t live to it anyway?

What the last few posts here show is what he wanted to say with his initial post as far as i understand, for the sheer fact that he is not attracted to women he is judged as someone bad.

And another possible good vocation goes down the sink.

But we all keep on praying for more vocations, don’t we?

Werner

You took the words right out of my mouth!!!

 

[ChristFollower]

I’m sorry but people should have an issue with a man who has taken on the role of teacher and is gay. Here is why, when we devote our lives to Christ we are transformed. We die to ourself and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit - the old (gay man) is gone and the new man is born. At that moment we are on our road to sanctification. Would you trust a person to guide you spiritualy that who hasn’t been through the great transformation all who will be with Him must go through?

Pray for these men, whoever they are, that much I’m sure need no be debated.

 

[kev7]

ChristFollower:

I’m sorry but people should have an issue with a man who has taken on the role of teacher and is gay. Here is why, when we devote our lives to Christ we are transformed. We die to ourself and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit - the old (gay man) is gone and the new man is born. At that moment we are on our road to sanctification. Would you trust a person to guide you spiritualy that who hasn’t been through the great transformation all who will be with Him must go through?

Pray for these men, whoever they are, that much I’m sure need no be debated.

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

 

[EJ79]

“A person should not be defined by their sexual attractions”, however, if a person is *predominantly/substantially *defined in their psychosexual identity by same sex orientation/attraction, then I believe that person lacks the prerequiste capacity, ability to have the priesthood of Jesus Christ to fully exist in and through that person. This is simply because Jesus was fully human, fully divine in His identity, which integral to this was His heterosexual orientation.

How can a male live out the Bridegroom/bride, Beloved/lover relationship of Christ with the Church, of which the priest assumes in his ordination vows, if their predominate, pervasive psychosexual identity is homosexual? I believe that this would posse a serious barrier, limitation to assuming the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Maybe after some time with God’s grace and reparative therapy (formal and informal) a man with predominat same sex attraction may some day be a viable candidate for the priesthood as God is truly calling him.

We do live in a fallen world, and we each have our crosses to bear, and unfortunately some desires will necessarily go wanting this side of the grave, if one is to choose holiness of life and the fullness of their vocational calling.

With all due respect, I really seriously disagree with you and take issue with what I think you imply. We’re really venturing into the Twilight Zone when we begin to wonder what relevance Christ’s sexuality as a man has on who is or is not a viable candidate for the priesthood. Are you seriously arguing against the very validity or licitness of the ordination of a homosexual man, who has been deemed just as good and worthy a candidate as any another?

WAKE UP “orthodox” Catholicism! There are priests and bishops in this world who may have a predominant or not so predominant homosexual orientation, or who struggle with SSA to some degree or other. If it makes you feel any better to assume that your parish priest is a rugged, Marlboro cigarette-box masculine, heterosexual, then by all means go right ahead. If he’s chaste, orthodox, faithful and obedient - then that to me would equal an exemplary priest.

This boils down to fidelity, to our desire and ability to abandon ourselves completely and without reservation to the Divine Will - everyone has the same ability to choose to cooperate with grace or NOT - and we all struggle to some degree or another with temptation.

Rayne89’s post has been by far one of the fairest, balanced compassionate and insightful ones I’ve read so far on this very delicate issue. Kudos to you, and courage and faith to RomanRyan, you are already a very very courageous person to post what you did on here with so much honesty - remember that Christ and the Church loves and needs you, and if God wills that you become a priest, then nothing will stop that.

 

[EJ79]

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 statement is absolutely false. That is NOT what being homosexual implies. One can be heterosexual and “unseemingly” be having illicit sex and in a state of sin. One can also be homosexual, be chaste, and be living a life of holiness and virtue.

 

[fix]

EJ79:

With all due respect, I really seriously disagree with you and take issue with what I think you imply. We’re really venturing into the Twilight Zone when we begin to wonder what relevance Christ’s sexuality as a man has on who is or is not a viable candidate for the priesthood. Are you seriously arguing against the very validity or licitness of the ordination of a homosexual man, who has been deemed just as good and worthy a candidate as any another?

WAKE UP “orthodox” Catholicism! There are priests and bishops in this world who may have a predominant or not so predominant homosexual orientation, or who struggle with SSA to some degree or other. If it makes you feel any better to assume that your parish priest is a rugged, Marlboro cigarette-box masculine, heterosexual, then by all means go right ahead. If he’s chaste, orthodox, faithful and obedient - then that to me would equal an exemplary priest.

This boils down to fidelity, to our desire and ability to abandon ourselves completely and without reservation to the Divine Will - everyone has the same ability to choose to cooperate with grace or NOT - and we all struggle to some degree or another with temptation.

Rayne89’s post has been by far one of the fairest, balanced compassionate and insightful ones I’ve read so far on this very delicate issue. Kudos to you, and courage and faith to RomanRyan, you are already a very very courageous person to post what you did on here with so much honesty - remember that Christ and the Church loves and needs you, and if God wills that you become a priest, then nothing will stop that.

Not only is the inclination to SSA objectively disordered the condition itself is a psychological disorder. There are several obstacles that one may encounter to becoming a priest, SSA is one of them and Rome will soon rule on it.

 

[EJ79]

ChristFollower:

I’m sorry but people should have an issue with a man who has taken on the role of teacher and is gay. Here is why, when we devote our lives to Christ we are transformed. We die to ourself and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit - the old (gay man) is gone and the new man is born. At that moment we are on our road to sanctification. Would you trust a person to guide you spiritualy that who hasn’t been through the great transformation all who will be with Him must go through?

Pray for these men, whoever they are, that much I’m sure need no be debated.

I respectfully think your theology here is flawed. You very eloquently say that:

“…when we devote our lives to Christ we are transformed. We die to ourself and are indwelled with the Holy Spirit - the old (gay man) is gone and the new man is born. At that moment we are on our road to sanctification.”

Precisely because when we are “reborn” in Christ and die to ourselves, any person who undergoes a sincere conversion is, as you put it, a “new man…on the road to sanctification.”

How can you judge if someone has undergone a personal conversion or not. How can you presume what degree is necessary or not in order to become a spiritual director? If it was not your intention to presume this by what you write, then I beg your pardon for misunderstanding. If this was your intention, however, then I feel it’s safe to ask, “how dare you?!”

 

[EJ79]

fix:

Not only is the inclination to SSA objectively disordered the condition itself is a psychological disorder. There are several obstacles that one may encounter to becoming a priest, SSA is one of them and Rome will soon rule on it.

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

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.

 

[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?”.