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

[LCMS_No_More]

Aside from the issue of people with SSA in the ordained priesthood, I found the article here (the one linked below at lifeissues) indicative of a troubling mindset towards people with SSA among people in the Church. Never mind that the Catechism is VERY careful to not say that people with SSA are “disordered” but says that the actions and the inclination are disordered. Could it be that the Church does something that so many of her members are unwilling to do: recognize the PERSONHOOD of people with SSA?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

puzzleannie:

Gay priests are evil, to the extent that they have embraced evil. Gay is a political term self-selected by those who have chosen to act out their homosexual inclinations in a particularly public and defiant way, and such acting out is always sinful because it perverts the natural order of human dignity and sexuality.

Then what on earth is everyone else who sins ? To sin is to choose evil: and if those who “act up” are to be called evil, so must everyone else be called evil - which means, that whatever may be the sins we commit, we are none of us better or worse than anyone else - which means there is no reason to condemn one lot of sinners more fiercely than any other. That, after all, is not our call, but Christ’s.​

That is the thing about a Gospel of Grace - all are condemned, and all can receive God’s grace. None is better or worse than the rest, for all are sinners in need of mercy, so none can be pointed out, as being uniquely evil. No sinner can say “I may sin in way X, but at least I am not one of those filthy homos” - for that is no different from the pride of the Pharisees who “prayed with himself”, and not to God. And it was the pious and very devout Pharisees who so fatally misunderstood Christ. Would we behave any better ? But in fact, Christ is among us in every person - especially in our homosexual and drug-addicted neighbour. He spent a lot of time with the very people whom the pious and devout Jews looked down upon: with Samaritans, Gentiles, the ritually unclean. If we look down upon those who act up - after all, whatever our sins may be, at least we aren’t like *them *- we are no different from those who crucified Christ.

Obviously, those who say homosexuals can’t be pointed out by those who like them are sinners, have to see the rot in their own souls too ; so, yet again, we are all sinners - and we are all able to find grace from Christ. ##

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I am aware that there are many voices in the Church who vary on this issue. I note that Fr. Harvey himself directly responds to this argument on the very page you cite:Further, I wonder how significant this spousal relationship is. Eastern rite Churches still in full communion with Rome validly ordain married priests. By this logic, it would render their spousal relationship with the Church polygamous.

Similarly, we could also not expect a homosexual to conceive that “just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.” because they are not giving up that which is licit to begin with.

We are left with a single canon to justify our broad, general prohibition:However we know that same-sex attraction by itself *does not *create an inability to fulfill the ministry properly, because Father John Harvey (an expert for the purposes of the canon of there ever was one) has ministered to good priests who have the condition. It seems to me we are left grasping at straws trying desperately to justify our moral judgement of the candidate.

In order to be consistent in this respect, we must allow that the Church is wrong. There is no distinction to be made between the man, the condition or the act. We can no longer say that “the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation,” because that is precisely what we mean the Church to do.

You persist in citing Fr. Harvey as the basis for accepting/ordaining seminarians with a known psychological disorder (SSA) into the priesthood. Fr. Harvey is only talking about the healing of men already ordained to the priesthood who subsequently disclosed/found out as having/strugling with SSA disorder. You attempt to skirt the obvious: the Church has/will do the faithful flock a great disservice/harm to ordain a seminarian with an known but not yet “succesfully” treated psychological disorder into the priesthood. Then you attempt to shift the objective qualifications for fitnes to the priesthood into the moral realm to falsly wag the finger at those who have the best interest of the Church at hand.

At this point here, I am all but left with questioning your motives and wondering if you are pursuing some agenda (other than the welfare of the Church) that leaves you avoiding/denying the obvious in pursuit of having seminarians with SSA admitted to the priesthood? Perhaps time to fess up, ehhhhh?

 

[Psalm45_9]

mercygate:

Ryan, a couple of months ago you were interested in a girl in your class . . . Now it’s SSA? Clarity for yourself is what you need, not a rant about homosexuality and priesthood.

At that age when the hormones start raging it is natural for things to be unstable. Ryan may think he has SSA but in reality he does not, let me explain. I remember in my adolescent psychology class we talked about sexual orientation and teens. One girl spoke up and said when she was in high school she saw one girl in the locker room and found her attractive looking. Then she went home and cried because she thought she was a lesbian; but now, 5 years later she is dating men, without the slightest feeling of being a lesbian. This may be the same case for Ryan. Today’s society is so homophobic that people are afraid of cases like what I stated.

With that said, I bring up the movie Angela’s Ashes and “that” scene in the field. That was definently homosexual behavior, but those boys were not gay. Gay means that you choose to live a lifestyle contrarty to the gospel. Yes what they were doing was immoral, but it wasn’t persay “gay”. That demonstrates what it is like at that age and the importance of faith and family. What did they do, they went to confession regularly. Yeah, they went to an old almost deaf priest because of their embarassment, but they were still doing what was right. Ryan you need to do the same thing. Take a deep breath every day and don’t worry so much over it. If you meet a girl and she grows on ya, don’t hesitate to ask her out. Don’t give up on the priesthood, but discernment is important. And at your age things just seem upside down somedays, but you’ll make through OK, you have to have faith.

 

[felra]

Psalm45:9:

Today’s society is so homophobic that people are afraid of cases like what I stated.

I think that it is the other way around. Today’s politcal and societal engineer elites are so hell bent on pressing their agenda of tolerance and relativism as the highest value, that anyone who rationally opposes their agenda is immediately labelled “homophobic”. And guess who is most clear in standing for the truth?

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

You persist in citing Fr. Harvey as the basis for accepting/ordaining seminarians with a known psychological disorder (SSA) into the priesthood. Fr. Harvey is only talking about the healing of men already ordained to the priesthood who subsequently disclosed/found out as having/strugling with SSA disorder. You attempt to skirt the obvious: the Church has/will do the faithful flock a great disservice/harm to ordain a seminarian with an known but not yet “succesfully” treated psychological disorder into the priesthood. Then you attempt to shift the objective qualifications for fitnes to the priesthood into the moral realm to falsly wag the finger at those who have the best interest of the Church at hand.

At this point here, I am all but left with questioning your motives and wondering if you are pursuing some agenda (other than the welfare of the Church) that leaves you avoiding/denying the obvious in pursuit of having seminarians with SSA admitted to the priesthood? Perhaps time to fess up, ehhhhh?

Hi felra!

I don’t understand this distinction you are trying to make. If a man with SSA has a psychological disorder that prevents him from fulfilling his priestly ministry, then it matters not a whit if he realized it before or after ordination. If the Church justly bars such a man from the seminary than she also justly defrocks the already ordained. She does not do this based on any behavior, so behavior can no longer be the basic standard by which we judge the homosexual condition. If done to merely to protect the flock from predators, then it is an administrative decision with ramifications outside of the Church, not a theological one. If done because the condition renders the man incapable of a correct conception of the theological significance of his sacrifice, then this inability has ramifications even to those who do not wear a Roman collar.

 

[Other_Eric]

Psalm45:9:

At that age when the hormones start raging it is natural for things to be unstable. Ryan may think he has SSA but in reality he does not, let me explain. I remember in my adolescent psychology class we talked about sexual orientation and teens. One girl spoke up and said when she was in high school she saw one girl in the locker room and found her attractive looking. Then she went home and cried because she thought she was a lesbian; but now, 5 years later she is dating men, without the slightest feeling of being a lesbian. This may be the same case for Ryan. Today’s society is so homophobic that people are afraid of cases like what I stated.

With that said, I bring up the movie Angela’s Ashes and “that” scene in the field. That was definently homosexual behavior, but those boys were not gay. Gay means that you choose to live a lifestyle contrarty to the gospel. Yes what they were doing was immoral, but it wasn’t persay “gay”. That demonstrates what it is like at that age and the importance of faith and family. What did they do, they went to confession regularly. Yeah, they went to an old almost deaf priest because of their embarassment, but they were still doing what was right. Ryan you need to do the same thing. Take a deep breath every day and don’t worry so much over it. If you meet a girl and she grows on ya, don’t hesitate to ask her out. Don’t give up on the priesthood, but discernment is important. And at your age things just seem upside down somedays, but you’ll make through OK, you have to have faith.

Hi Psalm45:9!

I agree with felra. The problem in this case would not be one of homophobia. Rather, it would be sex education classes and Gay-Straight Alliances that make the error of forcing a child into making such a self-identification at too early an age.

 

[Psalm45_9]

felra:

I think that it is the other way around. Today’s politcal and societal engineer elites are so hell bent on pressing their agenda of tolerance and relativism as the highest value, that anyone who rationally opposes their agenda is immediately labelled “homophobic”. And guess who is most clear in standing for the truth?

Very true, but in high school, the scenario that girl mentioned in my class is very common and teens are extremely homophobic still.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Other Eric:

Hi Psalm45:9!

I agree with felra. The problem in this case would not be one of homophobia. Rather, it would be sex education classes and Gay-Straight Alliances that make the error of forcing a child into making such a self-identification at too early an age.

That was demonstrated very much at my exteremely secular and anti-Catholic univeristy that thank God I just graduated from.

 

[fix]

Other Eric:

I don’t understand this distinction you are trying to make.

You can’t understand or you intentionally choose not to understand it?

If a man with SSA has a psychological disorder that prevents him from fulfilling his priestly ministry, then it matters not a whit if he realized it before or after ordination.

Why not? His intentions are very important. If he was deceptive that certainly matters.

If the Church justly bars such a man from the seminary than she also justly defrocks the already ordained.

Fact, or your opinion?

She does not do this based on any behavior, so behavior can no longer be the basic standard by which we judge the homosexual condition.

It is both behavior and inclination that we are concerned with.

If done to merely to protect the flock from predators, then it is an administrative decision with ramifications outside of the Church, not a theological one.

It is done for the protection of all involved. It is not only an issue of being a potential predator, but there are several medical, theological, and emotional issues that need to be properly sorted out and not intentionally obfuscated by those with specific agendas.

If done because the condition renders the man incapable of a correct conception of the theological significance of his sacrifice, then this inability has ramifications even to those who do not wear a Roman collar.

Fact or your private opinion?

 

[EJ79]

Other Eric:

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.

1. 
   Bravo. You took the very words out of my mouth. Très bien dit!

 

[felra]

EJ79:

Bravo. You took the very words out of my mouth. Très bien dit!

Hey EJ79, I thought that you unplugged yourself from this thread a few posts back …now really, is this your last hit and run post or what?

 

[EJ79]

felra:

Hey EJ79, I thought that you unplugged yourself from this thread a few posts back …now really, is this your last hit and run post or what?

Very funny! No, I’m through, but after 36 hours or so I wanted to hint that I was still following the debate closely . So hint hint! Peace.

 

[Other_Eric]

fix:

You can’t understand or you intentionally choose not to understand it?

Why not? His intentions are very important. If he was deceptive that certainly matters.

Fact, or your opinion?

It is both behavior and inclination that we are concerned with.

It is done for the protection of all involved. It is not only an issue of being a potential predator, but there are several medical, theological, and emotional issues that need to be properly sorted out and not intentionally obfuscated by those with specific agendas.

Fact or your private opinion?

Hi fix!

If we are not going to defrock a validly ordained priest who failed to disclose SSA in his seminary formation, then we can’t be said to be concerned about intentions. Moreover, it seems we intend to remove a candidate with SSA from the seminary even if his genuine intention is to be faithful to the Church’s teachings. Intentions do not come into consideration at all, only the SSA does.

We’ve spent much time in these forums arguing that the mere fact of SSA indicates a predatory character, heterodoxy and an inability to form proper theological conceptions. Yet, we allow such a man to continue in Christ’s priesthood if already ordained? What possible reason could we have to allow such a man to continue in this way? If he has SSA, he is still a ticking time-bomb regardless of when he discovers it and we do an unjust disservice to the congregation we mean him to minister to. Perhaps you would prefer that such a man just be shuffled from parish to parish?

If the Church finds it just to deny a man with SSA admission to Holy Orders because the mere fact of SSA indicates a predatory character, why can this same judgement not be made by the lay community? Certainly parents have as much of a responsibility to their children as the Church does to her flock. This means that the faithful, responsible Christian will look to the disorder first, as the Church does. Behavior means nothing. If the Church decides that the mere fact of SSA impedes the proper understanding of theological concepts, such as the spousal relationship to the Church, why does this not apply more generally to theological concepts such as the nature of self-sacrifice?

If you think that these are merely my opinions, then explain to me in detail why they are wrong. Cite sources that indicate why disorder of SSA vanishes after ordination. Find any Church document or authoritative opinion that alleges that SSA attacks the ability to form correct theological concepts in this peculiarly specific fashion. Explain to me why you are not desperate to justify your own agenda.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi fix!

If we are not going to defrock a validly ordained priest who failed to disclose SSA in his seminary formation, then we can’t be said to be concerned about intentions. Moreover, it seems we intend to remove a candidate with SSA from the seminary even if his genuine intention is to be faithful to the Church’s teachings. Intentions do not come into consideration at all, only the SSA does.

We’ve spent much time in these forums arguing that the mere fact of SSA indicates a predatory character, heterodoxy and an inability to form proper theological conceptions. Yet, we allow such a man to continue in Christ’s priesthood if already ordained? What possible reason could we have to allow such a man to continue in this way? If he has SSA, he is still a ticking time-bomb regardless of when he discovers it and we do an unjust disservice to the congregation we mean him to minister to. Perhaps you would prefer that such a man just be shuffled from parish to parish?

If the Church finds it just to deny a man with SSA admission to Holy Orders because the mere fact of SSA indicates a predatory character, why can this same judgement not be made by the lay community? Certainly parents have as much of a responsibility to their children as the Church does to her flock. This means that the faithful, responsible Christian will look to the disorder first, as the Church does. Behavior means nothing. If the Church decides that the mere fact of SSA impedes the proper understanding of theological concepts, such as the spousal relationship to the Church, why does this not apply more generally to theological concepts such as the nature of self-sacrifice?

If you think that these are merely my opinions, then explain to me in detail why they are wrong. Cite sources that indicate why disorder of SSA vanishes after ordination. Find any Church document or authoritative opinion that alleges that SSA attacks the ability to form correct theological concepts in this peculiarly specific fashion. Explain to me why you are not desperate to justify your own agenda.

Interesting to note how you attempt to segregate and compartmentalize the different aspects of the whole person, as if there exists mutually exclusive facets and functions to the person as an organistic, rational, spiritual and social being. God did make us as sexual beings—male and female He made us. Again, you seem to struggle with and/or deny the obvious: intention, behavior, sexual orientation overlay and overlap in the whole of a person—God made us whole/integral persons, not disjointed/disassociated parts (even if a person is not fully comprehensive of this). You draw erroneous conclusions because of this.

There is no way that a person can get around their sexuality, whether or not it is given physical expression/outlet or not. Our sexuality is integral to our identity as persons, period. To say or act otherwise is ignorance or denial of reality. You are wanting an either/or, all/nothing resolve/disposition/measure to the degree that a priest’s/seminarian’s SSA is an impediment/contra indicator for fitness for assuming and functioning in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is not that simple. Until SSA can be safely/conclusively ruled out as a non-issue for priestly ordination/function, should not ordination/function be suspended until otherwise indicated? Better to err on the side of safety/assurance, would you not agree?

**2332 ***Sexuality *affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. (CCC)

**2337 **Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift. (CCC)

**2395 **Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery. (CCC)

1579Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. (abbr) (CCC)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Fix, I do not mean this to sound uncharitable (though with a preface like that, it will be easily interpretted as such), but I often wonder, given your legalistic posts and the tendency towards a latent Donatism, for instance, if you wouldn’t be happier as a Calvanist.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[fix]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Fix, I do not mean this to sound uncharitable (though with a preface like that, it will be easily interpretted as such), but I often wonder, given your legalistic posts and the tendency towards a latent Donatism, for instance, if you wouldn’t be happier as a Calvanist.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

I bind myself to the barque of Peter. Is following the CC now Donatism? Is authentic unity now considered legalism by the left?

I see no reason for you to attack me. Please attack my posts, but I see no reason to draw the conclusion you have.

I guess if one side is losing the argument, may as well attack the person instead of the argument.

 

[fix]

felra:

There is no way that a person can get around their sexuality, whether or not it is given physical expression/outlet or not. Our sexuality is integral to our identity as persons, period. To say or act otherwise is ignorance or denial of reality. You are wanting an either/or, all/nothing resolve/disposition/measure to the degree that a priest’s/seminarian’s SSA is an impediment/contra indicator for fitness for assuming and functioning in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is not that simple. Until SSA can be safely/conclusively ruled out as a non-issue for priestly ordination/function, should not ordination/function be suspended until otherwise indicated? Better to err on the side of safety/assurance, would you not agree?

Well done.

 

[ChristFollower]

So here’s your options:

1. Gay Priest
2. Gay Priest who says he’s not practicing.
3. Gay Priest who is hiding his true indentity as a gay man.
4. Priest.

Choose one, please dont think too long.

 

[EJ79]

fix:

I bind myself to the barque of Peter. Is following the CC now Donatism? Is authentic unity now considered legalism by the left?

I see no reason for you to attack me. Please attack my posts, but I see no reason to draw the conclusion you have.

Fix,

I’m not at all in favor of personal attacks. But when you felt the need below, seemingly out of left field, to highlight a certain member’s choice to describe his/herself as a “lapsed Catholic” from that person’s profile, and having nothing to do with the validity of the person’s argument, what were you resorting to? Praise?