'Open up the conversation' on gay priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter fix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, it was hard to get past the politically-charged terminology. It seems to me that the whole gist of the article is saying “We are here! Accept us! We can do good and love our homosexuality, too!”
 
This “conversation” is nonsense.

Consider a parish with a heterosexual pastor, who is chaste, and an associate who is homosexual and also chaste.

Neither needs say what his sexual orientation is as he is faithful to the chastity requirements of his calling. None need question either man about his chastity or orientation.

If each is faithful, the question or the discussion should never arise.
 
I have never managed to sort out in my own mind the difference between a heterosexual priest and a homosexual priest.
Is it that one is safe; the other not?
Or that one is a peodophile; the other is not?
Or that one is a better priest; the other is not?
Is it that the rule of celibacy is easier to follow for one; and not the other?
Or that an attraction of one sexual orientation is somehow stronger than an attraction of another sexual orientation?
Is it that one makes a better priest than the other because of his sexuality?
Is it that one is more preocupied with thoughts of sex than the other?
Or that the sexual orientation means that one is less able to minister to his flock than the other?
Is it that if both are celibet that one is nearer God than the other?

I hope you will note from these questions that the sexual orientation can be seen from either side, homesexual/heterosexual, if your a good minister, what’s the difference?
 
One important difference is the “gay” priests, as mentioned in this article, want to make their sexual disorders acceptable and on par with heterosexuality. It is the nose of the camel under the tent.

Why would those who suffer from SSAD need to make it such a front page issue all the time?
 
There is no reason for a chaste or non-dissenting priest to label himself as “gay”. The only reason one would is to promote a sinful lifestyle as not being sinful.

God is absolute purity. Sin damages our purity. The 2 do not go together on this earth nor in eternity.

Sure - an openly homosexual priest can teach us about God’s love. But teaching us that God loves us without teaching us what God’s love is (law, justice, mercy, forgiveness, free will) is like giving us a million dollars and then saying you can only spend it on rotten eggs.

The crisis in the Church is a crisis of false and minimized teaching of the faith. That is what we need to have a conversation about. We don’t need a conversation about anybody’s perverted desires. We can get that by turning on the TV.
 
40.png
Norwich:
I have never managed to sort out in my own mind the difference between a heterosexual priest and a homosexual priest.
Is it that one is safe; the other not?
Or that one is a peodophile; the other is not?
Or that one is a better priest; the other is not?
Is it that the rule of celibacy is easier to follow for one; and not the other?
Or that an attraction of one sexual orientation is somehow stronger than an attraction of another sexual orientation?
Is it that one makes a better priest than the other because of his sexuality?
Is it that one is more preocupied with thoughts of sex than the other?
Or that the sexual orientation means that one is less able to minister to his flock than the other?
Is it that if both are celibet that one is nearer God than the other?

I hope you will note from these questions that the sexual orientation can be seen from either side, homesexual/heterosexual, if your a good minister, what’s the difference?
Click to expand...
All your questions assume the modern notion that there is such a thing as a homosexual versus just a man or a woman with disordered desires towards the same sex.

People with mental disorders should not be priests because they are placed, often alone, in situations with people with the greatest spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional needs. They need to be counseled and ministered to by someone that is mentally fit just as a patient in a hospital needs to be given care by nurses and doctors that are physically fit to perform the necessary tasks.
 
The gay Episcopal bishop in the US is now starting a conversation about the possibility that Jesus was gay. It is no wonder people claim an agenda.
 
40.png
gilliam:
The gay Episcopal bishop in the US is now starting a conversation about the possibility that Jesus was gay. It is no wonder people claim an agenda.
Click to expand...
He can sure hope but the better alternative is to face reality.
 
40.png
gilliam:
The gay Episcopal bishop in the US is now starting a conversation about the possibility that Jesus was gay. It is no wonder people claim an agenda.
Click to expand...
All heresy begins below the belt. Case and point.
 
40.png
gilliam:
The gay Episcopal bishop in the US is now starting a conversation about the possibility that Jesus was gay. It is no wonder people claim an agenda.
Click to expand...
I’ve been wondering when that was going to start. It’s probably been on the back burner for decades. I notice that the Lincoln-was-gay book didn’t really get a lot a traction so maybe there’s hope.
 
40.png
caroljm36:
I’ve been wondering when that was going to start. It’s probably been on the back burner for decades. I notice that the Lincoln-was-gay book didn’t really get a lot a traction so maybe there’s hope.
Click to expand...
Well haven’t we all heard the theory that Paul was a homosexual and that the “thorn in his side” was his homosexual desires? Just goes to show how desperate this group is to be accepted in spite of disordered thinking and behaviors.

I heard an interview with someone who agreed with the “Lincoln as homosexual” author. He merely confused the practice of sleeping in the same bed (very very common in lodgings at the time) with sexual relationships. As Michael Medved commented, if indeed Lincoln WERE homosexual, the LAST thing he would have done is be open about sleeping arrangements.

As to Paul and Jesus as homosexual icons, excuse me while I hurl.
Lisa N
 
Part of the disorder is that the person who has it feels that it is perfectly normal. Why not? It is all they know. They don’t grasp the essence of male/female complementarity or the pirmary procreative aspect of sexuality. If I don’t FEEL that I have a problem, then it’s YOUR problem, not mine!
 
At some point in the past there was a current in society that said we should suppress certain desires, thoughts, inclinations, discussions. Then the academics came along and said we were repressed and needed to discuss every detail of every deviant desire we had. That was called good mental health. Now we can see the fruits of it all.

Anyone who has any SSA is encouraged to explore it, celebrate it, act on it and , of course, scream discrimination.
 
40.png
Brad:
All your questions assume the modern notion that there is such a thing as a homosexual versus just a man or a woman with disordered desires towards the same sex. People with mental disorders should not be priests because they are placed, often alone, in situations with people with the greatest spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional needs. They need to be counseled and ministered to by someone that is mentally fit just as a patient in a hospital needs to be given care by nurses and doctors that are physically fit to perform the necessary tasks.
Click to expand...
It seems that their are many who would assume that homosexuality is a freely chosen life position. While the Vatican calls it a disorder, it seems to me that it has recognized that it is not a freely chosen disorder. Behavior is more or less freely chosen, but the condition is IMO not. Among the many births each year a fair large number of babys are born who have physical characteristics of both sexes. They have found that surgically placing these children in one sex or the other soon after birth is a mistake because in not a few cases the medically chosen sex has turned out to be wrong. The practice now is to wait and see how the brtain is wired, male or female, and then intervening surgically. That situation would seem to me to indicate that there may very well be people whose physical characteristics are in contradiction to how their brain is wired. I have only known two people in my life, both apparently male, who were homosexual. One admits but does not advertise his homoseuality. The other, a priest, I didn’t know was homosexual until after he died of AIDS. While he was alive he was troubled but was a wonderful compassionate priest.
 
Gender is determined by chromosomes, not external genitalia.

There is ample proof SSA is the result of environmental factors.
 
I had several questions after reading this article:
According to Gordon, catechists need to rise above fear to understand homosexuality. “We have to be willing to assist (some of) our clergy, who are themselves homosexual, in learning what it means to live a life that is free, a life that is open, but a life that is celibate,” she noted…
Click to expand...
Uh pardon me ---- I would assume that one has “learned” celibacy prior to being ordained – is the speaker inferring that the subject was not covered during formation? That they didn’t get it? That they are practicing living a life which is more “free” than the congregation knows about?
As for why gay priests are reluctant to speak openly about their lives, Father Martin offers the following reasons: Gay priests are often forbidden from speaking about their experiences by their religious superiors or bishops; …
Click to expand...
Uh pardon me – I am unacustomed to having ANY priest speak about about his “sexual” life and identity. It’s always been considered a private matter – not something one holds out for parish meditation or discussion as far as I’m concerned.
Dr. Tom Beaudoin, an assistant professor of religious studies at Santa Clara University, told a packed workshop audience that he believes almost everyone who has raised objections against gay priests has “very likely” learned something about God’s love from a priest who has a homosexual orientation.
Click to expand...
And he knows this how? Where does his broad survey of who learned what from whom come from? His later figure of 25% comes from who? Based on what? I also think there are time frames here, years ago, one sign of it in the seminary got you booted out faster than a bullet train… in .more modern times formation masters apparently didn’t bother.

I found the entire article full or suppositions, personal opinion and kind of a puff propaganda piece trying to lay a groundwork.
 
40.png
Brad:
All your questions assume the modern notion that there is such a thing as a homosexual versus just a man or a woman with disordered desires towards the same sex.
Click to expand...
That there is such a thing as a homosexual is commonly accepted, though, apparently not by you.
People with mental disorders should not be priests because they are placed, often alone, in situations with people with the greatest spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional needs. They need to be counseled and ministered to by someone that is mentally fit just as a patient in a hospital needs to be given care by nurses and doctors that are physically fit to perform the necessary tasks.
Click to expand...
You are presuming that homosexuals are all mental cases. I don’t think that the medical and psychiatric professions much believe that, though you can, if you want.
 
I thought that priests were supposed to be celibate. I must have missed something here. Sexual orientation or preferential sexual attraction is one thing. In my humble estimation, any priest who has chosen to act out on these after taking a vow of celibacy must be removed. It is a violation of the vow of celibacy.

Unfortunately, there are definitely gay subcultures among the clergy and religious. I believe that many of the activist groups that have sprung up after the sexual scandals broke are used as covers by some who want to change the moral stances of the Church on sexual matters (birth control, abortion, homosexuality, divorce/re-marriage and yes, gender “equality” and “fairness.” a.k.a. “women priests,” “neutering God.”)

Its time to strike an orthodox balance between the pious pre-Vatican II traditionalists who would like nothing better than to bring back altar rails, cassocks, and the Latin Mass for the sake of an attachment to idealistic nostalgia, and the highly vocal and activist “Ivy league educated” progressives who want to impose an Episcopalian model upon us all.
 
Lisa N:
Well haven’t we all heard the theory that Paul was a homosexual and that the “thorn in his side” was his homosexual desires? Just goes to show how desperate this group is to be accepted in spite of disordered thinking and behaviors.

I heard an interview with someone who agreed with the “Lincoln as homosexual” author. He merely confused the practice of sleeping in the same bed (very very common in lodgings at the time) with sexual relationships. As Michael Medved commented, if indeed Lincoln WERE homosexual, the LAST thing he would have done is be open about sleeping arrangements.

As to Paul and Jesus as homosexual icons, excuse me while I hurl.
Lisa N
Click to expand...
Paul nothing. I have actually heard someone say that Jesus Himself was fond of young boys because he said: “Suffer not the little ones to come unto me,” called Saint John (a teenager) the “Beloved Disciple,” and allowed him to rest his head upon His breast at the Last Supper.

Will this nonsense ever cease??? :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top