Our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness

[contemplative]

ARCHBISHOP EDWIN O’BRIEN: We don’t want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there’s really no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual. We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness.
Read more at online Newshour PBS

 

[cathgal]

contemplative:

ARCHBISHOP EDWIN O’BRIEN: We don’t want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there’s really no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual. We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness.
Read more at online Newshour PBS

That’s wise of him. Not just for people of faith, but also the culture. 20+ years from now, little boys probably wouldn’t know the difference between male and female. More the reason to have only hetero for priesthood because if there’s one place on this earth that can proclaim what it means to be a truly human male, it’s the Catholic Church.

 

[Nohome]

cathgal:

More the reason to have only hetero for priesthood because if there’s one place on this earth that can proclaim what it means to be a truly human male, it’s the Catholic Church.

Can you elaborate? I don’t understand this comment.

I don’t want to start WWIII here, but priests were never a “male role model” in my life. They lived a life without a family, lead the Mass (wearing gowns) and people tended to clam up around them. Growing up I really thought of them as rather odd.

Don’t get me wrong, many priests were positive role models, just not very male. Rather more androgenous than anything. I know of only on preist in my entire life that I would call a “male role model” and he quit to get married.

Nohome

 

[emsvetich]

cathgal:

That’s wise of him. Not just for people of faith, but also the culture. 20+ years from now, little boys probably wouldn’t know the difference between male and female. More the reason to have only hetero for priesthood because if there’s one place on this earth that can proclaim what it means to be a truly human male, it’s the Catholic Church.

You hit it right on the head. I had not thought of that perspective. In a society attempting to make males female and females male and every gender including trans- gender or whatever as “normal” as the next, there is a need for gender role models. “Father” should be definite statement in the Catholic Church.

 

[m134e5]

If a man acts masculine, what does it matter who he’s attracted to? I certainly don’t want to hear my priest asking everyone to take notice whenever a pretty girl walks by.

 

[Lonevoice]

contemplative:

ARCHBISHOP EDWIN O’BRIEN: We don’t want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there’s really no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual. We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness.
Read more at online Newshour PBS

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[Pentecost2005]

m134e5:

If a man acts masculine, what does it matter who he’s attracted to? I certainly don’t want to hear my priest asking everyone to take notice whenever a pretty girl walks by.

Well, now, that wouldn’t be a very gentlemanly thing to do, now, would it? You present a false dilemma.

 

[m134e5]

My point is that priests should, look, and act like men. People should be able to relate to them as a father figure. That does not mean, however, that they themselves must be attracted to women- because they are celibate, and they should not be discussing who they think is sexually attractive with anybody.

 

[Pentecost2005]

m134e5:

My point is that priests should, look, and act like men. People should be able to relate to them as a father figure. That does not mean, however, that they themselves must be attracted to women- because they are celibate, and they should not be discussing who they think is sexually attractive with anybody.

A man who is sexually attracted to men is not fully masculine. The masculine is complemented by the feminine. I would not be looking for masculine leadership from a homosexual man, whether he is chaste or not.

 

[m134e5]

Pentecost2005:

A man who is sexually attracted to men is not fully masculine. The masculine is complemented by the feminine. I would not be looking for masculine leadership from a homosexual man, whether he is chaste or not.

But how would you know if he was a homosexual man or not? If he accept it as his cross to bear, lives a chaste life, and has masculine mannerisms, then you would never even know he struggled with homosexuality unless he told you.

 

[puzzleannie]

Nohome:

Can Don’t get me wrong, many priests were positive role models, just not very male. Rather more androgenous than anything. I know of only on preist in my entire life that I would call a “male role model” and he quit to get married.

Nohome

sorry that was your experience, growing up close to a parish that always had 4-5 resident priests, 12 years in Catholic school, the priests we knew were definitely role models of good Catholic men, manly in that they exhibited manly virtues, that you would admire and look for in someone to marry, in a brother, in someone to trust to act like a real man: take responsibility, be strong, be a leader, be self-disciplined, put the welfare of others before his own, see the big picture, fight for what is right, be brave, exhibit fortitude and virtue.

recently had a chance to talk with my sibs and in-laws about this topic and all agreed the priests we knew as kids were great male role models, and wondered how all this abuse etc. could have been going in in that time, and we have no inkling of it.

maybe the problems is that our society’s definition of what makes a good man has changed. Certainly values like “men behaving badly” and beer commercials, and role models presented by sports stars are not my definition of real men, but of overgrown adolescents.

 

[Franze]

I am agree with the bishop. But the culture is very difficult now.

 

[snoopy]

m134e5:

But how would you know if he was a homosexual man or not? If he accept it as his cross to bear, lives a chaste life, and has masculine mannerisms, then you would never even know he struggled with homosexuality unless he told you.

I have something to add to this. I personally know 2 men who have very very effeminate mannerisms. If I didn’t know that they were married with children, I would say they were probably homosexual. Of course they still could be, but is it right to judge a person by their mannerisms? I think what this boils down to is, There is no way for anyone to know for sure what sexual orientation a person is. Someone can be very effeminate and be straight, and by the same token can be very masculine and be homosexual. Maybe it is not for us to judge. Maybe it is none of our business.

 

[Nohome]

snoopy:

I have something to add to this. I personally know 2 men who have very very effeminate mannerisms. If I didn’t know that they were married with children, I would say they were probably homosexual. Of course they still could be, but is it right to judge a person by their mannerisms? I think what this boils down to is, There is no way for anyone to know for sure what sexual orientation a person is. Someone can be very effeminate and be straight, and by the same token can be very masculine and be homosexual. Maybe it is not for us to judge. Maybe it is none of our business.

Until the Vatican develops some sore of “gaydar” (radar for homosexuality), it will be impossible to know the hearts of the clergy. This whole thing is looking more like a publicity stunt everyday. Why not just face the fact that the Bishops are responsible for the sex abuse that they facilitated, cut their loses and move on?

Nohome

 

[buffalo]

Nohome:

This whole thing is looking more like a publicity stunt everyday. Why not just face the fact that the Bishops are responsible for the sex abuse that they facilitated, cut their loses and move on?

Nohome

:banghead: This is such a tired position with very little basis in fact as I pointed out to you in other threads.

 

[Brad]

Nohome:

Until the Vatican develops some sore of “gaydar” (radar for homosexuality), it will be impossible to know the hearts of the clergy. This whole thing is looking more like a publicity stunt everyday. Why not just face the fact that the Bishops are responsible for the sex abuse that they facilitated, cut their loses and move on?

Nohome

Actually, it is not that difficult.

Ask these questions:

Have you been chaste for the past 3 years?

Do you participate in any organizations or groups that support homosexual activites, marriage, or legal unions?

Do you understand that you will not be able to be in a pastoral or teaching capacity as a priest ever again if you participate in homosexual activies, violations of the law, groups that support these activies, or teach that homosexual activies are not sinful?

Enforce the last understanding and require spiritual growth based on pre-established critieria, including chastity prior to ordination.

 

[miguel]

What if, over the last 32 years since Roe v Wade, we had Bishops like Gen. George S. Patton, men that all men (not just Catholic men) could respect, men who could actually lead and inspire other men and women to stand up to the culture of death? Is this kind of needed leadership going to come from the ranks of the Lavender Mafia?

 

[Nohome]

miguel:

What if, over the last 32 years since Roe v Wade, we had Bishops like Gen. George S. Patton, men that all men (not just Catholic men) could respect, men who could actually lead and inspire other men and women to stand up to the culture of death? Is this kind of needed leadership going to come from the ranks of the Lavender Mafia?

Patton had quite a mouth on him, not sure this is the kind of “maleness” the Church seeks. Though your LM comments are well taken.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Brad:

Actually, it is not that difficult.

Ask these questions:

Have you been chaste for the past 3 years?

Do you participate in any organizations or groups that support homosexual activites, marriage, or legal unions?

Do you understand that you will not be able to be in a pastoral or teaching capacity as a priest ever again if you participate in homosexual activies, violations of the law, groups that support these activies, or teach that homosexual activies are not sinful?

Enforce the last understanding and require spiritual growth based on pre-established critieria, including chastity prior to ordination.

If a man is capable of breaking his vows, he is more than capable of telling a lie in the vetting process you propose, thought having an eject button as you suggest would be a breath of fresh air.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

:banghead: This is such a tired position with very little basis in fact as I pointed out to you in other threads.

Really? I don’t recall discussing the whole seminary inspection hooha with anyone on this board.

Why can’t you accept that the Bishops, pious as they may be, have been really lousy managers? The Chruch never taught them to manage, only to obey. Now things are a mess and the Church needs a scapegoat.

Nohome