Poll on the Subjects of Homosexual Clergy

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A priest can talk about his own struggles with lust, for example to a group of teens, without having to discuss what gender turns him on.
 
Holy Orders parallels marriage. Would we support a marriage if a man with deep seated homosexual tendencies wanted to marry a women?
 
It’s not the same though. It’s similar in beauty and service, sure. But I’m talking about observable behaviors. A priest would not bare his heart to random Catholic men and women in the same way as a couple, for instance. So emotional intimacy isn’t the same already. Physical intimacy is obviously different, as we know.

Again, I reiterate that the Church consists of men too. One can argue that straight men don’t know what it’s like to have an intimate relationship with them either. It’s not a romantic or sexual relationship, and straight celibate men don’t experience such relationships. Gay men have strong and genuine relationships with women (friends, sisters etc) so it’s not like they are incapable of loving women. A sexual and romantic relationship isn’t the only rewarding/complementary relationship out there and also, we don’t exclude straight men who have never been in a relationship with a woman.

I just don’t think a romantic/sexual attraction to women is necessary in the priesthood. An attraction in itself doesn’t necessarily mean one is able/unable to experience a rewarding relationship.

Can you unpack this statement?
 
If a man with “deep seated homosexual tendencies” wanted to marry a woman, was honest with a woman about his tendencies, but also planned to have sex with his wife at least occasionally and be open to life, and the woman was fully aware of all this and fine with it, then they have fulfilled the requirements to be married and they can go ahead and marry each other. It is not our choice to “support” or even know anything about their intimate situation, unless the couple asks our opinion - which, in reality, very few couples do because most people can decide if they want to marry each other without seeking approval from some group.

There have actually been some successful marriages of this type. Honesty with each other prior to marriage, as well as what each person wants, is key to making it work. The woman might herself have gay tendencies, so she would be understanding of the man’s struggle.
 
Last edited:
That’s true, but if they were asked, are they to avoid it/lie? Would we insist the same standard when a straight priest reveals he is straight?

I mean, we really don’t hear people complaining about straight priests being open about their attractions although they’re chaste. And most people would naturally assume a priest/anyone is gay if they avoid mentioning a gender as conversations about relationships or attractions would naturally have pronouns.
 
Candidates for the priesthood are presumably asked about these things by their spiritual directors and/or whoever is in charge of admitting them to the seminary, to the diocese, to an order, etc. Of course they should not lie and must be honest. I would also presume that the person in authority making the inquiries is evaluating the responses in the context of everything else about the candidate, such as his age, his background prior to the priesthood, whether he has been involved in serious relationships, had a sinful or dysfunctional past that he has overcome, etc.

This is a necessary inquiry. By contrast, the people in the pews should have no need to know what orientation their priest is. The priest is not going to be anyone’s sexual partner, assuming he keeps his vows, so I do not consider his proclivities to be any of my business. With respect to “gender pronouns”, I think the subject of lust can be discussed in general enough terms or using both pronouns. The priest does not have to specifically recount to his audience some story of when he was attracted to a specific person identified by gender.

If a parishioner asked a priest, “Father, are you gay?” I would expect the priest to politely tell him it was none of his business.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I never sat around wondering if my parish priests were gay, straight, bi, etc. I just thought of them as celibate priests.
 
Last edited:
In this case both parties were open and there was transparency and agreeement upon. Where a Prist is acting as The Church’s Bridegroom, the body of The Chirch has to have a majority agreement with much transparency. Even then, isn’t the act of eatting the Eucharist like having marital relations?
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I don’t know about anyone else, but I never sat around wondering if my parish priests were gay, straight, bi, etc. I just thought of them as celibate priests.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve always thought of it as completely irrelevant.
 
If women can’t be priests because they don’t accurately model Jesus … then isn’t it the same for men who are attracted to men, want to dress as a woman, or have a sexual change?
 
No, psychological evaluation is a normal part of discernment for the priesthood.
 
It’s not really called “gayness”, but leaving that aside, what do you mean?
 
We don’t sit around considering whether Father X is “gay,” “straight,” etc. because those are fictions. “Sexual orientation” is meaningless. But this is off topic, so I started another thread to discuss.
 
If you’re trying to make some argument that “the body of the Church” includes all of us in the pews, the priest may be “marrying the Church”, but he is not having sex with all of us in the pews, any more than a nun becoming the “bride of Christ” is having sex with Christ.

Again, those of us who are not involved in selecting or having authority over a priest have absolutely no reason to know or care whether his libido is moved by men, women, both, seeing purple underwear, or a fantasy of his 5th grade teacher.

Please use some common sense.
 
Holy virginity, celibacy and Holy Orders are nuptial in the sense of bearing spiritual fruit. Likewise marriage.
 
Leviticus 21:
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Doesn’t seem to mention homosexuals.

It goes on:
10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;
11 Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
12 Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the Lord.
13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
15 Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the Lord do sanctify him.
 
If you’re suggesting a priest should just take a wife “in her virginity”, good luck with checking out priest’s fiancees to see if they’re virgins in this day and age.
 
Are you saying that people don’t genuinely experience same sex attraction, or that people don’t have fixed, definable orientations generally?
 
It is a moot point. Leviticus 21 does not form part of the Catechism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top