A
- Status
T
the_hazel_nut
Guest
Well, this article sure is a doozy. It makes the psychological screening process for priests look like a homophobic witch hunt, and it says in many cases the seminary directors are gay… 
and… *"A criterion like this may not ensure that you are getting the best candidates, Though it might get you people who lie or who are so confused they do not really know who they are.” *
So its a homophobic witch hunt run by gay men that produces priests who are sexually confused?
If this article paints an accurate picture, I don’t even know what to say.
and… *"A criterion like this may not ensure that you are getting the best candidates, Though it might get you people who lie or who are so confused they do not really know who they are.” *So its a homophobic witch hunt run by gay men that produces priests who are sexually confused?
If this article paints an accurate picture, I don’t even know what to say.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Surely chastity is all that matters. There must be good priests who once had homosexual inclinations but have managed to reject these temptations and nailed them to the Cross. Just like a heterosexual priest (or layman) should shun his temptations and do likewise. Grace, Holiness and fidelity to Holy Mother Church is what is required to be a good priest
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Maybe the director of the seminary meant there are no actively gay men in his seminary which is surely good!
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
But many of those inclinations resurrect themselves in an all-male enviornment which might include bi-sexual and gay men. Talk to any priest who has “been around.” He can tell you about the cruising of gay bars by gay priests, having a regular in-house lover, even some engaging in orgies. Not true of all priests/seminarians who entered with an overt or latent gay orientation! But especially true of those who were never examined as to sexual preferences, habits; also true for those candidates who have never looked at their sexual issues on their own.
Several issues are involved in the article, the discussion, and the priesthood:
(1) Celibacy/chastity. Most of us, male and female, are very sexual creatures and would be so during any era, without external stimulation, encouragement, or pressure. Thank God for that, or the human race could not continue to perpetuate itself. Religious life is unusual in that it asks us to suspend all those urges, and permanently. I.m.o. this is a stumbling block to larger seminaries. Not necessarily the main stumbling block or the only stumbling block: otherwise previously ample eras for priests and for large seminary classes could not be explained. However, the man who is able to be a permanent sexual ascetic, without compromise to his health and happiness, is rare.
(2) Pedophilia. It’s difficult for most people to understand that straight men can have a sexual interest in boys, but they can and do. Some men with no gay orientation (could not even imagine having sex with an adult male) are perfectly fine with sexual involvement with boys. Other straight male pedophiles pursue only underage girls, still others pursue both genders. Most pedophilia in the world is perpetrated by straight men; a small portion is perpetrated by gay men (on boys), not because they’re gay, but because they’re pedophiles. Their gay orientation is separate.
(3) Sexual orientation. There was an earlier, good discussion about this within the last several months on CAF. (relative to how it affects the priesthood) JReducation made some good distinctions as to why/how it’s important. Depends on the degree of orientation (partly), because any sense of exclusivity with regard to gender non-sexual affection will also influence a priest’s ability to relate equally and non-partially to both genders, which is a major goal & end of this priestly vow: the freedom to relate to all of God’s people in an embracing, nondiscriminatory charity.
Pedophiles like to hide. They operate in secret. Previous assumptions and environments for priests enabled pedophiles to act out, protected by their authority and independence, and as we have heard about, too often allowed that abuse to continue. There was often little to no self-examination or external examinations for priests. Latent tendencies were not exposed or acknowledged. To the extent that the priesthood remains partly protected, certainly partly independent for the individual priest, the conditions still exist for an undiscovered pedophile to practice within the priesthood, so to the extent that screening for pedophilia may discourage or winnow such candidates, it’s a good thing to have open questioning occurring.
A gay subculture, even without physical engagement, is toxic to seminaries, as it divides the seminary in half – those who identify, those who do not – in an environment which is supposed to be characterized by brotherhood and community. So even without sexual activity, any candidate whose sexual identity is a focus while in seminary is someone who has failed to leave behind, or to make secondary, his sexuality. His mentality is not fully given over to his vocation, because he has a competing “vocation” in mind: that of somehow “fulfilling” his gay orientation. If that is even subconscious, that could interfere with his full dedication to his profession, which is not about gay and straight, but about ministering to the spiritual needs (not the sexual needs) of the Body of Christ and people of God. By a subconscious interference I mean that he is entering in significant part to hang out with other guys who may confirm him in his orientation, even if the confirmation is not explictly genital.
The priesthood is not about confirming or discovering your sexual identity. That is a separate journey, if you’re on that journey: one that should be completed with professionals in the field, not fellow unlicensed seminarians or priests.
So I don’t think the questioning referred to in *The Times *article will necessarily kill two birds with one stone; it assumes that one is caused by the other, which science and just statistical findings do not support. But I do think that both a gay subculture and certainly a hidden pedophilia “culture” (latent presence) are extremely toxic for the Church, if for no other reason than that the presence of either/both discourages healthy men from joining, and also depresses morale for those seminarians who may find themselves odd man out.
E
edwest2
Guest
Where are you getting all of this information? Sources please.
Second, since we do not have all of the details of the screening process, there is too much room for speculation.
As a priest said on Catholic Radio, being celibate is liberating. As another priest said on Catholic Radio after being asked by Larry King: Why are you people so hung up on sex? He told Larry: “Larry. Your producers call me about these things. I’m not calling them.” He went on to say that The World is far too concerned about sexuality. That the Catholic Church knows, and has known, about God’s plan for human sexuality. It is not the Church’s fault that people don’t listen.
After Sexual Liberation in 1968, what do we have today? One in five people in the United States running around with an STD? This is better? This is more civilized? This is modern?
When the Hippies were yelling about > FREEDOM < what they really wanted was to have sex with their girlfriends, smoke dope and not have anybody tell them what to do. So, here we are.
Mom? Are you my real mom? Where’s my dad? Who are those other people? Half brothers or sisters.
We have seen an increase in men joining seminaries.
God bless,
Ed
Second, since we do not have all of the details of the screening process, there is too much room for speculation.
As a priest said on Catholic Radio, being celibate is liberating. As another priest said on Catholic Radio after being asked by Larry King: Why are you people so hung up on sex? He told Larry: “Larry. Your producers call me about these things. I’m not calling them.” He went on to say that The World is far too concerned about sexuality. That the Catholic Church knows, and has known, about God’s plan for human sexuality. It is not the Church’s fault that people don’t listen.
After Sexual Liberation in 1968, what do we have today? One in five people in the United States running around with an STD? This is better? This is more civilized? This is modern?
When the Hippies were yelling about > FREEDOM < what they really wanted was to have sex with their girlfriends, smoke dope and not have anybody tell them what to do. So, here we are.
Mom? Are you my real mom? Where’s my dad? Who are those other people? Half brothers or sisters.
We have seen an increase in men joining seminaries.
God bless,
Ed
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
edwest, I have no clue what kind of "sources’ you need to have basic knowledge of the three aspects I outlined. This knowledge is abundantly available. It’s general knowledge, not esoteric knowledge. I have done a lot of reading about it over many years (thus wouldn’t be able to remember the most recent sources for that), all my 3 broad points are confirmed by sources both within and without the Church, among anyone who knows a great deal about how seminaries operate and what religious life is all about – not to mention the history of pedophilia in them and in society in general. Further, the “sources” you seek can be found on many previous threads on CAF as well. I’m not doing your homework for you. The search function on CAF is there at your command. Nothing I posted is obscure.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
This story sounds like it was written by the Iranian propaganda machine. Absolute lunacy to say you’re pretty sure there’s no gay men in your seminary or that “I know it when it see it.”
- Status