Rochester bishop: Vatican isn’t against homosexuals entering priesthood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Barbkw said:
Lynx,

A person who practices the virtue of chastity will become capable of looking past their sexual needs. Chastity enables a person to relate to other people as people (not as potential sexual objects).

With practice, chaste people don’t concern themselves with their internal sexual desires, whether they be same sex attracted or heterosexual attracted.

In the Catholic priesthood (and amoung Catholic religious) the importance is on fidelity. The question is, whether or not a person will and can faithfully commit to a lifetime of obedience to the Church (to their vow with Jesus) and to the practice of chastity.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. But that’s exactly why I’m puzzled by the bishop saying “I know some magnificent gay priests.”

If the focus is on the virtue of chastity and seeing other people as people and not as potential sex objects, why would the bishop or the priests, or anyone, refer to them as “gay” priests, a word which is more evocative of a preferred lifestyle rather than chastity? It seems to belie his very point. If they think of themselves primarily as gay, they should probably not have entered the seminary, at least under current guidelines.
 
lynx said:
Homophobia, or outright oppression of gays, is an issue within many churches. People, here on this forum as well, can’t separate homosexuality from homosexual acts. I have seen more people than I can count, and heard more than I can believe, state that just being homosexual is a sin and that homosexuals are inherently evil. Even by Catholic standards this is not the case. If homosexuals make it into positions of power within the church this might change some minds.
Click to expand...
You are aware that the priest scandal was one predominately of homosexuality? This Bishop is in clear contradiction with the mind of the Church.
 
buffalo said:
This Bishop is in clear contradiction with the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
Not really. While homosexual applicants will definitely face a lot more scrutinity, the SSA does not automatically exclude them from consideration in most diocese.
 
valentino said:
he is saying to live a homosexual lifestyle meaning engaging in homosexual practices.Aprofessed homosexual does not have to give in to sinful desires.Incompatible is meant not in accordance with vows taken;poverty ,celibacy,etc.
Click to expand...
It’s funny that I understood exactly what the Bishop said while also understanding the sinfullness of homosexual acts and holding both thoughts in my mind at the same time.

Why people need to be reminded of the sinfulness of homosexual acts whenever the topic of homosexual persons comes up I just don’t get. It’s every single time. It’s not like we don’t know it already…sometimes to the point of self-hatred. :sad_yes:
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Why people need to be reminded of the sinfulness of homosexual acts whenever the topic of homosexual persons comes up I just don’t get. It’s every single time. It’s not like we don’t know it already…sometimes to the point of self-hatred. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
It’s brought up for the very reason Lynx posted at first: the inability to distinguish between homosexual acts and same-sex attraction. Because of this confusion, there is a need to remind people of this. So yes, some people “don’t know it already” and hence the need for the reminder.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Not really. While homosexual applicants will definitely face a lot more scrutinity, the SSA does not automatically exclude them from consideration in most diocese.
Click to expand...
Deep seated tendencies do. Whether or not a bishop follows direction is another issue.
 
lynx said:
It’s only a moral disorder if you act upon that impulse.
Click to expand...
That is not quite true.

The tendancy itself is ordered away from that which is moral. So the tendency itself is a moral disorder ( incorrectly ‘dis’ directed ‘order’)

It becomes sinful (a culpability) when it is willfully acted upon.
 
buffalo said:
Deep seated tendencies do. Whether or not a bishop follows direction is another issue.
Click to expand...
That’s why a candidate with SSA will receive more scrutiny that the average candidate. As long as the candidate isn’t steeped in the gay culture and is able to be chaste/celibate then they will not be excluded.
 
buffalo said:
You are aware that the priest scandal was one predominately of homosexuality? This Bishop is in clear contradiction with the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you. It says that he dismisses the statement of the Vatican. With all due respect, it seems like we always have to be on watch for what some bishops are saying to make sure that they are in accordance with what hte Vatican is saying.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
That’s why a candidate with SSA will receive more scrutiny that the average candidate. As long as the candidate isn’t steeped in the gay culture and is able to be chaste/celibate then they will not be excluded.
Click to expand...
And just how are they going to know this? when? how? It seems to me that enemies of the Church are more clever than our leaders.
 
From the article, in case anyone missed it:
In 2004 Bishop Clark was named one of the most “gay friendly” bishops in the United States by the **Rainbow Sash Movement, **members of which **challenge **Catholic Church leaders by approaching the Communion rail while wearing a symbol of solidarity with the homosexualist movement.
Click to expand...
It says that he **dismisses **the statement of the Vatican.
Click to expand...
I recently read something from the USCCB which criticized the faithful for not listening to their shepherds. Perhaps when the shepherds start obeying Rome, we’ll start listening!
 
JimG said:
Yes, of course. But that’s exactly why I’m puzzled by the bishop saying “I know some magnificent gay priests.”

If the focus is on the virtue of chastity and seeing other people as people and not as potential sex objects, why would the bishop or the priests, or anyone, refer to them as “gay” priests, a word which is more evocative of a preferred lifestyle rather than chastity? It seems to belie his very point. If they think of themselves primarily as gay, they should probably not have entered the seminary, at least under current guidelines.
Click to expand...
I agree, his comment needs to be cleared up. The Church needs to use the term celibate or chaste SSA. Not the words “gay” or “homosexual” when speaking about SSA priests.

There are Catholic priests who I preceive as being same sex attracted.

And my perceptions may be wrong, I’m primarily cueing into their feminized speech habits, their displayed range of emotions and their body language.

However, those that I think are SSA, are also great priests. They are faithful, chaste and well balanced in their behaviors with men and they are caring toward women.
 
Barbkw said:
I agree, his comment needs to be cleared up. The Church needs to use the term celibate or chaste SSA. Not the words “gay” or “homosexual” when speaking about SSA priests.

There are Catholic priests who I preceive as being same sex attracted.

And my perceptions may be wrong, I’m primarily cueing into their feminized speech habits, their displayed range of emotions and their body language.

However, those that I think are SSA, are also great priests. They are faithful, chaste and well balanced in their behaviors with men and they are caring toward women.
Click to expand...
The one issue that the Church must face is the vocation crisis. What male young man wants to emulate an effeminate example? Needed - strong reverent masculine males.
 
Tigg said:
From the article, in case anyone missed it:

I recently read something from the USCCB which criticized the faithful for not listening to their shepherds. Perhaps when the shepherds start obeying Rome, we’ll start listening!
Click to expand...
Correctly. Now and days we need to be attentive to what the Vatican says because of so many disobedient shepperds.
 
buffalo said:
The one issue that the Church must face is the vocation crisis. What male young man wants to emulate an effeminate example? Needed - strong reverent masculine males.
Click to expand...
I agree. What we need is some strong male examples with strong voice on the Truth. Because of so many in teh Church today, we having a crisis because they are advocating for the same sex marriage, women s ordination and so forth. it seems to me that we should take care of this problem first before trying to bring more of them into the Church. Why are our shepperds so far from what is really important for the Church?
 
The one issue that the Church must face is the vocation crisis. What male young man wants to emulate an effeminate example? Needed - strong reverent masculine males.
Click to expand...
I understand your mental ideal.

However the priestly calling is for men who wish to care for the Church as a father would care for his children. What’s in a man’s heart is what counts.
 
The article containing the speech of the Bishop of Rochester should be sent to the Vatican. He should be relieved of his position. He is directly disobeying the Pope, and he should be removed from office for doing this.

I am personally sending this information to the Vatican. it is my sincere hope that he will be removed very promptly. People like this are destructive to the church.
 
buffalo said:
The one issue that the Church must face is the vocation crisis. What male young man wants to emulate an effeminate example? Needed - strong reverent masculine males.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I know I’m new to the Catholic Church, but I think this kind of thinking is a problem. You broad-brush all homosexual oriented men as being effeminate fairies and act like all straight men are manly and strong. Has no one here heard of Errol Flynn? What about gay biker types? You’ll find more than a few very masculine acting gays in the NFL or the NBA, and Russell Brand seems like a total queen yet he’s as straight as they come.

It’s more complicated than that. And I don’t see why a SSA priest has any more natural trouble remaining chaste than a straight one. When a person is just as upset at a priest breaking his vows by sleeping with a woman as they would be if it was a man, then I think they are being consistent.

And I’m sorry but I don’t think there’s any evidence that SSA men are more likely to be pedophiles, any more than straight men would be attracted to little girls. Let’s at least keep that issue separate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top