Should homosexual men be allowed to be priests?

[fix]

katherine2:

its the right wingers you have to worry about. When they start applying psycological tests to applicants to weed out homosexuals, it weeds out the rigid reactionaries they favor. The result is they have no nerve to utilize these tests.

IMO, aside from some gross pathology or organic disturbance, most psychological testing is illegitimate. These tests are used as tools to discredit one’s enemies too often. The Church had saintly priests for centuries before the psychbabblers came into vogue.

You know full well the tests are currently used to keep out orthodox men and the code words like reactionary and rigid are typical of the homosexualists and liberated nuns in stretch pants.

Sooner or later reasonable people will start to find out the dirty little secret about chanceries and seminaries. The secret is out about the number of “gay” clergy. Soon the disinfectant of sunshine will start to eliminate all lavender mafia and her supporters.

 

[buffalo]

katherine2:

its the right wingers you have to worry about. When they start applying psycological tests to applicants to weed out homosexuals, it weeds out the rigid reactionaries they favor. The result is they have no nerve to utilize these tests.

They have been weeding out normal heterosexual men that have devotion quite consistently, claiming they are rigid and would not make good priests.

A good read - Goodbye Good Men

 

[katherine2]

buffalo:

They have been weeding out normal heterosexual men that have devotion quite consistently, claiming they are rigid and would not make good priests.

And a crusade against gays will do an even bettr job. That’s why this issue remains at the talk and not the action stage.

 

[buffalo]

More PC baloney. The crusade should be against the gay lifestyle that has been championed as being equivalent.

Chastity is the issue here as far as Priesthood goes.

Fact - It has only been recent that homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder.

 

[fix]

buffalo:

More PC baloney. The crusade should be against the gay lifestyle that has been championed as being equivalent.

Chastity is the issue here as far as Priesthood goes.

Fact - It has only been recent that homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder.

Amen!! It is a mental disorder. Too bad so many reject that truth today. Many homosexuals can function, quite well, but it is a deep seated emotional and psychological disorder. If at all possible, they should not be priests.

 

[miguel]

buffalo:

Fact - It has only been recent that homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder.

…for reasons more to do with politics than science.

 

[Mijoy2]

Let’s look at the inconsistancy of the results of this poll.

The majority of Catholics feel that homosexuality is more of a choice then a genetic issue. (I believe there was another poll that showed this result).

Yet, the results of this poll reflect the majority of Catholics feel a homosexual should not be a Priest.

If homosexuality is a choice, then the subject here (the hypothetical homosexual) is in fact choosing NOT to be a homosexual. Therefore it follows he in fact, by definition is NOT a homosexual. Nulling the argument completely.

If one believes that the subject of this poll is a homosexual (desiring sexual relations with the same sex significantly more then the opposite sex) by some genetic cause and chooses to be a Priest, he is simply exercising humilty by following the will of God over his own will.

I think the result of this poll is a shame. I could state this with much stronger words but will refrain. It’s illogical and holds no integrity, unfortunatly.

I’d like to ask the question:

Assuming it is genetic and there is nothing the person can do to become heterosexual, then what is the reason this person should not be allowed to be a Priest?

 

[Brendan]

Mijoy2:

Assuming it is genetic and there is nothing the person can do to become heterosexual, then what is the reason this person should not be allowed to be a Priest?

So I don’t have to re-type, please see my post above (#52)

 

[mercygate]

Mijoy2:

Assuming it is genetic and there is nothing the person can do to become heterosexual, then what is the reason this person should not be allowed to be a Priest?

Because at this time we have dramatic evidence that enough (I do not say all) homosexuals in the Priesthood have failed to live according to the promises of their condition of life.

This is not an abstract philosophical issue. This touches the lives of our children and other innocent young people. The scandal of sexual abuse has demoralized and caused harm to many in the Church.

By what rationale would you not exclude a known source of abuse from the privilege of Holy Orders – at least until we have more reliable means for predicting who will be “good risk” candidates?

 

[buffalo]

Mijoy2:

Assuming it is genetic and there is nothing the person can do to become heterosexual, then what is the reason this person should not be allowed to be a Priest?

Assuming it is genetic for arguments sake only?

 

[monica_fan]

Exactly, well put, Mercygate. It’s simply not work the risk, at this time. There should be discussion on this but in the meantime, it’s best to wait and see before putting more children’s lives at risk.

mercygate:

Because at this time we have dramatic evidence that enough (I do not say all) homosexuals in the Priesthood have failed to live according to the promises of their condition of life.

This is not an abstract philosophical issue. This touches the lives of our children and other innocent young people. The scandal of sexual abuse has demoralized and caused harm to many in the Church.

By what rationale would you not exclude a known source of abuse from the privilege of Holy Orders – at least until we have more reliable means for predicting who will be “good risk” candidates?

 

[miguel]

Mijoy2:

…Assuming it is genetic and there is nothing the person can do to become heterosexual, then what is the reason this person should not be allowed to be a Priest?

You are assuming that “genetic” implies “not a disorder”. But there are plenty of medical examples of genetic disorders: (e.g., diabetes, susceptibility to certain types of cancer, etc.)

 

[caroljm36]

As some are saying, it really would not be an issue if the priests were chaste. I am certain that there have been many great gay priests in history–but how would one know they were gay? (through confession?) But the problem is that we have all been encouraged to act on our desires, that sex is the most important thing in life, and convinced that we are not really alive unless we are doin’ it, and priests have been just as subject to this propaganda as anyone.

What I would really like to know is, were there always abuses or is it a recent phenomenon? Things I have read about the Christian Brothers’ boys’ school in Australia in the 1930s lead me to believe the problem has always been there, but the matter of shame for the victims kept it under wraps. It isn’t nearly so earth-shatteringly difficult for a grown victim to talk about these things now, obviously, or there wouldn’t have been so many lawsuits.

 

[Mijoy2]

I think there is an implied assumption that may be incorrect. That assumption is that most priests, who committed these abuses, where homosexual. I do not think that simply because the abuses were directed to someone of the same sex, the perpetrator was necassarily homosexual. I think the person was certainly perverted and criminal yes, but where is the evidence they were homosexual? There are males who have relations with other males because of opportunity or perverted adventure. Some inmates would be another example. Some Hollywood celebrities would be another. These are men who believe themselves to be heterosexual.

There is also an implication (actaully in some cases outright statements) that make the claim that a homosexual male is muchmore likely to commit crimes against children the heterosexual men. Is there data to back this claim?

 

[fix]

Mijoy2:

I think there is an implied assumption that may be incorrect. That assumption is that most priests, who committed these abuses, where homosexual. I do not think that simply because the abuses were directed to someone of the same sex, the perpetrator was necassarily homosexual. I think the person was certainly perverted and criminal yes, but where is the evidence they were homosexual? There are males who have relations with other males because of opportunity or perverted adventure. Some inmates would be another example. Some Hollywood celebrities would be another. These are men who believe themselves to be heterosexual.

There is also an implication (actaully in some cases outright statements) that make the claim that a homosexual male is muchmore likely to commit crimes against children the heterosexual men. Is there data to back this claim?

I know of no man who wants sex with another man who does not have SSAD. Be they inmates, or deviants they have SSA. BTW, SSA is a deviant desire. This notion that having sex with teenage boys is not about homosexuality is beyond absurd. 100% of thos priests who had sex with teeanage boys were “gay” as they say today. They are homosexual. Whether it is genetic, environmental or a combo has no bearing on wether they should be priests. In any way one looks at it they have a sickness. It can be “cured” in some, but not all. Why on earth should we allow those with SSA to be in an all male environment? It defies logic. Should we start having 25 year old novice nuns live with priests? They take a vow of celebacy.

IMO, we have allowed pop culture reasoning to cloud our judgment.

 

[mlchance]

Mijoy2:

do not think that simply because the abuses were directed to someone of the same sex, the perpetrator was necassarily homosexual.

I think that saying otherwise is denying the obvious.

Mijoy2:

There is also an implication (actaully in some cases outright statements) that make the claim that a homosexual male is muchmore likely to commit crimes against children the heterosexual men. Is there data to back this claim?

Yes, there is. Quite a bit of data. On a per capita basis considering heterosexuals and homosexuals as separate groups, the sexual abuse of minors is disproportionately high among homosexual men. Given that homosexuality is an aberrant mental condition, it follows nicely that it often leads to other forms of aberrant sexual behavior.

For example, one study entitled “Homosexual Parents” from Adolescence 31 (1996) showed that rates of sexual molestation by homosexual parents occured in 29% of the case studies, compared to only 0.6% by heterosexual parents.

Male-on-male sexual abuse of children accounts for about one-third of instances, even though heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals in the general population by about 20-to-1. The book The Gay Report (Summit Books, 1979) reported data that showed 73% of adult homosexuals surveyed had had sex with adolescent boys. A study in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male pedophiles who preferred male victims were sexually attracted to males of all ages. W. D. Erickson reported in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1998) that 86% of male pedophiles against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

The evidence of danger posed by placing homosexuals in positions of authority, especially over adolescent boys, is undeniable.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[miguel]

katherine2:

its the right wingers you have to worry about. When they start applying psycological tests to applicants to weed out homosexuals, it weeds out the rigid reactionaries they favor. The result is they have no nerve to utilize these tests.

So basically, you think we need to continue the path of self-destruction we’ve been on…tolerating perverted, criminal behavior in the priesthood. Our kids, the reputation of the Church, the moral credibility of our clergy, our finances, all of it should be sacrificed in the name of political correctness. Scary.

 

[katherine2]

Yes, there is. Quite a bit of data. On a per capita basis considering heterosexuals and homosexuals as separate groups, the sexual abuse of minors is disproportionately high among homosexual men. Given that homosexuality is an aberrant mental condition

Yes, quite a bit of data. In every case, on a per capita basis, there is relatively little disproportion between homosexual and heterosexual men compared to the significant, radical, constant and unquestable disporportion between women (heterosexual and lesbian) and men.

Given that, one has to wonder if masclinity is an aberrant mental condition.

This is true in the Church as much as secular society.

The Church’s legal and moral responsibility for protecting children (as she admits) extends to priests, deacons, lay employees, lay volunteers, men and women religious. More than 2/3rds of those are women. Yet the scandal has been an almost exclusively male one as far as the preditators go.

If you want to look at statistical differences, its not gays, its men that are disproportionately abusers.

 

[WhatIf]

I answered that I lean toward NO because I am not confident that the seminaries will be strict enough on the celibacy issue. I don’t like the idea that a person who recognizes they are attracted to men, can enter a seminary and be around men all the time. It seems that there could be a great temptation and I expect strict adherence to the celibacy vow. One strike and your out kind of thing. It is not worth risking it. If homosexual clergy break their vow of chastity, I don’t want any tolerance. If this was the “policy” though, I fear fellow clergy would not report it because they don’t want to cost someone the priesthood.

Does castration take away sexual desire? I know, what an extreme proposal, but it would show a complete dedication to the vocation, wouldn’t it? Would it be so cruel, if done surgically and as painlessly as possible? Would an erection even be possible? Perhaps it is sinful to change the body in this way. I don’t know.

 

[mlchance]

katherine2:

If you want to look at statistical differences, its not gays, its men that are disproportionately abusers.

Homosexual men are disproportionately represented among the abuser population.

For example, one study entitled “Homosexual Parents” from Adolescence 31 (1996) showed that rates of sexual molestation by homosexual parents occured in 29% of the case studies, compared to only 0.6% by heterosexual parents.

Male-on-male sexual abuse of children accounts for about one-third of instances, even though heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals in the general population by about 20-to-1. The book The Gay Report (Summit Books, 1979) reported data that showed 73% of adult homosexuals surveyed had had sex with adolescent boys. A study in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male pedophiles who preferred male victims were sexually attracted to males of all ages. W. D. Erickson reported in Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1998) that 86% of male pedophiles against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

– Mark L. Chance.