THE ELEPHANT IN THE CHURCH a Catholic priest speaks out against homosexual priests

[jlw]

Said “No”. Didn’t read this thread. So I have no comments to gleen from. But it was my first gut response. Hard to be a faithful teacher of the Catechism and JPII’s Theology of the Body with this cross on their shoulder. Not saying that he can’t overcome, but it make him less of a candidate in my mind to be an alter persona christos.

 

[Riley259]

Steve Andersen:

Sigh
At the risk of repeating myself
Homosexuality was removed from the standard manuals of mental health disorders decades ago.

I work in the field and have used the DSM quite a bit. The classifications are often very inexact for the simple reason that the experts often don’t know what’s going on - for example, there’s alot of “not otherwise specified” attached to mental disorders. Robert Spitzer was one of the key people who pushed to get homosexuality off as a disorder in the early 1970’s and there’s numerous info out there describing the behind the scene politicking that went on by gay activist groups to get it out of the manual. In recent years, Spitzer has come out with credible studies indicating that homosexuality is totally reversable in at least 30% of subjects and partially reversable in another 30 +%. The remaining third are intractable largely due to motivation which is a key component in reparative therapy. These studies and findings were a total about-face for Spitzer. The bottom line: Of course homosexuality is a disorder - it explicitly violates the natural law.

 

[Marialis_Cultus]

Now the priesthood has come to be considered the primary “gay profession.” We are the butt of jokes and presented as a pathetic caricature in the media. If the new document from Rome on homo- sexuality soon to be released leaves it up to the bishops or leaves loopholes in dealing with such a “complex issue,” then the floodgateswill swing wide. Heterosexual priests will not want to send fine young men from good families to the seminary. Priests will need to know with clarity their bishops policy on homosexuals in the seminary and the priesthood and be allowed to incardinate in a diocese where they can minister in obedience and good conscience. This could well be the issue that reveals the schism in the Church.

Has this new document been released yet?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Brad:

And it is the separation of sex and love that our Holy Father has repeatedly told us is the source of our unhappiness in this world.

That, is a two-edged sword of a saying - it implies there is no love where there is no sexual activity; it implies they ought always to be found together, never apart; which is a very good argument for ordaining only those who are married.​

That is not what is meant - but that is how that saying about the separation of love & sexuality could be interpreted. It could even be used as an argument for homosexual activity. ##

 

[steve64]

Ghosty:

I believe that those with same-sex attractions should definately be allowed into the priesthood so long as it doesn’t create scandal. While such attractions are disordered, all attractions to sin are disordered, and we don’t make a special limit on other sinful inclinations.

We most certianly do.

If one is a former alchoholic, it is not a good career choice to be a bartender.

In the same sense, if a man currently or previously has had same-sex attractions, it is neither wize nor charitable to put him in an all male environment.

 

[Brad]

## That, is a two-edged sword of a saying - it implies there is no love where there is no sexual activity; it implies they ought always to be found together, never apart; which is a very good argument for ordaining only those who are married.

That is not what is meant - but that is how that saying about the separation of love & sexuality could be interpreted. It could even be used as an argument for homosexual activity. ##

You can only draw these misinterpetations if you take the statement out of context. Certainly, the context in which the Holy Father makes these claims is clearly regarding separating sex FROM love. In these contexts, he talks of the proper relationship for sexual actions and how these actions are fufilling within that proper relationship.

In no way do these teachings contradict celibacy. Again, this takes the context of a good chunk of Church teaching (both theology and chastity) to understand. All Christians are called to live chaste lives. Married persons take on their vocation in a chaste manner (no sexual relations outside the marriage). Non-married persons save their purity for marriage (part of the process of being chaste throughout their life). Priests practice chastity in their marriage to the Church. Priests put aside that which is the greatest pleasures on earth to completely dedicate themselves to service of the Lord. It is not that sexual relations are bad or marriage is bad - it is that marriage to God is far greater. In this way love, separated from sex bears enormous fruit. Notice, however, that sex is not being separated from love.

Homosexual activity is largely (with some few exceptions) a process of sex separated from love (at minimum, it is sex separated from a true understanding of love).

So, the comment could be misinterpreted if just reading the one sentence (a common thing to do in today’s headline culture), but so could any sentence. The problem of our day is sex separated from true love. This is common because many do not know what love really is. It is not demonstrated well very frequently and it is not taught.

 

[Brad]

## That, is a two-edged sword of a saying - it implies there is no love where there is no sexual activity; it implies they ought always to be found together, never apart; which is a very good argument for ordaining only those who are married.

That is not what is meant - but that is how that saying about the separation of love & sexuality could be interpreted. It could even be used as an argument for homosexual activity. ##

You can only draw these misinterpetations if you take the statement out of context. Certainly, the context in which the Holy Father makes these claims is clearly regarding separating sex FROM love. In these contexts, he talks of the proper relationship for sexual actions and how these actions are fufilling within that proper relationship.

In no way do these teachings contradict celibacy. Again, this takes the context of a good chunk of Church teaching (both theology and chastity) to understand. All Christians are called to live chaste lives. Married persons take on their vocation in a chaste manner (no sexual relations outside the marriage). Non-married persons save their purity for marriage (part of the process of being chaste throughout their life). Priests practice chastity in their marriage to the Church. Priests put aside that which is the greatest pleasures on earth to completely dedicate themselves to service of the Lord. It is not that sexual relations are bad or marriage is bad - it is that marriage to God is far greater. In this way love, separated from sex bears enormous fruit. Notice, however, that sex is not being separated from love.

Homosexual activity is largely (with some few exceptions) a process of sex separated from love (at minimum, it is sex separated from a true understanding of love).

So, the comment could be misinterpreted if just reading the one sentence (a common thing to do in today’s headline culture), but so could any sentence. The problem of our day is sex separated from true love. This is common because many do not know what love really is. It is not demonstrated well very frequently and it is not taught.

 

[Brad]

Riley259:

I work in the field and have used the DSM quite a bit. The classifications are often very inexact for the simple reason that the experts often don’t know what’s going on - for example, there’s alot of “not otherwise specified” attached to mental disorders. Robert Spitzer was one of the key people who pushed to get homosexuality off as a disorder in the early 1970’s and there’s numerous info out there describing the behind the scene politicking that went on by gay activist groups to get it out of the manual. In recent years, Spitzer has come out with credible studies indicating that homosexuality is totally reversable in at least 30% of subjects and partially reversable in another 30 +%. The remaining third are intractable largely due to motivation which is a key component in reparative therapy. These studies and findings were a total about-face for Spitzer. The bottom line: Of course homosexuality is a disorder - it explicitly violates the natural law.

Yes - and my understanding is the results of reparative therapy are no better or worse than therapy for other mental disorders. 1/3 generally do not improve at all because they are unwilling to continue the therapy.

 

[RomanRyan1088]

I put NO!

The reason I did is because the question was “professed”. IMO a priest shouldn’t be professiong their sexual prefence, rather it be homosexual, or heterosexual. The purpose of the priesthood is to serve his people, not to talk about you attraction to people. I remember reading above someone asking if I would trust a homosexual with my childen, and i would have to say it would really all depend on rather they live or promote the homosexual lifestyle, and if they did, then no. If a priest has never acted on his SSA what so ever, then yes, they should be allowed to be priest. IMO, any priest going around saying, “Im a homosexual”, or “Im a Heterosexual”, should be excommunitcated!

 

[tuopaolo]

sbcoral:

Who’s going to join the priesthood if we don’t let in homosexuals? By some counts, half of all priests are gay. Maybe it’s more.
There aren’t many red-blooded, woman-wanting, heterosexual men knocking at the door of priesthood, choosing to deny their normal sexual impulses and live a life of chastity.
Many churches now don’t have any priests of their own. Take away the gays and the Catholic Church would fall apart. But at least those darn gays would be gone! Hurray!

That may be a reason to allow married priests. I remember a married priest expressing this opinion (that maybe the Church should consider allowing married priests since not having married priests seems to encourage the wrong crowd, i.e. homosexuals) on TV once during the heightened coverage of the priest homosexuality/pedophilia scandal. IIRC he was a convert and former Episcopalian pastor and his whole congregation more or less converted with him.

 

[tuopaolo]

Scout:

I am amazed at some of the ignorant statements made on this forum. What is going to take to get some of you to understand that homosexuality and pedophilia are NOT the same thing, and to think that every homosexual is some kind of predator is absolutely wrong. It’s like saying all black men can’t be trusted around white women. Both statements are just plain ignorant!

Homosexuality and pedophilia aren’t the same thing but they are highly correlated. Statistically and proportionally speaking homosexuals are FAR more likely to engage in sexual abuse than heterosexuals are.

But you are probably right that there are some homosexuals who are not pedophiles. But even these homosexuals may rightly be called predators depending on what you mean by “predator.” While these homosexuals may not prey on children, they still by definition prey on other people since even if the abominable act is committed with an accomplice who consents to it, the accomplice to the sin is still being victimized. To use an analogy, if a man has sex with a married woman and thereby ruins her relationship with God and her marriage, the woman is still a victim who has been preyed on even if she fully consented to the adultery.

 

[tuopaolo]

fix:

Well, mortal sin is mortal sin. No sanctifying grace is no sanctifying grace.

But some mortal sins are graver than others. This is noted in the Catechism in a few places such as these:

2356 *Rape *is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."

Rape in general and rape of children commmitted by parents are both mortal sins but the Catechism notes that the latter is “graver” than the former.

1858 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Any sin, including mortal sins, can thus be classified as more or less grave than any other sin.

Homosexuality is a graver sin than fornication or adultery. But it is not the gravest sexual sin. Bestiality would be the gravest sexual sin.

I know that those who are afflicted with disordered homosexual desires are called to Christian chastity, but I don’t think they can really be fully chaste until they shed themselves of these disordered desires because it seems to me that desiring to commit a sin is itself a sin, an “adultery of the heart” which Jesus likened to the act of “adultery” itself. If it’s not a desire but just an emotional inclination, I still think they can’t be completely chaste while having these disordered emotional inclinations since the Catechism teaches:

1770 Moral perfection consists in man’s being moved to the good not by his will alone, but also by his sensitive appetite, as in the words of the psalm: “My heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God.”

Of course most heterosexuals, aside from the Saints, are far from moral perfection too.

 

[fix]

tuopaolo:

But some mortal sins are graver than others. This is noted in the Catechism in a few places such as these:

2356 *Rape *is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."

Rape in general and rape of children commmitted by parents are both mortal sins but the Catechism notes that the latter is “graver” than the former.

1858 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Any sin, including mortal sins, can thus be classified as more or less grave than any other sin.

Homosexuality is a graver sin than fornication or adultery. But it is not the gravest sexual sin. Bestiality would be the gravest sexual sin.

I know that those who are afflicted with disordered homosexual desires are called to Christian chastity, but I don’t think they can really be fully chaste until they shed themselves of these disordered desires because it seems to me that desiring to commit a sin is itself a sin, an “adultery of the heart” which Jesus likened to the act of “adultery” itself. If it’s not a desire but just an emotional inclination, I still think they can’t be completely chaste while having these disordered emotional inclinations since the Catechism teaches:

1770 Moral perfection consists in man’s being moved to the good not by his will alone, but also by his sensitive appetite, as in the words of the psalm: “My heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God.”

Of course most heterosexuals, aside from the Saints, are far from moral perfection too.

I guess my point was that dying in mortal sends one to hell. No matter the nature of the mortal sin, separation from God is the result. I do not want any of it.

 

[Brad]

tuopaolo:

That may be a reason to allow married priests. I remember a married priest expressing this opinion (that maybe the Church should consider allowing married priests since not having married priests seems to encourage the wrong crowd, i.e. homosexuals) on TV once during the heightened coverage of the priest homosexuality/pedophilia scandal. IIRC he was a convert and former Episcopalian pastor and his whole congregation more or less converted with him.

The priesthood is currently infused with those that do no understand the true nature of the priesthood (homosexual or otherwise). There is a great deal of priest that practice liberalism or worse. They battle the Church rather than represent the Church. They complain frequently and the lead none. This is the cause of the vocation crisis. Who would want to follow such “leaders”?

Young people seek the meaning of life, namely, truth. They follow people whose actions are in complete agreement with their words and whose actions bear fruit.

The vocation crisis will not be solved by allowing a new pool of married men or adding women. The vocation crisis will only be solved by a true understanding of what a priest is and what the meaning of life is.

 

[4HisChurch]

VATICAN TO ENFORCE 1961 DOCUMENT BANNING HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS AND RELIGIOUS

Implementation Previously Left to Local Bishops

Perhaps I’m naive. Perhaps I’m uninformed. But why does it take 40 years to enforce a Vatican document?! I can’t help but feel that this is a big part of so many problems within the Church today. Open dissent is a “normal” part of Church politics these days.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

related thread: click on link below

’Open up the conversation’ on gay priests

 

[maklavan]

I was under the impression that Jesus said “Love your enemies” Many of the people posting on this thread obviously hate homosexuals. If they are true Christians they should be praying for them.

Psychologists point out that those who condemn another’s way of life most stridently and loudly actually have the seeds of the same ‘disorder’’ in themselves and are terrifired by the realisation of it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

maklavan:

Psychologists point out that those who condemn another’s way of life most stridently and loudly actually have the seeds of the same ‘disorder’’ in themselves and are terrifired by the realisation of it.

As they proclaim that claim “stridently and loudly” what does that say about them as a group do you think?

Actually they pretty much make that claim about anyone who has “guilt” or “anger” over sexual sins of any kind which is why I don’t think people don’t pay much attention to the claim any longer.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Brad:

The vocation crisis will not be solved by allowing a new pool of married men or adding women. The vocation crisis will only be solved by a true understanding of what a priest is and what the meaning of life is.

 

[Lisa_N]

maklavan:

I was under the impression that Jesus said “Love your enemies” Many of the people posting on this thread obviously hate homosexuals. If they are true Christians they should be praying for them.

Psychologists point out that those who condemn another’s way of life most stridently and loudly actually have the seeds of the same ‘disorder’’ in themselves and are terrifired by the realisation of it.

In a word, BALONEY. I condemn rapists, murderers, thieves way of life. So in condemning those who hurt others I am simply acknowledging my fear of killing, raping and stealing? PUH-LEASE! Psychology is far more an art than a science. Diagnoses in the DSM IV are about as stable as a leaf in the wind. They vote disorders in and out depending on the political climate.

I don’t think there is any evidence that people on this list hate homosexuals. They do hate the actions of some predatory homoesexuals however. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin. It’s a pretty easy concept to understand and to practice.

Lisa N