What is a "homosexual network" in the context of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words, I think it is harmful to simplify to the extent of calling it a “homosexual” problem (suggested by terms like “homosexual network,” etc.

Because that’s just lazy, not to mention uncharitable considering there are many other priests who live out their call heroically and chastely — all the while having SSA.

Unfortunately, and this is only a gut feeling: I think many of these sad cases may be affected (at least in part!) by confusion about how to live out one’s sexuality when one is raised to think that only heterosexual marriage is the only safe outlet for sex.

Of course, I accept the church’s teaching on marriage. But ironically, I think that these incidents go to show precisely why the Church must figure out a way to reach out to gay/SSA Catholics. Help them see a way to move forward in the Church, and not just say “be celibate and single all your life!”
 
And that’s the thing.

Because if some of these sources (e.g., certain conservative sources) nuance it — IF they even do that, mind you — it’s only a slight nod’s worth.

So the impression, again, often still remains that priests with SSA are dangerous.
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
Then maybe we all ought to step back and ask: Why are such persons attracted to the priesthood? Is there a reason why a same-sex attracted Catholic youth would feel called or cornered into the priesthood?
Click to expand...
There have been articles in the past that discussed how, in the past, people with socially unacceptable sexual urges were drawn to priesthood and religious life because a) it allowed persons who did not wish to marry to be in a socially acceptable position in an era when being single for life was looked down upon, and b) some of them believed that when forced by their vows to be chaste, they wouldn’t act on their urges (and it’s likely a number of them did resist temptation ).

We also can’t leave out the possibility that some joined the priesthood or religious life because they perceived it as a way to find same-sex partners, and that some were probably groomed from a very young age by older priests who then facilitated their victims’ education at seminary and eventual priesthood, or that some boys were victimized at a young age at seminary or pre-seminary school, and these victims probably eventually did unto others what was done unto them.

Finally, it’s highly likely that in the days when people weren’t talking and reading about sexuality all the time and boys often began religious formation at a young age, some of them didn’t realize they were gay until they were much older.
 
This isn’t totally related. But what is your opinion about the Roman requirement to priestly celibacy?

As a Catholic, I do accept the call to celibacy in the sense that all unmarried people must aim to be chaste.

And as a Catholic, I accept that Jesus exalted celibacy to a privileged vocation, and it was endorsed by St Paul and the early church as well as saints throughout the centuries.

However, I am starting to wonder if the priestly requirement is so good after all. The celibate requirement suggests that the call to priesthood parallels the call to celibacy. But how can we be so sure everyone of the former is also called to the latter? Didn’t Paul recommend people marry so as to not burn with passion?

What do you think? Again, this doesn’t really directly apply to the current question. But I think it’s important regarding having appropriate understandings of sexual expression, etc.
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
What do you think? Again, this doesn’t really directly apply to the current question. But I think it’s important regarding having appropriate understandings of sexual expression, etc.
Click to expand...
I leave it to wiser minds than my own, but my layman’s opinion is that it should be an optional practice. Basically, I’d rather the Latin church just adopt the eastern rules.
 
Brant Pitre explains the perpetual virginity of the BVM (in his book Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary) as pointing to the afterlife, in which none will be married (as we call it today). Jesus and Paul were celibate and Pitre explains how Mary probably had taken a vow of celibacy (pointing to Numbers Ch 30).

I sense some denial in the comments here that the Church has a sexual abuse in countries around the world. In the US, the cash payouts range from $3 to $4 billion dollars to silence victims. And, another aspect of the sexual abuse problem has been the actions of bishops to conceal the crimes of priests by managing them purely as moral problems, instead of as the civil infractions that they are – not to mention the permanent damage to the victims, both psychologically and spiritually. I’m on the side of those who think the Church has BIG problems with homosexual priests, in particular. Sodomy has been decriminalized between consenting adults so, it is alleged, that there are BIG problems with gay priests behaving with each other in ways that are inconsistent with the clerical state.

People like +Vigano tell us that there ARE networks of gay cardinals, bishops, and priests even at the Vatican. There seems to be a number of clerics who are publicly taking a pro-homosexual agenda stance in the Church, to make it something it has never been before.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
But what is your opinion about the Roman requirement to priestly celibacy?
Click to expand...
I have never thought of not having sex as a great loss in life, apart from maybe a few years in my early 20s when my hormones were overruling my brain (and often getting me into situations that weren’t ideal or were downright annoying/ embarrassing etc). About age 23 or so I realized empty sex was empty and from then on only wanted it in the context of a strong committed relationship, where it was definitely secondary to mutual understanding and conversation and all the other things that go with an actual relationship.

Giving up sex never seemed like a big deal to me. This is one reason I thought when I was young that I would have made a good priest. Being female, I never had a chance to find out if I indeed would have been a good priest or if I would have ended up struggling with temptation down the road. (I did not consider female religious life for reasons that had nothing to do with sexuality, I just wasn’t drawn to what any of the “modern sisters” I met were doing at the time I was young.)

Giving up strong committed relationships/ friendships with others would have made for a very lonely life. I suspect some of the priests may be driven more by their desire to have a strong friendship/ intimate connection with somebody, not so much by their desire to just have sex, although no doubt there are others who just want to get their rocks off so to speak. Certainly there have been priests, among them Cardinal Newman who is about to be canonized, who had strong bonds with someone else, a sort of relationship as it were, but from all reports didn’t have sex, which I can totally understand.

I do have difficulty understanding how a priest is going to serve a flock and his spouse/ family at the same time. My experience of my father and other good husbands/ fathers is that their wife and kids come first. For a priest, his flock is supposed to come first. I know the Eastern churches have a handle on this but I didn’t grow up in that tradition so it’s hard for me to get my mind around. Obviously if a priest is gay he’s not going to be able to marry and have a spouse so celibacy is his only option.
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
I’ve heard this, “Those poor Traditionalist bishops being silenced by the evil modernist hierarchy.” narrative a lot. Is there any really proof that they’re being “silenced” for being traditionalist?
Click to expand...
Ask Cdl Burke. Or Cdl Sarah.
 
People often go into things with great intentions and after a while, find out it’s not quite what they were expecting, stumble, get disillusioned, get lonely. The devil tries very hard to tempt priests.
I know you pray for them all the time as do I. We must continue to pray very hard for them.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
Then maybe we all ought to step back and ask: Why are such persons attracted to the priesthood? Is there a reason why a same-sex attracted Catholic youth would feel called or cornered into the priesthood?
Click to expand...
Abusers look for opportunities. They are opportunists.
power over people’s lives and faith
secrecy
And a culture that does not handle sexuality very well.

If we are to honest, celibacy does not help this problem. It’s not the cause, but the fact that heterosexual relationships are not part of the Church opens the door for these people to hide in the priesthood.
 
Last edited:
Sadly, it is has been reported by many seminarians and priests that faithful Catholic men were run out of some seminaries BY men who were not keen on following Church teaching, especially those with same sex attraction. Men exhibiting homosexual behaviors were in some cases recruited and ordained by priests with SSA. Some of these priests who were promoted made sure to promote others with SSA and those acting out SSA behaviors - men who identified strongly as “gay” ( but hid it from the public and those in the Church who aren’t SSA ).
Many healthy men with true vocations were persecuted BY men who were acting out their same sex attraction in thought, word or deeds. They corrupted some, others fled and others were driven out - told they were not “open” enough. Many heroic priests were able to get though seminary unscathed, faithful to the Church and they want to ensure healthy seminaries and protect their bride, the Church from evil.
 
Why is it called homosexual network instead of SSA?
Probably because the network is sinful and homosexual behavior is a very grave sin.

SSA is disordered but not a sin.

I would recommend the group called Courage for those of good will who struggle with those temptations.
 
Last edited:
goout said:
If we are to honest, celibacy does not help this problem. It’s not the cause, but the fact that heterosexual relationships are not part of the Church opens the door for these people to hide in the priesthood.
Click to expand...
No, because this wasn’t an issue at this scale pre-Vat II, when celibacy still required. So its not celibacy. What did happen post Vat II is that the number of priests in Seminary dropped by 80% from 50,000 to 10,000 from 1965 to 1977. With such a huge drop in priests, the Church had to lower the standards of who is admitted, hence the abusers got in. So the big question is why did the number of priests in Seminary drop by over 80% in the decade after Vat II?
 
Last edited:
I’m sure part of that percentage was due to the postwar baby boom ending, so fewer men in the pool to even consider entering the priesthood. Another part of the percentage was probably due to the sexual revolution and “me generation” happening. Even the people already in religious life were bailing out of it during that time, which wasn’t too encouraging for potential new recruits.
 
Some SSA people may feel called to the priesthood because they may not feel called to marriage. However, just because one feels called does not mean he is called.
This person is either called to live as a single person in the Church - living a chaste life like everyone else, or they are called to marriage with the opposite sex.

I have heard there were also some people living a homosexual lifestyle that may have infiltrated the seminaries. They figured they were not going to marry a woman anyway and they were basically using the Church whereby they gained respectability etc.

They in turn recruited others of the same mind and that is partly why there is a homosexual network in the Church.
 
Last edited:
What people call the homosexual network, in my opinion, is not necessarily persons who themselves have same sex attraction, but persons of whatever sexual orientation who choose to undermine Traditional Catholic teaching on current popular issues. With little or no change, you could call this the Catholic Accept Abortion network, even though it included nobody who gets abortions.

In the future, if some other Christian Issue gets rejected be the secular establishment, there will be some new Network trying to undermine Traditional teaching on That, within the Church. And they, too, will get propped up by the secular media.
 
Last edited:
To commenter
It seems to me that what you describe are two related but separate issues. The groups that are undermining traditional Catholic values consists of “the usual suspects” that most likely includes all the left-leaning “progressives”. This of course would include the many or most of the homosexual priests.
The homosexual network within the church structures is comprised of persons with same sex attractions who often engage in sexual activities with clerics, boys, etc. This group would not be interested in upholding the values that they reject by their actions.
No need to muddy the waters here.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy theory garbage by and for people who have nothing useful to do or say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top