Why no homosexual priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lourdes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lourdes

Guest
Please help me to understand this, as my perception of the situtation is driving me away from accepting Church teachings (i.e, the only time I really think ‘Why not let homosexuals marry in a civil setting?’ is when I get angry at their - perhaps misinterpreted I admit - mistreatment by the Church).

The Catholic teaching is ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’, correct? That it is the homosexual act that is sinful, and not the homosexual, and that a homosexual living a chaste, celibate life is every bit as much a beloved child of God as the chaste, celibate heterosexual. Perhaps even more blessed in ways, since perpetual chastity is such a difficult cross to bear if it is not self-imposed (heterosexuals can choose what feels right for them - chastity or marriage; homosexuals must choose chastity; mere kissing and other light “sexual” companionship that is non-sinful for the heterosexual and forbidden for the homosexual, etc).

So, if a chaste, celibate homosexual man is truly called by the Holy Spirit to enter the priesthood, is doing it because he wants to be a priest and serve God, and not as some form of escape, and he takes his vows seriously, what is the problem? How is his situation different from that of a chaste, celibate heterosexual man who is truly called by the Holy Spirit to enter the priesthood, is doing it for the right reasons, and takes his vows seriously?

Since the sex abuse scandal was made public, I have heard over and over and over and over again about how homosexuals are the problem, and if only homosexuals weren’t in the priesthood everything would be sunshine and roses. This doesn’t seem fair or honest to me. I find the twisting and desperate use of semantics to call the molestation of a 12 or 13 or 14 year old boy “homosexual behavior” revolting. The boy is underage, it is morally pedophila. Heterosexual men who are attracted to and molesting/raping 12 and 13 and 14 year old girls don’t have their behavior described as “heterosexual”. It is perversion, and pedophila.

Homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same sex. Hetrosexuals are attracted to adults of the opposite sex. Pedophiles are attracted to children - some to very young children, some to children just past puberty, some to girls, some to boys, some to both. It’s the innocence and the youth they care about.

I’ve heard that 80% of the cases of sex abuse in the Church occured between priests and boys just past puberty. Why is this a reason to bar all homosexuals from the priesthood? If you claim that homosexuals are inherently inferior to heterosexuals, that they are all automatically more prone to sin/going to sin no matter what…that seems to fly in the face of everything Catholicism has taught us. Why not screen for priests who are attracted to the underage - “homosexual” and “heterosexual”? They have the means. Why not take the time to weed out all those that plan on abusing children or sleeping with grown men and women and who show signs of not taking their vows of celibacy seriously, no matter what their attractions?

If priests that fornicate with grown men are thrown out (as they should be) so should priests who fornicate with grown women. If priests who molest/rape little boys and teenage boys are routed out and severely punished (as they should be) then the priests who molest/rape little girls and teenage girls should receive the exact same punishment and exposure.
 
I see hypocrisy and double standards in the heirarchy’s treatment of this problem and it frustrates, angers, and saddens me. I feel like the Church is saying ‘see how loving we are! It’s the homosexual act we condemn, not the homosexual, who is our brother in Christ’ and then turning around and going on a …I don’t want to use the word ‘witchhunt’, but that what it looks and feels like. There’s no concern for the individual soul. ‘You’re in this group, you’re bad.’ It smacks of something the Church should be above, be better than. I get the impression that the heirarchy (and many members of the laity) are using the tragedy of the ruin of so many children’s lives as an excuse to drive the non-pedophiliac homosexuals, even, and maybe especially, the chaste, celibate, priestly ones out of the Church. There seems to be an undercurrent of ‘we can’t let these homosexuals be seen living a Godly life - they might (gasp, horror) be seen as equal in some small way to us heterosexuals and that might turn the children gay, etc, etc’.

I really want to understand what the objection is to a chaste, celibate, Godly homosexual priest? How does he differ from a chaste, celibate, Godly heterosexual priest if we are all made in God’s image, all receive His abundant graces if we ask and live life according to His wishes and plan…the only thing I can think of is that since the priest is marrying the Church, and marriage is between one man and one woman (I waver on this at times, honestly and genuinely not being able to get my mind around the difference between any two adults of the same sex and say, two adults of different races…the 'but then someone will want marry their dog! argument is apples and oranges to me, but that’s another discussion and I accept the Church teaching), and the Church is the bride, or the woman, that somehow a priest who is vowing celibacy and devotion to Her but who has been sexually attracted to men in the past is unfit? But then groups such as COURAGE wouldn’t be encouraging men who have been attracted to men to marry women…right? It makes me wonder who is “good enough” to be a priest, regardless of their calling and devotion and sincerity.

On a personal note and explanation, I am a woman and I am not homosexual, though I do have several close homosexual friends, some living in line with Church teachings, some not - none are promiscuous, or attracted to non-adults. I have also been sexually abused, as a very young child, by a married “heterosexual” man. I have more than a handful of female friends and one male friend who were also molested or raped during their childhoods or teenage years, and all by married “heterosexual” men. If I were to apply the Church’s reasoning to my life experiences and observations, no married, allegedly heterosexual man should ever be allowed near children or teenagers because of their weakness and inherent flaws.

Sorry for the length 🙂
 
Lordes,

I am sorry to hear of the abuse you suffered. I am fortunate not to have had to carry that cross. I will pray for your healing.

I also have friends and relatives who are homosexual, but I full understand the church’s position. I have a problem with some of your definitions. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. The media uses this term just sensationalize the issue.

The reason to limit or exclude men with homosexual tendencies from the priesthood is to “avoid the near occassion of sin.” Would you expect to put a man with tendencies to fornication in a group of women to live in close proximity? It just doesn’t make good common sense.

Pastoral care of men with homosexual tendencies should be understood and practiced in each parish.
 
first let me say that i am deeply saddened by anyone who was victim to the sin of another… i grow weary of those who keep trying to group “the church” into the miniscule number of perpretrators of these terrible crimes against children… I don’t know a person who defends this behavior, and everyone I know are pleased that light is bringing down the curtain of darkness covering the sins of those who prayed on the helpless…

that said,

if the sins of others keeps you from accept the truth then you will find no shelter from the storm in any church/faith…

In an effort to stop a fire, you don’t put the matches next to the gasoline… even that doesn’t guarantee no fire, but the preventative measure will go a long way to reduce the oppertunities…

I can just hear the cries of the media and laity had the church allowed admitted homosexuals to continue their rolls in close proximity to their greatest temtation…

I can see true charity in the removal of those who suffer for a lack of control, not to mention avoiding the devastation of one more child…

so get a grip, trust in the wisdom of the church of Christ… 👍
 
Thank you both for your responses 🙂

I have several comments/questions though. I do understand that technically pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children and that the media is using that word to make it seem as though all victims were pre-pubescent. That is wrong. But I also see the Church’s constant reminder that it wasn’t pedophila because the kids were 12 or 13 to be equally wrong because they’re using it as a way to say, ‘This wasn’t so bad. Stop making a big deal out of it.’ Honestly, if you are the parent of a child just past puberty, and some one, priest or not, sexually abuses them - does it make it any less horrible or devastating than if it had happened when they were a few months younger? The molestation of a 12 year old is not the same thing as the molestion of a 6 year old, but it is also not the same as a consensual homosexual relationship between two adults of comparable age.

Peg, I understand the concept of avoiding near occasion of sin, but for a homosexual who is not attracted to the underage, what is occasion of sin? Other homosexual priests? Should homosexuals not go to single-sex schools of any kind? Belong to single-sex sports teams? Have friends that are the same sex? Should heterosexual priests tempted by the sins of the flesh be forbidden from ministering to the women of the parish, or from associating with nuns? It seems to me that the arguement is that homosexuals, even if devoted to God and to a chaste, celibate life, are automatically, across-the-board inferior to heterosexuals and that is what disturbs me. Heterosexuals are given the benefit of the doubt and judged on an individual basis, but homosexuals are not.

Space Ghost, I do not allow sins of others to drive me from the Truth - that is why I am still a practicing, believing Catholic. I also lament that the vast majority of good priests are being smeared by the secular world because of the actions of a few degenerates - but I also lament that the vast majority of good homosexual priests are being smeared by the Church because of the actions of a few degenerates among their number. I feel that the Chuch is still trying to cover up what the true problem was - that the reason there are so many sexual predators (I say so many because there should be none - I know that the Church’s numbers are far lower than average) within the priesthood is because through ignorance, years ago, they allowed them to flourish. Child molesters talk to each other. They work together to discover the best ways to gain access to children. A few slipped through the cracks and into the priesthood and when they were caught, they had a pleasant surprise - instead of being handed over to the authorities and going to jail as they would had they been teachers or little league coaches, they were reprimanded and sent to a new parish, with all new children to prey on. And so they let their friends in on the secret and their friends, and so on.

I just think it’s dishonest to say it’s a “homosexual” problem because “homosexual” is not synonomous with “attracted to children/teens”. I feel like the Church is almost playing the secular world, saying, “We know you don’t think homosexuality is a big deal, so why are you judging us when that’s all we’re dealing with?”
 
I accept the Churches teachings on this but I have to be honest that this is one issue that really confuses me as well. I have gay friends who are NOT pediphiles and have no attraction to children whatsoever. In fact a lot of pediphiles are straight married men. I admit I’m dense at times but I just can’t see where the ruling is coming from on this one…

dream wanderer
 
because of their situations in the seminary and any other place they would be living with other priests.

Is it fair to either the heterosexual priest to have him living with another man who might be sexually attracted to him or to the homosexual priest to have to tell anyone he lived with in his training or communal life that he was suffering under this cross?

It isn’t about the recent scandal the discussion about this was started well before. It is about the workings of the priesthood.
 
The church can not allow a homosexual priest because it very clearly goes against God’s will. The bible is very clear in saying that it is a mortal sin and is not what God intended. That being said, even if there was a homosexual priest who could not actually commit the act with another man, he would still be living in sin. Jesus looks right into our hearts. Just as he said, If you look at a woman wrong, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. If a priest was homosexual, in his heart he would desire other men, which is just as bad as actually doing something.
 
No…a homosexual who is not acting on their desires is not living in sin. If that were so, the Church’s official stance would be the homosexuals are evil, not that the homosexual act is evil.

What if there was a way to remove much of the temptation during the seminary - give sincere, chaste homosexual candidates their own quarters? What if sincere, chaste, homosexual priests were assigned to work with nuns, or in all girls schools? Would that be permissible?
 
The ruling is here because of years of experiance. Over and over again, the Church has taken a chance on homosexual priests that have conquered their attraction, only to be burned because of it. No, not even half of them have violated the vows of celebacy let alone molested anyone, but some have. There is great scandle in that. Sins of the flesh are very hard to overcome, and the temptation is great. So, to prevent scandle or problems, prevent all homosexuals from being parrish priests. Is it right? Think about it like this: there are people in this world who steal money. Some of them are accountants who hid it very well. Some of them get caught. Would you hire one of those who did time to keep your books? But, how is that related? Would you hire one from a firm that was guilty of corporate fraud? No, even if that person was innocent, you would prefer not to, as they may know too well how to cheat the system, or they may be guilty themselves. It is not the right attitude, but it is a safe one.

As far as homosexual marrige goes, why is there marrige in the CHurch at all? Because God made it so that man and woman could join sacramentally. This is God’s law, not the Church’s. Read what Jesus said about matramony. One man should leave his parents and cling to his wife. It is meant to be Man to Woman. Then there is also the issue of reproduction. Two men (or two women) cannot reproduce in a normal manner. Where is the true expression of their love? Finally, in the Bible in many places, homosexuality is described as a serious sin. IF that is true, why should we have same-sex marrage in the church? We cannot endorse sin.

I am not against homosexuals. I do feel that they are given a special cross to bear in this wolrd. With prayer and suffering, they can attain great things in the eyes of God. But, they also can fall very far from His Grace.
 
40.png
Lourdes:
I’ve heard that 80% of the cases of sex abuse in the Church occured between priests and boys just past puberty. Why is this a reason to bar all homosexuals from the priesthood? If you claim that homosexuals are inherently inferior to heterosexuals, that they are all automatically more prone to sin/going to sin no matter what…that seems to fly in the face of everything Catholicism has taught us. Why not screen for priests who are attracted to the underage - “homosexual” and “heterosexual”? They have the means. Why not take the time to weed out all those that plan on abusing children or sleeping with grown men and women and who show signs of not taking their vows of celibacy seriously, no matter what their attractions?
Click to expand...
If that statistic is not enough evidence that we should bar homosexuals from the priesthood I don’t know what is.
If you believe in the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are sinful then you really should have no trouble with keeping people who struggle with that sin out of the priesthood. I do believe that the Church does weed out heterosexuals who seem to struggle with their sexuality as well. There are many people who should rightly be barred from the priesthood. Someone who describes themselves as a chaste paedophiliac, someone who describes themselves as a recovering alcoholic, a pyromaniac who stays away from matches etc. etc. Anyone with disordered tendencies should not be allowed into the priesthood.
Chaste heterosexuals have desires also but the Church is better equiped to help those to avoid falling into sin such as keeping women out of the dorms in the seminary and not having women live in rectories etc. You cannot have the same thing with homosexuals.
 
40.png
ralphinal:
The ruling is here because of years of experiance. Over and over again, the Church has taken a chance on homosexual priests that have conquered their attraction, only to be burned because of it. No, not even half of them have violated the vows of celebacy let alone molested anyone, but some have. There is great scandle in that. Sins of the flesh are very hard to overcome, and the temptation is great. So, to prevent scandle or problems, prevent all homosexuals from being parrish priests. Is it right? Think about it like this: there are people in this world who steal money. Some of them are accountants who hid it very well. Some of them get caught. Would you hire one of those who did time to keep your books? But, how is that related? Would you hire one from a firm that was guilty of corporate fraud? No, even if that person was innocent, you would prefer not to, as they may know too well how to cheat the system, or they may be guilty themselves. It is not the right attitude, but it is a safe one.
Click to expand...
But by that logic no man should be a priest because heterosexual priests abused girls, had affairs, etc. Neither is safe. Why is the homosexual more of a risk than the heterosexual is what I’m asking. If both are chaste and made in God’s image and sexual activity does not enter into the picture, why is the heterosexual superior in the Church’s eyes?

And I would never advocate same-sex marriage within the Church. Never. I bristle at the logic at times, but I accept it. I was speaking of civil ceremonies between non-Catholics.
 
If there should be no homosexual priests, then there should be no gluttonous priest, or any alcoholic priest, or any priests who are predisposed to gossip.

No one can say that homosexuality is the one predisposition that prohibits a man from being able to be a priest.

That being said, I do not think it is permissible for a homosexual priest to be a “practicing homosexual.” The same way that it is not permissible under normal circumstances for a heterosexual priest to be a “practicing heterosexual.”

If the homosexually oriented priest stays faithful to his vows of celibacy, there is a place for him in the church.

I don’t think that homosexuality should be singled out because of the priest abuse scandal. The majority of men who are pedophiles are also married…to a woman.

This issue is too complex to make blanket statements concerning homosexual priests.

God bless.🙂
 
40.png
Poisson:
If that statistic is not enough evidence that we should bar homosexuals from the priesthood I don’t know what is.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that all homosexuals are attracted to the underage? I’ve yet to encounter one, but I have known many, many good “Christian”, married heterosexuals who sure do love the elementary and jr. high girls.

Saying all homosexuals are likely child abusers is as silly as saying all heterosexuals are.
 
40.png
iguana27:
If there should be no homosexual priests, then there should be no gluttonous priest, or any alcoholic priest, or any priests who are predisposed to gossip.

No one can say that homosexuality is the one predisposition that prohibits a man from being able to be a priest.

That being said, I do not think it is permissible for a homosexual priest to be a “practicing homosexual.” The same way that it is not permissible under normal circumstances for a heterosexual priest to be a “practicing heterosexual.”

If the homosexually oriented priest stays faithful to his vows of celibacy, there is a place for him in the church.

I don’t think that homosexuality should be singled out because of the priest abuse scandal. The majority of men who are pedophiles are also married…to a woman.

This issue is too complex to make blanket statements concerning homosexual priests.

God bless.🙂
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with this 🙂
 
WASHINGTON (CNS) – Here at a glance are key figures from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study titled “The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002.” The study was released in Washington Feb. 27.

– 4,392 priests/deacons were accused. Of these, 41 were permanent deacons.

– Allegations were made against 4 percent of the 109,694 priests serving during the period.

– Allegations were lodged on behalf of 10,667 people.

– 75 percent of the abuse incidents occurred during 1960-84.

– Total sex abuse related costs reported during the period were $573 million with $219 million covered by insurance.

– 81 percent of the victims were males, and 19 percent were females.

– 50.9 percent of the victims were 11-14 years old and 27.3 percent were 15-17 years old.

– 56 percent of the accused had only one victim and 27 percent had two or three victims.

END​

Take note, over one quarter of the abuses were of 15-17 year-olds and over half of the abuses were of 11-14 year-olds. They were all clearly horrible and sinful acts. Yet, if a 17 year-old boy had sex with a 14-year-old girl, would we call that pedophilia? If a 20 year-old man had sex with a 17 year-old make, would that be pedophilia, or would it be abuse of a minor of a homosexual nature?

Question: Is it morally acceptable for boys and girls (aged 11-17) to take showers in the same shower area? Why or why not?
 
40.png
Lourdes:
No…a homosexual who is not acting on their desires is not living in sin. If that were so, the Church’s official stance would be the homosexuals are evil, not that the homosexual act is evil.

What if there was a way to remove much of the temptation during the seminary - give sincere, chaste homosexual candidates their own quarters? What if sincere, chaste, homosexual priests were assigned to work with nuns, or in all girls schools? Would that be permissible?
Click to expand...
your right, but my point was that to even want to be with a man istead of a woman is disordered. The true Churh, as the pillar and foundation of truth, could never openly allow a homosexual priest. How could the church teach that the homosexual lifestyle is mortally wrong and then allow, openly, a homosexual priest. My point was that Jesus wants a conversion of the heart. If the holy spirit convicts you of things that are wrong in your heart, then admitting that being a homosexual (whether committing the act or not) is okay as long as you don’t do anything, is a lie.
 
Sorry, I thought you were asking about the CHurch’s teaching on marrage. Here is a question for you to ask. What percentage of abuse cases were commited by those who consider themselves homosexual. Not how many were on boys, but the orientation of those commiting the acts. One of the main viloators in Boston wrote for NAMBLA!!! Why he wasn’t put to death, at least as a priest, I do not know. I think that if you were to dig a little, you would see that the percentage of homosexual priests involved in sex (abusive or otherwise) is greater than the percentage of heterosexual priests. In fact, I’d be willing to bet the numbers themselves are greater, not just the percentage. Yes, hetero priests also violate their vows, but with what regularity? My point earlier is about scandle. What causes the greater scandle within the Church: a priest having an affair with a woman or one molesting a 13 year old boy? Besides, every case I have ever known of a priest having an affair with a woman, the priest left the priesthood. This is not the case in the sex abuse issues.
 
yes, but you wouldn’t put a gluttonous man in charge of the bakery, an alcoholic priest in charge of the winery or a gossiping priest in a place where he is in a position to hear a lot of juicy rumors. You wouldn’t put a young man with same sex attraction issues in a seminary dorm where he will be surrounded by other young men who have no reason to be extremely discrete in their behavior towards him because they would have no way of knowing of a possible attraction.

The reality of preistly life is that it is often close quarters with other men.
 
i thought the stance was that a “practicing homosexual”, meaning a man (since women can’t be priests we will deal with homosexual men) who is tempted with homosexuality and engages in sexual acts with other men, may not be a priest but that a man who might have those desires but does not act on them or condone them may become a priest so long as he lives a chaste life as his hetersexual counterparts must also. the priest must also adhere to church teachings and condemning homosexual acts. if i am wrong on this i would love to know 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top