Why no homosexual priests?

[rfk]

Lourdes:

… 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. …

I really want to understand what the objection is to a chaste, celibate, Godly homosexual priest?

I hear the term “witch hunt”, but I ask you this: Can you show me a single priest who was expelled from the priesthood or punished in any way for being “a chaste, celibate, Godly homosexual priest”? Heck, they aren’t expelling priests who are known to be sexually active, much less “chaste, celibate, Godly” priests of any stripe.

In contrast, the book, How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic ChurchGOODBYE, GOOD MEN:, presents the argument that just the opposite form of discrimination has been in effect. It discusses seminaries which had a pervasive, sexually active, dissenting and disobedient, “gay” sub-culture, where young men who were straight, faithful, orthodox Catholics were ruthlessly hounded out of the seminary.

Lourdes:

So, if a chaste, celibate homosexual man is truly called by the Holy Spirit to enter the priesthood,

I watched several Bishop’s be interviewed on EWTN as part of the recent abuse report. First, they all agreed that they needed to more effectively screen candidates for the priesthood regarding their committment to chastity. I don’t think any of us would argue that point.

Their opinions seemed to be split on homosexual candidates. Some Bishops stated that they saw no problem whatsoever with a “chaste, celibate homosexual man” becoming a priest. Other Bishops seemed to have a more nuanced position. They explained that in today’s climate, we are coming out of a period where we are trying to correct certain excesses of the past. For example, if you have a seminary with a “gay” sub-culture that you are trying to straighten out, you probably aren’t going to want to send homosexual men there, where they can be tempted away from chastity. I also heard one Bishop comment that taking a vow of celibacy is meant to be a sacrifice, and that having a homosexual man choose to live in a close community with other men is not the same degree of sacrifice, and in fact can become a near occasion of sin. These Bishops seemed to say that having a homosexual candidate for the priesthood may become “no big deal” again some years down the road, but it is problemmatical right now while the Church is still being rocked on all sides. Let’s not forget that the “80% of the problem” has still created uncountable heartache and damage, as well as cost the Church millions and millions of dollars.

Lourdes:

If priests that fornicate with grown men are thrown out (as they should be) so should priests who fornicate with grown women.

I don’t believe priests of either sexual persuasion have been thrown out for sexual activity with adults.

Lourdes:

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.

You can’t honestly believe they are expelling priests who target boys and exempting priests who target girls? I think everyone would agree that either case is horrible.

 

[JimO]

Would it be practical or charitable to allow a heterosexual man to live as a celibate religious with celibate women in a religious community? The temptations would be the same and the potential discomfort of the heterosexual men could be equal. There are so many potential difficulties with this issue. The men with homosexual tendancies could not, even if segregated from heterosexual men, be isolated. Many men find, after some time in seminary that they do not have a vocation. Thus, some homosexual men who think they have a vocation might not have one and, thus, might fall into sin. The problems this type of sin would cause in the seminary would be incredibly disruptive, particularly if it involved two or more seminarians. Think of the disruption that would be caused even if a homosexual seminarian just verbally expressed affection/attraction to a heterosexual seminarian? It could drive men away from their vocation. I just don’t see how this could be adequately dealt with.

It doesn’t seem fair, but there are many other criteria that the Church also uses to determine whether a man has a vocation and some of those don’t seem fair either. What of the sincere, chaste and caring man with a mental illness? What of the man who simply doesn’t have the academic aptitude? Is not allowing them into the priesthood any worse?

In light of what has been going on in the priesthood over the past few decades, it seems that more rigorous discernment is needed with regards to true vocations, not less.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

Don’t ask don’t tell, If you are truly chaste and Godly then it should not matter,On the other hand most of the abuse scandal is homosexual in nature…

 

[Lourdes]

Thank you for responding, and I am mulling over the last several posts, especially rfk’s. You touched on something that bothers me greatly about the priesthood in general - that no one, no matter what they do, is really thrown out, and it’s allowed to continue. But you constantly hear the outrage and cries from the laity about all these horrible homosexuals and their agenda and how they must be purged - but not a peep about any heterosexual abuses, which do occur. That’s what bothers me.

I’m not even necessarily advocating homosexual priests. I just want to know why homosexuals should be barred from religious life. I have the same exact feelings regarding the barring of the physically disabled from the religious life. “You’re not perfect enough to serve God”

 

[iguana27]

I have trouble with the argument that the homosexual priest in the seminary will have difficulty controlling himself. I have been in classes with mostly men, and I do not feel some urge to fornicate with any of them.

I understand that the seminarian would have to live with other men, but I think it is entirely possible for him to sublimate his desire for sexual expression the same way that the hetero seminarians would. The seminary is not the normal life for a priest. They eventually move on to a more solitary existance (at least diocesan priests do).

I would assume as well that the seminarians would not be running around scantily clad, like some sort of holy locker room. Homosexual does not mean hypersexual.

I have a feeling that I am missing something about what it means to be a man. In that case, it must be almost impossible for a heterosexual priest to see females at Mass, because it is a challenge to his celibacy ??!??!?? Is it really that hard for men to have self-control in this area?

 

[LourdesladyN]

Good Morning L =)

You have stated this twice now:

Lourdes:

Saying all homosexuals are likely child abusers is as silly as saying all heterosexuals are.

Could you provide the source that said that all homosexuals are likely child abusers?

Thanks-------be in God’s Peace,

 

[Poisson]

Lourdes:

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.

I find your first comment to be very disingenuous.
I’m not suggesting you do so but if you were to look at a gay publication all the models are very young looking. Why is it that the people at NAMBLA seem to be well accepted by homosexual groups? Why don’t we hear any criticisms? The folks at NAMBLA do not consider themselves as paedophiles because they only prey on post-pubescent boys.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

iguana27:

I have trouble with the argument that the homosexual priest in the seminary will have difficulty controlling himself. I have been in classes with mostly men, and I do not feel some urge to fornicate with any of them.

I understand that the seminarian would have to live with other men, but I think it is entirely possible for him to sublimate his desire for sexual expression the same way that the hetero seminarians would. The seminary is not the normal life for a priest. They eventually move on to a more solitary existance (at least diocesan priests do).

I would assume as well that the seminarians would not be running around scantily clad, like some sort of holy locker room. Homosexual does not mean hypersexual.

I have a feeling that I am missing something about what it means to be a man. In that case, it must be almost impossible for a heterosexual priest to see females at Mass, because it is a challenge to his celibacy ??!??!?? Is it really that hard for men to have self-control in this area?

Hard Yes…impossible no,
Which is why every chance I get I teach young girls especialy about the importance of dressing chastely in church (if for no other reason than it can distract a priest from performing a holy job)

It does come as a revelation to some that ordination does not put a plug on these normal mens hormone production…

 

[Lourdes]

LourdesladyN:

Good Morning L =)

You have stated this twice now:

Could you provide the source that said that all homosexuals are likely child abusers?

Thanks-------be in God’s Peace,

Good morning

It is my impression, from talking with Christians, listening to them, and reading their words, that the vast majority believe that a homosexual is far, far, FAR more likely to abuse a child than a heterosexual. To me, identifying the sex abuse scandal as a “homosexual problem” simplifies it and attempts to make it seem as though all homosexuals are potential predators. Otherwise, why not call it a “chastity problem”?

 

[Lourdes]

Poisson:

I find your first comment to be very disingenuous.
I’m not suggesting you do so but if you were to look at a gay publication all the models are very young looking. Why is it that the people at NAMBLA seem to be well accepted by homosexual groups? Why don’t we hear any criticisms? The folks at NAMBLA do not consider themselves as paedophiles because they only prey on post-pubescent boys.

I know of not a single homosexual that accepts NAMBLA or looks at it with anything other than revulsion. But maybe I’m sheltered. There are groups like NAMBLA that are devoted to the “love” between men and little/teen girls - they’re not accepted by heterosexual groups.

There are also heterosexual men who take trips to Thailand solely for their very, very young prosititutes - do they reflect the majority of heterosexual men? Should all heterosexual men be judged by their actions?

 

[LourdesladyN]

Lourdes:

Good morning

It is my impression, and reading their words, that the vast majority believe that a homosexual is far, far, FAR more likely to abuse a child than a heterosexual.

Could you provide a link to these words? I am wondering which denomination, which secular media outlet or which websites you are frequenting that state this. Any link would be fine.

Thanks,

 

[Lourdes]

LourdesladyN:

Could you provide a link to these words? I am wondering which denomination, which secular media outlet or which websites you are frequenting that state this. Any link would be fine.

Thanks,

Here’s one, that I just found (don’t know how reliable it is) since you want a link. religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

Schoolmates, co-workers, family members, neighbors, letters to the editor in OSV and the Catholic Register have formed helped form my opinion for the most part. But, it’s just my life experiences. Yours may vary.

 

[YinYangMom]

germys9:

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.

I take it part of the problem with making the distinction then is whether or not one believes homosexuality is a genetic type thing rather than one of the ‘heart’. I personally believe that a good percentage of homosexuals (male and female) are born that way - let’s not forget the hermaphrodites either - and another percentage is the result of a changing of the ‘heart’.

I’m still with Lourdes and Iguana for those who were truly born homosexual. GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES and He loves all his creations…so if one of his creations chooses to love Him and serve Him in a celebate, charitable way by devoting his/her life to the vocation of priesthood or the nunery (is that a real word?) then how could the Church take a stand against that? It makes no sense to me.

And with those statistics shown earlier…note that a percentage of the victims were femail - which again shows that the problem was not so much of homo/heterosexuality as much as it was breaking of the vows of celibacy.

All offending parties should be treated equally harsh (which hasn’t been the case so far).

 

[TCE]

Hello:

Well my .02 cents in this is: If the candidate to priesthood admits right into the open that he has homosexual tendencies before entering , then he is living in mortal sin.
Even though he may not practice sexual encounters with the same sex, he may have sexual thoughts. And thinking it is the same as doing it. When you go to confession you confess your thoughts as well as your actions.
By admiting his homosexuality he is admiting living in mortal sin. Does he wants to change his status? no. Meaning he will continue to live in sin.
Also think, he’ll be preaching something that he does not believe, which is man and woman are ment to be the nucleous of familly life not men and men or women and women.
Or he may agree with a sinner who is confessing that, he is having sexual encounters with the same sex, what would the priest say? Is okay, you are forgiven? It is just not meant to be. Again this is my opinion on the subject.

 

[YinYangMom]

TCE:

Hello:

Well my .02 cents in this is: If the candidate to priesthood admits right into the open that he has homosexual tendencies before entering , then he is living in mortal sin.
Even though he may not practice sexual encounters with the same sex, he may have sexual thoughts. And thinking it is the same as doing it. When you go to confession you confess your thoughts as well as your actions.
By admiting his homosexuality he is admiting living in mortal sin. Does he wants to change his status? no. Meaning he will continue to live in sin.
Also think, he’ll be preaching something that he does not believe, which is man and woman are ment to be the nucleous of familly life not men and men or women and women.
Or he may agree with a sinner who is confessing that, he is having sexual encounters with the same sex, what would the priest say? Is okay, you are forgiven? It is just not meant to be. Again this is my opinion on the subject.

Of COURSE he wants to change his status…that’s why he’s turning to the Church for service. He wants God’s help and guidance and love to get him through his life with the way God created him. So long as the person has NOT acted on the homosexual predisoposition, I believe he/she is still capable of receiving God’s grace.

Aren’t we all called to the Church to help us with our weaknesses??? C’mon? Why should this opportunity be denied to homosexuals who wholeheartedly want to find a spiritual way to live with the condition with which God gave them?

 

[germys9]

Richard Lamb:

Don’t ask don’t tell, If you are truly chaste and Godly then it should not matter,On the other hand most of the abuse scandal is homosexual in nature…

There is an absolute truth here and I hope we all agree that in general, homosexuality is mortally wrong. If the homosexual knows that his tendencies are wrong and he is truly trying to change them, that is one thing. But if there were a chaste, homosexual priest who thinks his tendencies are okay and has no intentions to at least try to change them with the grace of God, that is quite another thing. I hope you understand the distiction.

 

[TCE]

Lourdes:

No…a homosexual who is not acting on their desires is not living in sin.
But does he admits is a homosexual? even though you are not acting on it ,if you still admit you are one that is sinful. There is no half about it.

Also YingYangMom correct me if I am wrong you to Lourdes but what I thought about your post is that, even though he is not a active homosexual he is still one. that is the bottom line. Now of course if he repents and admits that he was wrong and truly wants to change his life and surrender to God I do not see why the church will not take him. It will be a very heavy cross to take but I do not see why the church needs to push him away.

 

[LourdesladyN]

Lourdes:

Here’s one, that I just found (don’t know how reliable it is) since you want a link. religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm.

I do not want to appear sarcastic, but in all honesty “methinks you need to be more discerning in the material and websites that you are reading.”

You are absolutely correct in saying that it is ludicrous to exclusively equate homosexuality with pedophilia. It is also ludicrous for someone to say that is why the church says priests can’t be homosexuals. I have never seen that connection in the sources that I read. I can offer you some excellent sources on church teaching that will ease your fears that this absurd connection is the reason mother church feels homosexual priests are not acceptable. Some valuable church/christian teaching sites: newadvent.com, catholic.com, Mark Shea’s website, catholicexchange.com, EWTN.com, firstthings.com, touchstone.com. I have several others that I could add.

When ever you see this assertion again, make sure you ask the people inferring this to clarify themselves. For someone to say that the church teaches pedophilia is specific to homsexuality and that is WHY priests shouldn’t be homosexuals is an error. You need to point out this error to these people (in charity.)

Lourdes:

Schoolmates, co-workers, family members, neighbors, letters to the editor in OSV and the Catholic Register have formed helped form my opinion for the most part. But, it’s just my life experiences. Yours may vary.

Your instincts are right on the money about the fact that these people are inaccurate in their premise. They are also inaccurate in their impression of Church teaching. This is a phenominal opportunity to teach the truth!

In God’s Peace,

 

[Lurker]

dream wanderer:

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

Statistically, I believe MOST pedophiles are heterosexual adult males.

 

[rfk]

Lourdes:

… I just want to know why homosexuals should be barred from religious life. I have the same exact feelings regarding the barring of the physically disabled from the religious life. “You’re not perfect enough to serve God”

Actually, the Church has the right to accept the priests she discerns are most suitable for her needs.

My uncle was within 6 months of ordination in the Jesuit order (which meant he had been in formation close to ten years) when he came down with a case of eczema. He was washed out for it.

I’ve also heard that it is very difficult for a recovering alcoholic or drug addict to be accepted to seminary.