Why no homosexual priests?

[condan]

Bernard Jones:

As a 27 year old man, I have to say that, if I was unscrupulous and unChristian, I could very easily allow myself to be attracted to a 15 year old girl. It would be wrong to entertain such thoughts, let alone act on them-but it would not be perverted in itself. The argument that attraction to teenagers is a perversion does not really hold up. Just think: when I am confronted with homosexual images (men kissing, holding hands) my revulsion is almost physical. I feel sickened. It is that far beyond the pale. When I see a pretty 15 year old, I am not sickened, and I treat her with respect as a woman created in God’s image- as I would any attractive woman. It’s not a big deal. If you spend a lot of time around soldiers, you will hear them talk about “gaol bait”; girls who look older than they are, and around whom one must be careful, lest one end up in gaol. A sad attitude, but one that conveys some truth.

If I were an unscrupulous, heterosexual priest, I might prey upon such girls. It would be wicked, but not perverted. If, however, my tastes ran to 10 year olds, my appetite would be fundamentally disordered. If I acted upon them, I would be a paedophile.

The same is true for a homosexual priest. For a man struggling with this burden, it would be a “natural” part of his condition to find 15 year old boys attractive. He may or may not act upon them, but to create a distinction between homosexual attraction towards grown men and attraction towards 15 year old boys is disingenious, and obscures the issue at hand.

You are correct. Age makes a tremendous difference and must be considered. Historically, women married very young until not that long ago. My own grandmother married at 15 to a 26 year old man. That was routine.

 

[martino]

I agree and would add that I find it interesting that its the homosexual (disordered) priests that seem to act out on their attraction to teenagers. The heterosexual priest are far less likely to act upon their attractions. There is something in the disorder that lends itself to immorality. I know that is a controversial statement but it is only my perception, as I have nothing except for what I already mentioned to back it up. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Ken]

martino:

I agree and would add that I find it interesting that its the homosexual (disordered) priests that seem to act out on their attraction to teenagers. The heterosexual priest are far less likely to act upon their attractions. There is something in the disorder that lends itself to immorality. I know that is a controversial statement but it is only my perception, as I have nothing except for what I already mentioned to back it up. Any thoughts on this?

To come to this conclusion one must know the percentage of homosexual priests and heterosexual priests.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

If people are definitively born homosexual, then Christianity is false.

The above statement is true and the only and I repeat only possibility otherwise is in the below condition where homosexauls would all have to have been called to be celibate by God, which we know would not be the case. Reason being is that if we die in a state of Mortal sin, then it is accepted that salvation is probalby very difficult, and sodomy is mortal sin.

The bible clearly condemns sodomites and says that those who practice it have no place in heaven. If people are born homosexual, and they cannot engage in homosexual relationships(as per catholic/christian teaching) then we must say that any person born homosexual has to have been called by God to be celibate. That is the only possiblility left if people are born homosexual.

Everybody likes to engage in what ifs, and I am no different but we should at the very least take such arguments to their logical conclusion.

Anyone who seriously believes homosexuals are definitively born that way should stop practicing Christianity as they don’t really believe.

 

[IoA]

The key to this question, at least for me, is largely semantically rooted in what we mean by “homosexual.”

Someone who considers themselves “homosexual” is preparing themselves for direct conflict with the Church. The word implies a natural order – just like “heterosexual” – in which man’s makeup from birth is to have sexual relationships with the same sex. The Faith (and, might I add, everything we have on the biology of homosexuality) tells us that this is an incorrect stance.Ever since the sexual revolution where it became more socially acceptable to be “gay,” the lifestyle has been celebrated. Often times, homosexuals fall in to the trap of thinking that their sexuality is the defining characteristic of their personhood. Sexuality is really only one aspect of the human condition, but for a homosexual – for many reasons, I think – sexuality (and therefore, sex) becomes their primary self-identifier. It is therefore much more difficult to live a chaste life if you consider yourself to be “homosexual.” As for the abuse question, priests tend to fail where their untamed, unconquered weaknesses lie. And it’s true that most abusers of post-pubescent boys identify themselves as “homosexual.”

However, a man who acknowledges that he struggles with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), but has managed to keep his passions in check and is living a chaste life, is still not barred from the priesthood in the United States. Note that someone who would openly – or privately – acknowledge to living with SSA is not using that personal characteristic as the definition of their personhood. They see it as something “intrinsically disordered,” which can be dealt with effectively. For an example of this, see the very holy David Morrison, who lives a chaste life and is a member of Courage, even though he once openly led a gay lifestyle.

John Paul II has been working towards a declaration, across the board, that no homosexual man may be ordained to the priesthood. The controversy has been whether or not this includes those who acknowledge SSA, and most (like myself) agree that those who do not define themselves and their lives as homosexual will still be allowed in to the priesthood.

 

[IoA]

The key to this question, at least for me, is largely semantically rooted in what we mean by “homosexual.”

Someone who considers themselves “homosexual” is preparing themselves for direct conflict with the Church. The word implies a natural order – just like “heterosexual” – in which man’s makeup from birth is to have sexual relationships with the same sex. The Faith (and, might I add, everything we have on the biology of homosexuality) tells us that this is an incorrect stance.Ever since the sexual revolution where it became more socially acceptable to be “gay,” the lifestyle has been celebrated. Often times, homosexuals fall in to the trap of thinking that their sexuality is the defining characteristic of their personhood. Sexuality is really only one aspect of the human condition, but for a homosexual – for many reasons, I think – sexuality (and therefore, sex) becomes their primary self-identifier. It is therefore much more difficult to live a chaste life if you consider yourself to be “homosexual.” As for the abuse question, priests tend to fail where their untamed, unconquered weaknesses lie. And it’s true that most abusers of post-pubescent boys identify themselves as “homosexual.”

However, a man who acknowledges that he struggles with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), but has managed to keep his passions in check and is living a chaste life, is still not barred from the priesthood in the United States. Note that someone who would openly – or privately – acknowledge to living with SSA is not using that personal characteristic as the definition of their personhood. They see it as something “intrinsically disordered,” which can be dealt with effectively. For an example of this, see the very holy David Morrison, who lives a chaste life and is a member of Courage, even though he once openly led a gay lifestyle.

John Paul II has been working towards a declaration, across the board, that no homosexual man may be ordained to the priesthood. The controversy has been whether or not this includes those who acknowledge SSA, and most (like myself) agree that those who do not define themselves and their lives as homosexual will still be allowed in to the priesthood.

 

[Racer_X]

Tim Hayes:

If people are definitively born homosexual, then Christianity is false.

The above statement is true and the only and I repeat only possibility otherwise is in the below condition where homosexauls would all have to have been called to be celibate by God, which we know would not be the case. Reason being is that if we die in a state of Mortal sin, then it is accepted that salvation is probalby very difficult, and sodomy is mortal sin.

I don’t know why we view homosexual acts differently than other sins (except for the obvious reason that those who have embraced homosexuality want us to). There are those that maintain that various problematic behaviors are inborn, for example, a tendency to violence. Would that also negate Christianity, if it were shown that serial killers are born that way?

I don’t think so. We are all born in a fallen state. And it is a fact that individuals differ in the types of temptations they experience and the degree. The argument about whether our particular temptaions are “inborn” is a moot point. Whether inborn or not, we do not choose which temptations we are to be burdened with. For instance, I am not tempted to homosexual behavior. But I can see no sense in which I chose to not have these temptations. I do in fact experience other temptations of a sexual nature which are contrary to God’s law (which limits sex to only with a spouse and open to procreation). I know for damn sure I did not choose to have these temptations. Am I damned simply because I have these temptations and have no choice about having those temptations? Then why would homosexuals be?

Sodomites–as in your scriptural reference–does not refer to people of a certain inclination but to people of a certain behavior. And putting into context of the rest of the New Testament, it clearly is referring unrepentant sodomites.

 

[condan]

Racer X:

…I do in fact experience other temptations of a sexual nature which are contrary to God’s law (which limits sex to only with a spouse and open to procreation). I know for damn sure I did not choose to have these temptations. Am I damned simply because I have these temptations and have no choice about having those temptations? Then why would homosexuals be?

Sodomites–as in your scriptural reference–does not refer to people of a certain inclination but to people of a certain behavior. And putting into context of the rest of the New Testament, it clearly is referring unrepentant sodomites.

You raise very valid points. A good analogy is adultery, although we do have to recognize that sodomy itself is unnatural so it adds an additional layer to the sexual sin. Insert “adulterer” into the argument. Would we want a man with a history of adultery or fornication, one who lived on the wild side, coming into the priesthood without first repenting and living celibately for a long period of time?

Would we want to grant special rights to adulterers? Would we want to give the mistresses equal treatment as wives? Would we want to teach school children that adultery is just another normal variation of human sexuality? Would priests communicate those who present themselves wearing the Adulterers Sash? Would we want to normalize adultery into the continuum of families?

 

[Super_Mom]

"This is valid grounds to question the authority of the Church and the claims it makes to have special guidance from God."Hi Ken;

The authority of the Church comes from Christ her head. Just because the Bishops have acted wrongly in this scandel or other things does not give you or me the valid grounds to question them. They did not change doctrine or the teachings of the Church. The pope and the Bishops united to him can infallably teach. Because the bishops are wrong in this scandel does not take away the special guidance from God.

 

[martino]

Tim Hayes:

If people are definitively born homosexual, then Christianity is false.

The above statement is true and the only and I repeat only possibility otherwise is in the below condition where homosexauls would all have to have been called to be celibate by God, which we know would not be the case. Reason being is that if we die in a state of Mortal sin, then it is accepted that salvation is probalby very difficult, and sodomy is mortal sin.

The bible clearly condemns sodomites and says that those who practice it have no place in heaven. If people are born homosexual, and they cannot engage in homosexual relationships(as per catholic/christian teaching) then we must say that any person born homosexual has to have been called by God to be celibate. That is the only possiblility left if people are born homosexual.

Everybody likes to engage in what ifs, and I am no different but we should at the very least take such arguments to their logical conclusion.

Anyone who seriously believes homosexuals are definitively born that way should stop practicing Christianity as they don’t really believe.

As to your last statement; no we most definitely should not stop being Christians, because we do in fact believe it. You already forgot about your own condition from your earlier paragraph. You said that the only condition that it makes sense if homosexual people were born that way, is if they were called by God to live a celibate life. Well my friend, you just stated the Catholic position almost perfectly, they are called to lead a celibate life, you can read it in the Catechism.

How you jump to the conclusion that instead of homosexuals living a celibate life we all should instead stop being Christians is beyone all reason. People can and do live celibate lives all the time, its not as uncommon as you may think. There have been homosexuals on this very site that rightly boast of their celibate lifestyle. Someones lack of self control and inability to live a chaste life is not going to keep me out of heaven. I am concerned about my own self control and inabilities because I too am called to chastity and purity. Are you going to also tell me that if I fail to live out my marital vows due to lack of self control then everybody else is going to have to stop being Christian? You were to one asking us to take our arguments to their logical conclusions, and it seems that you yourself failed to do so because what you said it totally rediculous.

Peace.

 

[Ham1]

IoA:

The key to this question, at least for me, is largely semantically rooted in what we mean by “homosexual.”

Someone who considers themselves “homosexual” is preparing themselves for direct conflict with the Church. The word implies a natural order – just like “heterosexual” – in which man’s makeup from birth is to have sexual relationships with the same sex. The Faith (and, might I add, everything we have on the biology of homosexuality) tells us that this is an incorrect stance.Ever since the sexual revolution where it became more socially acceptable to be “gay,” the lifestyle has been celebrated. Often times, homosexuals fall in to the trap of thinking that their sexuality is the defining characteristic of their personhood. Sexuality is really only one aspect of the human condition, but for a homosexual – for many reasons, I think – sexuality (and therefore, sex) becomes their primary self-identifier. It is therefore much more difficult to live a chaste life if you consider yourself to be “homosexual.” As for the abuse question, priests tend to fail where their untamed, unconquered weaknesses lie. And it’s true that most abusers of post-pubescent boys identify themselves as “homosexual.”

However, a man who acknowledges that he struggles with Same-Sex Attraction (SSA), but has managed to keep his passions in check and is living a chaste life, is still not barred from the priesthood in the United States. Note that someone who would openly – or privately – acknowledge to living with SSA is not using that personal characteristic as the definition of their personhood. They see it as something “intrinsically disordered,” which can be dealt with effectively. For an example of this, see the very holy David Morrison, who lives a chaste life and is a member of Courage, even though he once openly led a gay lifestyle.

This is exactly the point. What is a “homosexual?” It is an inaccurate term. We should be saying a person afflicted with SSA. The problem, as I see it, is that SSA can be present in drastically different degrees.

There could be a candidate for the priesthood who is mostly attracted to women, but has also a small and odd attraction to certain men. Can he therefore not be a priest? I don’t know the answer.

This issue cannot be distilled into SSA=Reject and No SSA=Accept. At what level can SSA be reasonably controlled. After all, there are many married men who are attracted to their wives and yet also have some attraction to men. It seems there is no definitive point where we can say, a person with this much SSA is a homosexual and a person with less than that is a heterosexual. People are more diverse than that.

I guess my point is that the statement “no homosexuals in the priesthood” sounds nice but is extremely difficult to apply. Essentially, defining what we mean by homosexual proves to be quite complicated.

 

[fix]

*The same is true for a homosexual priest. For a man struggling with this burden, it would be a “natural” part of his condition to find 15 year old boys attractive. He may or may not act upon them, but to create a distinction between homosexual attraction towards grown men and attraction towards 15 year old boys is disingenious, and obscures the issue at hand.
*
The point is it is unnatural to be drawn to a 15 year old boy when you are a man. To compare it to heterosexuality is false. Heterosexual men are not drawn to 15 year old girls, particularly men who are fathers. Homosexual men are drawn to teenage boys. It is part of the homosexual culture and is widely known.

There is a desire to equate those with SSAD as having equal desires as heterosexual men only it is with boys. This is an incorrect analogy. The entire foundation of the homosexual is toward disordered sexual desire. The same is not true of heterosexuals.

*There could be a candidate for the priesthood who is mostly attracted to women, but has also a small and odd attraction to certain men. Can he therefore not be a priest? I don’t know the answer.

This issue cannot be distilled into SSA=Reject and No SSA=Accept. At what level can SSA be reasonably controlled. After all, there are many married men who are attracted to their wives and yet also have some attraction to men. It seems there is no definitive point where we can say, a person with this much SSA is a homosexual and a person with less than that is a heterosexual. People are more diverse than that.

I guess my point is that the statement “no homosexuals in the priesthood” sounds nice but is extremely difficult to apply. Essentially, defining what we mean by homosexual proves to be quite complicated.*

Your assertions make it sound like sexuality is on a continum for most folks. I reject that. Most people are not on a continum. There may be many folks who are confused, more so today than any other time before, but most are not conflicted or confused.

I think you would be hard pressed to prove to most reasonable folks that there is a large number of men who have some degree of attraction to other men. This sounds like propaganda.

Now, it is not possible to evaluate how much SSAD is present in every single man who applies to the priesthood, but that does not mean there can’t be rules and guidelines that are authentic and Christian.

Have we reached a point where we are so mislead that we think homosexual tendencies are common? The Church has a problem right now with many homosexualists in the priesthood and chanceries. This, IMO, has occureed because radical feminists and homsexualists have placed themselves in positions of power in the Church. They control the seminaries and can turn away heterosexuals and bring in disodered men.

 

[LourdesladyN]

The same is true for a homosexual priest. For a man struggling with this burden, it would be a “natural” part of his condition to find 15 year old boys attractive. He may or may not act upon them, but to create a distinction between homosexual attraction towards grown men and attraction towards 15-year-old boys is disingenious, and obscures the issue at hand.
You could indeed be describing the cause and not the effect. One of the common denominators for homosexuality in males is a history of “non-relationship” to the father. Therefore it is young adult males that are attracted to OLDER MALES in a desire to form a “male bonding” that has not been formed in a natural way. A phenomenal website is
couragerc.net/YouthWorkerResources.html . Courage is a Catholic Apostolate to the SSA Community

The point is it is unnatural to be drawn to a 15 year old boy when you are a man. To compare it to heterosexuality is false. Heterosexual men are not drawn to 15 year old girls.
In reality, what qualifies heterosexual men as having**disordered sexual appetites **? We cannot say that there is no correlation because the age of the sexual partner could be an indicator of whether the desire is ordered or disordered.

*There is a desire to equate those with SSAD as having equal desires as heterosexual men only it is with boys. This is an incorrect analogy. The entire foundation of the homosexual is toward disordered sexual desire. The same is not true of heterosexuals. *

Is the same thing true for disordered heterosexuals? Is it a disorder (or just unlawful), for a heterosexual male to have “relations” with a 15-year-old girl?

Curiouser and Curiouser,

 

[fix]

A phenomenal website is
[couragerc.net/YouthWorkerResources.html](http://couragerc.net/YouthWorkerResources.html)* . Courage is a Catholic Apostolate to the SSA Community*

Yes, it is good, but rejected by many homosexual gropus and psychologists.

*In reality, what qualifies heterosexual men as having**disordered sexual appetites **? We cannot say that there is no correlation because the age of the sexual partner could be an indicator of whether the desire is ordered or disordered.
*
Well, if a non deviant heterosexual has a strong desire for an adolescent girl, then one would suspect he has a maturation defect. My original point was made because I was responding to a poster who said it is not unnatural for men to desire adolescents, be they homo or hetero. He saw it as a coin with two sides. I think they are both deviant. The homosexual more so.

Is the same thing true for disordered heterosexuals? Is it a disorder (or just unlawful), for a heterosexual male to have “relations” with a 15-year-old girl?

It is disordered for a man to have relations with a man. Period. If a heterosexual man has relations with a 15 year old girl that is not inrinsically disordered. It may be sinful, but not necessarily disordered.

 

[LourdesladyN]

fix:

Yes, it is good, (Courage Apostolate: couragerc.net/ ) but rejected by many homosexual gropus and psychologists.

It is my understanding that Courage portrays the Truth of Catholic Teaching and reinforces a chaste life for those who seek to do God’s will. Here is a wonderful article about the fact that Truth in the teaching of homosexuality is not always understood, accepted, and rarely portrayed accurately by the media:

drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=76
Newspaper Editor Wrong: Ex-Gays do Exist

fix:

Well, if a non deviant heterosexual has a strong desire for an adolescent girl, then one would suspect he has a maturation defect.

This statement appears to be a non sequitur. Isn’t a qualifier for deviancy, the fact that there is a strong desire for an adolescent? Was the female schoolteacher who was impregnated by the 7th grader deviant?

Be in God’s Peace,

 

[fix]

I am a big fan of courage. I wish it were more well known. I wish more bishops would welcome them, instead of the heterodox homosexualist groups that often pretend to be Catholic.

Isn’t a qualifier for deviancy, the fact that there is a strong desire for an adolescent? Was the female schoolteacher who was impregnated by the 7th grader deviant?

Perhaps we are splitting hairs? I am using the words deviant and disordered differently. Homosexual acts are disordered and deviant. A hetero male may be lusting after a physically developed 15 year old girl, that is a deviation from normal, but not necessarily disordered. Yes, it is sinful, but it does not violate natural law, it does violate the moral law.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on the natural law. Someone may correct me.

 

[Ham1]

fix:

I am a big fan of courage. I wish it were more well known. I wish more bishops would welcome them, instead of the heterodox homosexualist groups that often pretend to be Catholic.

Isn’t a qualifier for deviancy, the fact that there is a strong desire for an adolescent? Was the female schoolteacher who was impregnated by the 7th grader deviant?

Perhaps we are splitting hairs? I am using the words deviant and disordered differently. Homosexual acts are disordered and deviant. A hetero male may be lusting after a physically developed 15 year old girl, that is a deviation from normal, but not necessarily disordered. Yes, it is sinful, but it does not violate natural law, it does violate the moral law.

Now, I do not claim to be an expert on the natural law. Someone may correct me.

No, you have a good point. A man is supposed to be attracted to a physically mature young women. This is a biological component which is a part of God’s wonderful design in Nature. Now obviously, man is given an intellect which tells him that such attraction is inappropriate given the age of the yound women. But the attraction in itself is a good and is intended by God.

Conversely, homosexual attraction is a defect and NOT a part of God’s design. Because of original sin, natural defects have been introduced into God’s creation. One of these defects is Same Sex Attraction. It is a real psychological defect. But it is a defect, nonetheless, in the same way that blindness, physical impairment, strong tendency to anger, or depression are all defects.

 

[dredgtone]

Ham1:

Conversely, homosexual attraction is a defect and NOT a part of God’s design. Because of original sin, natural defects have been introduced into God’s creation. One of these defects is Same Sex Attraction. It is a real psychological defect. But it is a defect, nonetheless, in the same way that blindness, physical impairment, strong tendency to anger, or depression are all defects.

Of course it is part of God’s design, don’t be silly. God’s design is EVERYTHING we know. Therefore, defect is all part of God’s design. It’s simple like that. He must allow for defect because it exists.

Secondly i think homosexuals should be allowed to sodomized without being called sinners. Gay people need an outlet to express their love too. It’s only fair that they be able to express their love sexually.

 

[Catholicguy]

homosexuals have a sexual attraction to other men. putting them into seminaraioes where they will have intimate contact with other men is to palce them in an occasion of sin akin to placing young men in a convent…why lead them into temptation?

 

[mizcebe]

Poisson:

But if most victims are males, how does that make them heterosexual?
There is also a distinction that needs to be made. That is that an attraction to a pre-pubescents boy by a male is pedophelia, attraction to a post-pubescent boy by a male is homosexuality.

Here is my edited version Wikipedia definition:
Ephebophilia, also known as hebephilia, is the sexual attraction of an adult to adolescents. Pederasty is the attraction to male adolescents.

Often paedophilia and ephebophilia are confused. The reason for this is that definitions of the legal age and the biological age of a child conflict. According to some Catholics, the child abuse cases in the American church often have nothing to do with paedophilia, but instead are instances of ephebophilia. (See: Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal)

**Ames, A. & Houston, D.A. Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 1990, 333-342. **

I hope that helps a little.

I probably have a simplistic view of the situation, but it seems to me that if my priest is faithful to his vows of chastity, I should have no idea what his sexual orientation is. Of course, the seminaries should not risk sending a priest whom they know is sexually attracted to children or adolescents. Children are too easily intimidated particularly by an authority figure. I can see no problems with adult/adult homosexuals in the priesthood. ALL priests are supposed to be celibate and chaste, right?

I would like to also recommend the book mentioned in a previous post “Goodbye, Good Men”. It is a real eye-opener, but it could be blueprint on how to mitigate the molestation problem within the Church–start in the seminaries.

Thank God for all the good priests and pray that He will bless us with more of them!