Why no homosexual priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lourdes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dredgtone:
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.
Click to expand...
NOT everything is part of God’s design. Sin is not part of God’s design. Freewill is a part fo His design. It is by freewill that sin was introduced into the world. As a consequence of original sin, there exist natural defects in creation. Among these defects is same-sex attraction.

As far as sodomy goes, well that’s a nice opinion but it is completely contrary to Chirstianity and morality.
 
40.png
mizcebe:
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.
Click to expand...
Pederasty is sexual desire and acts with prepubescent boys.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction and acts with prepubescent children of either sex.
 
40.png
Ham1:
NOT everything is part of God’s design. Sin is not part of God’s design. Freewill is a part fo His design. It is by freewill that sin was introduced into the world. As a consequence of original sin, there exist natural defects in creation. Among these defects is same-sex attraction.

As far as sodomy goes, well that’s a nice opinion but it is completely contrary to Chirstianity and morality.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree but I’ll let your opinion stand. If someone wasn’t part of God’s plan, it wouldn’t exist. That’s the way i see it. God knew we were going to sin and it is by his accord that we are allowed to sin. Everything is part of his plan because he knows all and made all.

I see how sodomy is contradictory to Christianity but how is it immoral to sodomize? Because the Bible states it so is the obvious answer as to why it’s objected by Christianity, but how is sodomy morally wrong apart from Christianity?
 
Try reading the Bible: Romans 1, 16-32
Is this an ambivalent answer to your question??
 
40.png
condan:
Pederasty is sexual desire and acts with prepubescent boys.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction and acts with prepubescent children of either sex.
Click to expand...
Pederasty is the sexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescing boy or a young man (corresponding to an age of about 12 to 20). In the news media, this term tends to be used incorrectly as a synonym for pedophilia

pedophilia (American English) (greek pais boy, child, and philia friendship, ICD-10 F65.4) is the primary sexual attraction toward prepubescent children. Alternative spellings in British English are paedophilia or pædophilia. Pedosexuality is used as a synonym.

It seems there is a fine line in the definitions.
 
I see how sodomy is contradictory to Christianity but how is it immoral to sodomize? Because the Bible states it so is the obvious answer as to why it’s objected by Christianity, but how is sodomy morally wrong apart from Christianity?

Sodomy violates the natural law. That law is written on our hearts. Sodomy is wrong for everyone, Christian. pagan, Jew, agnostic, etc.
 
40.png
dredgtone:
I don’t agree but I’ll let your opinion stand. If someone wasn’t part of God’s plan, it wouldn’t exist. That’s the way i see it. God knew we were going to sin and it is by his accord that we are allowed to sin. Everything is part of his plan because he knows all and made all.

I see how sodomy is contradictory to Christianity but how is it immoral to sodomize? Because the Bible states it so is the obvious answer as to why it’s objected by Christianity, but how is sodomy morally wrong apart from Christianity?
Click to expand...
So, in your view God creates and is the cause of sin? That is impossible, because then you can’t explain freewill. It is true that everything exists in so far as God causes it to exist. But existence is good. So, God is only causing good not evil. We introduce the evil by using His creation against His will.

Sodomy is clearly not intended. Physically it doesn’t even work that well. Biologically it causes all sorts of problems. Clearly, the conjugal act is written as a part of Natural law and bizarre simulations of that act are not a part of Natural law, but they are perversions of Natural law.
 
40.png
Ham1:
Sodomy is clearly not intended. Physically it doesn’t even work that well. Biologically it causes all sorts of problems. Clearly, the conjugal act is written as a part of Natural law and bizarre simulations of that act are not a part of Natural law, but they are perversions of Natural law.
Click to expand...
Exactly right! Why are people so timid about saying this? Its time we called a spade a spade.
 
I would like to say first that my hearts and prayers go out to all the victims of sexual abuse. I also say a prayer for forgiveness for those who were guilty as Jesus said that must forgive. The question should be how we prevent it from happening again. I can say from first hand experience that the days of “come on in and join right in” are over and have been over for some time. A good vocation director will know everything about your past and mental health before you even come through that door to start your formation. What we need are men and woman regardless of orientation, who will be faithful to their vows of POVERTY, CHASITY and OBEDIANCE. In short no money, no honey and do what God will. We need Priest and Religious Brother and Sisters who will be faithful to the calling from the first of formation to their death. We as a community need to stand behind them and support and help them. We are so ready to jump on them when they make a mistake or make nasty remarks about them that we think they don’t hear, but when was the last time that you offered to help so that the priest or sister could go and finish other things. Do we realize how much work there is to run some parishes and schools? So before we condemn any priest, brother or sister we should try and walk in their shoes first. I know I am guilty of saying things about my pastor like the rest of us, but at least I put my in time in the parish office to help him do you? I know just because I work in the office and fund raisers and so forth, do not give me a right to talk ill of my pastor’s homilies or his refusal to hear confessions on a regular basis, I confess I am a sinner and am working to change my ways. What I do want to say the next time you want to trash a priest, brother or sisters try walking in there shoes first.

Not exactly what I started to say, but that is what flowed out.
 
This is a great thread, and I hope readers are visiting the Courage site, www.couragerc.net. If you do you will notice that the best minds in the Church on this topic (totally orthodox) refer more to SSA (same sex attraction) rather than “homosexual orientation.” Throughout history people have been sexually attracted to all kinds of things; the ones that lead to marriage and family are good, and the ones that don’t are not. We do faithful Catholics with this SSA no favors by implying or saying that they have these “orientations” and “tendencies” that are hopeless and unchangeable. Sometimes I’m afraid we buy too much into the pseudo-clinical lingo to debate our opponents and realize too late that they have already won a partial victory simply by forcing us to debate using their terms. Some sexual fixations certainly are pretty strong and might be more fixed, but it’s not clear to me that there is such a thing as “a homosexual orientation” per se. I’m not advocating “conversion camps” and the like, but I wonder what we will say about “homosexual orientation” 20 years from now if we find that it is responsive to medication, etc. The true test of the so-called “gay community” will be to see if it would still exist if such a pill did–I doubt it. If Alzheimers might be cured with a pill in ten years, why not this?
 
40.png
Fortiterinre:
This is a great thread, and I hope readers are visiting the Courage site, www.couragerc.net. If you do you will notice that the best minds in the Church on this topic (totally orthodox) refer more to SSA (same sex attraction) rather than “homosexual orientation.” Throughout history people have been sexually attracted to all kinds of things; the ones that lead to marriage and family are good, and the ones that don’t are not. We do faithful Catholics with this SSA no favors by implying or saying that they have these “orientations” and “tendencies” that are hopeless and unchangeable. Sometimes I’m afraid we buy too much into the pseudo-clinical lingo to debate our opponents and realize too late that they have already won a partial victory simply by forcing us to debate using their terms. Some sexual fixations certainly are pretty strong and might be more fixed, but it’s not clear to me that there is such a thing as “a homosexual orientation” per se. I’m not advocating “conversion camps” and the like, but I wonder what we will say about “homosexual orientation” 20 years from now if we find that it is responsive to medication, etc. The true test of the so-called “gay community” will be to see if it would still exist if such a pill did–I doubt it. If Alzheimers might be cured with a pill in ten years, why not this?
Click to expand...
A heterosexual orientation seems to be suppressed by chemical castration today. No need to wait 20 years. So what do we say about it today?
 
To even suggest chemical castration for those with SSAD would create a firestorm. I think it is an interesting idea.

The folks at courage have a good take on this entire issue. I wish they had a wider audience. The “gay” lobby has tremendous influence in our culture.
 
I have NO problem with homosexual priests, any more than I have a problem with heterosexual priests. I speak of ORIENTATION–not of actions. When a priest takes a vow of celibacy, he is forbidden to engage in any type of sexual activity, be it hetero or homo.
I DO have a problem with priests who violate their vow of celibacy, in whatever way they do it.
 
40.png
PilgrimJWT:
I have NO problem with homosexual priests, any more than I have a problem with heterosexual priests. I speak of ORIENTATION–not of actions. When a priest takes a vow of celibacy, he is forbidden to engage in any type of sexual activity, be it hetero or homo.
I DO have a problem with priests who violate their vow of celibacy, in whatever way they do it.
Click to expand...
The point is homosexuality is pathological. It is not the same as a healthy heterosexual deciding to be celibate. The Church can decide who can and cannot be a priest. They are many different reasons why a man would be excluded. SSAD is a very good reason to exclude.
 
I was homosexual for about 4 years(14-18 years old). I am moving out of it now. It is a wise precaution to not allow priests who have not overcome their deep-seated homosexual tendencies. Now that I have undergone a lot of healing spiritually and emotionally, Doing self-therapy under the guidance of Joseph Nicolosi’s Book. It was really an emotional maturity problem, I was using same sex fantasies to cope with conflicting desires for male acceptance and intimacy(from a distant father relationship) and fear of male rejection in intimacy, sex was a motivator to overcome the fear, but still get the intimacy. But it was a lie, there was no intimacy. The sexual desires are nearly gone now because I can confront the deeper emotional desires. Here’s the thing though, If I changed my mind I could say, “screw it, I know gay sex is psychological, spiritually, and emotionally harmful, but I want it.” By ditching my conscience for those things, I would also have no problem with pedophilia(which violates the same areas of my conscience), so long as it was politically correct. In this theoretical scenario, I can easily envision myself engaging in pedophilic activities, so long as I can ignore the damage it would do. Though I never really went there, I do see a connection to pedophilia in my homosexuality.

What I am trying to say is, If my life went differently, and pedophilic acts became legal, It’s quite possible I could go down that road. My father wound as a child, makes a man and boy sexual scenario a potential erotic defense against the pain of that wound.

That is a pretty embarrassing thing to realize and admit, especially after having successfully undergone significant emotional healing, but there it is.

So I conclude that barring men who have not resolved their homosexuality is a good precaution because it’s not just a sexual attraction, but a buried emotional wound that overwhelms the individual in external ways, if he cannot bring it to the surface and face it. The likelihood of a serious underlying phycological/emotional problem would make it very risky; The likelihood of immaturity(pathological grief, and a narcissistic defense against shame)suggests the candidate may not be ready for such a role.

Besides, I don’t think Homosexuals ought to become priests because they have no healthy desire for marriage

I’ve heard that in entering the priesthood you should have a mature and healthy desire for marriage, and then choose to give that up to be a priest. A homosexual is not giving up his desire to be married(in a Catholic marriage) if he doesn’t have that desire in the first place. If he moves out of homosexuality and cultivates that healthy desire, then he might be ready.
 
Last edited:
Make all of my comments rhetorical. Of all sins, sexual sin and temptation are by far the strongest, as they exist as part of our very nature. The temptation is experienced no matter where the person lives or is employed - the imagination will conjure up a temporary reality if no physical reality exists, i.e. lust. On average, males have an inordinately higher desire for sexual activity and satisfaction than women. They are fertile for much if not all of their lives.

Now, as to redefining sexual abuse as pedophilia when it is overwhelmingly homosexual in nature is being disingenuous, methinks. Same sex is same sex, no matter the semantics in play. Same sex victim is much more likely to translate into same sex predator when mature.

In the spiritual realm, priests of all stripes are under heavy attack. Those who are weak regarding control of sexual urges are not well equipped for their vocation. Add the disorder of same sex attraction and/or activity on top of this weakness and you end up with the largest, most damaging, most infamous sexual scandal in human history.

If you can, think of same sex predation as being doubly disordered. In the case of clergy, it is a violation of the vow of celibacy, and when homosexual, it is more grossly disordered. Look at the well established patterns of sexual behavior in mature male homosexuals: often there are numerous partners - hundreds even. Why? Because willing male partners have the same increased desires.

It is difficult enough for a man to control even normal sexual urges. Add disorder to the underlying violation, combine that with constant exposure to potential victims and it becomes an aggravated situation. And, what about the children involved? Do they matter, or is the insinuation of known sexual deviants into the priesthood a modern priority?
 
13 YEARS LATER

Wow.

I thought some familiar posters from the past were back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top