With the pope against the homoheresy

[JustaSinner]

Homosexuals do jobs just like everyone else does and there have been some very good and holy priests who have also happened to be homosexual (one of which, indeed, to my certain knowledge has had a Cause for Sainthood proposed by many people).

How well does this sentiment jive with St. Paul’s words–which condemn as sinful not only the homosexual act but even the homosexual desire:
Rom 1:26 “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;” (Douay-Rheims)

It appears from St. Paul that if someone is in bondage to homosexual desire (which is almost certainly the case if they self-identify as homosexual), then they have been given over to “shameful affections” and therefore are not “very good and holy priests.” That said, we’re all sinners and have many sins which we must continually repent of–but that’s no excuse for treating as indifferent what God has called evil. In fact, it’s the recent excusing of homosexual desires/orientation as a matter of indifference–as long as one doesn’t act on it–which has helped lead to the mess that the Church finds itself in (simply put, how can someone repent/find freedom from something if they think it’s not a sin).

I have a cousin who is in bondage to this particular sin. As a straight guy I can only imagine how hard it would be for him to put to death all his homosexual desires, but I’m certain that God is not weak to give him (or any other homosexual) full and lasting victory from this sin–just as He’s not too weak to give an alcoholic full and lasting deliverance from even the desire for the bottle. (Of course, “lasting victory” doesn’t mean a former-alchoholic should hang around the bar, and likewise I’m sure a delivered former-homosexual would be unwise to hang around a gay bar, for instance) .

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you think that the ratios have changed significantly? I mean, there are about 39,000 US priests, with about 500 new ordinants in 2012. That is something like 1-1.5% new priests per year.

Hi, epan.
I’m not a statistician, so I tend not to follow numbers in detail. However, qualitatively, when one looks at the new seminarians, there is a decided singularity of purpose among them, which is the same purpose which the Church requires. (A true vocation, dedicated to celibacy, chastity, and orthodoxy – not a pop idea for a special interest club and social hangout – and I would say that just as mockingly for any person, male oor female, using religious life for inappropriate motives, such as social or sexual. That is a form of manipulation.)

I’m sure as you understand, religious life is serious business. You may have read on CAF about a month ago when I discussed an associate of mine, a homosexual, who told me that he once thought he had a vocation to the priesthood, then realized that he was really only into the ‘performance art’ aspects of it (i.e., liturgy, incense, “costumes,” etc.), and he realized that the other aspects of priesthood he was not drawn to. I have met heterosexuals also who come to understand a narrow and inappropriate attraction to the life. It’s a life, not an activity or a diversion, and certainly not something you can selectively pick up and put down. Like marriage, one must be in it for the long haul, and assume a generous factor of selflessness to make either marriage or the priesthood “work,”

So my point is that the newest crop of priests seems to get this. For one thing, they are entering as individuals, not as cliques, which was happening in the '90’s.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that priests who are sexually active (of any orientation) have vanished. One will learn here or there of someone being asked to leave for such reasons, or who has voluntarily done so. And when these startling headlines happen that you see in the news (such as Cardinal O’Brien), keep in mind that the vast majority of those are older priests (or higher). When they entered seminary, personal sexuality was most often not even discussed, let alone filtered. The entire issue was suppressed, which was one of the problems, and why there is frank discussion of it now when seminarians enroll, and even when they are discerning.

 

[CaptBell800]

How well does this sentiment jive with St. Paul’s words–which condemn as sinful not only the homosexual act but even the homosexual desire:
Rom 1:26 “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;” (Douay-Rheims)

It appears from St. Paul that if someone is in bondage to homosexual desire (which is almost certainly the case if they self-identify as homosexual), then they have been given over to “shameful affections” and therefore are not “very good and holy priests.” That said, we’re all sinners and have many sins which we must continually repent of–but that’s no excuse for treating as indifferent what God has called evil. In fact, it’s the recent excusing of homosexual desires/orientation as a matter of indifference–as long as one doesn’t act on it–which has helped lead to the mess that the Church finds itself in (simply put, how can someone repent/find freedom from something if they think it’s not a sin).

I have a cousin who is in bondage to this particular sin. As a straight guy I can only imagine how hard it would be for him to put to death all his homosexual desires, but I’m certain that God is not weak to give him (or any other homosexual) full and lasting victory from this sin–just as He’s not too weak to give an alcoholic full and lasting deliverance from even the desire for the bottle. (Of course, “lasting victory” doesn’t mean a former-alchoholic should hang around the bar, and likewise I’m sure a delivered former-homosexual would be unwise to hang around a gay bar, for instance) .

It’s not correct to say someone is sinning just from desires. That is not Church teaching and that is not what has lead to the problems the Church is facing. It doesn’t fit with the idea of sin, anyway. Having a desire to steal something doesn’t mean you go and steal it. I don’t know much about psychology, but I do know that sexual passions can become deeply rooted at an early age. It can be extremely difficult to change them. Acting on and dwelling on those desires is a sin; simply possessing them isn’t.

 

[epan]

Hi, epan.
I’m not a statistician, so I tend not to follow numbers in detail. However, qualitatively, when one looks at the new seminarians, there is a decided singularity of purpose among them, which is the same purpose which the Church requires. (A true vocation, dedicated to celibacy, chastity, and orthodoxy – not a pop idea for a special interest club and social hangout – and I would say that just as mockingly for any person, male oor female, using religious life for inappropriate motives, such as social or sexual. That is a form of manipulation.)

I’m sure as you understand, religious life is serious business. You may have read on CAF about a month ago when I discussed an associate of mine, a homosexual, who told me that he once thought he had a vocation to the priesthood, then realized that he was really only into the ‘performance art’ aspects of it (i.e., liturgy, incense, “costumes,” etc.), and he realized that the other aspects of priesthood he was not drawn to. I have met heterosexuals also who come to understand a narrow and inappropriate attraction to the life. It’s a life, not an activity or a diversion, and certainly not something you can selectively pick up and put down. Like marriage, one must be in it for the long haul, and assume a generous factor of selflessness to make either marriage or the priesthood “work,”

So my point is that the newest crop of priests seems to get this. For one thing, they are entering as individuals, not as cliques, which was happening in the '90’s.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that priests who are sexually active (of any orientation) have vanished. One will learn here or there of someone being asked to leave for such reasons, or who has voluntarily done so. And when these startling headlines happen that you see in the news (such as Cardinal O’Brien), keep in mind that the vast majority of those are older priests (or higher). When they entered seminary, personal sexuality was most often not even discussed, let alone filtered. The entire issue was suppressed, which was one of the problems, and why there is frank discussion of it now when seminarians enroll, and even when they are discerning.

Certainly, examination and revision of the selection process will not only help to filter out undesirable candidates, and also filter in compatible ones. By that, I mean that by openly advocating the type of candidate that one desires will help to attract that sort of candidate.

My personal experience is largely in the military, which has seen some changes in this area. But, as an example, if you look at the promotional material and selection processes for the various branches, they are very different, in order to a attract different types of people. And, the policy on gay sex, regardless of what it is, has always been openly published, discussed, and acted upon. This does make a difference.

It has changed recently, but my understanding is that it was once nearly impossible to advance beyond the rank of major for unmarried men, and that a divorce would stop a career in place. Adultery is still a crime in the US military. Though in the true meaning of the act, it is not currently enforced.

The integration of the military was a result of legal action in the courts. If the Congress did not repeal DADT, then a judge was going to do it. So, the military command requested Congress to repeal the act in order to integrate on their own terms, rather than under the direction of a court. I sometimes wonder if the integration of the military does not foreshadow a similar sequence of events with religious organizations. I hope that religious liberty will trump the trend. But it is not outside of the realm of imagination, that such a thing could happen in the near future.

 

[djames99]

“but I do know that sexual passions can become deeply rooted at an early age.”

I don’t think so. Children may mimic and experiment, have knowledge that girls are different than boys, but have no concept of sexual passion.

Desires are a part of the understanding. For positive motives we may desire baptism and so it happens. The choices of the will are for desires of good or evil.

Ref: (newadvent,Sin/Internal Sin)

If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil,

Therefore, since in this study we took the precaution to proceed from scripture, we know this abomination is intrinsically evil. Some arguments rescue the act from it’s abomination category through explanations of Hebrew ritual, in that it is simply one of a list of something that is abhorred. But the category for the act in question is found absolutely binding by it’s attachment to offenses to moral rules of procreation and matrimony. Here we find no ambiguity as to it’s seriousness.

*The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of.Much depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions.
*

 

[CaptBell800]

“but I do know that sexual passions can become deeply rooted at an early age.”

I don’t think so. Children may mimic and experiment, have knowledge that girls are different than boys, but have no concept of sexual passion.

Desires are a part of the understanding. For positive motives we may desire baptism and so it happens. The choices of the will are for desires of good or evil.

Ref: (newadvent,Sin/Internal Sin)

If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil,

Therefore, since in this study we took the precaution to proceed from scripture, we know this abomination is intrinsically evil. Some arguments rescue the act from it’s abomination category through explanations of Hebrew ritual, in that it is simply one of a list of something that is abhorred. But the category for the act in question is found absolutely binding by it’s attachment to offenses to moral rules of procreation and matrimony. Here we find no ambiguity as to it’s seriousness.

*The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of.Much depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions.
*

You’re contradicting the catechism itself if you say that those who have attractions to the same sex are inherently sinful even if they don’t act on them. And yes, sexual abnormalities can indeed be imprinted in a mind at a young age.

 

[Elizabeth502]

epan,
Thank you for the further sharing in post 182.
I do think, have thought for awhile, that the Church would do well to selectively and carefully, conservatively, look at models of organization outside itself which have worked or are working, relative to some of the problems (administrative, organizational, sometimes morale) in its own “ranks” (to borrow a military phrase ). [Full disclosure myself here: I am the daughter of a career naval officer. ]

You might have seen some of my posts on other threads, maybe in Catholic news, on some serious areas of reform needed in the Church (not theological reform, but reform in terms of procedures). Clearly the insufficiency of communication & procedures & transparency has been at the root of much of the lack of resolution to remnants of the clergy abuse scandal, and the previous exposure of that. In those posts I wasn’t myself even focusing on the sex abuse and its labyrinthian turns, but rather simple administration on the diocesan and parish level, respective to clerical-lay dynamics, which reveal a disconnect, to say the least, in how to treat employees. As the priesthood is also drawing from the “ranks” of the business world now (men who have had careers there, or worked in some profession), I’m hopeful that better models will begin to be applied.

I think what the Church is getting at (in the matter of formation and the focus of the priesthood) is this, and I derive that from the documents, such as BXVI’s: any pronounced sexual attachment is an obstacle to the vocation to a celibate priesthood. Any. Let’s think of it as a marriage (which is how the Church does think of it): the candidate is entering an entirely new phase of his life, and that phase is also linked with a “new identity.” Can you imagine if a new bride or groom kept discussing, fantasizing about, writing letters to, “old flames,” during the marriage? It would jeopardize the marriage, big time. The bridge or groom would be distracted & divided, not to mention engaging in a kind of “mental infidelity.” The partner is not the “ex-boyfriend/girlfriend” of person X, but a partner in a new marriage and new beginning of a lifelong commitment.

This is also why the issue of so-called “sexual identity” is a concern. It’s a concern for two reasons. Theologically (as I’ve discussed on other threads) the Church does not consider the human person as “essentially” sexual – heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. I mean in the person’s being, and relative to his or her relationship with God. The “essence” is not the sexuality, so the idea of “a straight person” or “a gay person” doesn’t fall within the philosophical-theological framework of Catholic teaching. We “are,” in a metaphysical sense, not our sexuality. That is why the understanding of the term “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (BXVI) includes any insistence on the candidate’s part that he “identify” as “gay”/“homosexual.” It’s not his essence. His essence is man, adopted son of God, and (future) priest. Gender is actually much more closely allied with essence than sexual attraction is.

And in order to understand the theology and to teach the theology, it is necessary to embrace the premises in which the Church defines the human person, not secular society defines the human person.

Second, as JReducation as pointed out in the past, even to identify with a “sexual” adjective indicates a sexual consciousness/attachment which is incompatible with celibacy. A man who entered the seminary self-described as “a horny guy” would be considered, from a biological point of view, normal, but from a religious point of view as someone not fit for the priesthood.

I’m quite sure that there are men with same-sex attraction who not only have made fine priests, and not acted on those attractions or been derailed by them, but are so now and will be so in the future. The process of discernment and examination after entering is now designed to help determine the degree to which a candidate “identifies” sexually versus “identifies” spiritually and how realistically able he is to meet the challenges of celibacy. Part of that includes how he will channel his drives, non-sexually. Unless it is talked about openly (I think you will agree that’s important!), it cannot be assumed that it will resolve itself appropriately.

 

[JHow]

Certainly, examination and revision of the selection process will not only help to filter out undesirable candidates, and also filter in compatible ones. By that, I mean that by openly advocating the type of candidate that one desires will help to attract that sort of candidate.

My personal experience is largely in the military, which has seen some changes in this area. But, as an example, if you look at the promotional material and selection processes for the various branches, they are very different, in order to a attract different types of people. And, the policy on gay sex, regardless of what it is, has always been openly published, discussed, and acted upon. This does make a difference.

It has changed recently, but my understanding is that it was once nearly impossible to advance beyond the rank of major for unmarried men, and that a divorce would stop a career in place. Adultery is still a crime in the US military. Though in the true meaning of the act, it is not currently enforced.

The integration of the military was a result of legal action in the courts. If the Congress did not repeal DADT, then a judge was going to do it. So, the military command requested Congress to repeal the act in order to integrate on their own terms, rather than under the direction of a court. I sometimes wonder if the integration of the military does not foreshadow a similar sequence of events with religious organizations. I hope that religious liberty will trump the trend. But it is not outside of the realm of imagination, that such a thing could happen in the near future.

And we will find out by accident whether this had any impact on combat effectiveness. How will the nation handle the first gay drill seargent - trainee scandal one wonders? Eyes wide shut, I predict.

 

[Seeker1961]

And we will find out by accident whether this had any impact on combat effectiveness. How will the nation handle the first gay drill seargent - trainee scandal one wonders? Eyes wide shut, I predict.

In other words, the same way they handle it when a female soldier gets raped by her superior officer…

 

[Love4All]

Indeed, he died as a priest doing the work of his vocation.

I hate to read diatribes against this holy man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge

Judge was a long-term member of Dignity, a Catholic LGBT activist organization that advocates for change in the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.[47][48] On October 1, 1986, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an encyclical, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,[49] which declared homosexuality to be a “strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil”. In response, many bishops, including John Cardinal O’Connor, banned Dignity from diocesan churches under their control. Judge then welcomed Dignity’s AIDS ministry to the Church of Saint Francis of Assisi, which is under the control of the Franciscan friars, thereby partially circumventing the cardinal’s ban of Dignity.[50]

Judge disagreed with official Roman Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality,[51] though by all accounts he remained celibate. Judge often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love?”[52]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DignityUSA

 

[Love4All]

lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/11/syracuse-diocese-touts-homosexual.html

 

[JHow]

In other words, the same way they handle it when a female soldier gets raped by her superior officer…

It remains to be seen if things will be handled “in the same way”. Things are not exactly the same right now when it comes men and women in the military. Large double standards exist, to the benefit of women to a large degree. Problems that result from this have been swept under the rug in many cases. Adding yet another federally protected class to the mix seems likely to generate additional chaos - time will tell. Maybe American men will learn to enjoy going to battle with their catamite “battle buddies”. We already kill off the weak and unfit (in the womb), we would make good Spartans.

 

[djames99]

It is important to understand what is occurring. The term attraction is descriptive in order to put a name to the initial motivator. It is not something that is desired, not alarming but seemingly benign, but is indicator of an internal attempt to intrude into Divine norms intended for the individual; something to take notice and not a license for complacency(heads up). The evil element is capable, with assistance of the sensual, of implanting a delectable thought in it’s victim so that it seems normal. Recall, the substantial is part of what it claims is it’s realm. It is a master of molding it to what it wants. While this is happening, the intellect(research) a well honed conscience(virtue,etc) form an opposition to it and raises the doubt. This is why trust in the Word is so important, which is the further cause for meriting added graces for a well honed conscience(reverse of compounding).

So now we understand it is actually an implanted temptation, albeit of it’s own species, devious and subtle as it is. And it would be, no small task in totally getting a victim to believe he “IS” what he isn’t. No one who steals walks around saying he “IS” thief. He knows he can change so he doesn’t identify with it.

This is where we are expected to respond in our will. We respond to every instrument that is used for the final effect. We mount our attack at the first provocation, which we know is defined as anything that is presented to a person that is contrary to God’s definitions and moral teaching. We “perish the thought”, as the saying goes. We do not accept it as innocent play of the mind. The correct response is to slough it off, call the ruse for what it is(an exercise of faith), and ask for assistance to be rid of it. The Church points to many ways of doing this. There have been many successes through devotion to the Holy Mother through the Rosary. (How this works in another thread). These people have gone on to raise families and have the same heterosexual drives as any normal person.

But in the final analysis, what else can it be if we really trust in God.? Do we find ourselves being selective sometimes? Do we take the time to research for the purposes of mounting an argument to a point being made by someone to better our advantage, while refusing to use the same zeal to research the Word in fear the result may call us to an account of conscience?

If anyone else using reason is opinionated, what are we saying to God who took the trouble to state how he feels about an act he does not condone? Isn’t the correct response a thanks, a sigh of relief for the grace that we have the proof he “connects” with us in our struggles? We have two facts plain for anyone to see.

My question is why do we ignore them if not for our own human gain and desire for the temporary delightful and decadent things of this world?.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I have no reason to doubt there is a subculture . As far as that LA Times study went though, I might be tempted to take the precision of their percentages estimated, with a grain of salt . Yes, there is a homosexual problem . Are the percentages quoted an accurate reflection of the entire ministerial priesthood of the USA , or as JHow put it – fair “quantitative estimates of the proportion of priests who are homosexual “ in the US?
. . . not necessarily.

We first note the amount of priests polled according to Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests
"A 2002 nationwide poll in America by the Los Angeles Times of 1,854 Roman Catholic priests reported that. . .

Just so there is no confusion , this figure of 39,000 given below is for the year 2012 . When the LA Times took their poll , there were 45,382 Catholic priests in the USA.

Do you think that the ratios have changed significantly? I mean, there are about 39,000 US priests, with about 500 new ordinants in 2012. That is something like 1-1.5% new priests per year.

cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

So only 4% of US Catholic priests were actually polled at that time. They’re (the pollsters and analysts) speculating according to responses from 4% of the whole . Another interesting figure/fact which somehow got relegated into the background (or entirely left out) is that , the poll was done in the form of a survey which was actually mailed to 5,000 priests.

That means for the 1,854 who did respond, 3,146 chose not to answer.

Here’s a link to the actual survey text and figures - scribd.com/doc/126562122/Los-Angeles-Times-Poll-Priest-Survey-Sex-Scandal-In-The-Church-Puerto-Rico-2002

Please, let’s consider something here: We should be able to agree that at least there are some priests who are homosexual (whatever the estimated percentage) and who are doing what they can to subvert Church teaching and in so undermining, promoting an actively homosexual agenda and lifestyle - okay ?

Does anyone, for one second, believe that we would find them among the 3,146 who chose not to respond to the survey - Of course not ! Actually, all things considered, they would be the first ones to respond - wouldn’t they ? Particularly if they are of the mindset described in Elizabeth502’s post # 171 – y’know :Use the media to pump the PR - LA Times and all that. So effectively, that survey erred in favour of homosexuality by weeding out 63% of the total most likely to have no homosexual tendencies at all, right at the outset.

In their survey, the LA Times even admitted in print :

Not surprising, 73% of the priests surveyed, think the media has been negative in its treatment of the Catholic Church. All demographic groups believe this.

They also claim

“the wording for some questions has been abridged”

. . . just a couple pf things to bear in mind.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

Several Excerpts:

In this document,promulgated in 2005 , the Church recognized there was a problem, which they referred to as the “current situation” :

In light of this abundant teaching, the present Instruction does not intend to dwell on all questions in the area of affectivity and sexuality that require an attentive discernment during the entire period of formation. Rather, it contains norms concerning a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

After reiterating how the Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies , the Instruction goes on to say that :

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

It goes without saying that the candidate himself has the primary responsibility for his own formation[21]. He must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the Bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests. It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, towards ordination. Such a deceitful attitude does not correspond to the spirit of truth, loyalty and openness that must characterize the personality of him who believes he is called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood.

• The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication*.

Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries

Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski
Prefect

J. Michael Miller, C.S.B.
Tit. Archbp. of Vertara
Secretary

What a blessing Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI emeritus , is to the holy Catholic Church.

 

[epan]

And we will find out by accident whether this had any impact on combat effectiveness. How will the nation handle the first gay drill seargent - trainee scandal one wonders? Eyes wide shut, I predict.

I would hope as any other sexual misconduct matter.

It has crossed my mind, that even though there are plenty of gay people in the military, the number of problems of the type you refer to has been very low, historically. Yet, the same cannot be said for heterosexuals in the military. The number of sexual misconduct allegations involving opposite sex is troublesome.

I am not sure why that is. I wonder if this will change, and same sex issues will become a problem, too? Either gay men are better at controlling their impulses than straight men are, or DADT had a chilling effect on that sort of behavior. Another possibility which comes to mind is that male victims are less likely to report a problem than female victims, which makes a lot of sense, too.

 

[migueltojose]

I would hope as any other sexual misconduct matter.

It has crossed my mind, that even though there are plenty of gay people in the military, the number of problems of the type you refer to has been very low, historically. Yet, the same cannot be said for heterosexuals in the military. The number of sexual misconduct allegations involving opposite sex is troublesome.

I am not sure why that is. I wonder if this will change, and same sex issues will become a problem, too? Either gay men are better at controlling their impulses than straight men are, or DADT had a chilling effect on that sort of behavior. Another possibility which comes to mind is that male victims are less likely to report a problem than female victims, which makes a lot of sense, too.

I would think having homesexuals in the military would cause a lot of other issues unrelated to improper sexual promiscuity. The old saying “if there’s a fight, I want him on my side” now has another side issue to deal with… “Could I be sending him the wrong message. What would the other guys think.” I think it creates issues with male bonding which historically have produced great results in battle.

I suppose this could apply to the clergy too. What greater battle is there than the battle to save souls.

 

[Seeker1961]

I would think having homesexuals in the military would cause a lot of other issues unrelated to improper sexual promiscuity. The old saying “if there’s a fight, I want him on my side” now has another side issue to deal with… “Could I be sending him the wrong message. What would the other guys think.” I think it creates issues with male bonding which historically have produced great results in battle.

Well, the cold hard fact is that gay people have always served in the military. The only difference is now they can have a picture of their partner with them and talk about them when everyone else is talking about their significant others. And there is another fact-the generation serving now simply does not care about this issue as much as generations before. There are gay people in the world, they’ve gotten over it.

 

[epan]

I would think having homesexuals in the military would cause a lot of other issues unrelated to improper sexual promiscuity. The old saying “if there’s a fight, I want him on my side” now has another side issue to deal with… “Could I be sending him the wrong message. What would the other guys think.” I think it creates issues with male bonding which historically have produced great results in battle.

I suppose this could apply to the clergy too. What greater battle is there than the battle to save souls.

Yes, well, the law has already changed. New regulations are coming down with regularity. Everyone has his or her opinion as to the potential impact. However, those are fairly mute, since this is the new reality. It would be inappropriate, and might even be illegal for me to express freely my opinions on the topic.

Even though the organizations are very different, it might be instructive for Church officials to examine where the military has succeeded, and where it has failed, in dealing with the issue, in order to adapt those lessons to its own situation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

However, those are fairly mute, since this is the new reality.

You meant “moot.”

Even though the organizations are very different, it might be instructive for Church officials to examine where the military has succeeded, and where it has failed, in dealing with the issue, in order to adapt those lessons to its own situation.

I agree.