Zero tolerance for actively gay priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Malcolm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not surprised at all…

Remind me the "Miami Vice "report, some years ago…

Myself, I have seen in the newspaper, that the priest of a parish where I had gone to mass only one time “coming out” with his “girlfriend” (kissing…) because the bishop have put an ultimatum on this priest, after years of “tolerence” when the mistress come to live in the rectory!
 
Last edited:
But if he doesn’t mention that he was told this by the staff it will have no weight. And if he does, and word of it gets back to the vindictive priest (as it very well might) then the staff will pay the price.

And it’s very possible the bishop already knows, and doesn’t wish to do anything.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Doesn’t matter what he thinks I said. He’s going to be fighting the battle to keep calling it a sick psychological disorder for decades after medical science has left that view in the dust.
Makes about as much sense to me as continuing to argue the earth is flat.
Click to expand...
ya let’s forget what the church’s teaching on homosexuality has been for the last 1900 years and ask “medical science” instead because they are the real moral authority now - not the church .

of course ! what was I thinking ? sorry
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Well, we disagree there.

So what do you think about the heterosexual priests that violate their vows? That seems to be equally prevalent, but it doesn’t seem to trouble you. Should they not also be addressed?
Click to expand...
One would hope they are. It is a bit more difficult to have a female lover living at the rectory than to have a male there. Plausible deniability is a lot harder to feign.

Having said that, priests do need to have friends and they do need to have some privacy.
Irishmom2 said:
This is why there has been such abuse and scandal in the Church. People knew and did nothing. People knew and covered it up.
Click to expand...
Actually, just having people who had serious reason for concern that they were afraid to come forward with was enough cover for the abusers. When it is an adult and not a child who may be the target of inappropriate advances from a priest, people are probably even less in a hurry to jump to conclulsions that, if pressed, they really have no reasonable grounds to doubt.

This is the sort of thing that would press me (personally) to arrange for an in-person interview with the vicar for clergy. It is OK to tell them it is only a suspicion or only hearsay but too serious not to bring to his attention. Then let it go, if hearsay is all you have. You really cannot do much without first-hand knowledge except to encourage those who have it to please come forward.
 
Malcolm said:
40.png
Tis_Bearself:
Doesn’t matter what he thinks I said. He’s going to be fighting the battle to keep calling it a sick psychological disorder for decades after medical science has left that view in the dust.
Makes about as much sense to me as continuing to argue the earth is flat.
Click to expand...
ya let’s forget what the church’s teaching on homosexuality has been for the last 1900 years and ask “medical science” instead because they are the real moral authority now - not the church .

of course ! what was I thinking ? sorry
Click to expand...
Is it the Catholic Church’s position that homosexuality is a mental illness or sickness?
 
The inclination is objectively disordered. The act is mortally sinful–intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law.
Catholic forums, Catholic teaching, straight out of the Catechism. 'Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
It is bad indeed. There is pressure from within and without to turn the Church into a Roman version of the Episcopal “church,” replete with priestesses and openly, actively homosexual clergy and same sex “marriages.” If there is schism–and I think there might be–there will still remain what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI predicted–a smaller, purified, truly Catholic Church. The gates of hell shall not prevail.
 
Last edited:
Because so many in the Church hierarchy are part of the problem.

Q: What’s worse than a wolf in sheeps clothing?

A: A wolf in shepherds clothing.
 
Irishmom2 said:
So no one is going to do anything. Everyone is leaving it be. Everyone is waiting for someone else to do something.

This is why there has been such abuse and scandal in the Church. People knew and did nothing. People knew and covered it up.

Wouldn’t you feel better knowing that at least you tried to do something? Write the bishop about what you have been been told by the staff. If he does nothing, it is on him. He will answer for it, not you.
Click to expand...
No. I will not betray the person who told me in confidence and who I promised not to say anything before she told me.

All I can do is gently encourage her to say something. I know she wants to, but she’s afraid.
 
One of the problems is you do not bring up concise issues that are conducive to productive discussion and answers.
You bring up somewhat vague issues in accusatory tones, and some of it is stereotypical (gay sex orgies in the Vatican…).
 
prayerrider said:
The inclination is objectively disordered. The act is mortally sinful–intrinsically disordered and contrary to natural law.
Catholic forums, Catholic teaching, straight out of the Catechism. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
And the inclination is among many inclinations that people have to commit sin. Few if any of us are without inclinations that are objectively disordered, whether that be an inclination to eat too much, to speak without thinking, or whatever it is. None of us just gets to say, “Oh, indulging an inordinate or disordered desire would be a sin for others is not a sin for me because that’s the way I was made.”
No, we’re all made with different gifts and all prone to desires that are objectively disordered because they give us a preference that places our desires over the promptings of divine law. That’s the reality of the fall.
One of the differences, however, is that, for example, those of us who are prone to overeating are not being encouraged to self-identify as heavy eaters. We don’t have heavy-eater parades and we don’t look back in the past to a history of inordinate and even savage or violent shaming of heavy eaters. Those who have an inclination to same-sex behaviors are both inclined to a seriously wrong action and caught in the middle of a social movement that is dealing with inordinate shaming of what is one base inclination of many that a person might have in a very confused and misguided way. We have to have some empathy for anyone who has this issue to deal with and at this juncture in history. It is better now in some ways but in other ways it has been made self-mastery even more difficult because of the constant message that the expectation that self-mastery is unhealthy, unnatural and bigoted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top