Papal Resignation Linked To Hidden Homosexual Network?

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, I guess that brings a whole new meaning to LinkedIn...

 

Seriously though, I really don't think a single fashion consultant counts a lobby.  Are their priests who have their male whores?  Sure, but why would that really give the whores power over the Church?

The idea would be that those priests want to influence the Church in such a way that their immoral acts are legitimized- as if that were possible.

[r2Dtoo]

The idea would be that those priests want to influence the Church in such a way that their immoral acts are legitimized- as if that were possible.

What makes you think there not just pent up closeted homophobes, like Republican Congressmen.

[Nihil Obstat]

What makes you think there not just pent up closeted homophobes, like Republican Congressmen.

I do not understand what you are saying.

[r2Dtoo]

I do not understand what you are saying.

What makes you think that just because they're engaging in homosexual activity that they actually want to change Church teaching about it?

[Nihil Obstat]

What makes you think that just because they're engaging in homosexual activity that they actually want to change Church teaching about it?

I said that is how the argument goes. Not that I necessarily believe it.

Although if I were pressed about it, I would say this. A priest obviously will know the Church's teachings on homosexual activity. If he is regularly engaging in it, then he has obviously chosen to disregard that teaching. If he screws up once or twice and regrets it, then perhaps that is something rather different, but that is not the point I am making.

Anyway, I think the fact of a hypothetical priest's active homosexuality constitutes pretty compelling proof of his at least private rejection of Church teaching.

It is a jump, though I think a minor one, to say that a priest who formally disagrees with a Church teaching would also want to Church to change it. It would be a strange sort of cognitive dissonance if he wanted the teaching to stay as-is.

[r2Dtoo]

I said that is how the argument goes. Not that I necessarily believe it.

Although if I were pressed about it, I would say this. A priest obviously will know the Church's teachings on homosexual activity. If he is regularly engaging in it, then he has obviously chosen to disregard that teaching. If he screws up once or twice and regrets it, then perhaps that is something rather different, but that is not the point I am making.

Anyway, I think the fact of a hypothetical priest's active homosexuality constitutes pretty compelling proof of his at least private rejection of Church teaching.

It is a jump, though I think a minor one, to say that a priest who formally disagrees with a Church teaching would also want to Church to change it. It would be a strange sort of cognitive dissonance if he wanted the teaching to stay as-is.

See my above post on Gay Republican Congressmen

[Nihil Obstat]

See my above post on Gay Republican Congressmen

Referring to Republican congressmen who are closeted gay, and campaign against what are billed as gay rights issues?

That is what confused me. I do not see the connection at all. My mind is a bit foggy though, at the moment, so I would appreciate further explanation of what you are getting at.

[Evangetholic]

I as someone with more than a passing interest in fellas and as someone who has known many homosexual Christians (who range from chaste to notoriously and scandalously promiscuous) have to object to the idea that sin, especially sexual sin, necessarily indicates heterodoxy. People can engage in wickedness without believing/teaching that wickedness is ok. I hate conversations about coarse things and the lower appetites of humans, but if we were to take, for instance a poll (especially of males) here testing orthodoxy on the sinfulness of say masturbation, it will probably return very different results than a poll on orthopraxy.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Evangetholic

[r2Dtoo]

Referring to Republican congressmen who are closeted gay, and campaign against what are billed as gay rights issues?

That is what confused me. I do not see the connection at all. My mind is a bit foggy though, at the moment, so I would appreciate further explanation of what you are getting at.

I honestly don't see what the difference would be.  If you're a gay Catholic priest, or a gay Republican Congressmen you clearly must hate yourself.

[Nihil Obstat]

I as someone with more than a passing interest in fellas and as someone who has known many homosexual Christians (who range from chaste to notoriously and scandalously promiscuous) have to object to the idea that sin, especially sexual sin, necessarily indicates heterodoxy. People can engage in wickedness without believing/teaching that wickedness is ok. I hate conversations about coarse things and the lower appetites of humans, but if we were to take, for instance a poll (especially of males) here testing orthodoxy on the sinfulness of say masturbation, it will probably return very different results than a poll on orthopraxy.

I tried to distinguish between a one-off thing for which a priest may feel sincere regret and repentance, and active practice of homosexuality. I think that is a key distinction. If a priest were truly faithful, and struggling with homosexual attraction to the point that he was continually engaging in that activity, then I think an orthodox faith would demand that he take very strong steps in avoiding that sin. Like asking to become a hermit, or at the very least seeking a safe environment in which he could pray and do penance.

I honestly don't see what the difference would be.  If you're a gay Catholic priest, or a gay Republican Congressmen you clearly must hate yourself.

I think that is a much more serious logical leap than the one I made. :smile3:

(And I still do not think I quite understand what you are trying to get at here.)

Edited March 3, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Evangetholic]

I honestly don't see what the difference would be.  If you're a gay Catholic priest, or a gay Republican Congressmen you clearly must hate yourself.

 

What is a man that he should love himself? Especially in the sense that's generally used in our culture.

 

What if someone loves himself too much to stand in defiance of God and the Natural law. It's hard to say certain things about homosexuality without increasing the real pain homosexuals feel--but, and I speak from both experience and from knowing and loving many homosexuals practiced homosexuality does not lead to happiness, it leads to addiction, depression, disease, narcissism, and in some cases to death. Gay culture is honestly not a place fit for a truly human life--it is a place of empty and heartbreak Nihilism, some of that is inherent to homosexuality and some of it is sinfully imposed by Non-Queer culture, but it's still true (this is not a statement about gay people or even right now exactly about individual homosexual relationships).

 

Renunciation is an important key to holiness and happiness--if a man detests his own evil actions, this is love and this will result in happiness earthly and eternal.

I tried to distinguish between a one-off thing for which a priest may feel sincere regret and repentance, and active practice of homosexuality. I think that is a key distinction. If a priest were truly faithful, and struggling with homosexual attraction to the point that he was continually engaging in that activity, then I think an orthodox faith would demand that he take very strong steps in avoiding that sin. Like asking to become a hermit, or at the very least seeking a safe environment in which he could pray and do penance.

 

I agree that this would happen with any Christian at some point. I offer myself as an example of it happening. I spent two years as a committed Christian--a broken one, but I serious one--having sex with every male and female person that I could. I was able to walk away from that, but if you had seen me when I was 18 or 19 you would have thought some very inaccurate things about me and what I believed based on the unbridled nature of my lust and the filth I was willing to hand myself over to.

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree that this would happen with any Christian at some point. I offer myself as an example of it happening. I spent two years as a committed Christian--a broken one, but I serious one--having sex with every male and female person that I could. I was able to walk away from that, but if you had seen me when I was 18 or 19 you would have thought some very inaccurate things about me and what I believed based on the unbridled nature of my lust and the filth I was willing to hand myself over to.

So two follow-up questions then, and feel free to not answer if they are too personal or whatever.

 

First, at the time that this was happening, did you feel that Church teachings on anything sexual were wrong?

Second, did you feel guilt for what you were doing, and a desire to change?

[Evangetholic]

So two follow-up questions then, and feel free to not answer if they are too personal or whatever.

 

First, at the time that this was happening, did you feel that Church teachings on anything sexual were wrong?

Second, did you feel guilt for what you were doing, and a desire to change?

 

This is super personal and I'm not sure how wise it is to post, but here goes:

1. Remember that I wasn't Catholic. But I broadly agreed with the reasonableness of Catholic sexual ethics (excepting the absolute prohibition of contraception).

 

2. It was complicated and It was a years long process. I detested my sins, felt shame and disgust for my inability to respect my own body, respect my God, and respect the Christian people I kept going to bed with.

 

I needed closeness and proximity with other males; desperately. My father died when I was six months old. And even though both of my grandfathers and my uncles were present in my life I needed something else from men. Something these men did not provide through no fault of their own. I'm very sensual by nature. I needed touch. I needed smells, emotional openness, and to learn the things that men teach other men.

 

The rawness of the way I needed maleness, masculinity, whatever we should call it--was and is strong in ways that I can't describe. That kind of rush of emotion repeatedly led to relationships with even otherwise heterosexual guys becoming sexualized and of course (as a result of my inherent hotness) it resulted in gay men being very available and very responsive to the weight of my need. So I kept finding myself in situations where men and boys were attempting to sexually interact with me. Partly from my strong physical attraction to men partly from need for interaction and closeness with other men.

 

Then to this add in the fact that I've also always been strongly attracted to women (less generally than men, but still I've always been highly reactive to female beauty). So I started having sex with women in an attempt to purge myself of the draw I felt to men on the one hand and on the other hand as an attempt to confirm my masculinity and normalcy. I needed guys very deeply and I used women in an attempt to hide the sexual activities I was involved in with men.

 

I felt my sinfulness. I knew that I was in the wrong and that God was displeased with all of my sexual misbehavior, but it felt impossible to change. I felt that chaste-living was beyond my power. The ways that I was broken were so demanding and so large that even though I knew that I was doing evil I couldn't just stop. I'd end some inappropriate connection and then be left with the burden of my basic sexual urges on the one hand and the crushing emptiness unfulfilled emotional longing on the other. I'd go back. I'd find someone else, for a night or for a relationship that was supposed to heal me.

 

I repented. I was able to walk away from sexual interactions first with men and then finally (years later) with women through prayer, deep, searching, face on the floor kind of weeping prayer. God sent me my spiritual father a very old, very Protestant, mildly racist, ill-educated Southern redneck (whose granddaughter I was fornicating with close to daily) who kind of fathered me in a way I can't explain--he just loved me and modeled decent sexual ethics. Also at the same time I discovered the  female Catholic mystics and their focus on Christ as Bridegroom and I found something very satisfying in the idea of Him as my jealous Groom who doesn't wish to share me with the awkward fumblings of others--but through all of my confusion I knew that I was sinning and failing, but no matter who I was using sexually I kept my eyes on Jesus; I kept begging Him for forgiveness and for rescue.

 

This is too long and I still don't think I've said what I want to say, but I'll stop rambling.

[Nihil Obstat]

Wow, that is interesting. I really appreciate you posting that. Thanks very much.

It is a lot to think about, so I will not respond, at least for the time being.

[BG45]

Relax brother, I wasn't suggesting you used such terms anymore than you were suggestesting I thought another phatmasser was a "lib," simply for using the term in my post! :) But yea, there's a clear slant in this forum and we all know which direction it leans.

 

Ah okay, easy to misread things in text, and for that I apologize.  Though I'd not think the board skews towards the Left overall.  If anything, I'd say it's a bit center-right.  The rampant joking around tends to obscure that I think.