Half Of Priest And Bishops Are Gay

[Papist]

13 minutes ago, Josh said:

Well what's wrong is the major scandal and cover up that happened and the assertion by Voris that HALF of the Priest are gay. Maybe Voris is wrong and that's not the case. I don't know. The reason I support married Priest is because it's a clear strategy at getting straight men into the Priesthood. I don't think ANY homosexuals should be Priest. If I'm incorrect in thinking this I'm humble enough to be corrected. Again I'm not trying to come off as anti gay. My prayers are with my homosexual brothers and sisters. Although this whole situation is really embarrassing not to mention all the pain it has caused the victims.

Yes. Allowing priests to marry perhaps might entice more straight men to discern/choose the priesthood. That would give us more straight priests, not less gay priests.  If the discipline of priests not marrying is the deciding factor why a man does not enter the priesthood, then perhaps it best he not enter the priesthood.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Papist said:

Yes. Allowing priests to marry perhaps might entice more straight men to discern/choose the priesthood. That would give us more straight priests, not less gay priests.  If the discipline of priests not marrying is the deciding factor why a man does not enter the priesthood, then perhaps it best he not enter the priesthood.

Good point. I just think steps need to be made to attract more straight men to the Priesthood. What's your opinion on homosexual Priest? Should they be ordained? What's the Churches official stance on that?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Guest

[Luigi]

50 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Having married clergy does not help raise interest in the priesthood. If it did, then priests in Eastern rites would have priests as far as the eye could see. As it is, they don't have an abundance of priests, either.

If you don't want to be a priest badly enough to take on celibacy, then you simply don't want it badly enough. No amount of bribing you with a wife will persuade you. And let's be honest, it's not even having a wife. Many people advocate for married clergy because they think priests having sex will curb issues of pedophilia, so really when people say "We should let priests marry!" what they really mean is "Let priests have sex!"

Having married priests won't change the inclinations of those who already have inclinations one way or another. But if there are enough other people available to be priests, then those with certain inclinations could be asked to leave orders, or not assigned to parishes, or whatever. The idea is that married men would expand the pool of available candidates for the priesthood.

Personally, I don't support marriage for clergy, or having female priests. But I do think the Church has ordained some questionable candidates because the Church was in such desperate need for priests.

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Luigi

[Papist]

28 minutes ago, Josh said:

Good point. I just think steps need to be made to attract more straight men to the Priesthood. What's your opinion on homosexual Priest? Should they be ordained? What's the Churches official stance on that?

I do not believe there is a gay priesthood epidemic/crisis. I believe men with any sexual disorder ought not be called to the priesthood.

[Anomaly]

Pretty much, the collar shouldn't be worn if you have trouble keeping your pantaloons on. 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Having married clergy does not help raise interest in the priesthood. If it did, then priests in Eastern rites would have priests as far as the eye could see. As it is, they don't have an abundance of priests, either. 

If you don't want to be a priest badly enough to take on celibacy, then you simply don't want it badly enough. No amount of bribing you with a wife will persuade you. And let's be honest, it's not even having a wife. Many people advocate for married clergy because they think priests having sex will curb issues of pedophilia, so really when people say "We should let priests marry!" what they really mean is "Let priests have sex!"

 

3 hours ago, Papist said:

Yes. Allowing priests to marry perhaps might entice more straight men to discern/choose the priesthood. That would give us more straight priests, not less gay priests.  If the discipline of priests not marrying is the deciding factor why a man does not enter the priesthood, then perhaps it best he not enter the priesthood.

I dunno about all of the above, PhuturePriest and Papist.

What if the Church were to institute a requirement that said "All priests must move to Kentucky and follow the Rule of St. Benedict strictly for 75 years, before being ordained"?

You might be like "OK. I am not called to live in Gethsemani for 75 years. I'll pass on this priest stuff, but if they remove that requirement, I will definitely do it."

Then I could come along and be like "Well. Well. If only THAT is what is keeping you from being a priest, you simply don't have the requisite desire to be a priest, do you now? You should not be a priest anyway if a mere 75 years in Kentucky would be enough to dissuade you."

Would that then justify the above restriction?

I would not make light of the vow of celibacy. It is a significant sacrifice, is it not? I don't think the fact that it may influence one's decision makes one less "worthy" of being a priest any more so than not wanting to spend 75 years in KY would . . .

[PhuturePriest]

24 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

I dunno about all of the above, PhuturePriest and Papist.

What if the Church were to institute a requirement that said "All priests must move to Kentucky and follow the Rule of St. Benedict strictly for 75 years, before being ordained"?

You might be like "OK. I am not called to live in Gethsemani for 75 years. I'll pass on this priest stuff, but if they remove that requirement, I will definitely do it."

Then I could come along and be like "Well. Well. If only THAT is what is keeping you from being a priest, you simply don't have the requisite desire to be a priest, do you now? You should not be a priest anyway if a mere 75 years in Kentucky would be enough to dissuade you."

Would that then justify the above restriction?

I would not make light of the vow of celibacy. It is a significant sacrifice, is it not? I don't think the fact that it may influence one's decision makes one less "worthy" of being a priest any more so than not wanting to spend 75 years in KY would . . .

The vow of celibacy is very weighty. That's why it's there.

I'm willing to do that if that's what it takes. I may do it and find it's not where God is calling me, but I am willing to move to Kentucky and live the Rule of Saint Benedict if that's what it takes for me to fulfill my vocation.

People in favor of getting rid of priestly celibacy don't seem to grasp that God will give you the grace to do whatever he calls you to do. If one is called to be a priest but refuses because he wants to have a family, that's on him, not God or the Church. If one is not willing to sacrifice greatly for his vocation, then one will simply never make it in any vocation he chooses to have. 

Saint John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests, struggled mightily with school. He likely had severe learning disabilities. He flunked out of seminary, and even when he was readmitted, he almost was not chosen by the faculty and bishop. Saint John Vianney wanted to leave and go to a religious community so he didn't have to mess with school anymore. But God wanted him to be a priest, so even though the Church had made certain rules (like being proficient in Latin, Vianney's greatest struggle) God got him through it. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Papist said:

I do not believe there is a gay priesthood epidemic/crisis. 

I don't know what world you're living in. 

[Papist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

 

I dunno about all of the above, PhuturePriest and Papist.

What if the Church were to institute a requirement that said "All priests must move to Kentucky and follow the Rule of St. Benedict strictly for 75 years, before being ordained"?

You might be like "OK. I am not called to live in Gethsemani for 75 years. I'll pass on this priest stuff, but if they remove that requirement, I will definitely do it."

Then I could come along and be like "Well. Well. If only THAT is what is keeping you from being a priest, you simply don't have the requisite desire to be a priest, do you now? You should not be a priest anyway if a mere 75 years in Kentucky would be enough to dissuade you."

Would that then justify the above restriction?

I would not make light of the vow of celibacy. It is a significant sacrifice, is it not? I don't think the fact that it may influence one's decision makes one less "worthy" of being a priest any more so than not wanting to spend 75 years in KY would . . .

Man does not have a right to enter the priesthood. He may even say he is absolutely sure he is called.  But that is the problem in the misunderstanding of what it means to be called. The Church/Christ calls him to the priesthood. A man enters discernment believe he may be called. Through the discernment it is determined if he is truly being called. 

8 minutes ago, Josh said:

I don't know what world you're living in. 

The real one.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Papist

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Papist said:

Man does not have a right to enter the priesthood. He may even say he is absolutely sure he is called.  But that is the problem in the misunderstanding of what it means to be called. The Church/Christ calls him to the priesthood. A man enters discernment believe he may be called. Through the discernment it is determined if he is truly being called. 

Well it appears a bunch who weren't called slipped in somehow.

5 minutes ago, Papist said:

 

The real one.

Then you're delusional.

[Papist]

Just now, Josh said:

Well it appears a bunch who weren't called slipped in somehow.

And how did you acquire such authority?

[Peace]

56 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

The vow of celibacy is very weighty. That's why it's there.

I'm willing to do that if that's what it takes. I may do it and find it's not where God is calling me, but I am willing to move to Kentucky and live the Rule of Saint Benedict if that's what it takes for me to fulfill my vocation.

People in favor of getting rid of priestly celibacy don't seem to grasp that God will give you the grace to do whatever he calls you to do. If one is called to be a priest but refuses because he wants to have a family, that's on him, not God or the Church. If one is not willing to sacrifice greatly for his vocation, then one will simply never make it in any vocation he chooses to have. 

Saint John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests, struggled mightily with school. He likely had severe learning disabilities. He flunked out of seminary, and even when he was readmitted, he almost was not chosen by the faculty and bishop. Saint John Vianney wanted to leave and go to a religious community so he didn't have to mess with school anymore. But God wanted him to be a priest, so even though the Church had made certain rules (like being proficient in Latin, Vianney's greatest struggle) God got him through it. 

Hmm. Would you be willing to move to Kentucky and live the Rule of St. Benedict for 75 years  before ordination (emphasis on the 75)? Let's be honest here. If the church had decided to institute such a rule - we would have a whole lot less priests than we have today. Many of the priests that we have today would not be priests if we had such a ridiculous rule. Does that then mean that the 99% percent of today's priests who would have chosen not to make such a choice, do not have sufficient desire to be a priest? Does that mean that 99% of today's priests should not be priests? I don't think you would conclude that, so I don't see why you conclude the same with respect to those who may have been dissuaded by the celibacy requirement. Neither the celibacy requirement nor 75 years in KY are mandated by scripture or tradition.

If someone desires to be celibate that is totally cool by me. But I don't think that a vow of celibacy should be taken as a symbol of one's devoutness or suitableness as a priest. This is what I would object to.

Heck, one might even think that if the Church were to impose the opposite requirement (that all clergy be married men), that this would be a greater sacrifice. Some folks who have had to deal with a nagging girlfriend or children might attest to that.

I am all for following one's vocation. But I don't that means that every limitation that the Church may impose on people in order to pursue that vocation is necessarily a good thing. Being called to the priesthood and being called to celibacy are different things, and you don't have to have one to have the other. I think this is why there has been discussion among the powers that be about limiting the celibacy requirement. I think that discussion is legitimate.

37 minutes ago, Papist said:

Man does not have a right to enter the priesthood. He may even say he is absolutely sure he is called.  But that is the problem in the misunderstanding of what it means to be called. The Church/Christ calls him to the priesthood. A man enters discernment believe he may be called. Through the discernment it is determined if he is truly being called. 

Sure. But not all who are called to a vocation accept it. Some of the reasons they do not accept it may relate to personal finances, the celibacy requirement, the lack of a blue cassock, etc. etc. I don't think the Church needs to require things that might act to discourage people from following their vocations. It seems to me that we can make their lives easier, rather than harder.

But that is not to say I am completely against a celibacy requirement. I understand that there are good reasons why the Church imposes it, and I trust Her judgment.

But I think the discussion is legitimate to have - whether or not it is time to change that requirement.

[PhuturePriest]

37 minutes ago, Peace said:

Hmm. Would you be willing to move to Kentucky and live the Rule of St. Benedict for 75 years  before ordination (emphasis on the 75)? Let's be honest here. If the church had decided to institute such a rule - we would have a whole lot less priests than we have today. Many of the priests that we have today would not be priests if we had such a ridiculous rule. Does that then mean that the 99% percent of today's priests who would have chosen not to make such a choice, do not have sufficient desire to be a priest? Does that mean that 99% of today's priests should not be priests? I don't think you would conclude that, so I don't see why you conclude the same with respect to those who may have been dissuaded by the celibacy requirement. Neither the celibacy requirement nor 75 years in KY are mandated by scripture or tradition.

If someone desires to be celibate that is totally cool by me. But I don't think that a vow of celibacy should be taken as a symbol of one's devoutness or suitableness as a priest. This is what I would object to.

Heck, one might even think that if the Church were to impose the opposite requirement (that all clergy be married men), that this would be a greater sacrifice. Some folks who have had to deal with a nagging girlfriend or children might attest to that.

I am all for following one's vocation. But I don't that means that every limitation that the Church may impose on people in order to pursue that vocation is necessarily a good thing. Being called to the priesthood and being called to celibacy are different things, and you don't have to have one to have the other. I think this is why there has been discussion among the powers that be about limiting the celibacy requirement. I think that discussion is legitimate.

Sure. But not all who are called to a vocation accept it. Some of the reasons they do not accept it may relate to personal finances, the celibacy requirement, the lack of a blue cassock, etc. etc. I don't think the Church needs to require things that might act to discourage people from following their vocations. It seems to me that we can make their lives easier, rather than harder.

But that is not to say I am completely against a celibacy requirement. I understand that there are good reasons why the Church imposes it, and I trust Her judgment.

But I think the discussion is legitimate to have - whether or not it is time to change that requirement.

So in your eyes, celibacy is as ridiculous as making men wait until they're eighty before ordination? Chastity is a very important virtue. I think perhaps you need to read more about it, because from what I'm seeing you don't display a grasp of how great it is. Remember Saint Paul said it is better to live celibate than married.

[bardegaulois]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

Good point. I just think steps need to be made to attract more straight men to the Priesthood. What's your opinion on homosexual Priest? Should they be ordained? What's the Churches official stance on that?

The official stance is no. Our bishops perhaps should read this document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

[Peace]

56 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

So in your eyes, celibacy is as ridiculous as making men wait until they're eighty before ordination?

I think that my quote below should be sufficient to answer your question. I believe that they are similar in that neither is a requirement to be a priest, and that each is a sacrifice.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

But that is not to say I am completely against a celibacy requirement. I understand that there are good reasons why the Church imposes it, and I trust Her judgment.

 

56 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Remember Saint Paul said it is better to live celibate than married.

Well. St. Paul wrote this: "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
".

I think we can glean that it is better to live celibate if that is what God calls one to do. If God calls one to the vocation of marriage, then I do not think that choosing a life of celibacy would be a "better" choice. I don't think one is inherently better than the other.