Quota For Homosexual And/or Atheist Clergy?

[Aloysius]

abuse by priests generally falls under the category of ephebophilia, as it is with post-pubescent boys. ephebophilia is a very prevalent specific fetish within the homosexual fetish, and ephebophilia of males to boys is certainly always driven by the homosexual fetish, not at all the same as the pedophilia fetish.

[Mitchell_b55]

Saluti alicui dicere, impertire, nuntiare. Sermonem producere in multam noctem.

[quote]
I don't really see why there is such a fuss about gay people joining the clergy anyway. The Church teaches that gay people should remain celibate - just as priests do. [/quote]

Please read, [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=100"]Monsignor Tony Anatrella - Reflections on the Instruction on the Admittance of Homosexuals into Seminaries[/url]

...and the document of the Congregation for Catholic Education,[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=98"]Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment regarding person with Homosexual Tendencies in View of their admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders[/url]

If a homosexual were forbidden to become a priest, it would be a disciplinary action. At one time, a person born illegitimately, could not become a priest, because birth out of wedlock inferred adultery or fornication and consequently such a priest would not recieve the respect a clerical individual is to be given. I would say that homosexuals should not be permitted to become priests, because it would cause (or more precisely, is causing) a slow degradation of clerical status, turning the image of the clergy into a disrepected, effeminate group of celibate (I don't mean celibacy to be a bad state, quite the contrary.)homosexuals. This is not an image respectful of the Divine Authorship of the Church and her Priesthood. It is also scandalous to allow such admittance of homosexuals, because of the association with sexual abuse. I do not say that a connection exists, but in the mind of the people it does. (However, Aloysius made a valid point.) We should above all not commit scandal, if the loss of a few homosexual priests will help in the Divine plan to win souls to Christ, then such concession should be made. If we find that homosexuals use the priesthood as a haven, then we should be even more careful of admitting them to our seminaries and finally to the priesthood.

Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.

Petrus Scholasticus...

Edited November 7, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Goetian]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1114031' date='Nov 7 2006, 04:04 PM']At one time, a person born illegitimately, could not become a priest, because birth out of wedlock inferred adultery or fornication and consequently such a priest would not recieve the respect a clerical individual is to be given.
[/quote]

So wait. Now the Church cares about what the world respects and disrespects?

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]The quote isn't saying that homosexuals are pedophiles, but that the cases of abuse by priests were homosexuality-driven, not pedophilia-driven. Most of the victims were pubescent, meaning that their cases don't fall under the pedophilia classification, which requires children, not teens.[/quote]

For legal purposes (at least in Britain - I don't know American law) if a man has sex with a person under the age of sixteen, the British age of consent, he can be charged with rape even if the sex was consensual. He could also be charged with paedophilia, as an under-sixteen is still a child. Puberty is an ongoing process, and the transition from childhood to adulthood is as much mental as it is physical. There is no concrete stage that you can point to and say, "Here is where childhood ends."

Semantics apart, it is possible that paedophile priests target adolescents not out of preference, but because it is easier for them to close to these teenagers without arousing suspicion. Younger children are more likely to be supervised all the time, and older ones are more likely to have responsible jobs in the church (i.e. chief altar server) that require them to go alone to the sacristy, etc. There are just too many variables for people to be able to say unequivocally, "Yes, the sex scandals in the Catholic church come about as a result of having gay priests." So I would say that studies [i]are[/i] required if we hope to eliminate these extraneous factors that could be misleading us. If we really care about what goes on in our parishes, we should be willing to do whatever we can to educate ourselves about this sort of problem.

[quote]I would say that homosexuals should not be permitted to become priests, because it would cause (or more precisely, is causing) a slow degradation of clerical status, turning the image of the clergy into a disrepected, effeminate group of celibate (I don't mean celibacy to be a bad state, quite the contrary.)[/quote]

Firstly, not all homosexual people are effeminate. Secondly, priests born out of wedlock were once denied ordination for fear of degrading the clergy, as you have pointed out. Now very few people would care if a priest was born of a sinful relationship, acknowledging that it wasn't his fault, and no one would malign the clergy for it. In fact, they'd probably be happy that someone born in those circumstances had grown up to be a priest. Possibly the ordination of committed Catholics who also happen to be homosexual will one day be equally commonplace.

[quote]It is also scandalous to allow such admittance of homosexuals, because of the association with sexual abuse. I do not say that a connection exists, but in the mind of the people it does.[/quote]

In the mind of the people outside the palace of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was worthy of death - even though there was no connection between the accusations and the reality. The Church isn't there to cater to public opinion. She is there to treasure the truth.

[Fidei Defensor]

Please don't assume that all men who are afflicted with same sex attraction have a "yearning" of some kind of other males. It's no different than assuming that all heterosexual males lust after every woman they see. It's just not true.

While I agree that practicing, self acclaimed homosexuals should not be admitted to seminary, I don't agree with the attitude here than all men who may have any hint of SSA should be banned. This is not what the Church document said, and it is limiting upon God's will if you were to say that. Believe it or not, God may call someone who feels SSA to be a priest. However, obviously, this person isn't living the "gay lifestyle." They know that it is a grave matter, and choose to live chastely and not a sinful life.

Please don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the acceptance of "gay priests." I am simply saying that you are unwise to assume that God can't call a man who is afflicted with SSA to be a priest. But this man isn't going to be "gay", in so much as he rejects the "lifestyle" and he rejects that notion that it's okay to be "gay." Rather, he is giving his life fully to Christ.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1113909' date='Nov 7 2006, 02:21 PM']
Can you cite evidence for these claims? By that I mean empirical studies into sexual preferences within homosexuality, carried out by competent and fully accredited psychologists. I have yet to see one such study.

Regarding the sex scandals, almost every one I've read about involved children. Perhaps this is because the media finds that topic more scintillating, I don't know. But so far there appears to be no evidence at all for the idea that the majority of scandals in the priesthood are linked to homosexuality - not even anecdotal evidence.
[/quote]
The John Jay Report, based on a study of the priestly sex scandals, found that 81% of the abused victims were male, and that the vast majority of these were postpubescent.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=43310"](Old thread on this topic here.)[/url]

Correctly speaking, men having sex with teenage boys is homosexuality, not paedophilia. Paedophilia involves attraction to prepubescent children, most commonly men to little girls. That was not what was going on in the vast majority of the priestly abuse scandals.

Homosexuals are frequently attracted to young males, just as straight men often find younger women attractive. It is no more "paedophilia" than a grown man lusting after a teenage girl. That man may be a creep, and may be acting sinfully and inappropriately, but he is not a pedophile.

And of course (politically incorrect as this fact may be) a man being attracted to other males is gravely disordered, whether the objects of lust be six or 60 years old.

The politically-correct liberal media mislabeled the problem "paedophilia" in order to distance this scandal from homosexuality, and perpetuate the p.c. orthodoxy that homosexuals can do no wrong, and that homosexuality is a perfectly healthy legitimate "lifestyle." That, of course, is contrary to the truth, including Catholic teaching on the subject.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1114318' date='Nov 7 2006, 07:38 PM']
For legal purposes (at least in Britain - I don't know American law) if a man has sex with a person under the age of sixteen, the British age of consent, he can be charged with rape even if the sex was consensual. He could also be charged with paedophilia, as an under-sixteen is still a child. Puberty is an ongoing process, and the transition from childhood to adulthood is as much mental as it is physical. There is no concrete stage that you can point to and say, "Here is where childhood ends."[/quote]
The legal age of consent is not what defines the disorder of paedophilia. It's a physical preference. For instance, whatever the law may say, an 18-year-old man having sex with his fifteen-year-old girlfriend is not a paedophile.

[quote]Semantics apart, it is possible that paedophile priests target adolescents not out of preference, but because it is easier for them to close to these teenagers without arousing suspicion. Younger children are more likely to be supervised all the time, and older ones are more likely to have responsible jobs in the church (i.e. chief altar server) that require them to go alone to the sacristy, etc. There are just too many variables for people to be able to say unequivocally, "Yes, the sex scandals in the Catholic church come about as a result of having gay priests." So I would say that studies [i]are[/i] required if we hope to eliminate these extraneous factors that could be misleading us. [/quote]
Or more likely homosexual priests found these boys more available, and thought them easier to control, and would create less suspicion than cruising gay bars or having a live-in boyfriend.

[quote]If we really care about what goes on in our parishes, we should be willing to do whatever we can to educate ourselves about this sort of problem.
Firstly, not all homosexual people are effeminate. Secondly, priests born out of wedlock were once denied ordination for fear of degrading the clergy, as you have pointed out. Now very few people would care if a priest was born of a sinful relationship, acknowledging that it wasn't his fault, and no one would malign the clergy for it. In fact, they'd probably be happy that someone born in those circumstances had grown up to be a priest. Possibly the ordination of committed Catholics who also happen to be homosexual will one day be equally commonplace.[/quote]
That's irrelevant. The Church is against homosexual priests because homosexuality is gravely disordered, not because of social conventions (which in this p.c. age, would mean allowing homosexuals to avoid being condemned as "bigoted" or "homophobic").
The discpline against illegitmately-born sons entering the priesthood probably had much to do with the fact that at that time, those not legitimately born were denied most opportunities, including any title or inheritance. The Church did not want the priesthood to be a place for fathers to "dump" illegitimate sons.

[quote]In the mind of the people outside the palace of Pontius Pilate, Jesus Christ was worthy of death - even though there was no connection between the accusations and the reality. The Church isn't there to cater to public opinion. She is there to treasure the truth.[/quote]
Exactly, which is why the Church is opposed to homosexuality, rather than following the politically-correct opinion of the day.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Socrates

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Exactly, which is why the Church is opposed to homosexuality, rather than following the politically-correct opinion of the day.[/quote]

Like all Catholics, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is morally wrong. But I do not believe that men wilfully choose to be gay and I do not think that they should be penalised because of their biological makeup. These men have a difficult cross to bear, and so I would applaud a gay priest who succeeded in living for Christ in everything he did.

[quote]Or more likely homosexual priests found these boys more available, and thought them easier to control, and would create less suspicion than cruising gay bars or having a live-in boyfriend.[/quote]

Assuming this is correct, then why aren't large numbers of heterosexual priests preying on teenage girls? Lust is lust, no matter whether the person experiencing it is gay or straight. This remark implies that straight men have greater self-control than gay men, which cannot be true - as I have just pointed out, the effects of lust are generic no matter what triggers them. It is biochemistry, personality, and prayer, and not sexual orientation, that determine how well a man is able to control himself.

I have Googled the term "John Ray Report" and have found nothing. I'd like to read more about it before reaching my opinion, as I'm not willing to credit anything that says, "A study found that x percentage of people display behaviour y," without knowing who carried out the study, their qualifications, the safeguards against different biases that were put in place, the means of gathering data, and details about the population sample that was tested. It's naive to just accept a statistic, as anyone who has ever read British tabloid papers will know...

[quote]The Vatican document says that while homosexuals must be respected, the Catholic Church “cannot admit to seminaries and to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, who present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called gay culture.” Donohue said most practicing Catholics would welcome this decision.

“The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood: there are too many good men with homosexual tendencies who have served the Church with distinction,” said Donohue.[/quote]

Yes, I can agree with that. No Catholic could in good conscience live as a 'practising homosexual' or promote the gay subculture as a way of life. I'm not defending that. I'm talking about gay men who feel a genuine call to the priesthood and are prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of Christ, living just as the Church teaches. From some of what was written on this thread, I was under the impression that people here were calling for a total blanket ban on all homosexual aspirants to the seminary. Please forgive me if I was wrong.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1115022' date='Nov 8 2006, 10:51 AM']
Like all Catholics, I believe that the practice of homosexuality is morally wrong. But I do not believe that men wilfully choose to be gay and I do not think that they should be penalised because of their biological makeup. These men have a difficult cross to bear, and so I would applaud a gay priest who succeeded in living for Christ in everything he did.[/quote]
A number of false assumptions here. First, there is no solid evidence that homosexuality is part of one's "biological makeup," as race, or skin color. That is just p.c. propoganda. Secondly, even if it were biologically determined, that would not be an argument. Sex is biologically determined, yet women cannot become priests. Third, whether homosexuality is wilfully chosen is not relevant. It is still intrinsically gravely disordered. Men suffering from sexual disorders and perversions do not belong in the priesthood. To use an analogy, a man suffering from schizophrenia may not choose his schizophrenia, and this disorder may be a "difficult cross" for him, yet such a person should probably not join the priesthood.

The priesthood is a not a "right" owed to every "good Catholic boy." Even people who are seriously physically crippled must get dispensation before entering the priesthood.
A man entering the priesthood should be about giving "the best" for God.
Seminaries should not be "dumping ground" for those psychologically incapable of marriage and fatherhood due to sexual perversion. (In an article referenced earlier, a priest with extensive experience in seminary formation said that the ideal priest is one who would make a good husband and father, but gives it up for the higher spiritual good of Christ's priesthood.) This is in the same way that the priesthood should not be a "dumping ground" for those whose options for advancement are limited in the secular world (as cripples and bastards were in past ages).

[quote]Assuming this is correct, then why aren't large numbers of heterosexual priests preying on teenage girls? Lust is lust, no matter whether the person experiencing it is gay or straight. This remark implies that straight men have greater self-control than gay men, which cannot be true - as I have just pointed out, the effects of lust are generic no matter what triggers them. It is biochemistry, personality, and prayer, and not sexual orientation, that determine how well a man is able to control himself.[/quote]
You've actually made a good point in my favor. Studies show that over 80% of the abuse victims were male.
You seem to be relying on the politically-correct assumption that homosexuality and heterosexuality are exactly the same, and equally well-ordered.
Homosexuality is in itself indicative of sexual disorder. Heterosexual attraction is the normal, "default" position. Anything other than attraction between man and woman is intrincially disordered, and thus is not ordered towards the good.
The fact that much more of the scandal is homosexual rather than "straight" should tell you something. The facts speak for themselves, politically incorrect as they may be.

[quote]I have Googled the term "John Ray Report" and have found nothing. I'd like to read more about it before reaching my opinion, as I'm not willing to credit anything that says, "A study found that x percentage of people display behaviour y," without knowing who carried out the study, their qualifications, the safeguards against different biases that were put in place, the means of gathering data, and details about the population sample that was tested. It's naive to just accept a statistic, as anyone who has ever read British tabloid papers will know...[/quote]
Interesting; I googled it and got a ton of hits.

Anyways, here it is: [url="http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/"]The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States: A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice[/url]

And thus far, you have not given a single source or statistic in your favor.

[quote]Yes, I can agree with that. No Catholic could in good conscience live as a 'practising homosexual' or promote the gay subculture as a way of life. I'm not defending that. I'm talking about gay men who feel a genuine call to the priesthood and are prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of Christ, living just as the Church teaches. From some of what was written on this thread, I was under the impression that people here were calling for a total blanket ban on all homosexual aspirants to the seminary. Please forgive me if I was wrong.[/quote]
Anyone with strong homosexual inclinations (or other perverted inclinations) should be banned.
If someone has had problems in the past, but no longer struggles with strong homosexual inclinations, and has shown solid evidence of being "over" the problem, then he may be accepted on a case-by-case basis.

The priesthood is for strong spiritual fathers and leaders of men; it is not a refuge for perverts and the limp-wristed.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Socrates