Homosexuality & The Priesthood

[ariaane]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1861474' date='May 8 2009, 05:47 AM']You are arguing there's a corelation between homosexuality and pedophilia before. You are right, pedophilia is another disorder, so it makes no sense to blame homosexuals for the clergy abuse crisis.


The majority of teenage boys are both physically and emotionally able to resist the advances of a priest. So once again, homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, because pedophilia is not consentual, by definition.[/quote]

This is simply your [b]opinion [/b]alone.

The [b]facts[/b] from the studies how that [b]80%[/b] of the child abuse cases involved post pubescent males and homosexual priests.

A boy might be past the age of puberty- say 13, but can still be raped by an older man.

The majority of abuse were not of the nature of paedophilia but of child molestation.

[ariaane]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864429' date='May 12 2009, 12:35 AM'][b]removing all homosexual men from the priesthood [/b]is not the solution to this problem. while you may not have said exactly that, that is certainly what has been implied - or at the very lest perceived and not carefully explained/corrected - in the past few pages of dialogue.[/quote]

I don’t recall anyone suggesting this, but then again, I haven’t read every single post.

What I’m saying is that [b][i]I personally think[/i][/b] that men with same sex attraction, be they celibate or not, should [b]no longer [/b]be allowed future entry into seminaries.

The homosexuals who are already priests, fine. Leave them there.

But lets stop placing them into situations where they are a danger to not only their immortal souls, but a grave danger to young adolescent males.

[ariaane]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1864583' date='May 12 2009, 03:43 AM']I don't find anything stupid at all with the terminology the Church uses. In fact, I find the word "gay" stupid terminology.
And call me a hateful bigot, but I find the teachings of Jesus Christ's Holy Catholic Apostolic Church on this matter infinitely more intelligent and insightful than your adolescent rants.


The Church teaches otherwise. In the Catechism, no less.
And invoking the name of Darwin to defend this perversion holds no water with me. I'm not a Darwinist. [i]Anything[/i] could be called "diversity of species," heck, even pedophilia for that matter. That empty phrase tells absolutely nothing about whether such inclinations are disordered or not. And besides, from a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality makes no sense as it certainly does nothing to increase the reproduction of the species.


I'd suggest you read up on that document again, as well as the writings of our current Holy Father, and try seriously reflecting on it, rather than just trying to find ways to discredit it. It gets to the heart of the matter much more eloquently than I could hope to.

The Church regards a man's sexuality as an integral part of his development as a man and a human being, not just as some isolated issue regarding nothing more than the genitals.
Having a solid, mature masculine identity is necessary to be a good priest. A spiritual father is one who is able to be an Alter Christus as spouse of the Church his Holy Bride, and to be a spiritual father and leader of men.
This involves having a solidly-formed masculine identity without sexual disorders of any kind.
Homosexuality by its definition is disordered and contrary to a properly formed masculine identity, and if not fully overcome, is a barrier to carrying out the priest's duties as a husband of the Church and father of souls.


There was little of substance in your post to refute, and besides I honestly didn't have the time. It consisted mostly of mockery and derision and claims that none of what was discussed applies to you. However, that article is hardly the only source I've read saying such things. The link between homosexuality and various personality disorders is well-documented, though it is now politically-incorrect to discuss. I've read a better article by an old priest with decades of experience in seminary formation who has come to similar conclusions about the homosexual disorder. Quite frankly, I trust the wisdom and experience of such men much more than your own.
The ignoring of rules screening out homosexuals in the seminary (and the dominance of many seminaries by homosexuals) has led to much disorder in the Church itself. Read [i]Goodbye Good Men[/i] for more details if you're in fact interested.


Since you apparently don't bother to read what I post, I don't really see the point in bothering to respond.
The truth is that the majority of the cases of priestly abuse did [b]not[/b] involve true pedophilia (involving pre-pubescent children), but homosexual pederasty of adolescent males.
Read the [url="http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/"]John Jay Report commissioned by the USCCB[/url].


Yet according to the report, most of those abused were first abused between ages 12-17.
The facts disagree with you.


I'm not an idiot, and I never claimed the majority of homosexuals abuse underage boys. However, homosexuals certainly made up a disproportionate amount of the abusive priests.
Certainly a good reason to screen out seminarians with any sexual disorders (including but not limited to homosexuality). 81% of the abuse was of males, most of them past puberty, so it seems safe to say that the majority of the abuse cases did not involve normal heterosexual men.
If seminaries had done their job in keeping homosexuals out, the majority of the abuse probably could have been prevented.
There's much wisdom to the Church's rules.
The LAST thing the Church needs now is for the Church to give its official blessing on "gay priests."


"Pink palace" seminaries with a heavily homosexual atmosphere are indeed an evil, detrimental to the health of the Church.
Much of your "arguments" consist of justifying sin and perversion by comparing it to other sins. That's like me justifying stealing $500.00 from you by saying "it doesn't compare to the Nazi holocaust."


The Church regards sexuality an intrinsic part of human development. Those suffering from sexual perversions are not fit for the priesthood, and no good has come from having a preponderance of homosexual priests, which merely creates scandal in the Church, and drives away good men.


Good for you, though that's certainly not the impression I got from reading your early posts in here, which largely disputed the Church's teachings against homosexual behavior.

Again, the Church's documents (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church) hold way more water with me as a Catholic than the dissident opinions of some gay emo kid on the internet.[/quote]



Took the words right out of my mouth.

[ariaane]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1864583' date='May 12 2009, 03:43 AM']"Pink palace" seminaries with a heavily homosexual atmosphere are indeed an evil, detrimental to the health of the Church.[/quote]

“U.S. Catholics have long debated whether the priesthood had become a predominantly gay vocation. Estimates vary from [b]25 percent to 50 percent[/b], according to a review of research on the issue by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of "The Changing Face of the Priesthood."

Just some food for thought...

I bet the media will not also report the following:

[url="http://www.realclearreligion.com/"]http://www.realclearreligion.com/[/url]

This is supposed to come as a surprise. But it won't to those who are aware of the destructive effects of sin, hedonism, and the homosexual lifestyle. These are the kind of people who are currently recruiting and promoting homosexuality to children in the public school system.

A jury in Edinburgh found the [color="#FF0000"][b]Chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland[/b][/color], James Rennie, 38, [b]guilty of sex attacks on children.[/b] Rennie was involved in a ring of child pornography and child sexual abuse, along [b]with 8 other men[/b].

Rennie, worked with a network of [b]14 to 25 year-old[/b] lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young people. He also worked with children in his post.

He was found guilty of abusing one child over a four-year period. The c[b]hild was three months old[/b] when the abuse began.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1865055' date='May 12 2009, 06:59 AM']He was found guilty of abusing one child over a four-year period. The c[b]hild was three months old[/b] when the abuse began.[/quote]

Three months old?!!!!!!!!!

[CatherineM]

I just saw on CathNews that Archbishop Weakland published a memoir talking about his struggle with being gay. Wonder how that is going to affect the lawsuits pending against the Vatican in the US federal courts? A smart lawyer could use his being gay as motive to cover up sex abuse cases, and pierce the veil to go after Vatican assets.

Yes, I realize that we should think of the victims, and not the finances of the church first, but at this point very little of this is about the victims. Most of it is being driven by lawyers and special interest groups who are using the victims' suffering as an excuse to go after the Church.

[Socrates]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1865134' date='May 12 2009, 10:54 AM']I just saw on CathNews that Archbishop Weakland published a memoir talking about his struggle with being gay. Wonder how that is going to affect the lawsuits pending against the Vatican in the US federal courts? A smart lawyer could use his being gay as motive to cover up sex abuse cases, and pierce the veil to go after Vatican assets.

Yes, I realize that we should think of the victims, and not the finances of the church first, but at this point very little of this is about the victims. Most of it is being driven by lawyers and special interest groups who are using the victims' suffering as an excuse to go after the Church.[/quote]
While no doubt the lawyers and special interest groups are taking advantage of the scandal for their own unholy reasons, it is a [b]fact[/b] that liberal homosexual bishops like Weakland helped create this scandal with their shameful and evil actions.
All the more reason to keep [mod]not appropriate or respectful of them as persons -Raph[/mod] out of the priesthood. We are reaping the foul fruits of homosexual cliques among the clergy. They have caused untold harm to the Church which continues to unfold.

[track2004]

I agree that "homos" shouldn't be priests, but for very different reasons than y'all. Being a priest shouldn't be about running away from a part of yourself, it should be who you are through and through. So those guys who became priests because they were gay and couldn't be 'out' were running away. That's not right. That's not what the priesthood is about. I don't think that homosexuals should be outright rejected, but I do think they shouldn't be running away. Frankly, even according to the super conservative standards, it wouldn't matter if they 'suffered with the SSA' if they never did anything about it, it would just be a burned for them to carry.

I don't think that homosexuals necessarily caused the abuse. Pedophiles did. If your priest was cavorting around town with a grown man that'd be different. The gays don't like the young boys; the peds do. Not our fault. Straight people do crazy sexual stuff all the time, don't look at the pedophiles as a representative sample of the gay males.

I think, though, that even the pedophiles were running away from something and into the priesthood, like many gay men did (& do). This is a problem, but so far I haven't seen anything that would suggest a better way to fix it. You can cast blame and do tougher psych evals, but you need to address why these men feels so left out of regular church life or civic life and join the priesthood.

[ariaane]

[quote name='track2004' post='1866877' date='May 14 2009, 07:24 AM']I agree that "homos" shouldn't be priests[/quote]

Homosexuals

[quote name='track2004' post='1866877' date='May 14 2009, 07:24 AM']So those guys who became priests because they were gay and couldn't be 'out' were running away. That's not right. That's not what the priesthood is about.[/quote]

My spiritual director also says that many men with SSAD entered seminaries solely to escape questions on why they weren’t married etc etc. This was the type of question that many men and women were asked if they remained unmarried by a certain age.

That being said, there have been and are many women who have become nuns and sisters solely because they don’t wish to be married. “Awkward women” who couldn’t attract a spouse a few decades ago, would sometimes be sent off to be a nun by family.

Simply being single was a "no no" back then.

[quote name='track2004' post='1866877' date='May 14 2009, 07:24 AM']You can cast blame and do tougher psych evals, but you need to address why these men feels so left out of regular church life or civic life and join the priesthood.[/quote]

To escape questions about their sexuality and why they don’t have a wife. Latin rite priests are celibate anyway, regardless of sexual orientation, so the priesthood is an excellent cover for ones disordered sexual proclivities.

Throw in wanting to maybe rid themselves of their same sex attraction by being a holy priest?