www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is gay clergy Ok?

Aloha again,

I just thought I need your thought about this issue... what is happening with our Christian Protestant braddah is very disturbing. I find it very concerning..... but I do believe that Gay can live a celebate life and offer it to our Lord Jesus Christ . Why dont they get that? everyone are capable of living a celebate life... if it has a religious purpose with it.


Lutherans Propose Possible Gay Clergy Path 1 hour, 19 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


By TARA BURGHART, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO - Lutheran bishops could allow gay and lesbian clergy in committed relationships to become pastors of congregations under a proposal advanced Monday by a council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

READ MORE:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050411/ap_on_re_us/lutherans_gays

It is a perversion. If someone claims to have this perversion they ought not to be priests. Celibacy is a gift but homosexuality is a sin against nature which is separate from simple lust for the opposite sex. I know I run the danger of actually supporting the historic position of the Church on this matter, but there you have it.

Dan L

Good evening Dan.

The Church does not teach that homosexuality is a sin. Homosexual acts are sinful. No less an authority than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has taught thus. I quote from the Congregation`s "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS" (title is in caps, I`m not shouting):

"3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4)."

And further: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

This document was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. Here is the url:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

I wish you peace.

Charles

Actually Randy, when a person is called 'gay', it means they are not celibate. As for priests, or laymen for that matter, if they are true Christians, they will subdue any sexual feelings they have that are immoral. A sin is a sin is a sin, whether they are adulterers or gay.

As for homosexuality being a perversion; yes it is, but then again we are only mortals. Homosexuality is the fruit of our sinful society, (or so I believe). I say this because it was unmentionable in Western Europe before the end of the twentieth century. Because of that, it seems to have been quite rare...In Western Europe that is. In the Turkish occupied places, the pagan Greek customs prevailed...especially among the Turks. I picked that up from Lord Byron. He loved the laxity in that part of the world.

During his first trip to Greece, when he met the notorious Ali Pasha, he was being flattered continuously by him. Lord Byron was exceptionally good looking, and then the Pasha asked him to visit him during the night. Of course he didn't. Byron might have loved young boys as well as girls, (he was known for his promiscuity), but he was not a homosexual in the true sense of the word.

From what I know, in ancient Corinth, girls were encouraged to walk around naked since most men preferred boys. The leaders of the city were fearful that the 'race' would die out. Later on the Romans adopted this Greek custom. So much so, that one nobleman paid about $200,000 for one attractive slave boy.

By the same account, I heard that lesbianism was laughed at in Europe. Now that might have been a misconception because reading the 'Brothers Karamasov', I noticed the blatant affection shown by one young woman to another. Hugging and kissing, etc. There was nothing in it that suggested anything other than gratitude and natural affection.

I also noticed that in one of Charlie Chaplins earlier movies, he was showing his love of a young boy by kissing him on the mouth. Can you imagine how that would be interpreted today? We just love to misconstrue everything in accordance to the mores of our times.

Zenovia

Charles,

The subject of the thread was:

CHICAGO - Lutheran bishops could allow gay and lesbian clergy in committed relationships to become pastors of congregations under a proposal advanced Monday by a council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

That was the context for Dan's remark.

Good morning.

However, the substance of Dan`s remarks was a clear statement: "Celibacy is a gift but homosexuality is a sin against nature which is separate from simple lust for the opposite sex."

Or, more precisely: "...homosexuality is a sin...." That is simply not the teaching of the Church, as I noted in my reply.

Peace,

Charles

Friends,

I used the term "sin" too loosely. Please forgive. The idea I was trying to express is that the inclination is a "disorder" i.e., it goes against nature. For men and women to be attracted to one another is not a disorder. But same sex attraction is. It is my understanding that sometime in the early 1960's there was a directive from the Vatican which banned those from the Priesthood who were known to have such inclinations. If my information is correct the directive was to try to protect the Church and the priesthood from precisely what did happen in seminaries and parishes throughout the country. I will do some further research and perhaps someone here can confirm my memory.

Surely, no one living in a "committed relationship" with someone should be given holy orders. Though, in this society, I wonder what that phrase could possibly mean. "I'm committed for the next hour and a half?"

Dan L

Dan,

Thanks for the clarification. I know that you usually are very precise in what you say and I appreciate your clarification.

Peace,

Charles

Braddah , I think you all right with this issue... sadly ...our Christian braddah the Prostestant Lutheran are definetely wrong with this issuee.... I think they are misguided. We surely need to pray for them and not compromise with Hollywood Culture and moral value.

The Vatican document you are referring to is called Religiosorum Institutio, and it says the following: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

Thank you very much. I wonder why it became common for a period of time and is still apparently believed by many that homosexual and pederatstic tendencies are not an impediment to ordination? How did the devil slip in so easily and why has this not been put down?

Dan L

I found this article talking about yet another visit to American seminaries in an attempt to enforce the ban on homosexualists and pederists in the seminaries.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0406801.htm

I wonder if the visits will be any more effective than previous visits?

Dan L

Dan,

Here is a link to the USCCB webpage containing the reports on the sexual abuse scandal in the American Church.

Scandal Studies [usccb.org]

The one that will answer most of your questions is titled "A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States." Page 74 onward contains a lot of information on how the devil managed to creep in to the seminaries in this country. The report goes on to make clear that bishops are divided on the issue of ordaining homosexuals.

There were certainly cases of sexual abuse prior to the 1960s, and not all of the cases are homosexual in nature. However, 80% of them are. It is also clear that the abuse cases skyrocketed and peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s, when certain seminaries and parishes developed a "gay subculture" in the wake of modernization. Those words are not mine, they are from the report in the link. In the report I reference above, even bishops who favor the ordination of gay men acknowledge there are special challenges and screening processes that need to be employed in regard to homosexuals.

All of this seems to bear out the words Todd gives us from Religiosorum Institutio: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers." While I don't doubt that some homosexuals could lead a chaste and holy life, I think the risk is simply too great.

I think the other reason for barring the ordination of homosexuals is best stated on page 81 of this same report: "Homosexual orientation is seen by some as a barrier to ordination for theological reasons, given that a priest conceptually is a generative "father" married to the Church as bride. As one bishop said to the board 'I do believe that a priest must be able to relate to a parish the way a healthy father of a family would relate to a family....It's not for nothing they call you Father.'"

Brgds,

Doug

I personally have known many priests with a homosexual orientation who have been excellent pastors to their parishes, both Eastern and Western and excellent Spiritual Fathers. Let's not paint with too broad a brush.

Hello Brian,

The NRB report is unbiased and makes the same point, that there have been clergy with a homosexual orientation who have done a great job. It also makes the point that during the peak of disiplinary breakdown in the 70s, many seminary teachers were telling young men that Rome would soon repeal the rule on celibacy, and that they would be able to be married after ordination!

Nonetheless, the fact is that the cultures that flourished in the permissive environment were called a "gay subculture" and "homoerotic". Again, not my words. There isn't any mention of heterosexual abuses on the same scale. This is what leads me to believe the words of Religiosorum Institutio were not only accurate but prophetic. Even in the stricter environment prior to Vatican II, the abuse was primarily homosexual.

My intention is not to paint with the broadest possible brush, and as I said in my first post not every homosexual would be an abuser, and I'm sure many could leave a chaste life. It's just that based on what I have read, I choose at this time to come down on the side of the bishops who are against ordaining gay men. There were a number of excesses and the best thing at present is to make sure the abuses have been eradicated.

Now if the Latin Church were to lift the ban on ordaining married men, that might go a long way to mitigating what I consider are the risks to ordaining gay men. It would most certainly preclude any sort of a gay subculture flourishing anywhere. But that's a topic in and of itself.

Doug