www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why homosexual priests?

Alex--

I must obediently submit to the 1000-year discipline of my church's tradition of a celibate priesthood....

But I say to you, "Amen, Alex, AMEN!"

Dear Psalm 51,

Yes, obedience is a most important virtue!

And celibacy is a Gift that will always be around, as long as the Church is.

I know the Church will purify itself of the current difficulties.

"Cleanse me with hyssop and I will be clean!"

Alex

Dear Dan and Alex,

I agree with you.

Dan, I agree that the focus of the press on the issue of sexual abuse by clergy is a painful process, but one that will lead to a cleansing in the Church.

Alex, I think that you are onto something in your observation that the laity will be and are playing a leading role in the discussion on the abuse. Certainly this is a clear example of how the teaching role of the Laity is a reality in the Church.

We were all baptised into Christ who is priest, prophet, and king. Perhaps this discussion will help us all to see our brothers and sisters, the theologians, and our shepherds, the bishops, as fellow pilgrims who have much to learn with and from the rest of us who are Church.

Steve

Dear Steve,

Even though we are traditionalists (each in our own Rite ), the only thing I have to say in response is:

Who da man? You da man!

Alex

I am glad that some members have manged to discuss this issue without resorting to name calling and stereotypes. It saddens me that others have not been able to do this. In this age of decling vocations and a total lack of appreciation for the priesthood (from many Orthodox and Catholics)
I grieve that "one issue types" are looking for further abuse to heap upon our bretheren in the priesthood. If one is found to be guilty of a moral transgression, fine. Let the Bishop discipline him in an appropriate manner. Period.
Other than that, let the far right crowd and others can the witch hunts arising from hearsay and questionable psycological information.

Michael

Dear Michael,

You got it, Pontiac . .er. . Michael!

I smile, no, grimace actually whenever I hear of church leaders use social science or behavioural data.

That's because they are really out of their depth and shouldn't be playing around and searching for pseudo-scientific garble to justify what they are going to do anyway.

Alex

Has anyone here read the book "Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood"?

I haven't, but I gather that it addresses the apparently pervasive problem that once existed (now exists?) of open homosexuality in Roman (and other?) Catholic seminaries. As indicated by my previous post, this is something that directly affected my decision making.

Also, and I feel I must reiterate, it was not the high degree of homosexual orientation among seminarians that caused me to opt out of the seminary (this was present in my high school seminary, and I never felt "threatened." I always assumed it came with the territory. I also took a great deal of verbal abuse from ignoramuses who made assumptions about MY orientation because I expressed that I wanted to be a priest).

It was, rather, the reports of rampant, homosexual "acting out" that was taking place in the seminary that sealed it for me.

Dear Psalm 51,

You think YOU had it bad?

When I mentioned my desire to be a priest in the high school/minor seminary I was attending, they called in a psychologist to check me out and let me know about the Gay goings on . . .

I couldn't figure out why RC lay teachers were trying to dissuade me from the sacerdotal path.

But I was so naive that when somebody asked me of I was homophobic I replied that I had no lactose intolerance whatsoever . . .

Alex

Alex,

LOL! Did I ever tell you that you make this forum!

May you reach your 3000th post soon. (PARTY!)

"Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (Is it still snowing in Toronto?)

Sarum,

Thank you for your post. While I find Dan's name calling one of many indignities life puts before me, I deeply appreciate the kindness of almost every other person who posts here has shown. They clearly draw one closer to Christianity.

I will say, it was I who first brought up the topic of bishops (such as Law and Egan) who tolerate sexual misdeeds. I will agree that those with public professions of celibacy should life up to their committments and that bishops should be held responsible for toleration of misdeeds, particularly when innocent third parites are harmed (and I define the rape of a child as harm uncomparable to a "straight" seminiarian feeling uncomfortable among classmates he thinks might be gay.)

As a convert (or 'transritualists' as you say around here) I also want to express my appreciation to the Orthodox community, which has never failed to show me inclusion and love.

Axios

Michael Rose's, "Good bye Good men" is a must read. I'm doing so now. It will make you weep for our blessed Church. It will also make you angry that vocation directors and bishops have sold out so much of our Church to homosexualist pressures. I have no idea how this problem will be resolved. I trust that it will be resolved and I trust that it will take a conserted effort for faithful Catholics of all kinds and of all stations to remove those who would pervert the Gospel and try to use it as a support for their impulsive and sometimes criminal behavior. By all means, read the book. It might make for a very good thread.

I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the argument often given that same sex pedophilia is not a homosexual crime because no homosexual would commit pedophilia. I suppose it must be those nasty people who don't participate in same sex intercourse who are actually participating in same sex intercourse. It couldm't possibly be those who participate in same sex intercourse who commit same sex intercourse because...because...because well, just because.

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

I will say this. I am the leader of one gay organiztion and am very familiar with many others. "Oddly", while the defenders of Law and Egan talk about how "only" 2% of priest are abusing children, not a single member of my organization has ever abused a child nor has this been an issue within the larger gay movement.

Not 2%, not 0.2%.

Homophobes can issue all the slurs they want, exposing their bigotry and hatred. But the truth is, we don't have a problem with abuse of children.

Axios

Looking forward to the new bishops of Boston & New York.

Axios,

I have several friends who have never slept with anyone but their spouses. None of them, not .1% nor .00001% have ever committed pedophilia.

Now, if a person who sleeps with those of the same sex would never sleep with someone of the same sex and those who have never slept with anyone of the same sex have not slept with persons of the same sex it must be that those young males who claimed to have been taken advantage of by some priests must not be telling the truth.

I wonder if homosexual is the commonly accepted word meaning "same sex" or not? Not that I expect a clear answer from you but maybe someday you will be honest about this. I hope so. Honesty is a good first step in surrendering to Christ.

Dan Lauffer

I'm getting the sense of apples and oranges here in that tangential issues are being introduced.

I think what Axios is saying is: some men are affectionally attracted to other men. But, this does not mean that they are attracted to pre-pubescent or adolescent males. This just confounds the issue.

Ceteris paribus: some men are attracted to women, but this does not mean that they are attracted to pre-pubescent or adolescent females.

(The same paradigm applies to the female of the species.)

The news media are going to report that which is most sensationalist because it sells papers. The RC clergy 'scandal' sells papers and so they keep 'reporting' on it. The Christian Science MONITOR did an article three weeks ago that looked at statistics and found that in terms of numbers of cases, there are more criminal complaints registered in the Protestant church communities, and that the complaints are most often of the heterosexual persuasion. (Based, if I remember correctly, upon U.S. Department of Justice reports.)

Thus, to acquiesce in the RC clergy witch-hunt is to reinforce sterotypes that can do nothing else but bash the church and the clergy. To conjoin the issues of sexual orientation with the issue of abuse is intellectually dishonest since abuse occurs all across the spectrum and merely feeds the witch-hunt mentality. To cite one or another case and to propose that as the paradigm of the problem is less than unjustified.

Am I 'defending' homosexuals, or homosexually oriented clergy, or heterosexually oriented clergy? No. I am defending the right of each individual to be judged as an individual and not as a member of a perceived 'class' of people.

My only concern is this: if a cleric has made the vow of celibacy (and chasity - goes without question), then if the individual has transgressed, he needs to be disciplined. It is a failing and a sin. If the individual has transgressed and done so with a minor (of whatever age) or with a person who does not have full adult faculties, then this person should be discharged, laicized, and reported to the competent civil authority.

Let me make a parallel: if some individuals within a church cause disruption about liturgical practices and precipitate a 'schism' within the community, and it is discovered that the individual is a convert, should the church automatically decide that converts as a class of people are a dangerous group as a group? The answer is obviously: NO! There are plenty of other converts who don't cause this problem.

The same with sexual orientation or intellectual gifts (or even ability to sing well), it is the individual who must be looked at - - not the whole so-called "class" of folks.

And, to lay to rest another 'myth': sexual orientation (of whatever type) does not mean that one is 'preoccupied' with physicality, although a number of folks think that homosexual folks are just interested in the bedchamber. It just means that one is more attracted to or comfortable with persons of a specific gender. It's a "comfort" issue. Although there is the current urban-legend that guys think about sex every 45 seconds, the fact is: No, they don't. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals. Life for everybody is primarily about job, family, friendships, hobbies, mowing the stupid lawn, getting the oil changed, paying the bills and ridding the refrigerator of those containers with the green stuff growing in it.

To superimpose all sorts of labels on x,y or z group based upon nothing more than stereotype is nothing more than 'bearing false witness against one's neighbor'. It is sinful.

Christ said to love God and to love our neighbors. While we may not agree with what we perceive them to be, it is in no way a justification to cast them out of the community of the baptized. Shall we cast out smokers? People who indulge in 'strong drink'? People who use coarse language? Business people who cheat their workers? People who covet their neighbor's wives and goods? People who don't make it to Church for every service? People who are overweight and therefore are gluttons? Where do we draw the line? If one goes after every jot and tittle of the Torah laws, and every remonstrance of the New Testament, then the community will indeed be very small. Justified, I'm sure. But not the image of the all-embracing love of the Savior.

The older I get, the more frightened I become of those who are willing to cast judgement upon others. This is not what I get from reading the Gospels and the teachings of the Master.

Who of us is so certain of salvation that we dare usurp the role of the Master by judging another human soul? Who among us can justify casting another out? The Church has always fostered the image of being the refuge of sinners, and rightly so. The Medieval Westerns granted sanctuary in the church building to even the most heinous of sinners and would brook NO interference from the civil authorities who would come to take them by force. And even the most secular of authorities today would think more than twice about violating the "Church" as the refuge of any human soul. The "church" and the "CHURCH!" are places of sanctuary, refuge and comfort for anyone who comes seeking help (and love/agape). And we, as baptized followers of Emmanu-el ("God With Us") should quake in our boots at the very thought of dismissing another human being because we are merely frightened at who they are.

Lord, have mercy upon us!!

Why homosexual ANYONE?
Why kudzu in Georgia?
Why this vendetta against the catholic church?
Why the permissiveness by RC bishops?
Some bishops? BC, too, you imply?
Improper behaviour is forbidden.
"lets see if some 'straight' answers will come our way", hmmm subliminal implications? :rolleyes:
The preists and seminarian you spoke with, are they RC or BC?
WHY NOW?...if this behaviour has been going on as long as they say?
The true issue is celibacy. any age any sex any one.

See Dr. Johns explanation in previous post.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Steve Petach ]