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

Dr. John,

"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?"

It is not a matter of judging another's soul. It is a matter of judging another's action. It is the Church's role to cast someone out who is a wolf in sheep's clothing by their actions. This is not only justified but mandated.

You suggest that someone or some ones are mixing apples and oranges. I don't know if you are referring to me or not. In case you are I will respond. I did not bring up the issue of pedophilia. Others have. It is enough that a person continues to act out their homosexual lusts. That is an abomination to God. It has been dissallowed in the Church for 2,000 years.

If anyone commits pedophilia they belong in jail. If anyone persistently acts out their homosexual lusts, or any other lust of the flesh, or any other sin, they eventually need to be put out of the priesthood.

Be careful that you aren't mixing apples, oranges, pomegranets, peaches, and asparagus.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Psalm 51,

I'm happy to hear you like some of my humour .

You belong to a very exclusive group!

Thank you for your kindness. The weather is still chilly up here in "Tarana."

God bless,

Alex

Very interesting article.

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020329_Homophilia.html

Dear Laus,

The article is interesting, and I just had a very pious Catholic who works with me give me a half-hour lecture about a similar issue.

There seems to be two streams of thought that exist in this discussion that often go undifferentiated, though they should be.

The first is the whole issue of homosexuality and its tributary themes.

That has its own arena of debate, but I wish Catholics and others would stop bringing it into the situation of sacerdotal abuse that the Church is confronted with today.

It is the media hype that has made this an issue where there should be none i.e. homosexuality among priests, the celibate priesthood as its origin etc.

The bishops who failed to deal effectively with those priests who needed to be dealt with, also failed in their responsibility toward the Catholic Laity entrusted to their pastoral care.

Period. End of sentence. They failed to protect their flock. That has nothing to do with general philosophies about anything. It is their personal failure, since these things occur with as much, or greater, frequency in other religious communities and groups.

The administrative error of the Church was seen in the lackadaisical attitude of the bishops in the first instance, and in the failure of Rome to be firm with her bishops and be seen to publicly reprimand them and remove them from their pastoral responsibilities.

That is the only way you get the message across that there is zero tolerance for that behaviour.

The suffering so many in the Church are going through is their responsibility ultimately, even though the media are having a field day.

But are we so naive to think they would not have, once this hit the light of day?

Alex

I'be been watching this and other threads for some time before I decided to finally register. What I can't understand is why you are so vehemently anti-gay Dan. As I believe it was Shakespeare who said "methinks thou dost protest too much." Homosexuals have been a part of the clergy for centuries and many of the finest priests I know are gay. As for whether or not they are celibate, as far as I'm concerned that is between them, their confessor/spiritual director and God. I also think these present day scandals have nothing to do with priests being gay...I know of too many priests that have fooled around with little girls or women...it is just that that doesn't get the media's attention like the altar boys do. If a cleric is doing something illegal, like messing around with minors, throw the book at him and reduce him to the lay state, but don't write him off completely, he is still a human being in need of love, forgiveness and compassion. Oh, and in case you are wondering...I am a straight, married contruction worker who was abused by a religious brother in my younger years...so I can speak on this from first hand experience.

Moe

Christ is Among Us!
Moe:

Good job! I couldn't have said it better myself!

Michael

Moe,
Can you please define "anti-gay"? Are you referring to those who don't like individual homosexuals, or even homosexuals as a group? Or, those who simply and without compromise condemn all homosexual acts as gravely sinful and contrary to the teaching of Christ and his Church? I believe the latter is Dan's belief.

Kristos Voskrese,

Je'concur, Moe. You make an important point.

Dmitri

Homosexual acts are gravely disordered and a sin.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

2357 "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[Cf. Gen 191-29 ; Rom 124-27 ; 1 Cor 6:10 ; 1 Tim 1:10 .] tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'[CDF, Persona humana 8.] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Any man that will identify his whole being with such an act should not be gifted with Holy Orders. Just as a man who approaches his Bishop calling himself a murderer or a theif should not be allowed to serve.


Your brother in Christ,
David

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

In Dan's case I think it goes way beyond just believing that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. I don't see him getting as upset over other moral failures. Why single out the homosexuals for moral condemnation? I don't recall Jesus ever doing so, but He did have plenty to say about judging others. If you think it this is sinful behavior then love them and pray for them...don't condemn. That is what it means to be a Christian. Leave the judging and condemnation to God.

Moe

Kristos Voskrese,

Be careful not to confuse the act with the state of being. These are two seperate issues and one does not necessarily imply the other.

Dmitri

Dmitri,
But those who label themselves as homosexuals do not think the act is wrong. They wish to promote their "life style" and have the rest of use accept it.

The persons who suffer from homosexual tendencies that admit that these tendencies are disordered and to act upon them a sin, are not out there promoting homosexuality.

Someone who stands up and says proudly that they are a homosexual and runs around cavorting with other homosexuals, and pushes for homosexual "rights" has no business in the priesthood.

Once again, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

2358. "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. "

2359. "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. "

They are called to chastity, can't say it enough times. If they are called to chastity, then they are no different than the single hetrosexual person. They do not have any more rights than a hetrosexual person, period.


Your brother in Christ,
David

ps Dan, I am with you brother!

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Friends,

It seems we are talking past the point. The issue is not with homosexual orientation, but homosexual acts and promotion of said acts and homosexuality as an identity. If someone admits they have sexul attraction towards members of the same sex are they identifying themselves as a homosexual or just admitting they have a disorder?

The second issue is not whether a man can have this disorder and be good priest (obviously they can), but whether, as has been contended, there is a certain percentage of the priesthood that have the disorder, identify themselves as homosexual, believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts, promote these acts and homosexual marriage, commit these acts in violation of Scripture, Church teaching, and their promise of celibacy, and endeavor in certain seminaries to keep heterosexual men out of the seminary and priesthood.

Yet a third issue is: Are homosexuals more likely to commit sexual abuse on children or teenagers than heterosexuals? Again, I don't know that this has been proved. If it can be proved than there is some wisdom in refusing ordination to men with this disorder. If it is not proved than it seems there is a problem. If the Vatican directive is aimed solely at men wih the disorder, regardless of the man's mental health and other abilities then this seems to be discrimination. What about other disorders? Should not heterosexuals with sexual disorders be excluded as well. What about priests who are addicted to pornography and/or masturbation? This violates the promise of celibacy as much as a homosexual act? What of priests that have affairs or secret marriages? (And have kids they don't take care of?) Why no directive to get rid of these men?

Why are the bishops that allowed the predators to continue to prey being let off the hook? I don't think every bishop who made the mistake of believing a man was rehabilitated should be removed, but those that ignored the obvious and played chess with these men are guilty of gross negligence and have no business remaining in charge of a diocese or voting for the next Bishop of Rome.

Just my thoughts...

In Christ,
Lance

David,

I am a bit confused. You reiterate the point that people who, in the words of the Catechism, have "deep seated homosexual tendencies" are called to chastity (and rightly so). If these people do respond to the call to chastity and, by the grace of God, live chaste lives, what is their impediment to joining the priesthood? Dan's whole point seems to be that homosexuals of any stripe, chaste or not, should not be ordained.

In Christ,
mikey.

Alex wrote: "...the whole issue of homosexuality and its tributary themes. That has its own arena of debate, but I wish Catholics and others would stop bringing it into the situation of sacerdotal abuse that the Church is confronted with today. It is the media hype that has made this an issue where there should be none i.e. homosexuality among priests, the celibate priesthood as its origin etc."

I feel I must disagree with you here, Alex. True, what prompted the Holy Father to call the American cardinals to Rome was the problem of priests having sex with children/adolescents, which had its roots in the past, and which recently has been dredged up.

The separate (and for the most part unrelated) problem--and it IS a problem--of the relatively large number of priests and seminarians "acting out" their homosexual orientation, was placed on the agenda by, among others, USCCB president Bishop Gregory. And why not? The thinking appears to be, "while we are airing out one piece of our dirty laundry, why don't we hang all of it on the line." I don't think Bishop Gregory was saying the two issues were related at all, but rather, "this is a problem... and this... and this."

I think it is the secular media who is attempting to portray the church as linking the multiple issues. If the media had their way, we should have no problem with ordaining people who espouse ANY lifestyle choice. After all, this is the 21st Century!