www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Are Most Priest Homosexuals?

Dear Dmitri,

The way you have raised the issue, yes absolutely.

As we know, there were Saints with a homosexual orientation and the Church was aware of this when it canonized them.

Alex

Dmitri,

When we discuss any ethical topic concerning "orientation" we will never arrive at an answer. It also becomes fruitless because we are all "oriented" to sin and are in need of God's energies.

Whatever happened to terms like temptation, sin, and responsibility in morality discussions?

One of the reasons for growing beards in the monasteries was to prevent the temptation to diddle beardless youths. St. John Climacus mentions this in his classic "Ladder of Divine Ascent" which is traditionally read in Byzantine monasteries during Lent. He knew what orientation can do if given the temptation. Whether it be orientation or public flaunting of alternative lifestyles, this has always had a history of wrecking communities of faith as adultery has wrecked marriages and families.

For something so "complicated" as orientation it sure has a nasty way of trashing churches, the number of vocation applicants and people's trust.

Interesting thread, but me must go to work now and earn my dollar.


Joe

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Yes, but that is my point - Orientation itself is a non-ethical issue. If someone is homosexual but never acts on it, there is no sin in my opinion.

Dmitri

I tend to agree with Dmitri's Last comment. I would like a opinions of orientation.

FYI, I was listening to "Focus on the Family" a protestant Radio program. The quest speakers were two Doctors who suggested studies that Homosexuals can change into becoming straight. Anyway, it was interesting program. I think the site is www.family.org [family.org]

Orthodox Catholic,

No problem, and your experiences are as valid as anyones else.

***

Joe,

Of course your right about what you said in your post regarding people and their "potential" to sin. But you would of course agree also, that in the case of men biologicaly being potential rapists, that it is strong social factors that predominatley govern the actions of men in this area that is the greater reason *why* men don't rape women? Without these social factors - to even include negative consequences as prison - you would agree the majority of men would rape women? What does this have to do with the discussion - particularly about pedohilia in the Priestly ranks? It seems to me (to me at least) that our Bishops have failed to creat an enviroment, a social climate if you will, in the Church where sex with children by Priests are to say undesireable to say the least.

Locking Priests behind the walls of a monastary for the rest of their lives would be starts for creating an enviroment that intimidate canidates who have the intention of useing the Priesthood as cover and resource for sexual desire for children.

***

What does marriage impede that homosexuality does not? Children, family, the economics behind it, and placeing a burden on the Church of moving Priests to whatever area of the world the Church wants to move them to, then you have safety issues if you happened to be posted in a country where people have names like Bacha Khan. Pluse, personaly, I feel it demonstrates an obeideince and a certain surrender that is not commonly demonstrated in our secular world. It's a good teacher.

Joe,


Your error, and I consider it a grave error, is you seem to equate "serving the Church" with being ordained to the priesthood. Very unCatholic, very unByzantine, very unChristian. Admitted, it is an attitude that some Catholics have and one I think should be unacceptable for priestly candidates.

BTW, yes, the 1929 is null as to the Ruthenian Church.

K.

Maximus,
This is a bit off topic, but I must ask it.

By reading what you said above, I take it that you do not believe that women can be rapists? That to be a rapists there is a need to have a certain biology that only men have?

I hope I misunderstood what you were saying.

David

I agree with Bro Thur that there is an 'orientation' towards sin in human beings -- it's our wanting our own way when 'our way' does not show love for God and neighbor.

I think, however, when talking about 'orientation' in the sexuality context, it is a different breed of cat. Perhaps the word 'preference' would better serve our needs. As others have mentioned above, one's 'preference' in sexuality involves a spectrum. And this spectrum involves a lot of socio-cultural aspects in it as well. (One need only look at the cults of sports stars, grown men going ga-ga at NASCAR, or [Lord help us!] on Super Bowl Sunday.)

But again, the key issue for me is not the sexual orientation/preference, but rather the way an individual lives his/her life, and how well the love of God and love of neighbor are played out. If you're a priest or religious with a vow of chastity/celibacy, or if you're married and have made a lifelong commitment to one's spouse, then that's it. You've given your word. If you break it, then can anyone ever trust your word again?

As I've mentioned before, I think that we really need to come up with a thoughtful (and coherent) theology of sexuality. And once that is done, then it can help us understand both the sacrament of matrimony as well as the sacrament of orders in a rational way that is complementary to both. (And we -- hopefully -- won't have to tap-dance in the minefield of sexuality any more.)

Blessings!

Kurt wrote: "Your error, and I consider it a grave error, is you seem to equate "serving the Church" with being ordained to the priesthood."

The topic, Kurt, is the priesthood, not any other ministry in the church. I wasn't aware that we were discussing other ministries on this thread but the priestly ministry. Were you? Did I miss something from the initial post? The men who were in the seminary were studying to be priests, not cantors, deacons or any other or else we would have been discussing them too since the initial post by RC@W. It was a Latin seminary, Kurt. Read my posts again. The issue was about "priests" and the place I mentioned was a "seminary.” My words have to be read in that context and not in any other context you wish to make it. Serving the church was in the context of priestly ministry. If you want to include all other ministries then we will be going off the subject of priests and the problem of homosexuality.


"Very unCatholic, very unByzantine, very unChristian. Admitted, it is an attitude that some Catholics have and one I think should be unacceptable for priestly candidates."

This is the second time you mention what is unacceptable for priestly candidacy. What are you driving at? What is so “unCatholic, very unByzantine, very unChristian” about staying on the topic?


"BTW, yes, the 1929 is null as to the Ruthenian Church."

Interesting. I wasn't aware that our particular law was changed.


Cantor Joe Thur

Dear Kurt,

I do think you could have been a bit kinder and gentler to Joe.

You should take an example from me . . . on the other hand, please don't.

Alex

I apologize, I didn't mean to be "curt" with Joe. I do think that phrase should never be used to inicate singularly the priestly ministry regardless of context and that sadly such an viewpoint does exist in the Church. I was abrupt only because I assumed Joe and all others here do in fact share that view.

Yes, the 1929 issuance is null for us Ruthenians. I very positive development, I think.

K.

P.S. Let me get my other sore point out of the way. I don't think anyone here has made this error, but some Church spokespersons have in the press. Concerning the scandals of recent note, I have read the phrase priests "not following their vows". Leaving aside the inacuracy of eparchial/diocesean priests having 'vows', i think a substantive differenc exists between a priest obligated to celibacy falling in love with another adult and the much more serious matter of abusing an underage person. I know those saying it are guilty only of a slip of the tongue, but they should be more careful.

K.

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

I will believe it when I see it. If that is the case sign me up to the Priesthood. You don't have to support me I have a very flexable job already and a strong will to server the Lord. I would like to be a married priest.

Well that's probably a rather good question - I don't know?

I was not thinking of women at all, at least as being rapists.

But I don't think that in general, a 30 year woman school teacher can rape a 14 year old boy - no. Infact I find it rather ridiculous that women school teachers stand trial in the courts of law and can be convicted and sent to prison for sleeping with a 14 year old boy.

I think that men unlike women are biologicaly driven to rape. I didn't use to think this, but now I do. And for whatever it's worth I think lower animal forms rape. I think male dogs rape female and male cats very often.

But certainly women have sexualy assualted other women even male children that haven't gone through puberty, perhaps under certain limited circumstances even men. But I doubt women have a biological drive for rape.

Having done research on this topic because of the bias out there I can say for a fact that yes women can and do rape.

I do not think that either sex has a biological dirve to rape, I think it is a perverted thing that causes rape.

Any person in a position of power, be it a man or a woman, who takes sexual advantage of a child is guilty of sexual abuse, so yes, I do think a female teacher that has sex with a 14 year old child should go to jail. I do not understand how anyone could think that this is acceptable.

Just do a search on the internet, you will see that women do rape. There are even mail lists out there where women tell other women how to rape a man.

Yes we are sinful beings but to say that we have a biological drive to rape is to say that we were created to do evil. I can not and will not agree with this.

David

It seems to me that the main issue is: assault. One person uses aggression and assaults another; and sexual activity is the instrument. It is, of course, wrong and sinful because it refuses to acknowledge the independence and free will of the victim.

And I think we could fill in the "X assaults Y"" grid with all the possible variations: male, female, older, younger, etc. Some paradigms are more common than others, but they are all wrong because they abuse the person.

Blessings!