Posted on 09/22/2005 6:06:19 PM PDT by BIRDS
To be blunt here, it's often said about people who engage in molestations that they are "thoughtful, kind, well behaved" right up until the point they allow the fruition acts of their sin.
The only correlation I see between outward social presentation of and by a person with and among others and who they are spiritually and therefore psychologically is that they are well moderated in their behavior -- a lot of people rely on being well moderated IN ORDER TO maintain certain behaviors that are damaging to others (and to themselves, and that's what's often overlooked here in the issue of the Priesthood).
I think it is obsessive compulsive behavior, pscyhologically, and the realm of psychology has ALSO been infiltrated by homosexuals to the effect that it's now taught to be some "natural" sexual state of being...just as public educational systems now teach and do so to even early grade school age children (all of which is are examples of the problem, not the solution). I've heard and read what the leading Bishop of the Episcopal church has to say about humanity and he says outright that he'd "rather serve in hell than be in heaven with people like that (Christians who rebuke homosexuality, and that statement is about Christians in and ONLY about Christians as to the issue of homosexuality)."
So, here you have a corrupt person sitting as leader of a group of people dedicated more to arriving in hell out of determination to proliferate an evil, rather than reject their sin and return to God.
You are twisting the words of that other person. I didn't get that obfuscated definition from what they wrote but I did get from what you wrote -- to which they replied -- that you consider a celibate homosexual suitable for the Priesthood, and equate homosexuality with heterosexuality with no distinction, but use the state of celibacy to make for the qualification or not.
It's a fallacy to accept that from popular culture and today's public educational system. Children are forced to learn that information to go forward through public schools but it doesn't mean you must embrace that as truth in your life and person. Homosexuality is sin, and to repeat what I wrote earlier, God describes homosexuality as an abomination. It's an "abomination to God."
Instead, we have today a social, cultural insistence by homosexuals -- a 2/3% of human population -- ridiculing the remaining 98/87% of humanity into accepting sin as not so, in effect, in rejecting what God says. It might make for trendy acceptance and such, but it isn't truth in the context of Christianity.
Good news.
Take a deep breath and think it over. Is an alcoholic still one when he's sober?
See...that's the point right there: you write, "their celibacy made them no less gay, as they still felt drawn to (other) men."
I think you are right when you refer to some human sexuality as "compulsion." In which case, for people with that aspect affiliated with their concept of sexuality, they are not likely to be successful as Priests, to be able to honor their vows. And should not be encouraged to enter or remain in the Priesthood.
I guess it can be said here that for among those who perceive sexuality as a compulsion, who experience uncontrollable urges to stimulate, act out and engage in sexual behaviors, they should not be admitted to the Priesthood or encouraged to remain.
And, in my experience, homosexuals refuse to reject homosexuality but reject the vows instead. I think it indicates a human persistence in even joining the Priesthood by most homosexuals and not a call from God, because for those people I have known who became Priests and led productive, happy lives as such, they all say that the vocation (a religious order) was a call from God and that they experience grace in respect to celibacy, that God's made the way possible for them and a joyous experience.
So, anyway, I return to the issue that the Priesthood is not for everyone and far from it. Those who are admitted to the seminaries and then on to the Priesthood as Catholics should be more selectively chosen and found to be chaste in the most complete sense of the word.
Since former 'priests' who also identify as homosexuals were responsible for nearly all the sexual abuse incidences that the Church had to contend with and still does, it's a good guess to assume without any more argument about this that it's not a good idea to admit homosexuals to the Priesthood. Pope Benedict surely has included other reasons but on a purely statistical sense alone, this decision works.
Once they find one they flock to it
Like social work?
Excellent post. In answer to your question.. I don't know. You make a valid point. All of us have a major weakness, a sin that we are drawn too. For them it happens to be homosexuality, for Joe Blow, it may be drugs, etc.
I think if a man truly loves the Lord, and is celibate, then I personally don't see a problem with it. If a gay man has pedophile tendencies, that is an entirely different matter!!! He should not and never be ordained. But the pope brings up a good point, about being disordered. I really don't know. My heart goes out to gays who are struggling, what an awful life it must be.
Show me one that doesn't.
As a Protestant friend of the Catholic Church, I have a suggestion for the Vatican if it wants to reduce the percentage of gays in ministry. Try allowing priests to marry or be married (heterosexually, that is !) and I think it will help to solve the problem. A lot more well adjusted young Catholic men would consider the priesthood and probably a number of Catholic family men (some of whom are already serving the church as deacons) would step forward to enter the priesthood. The priest shortage would be resolved quickly and the Catholic Church (and Christianity) would emerge as a much stronger force in the world.
The article makes the following observation:
The Rev. Thomas Krenik...worries that a blanket ban on gay priest-candidates will re-create the very conditions the Vatican wants to eradicate."For some men who happened to be homosexually oriented, they would go further in the closet," Krenik said. "That would be my fear, that this could become an even worse problem."
This, to me, is an admission that homosexuals are liable to act out by molesting boys. It is given in the context of not being able to identify as being homosexual, but as Rytwyng so aptly put it:
A "celibate gay" is still attached to his abomination in the core of his identity, even if he doesn't actually practice it physically. The phrase "celibate gay" is about as nonsensical as "nonpracticing racist" or a "nonusing drug addict". If you reject the behavior as immoral under all circumstances -- as a faithful priest must -- then, why identify with it at all?
The homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered" hence homosexuals are unqualified to be priests.
Beautifully put.
Where's that nutcase SMEDLEYBUTLER who will defend the Homo Priests?
Excellent point!
Sure. But he's not a PRACTICING alcoholic, which makes all the difference in his behavior. Even good people become mired in the swamps of alcoholism, do things they regret, hurt people, etc etc...but if they sincerely and permanently stop drinking, all of their better qualities can surface and they can become exemplary, worthy, and compassionate citizens. And excellent employees. And excellent priests, for that matter. An alcoholic never ceases to be an alcoholic, even if he has not touched a drop for decades.
We have a president who's an alcoholic, come to think of it. Though he has not had a drink for decades, he's still an alcoholic. Remember how we defended him (most of us did) from the liberals who tried to smear him because of past indiscretions?
The point is, people can overcome their destructive and sinful compulsions. I don't see how a non-practicing homosexual is any more dangerous than a priest who really really is attracted to women but not acting on it. If we only had priests who had no passions whatsoever, they might be stiff, cold, nasty men with no love or compassion for people, no understanding of sin, and no forgiveness in their hearts.
Having said all that, I go back to my original post on this thread where I declared that every time I've been interested in returning to the Church, seeing obviously gay priests flitting around the altar has sent me directly out the door. So it's a quandry for me, really it is. I hope the Pope cleans up the seminaries. Because in fact, the priesthood has become a refuge for gay guys who value their gayness more than their vocation. I'll pick up a broom and help Benedict sweep them out the door. But sadly.
Well for one, male attraction to females is normal. Priests don't need to acknowledge it, celebrate it or categorize themselves based on it. Homosexual attractions, bestiality and all other perverse behaviors are mental illnesses. If you can't see the difference then you've been brainewashed by the left.
You're missing the point of the relationship of the Priest within the Catholic Church, although I realize your opinion is shared by some.
The religious concept and scriptural basis of chastity is, for the Priesthood, that the Priest represents to the flock, the faithful, the Church, what Jesus represents to the Church. I suppose if you conclude that Jesus Christ was or 'should have been' married, then your suggestion would make sense.
I don't particularly follow whereby sexual activity is necessary for holiness...which is inherent to the idea of suggesting that Priests should be married.
Exactly! Very well put.
Your entire struggle to understand this issue could best be summarized, in resolution, as this: homosexuality is the sin that requires being rejected as the sin it is inorder for anyone to be qualified to represent Christ within the Church, as Priests are relied upon to do.
While someone continuing to claim to be a homosexual while, in your suggestion, being celibate, not engaging in sexual acts, they continue to embrace and affirm the presence of homosexuality. And, celibacy is more than merely refraining from overt physical acts.
A man fantasizing about, desiring for, romanticizing over and for some, seeking overt sexual contact with another man, whether a Priest or any other vocation, is a homosexual. The issue is homosexuality as a "disordered state" so well described by Pope Benedict, and that also and again, homosexuality is deemed "an abomination" to God.
The only time in the whole extent of scripture wherein God uses that degree of harsh condemnation for any human act is about homosexuality. He doesn't say "it's pleasing as long as a homosexual is celibate," He says that homosexuality is an abomination in His sight, in His eyes, and that means that within the perception of God about humanity, homosexuality is the one and one only thing that is abominable to God. Pretty harsh language, and pretty clear.
The example of alcoholism is relatively but not completely accurate but generally speaking, the issue is that to someone who is alcoholic, they remain that way whether or not they drink alcohol or not...they're still an alcoholic. And, to someone who self identifies as and with homosexuality, they remain doing so despite religious vows. And that leads the Church to conclude that the requirements for the Priesthood exclude homosexuals because homosexuals represent a state of human existence that is not qualified for the Priesthood.
All the issues as to homosexuals in the Priesthood engaging in overt sexual acts in defiance of their vows and that includes pedophilic acts, those are dreadful amplifications of the same disordered state that already exists, yes, but the decisional issue about the state of homosexuality, to my read and reason, rests in the fact that the state of homosexuality represents a disordered state in and of itself, and scripturally is severely judged by God to be abominable...thus, an aspect about a person that is not fitting for the Priesthood.
I wrote this earlier and I'll write it again here because what I find most telling is that homosexuals currently in the Priesthood opt to threaten to leave the Church and abandon their vows in light of this instruction from Pope Benedict but they don't consider abanding the sin itself of homosexuality, in effect, refuse to recognize God's very statement about it, and/or if recognizing, are rejecting God's terms.
Interesting choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.