Debate on gays in priesthood roils diocese (Debate? "Gay" is a disqualifying frame of mind)

Centre Daily Times (State College PA) ^ | May. 12, 2002 | Mike Joseph

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

According to Church teachings, you are bestowed with the holy gift of being able to forgive my sins in place of Jesus

That's not quite how it works.

[BlackElk]

With all due respect, when you suggest that the personal unworthiness or sinfulness or state of mortal sin of the minister of the sacrament invalidates the sacrament, you are wrong. That idea was the key error of the Donatist heresy of the 4th century. If your suggestion were true then none of us would ever know if our sins had been forgiven, nor whether we had really received the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist on any given occasion, whether in Matrimony (as to the state of the soul of one's spouse as a minister of that sacrament) you have really become married, etc. This would be irrational anarchy.

[Jorge]

"So the idea that a priest in the church should even define themself as homosexual, celibate or not, defies the Church's teachings".

OF COURSE THAT'S TRUE. Nor should a priest define themselves as heterosexual or pansexual or any-which-way-sexual.
But people are born certain ways: heterosexual, homosexual, non-sexual, pan-sexual, whaterverwhichwaysexual. That's a FACT. That's how God ordered the world, whether or not you care for that reality.

God WHO? Certainly not the God of the Bible.

Nowhere in the Bible or the Judeo-Christian faith will you find any teaching that God "ordered" homosexuality, pedophilia or any other sexual perversion.
Why would God "order" things which He condemns as sin and prohibits?
Is God the creator of sin? I don't think so.

But once again, the Bible teaches that heterosexuality is God's design and created intent for human sexuality.
There is nothing inherently sinful about identifying oneself as heterosexual.

[tiki]

If they don't come out and tell you that they're gay and they really are celibate as far as you know, how in the world do you tell?

I know men who you'd think were gay because they act a little effeminate but they're not! And then I've seen big, macho looking and acting men who are. How do you tell?

To tell the truth, I'm pretty paranoid right now.

[Thundergod]

The big difference, and it is a BIG difference, is that heterosexuality is a natural inclination well ordered by GodHimself. Homosexuality is a sick mental/spiritual disorder that is resoundingly condemned by God in his revealed word time and time again. DISORDERED people must not be ordained to the priesthood... or you will have mollestation problems.

[Thundergod]

But people are born certain ways: heterosexual, homosexual...

The Holy Father has already named this very statement as blasphemy against God, Who tempts no man to sin. I suggest you repent for the sake of your soul.

[Thundergod]

That's right. Jesus adminsters the Sacraments through his priests, no matter how wretched they may be and no matter what state of mind they may be in.

[Thundergod]

The penantant person only has to believe that the priest is in good standing. So the priest in the confession booth could be the biggest homosexual on the planet and as long as you believe in the miracle of faith and you do your penance as prescribed, you are saved.

Not true. The priest, acting in persona Christi (that is in the person of Christ), must give absolution. Were you ever a Catholic? Even a child catechetic would know this. Your posts remind me of a line from The Grandmother Song, by Steve Martin: Always criticize things you don't know about...

[yendu bwam]

If they don't come out and tell you that they're gay and they really are celibate as far as you know, how in the world do you tell?

Not knowing, I won't let my teenage sons be around any priest. And it's not paranoia on my part, just good sense given what the American Catholic Church has allowed.

[yendu bwam]

You can't blame this on all gays any more than you can blame male on female rape on all heterosexual guys, OK?

It's wrong to blame this on all homosexuals. But when virtually all of the molestation has occurred at the hands (and other parts) of homosexual priests, AND given that they are still (barely, it would seem) a minority in the priesthood, there is a very clear link between homosexuality and these molestations. Just think. The majority of priests are heterosexual, but the vast, vast majority of the cases are homosexual. There are indeed honorable homosexual priests. But many of them are sexually attracted to teenage boys, and a good many of those can't control their attractions.

[oldironsides]

Homosexuals will not be priests. If the Catholic Church gives the stamp of approval to homosexuals, then every female should get up and move to another church. No woman should ever be told she is not worthy of the priesthood and then sit in mass and watch a " female pretender" or "girly wanna be" tell her how she can live a better life. Puuuuuuuuuleeeze. A night of rest stop sex on I-95 followed by saying mass is not an option.

[yendu bwam]

There is a distinction between "compassion for the person" and putting that intrinsically disordered person in a position wherein he has access to youth of his own sex in what amounts to "the near occasion of sin" as we call it. You are perfectly free to be compassionate but not at the expense of the innocence of children. Something about millstones. Furthermore, it is not compassionate to the homosexual to place him in the near occasion of sin. And it is downright ludicrous and scandalous to set up separate castes within the priesthood of those trusted to be near young men and those who are not.

Very well put, BlackElk. I agree. We should be extremely compassionate for those who suffer from disordered homosexual inclinations. We are called to love everyone, and that includes homosexuals. But it is crazy to bring homosexuals into seminaries, where they shower, sleep and live together with men for extended periods of time. (And the craziness of this is well-illustrated by the rampant homosexual activities that have been going on in many seminaries.) Further, to have a priesthood filled with homosexuals, and then expect parents to either feel safe with their teenage sons in close proximity to such priests, or to expect that our teenage sons are going to get a good grounding in Catholic sexual morality, is asking us to forego common sense and reason. While this situation exists in the American Catholic Church, we can never feel secure about priests being around our teenage sons.

[sinkspur]

The idea that we cannot really know and we will just have to take the word of each seminarian for it is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Well, how do we know who is gay and who is not?

You can't know. There are no tests which screen for homosexuality.

Do seminary boards just guess?

[Thorondir]

The Church has NEVER said that women are unworthy of the priesthood. Priests are servants and the Holy Father is called Servant of the Servants of Christ. Men are called to serve women and other men and children in the priesthood. I think this places women over the priests, not under them as unworthy.

[tbeatty]

Not true. The priest, acting in persona Christi (that is in the person of Christ), must give absolution. Were you ever a Catholic? Even a child catechetic would know this. Your posts remind me of a line from The Grandmother Song, by Steve Martin: Always criticize things you don't know about...

What are you talking about? This is my point. Regardless of the standing of the priest with Christ, the sinner needs only absolution from that priest. It only matters that the sinner believes he received absolution from someone who is able to give it. It matters not whether the priest is in good standing. I didn't criticize it, I defended it. Where are you coming from?

[Thundergod]

It's not what you posted. Not at all. Perhaps it may be what you MEANT to post, but it's not what you posted. Make yourself more clear. Come on. Human language is all we have to go on, here.

[Thundergod]

Seminary boards? What are you talking about? Try Diocese Vocational Director. How can you be so consistently out of touch. Your claim of being Catholic is falling flat, pal.

Our new Vocational Director in Tucson is a Gay Priest. He/she/it decides who goes to the seminary and who is denied.

Looks like our "progressive" bishop and coadjutor are right on the cutting edge of solving the sexual scandal in the Church. (/sarcasm)

[Thorondir]

ME: American Catholic Catechism is wrong in part, and the Pope has ordered the American Bishops repeatedly to change it to comply with Catholic teaching.

YOU: I have the latest version, which was approved by John Paul II, and it says exactly what the earlier version said about homosexuality.

THE EARLIER VERSION THAT THE POPE DECLARED BLASPHEMOUS: CCC, 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...

THE LATEST VERSION (WHICH DOES NOT SAY EXACTLY WHAT THE EARLIER VERSION SAID ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE THE POPE MADE THEM CORRECT IT): CCC, 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial...

I put the tricky parts in bold so that you could see the difference. I know this has all been very difficult for you, but I'm sincerely trying to help. The American-make-it-up-as-you-go-along-catholic-church puts out so much cleverly evil propaganda and false teaching, that it is sometimes dificult to find the truth. But here we are, muddling our way through the morass. You asked for a citation, and here it is.

[Siobhan]

That is a HUGE difference. Thanks for pointing it out. I new the Catechism had come out in a final revised edition (the new green dustcover), but I didn't realize that there were such dramatic errors to be corrected.