Half Of Priest And Bishops Are Gay

[KnightofChrist]

17 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

You are wrong on ordained men getting married as well.  Read the entire link you provided.  There are cirumstances when dispensation is given by the Holy See.  

Unlikelyhood, rarity, preference not to, are not the same as cannot, does not, or impossible.

 

Seriously. I like Josh and want him to get an accurate answer.  The gist of the posts by Josh was suggesting that married priests may counter a perceived culture of homosexuality or abnormal sexual proclivities within the Catholic Clergy.   His supposition cannot be dismissed that there cannot be married priests, but refuted as to why that may or may not be prudent or effective.   It's a different situation than if someone were to suggest women priests may also be an effective response to the "gay priest problem".

 

PSS: Deleted my very witty repose about the armchair somewhat reluctantly.

Aren't we talking about priests who are given dispensation from their vows who cannot act as priests afterwards? Priests technically, because once a priest always a priest, but not in work or deed.

Edited January 14, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Will you please be my friend, Superblue? I so very much desire it.

I've already asked him out to coffee before, but he never accepted. I was sad.

[superblue]

1 minute ago, PhuturePriest said:

I've already asked him out to coffee before, but he never accepted. I was sad.

did you clone yourself ?

[PhuturePriest]

7 hours ago, superblue said:

did you clone yourself ?

The world is not capable of handling two of me walking around. 

[Guest]

I don't understand how a Priest/Protestant Pastor/Baseball coach/Agnostic father of 3 is capable of molesting children whether male or female. I don't get it and never will. I don't even care to have it explained to me one day in Heaven if I make it. I want to forget it ever happened or ever took place. My Married Priest suggestion is coming from a place of I guess shock and feelings of disgust that human beings actually do this. That A Priest would do this. And so many. And the Church would then try to cover it up and let these men remain Priest. You're probably right that the married Priest thing wouldn't help. Like I said it just seems like it would in my mind at first. And after reading this thread for the sixth time I see how hopeless the situation sounds. Until Jesus returns there will be children who get molested everyday. It just really seems disheartening when it's a big scandal and cover up in the Church that claims no Salvation outside of it. Obviously I'm not without sin so I will just Confess my sins and Pray. And probably a bunch of other stupid stuff. 

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

https://youtu.be/1-y9TERjKVM

[Benedictus]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

I don't understand how a Priest/Protestant Pastor/Baseball coach/Agnostic father of 3 is capable of molesting children whether male or female. I don't get it and never will. I don't even care to have it explained to me one day in Heaven if I make it. I want to forget it ever happened or ever took place. My Married Priest suggestion is coming from a place of I guess shock and feelings of disgust that human beings actually do this. That A Priest would do this. And so many. And the Church would then try to cover it up and let these men remain Priest. You're probably right that the married Priest thing wouldn't help. Like I said it just seems like it would in my mind at first. And after reading this thread for the sixth time I see how hopeless the situation sounds. Until Jesus returns there will be children who get molested everyday. It just really seems disheartening when it's a big scandal and cover up in the Church that claims no Salvation outside of it. Obviously I'm not without sin so I will just Confess my sins and Pray. And probably a bunch of other stupid stuff. 

 

Most abuse of children, sexually or otherwise, occurs within families or by people close to the family in a home setting. So, no, there's no easy solution to the problem. In many respects it's easier to manage risk and reduce the incidence of abuse in institutions than it is elsewhere. There has been a focus on institutional abuses in recent times, going back fairly far, and it's good this has been exposed. However, it can easily distract people away from where and how abuse typically happens in society.

In terms of the church environment  -  abuse happens in all churches, whether they allow married clergy or not. Married men can, and do, abuse girls and boys, so the idea that this is an easy solution isn't true. It's simply disappointing that some people have tried to use the abuse scandals to peddle their own agenda in terms of pushing for a married clergy or to target homosexual individuals unfairly. There's no logic involved in most of the discussions. Correlation does not imply causation. Do heterosexual men, married or not, not commit the most rapes and violence in society? So forget married male priests, someone could imply this to argue for an all female priesthood to the exlusion of all others

[superblue]

6 hours ago, Benedictus said:

Most abuse of children, sexually or otherwise, occurs within families or by people close to the family in a home setting. So, no, there's no easy solution to the problem. In many respects it's easier to manage risk and reduce the incidence of abuse in institutions than it is elsewhere. There has been a focus on institutional abuses in recent times, going back fairly far, and it's good this has been exposed. However, it can easily distract people away from where and how abuse typically happens in society.

In terms of the church environment  -  abuse happens in all churches, whether they allow married clergy or not. Married men can, and do, abuse girls and boys, so the idea that this is an easy solution isn't true. It's simply disappointing that some people have tried to use the abuse scandals to peddle their own agenda in terms of pushing for a married clergy or to target homosexual individuals unfairly. There's no logic involved in most of the discussions. Correlation does not imply causation. Do heterosexual men, married or not, not commit the most rapes and violence in society? So forget married male priests, someone could imply this to argue for an all female priesthood to the exlusion of all others

I still think most people with common sense understand that point, but for the church to point the finger and say being a homosexual is a sin, and then allow homosexuals into the priesthood, only on the basis of not knowing if that person is a homosexual is insane. It is the same problem homosexuals faced when wanting to serve in the military, being a homosexual does not make one less capable of service to God or Country , YET the church is telling us, well we will accept homosexuals on conditions. When God does not in any way accept us on conditions. An we have endless Catholics trying to figure out how to teach about homosexuality, when from the top there is so much confusing information, and embarrassment when a homosexual either as a seminarian or priest admits he is homosexual. An that embarrassment stems from the scandal that took place that has not been resolved by the church but swept under the rug and merely marked off as being in the past. An things become worse when homosexual priests pop up in the news as not only coming out publicly, but also having a significant other in his life and or legally married. So when you add this mess on top of allegations and proof of corruption in the voting of a new pontiff , among a plethora of other recent scandals, trust in the church gets flushed down the toilet.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, superblue said:

. . . say being a homosexual is a sin

I don't think the Church has said that.

[Guest]

 

58 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don't think the Church has said that.

That's my understanding. Is it dogma homosexuals can't be Priest? Or just a discipline?

[Nihil Obstat]

Josh, the plural of priest is priests.

[Benedictus]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

 

That's my understanding. Is it dogma homosexuals can't be Priest? Or just a discipline?

Nope, not dogma. Those with a homosexual orientation can become priests as long as they aren't in a position where that orientation is causing them conflict, concern or psychological issues that would prevent them being admitted. Those with deep seated issues would be put off. That, at least in part, is true of anyone wanting to be a priest and forms part of the psychological evaluation and SD report. Such matters are also addressed by ongoing formation on matters of celibacy and sexuality. It's actually important that there isn't an outright ban, partly because there's no good reason to do so but also to encourage honesty and an environment of pastoral engagement. Celibates, regardless of orientation, should be celebrated for their calling and offering of themselves to the Church.

 

[superblue]

21 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't think the Church has said that.

I can't spoon feed you an your buds on this, and kudos again as you are right it is not written in stone, it is the double standards, and major props for only focusing on that tiny portion, it is as if people only read responses to only find spelling errors and can't read between the lines.

If you want to be very critical to the point of insanity or stupidity which ever suits you; then there should be nothing other than then Ten Commandments that the Catholic Church goes by, no amendments , no  commentary , nothing as far as rules goes. An to go another step further, the actual  written language of the Ten Commandments with the understanding of what that language at that time meant; not the translated universal English version.

You can't dissect sin and label one worse than another in the eyes of God.  Though maybe there is a spin off debate in the works of what constitutes one as being a homosexual, does one need to have sexual intercourse with another person to be a homosexual, since this is the idiocy we are now getting at. It is okay for the Church to say no to a homosexual sexual relationship and marriage, though it is okay to only be attracted to the same sex as long as you don't have what we will now label as deep seated tendencies, which is about as vague as we can get. ......That would be like saying well, it is okay to be attracted to animals, or to want date people that are underage , or to be a racist , as long as you don't actually practice those attractions and are not " deeply seated in those tendencies " or as long as we don't know about it or find out about it.  Which we mine as well look at Matthew 5:28  and figure out of if Christ was only speaking figuratively about our thoughts, desires, " deep seated tendencies " vs our actions....

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, superblue said:

You can't dissect sin and label one worse than another in the eyes of God.  

Some sins are obviously and self-evidently worse than others.

[superblue]

43 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Some sins are obviously and self-evidently worse than others.

yeah we all know about mortal and venial sins, but that is something the Church invented , God has not dictated verbatim which sins He judges worse than others; stealing is stealing, killing is killing,  so it isn't as if I just had a half thought and tossed it out there. The Ten Commandments are black and white. Just because humanity invented this idea of mortal and venial sins doesn't mean humanity is right.  So to say well yes we can dissect homosexuality and determine which is obviously and self-evidently worse with in that realm of acceptance isn't possible. Humanity doesn't judge the way God does. And creating mortal and venial sins is just to justify our own actions and create the ability to say well if we do this, then God will forgive us if we do that. Christ never said only worry about repenting of certain sins, because some are obviously and self-evidently worse than others. Also that doesn't mean we need to be scrupulous or have anxiety over our sins either because Christ already died for and broke those barriers. Check that. I stayed on topic and spoon fed an answer to a singular observation of a larger point.

Also; I could honestly careless if  there was solid proof that half of the Church's Priests and Bishops are homosexual, I would merely find it sad that it took someone else to bring it to light and to try and spin that as being some major gotcha stab in the face of the Church, when the Church could have easily of made this issue clear instead of treating homosexuality and having homosexual clergy as some kind of taboo disease.

Edited January 17, 2016 by superblue