How Entrenched Is Homosexuality In The Seminaries?

[PhuturePriest]

I have experienced a pretty clear difference in opinion between pools of thought in the church. Nothing that goes against core teaching, but in some smaller things that are more pop culture related such as homosexuality for example.

 

Maybe its just in my area? Not sure. 

 

Interesting thought:

 

When I had that amazing talk with my spiritual director last week and I told him I plan to apply this Fall, he was happy, but he specifically told me to watch out for "propositions" at seminary. He told me that when he was at seminary, he got propositions by fellow seminarians, and even by the monks. One night he said he had to put a chair under the doorknob to keep a monk out of his room. Obviously this doesn't mean every homosexual who is a seminarian will proposition other seminarians, but this rule set by the Church didn't just fall out of the sky. It was set in because a lot of bad things happened with homosexuality in seminaries during the past few decades.

[NotreDame]

Interesting thought:

 

When I had that amazing talk with my spiritual director last week and I told him I plan to apply this Fall, he was happy, but he specifically told me to watch out for "propositions" at seminary. He told me that when he was at seminary, he got propositions by fellow seminarians, and even by the monks. One night he said he had to put a chair under the doorknob to keep a monk out of his room. Obviously this doesn't mean every homosexual who is a seminarian will proposition other seminarians, but this rule set by the Church didn't just fall out of the sky. It was set in because a lot of bad things happened with homosexuality in seminaries during the past few decades.

 

That's horrible.  Even worse when it comes from one's superiors:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bollard_%28Catholic_priest%29

 

http://attrition.org/misc/ee/religion.jesuits

 

Bollard, who entered the seminary in 1988, said the harassment started in mid-1991, when he got a birthday card from priest Drew Sotelo showing a naked man, with suggestive language. Another pornographic card from Father Anton Harris, Bollard's supervisor, read, "Thought this might inspire some theological thoughts," the suit said.

Bollard also said he turned down Harris' invitations to go to gay bars. Thomas Gleeson, then president of the seminary and now the Jesuits' national training director, propositioned him twice and told him that "if we are going to remain friends, we are going to have to deal with sex," Bollard said.

He said his complaints eventually went to Father John Privett, the Provincial or head of the West Coast Jesuits, who gave him a coffee cup inscribed "No Whining," advised him to avoid lawyers and asked him to release the Jesuits from liability.

 

I do think it's gotten better, especially judging from the testimonies from young current seminarians here on this and other threads. 
 

[Lilllabettt]

This is quite a serious statement about some else's beliefs. Do you remember what thread that post is in?

 

I would encourage all interested parties to read and come to your own conclusion about the integrity of the claim that CrossCut has never "directly expressed opposition to the churches teaching on homosexuality." Later in the quoted thread I invited her to deny any wrong conclusions I may be coming to about her relationship to Church teaching. She chose not to. But enough from me, I'll let y'all read for yourselves.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133211-what-you-dont-know-can-hurt-you/page-5

 

 

I really dont think the Catholic church is equipped to handle their gay members as of yet. Their methods as of right now are resist, resist, resist.

 

 

***Me: Resist what?

 

Resist their homosexual feelings and thoughts, not to act on them etc.

 

Me: Are you suggesting a more comprehensive approach?

 

Cross Cut:

 

I have no idea. I guess I would love to see us all restart our mentality...think about why homosexuality is wrong and how that influences our actions [...] Iwould love to see us all start from square one and maybe we CAN find a place for homosexual relationships in God's love.

 

 

Me:

so what you are saying is the Church should ... change its teaching on the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships.

being careful not to take out my jump to conclusions mat.

 

Relax. Those are just my thoughts. Obviously Im a minority in my thinking so you dont have to worry about any of that actually happening.

 

Aloyisus:

think crosscut may be trying to suggest non-sexual same sex relationships based on those romantic attractions.

 

Me:  is that what crosscut is suggesting, crosscut? or the other.

 

Im open to every possibility.

 

 

 

**had to cut down on # of quote boxes to post.

[CrossCuT]

Interesting thought:

When I had that amazing talk with my spiritual director last week and I told him I plan to apply this Fall, he was happy, but he specifically told me to watch out for "propositions" at seminary. He told me that when he was at seminary, he got propositions by fellow seminarians, and even by the monks. One night he said he had to put a chair under the doorknob to keep a monk out of his room. Obviously this doesn't mean every homosexual who is a seminarian will proposition other seminarians, but this rule set by the Church didn't just fall out of the sky. It was set in because a lot of bad things happened with homosexuality in seminaries during the past few decades.

The is really awful but that has more to do with the fact those people were pervs than the fact they were homosexual.

Being a perv is not a trait of homosexuality however, unfortunatly, people tend to think it is.

Its like, for example, someone in a blue car cut you off and expressed road rage. Then you conclude that all people who drive blue cars have road rage. Not the case. Its notnhe xolor of the car that causes road rage, its the persons temperment.

Maybe thats a lame example but do you see what im saying?

[CrossCuT]

I would encourage all interested parties to read and come to your own conclusion about the integrity of the claim that CrossCut has never "directly expressed opposition to the churches teaching on homosexuality." Later in the quoted thread I invited her to deny any wrong conclusions I may be coming to about her relationship to Church teaching. She chose not to. But enough from me, I'll let y'all read for yourselves.

 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/133211-what-you-dont-know-can-hurt-you/page-5

 

 

 

***Me: Resist what?

 

 

Me: Are you suggesting a more comprehensive approach?

 

 

Me:

so what you are saying is the Church should ... change its teaching on the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships.

being careful not to take out my jump to conclusions mat.

 

 

Aloyisus:

think crosscut may be trying to suggest non-sexual same sex relationships based on those romantic attractions.

 

Me:  is that what crosscut is suggesting, crosscut? or the other.

 

 

 

 

**had to cut down on # of quote boxes to post.

 

 

Look, its pretty clear that you have no interest in discussing the topic of the thread and instead youd rather put the sincerity of my faith up for debate among anyone who decides to judge me, but if you have a genuine interest in my spiritual life or the level at which I hold my faith, please feel free to PM me your concerns.

 

If however you are only interested in judging me to prove a point and to dismiss my opinion on the subject then I do not care to participate. Unfortunately a lot of Catholics are plagued with a similar condition in which they are more concerned with judging people than discussing.

[PhuturePriest]

The is really awful but that has more to do with the fact those people were pervs than the fact they were homosexual.

Being a perv is not a trait of homosexuality however, unfortunatly, people tend to think it is.

Its like, for example, someone in a blue car cut you off and expressed road rage. Then you conclude that all people who drive blue cars have road rage. Not the case. Its notnhe xolor of the car that causes road rage, its the persons temperment.

Maybe thats a lame example but do you see what im saying?

 

I understand what you're saying. But if there's a really big issue with a particular group when it comes to celibacy, would you not then begin to make very specific rules about people in that group entering? Again, people with SSA are not disallowed to enter the seminary; there are simply very strict rules about allowing them in.

[Lilllabettt]

well to be fair CrossCut, you are the person who introduced your fidelity to Church teaching as an element in the discussion.

 

I am a faithful Catholic and I love the church, however I think there is a lot of error in the treatment and decisions behind handling those with SSA in the church.

 

 

It's likely that your thinking that there is "a lot of error in the treatment and decisions behind handling those with SSA" where priesthood is concerned stems in important ways from your lack of faith in the infallible teaching of the Church where the morality of homosexual acts is concerned.

 

Likewise, people who think the Church's teaching on women's ordination can change will naturally tend to think that the Church's current policies represent shoddy treatment of women.

 

So ...you have a credibility problem when discussing your position with Catholics who are faithful to the Church's teaching.

Your position is not improved when you are disingenuous about where you are coming from.

 

Edited March 28, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[LaPetiteSoeur]

I understand what you're saying. But if there's a really big issue with a particular group when it comes to celibacy, would you not then begin to make very specific rules about people in that group entering? Again, people with SSA are not disallowed to enter the seminary; there are simply very strict rules about allowing them in.

 

There are more and more studies about the promiscuity of gay men, which I think is what you are alluding to ( but please correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, because of the AIDS crisis and the gradual acceptance of the LGBT community, gay men are less likely to be promiscuous, and some studies have even shown that straight men and gay men are promiscuous to the same degree (note that I don't agree with the way that these studies got their information, it's all internet driven, but RECESSION! cut in funding for research! nightmare for social scientists!)

[CrossCuT]

I understand what you're saying. But if there's a really big issue with a particular group when it comes to celibacy, would you not then begin to make very specific rules about people in that group entering? Again, people with SSA are not disallowed to enter the seminary; there are simply very strict rules about allowing them in.

How about instead of generalizing and enacting bigoted ideals based on whatever you think the majority of homosexuals do, how about we instead extend them a hand of Christian love and judge each individually on their own merit? Is that a good idea to you?

 

It's likely that your thinking that there is "a lot of error in the treatment and decisions behind handling those with SSA" where priesthood is concerned stems in important ways from your lack of faith in the infallible teaching of the Church where the morality of homosexual acts is concerned.

Orly? I dont agree with the church's stance on the morality of homosexual acts? Please tell me other things I dont actually believe.

 

 

Homie, if you got back and read the posts Ive made in this thread  more clearly, youll see that I have very specifically mentioned the entrance of homosexuals that are celibate and faithful to the Catholic church. Does that translate to something else for you?

 

Nothing you quoted form past conversations states that I think the things are you accusing me of.

 

The things I was suggesting on those posts was for people to take a new approach to the subject because as of right now, everyone apparently things that homosexuals are promiscuous pigs who are all lumped into the same category. Do you guys even know any homosexuals? Im pretty sure that there are tons and tons that dont make the news for creeping into peoples bedrooms and night trying to steal their innocence. 

 

That is the mentality restart I am referring to. We need to stop with the judgment and the marginalization of minority groups. We need to start letting our actions be infucenced by christian love not christian hate and judgment.

 

And when I said I was open to any possibility, I should have been more clear that it simply refers to intelligent dialogue between people who treat each other decently. I find it really sad and small minded that the simply act of being open to discussion even if one does not choose to take on a new idea is treated as though they are of fallen faith and a lost cause.

 

That is the main problem in society...this attitude. I pray Lilllabettt that whatever personal demons you have, that you can overcome them and be at peace with yourself and others.

 

The last few posts by people on this thread is a PERFECT summary of why the secular world thinks we are bigoted, hateful, bible thumbing jerks. I mean listen to us. We are making HORRIBLE generalizations and applying it to an entire group of people, using our faith to discriminate in certain states, and then we are treating those who want dialgue as if they are the mud of the earth. Where is the christian spirit? Is there ANYONE on PM who will actually have a decent human discussion with me about this? Like I am sooooo ashamed of this website with the people that represent it. 

 

A person cant even come on here and even whisper a PEEP of a potentially "radical" view without being handed the 3rd degree. Good lord.

What Im saying isnt even that radical.

 

 

Im not asking for active homosexuals to become prreists so that they can rape everyone.

Im literally asking, imploring, SOMEONE to give me a reason why a CELIBATE, FAITHFUL homosexual cannot be a priest. I am not condoning homosexual acts. Im not condoning rape. I am not condoning a break from the church.

 

 

ffs

[PhuturePriest]

How about instead of generalizing and enacting bigoted ideals based on whatever you think the majority of homosexuals do, how about we instead extend them a hand of Christian love and judge each individually on their own merit? Is that a good idea to you?

 

I'll say this one last time out of charity:

 

Homosexuals have not been disallowed to enter the seminary.

 

I have said this many times. Others have said this. I don't see why you can't wrap your head around this.

[CrossCuT]

I believe PadrePioofPietrelcino answered this earlier in the thread, though I may be wrong. He said a man who has a sexual disorder is not supposed to be ordained.

 

 

I'll say this one last time out of charity:

 

Homosexuals have not been disallowed to enter the seminary.

 

I have said this many times. Others have said this. I don't see why you can't wrap your head around this.

 

Explain the disparity between your earlier post. What was the point of posting that? To inform me of PP opinion? Are you disagreeing with him then?

 

Edited March 29, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Fidei Defensor]

But, to be fair, the issue of active homosexuals in the priesthood is not a small issue.  The issue of men struggling with SSA in the seminary being preyed on by these active homosexuals is also not a small issue.  Yet, these are the issues the church is trying to combat with it's policies. 

 

If these scandals aren't things that readers are familiar with, I'd suggest the following (caution: graphic information in this article):

 

http://gawker.com/5825254/the-catholic-churchs-secret-gay-cabal

 

Stuff like this ^^^ isn't - or at least wasn't isolated in the past.  There's a lot that's public.  Stuff like Archbishop Weakland and the diocese having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to his ex-lover - and the public stuff is probably just the tip of the iceberg.  

 

I'm not going to post a ton on it, but there's a lot out there if you want to research it.  I'm also not going to explain all the ways this hurt the Church, because if you can't figure that out on your own then me explaining it isn't going to help. 

I didn't mean to trivialize it. But there are many more important things than the sexuality of celibate men.

[PhuturePriest]

Explain the disparity between your earlier post. What was the point of posting that? To inform me of PP opinion? Are you disagreeing with him then?

 

The Church said those with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are not to be ordained. That is incredibly vague for a reason. It's done on a case-by-case basis, as you are advocating. I don't see how we're debating about this.

[CrossCuT]

The Church said those with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" are not to be ordained. That is incredibly vague for a reason. It's done on a case-by-case basis, as you are advocating. I don't see how we're debating about this.

 

Oh! Well cool beans!  :hehe2:

[Isidore_of_Seville]

¹nat·u·ral

 adjective \ˈna-chÉ™-rÉ™l, Ëˆnach-rÉ™l\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial

: usual or expected

 

Homosexuality is completely natural by definition. It should go without saying, but knowing this crowd I think I should say it anyway; if your definition of the word 'natural' does not match the definition above, then you are using the word incorrectly. Homosexual behavior has been directly observed in many many many animals of all classes:

 

List of Animals that have displayed homosexual behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 

Informational video on the study and observation of homosexuality in nature and it's history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZfIeFDZtWE

 

Alright, now that that's out of the way I have another point I'd like to make, and that is that A PERSONS PROMISCUITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. If you think that that's not true, just take a look at the abortion numbers around the world. Those aren't homosexuals having all those unintended pregnancies, ya know.

 

In summary, homosexuality is not a disorder, it's a sexual orientation. Just like being black isn't a disease, it's a race. Being a homosexual has never stopped anyone from doing anything good and has never caused anyone to do anything bad. Lust exists in all of us, we are all sinners. Gay lust is no different than straight lust.

 

I wonder who Jesus would want to keep out of the church. I wonder who Jesus would not want preaching his good word. My guess is nobody, and that's why homosexuals have not been disallowed to enter the seminary, and hopefully they never will be.

 

Lilllabett, I don't want to preach to you but I think you sound really angry at something and I hope that just knowing that there are people out there who really want to spread the good word or Jesus to others, despite the church's position on their sexual orientation, is a pretty incredible display of the power and love of God. Knowledge = Truth = God. Always search for God in everything.