Seminarians with same-sex attractions

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 15 2005, 05:56 PM']Three words: floopy YOU ALL.
[right][snapback]724705[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
floopy is a funny word!

My priest tells me that at his seminary, there was a room in the basement with all sorts of wonderful leather apparatus and fun posters! They called that seminary a "pink palace" which may sound slightly derogatory...but oh well.

I think it's shameful that this sort of thing is allowed to occur. Think how many orthodox young men turn away from the priesthood in revulsion at a display like that. Yes, the Church still doesn't approve of that sort of thing, and revulsion is the correct word to use.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 15 2005, 06:41 PM']floopy is a funny word!
[right][snapback]724768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Gotta love the curse word screening system.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 15 2005, 11:54 AM']You are correct, however that problem is not easily identified.  You should also be able to see what I point to as the problem resulting from a judgment like this.

Person feels a vocation to celibacy because  he does not wish to have sex constantly like many other boys his age.  However, when everybody starts to notice this, he gets called gay, etc.  This becomes a part of his sexual self-image, which then implants itself on his private sins (masturbation, lust, etc.).  However that call to celibacy remains.  As he is preparing to enter seminary, a judgment like  this is raised.  All of the sudden his whole life has no point.  Where should he go? What should he do? The confusion results in questions like, "Why am I Catholic when the Church doesn't understand me?"  "If the Church can get this wrong, how can it be right?" "Why did I spend so much time believing that God had prepared me to be a priest?"

Confusion, frustration, anxiety, secrecy, all these antagonize disorders like homosexuality, as opposed to confidence, righteousness, sensitivity (not the false sensitivity that many modern seminaries harbor towards openly gay and liberal seminarians), which in general help the problem.

If the Vatican adopts an absolute no priests who have/or have had SSA policy, the confusion will also result in less people being able to conclude a call to the celibate priesthood, as oftentimes a call to celibacy comes from a desire to leave everything sexual behind.  Suddenly they are expected to be attracted to women, which they have been fighting off for as long as they have perceived the call.  Satan will assail those who are leaving him behind.
[right][snapback]724351[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While it's not clear exactly what point you are trying to make with this post, I beleive what you are saying is indeed very relevant to the issue.

Seminaries and the priesthood should not be a refuge for those suffering from various sexual identity issues and homosexuality.
Celibacy should not be in itself the primary reason for interest in the priesthood ("I'm not interested in girls, so I'll become a priest"), but rather a sacrifice willingly made for the sake of one's vocation ("The priesthood is such a holy and noble calling that I am willing to sacrifice sexual relations and family for it.")

Too many seminaries have become refuges for the limp-wristed and sexually confused, and this creates huge problems in the Church.
In these troubled times especially, we need strong, manly priests who are men and can act as spiritual leaders of men, men who can truly be addressed as "Father."
When priests and seminarians are flamboyant or effeminate, what what impact do you think this will have for straight men in the Church? Will this draw normal boys and men to the priesthood? Or do we want the priesthood to be seen as a "gay profession" and religion as "sissy"?

Think about it, people.

Edited September 16, 2005 by Socrates

[jiyoung]

I have to say that I'd make a distinction between someone who is gay (as in, accepts the lifestyle and practices it) and someone who struggles with SSA. If SSA truly is a tendency towards sin like any other, then it's possible to be cured of it. The sin is in the act, right? What of someone who struggles with SSA and is chaste? I know a guy who is a postulant in a community--he struggles (struggled?) with SSA but knew that nothing, NOTHING, was more important than his soul, and would not let himself be trapped in that lifestyle. I think you really have to figure out if it's a sin someone's fighting off, or if someone thinks it's just "the way God made me."

[Anomaly]

jiyoung,
Yeppers, the attitude of tolerance and constant second guessing is what has allowed the American Catholic Church to get into the situation it's in.
In order to be 'tolerant' to the problems of 1 man with a sexual DISORDER, it's let that person be placed in a situation, pre-disposed to sexual maladies, molest another person, thus affecting the spirituality of dozens, (or thousands when the crime becomes public) of persons.

It's for the greater good of the Church to say NO to men with any sort of sexual malady, whether its 'stuggles' with SSA, 'stuggles' with OSA, stuggles with sexual identity.

I give no weight to the 'admonishments' of some simpering, lisping, effeminate 'man', nor do I give weight to the 'admonishments' of some 'oggling', 'overly manicured', 'metro-sexual' 'man' who displays his sexuality.

If you aren't emotionally and psychologically balanced, you aren't really called to counsel or guide others. There are lots of ways to serve God without being a priest. (BTW, that goes for the 'women' who just got 'ordained' at the Mary Magdalene Apostle Church.)

[jiyoung]

Yes, that's true. My point, though, is that the order, or seminary, should be discerning right along with the candidate--not all people are alike. Unfortunately the attitude up till lately was just to let in any gay man (and again I'm making that distinction between gay and struggling with SSA). It's possible to be cured from a sin, which is all SSA is--a tendency towards a sin, just as another seminarian might have a tendency towards masturbation, fornication, pornography, etc.

I think the problem lay with the attitude that priesthood could be a refuge for gay men, and the fact that some seminaries embraced that. That's why all of those "pink palaces" cropped up, isn't it? But I would say that it should be a rare exception, when the man is an exceptional case of virtue despite his tendency towards SSA.

[Anomaly]

It's the rare occaision that a priest is a molestor.
It's not a rare occasion that a priest that molests causes significant and tremendous harm.
What's the harm in erring on the side of the potential victims when evaluating priests candidates?
Which is worse? Having 4 parishes share a priest, or having 1 of the priests in 4 parishes molest an adolescent?

[Eutychus]

[size=5][center][color="#FF0000"][b]STOP

THINK

IS THIS A NEW PROBLEM??[/b][/color][/center]
[/size]
NO.

Back in the earliest days of the church era, most were coming in from a Greek culture. In that culture homosexuality and pederastry was considered "normal" in many circumstances...JUST LIKE TODAY.

So, that church KNEW, they had to deal with men who were outright q-ueer, semi q-ueer, bordline q-ueer, and off and on q-ueer.

It was something that was as REAL then, as it is for us today. They SOLVED it with prayer and divine inspiration. So, what does the Catholic Church do in practice? Make Paul a SAINT, then immediately STOP doing what he taught under divine inspiration.

Shall we reveiw the SOLUTION to the problem of horney qwerty altar boy grabbing prelates?

OK, here goes...

[quote]1 Timothy 3:1 (KJV) This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop { then a bishop headed up ONE local church, essentially he was a pastor/preacher/leader }, he desireth a good work.

2[size=3] [color="#990000"][b]A bishop then must be blameless,[u] the husband of one wife, [/u]vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 [u]One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;[/u]

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)[/color][/size]

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8 Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.[/b]

10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being [found] blameless.[/quote]

So, if you want the RIGHT MEN leading your so called church, you toss out those who are UNMARRIED, without children, and MOST of the problems with homosexual little boy loving pederastic priests will cease.

But NO....NO....anything BUT the DIVINE WISDOM that Saint Paul gave you.

The Traditions of CORRUPTED POPES override the word of God every time in the Catholic Church.

AMEN.

[avemaria40]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1044880' date='Aug 16 2006, 07:48 PM']
[size=5][center][color="#FF0000"][b]STOP

THINK

IS THIS A NEW PROBLEM??[/b][/color][/center]
[/size]
NO.

Back in the earliest days of the church era, most were coming in from a Greek culture. In that culture homosexuality and pederastry was considered "normal" in many circumstances...JUST LIKE TODAY.

So, that church KNEW, they had to deal with men who were outright q-ueer, semi q-ueer, bordline q-ueer, and off and on q-ueer.

It was something that was as REAL then, as it is for us today. They SOLVED it with prayer and divine inspiration. So, what does the Catholic Church do in practice? Make Paul a SAINT, then immediately STOP doing what he taught under divine inspiration.

Shall we reveiw the SOLUTION to the problem of horney qwerty altar boy grabbing prelates?

OK, here goes...
So, if you want the RIGHT MEN leading your so called church, you toss out those who are UNMARRIED, without children, and MOST of the problems with homosexual little boy loving pederastic priests will cease.

But NO....NO....anything BUT the DIVINE WISDOM that Saint Paul gave you.

The Traditions of CORRUPTED POPES override the word of God every time in the Catholic Church.

AMEN.
[/quote]

Except the verse was saying he couldn't be a polygamist and if he had children, that they were to be in subjection to them. Paul also taught celibacy "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

"...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can" Matthew 19:12

By the way, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have married priests. Celibacy is not dogma, it is custom. If we are to get the right men leading the church, we have to re-vamp our CCD programs, emphasize the importance of the Church, and go against what MTV tells us to do. Celibacy isn't tossed out because it's too hard, it's because our current culture is sex-saturated and perverted.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

2 "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.
[/quote]

You, like so many other Protestants, misinterpret the book the Holy Ghost and the Church gave to you.

[Eutychus]

[quote] You, like so many other Protestants, misinterpret the book the Holy Ghost and the Church gave to you.[/quote]

Apparently so did YOUR early church then.

For, as history shows 39 of the early so called "Popes" { title is really only seen after 600AD } were married themselves.

Did they teach you THAT in your RCIA or CCD classes? If not, why not?

Yes, Paul did list EXCEPTIONS to NORMAL RULE that clergy should be happily married. That is what they were, distinct exceptions, not the norms that he expressed in his doctrinal instructional teachings on general church governence to Timothy, one of his clear protoge's and being trained to run a church.

Look, it should be glaringly obvious, that single unmarried priests are just trouble waiting to happen. History over and over has proven that, and if a BILLION dollars plus in settlements hasn't taught you that Paul was indeed correct, then perhaps another few billion MORE will.

The endless "proofs" of the corruption in the clergy all go back to one source, failure to follow the rulebook provided by Paul.

[url="http://www.riteofsodomy.com/"]http://www.riteofsodomy.com/[/url]

****************************************************

Perhaps my favorite Catholic author now is Matt Abbott of Renew America a conservative group, heavily Catholic, who comment on matters affecting this nation, and the Catholic Church in particular when needed.


[url="http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060812"]http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060812[/url]

Matt is a very courageous man, tackles the "hard ones" constantly, and normally is dead on. His comments on this problem should REALLY open some eyes, and jumpstart some brains...if that were possible. Here he reprints an article submitted by a knowledgable laywoman, who obviously has a better grasp of the problem than does the USCCB.

[quote]Recognizing sexual predators?

Matt C. Abbott

August 12, 2006


The following is a slightly edited reprint from the summer 2006 newsletter of Catholic Citizens of Illinois.


Recognizing Sexual Predators or Disinformation?

By Mary Kelly Ames

About two and a half years ago, I had taken a series of chastity initiative training classes given by Mary Louise Kurey of the Chicago archdiocese's Respect Life Office. I was told that as a volunteer, I was required to take a training seminar at the Catholic Charities building on recognizing sexual predators against children. I understood that everyone who was either a volunteer or employee of the Chicago archdiocese was required to undergo this class due to the recent sex abuse scandal. I had some doubts about the necessity of the course, but understood that it was required, so I signed up for the class.

About 300-350 people attended the class. A male speaker from the East Coast explained to us that he was part of a consulting group which had been hired by the USCCB. He said that the bishops had voted unanimously to hire them as a solution to what had happened. I was surprised as I immediately thought that any 'solution' should begin in the seminaries and that each diocese most likely had their own unique problems and personal issues. Why hire one consulting group for every diocese in the United States?

Within about ten minutes after the class had begun, I noticed the speaker was only discussing predators that specifically target pre-pubescent children such as toddlers or children under ten. He was very specific in talking about their psychological makeup and explained to us how we must be vigilant in looking out for the Cub Scout leader or the adult who always enjoyed taking groups of children to the skating rink or the swimming pool.

While I had no doubt that these types of predators were indeed dangerous and agreed with everything he said about them, I kept wondering when the topic of homosexual priests would arise. The John Jay Criminal Justice statistics had already come out publicly stating that 81% of all abuse victims were teenaged boys aged 13-18 who were abused by homosexually active priests. Should we not be trained to watch for these types of potential abuse situations?

His talk was followed by a question and answer session. I immediately raised my hand and was asked to stand. I politely complimented him on his talk and said that while all of the information presented was very important, why were we not talking about the homosexual priests who had committed the vast majority of these abuse crimes? We were only being trained to watch out for very young children, not teenagers, especially teenaged boys. The speaker immediately looked at me very sternly and asked me 'Are you a conservative?'
[color="#003333"][u][b]
I laughed and said that yes, in fact I am, but what did that have to do with my question? He then proceeded to admonish me in front of everyone in the entire room and told me that I must not generalize or blame the homosexuals for this problem. To show I was not trying to discriminate, I quoted Pope John Paul II's pastoral letter about treating them with dignity and stated what I knew about the statistics that had come out. He then silenced me and never answered my question. I realized at that time that[u] we were being grossly misled and would never be taught the truth.[/u][/b][/u][/color]

About a month after the incident, Cardinal George was kind enough to meet with me, and I reported to him everything that happened. He said that he had attended a different class (there were several) with the same speaker and did not like him either. He also apologized for what happened to me. [color="#006600"][b] I told him that thousands of his employees and volunteers were being misinformed and should not have to go through such a terrible and deliberately misleading training for the most severe problem in our church today? I[u]t was almost as if we were being trained on purpose to ignore homosexual priests who could easily abuse [/u]and are known to prey on teenage boys. [/b][/color]

The cardinal was very generous to me with his time, and I have great respect for him, but I still find it difficult to understand why he felt he had to follow the directives of the USCCB regarding this scandal when their proposal of hiring a national speaker was so obviously not a solution to the problem of sexual abuse. These classes continue to be required for all volunteers and employees of the archdiocese. The purposeful disinformation provided in these classes appears to be just another cover-up from the USCCB.

Mary Kelly Ames, secretary of Catholic Citizens of Illinois, is a member of St. Mary of the Angels Parish and is active in the parish's young adult ministry.[/quote]

Edited August 17, 2006 by Eutychus

[avemaria40]

Yeah, we know early Popes were married. Celibacy is NOT a doctrine, it is custom. As I mentioned earlier, Eastern Rite Catholics still practice the tradition of married priests. But marriage is not going to stop pedophilia anymore than contraception is going to stop abortion. Celibacy happens to be more practical anyway, have you seen how huge Catholic parishes are? Not to mention the salary a priest makes? There would not be enough time or money to raise a family. The Church is trying to STOP pedophilia by making sure the priests have a healthy understanding of sexuality (hence, no same-sex attractions or any other abnormal attractions) But marriage is not going to cure this problem.

[Eutychus]

[quote]Yeah, we know early Popes were married. Celibacy is NOT a doctrine, it is custom. [/quote]

A custom?

Come on, that makes it sound optional. IT IS A DOGMA, or it is treated as if it were one. Try getting married as a priest. Unless you marry a Moonie, and are a Cardinal { Milingo} you will be out on the street in a nuns lunchbreak.

In fact, there is NOTHING that the papacy cracks down harder on than that. You can sacrifice animals at mass { the Bishops of South Africa } you can practice Voodoo and be a priest. You can worship at Hindu shrines as a priest. You can do ANYTHING as a priest and stay a priest....BUT....make your consort an honest woman.

THAT, is the ONLY sin the church will act on within seven days, EVERY TIME.

Now, even REAL PROCLAIMED DOGMA's don't get that sort of reaction when you break them, now do they?

Smooch.

[Resurrexi]

I agree that there are certain bishops that aren't doing their job to stop heresy and false oecumenism, but that doesn't make the Catholic Church evil. In the Eastern Rites, priests can marry. You shouldn't be so one sided as to forget the Eastern Rites.

[Guest Bro Wood]

The seminarian applicant needs to [u]know and believe[/u] that homosexuality and homosexual tendancies are intrinsically evil. But that doesn't mean as a person in their own human experience, they are evil or immoral. But these are to be rare occasions when someone is allowed into a seminary, despite their homosexuality.

As the saying goes, [i]if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....it's a duck.[/i]

[Eutychus]

[quote]The seminarian applicant needs to know and believe that homosexuality and homosexual tendancies are intrinsically evil. But that doesn't mean as a person in their own human experience, they are evil or immoral. [/quote]

Has ANYONE here read the bible, even once?

What does GOD say about Homosexuality? What does Paul say about homosexuality?

Doesn't that SETTLE THINGS permanently for anyone here? Do you people even BELIEVE the bible is God's Word even?

Honestly, the longer I'm here, the more I'm convinced that to you, the bible is just a nice coffee table book that is useful when you need to grab ONE VERSE here and there for backup to some condemned practice, using that verse in complete isolation from the historic, and other supporting verses that explain and back it up.

Honestly, really, I really want to know...if you asked GOD, "Hey God, what do you think about homosexuals in church leadership positions...." what would God say?

[avemaria40]

They both say homosexualilty is evil, that doesn't mean the person is evil.

[Eutychus]

[quote]They both say homosexualilty is evil, that doesn't mean the person is evil. [/quote]

I guess God calling them REPROBATES is another nice term and doesn't *really mean* what it seems to mean, right?

1Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [b][u]nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,[/u][/b] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

This verse has been translated in many ways among the 25 English versions of the Bible that we have analyzed. The two activities of interest here have been variously translated as:

bullet effeminate. In the English language, this covers a wide range of male behavior such as being unmanly, lacking virility. One might think of the characters "John," the receptionist on NYPD Blue, or "Jack" on Will and Grace.

bullet homosexuals, variously described as:
[b]
bullet "men who practice homosexuality," (ESV);
bullet "those who participate in homosexuality," (Amplified);
bullet "abusers of themselves with men," (KJV);
bullet "practicing homosexuals," (NAB);
bullet "homosexuals," (NASB, CSB, NKJ, The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English);
bullet "homosexual perversion," (NEB);
bullet "homosexual offenders," (NIV);
bullet "liers with mankind," (Rhiems); and
bullet "homosexual perverts." (TEV)[/b]

[Resurrexi]

Pracitcing, unrepentant homosexuals would be considered evil, but those who are struggling with homosexuality and are begging for forgiveness from God would not be considered evil.

[Aloysius]

Most experts that at the very least married protestant clergy and celibate catholic clergy have about the same rate of pedophilia crimes. there were some statistics floating around the internet awhile ago that protestant minister rates were higher, but this is untrue because there are not reliable statistics in this department.

The problem is that our culture is sick and we get our clergy from our culture. You described it well when you discussed how we got our clergy from greek culture (at this period in history you are referring to, they were often married before they got ordained; but in the pagan greek culture married men committed acts of pedophilia just like in today's pagan american culture) and had to deal with this problem because it came from the outside world. Your clergy come from the same American culture our clergy come from: the same diseased American culture which produces these pedophiles and as such sociologically the rate of protestant clergy (married or not) who abuse children is right alongside the rate of Catholic clergy.

Who says so? Only the experts who work with victims of clergy sexual abuse.

[quote]Gary Schoener, a psychologist whose Walk-In Counseling Center in Minneapolis has consulted with more than 1,000 victims of clerical sexual abuse, believes that the percentage of abusers is no higher among Catholic priests than among Protestant ministers. [/quote]
[i]Alan Cooperman, "Sex abuse in clergy stymies scientists Lack of data thwarts efforts to gauge depth of the problem," Washington Post, 2002-MAR-24, at: [url="http://detnews.com/2002/religion/"]http://detnews.com/2002/religion/[/url][/i]

By the way: The Bible says that all creation is positively good, but that humanity has fallen nature. All tendency towards sin is part of the fallen nature, but no human being can ever be called positively evil (namely because positive evil does not exist, evil is always a negative, a twisting of good, a deficiency of good). If the persons afflicted with homosexuality were not intrinsically good, then homosexuality itself could not be considered evil because what would it harm? It harms the intrinsically good souls of those who partake in the practice.

No human being is evil. Human beings have evil impulses, desires, temptations, afflictions; human beings commit evil actions; but no human being is evil.

Homosexual sins will, however, send you to hell.

Christ's forgiveness can penetrate anyone no matter what sin they have committed.