FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: James Martin SJ Wants More Homosexuals in the Priesthood: Another Weird Article
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
It's not that you feel that so-and-so has so much to offer, it's that homosexuals are forbidden from being ordained.  Father Martin's own disinformation about there not being a link between homosexuality and pederasty (which he misnames pedophilia) completely misses the fact that over 80% of the victims of priests were post-pubescent males.  Father Martin ignores Church law as well and publicly disagrees with the Church's teaching.

The real question is why is this man still in the Jesuits? In America Magazine on May 31st, where he's the editor, replacing someone else who questioned Church teaching too much, he commented on the New York Times article about the same subject.

Perhaps he's sad that one Jesuit Scholastic is no longer with the Oregon Province? of course, Father Martin's apologia for sodomy was well addressed by Father Eutener. Now we hope someone else steps in and invites Father Martin to find employment with someone whose core philosophy doesn't contradict his own misconceptions and errors.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010...xuals.html
(06-04-2010, 03:09 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]It's not that you feel that so-and-so has so much to offer, it's that homosexuals are forbidden from being ordained.  Father Martin's own disinformation about there not being a link between homosexuality and pederasty (which he misnames pedophilia) completely misses the fact that over 80% of the victims of priests were post-pubescent males.  Father Martin ignores Church law as well and publicly disagrees with the Church's teaching.

I agree with you but just a correction, most of the victims are between the ages of 11-15. That's not "post pubescent" as puberty doesn't end till about 16 or 17 for most males. The correct term is, as you stated, pederasty. So Father Martin is indeed correct in asserting that those involved in the sexual abuse of children aren't your garden variety homosexual.
(06-04-2010, 03:23 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-04-2010, 03:09 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: [ -> ]It's not that you feel that so-and-so has so much to offer, it's that homosexuals are forbidden from being ordained.  Father Martin's own disinformation about there not being a link between homosexuality and pederasty (which he misnames pedophilia) completely misses the fact that over 80% of the victims of priests were post-pubescent males.  Father Martin ignores Church law as well and publicly disagrees with the Church's teaching.

I agree with you but just a correction, most of the victims are between the ages of 11-15. That's not "post pubescent" as puberty doesn't end till about 16 or 17 for most males. The correct term is, as you stated, pederasty.

Thanks for correction. 
Well,The problem we have is that the priest doesn't know how to keep it in his pants.They took a vow of chastity,be it a man who suffers from SSA (Same Sex Attract) or OSA (Opposite sex attraction) it is about keeping it in their pants.They don't hold to their vows.Gay or not Gay.

Open(As in Active) Homosexuality is WRONG,but we must remember as in Humanity,there are a few good chaste Homosexuals.It is a cross they carry as I heard,and it isn't right to alienate their problem but to help them overcome it

Some Gays SHOULD go to the priesthood if they have the proper will-power.I mean,They can't get married so why not allow them to use their cross for the crucified?
I think the Church has been rather clear that a man with strong homosexual tendencies are no eligible for the Priesthood, I am not sure what is so ambiguous about that.

I think that this is one of those cases in which an argument is put forth that from the outside sounds reasonable and wise council and yet at its core in its true nature is nothing but a lie and the way of deceit.

I would also love to point out that the finding of the USCCB when they published their results was like this, they had found that 70% of the cases of sexual abuse happened between male priests and boys and in the same paragraph they point out that they could not find any link that would tie to homosexual behavior? That to me is ridiculous.

If Father Martin finds it so difficult to see so many homosexuals leave seminary, then I would recommend to him to join a church that is better suited to his conscience, that of course being the church of tudor. I hear they even let them marry each other, how precious.
[quote='Unum Sint' pid='572546' dateline='1275653613']
I think the Church has been rather clear that a man with strong homosexual tendencies are no eligible for the Priesthood, I am not sure what is so ambiguous about that.
[quote]

BUT what constitutes as a "Strong Homosexual Tendency" if the person stays chaste and keeps the mentality thereof.

It is when they give in that they fall
if they are chaste,many could be a wall
and they could be rolemodels,can't they?
(06-04-2010, 03:23 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you but just a correction, most of the victims are between the ages of 11-15. That's not "post pubescent" as puberty doesn't end till about 16 or 17 for most males. The correct term is, as you stated, pederasty. So Father Martin is indeed correct in asserting that those involved in the sexual abuse of children aren't your garden variety homosexual.

If you assume that "garden variety homosexuals" aren't attracted to boys under 16, yes.  But I don't know if you can make that assumption.  Would it be correct to say that garden variety heterosexual men would not be attracted to 15-year-old girls if there were no cultural taboos against it?  I think history proves otherwise.  Once females start showing signs of fertility, males get interested, biologically speaking.

If you spend 15 minutes looking at homosexual publications, you'll soon notice their advertising caters to two major groups: men who like "bears" -- big hairy guys -- and men who like their partners very young-looking.  I was writing a blog post one time about "as seen on TV" products, and looking them up online to see what people who actually bought them said.  One was a hair removal cream that was supposed to be painless and nearly permanent.  According to reports, it was neither, but the disturbing thing was that over 90% of the discussion I found about it was on homosexual forums.  The general attitude was, "I got this so I could be as hairless as possible for my boyfriend, and I got second-degree burns."

I'm not saying most homosexuals are trolling middle schools, of course.  But it would be naive to think that a man who has sex with a 14-year-old is in some sort of special category of mental illness, completely unrelated to "normal" men who are attracted to 18-year-olds of that sex, whether the same or opposite. 
(06-04-2010, 08:35 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]BUT what constitutes as a "Strong Homosexual Tendency" if the person stays chaste and keeps the mentality thereof.

It is when they give in that they fall
if they are chaste,many could be a wall
and they could be rolemodels,can't they?

Strong homosexual inclinations would basically mean that if the guy is strongly attracted to men and this doesn't look like it could change. Sometime's teenagers experience same sex attraction for a time but then get over it. Sometime's people who have been in long term homosexual relationships get married (actual marriage). Sometime's divorced women enter lesbian relationships. Sexuality is a very confusing thing ever since original sin screwed everything up.
(06-04-2010, 07:45 AM)St.Ambrose Wrote: [ -> ]Some Gays SHOULD go to the priesthood if they have the proper will-power.I mean,They can't get married so why not allow them to use their cross for the crucified?

That's what I used to think, until it was revealed that three priests at the seminary I attended did not have the proper will power and had molested boys over the years.  That's when I realized that some particular crosses don't mesh well with particular careers or vocations.  You wouldn't send a guy with a gambling problem to run a casino, and you shouldn't send a guy with homosexual tendencies to live with a bunch of men for several years.  It's just asking too much of him.

It's also asking too much of the other seminarians.  We shared dormitories and locker rooms, so we counted on the school to make sure that was a safe environment.  We wouldn't have been comfortable if a girl had come walking through now and then either.  It's not that we thought it impossible for another student to have homosexual thoughts; we were told most boys go through some sexual confusion, and there were a couple I suspected.  But because there was a rule against it -- and one boy who did make a pass at another was expelled by the next morning -- we knew they'd have to keep it to themselves.  Take away that rule, and you make that a very uncomfortable environment.

Once a man is ordained, he's probably going to live in community with other men, or be in a parish where he works closely with young men who serve at the altar.  Those simply aren't good places for a man who's struggling with homosexual tendencies to be.
(removed my comments).
Pages: 1 2