FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: "Priest" defending homosexuals on ABC ???
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
is this "priest", who goes by the name "father Edward Beck", gayHuh? Take a look at this video of him defending homosexuals,,,

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=10388669
I would guess that he is, but what bothers me most is, if he's really a priest, what is he doing on television denigrating a prince of the Church? He needs to be slapped down immediately (which, of course, will never happen).
(05-02-2012, 02:55 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote: [ -> ]He needs to be slapped down immediately (which, of course, will never happen).

I agree with you. If you listen to Father Beck's video, then he clearly makes the case for sexual deviants to be screened out. The problem is that he makes it clear that being a homosexual in and of itself is not sexual deviancy. Instead, he only considers the pedophiles to be sexual deviants. In Catholicism, both the mentality of pedophilia and mentality of homosexuality are deviant mindsets. Even if a homosexual says they'll take a vow of celibacy to join the Priesthood, then such a person should not be allowed to join since their mindset is deviant in that they still lust after the same sex. The Bible says that Godly men should be chosen for authoritative and teaching positions within the Church. Therefore, Priests should be chosen from Godly men who are of good character and without any homosexual reprobate inclination.
I think it's pretty clear that significant numbers of men who simply aren't interested in women have become priests because celibacy gives them an excuse not to marry. 

I don't feel that loosening the celibacy requirement for secular priests would necessarily be a bad thing. The stipulation that priests be unmarried is not part of divine law, nor would it be unprecedented to change the rule. Married men--primarily in the Eastern churches but sometimes even in the Latin church--have been legally ordained to the presbyterate. I don't see why the pope shouldn't allow already married men to be ordained more frequently in the Latin church.
(05-02-2012, 06:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty clear that significant numbers of men who simply aren't interested in women have become priests because celibacy gives them an excuse not to marry. 

I don't feel that loosening the celibacy requirement for secular priests would necessarily be a bad thing. The stipulation that priests be unmarried is not part of divine law, nor would it be unprecedented to change the rule. Married men--primarily in the Eastern churches but sometimes even in the Latin church--have been legally ordained to the presbyterate. I don't see why the pope shouldn't allow already married men to be ordained more frequently in the Latin church.

Not now, though.  I agree, but now would be the worst time for the Church to start loosening up it's celibacy laws.
(05-02-2012, 06:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty clear that significant numbers of men who simply aren't interested in women have become priests because celibacy gives them an excuse not to marry. 

I don't feel that loosening the celibacy requirement for secular priests would necessarily be a bad thing. The stipulation that priests be unmarried is not part of divine law, nor would it be unprecedented to change the rule. Married men--primarily in the Eastern churches but sometimes even in the Latin church--have been legally ordained to the presbyterate. I don't see why the pope shouldn't allow already married men to be ordained more frequently in the Latin church.

Yeah and I suppose the rectory could go to the children.  Or the wife that wants a divorce.  Eye-roll

I won't post the link but Father Edward Beck seems to be the one the queer folk like to quote. 
(05-02-2012, 06:40 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-02-2012, 06:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty clear that significant numbers of men who simply aren't interested in women have become priests because celibacy gives them an excuse not to marry. 

I don't feel that loosening the celibacy requirement for secular priests would necessarily be a bad thing. The stipulation that priests be unmarried is not part of divine law, nor would it be unprecedented to change the rule. Married men--primarily in the Eastern churches but sometimes even in the Latin church--have been legally ordained to the presbyterate. I don't see why the pope shouldn't allow already married men to be ordained more frequently in the Latin church.

Yeah and I suppose the rectory could go to the children.  Or the wife that wants a divorce.  Eye-roll

Such issues could be dealt with using the models already provided by Eastern Catholic and Anglican Ordinate Catholic parishes.
(05-02-2012, 06:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty clear that significant numbers of men who simply aren't interested in women have become priests because celibacy gives them an excuse not to marry. 

I definitely believe that as a historical rule. Who has real societal pressure to get married these days, though? Even as a trad, I wouldn't incur much of a stigma among other trads if I decided to be a lifelong bachelor. A tad marginalized, perhaps.... but not a pariah, by any means.

Still, I wonder about the sorts of men who are willing to live celibate but go into Novus Ordo seminaries. I tend to assume they're all gay until proven otherwise.



(05-02-2012, 06:29 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Not now, though.  I agree, but now would be the worst time for the Church to start loosening up it's celibacy laws.

Definitely a good point, but when would be a good time, then?
(05-02-2012, 06:40 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah and I suppose the rectory could go to the children.  Or the wife that wants a divorce.  Eye-roll

I don't think this is a good argument against married clergy in a post-feudal context. The married Anglican Use priests I know live in privately owned houses near the church, but aren't part of church property.

But even if the house were church property, there's no reason to believe the house would be lost to the family. That's like wondering if the White House will go to the Obama kids once the President's term is up. It's obviously government property.
(05-02-2012, 06:24 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's pretty clear that significant numbers of men who simply aren't interested in women have become priests because celibacy gives them an excuse not to marry. 

I don't feel that loosening the celibacy requirement for secular priests would necessarily be a bad thing. The stipulation that priests be unmarried is not part of divine law, nor would it be unprecedented to change the rule. Married men--primarily in the Eastern churches but sometimes even in the Latin church--have been legally ordained to the presbyterate. I don't see why the pope shouldn't allow already married men to be ordained more frequently in the Latin church.

I completely disagree. First, we must ask the question what kind of celibacy would be lifted? Would this include homosexual relationships? That's a serious question. How about girlfriends and the dating scene as young women might be looking for a priest to marry? That would make for interesting gossip around the vestibule, now wouldn't it?

And I do not think homosexuals went into the priesthood to have an excuse to not marry. That is a patently absurd myth. It is possible that there was a conspiracy of sorts to infiltrate the Church. I don't know, ask Bella Dodd about the Communist infiltration. But, more likely, I think what happened were truly serious Catholics, who had homosexual attractions or even committed acts, went to Confession and started to get recruited. But, I think most homosexuals would meet up in Bug House Square or the other cruising locations. And I've also known many a confirmed bachelor in my day. So this seems to much a stretch for me. This idea that they went in to the priesthood to avoid marriage.

The other problem is that priests are extremely busy and they are supposed to be caring for their flocks. A family would get in the way of that. Also, who is going to support all these extra mouths. No the answer is Tradition and priests living in community in a very holy and manly way. A married clergy would be way too Protestant for me.

Oh and one last point. Who do you think would be first in line for this arrangement? Why it would be the ex-Protestant Pastors who you see featured on EWTN's The Journey Home. Spare me Scott Hahn types as priests. Or even worse, people like Roy Schonmen. This would be a disaster.
Pages: 1 2 3