Parish priest breaks the silence, shares that he is gay
#11
(12-21-2017, 02:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The $40.000 question then is, why even mention it?

That was my initial thought as well.

If a priest takes a vow of celibacy, then should his struggle with SSA matter, assuming he is living up to his vows?
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jeeter's post:
  • kunoichi
Reply
#12
(12-21-2017, 07:42 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 02:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The $40.000 question then is, why even mention it?

That was my initial thought as well.  

If a priest takes a vow of celibacy, then should his struggle with SSA matter, assuming he is living up to his vows?

No Jeeter, not at all.  You see Jeeter, if he were allowed to be married to a woman, he wouldn't have homosexual attractions at all...
Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, o Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour and the Redeemer of our souls!

                                                      [Image: hailmary.jpg]
Reply
#13
(12-21-2017, 10:49 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 07:42 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 02:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The $40.000 question then is, why even mention it?

That was my initial thought as well.  

If a priest takes a vow of celibacy, then should his struggle with SSA matter, assuming he is living up to his vows?

No Jeeter, not at all.  You see Jeeter, if he were allowed to be married to a woman, he wouldn't have homosexual attractions at all...

And therein lies the answer: the Church should stop being so rigid and allow priests to marry women. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, I actually meant it as a serious question.  I've never met a priest who mentioned anything about his sexual orientation.  I've also never been to a seminary, and so have no idea what the screening process entails.  I would imagine that someone seeking admission to seminary and admitting to recently having an active sex life would be grounds for dismissal.  Would someone admitting to having struggled with SSA, yet living a chaste life be reason for dismissal as well?

Not trying to play the SJW role, just trying to learn.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
#14
(12-20-2017, 06:40 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: False. Celibacy is of Apostolic origin.

Granted, that married men could become deacons or priests, but that was if they observed afterward perfect continence. St. Paul's remark on deacons and bishops being "of one wife" only makes sense in such a case (i.e. they were not permitted to enter marriage after Orders because this would demonstrate their inability to remain continent).

As Fr Christian Cochini, SJ writes in his The Apostolic Origin of Priestly Celibacy:

MM,  Thanks for your comments.  It seems to me that you believe that only a celibate priesthood that never produces seed is acceptable to God.  Please answer the following:

1.  Isn't it true that the Roman Church has a married priesthood in her Eastern Rites?
2.  Isn't it true that the Roman Church recognizes as valid the sacraments performed by married Eastern Orthodox priests?
3.  Isn't it true that the Roman Church ordains married former Protestant ministers to the priesthood in the Latin rite?
4.  If continence is so important and necessary, why in all of these cases does Holy Mother Church condone continued marital relations?
5.  Where exactly in scripture does Christ say married men are unacceptable to him as priests?  Where does he say that the grace of the Holy Spirit is thwarted by marital relations?

The Marital Union is the foreshadowing of the Marriage Feast of the Lamb.  Sex is not intrinsically evil (as your discourse implies) because God said "be fruitful and multiply".  Clearly, the Roman Church does not support a position that ONLY celibate men can be priests.  Neither does she require perfect continence of her married priests or deacons.  Methinks that you are tending slightly to the Gnostic view that a married person cannot reach perfection.  Certainly in the 3rd and 4th centuries small slivers of the Gnostic philosophical thought process crept into the Church.

It was around that time that sex and the priesthood came under scrutiny.

306-Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will be defrocked.

325-Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. 

God ordained from the beginning that "it is not good that man should be alone" and fashioned Eve to be his helpmate.  Is God's eternal word that man should not be "alone" now abrogated?  God forbid.  Man was made for community.  If celibacy is required, then a community should be provided even required for the celibate priest.  And no I disagree with your assertion that a priest ministering to a large parish has all the community he needs.  Read the reports.  Pastors of large congregations often describe their lives as being lived in "isolation".  Constantly ministering to the needs of others is NOT community.  Even Christ formed for himself an inner circle, a community among whom He retired when not ministering to the masses.  

You focus quite heavily on priests attracted to children.  Yes, that margin is perhaps smaller than in the larger population.  However, of the 50 or so priests that I know, there is only 1 who strikes me as a real man's man.  The rest of them are quite effeminate.  In fact, one I know first hand has a boyfriend and asked me advice as to how to leave his home to him (certainly I do not know what happens in their bedroom but they are visibly a couple in public when they vacation together).  Further, a doctor acquaintance of mine left the church because he had become the go-to "doctor for priest's" in the diocese.  As his wife describes his departure from catholicism, "he could no longer stomach treating priests for diseases in places they shouldn't be getting diseases."  

I understand what St. Paul wrote about marriage and celibacy.  He also expected that the Reign of Christ on Earth was imminent.  So he was speaking to a community making ready for the Lord's immediate return.  He also wrote "an unmarried woman is concerned with the things of the Lord."  I am quite familiar with literally 100's of professional women who have never married.  Only 1 woman who has never married among those known to me is singularly concerned with the things of the Lord and she is a former nun.  On the other hand, those women who are most concerned with teaching CCD classes, teaching RCIA, helping with altar linen care, flower arrangements and so forth are all, 100% of them, either married or widowed.  So in your experience, are unmarried women today really more concerned with the Lord than women with husbands?  One cannot simply ignore the context in which St. Paul's scripture is written.  The fact is that married men and women fulfill much more of the lay leadership roles in Church than do the single men and women.  The romantic ideation of a mythical priest who never experiences orgasm is simply that, a myth.  And the last time I checked, I do believe that onanism, fornication and sodomy were still sins whereas lawful marital relations are not.

Keep your head in the sand if you will, but in my opinion, ordaining men who are using the prestige of the collar to satisfy their own needs and placing them in places of isolation where they do not have a healthy home environment where they can retreat from their ministry in a supporting community every night is a recipe for disaster.  Either require a community of 5 or more priests to band together to live their celibacy in monastic community or give them the support of a family.  Also, seminaries need to stop making demi-gods and start making disciples of Christ who know how to serve and not simply "lord their authority" over the sheep they tend.
Mater Dei, Ora pro nobis.
Reply
#15
(12-21-2017, 10:57 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 10:49 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 07:42 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 02:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The $40.000 question then is, why even mention it?

That was my initial thought as well.  

If a priest takes a vow of celibacy, then should his struggle with SSA matter, assuming he is living up to his vows?

No Jeeter, not at all.  You see Jeeter, if he were allowed to be married to a woman, he wouldn't have homosexual attractions at all...

And therein lies the answer: the Church should stop being so rigid and allow priests to marry women. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, I actually meant it as a serious question.  I've never met a priest who mentioned anything about his sexual orientation.  I've also never been to a seminary, and so have no idea what the screening process entails.  I would imagine that someone seeking admission to seminary and admitting to recently having an active sex life would be grounds for dismissal.  Would someone admitting to having struggled with SSA, yet living a chaste life be reason for dismissal as well?

Not trying to play the SJW role, just trying to learn.


I would also like to know?  For instance, if a man were interested in the priesthood, but has had very strong homosexual desires in the past, would he be barred from the priesthood?  What if he had a sexual attraction to men and women?  All this seems like TMI, but it would be interesting to know the screening process.
Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, o Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour and the Redeemer of our souls!

                                                      [Image: hailmary.jpg]
Reply
#16
(12-21-2017, 11:49 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 10:57 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 10:49 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 07:42 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 02:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The $40.000 question then is, why even mention it?

That was my initial thought as well.  

If a priest takes a vow of celibacy, then should his struggle with SSA matter, assuming he is living up to his vows?

No Jeeter, not at all.  You see Jeeter, if he were allowed to be married to a woman, he wouldn't have homosexual attractions at all...

And therein lies the answer: the Church should stop being so rigid and allow priests to marry women. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, I actually meant it as a serious question.  I've never met a priest who mentioned anything about his sexual orientation.  I've also never been to a seminary, and so have no idea what the screening process entails.  I would imagine that someone seeking admission to seminary and admitting to recently having an active sex life would be grounds for dismissal.  Would someone admitting to having struggled with SSA, yet living a chaste life be reason for dismissal as well?

Not trying to play the SJW role, just trying to learn.


I would also like to know?  For instance, if a man were interested in the priesthood, but has had very strong homosexual desires in the past, would he be barred from the priesthood?  What if he had a sexual attraction to men and women?  All this seems like TMI, but it would be interesting to know the screening process.

This may help answer your question: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2008/08/28/c...riesthood/
Reply
#17
(12-21-2017, 11:49 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: I would also like to know?  For instance, if a man were interested in the priesthood, but has had very strong homosexual desires in the past, would he be barred from the priesthood?  What if he had a sexual attraction to men and women?  All this seems like TMI, but it would be interesting to know the screening process.

It depends on each individual, since each is a different case.

In general, a good spiritual director would never send a man to the seminary if he still had homosexual attractions, even if he rarely or never sinned by these. The reason is that the very situation of a seminary puts that man in a significant and near occasion of grave sin.

If the attractions were well-controlled and a prolonged period of probation done, and a proven life of virtue lived, then in certain cases, such a man could be considered, if it would not be the cause of scandal.

Were he sexual active (homosexual or heterosexual), this would be a big red flag, and the cause for non-acceptance, dismissal, or at least serious further inquiry. In both cases a proven time of virtuous and chaste living would be needed beforehand, in terms of several years, not just months. For a previous homosexual life, generally the possible scandal would dictate he not be admitted, just as with any mental disorder, but again, if the scandal were unlikely, a serious and profound conversion occurred, and there were many years of long-proven virtuous and chaste life, it might be possible.
Reply
#18
(12-21-2017, 11:42 AM)prostrateinawe Wrote: It seems to me that you believe that only a celibate priesthood that never produces seed is acceptable to God ...

... Sex is not intrinsically evil (as your discourse implies) ...

...Methinks that you are tending slightly to the Gnostic view that a married person cannot reach perfection...

... Keep your head in the sand if you will ...

A post with such misrepresentation, straw men and uncharitable and ignorant words does not deserve a response.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Alphonsus
Reply
#19
Very well then, no one is forcing you to reply.  But why call me uncharitable because I voiced my opinion?  Why call me ignorant?  It appears to me that was an intended insult more that simple uncharitableness.  But I forgive you because I believe I have clearly hit a nerve.

1.  "It seems to me ..." unambiguously indicates that this is how I am interpreting your post.  If this isn't what you intended to imply, that was your chance to correct the implication.  There is noting at all uncharitable in saying "here is how your post struck me."   So I disagree with your conclusion on that point.

2.  Your post really does seem to say that there is something "evil" or "wrong" with sexual relations between married couples.  Here are a few of your quotes: "Granted, that married men could become deacons or priests, but that was if they observed afterward perfect continence."  ""Married" priests were not supposed to be having sex. They violated a vow in doing so and committed a grave sin. They were expected to be perfectly continent and live as brother and sister. The abuses often rampant, because it was such a serious and near occasion of grave sin, the Church mandated celibacy, not merely continence."  In other words, a priest had to take a vow of continence and then would commit a sin by having relations with his lawful wife.  This was contrary to scriptural instruction. (1 Cor. 7:5)  Moreover, what of the near occasion of grave sin that happens for many celibate men when they wake up every morning?  I bet having wife right there when they wake up makes it much less a near occasion of sin than having no one there at all.   (I venture to say that self-abuse is just as rampant today among the clergy as married priests returning to their wives was back then.  Which one is worse?  Which one is more unnatural?)  Again, I had the image as I read your post that suddenly something I hold as very beautiful and to be a gift from God was to be viewed as dirty and shameful and something that married priests were not supposed to be doing because it was so dirty and shameful.  Yet, the implication of your post is contrary to what the Roman Church currently teaches.  But I am uncharitable because I point this out?  Am I uncharitable because I point out how much it reflects a Gnostic mindset which rejects the goodness of the physical body?  Is your view more correct than the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?  Unfortunately, again we disagree.

3.  "Methinks ..." again indicates that this is how I am interpreting your post.  What is uncharitable about me simply stating how your post came off to me?  Yes, we disagree again.

4.  "Keep your head in the sand..."  Yep, guilty as charged.  I was uncharitable and I apologize, especially if you viewed this as pointed directly to you.  But it was directed to a much broader audience than you by the time I got to this section of my post.  I was no longer writing specifically to you, I was directing it to those who do not see that the scandal crisis continues and especially to those in charge of formation who, in my opinion, have their heads in the sand as to what is really going on in the seminary.  Again, two options: (1) mandate that the monastic priesthood live in community like real monks or (2) allow married priests.  But don't keep ordaining men who are simply using the collar as camouflage for their internal disorders.   Well, at least here we can find some common ground.

Here are just a few headlines from this past year that have really upset me:

https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/vatican-co...apartment/
http://cathnews.com/cathnews/30797-vatic...h-seminary
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-csasz...stigation/
https://www.twincities.com/2017/11/03/ar...f-a-minor/

AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON!

While you say that "Celibacy has absolutely no causal relation to deviant sexual behavior."  I would say, based on experience in the field of crime, that there is a correlation between deviant sexual behavior and those who live a "celibate" or unmarried life.  The reason for this is that many of those who have a penchant for deviancy cannot maintain a stable marriage and many times cannot even "perform" the "missionary" act so to speak.  They can only perform in a deviant setting.  So while I agree that celibacy does not cause deviant sexual behavior, deviant sexual behavior often flourishes in a "celibate" environment because marriage is simply impossible to obtain or maintain.

And I absolutely disagree with your supposition that Christ chose only unmarried men.  Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned in scripture.  Further, the writings of the early Church Fathers attest to the presence of a married priesthood, as well as the writings of the early Church Council's that I cited in my previous post.

I hope you had a terrific Christmas Day and that you will blessed in the coming days of the Christmas season.
Mater Dei, Ora pro nobis.
Reply
#20
(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: Very well then, no one is forcing you to reply.  But why call me uncharitable because I voiced my opinion?  Why call me ignorant?  It appears to me that was an intended insult more that simple uncharitableness.  But I forgive you because I believe I have clearly hit a nerve.

You implied I was saying what no reasonable person would take from my writing.

It is possible to state your opinion (so long as it is in concord with the Catholic Faith), without resorting to misreprentation and dramatic and rash overstatement. Your ignoring the historical facts I was presenting and treating it as "my opinion" and then even misrepresenting that shows ignorance of the subject you claim to "voice your opinion" on.

I said these words without any intention to insult. Your misrepresentation is demonstrable. Your ignorance of the history of the subject also is clear. 

That's not meant to be insulting, but perhaps to suggest that before "voicing your opinion" you might educate yourself on the matters in question.

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: If this isn't what you intended to imply, that was your chance to correct the implication.  There is noting at all uncharitable in saying "here is how your post struck me."   So I disagree with your conclusion on that point.

But no where did I say in any words that could even remotely be interpreted that "only celibate priesthood that never produces seed is acceptable to God."

For ease of future discussion we need to separate celibacy, chastity and continence.

Celibacy is define as the inability to marry. Continence is refraining from sexual relations entirely. Chastity is observing the 6th and 9th commandments in accord with one's state in life (hence why Pius XI could speak of Casti conubii, a "chaste marriage" by which he did not mean a sex-less one). 

Historically the priesthood (and diaconate) was not necessarily a celibate vocation, but it was always from Apostolic times a continent one.

The West and East took two opposite solutions to the violation of this Apostolic practice. The West said, if priests and deacons cannot observe continence in marriage, then they should not be allowed to marry, thus making an existing marriage an impediment to receiving Orders.

The East instead said continence was too hard, so, contrary to Apostolic tradition, decided to allow a non-continent married clergy.

This is all a matter of discipline, not a matter of Faith, so the Church could change such things. 

So, I never said only a celibate priesthood is pleasing to God. But a continent priest is what Christ and the Apostles clearly intended, as attested from Tradition. To have a priest who is married but not continent, where this is tolerated, not a sin or "displeasing to God", but it is certainly a deviation from what was intended.

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: 2.  Your post really does seem to say that there is something "evil" or "wrong" with sexual relations between married couples.

Again, no reasonable person would take that conclusion from me proffering a range of historical facts about priestly celibacy and continence.

There is nothing wrong with sexual relations between those whose state in life allows this. It is a good and beautiful expression of marital love, if directed toward the proper ends of marriage (firstly toward procreation, secondarily toward the mutual happiness and support of the spouses).

There is everything wrong with sexual relations when one's state in life does not allow this. The unmarried, for instance, sin. So do those who have taken a vow of chastity. The major clergy from Apostolic times were, once ordained, always bound to observe perfect continence as a result of their state in life due to ordination. That meant that they were no longer permitted to engage in marital relations. That came as a result of a choice by each, and vows.

That was the balance between the two social Sacraments that the Apostles set out. Marriage is for the procreation of children and soul for the Kingdom of God, but Orders is a higher Sacrament meant for the governance and spiritual parentage of those souls. Thus, those who were married, and after suitable preparation seemed called to Orders, were to forego some of their rights in order to take on this superior role. Each of the spouses then, agreed to allow the marital contract be modified due to the new vow of the man.

How you would turn that to a "Gnostic" view of sexuality is bizarre.

There are many examples among the Saints of such Josephite marriages, and they are hardly motivated by a "Gnostic" viewpoint.

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: I was directing it to those who do not see that the scandal crisis continues and especially to those in charge of formation who, in my opinion, have their heads in the sand as to what is really going on in the seminary.  Again, two options: (1) mandate that the monastic priesthood live in community like real monks or (2) allow married priests.  But don't keep ordaining men who are simply using the collar as camouflage for their internal disorders.   Well, at least here we can find some common ground.

No, I don't think so.

You have a distorted notion of the priesthood and of the monastic vocation. They are not the same, and not every priest has such a vocation in a monastic way.

Do priest need community and support? Sure, your solutions are naïve, and Western Church history before modern times well-establishes that celibacy is not the cause of the problems you suggest.

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: While you say that "Celibacy has absolutely no causal relation to deviant sexual behavior."  I would say, based on experience in the field of crime, that there is a correlation between deviant sexual behavior and those who live a "celibate" or unmarried life.

Correlation is not causation. That's a basic logical principle.

If the "scandal" have any real relation to priestly celibacy it will only be because of a causal link. Mere correlation does not prove causation unless Pirates prevent Global Warming.

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: The reason for this is that many of those who have a penchant for deviancy cannot maintain a stable marriage and many times cannot even "perform" the "missionary" act so to speak.  They can only perform in a deviant setting.  So while I agree that celibacy does not cause deviant sexual behavior, deviant sexual behavior often flourishes in a "celibate" environment because marriage is simply impossible to obtain or maintain.

That marriage for those with psychological issues is difficult or impossible. Concedo.

But you undermine your very point here by showing that celibacy is completely accidental to the issue. Deviants are "celibate" because they are psychologically unable to have a marriage. They are forced to be celibate by their own deviance and selfishness, but live a supremely unchaste life.

Priests voluntary choose celibacy (and chastity) for a higher purpose.

There's a material similarity, but absolutely no causal link as you admit. Thus your correlation is as pointless as the alarming decrease in the world's pirates.

Sexual deviants are known to wear clothing, and so are priests. So while clothing doesn't cause deviancy, clearly deviant behavior flourishes in those who wear clothing. If we just got people to live like they naturally are, rather than forcing such unnatural things as clothing on them. We should let people do what is natural to them ...

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: And I absolutely disagree with your supposition that Christ chose only unmarried men.  Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned in scripture.  Further, the writings of the early Church Fathers attest to the presence of a married priesthood, as well as the writings of the early Church Council's that I cited in my previous post.

Yet another misrepresentation of what I've said. I never said Christ chose only unmarried men. I said celibacy was of Apostolic origin, meaning it wasn't created later by the Church. By this I meant also a continent priesthood for those who came to the priesthood as married men.

Yes we hear of Peter's his mother-in-law. Clearly he was married, something I never denied. She is living is Peter's house. Yet, Peter's wife is never mentioned, even though in many other instances of such importance every important character is mentioned. Clearly the wife of the head of the Apostles is an important character.

When healed, Peter's mother-in-law then gets up and tends to the guests, yet that would have been her daughter's role. Curious.

Someone else is also surprisingly absent from Scripture about this time, and that is St Joseph. Tradition held that St Joseph had died by the time of Our Lord's Public Life. So does tradition hold the Peter was a widower. The story, far from supporting a married priesthood, is actually very good support for the idea that those whom Christ called dedicated were either celibate their whole lives (like St. John), were celibate widowers (like St. Peter), or left their wives (by perfect continence) to follow Him:

"Behold we have left all things to follow you ..." (Mt 19.27, Mk 10.28, Luke 18.28). And what was part of Our Lord's reply : "Every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."

We also do not hear of any Scripture mentioning any of the wives of the Apostles. So, even though I did not say that Christ chose only the unmarried, still, it seems Scripture supports that idea.

(12-26-2017, 03:24 PM)prostrateinawe Wrote: I hope you had a terrific Christmas Day and that you will blessed in the coming days of the Christmas season.

Thank you. You also.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)