www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Is gay clergy Ok?

I particularly like the recent comments by Cardinal Rodriguez from the Dominican Republic on this particular subject.

QUOTE

Santo Domingo, Mar. 01, 2005 (CNA) - The Archbishop of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez, reaffirmed this week that the Church does not discriminate against homosexual persons but that they do not belong in seminaries.

The cardinal explained, �I understand we must have a healthy, intelligent, and manly clergy that is neither effeminate nor womanly,� and he recalled that homosexuality is a disorder that can be corrected and managed.

Likewise the cardinal also emphasized the need to form �serious men with all of the attributes that God has given them so that they may exercise their ministry with dignity.�

I think I now know who I want the next pope to be.

Shlomo Lkhooklhoon,

There are a number of things at play here that people are not understanding. One is that most of these cases involve not pedophilia, but pederasty. Further, the reason why young men and boys are mostly the victims is because they are the most available to the priests. Also it because of what is called situational homosexuality. Below is an article that give a full discourse on this issue.

Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Situational Homosexuality

Situational, or "emergency" homosexuality is commonly defined as sexual activity with partners of the same sex that occurs not as part of a gay life style, but because the participants happen to find themselves in a single-sex environment for a prolonged period.

Some single-sex environments that frequently become venues for situational homosexuality include prisons, military bases, ships at sea, convents and monasteries, athletic teams on tour, and boarding schools and colleges. Situational homosexual behavior is so common in these venues that in some cases nicknames have been created for those who indulge in it; for example "rugger-buggers" on rugby teams, "jailhouse turnouts" in prisons, and "lugs" for "lesbians until (college) graduation."

The idea of situational same-sex sexual activity is not a modern one. An essay by Josiah Flynt, published in 1899, told of situational sex among the male American hobos with whom he traveled.

Behavioral Bisexuality

Sometimes called "behavioral bisexuality," the concept of situational homosexuality is a complex one. At its heart is the notion that the participants in same-sex sexual activity would not have done so were it not for their unusual situation and that they therefore are not really homosexual.

Since gay identity and life style are neither approved nor accepted by most societies, it is difficult to determine accurately the reason behind an individual's choice of heterosexual identification. While someone might insist that he or she chooses to be straight, it is impossible to know how much social pressure may be affecting that decision. Likewise, bisexuality is often disapproved by both gay and straight society, and bisexuals may be pressured to "choose" one sexual preference or another.

The question, thus, remains whether those who engage in situational homosexuality might be more generally bisexual if bisexuality were a more socially accepted choice.

Moreover, the concept of situational homosexuality raises other questions as to what extent sexual behavior expresses internal needs and desires and to what extent it is a response to external circumstances.

The Relationship of Situational Homosexuality to Homophobia

In many cultures, situational homosexuality is tolerated, while homosexuality as a life style is not.

Some social analysts believe that the concept of situational homosexuality is used to reinforce homophobia and biphobia by allowing those who perform homosexual acts in same-sex environments to continue to define themselves as heterosexual.

Often participants in same-sex activity in single-sex environments are differentiated between "true homosexuals" and those who retain the assumption of heterosexuality. In such cases, it is usually the "true homosexuals" who are stigmatized, while their partners are not. In making such a distinction, homophobia is reinforced even as same-sex sexual activity may be tolerated.

Although situational homosexuality is often both tacitly expected and to some degree tolerated, it is also expected to remain clandestine. When such homosexual activity is made public, even in venues where virtually everyone knows it is happening, punishment is usually swift and severe, though often the brunt of punishment is borne by the participant who is considered the "true homosexual" rather than the presumably heterosexual partner who ostensibly participates in same-sex activity only because of his or her situation.

by Tina Gianoulis

Unfortunately, the Cardinal has let his prejudices show. These are pretty stereotypical comments.

So what is the real issue here. Stereotypes that may offend someone? Or sinful behavior that offends God?

Yuhannon,

The NRB study did not refer to situational homosexuality at all. It certainly doesn't draw the conclusion that the 81% of the abuse cases which were homosexual in nature were committed by otherwise heterosexual men simply because boys were more available. While Tina Gianoulis assesment may be valid in some situations, I think it is a stretch to apply it here in light of the evidence. She talks of prisons and monastaries, environments much more closed than most parishes.

It is also clear that many heterosexual men who decided that they did not have the gift of celibacy simply left the priesthood and later married. Other priests had clandestine relationships with female (and male) parishoners, and some committed the grave offense of taking advantage of those men and women seeking emotional support. The evidence just doesn't meet the criteria for what Ms. Gianoulis refers to as situational homosexuality.

Brian,

You forgot this part of the Cardinal's statement

When the statement is taken in context it sounds a lot less like prejudice.

Doug

You're right; it was an honest mistake. It was Brian who said that. Thanks.


Everybody,

When a man or a priest has sex with a boy, the commission of said act does not make either one of them a homosexual. It simply means that a homosexual act has been committed.

As I have said a couple of times, heterosexual men, when their wives, or women, are absent, have done, do and will have sex with other men, in the military and in prison.

I am fully aware of a culture of homosexuality among Catholic seminaries. I know where this has been the case in two, one in Indiana in the early to mid-80s (not the 70s!) and one in Belgium in the late 80-early 90s (not the 70s!) You have not educated me on this count, OK.

[And we wonder why we suffer due to scandals that have rocked the Catholic church all over the world, my oh my....]

Other members of this forum have stated the Churches position on non-heterosexuality. I don't think the word 'disorder' was used. When I (and others who have degrees in pastoral care and counseling) hear the word 'disorder' we think immediately of the American Psychiatric Association's removal of homosexuality as a disorder listed in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III) in 1973.

I don't think 'disorder' with reference to homosexuality is particularly a religious, spiritual or doctrinal word.

Some have indicated that I'm confused. Perhaps some of you all's usage of the word disorder with reference to Church Tradition is what is causing my confusion.

Faithful Christian homosexuals are not confused and neither am I. I think I know almost exactly why the Church fears any change to Her T/traditional (not Biblical) teaching on this; perhaps it is She who is confused? Having enough fear for long enough will cause a certain amount of confusion, yes? peace to all, wg

p.s. you will notice that I speak no ill will to any; I insult none; I slander none; I do disagree but I am doing so in an agreeable manner. I expect the same courtesy, efcharisto.

WG, surely you realize we Catholics accept the authority of the Church to bind and loose - to declare objects sinful or not sinful. This is not a matter of frivolous Church tradtion. The Church is not confused when it declares homosexual behavior sinful, it is merely doing the job given it by Christ, to bind and loose, and to define what is or is not sinful. A common homosexual misperception is that everyone else is quaking in fear of homosexuality. I don't think so. Calling something sinful doesn't indicate fear, it indicates a belief that certain behaviors are wrong. For myself, if I could not accept the authority of the Church to teach, I would have to leave the Catholic Church. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to remain in it. To us, the Bible is a product of the Church, and Church Tradition is just as valid and binding. Now I can't believe you don't already know this.

Judaism affirms human sexuality, Islam affirms human sexuality, non-Augustinian-influenced Christianity affirms human sexuality.

All of these trace this affirmation back to a time in history when it was assumed that men were solely attracted to women and women were solely attracted to men.

We simply cannot assume that any longer. We know that some men are attracted to men and some women are attracted to women.

Where the Archbishop went wrong is when he stated that people can be changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality. This simply isn't the case. It is untrue. For the miniscule amount of men or women who seem to succeed in the desire not to have same sex relationships after reparative therapy it is an indication that perhaps they were never homosexual in the first place; they were just in the habit of having sex with persons of the same sex.

If, for instance, there are 13 million gay men and 13 million lesbians in America alone... how can the God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity be ignorant of that?

I assert not only is God not ignorant of that but ... God also affirms that. God is not offended by the facts. Why would anybody suggest that? Can it be spelled out?

By the way, do heterosexual couples, married or otherwise, engage in "sinful behaviour?" What makes a sexual behaviour sinful?

hello TN,

me auntie, before she died, lived in Alcoa! :-)

And you will no doubt know that there is not one thing in the Bible that speaks to the subject of homosexuality, there is not one thing in the remembered words and ministry of Jesus that speaks to the subject of homosexuality, and that there is not one thing in several, if not many generations of the early church that speaks to the subject of homosexuality.

In fact, it can be said that homosexuality, as it is (what, partially) understood today, only began to be understood at the end of the 19th century.

And where does the T/tradition begin? I'm not Catholic or Orthodox, yet I know that it didn't begin in the first couple of centuries... and I know that it does not address homosexuality.

The Bible (the Church Book) and Tradition (Apostolic teaching) addresses idolatrous behaviour. If anyone here can truthfully, honestly say how faithful Christians who are homosexual, as God made them, are idolatrous... I'll eat my hat.

The Bible nor Tradition call homosexuality sinful; neither of those two loosing and binding foundations know a thing about the subject.

p.s. homosexual Christians are not objects, they are subjects whom God loves and for whom Christ Jesus died.

p.p.s. I'm not frivilous with Tradition nor do I have homosexual misperceptions, as you call them (?).

Wild Goose, when the Church condemns a behaviour as sinful, those who practice it are called sinners. And rightly so.

By the way...the world has many millions of thieves...God must know about them...but he SURELY does not affirm their behaviour. As theft is a sin, so those who steal are sinners. As homosexual acts are a sin, those who commit them are sinners. As extra-marital sex of any sort is a sin, those who commit such acts are sinners.

Period. Listening to you state that the Scriptures do not speak against homosexual acts is akin to listening to some Protestant groups who insist that the wine referred to in the Bible is all non-alcoholic wine. Spare us, please.

This does NOT mean that God does not love sinners, and call upon them to repent and turn to Him, for He does. He died for all mankind, even those who commit acts we would term unspeakable (murder, pedophilia, etc).

It also does not mean that God is not fully aware of the orientation of a person. He is. However, each person has a sin (or more than one) which they struggle with. However, why do you feel that God only calls heterosexuals to remain chaste outside of marriage? There is no exemption for homosexuals, that states that they can have sex as they please, because God made them, and He "affirms their sexuality" (what a phrase!!). The Church has always condemned sexual acts outside of marriage, and supported the beauty of these acts, between a man and a woman, in a sacramentally blessed marriage.

Anything else is merely a person trying to justify his "lifestyle". Man supports this, and God does not. As was stated above...who will you try to please? Man, or God?

Gaudior, who knows what my answer is.

I do not consider Wild Goose confused. It is not entirely possible to discern motivation, but I really don't believe that a person as apparently well educated as Goose is confused. Dishonest perhaps, but not confused.

It really doesn't matter what the APA determined under political pressure. There decision nearly 30 years ago goes a long way to diminish their reputation as impartial and helping professionals. Nevertheless, Christ has established His Church on earth to save humanity. Christ speaks through the Church and the speach has been consistent throughout Scripture and history.

If a person decides to snub his nose at the Church they should not be surprised when the Church says "You are wrong".

Dan L

Ah, yes...the APA..that's another issue...who remembers their "study" that was released concerning adult/child sex, which found that in the right context, this may not harm a child? NAMBLA leaped all over that with such joy...and the APA was horrified...and began backtracking the position...

Gaudior, with less than no use for the APA

Gaudior,

You know what amazes me the most about this thread? It's John's long suffering tolerance of this Goose fellow. Generally speaking I believe his approach is a good one despite my disgust with Goose's position. Nevertheless, I believe Goose is perilously close to causing scandals with his dishonest approach. How can one tolerate such nonsense after the Church has spoken consistently for 2,000 years?

Dan L

WG,

When I used the word confused I did so in a condescending manner, and I ask your forgiveness.

Charles gives us the following link on the first page of this post which illustrates the Church teaching on homosexuality:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

It is here that the word disorder is found. You state:

For what it is worth, I agree that most people with that orientation are hard wired that way. This does not change Church teaching on the subject of homosexual behaviour vs homosexual inclination. Here is what the above referenced document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has to say:

"11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace."

This is one of my main concerns WG. You have stated this several times, and Yuhannon has referenced situational homosexuality. As far as I know, the NRB study was the only extensive study that dealt with the issue of sexual orientation in the priesthood in relation to the abuse scandal. This study deals with the abuse scandal in the United States, and it does not attempt to explain away the fact that 81% of the abuse was homosexual with an explanation of "situational homosexuality". Parishes are composed of men and women, we now have altar girls, youth groups are composed of young men and women. Parish life is not like life in a monastary, prison, etc. Is there some reason you feel the data and conclusions of this study are in error? This very study says the issue of sexual orientation of abusers could not be ignored due to this staggering 81% figure. It finds people attempting to hide or escape dealing with their orientation by entering the priesthood. The result has been a disaster.

Many people in this thread have focused exclusively on the Church's teaching of homosexual acts as an offense against God. While I fully accept the Church teaching in this regard, the original question was "Is gay clergy OK?" Yuhannon's data tells us that even clergy who have embraced celibacy continue to define themselves as heterosexual or homosexual in orientation. The NRB study indicates the same thing.

So am I alone in assigning more risk to individuals of homosexual orientation (who embrace celibacy) as candidates to the priesthood? This was really the original question, it wasn't in regard to those acting on those inclinations. The bishops are split on the issue.