Why argue over Gay or Straight priests?

I have not understood the conterversy about allowing Gay Priest in the Catholic Church. I guess I should rephrase that. I don't understand why there is even a Gay or Straight issue at all. If you are gay, that would mean you have a tendancy towards the same sex. But that is pointless in the Priesthood, because it doesn't matter what you are drawn to, you can't indulge in your sexual desires anyway. Same goes for Straight Priest right. A Straight Priest can't sleep with or date, or marry a straight woman.

Now I know that with the recent priest rape scandals, that it would be common place to think that a gay priest would most likely be more prone to fall into that evil path, but the studies show that child molestion cases are not necessarily leaning to a gay or straight perpetrator either way.

So, if neither preference of priest can do what thier carnal nature wants to do, then what difference does it make if they have those preferences at all?

Originally posted by mpeake
I have not understood the conterversy about allowing Gay Priest in the Catholic Church. I guess I should rephrase that. I don't understand why there is even a Gay or Straight issue at all. If you are gay, that would mean you have a tendancy towards the same sex. But that is pointless in the Priesthood, because it doesn't matter what you are drawn to, you can't indulge in your sexual desires anyway.

Infact, the church does allow gay people to become preists, but they have to recognize that its a sin and struggle against it. To the church its a sin anyway.

then what difference does it make if they have those preferences at all?

Because in the church the preference itself is a sin, so they can't say that they are 'openly gay', because then they are sinning and as a preist that have to correct that. They are allowed to struggle with being gay, but they are not allowed to 'accept' it, even if they remian celibate.

Because in the church the preference itself is a sin, so they can't say that they are 'openly gay', because then they are sinning and as a preist that have to correct that. They are allowed to struggle with being gay, but they are not allowed to 'accept' it, even if they remian celibate.

I guess that's where I'm confused. The stance on the Gay issue must not be the same across the RCC board. I mean, if they felt that the preference alone is a sin, then they would under no circumstances allow an openly Gay person to become a Priest right?

For an organisation which tolerated the molestation of half the world's choir boys, the persecution of homosexulas as "sexual deviants" seems a little bit hypocritical.

As has been said before it is seen by some as a sin and more so in the past this wasnt acceptable, celibacy isnt an issue its the fact that they are gay, and to some a sin is a sin and a priest admitting he is gay would be one asdmitting he is attracted to chrildren or wants to murder and so unthinking ant different stages in our society.

I'm curious as to what everyone has to say. Oh me? The only thing I have to say is I think the Catholic Church may see an issue with hypocrisy as mentioned above, but probably better to ask someone who's Catholic.

Originally posted by mpeake
if they felt that the preference alone is a sin, then they would under no circumstances allow an openly Gay person to become a Priest right?

Hmm, i think not, because an openly gay person is saying that there is nothing wrong with being gay and they are not going to try to change it.

Imagine it like this, a gay guy becomes a preist. He breaks his vows and has sex with a man. Would the church reaction be the same or different if he had sex with a woman? On one level, i expect it would be the same, he'd've broken his vows, sinned, and needs to confess and work for forgiveness, whatnot. On another level, the church would say 'being gay, even if gay and abstinent, is a sin' and that the gay preist must at least work torwards overcomming this sin and seeking forgiveness, whereas the straight preist would be told 'lust is a sin, and you must work to control it'.

So maybe another way of putting it is, a gay preist is not allowed, just as an openly lusting after women preist is not allowed.

Tho i expect in practice that a straight bishop is going to go easy on a lustful staight preist.

CiderGood_HeadacheBad
the persecution of homosexulas as "sexual deviants" seems a little bit hypocritical

How does the RCC persecute gays? Preists who molest children have commited a sin, and the church deals with sin according to its own rules. A preist who was 'openly a pedophile', ie, worked ot remain abstinent but also said that there's nothing wrong with it, would be but under the same pressure, perhaps more, as an openly gay preist.

The pedophile preists that have been uncovered confessed, asked for forginveness, were given it in accordance with forgiving sinners, and moved to a different location. If they did it agian, hey, (the church reasoned), they're a repeat sinner, they need to get the problem under control, they need to confess and be forgiven, and then moved again.

The pedophile preists that have been uncovered confessed, asked for forginveness, were given it in accordance with forgiving sinners, and moved to a different location. If they did it agian, hey, (the church reasoned), they're a repeat sinner, they need to get the problem under control, they need to confess and be forgiven, and then moved again.

What about the victims of these scum bags? They will be scarred for the rest of their lives and some have committed suicide. In normal society, if someone rapes a child they go to jail. What gives the Catholic church the right to allow it's priests to break the law, and not just any law, but allow a priest to molest a child or in some cases dozens and dozens of children, allow them to say "I'm sorry and I'll repent" and then say "okay" and shuffle them off to Buffalo? Give me a break. This is disgusting and the Pope or King of the Catholic Church should be held responsible for allowing it to happen and have charges brought against him....I don't care how old or sick he is. What about the thousands of raped children? Where is their justice??

Now regarding the topic of this thread.....I see no problem with a priest being straight or gay as long as he takes his vows seriously and truly has a calling. I'm not sure many priests have what used to be known as a "calling" anymore.

If any priest sleeps with a man or a woman, they should be thrown out and...if they have sex with children they should be prosecuted just like every other citizen would be! Being a priest doesn't give one a free ride regarding the laws that govern the land......or at least it shouldn't in a perfect world.

[edit on 9-2-2005 by Zabilgy]

Originally posted by Zabilgy

The pedophile preists that have been uncovered confessed, asked for forginveness, were given it in accordance with forgiving sinners, and moved to a different location. If they did it agian, hey, (the church reasoned), they're a repeat sinner, they need to get the problem under control, they need to confess and be forgiven, and then moved again.

What about the victims of these scum bags? They will be scarred for the rest of their lives and some have committed suicide.

And? For the church they have committed no sin, unelss the comit suicide, in which case they reside in purgatory for a period of time.

In normal society, if someone rapes a child they go to jail.

Yes, and?

What gives the Catholic church the right to allow it's priests to break the law,

Absolutely nothing gives it or any church the right.

allow them to say "I'm sorry and I'll repent" and then say "okay" and shuffle them off to Buffalo?

Well, like it or not, thats the christian religion.

This is disgusting and the Pope or King of the Catholic Church should be held responsible for allowing it to happen and have charges brought against him

ok, so go ahead with it

What about the thousands of raped children? Where is their justice??

The church, any christian church, has nothign to do with justice. If it did, and if the world was actually concerned, then they wouldn't be allowed to not report confessions.

Personally, I happen to be friends with three gay priests. Two of them are VERY popular in their parishes. None of them feel there is anything wrong with being a priest and being gay. They've taken an oath of celebecy which pretty much wraps up any sexuality issues, gay or straight.

What they DO take offense at though is those that call ALL priests child molesters. Those priests feel, rightly so, to judge someone is something that is reserved for God.

But if you are a priest, why even state your sexual preference at all? Why make it known to anyone? It's not like it will be anything you can do anything about. In your head you can desire men or women, but you can't act on it when you are a priest, so why would a priest even declare that he has tendancies one way or another? Admitting you are a gay priest is almost like saying "I have sexual tendencies towards men, but I'm a priest, so I won't act on it". You don't see straight priest saying "I have sexual tendancies towards women, but I am a priest, so I won't act on it". It's pretty much a known thing that once you take the vows, you no longer act on those types of desires, gay or straight. So why make it known that you are gay or straight?

Originally posted by Nygdan
The pedophile preists that have been uncovered confessed, asked for forginveness, were given it in accordance with forgiving sinners, and moved to a different location. If they did it agian, hey, (the church reasoned), they're a repeat sinner, they need to get the problem under control, they need to confess and be forgiven, and then moved again.

So they are simply moved on? Not punished for their crimes to the full extent of the law like anyone else would be? Nobody should be above the law simply because they claim to be men of "God".

aaargh double post.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by CiderGood_HeadacheBad]