Mychal Judge, a notable Catholic priest, died on 9/11. The obits all mentioned that he was upfront about his homosexuality. How can a priest be open about ANY sexuality – homosexual or heterosexual? Aren’t they supposed to openly asexual?
So my question is: I understand that the faith allows for the concept of having impure thoughts. Are all impure thoughts equal?
Priest A thinks about kissing Mrs. Jones.
Priest B think about having sex with Mrs. Jones.
Priest C thinking about forcefully having sex with Mrs. Jones
Priest D thinks about having sex with Mr. Jones.
Priest E thinks about having sex with the Jones children.
Are all of these imure thoughts equally impure or do they sort of follow the penal code
Is it impossible to be aware who you are attracted to without doing anything about it? For instance, a straight man might be aware his sister is attractive, while not being sure about his brother, but not entertain any erotic thoughts about either.
Shade: In your example they are not “impure thoughts.” Observing soemone’s physical attributes is not impure. Sort of like observing a wonderful painting in a museum but not thinking about stealing it. Shade
Oh, sorry. I should have been clearer. I was responding to your comment “How can a priest be open about ANY sexuality – homosexual or heterosexual?” I thought you were too hasty in saying you couldn’t be hetero- or homo-sexual without having impure thoughts.
Billy, you have to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual activity. The former is a description of whom one finds attractive in a romantic or sexual context; the latter is what one does about it.
Mychal Judge, AFAIK, never broke his vows as priest or Franciscan (he was doubly vowed, as a priest in a church where priests are celibate, and as a member of an order itself celibate). But he was clear that what he was abstaining from was sex with men, making him gay by the orientation definition.
Two former members here were, and AFAIK still are, male virgins. But their desires are (predominantly) for men, and so they self-identify as gay.
You also have to recognize the distinction made by most moral theologians between the momentary impulse that is not sinful – if, for example, you should see your beautiful 19-year-old neighbor in a string bikini and (presuming you’re straight) have your attention riveted by her attractiveness and your libido stimulated by it – and the entertaining of impure thoughts – having seen her, to continue the example, you contemplate how nice it would be to get her into bed, and proceed to fantasize the process, including visualizing what little her costume leaves to your imagination. To quote a wise old friend, playing off the use of “entertaining” to describe the distinction, “You are not responsible for a temptation walking down the street in front of your house. But you are expected not to invite it in, offer it an easy chair, and pour it a glass of wine.”
And the standard comment is that there are no “degrees of sin” except in the sense of whether you wilfully violate what you know clearly at the time to be a command of God (“serious sin” to a Catholic) – all sins are regarded as equal.