# How about "outing" gay Catholic Priests? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376 "2006-07-13T20:35:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/21 "2006-07-14T00:39:15Z")
Are you also going to out the many straight priests having affairs as well? Might as well-they’re just as hypocritical. I’m sure there are gay priests who manage to remain celibate, just as some straight priests do, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/22 "2006-07-14T00:41:16Z")
[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate] Outing gay priests isn’t going to change anyones minds about the Catholic church. [/QUOTE] By itself, probably not. But combined with the church’s stand against the ordination of women, protecting child molesters, on birth control and abortion, it contributes to the ever louder drumbeat that will eventually drown out the dogma. Every little bit helps. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/23 "2006-07-14T00:45:52Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Firstly, I could not care less if you are interested in hearing it or not, but no, the Catholic Church does not oppose homosexuals. [/quote] You don’t actually expect us to believe that, do you? > [@](#): > > Our stance on homosexuality is clear. We view it (quite accurately) as an mental illness. We don’t think being schizophrenic is a sin nor do we think being homosexual is a sin. On what authority, precisely, does the Catholic Church feel qualified to make this determination? What part of the Bible describes how to properly diagnose and treat mental illnesses? And while we’re at it, does the Catholic Church also oppose legislation designed to protect, say, schizophrenics from public discrimination? If there were a law making it illegal to fire someone, or refuse to rent them property, because they suffered from a neurosis (that did not affect their ability to do their job or pay their rent), would the Church oppose such a law? If not, why do they do so when such laws are proposed to protect people who suffer from the “mental illness” of homosexuality? > [@](#): > > What is viewed as sin is homosexual acts, those are sin. And people who unremorsefully practice them are sinners and are going to hell. That’s the simple truth of the matter, and I can’t imagine why the Catholic Church would want to modify its stance on this position, sinners shouldn’t be encouraged in their sin. The Church still holds that not believing in Jesus gets you damned too, right? Do you think the Church should actively oppose legislation protecting freedom from religious discrimination? If not, why not? How is that different from opposing gay marriage? I’m not a Catholic, why does the Catholic Church get to have a say in how I live my life? > [@](#): > > As for how I feel about this idea, I have mixed feelings. > > On the one hand, I think a campaign of personal attacks designed to ruin the lives of another person is both immoral and wrong, no matter their political beliefs. I wouldn’t do it to another person, because my conscience wouldn’t allow it. Most outspoken homsexuals are obviously already working against morals and decency, though, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d be all for this kind of campaign. Sorry, but you have neither the moral, nor the decent, position in this argument. On this subject, at least, you represent an active and repugnant evil. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, I don’t want practicing homosexuals as priests. People who are active homosexuals have no business being priests, and I would not want a practicing homosexual to be my priest. So, while I think it morally reprehensible to vindictively destroy someone’s life, ultimately it would be for the best in this situation because it would help get homosexuals out of the clergy. What other sins, if found in a practicing priest, do you think should result in them being defrocked? The Church holds that we are all sinners, and that we all sin in some manner every day. What sins are “okay” for a priest to commit, and what should have him thrown out of his order? And whatever happened to “all sins are equal?” > [@Garfield226](#): > > As I understand the church’s teachings, I can really really want a flatpanel monitor, and that isn’t a sin. If I break into the local big-box electronics store and snatch one off the shelf, that’s a sin. I can really really be attracted to a man, and that isn’t a sin. If I go have have sex with him, that’s a sin. Is “wanting a flat-panel monitor” also a mental illness? ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/24 "2006-07-14T00:59:59Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] Firstly, I could not care less if you are interested in hearing it or not, but no, the Catholic Church does not oppose homosexuals. Our stance on homosexuality is clear. We view it (quite accurately) as an mental illness. We don’t think being schizophrenic is a sin nor do we think being homosexual is a sin. [/QUOTE] In point of fact the Catholic Church calls it a “grave moral disorder” and an “intrinsic moral evil”. I have never seen any declaration in which they presumed to judge that it was a “mental illness”. Do you have a cite for that? Nor does the American, the Canadian, nor any other western Psychiatric Association consider it a mental illness. In fact, there are perhaps hundreds of gay persons practising as psychologists and psychiatrists in the western world. It would be odd to think that all of these countries and professional associations allow mentally ill people to practise as mental health professionals. But perhaps you, Martin Hyde, are better able to judge who is or is not mentally ill. So first of all, may I ask what your professional qualifications are? Secondly, since you obviously cannot be carrying on a rational debate with a mentally ill person, I guess this will be the last communbication between you and I. Have a nice life, Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/25 "2006-07-14T01:06:47Z")
[QUOTE=Garfield226] As I understand the church’s teachings, I can really really want a flatpanel monitor, and that isn’t a sin. If I break into the local big-box electronics store and snatch one off the shelf, that’s a sin. I can really really be attracted to a man, and that isn’t a sin. If I go have have sex with him, that’s a sin. Even if you don’t follow the belief, surely you can differentiate between the state of mind and the actual, physical act? [/QUOTE] But in your example, you purposely cite an act that is intrinsically wrong, i.e., breaking and entering and stealing a flat-screen monitor. What about if a consenting adult gives you an FSM or if you buy one with your own money from a consenting adult who freely chooses to sell it to you? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/26 "2006-07-14T01:07:45Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] But in your example, you purposely cite an act that is intrinsically wrong, i.e., breaking and entering and stealing a flat-screen monitor. What about if a consenting adult gives you an FSM or if you buy one with your own money from a consenting adult who freely chooses to sell it to you? [/QUOTE] What makes it “intrinsically” wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/27 "2006-07-14T01:19:25Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] On the other hand, I don’t want practicing homosexuals as priests. People who are active homosexuals have no business being priests, and I would not want a practicing homosexual to be my priest. So, while I think it morally reprehensible to vindictively destroy someone’s life, ultimately it would be for the best in this situation because it would help get homosexuals out of the clergy. [/QUOTE] Considering that _practicing_ heterosexuals aren’t supposed to be priests either, what difference does it make? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/28 "2006-07-14T01:28:43Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] But in your example, you purposely cite an act that is intrinsically wrong, i.e., breaking and entering and stealing a flat-screen monitor. What about if a consenting adult gives you an FSM or if you buy one with your own money from a consenting adult who freely chooses to sell it to you? [/QUOTE] (sorry for the double post) My point is not to debate whether or not the Catholic belief is right or correct. As I said, I’m not a Catholic and I never have been one. My point is that asking if “adultery” or “thievery” are considered mental illnesses in Catholicism to see if the religion is consistant makes no sense. Adultery and thievery are acts in and of themselves. Homosexuality is not. To say that adultery, thievery and homosexual acts (whatever the church defines those to be) are all sins is consistant (whether or not it is right), because they are all actions. They are separating homosexual acts with identifying one’s self as a homosexual. Surely you’re not stating that all people attracted to other people of the same gender must act upon that attraction to be a “real” homosexual (just as someone identifying as a heterosexual need not act upon it to identify as such)? Again, I’m not trying to defend the Catholic belief that homosexual acts are sin and homosexuality is a mental illness. I just don’t see any inconsistancy in separating acts from beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/29 "2006-07-14T01:45:38Z")
> [@](#): > > The Church still holds that not believing in Jesus gets you damned too, right? Actually, the RCC does not hold this postition and excommunicated the last priest to insist on preaching it. > [@](#): > > And whatever happened to “all sins are equal?” That is a belief of some Protestant denominations, but is not a belief promulgated by the RCC. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/30 "2006-07-14T01:47:30Z")
Thanks for the corrections, **tom~**. I was not aware of that. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/31 "2006-07-14T02:06:24Z")
[QUOTE=Garfield226] (sorry for the double post) My point is not to debate whether or not the Catholic belief is right or correct. As I said, I’m not a Catholic and I never have been one. My point is that asking if “adultery” or “thievery” are considered mental illnesses in Catholicism to see if the religion is consistant makes no sense. Adultery and thievery are acts in and of themselves. Homosexuality is not. To say that adultery, thievery and homosexual acts (whatever the church defines those to be) are all sins is consistant (whether or not it is right), because they are all actions. They are separating homosexual acts with identifying one’s self as a homosexual. Surely you’re not stating that all people attracted to other people of the same gender must act upon that attraction to be a “real” homosexual (just as someone identifying as a heterosexual need not act upon it to identify as such)? Again, I’m not trying to defend the Catholic belief that homosexual acts are sin and homosexuality is a mental illness. I just don’t see any inconsistancy in separating acts from beliefs. [/QUOTE] Garfield, you ask why breaking in and stealing somegthing is intrinsically wrong. Well, let me ask you a question. In your value system, is stealing wrong because it violates something in the Bible or because it violates the basic rights of the victim whose property is being stolen? For me it is the latter. By the same token, two consenting adults who use their bodies to give one another pleasure are not commiting an intrinsic moral evil. Although if one or both of them have sworn fidelity to another, such as in marriage, then they are doing something evil because they are violating their given word and thereby the rights of the person who is counting on them to keep their word. By the same token, if an adult has sex with a child, they are doing something evil because the child does not have the knowledge and maturity to consent to the act. They are violating the rights of the child. Yes, I would agree that there is a difference between temptation of inclination to do and the act itself. There is no intrinsic harm in being tempted to do anything. You are not harming anyone if you are only tempted to kill your father to inherit his money. But if you do so you do evil because you are violating his right to life. There is no harm in my being tempted to have a dish of ice cream. And I believe I will now do so, and I will not be doing an evil act because I harm nobody (except my waistline a little 😃 ). There is no harm in my male spouse and I being tempted to have sex (we still feel like it after 30 years together). And if we do so, we are commitging no evil because we are two consenting adults pleasuring one another with our bodies, and harming nobody. On the other hand, if a heterosexual or a homosexual makes a free personal decision to be chaste and not to have sex with anyone, that is perfectly all right. Just as it is perfectly all right if I change my mind and decide NOT to have that dish of ice cream. But what you did in your example is you used the example of somethiung perfectly normal and morally neutral, (wanting a flat screen monitor), and combined it with an act that is intrinsically wrong, namely, stealing the FSM. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/32 "2006-07-14T02:08:53Z")
So you CAN separate the act and the state of being, and are only debating the rightness or wrongness of it. Then we are not in disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/33 "2006-07-14T02:34:55Z")
Tomndeb, since you seem to have a lot of answers about Catholicism, refresh my memory. As I remember from my 13 years of indoctrination (sorry, I mean education) in Catholic Schools it would be a contradiction of Catholic doctrine for an act to be BOTH a result of mental illness AND a sin, would it not? From my recollection of Cathecism, a rational understanding of the act is necessary before it can be sinful, is it not? For example, babies are felt to be incapable of sin. Similarly, kleptomaniacs cannot be guilty of the sin of theft. If I kill my father to inherit his money it is certainly a sin. But if I kill my father because I am suffering from some form of severe mental illness in which I imagine him to be a giant spider about to kill me, it is not a sin. In fact, as I recall, there is striking difference between sin and crime. If I shoot into a bed wrongly thinking that my intended murder victim is sleeping there, I cannot even be accused of attempted murder, because as I learned in law school, an attempted crime must be possible to commit. If the bed is empty and my intended victim is in another city, I might at worst be convicted of discharging an firearm illegally. But I remember a Catholic priest explaining that I WOULD have committed the sin of murder FROM THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW since I conceived the plan and took the action. The fact that I only shot bullets into a bed does not change the fact that I willingly committed the sin. Am I right on any of this? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/34 "2006-07-14T02:44:12Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] In point of fact the Catholic Church calls it a “grave moral disorder” and an “intrinsic moral evil”. I have never seen any declaration in which they presumed to judge that it was a “mental illness”. [/QUOTE] Besides, in order for, in turn, declaring that the “conduct” part is Mortal Sin, the person would have to be of enough of a sound mind to freely chose to act. Let’s see… ah, here – the relevant passages from the _Catechism of the Catholic Church_: > [@](#): > > 2357.- Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. \*\*Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. \*\* Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. > _(emphasis added)_ Notice they do not call it a mental illness but state “its psychological genesis remains lergely unexplained”, leaving it open to any origin; which when combined with the next two articles seem to point to an expectation that the "disorder’ does not affect the soundness of mind to make moral decisions if the effort is taken. Notice it admits that as far as the Church is concerned the originof homosexuality is not the point, since it being “intrinsically morally disordered” is “revealed teaching” from Scripture and traditon – not from science, not from human experience, not from empirical observation (“natural law” in Churchspeak does not mean the same thing as “laws of nature” in science). Only way could such an absolute declaration that gay relationships _“do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity”_ can be made is if you presume a from-above definition of “genuine” that’s independent of what each human experiences. Continuing: > [@](#): > > 2358.- The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. > 2359.- Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. And boy, wouldn’t this last article at first blush seem to say the hierarchs have it all backwards and they should be seeking to maximize gay (_celibate!_) priests, rather than shutting the doors. Good thing they threw in that “intrinsic disorder” language earlier, eh? :dubious: And as if to show that even here the devil (ha) is in the details, notice how how “there should be no unjust discrimination” is tacked on immediately following “is _objectively_ disordered” – precisely, that’s where problems will arise, because if something is objectively disordered and “great depravity”, then **some** discrimination **could be** “just”, right? :smack: As to the OP, a priest that while ostensibly practicing his profession, is at the same time cruising bathhouses or clubs looking for sex, be it gay or straight, he most definitely has a problem and we can suspect he is not in the right line of work. I’d be inclined to treat this on a case-by-case basis: If a gay priest, in his day-job is actively railing against gays and their corruption and lobbying against gay rights, while by night working the gloryholes (or one who wails and hollers about family values and life, but is doing parishioner’s wives and has personally caused a couple of Sisters to head for the Planned Parenthood clinic), he may be due for a take-down or at least a warning shot across the bow to zip it, in every sense. If OTOH there’s another one who is trying to keep a low profile and struggling to see how he can reconcile his sexual identity and his calling, and do something good quietly and patiently behind the scenes, I say let him come to the necessary terms with his conscience. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/35 "2006-07-14T03:02:37Z")
I’m not **tom~** , nor have I yet played him on TV, but let me see if I may be of assistance… [QUOTE=Valteron] Tomndeb, since you seem to have a lot of answers about Catholicism, refresh my memory. As I remember from my 13 years of indoctrination (sorry, I mean education) in Catholic Schools it would be a contradiction of Catholic doctrine for an act to be BOTH a result of mental illness AND a sin, would it not? From my recollection of Cathecism, a rational understanding of the act is necessary before it can be sinful, is it not? [/quote] Catechism: > [@](#): > > 1859 Mortal sin requires **full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.** Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. > > 1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. **The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest**. It seems to say “mortal sin” definitely requires full knowledge and complete consent, but that you may still be on the hook for venial sin (misdemeanor, so to speak) depending on how bad was it that you did in the thrall of pathological disorder. > [@Valteron](#): > > But I remember a Catholic priest explaining that I WOULD have committed the sin of murder FROM THE RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW since I conceived the plan and took the action. The fact that I only shot bullets into a bed does not change the fact that I willingly committed the sin. Catechism: > [@](#): > > 1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, \*\*or a desire \*\* contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22: PL 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ.[…] > > 2302 By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral. > Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice. **If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin.** The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment” This one has a biblical basis – during the Sermont of the Mount Jesus says it’s not enough that you not murder your neighbor or sleep with his wife, if you have been mad enough to wish him ill, or have been thinking of how you could get it on with her, you have already sinned “in your heart”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/36 "2006-07-14T03:26:58Z")
[QUOTE=Valteron] In fact, as I recall, there is striking difference between sin and crime. If I shoot into a bed wrongly thinking that my intended murder victim is sleeping there, I cannot even be accused of attempted murder, because as I learned in law school, an attempted crime must be possible to commit. If the bed is empty and my intended victim is in another city, I might at worst be convicted of discharging an firearm illegally. [/quote] No. There was, at common law, a distinction between legal impossibility and factual impossibility. But today, most jurisdictions now recognize that legal and factual impossibility are “logically indistinguishable,” _United States v. Darnell_, 545 F.2d 595, 597 (8th Cir. 1976), and have abolished impossibility as a defense. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/37 "2006-07-14T03:51:56Z")
[If they’re genuinely celibate, what does it matter if they’re gay or straight?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347464) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/38 "2006-07-14T04:49:25Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [If they’re genuinely celibate, what does it matter if they’re gay or straight?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347464) [/QUOTE] Exactly what I’ve been trying to say. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/39 "2006-07-14T05:02:43Z")
Okay, **Hyde** has it completely wrong, not surprisingly. The Catholic Church has no opinion on why people are homosexual. They believe that homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically “disordered,” just like divorce, fornication, masturbation, and lust itself. See the relevant section of the [catechism](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm), on the _Sixième Commandement_, as Father LaVecque would so delicately put it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376/40 "2006-07-14T13:57:52Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] They believe that homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically “disordered,” just like divorce, fornication, masturbation, and lust itself. [/QUOTE] Lust – an emotion God or evolution hard-wired into every animal species, and without which every species would die out – is a **disorder?!** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-outing-gay-catholic-priests/364376.md?page=3)