Some one please explain to me how(or why should I say) it is possible for a priest/minister or whatever you choose to call it, preach the word of God, but yet they are gay?
I have a friend that is Catholic & is engaged to a guy who is Jewish. They will be getting married by both a Priest & a Rabbi, however, the Priest is gay. This can’t be right.
Well, IANAC, but I’m thinking that since a Catholic priest must take a vow of celibacy, their sexual orientation wouldn’t really matter – they’re not going to be getting any from either gender. Also, I think being gay is regarded as a test from God that requires prayer, faith, etc. (Any Catholics out there with cites?)
I fear, however, that your question might actually be: “A homosexual must hate God in order to deliberately make that choice, so how can he then preach God’s word”? If that’s the case, I don’t think I can help you too much with your quandry, except to advise that you go ponder the vastness of the world.
Define gay in your usage.
The RCC forbids the practice of homosexuality. (It also currently requires that all priests refrain from any sexual activity.) Unless the priest is actively engaging in sexual activity (with either a man or a woman), he is not in violation of church rules (nor, in the view of the church), God’s rules.
If the priest is actively engaged in a homosexual relationship, then he is in violation of all sorts of rules–and one wonders why the diocese allows him to continue to minister as a priest. Of course, if the diocese is not aware of any such activity, they will not sanction him. And, of course, the question arises: How you you know he is gay? Has he publicly announced his love for a significant other? Or does he simply have some “effeminate” mannerisms and people are drawing conclusions with no more evidence than that?
Back to the broader question: Whether it is Leviticus or Paul, the prohibitions are against specific acts, not against the internal feelings.
Mighty Maximino-
I wouldn’t really say that Gays have to hate God, I just do not find that it is right. Well, if they are not having sex, how can they say they are gay. It also says in the Bible that Homosexuality is an abomination. What gives? If they really read the Bible, they would know that. Also, does anyone ever ask themselves " Would Jesus ever be gay? No, I am sure he would not. Aren’t we suppose to live as Christ would?
Christ would allow gays to be priests.
I doubt you have acutally read the bible though. The bible also says that wearing mixed fabrics is equally as bad as homosexuality. Poly/cotton blends are of the devil.
What gives appears to be a definite pair of misunderstandings on your part.
Homosexuality relates to how people understand which people attract them sexually. If only people who engage in sex can be homosexual, then only people who engage in sex can be heterosexual. Therefore, by that definition, no one is heterosexual until they have engaged in sex with a person of the opposite sex.
The bible does not in any verse claim that “homosexuality” is wrong. In Leviticus, specific homosexual acts (between men, but not between women) are prohibited. No mention is made of sexual orientation (i.e., how one feels about themselves or about other people). Similarly, in Romans Paul condemns men and women who engage in sexual acts with members of the same sex. There is no mention of how those people feel about other people. Only the actions are condemned.
There’s a fair bit of anecdotal evidence that suggests that Jesus was pretty tolerant of that sort of thing. In Luke 22:10, he tells Peter & John to arrange a place for the last supper, and says that as they enter the city, they’ll find a man carrying a jar of water, and he can lead them to the house.
Uh, so…? Hebrew scholars will tell you that carrying water is something that men simply did not do, as it was considered effeminate. It’s like Jesus said, “Watch out for the guy in high-heeled shoes and a blonde wig.”
In Mark 14:51-52, Jesus’s arrest is described. What do you make of Jesus in the company of a naked guy in a sheet?
I’m just sayin’.
And then, of course, there is the Secret Gospel of Mark, which says:
Interpret as you will; besides, the SGoM isn’t remotely canonical. Just saying.
hunnerbunner, I have a friend who is attracted to men but feels that God made him that way to test his resolve. Possibly this priest is the same way? (If he is indeed gay, as tomndebb astutely points out.) Possibly taking a vow of chastity is an acceptable out for someone that feels that following up on their sexual urges would be sinful? I wouldn’t be surprised. If you don’t think someone can be gay if they are not actually in a homosexual relationship, then why worry about how they self-classify?
Hah!
That’s a tough one, since the only references to it are quotations by people who were actively suppressing it.
As much as it may be a result of Clement trying to cast aspersions on the SGoM, I think *“To the pure, all things are pure.” has a certain resonance.
I put much more stock in the Gospel of Thomas, though, since it’s origins are beyond any reasonable doubt.
and
Well, I agree that the origins of the Gospel of Thomas are fairly well established, but that points to the fact that it is a Gnostic work that attempted to portray all material/physical as evil with a periodic subtext that the female body was inferior to the male mind. This gives the quoted passages the fairly clear intent that all this “sex” stuff was going to be suppressed in the fullness of time and that any “worthy” woman would be allowed to have male mental/spiritual qualities. That is rather different than interpreting them as an acceptance of sexual relations, whether hetero- or homo-sexual.
This seems like a fairly easy question to answer. All you have to do is look around you and note that people come in all different flavors. They have all different types of sexual preferences and interests.
These sexual tendencies have nothing to do with what kind of a person they are morally or in a religious sense. They simply constitute apptetites the same way we have appetites for food and taste preferences for certain colors.
A person’s religion does not designate their sexual preferences, though it may help determine their sexual beharior. Therefore, people of all sexual interests are found in religious positions of various types.
-L
Duh.
(Wee hijack)
While I agree in substance with your statement, (to be fair, I’m only teasing with my cites,) I think that the gnostic scriptures were largely about combining “male” and “female” mental qualities. (ie, logic & intuition.) I don’t think that the Pistis Sophia suggests women are in any way inferior to men.
as i get older, i find myself getting more tolerant of things i would of violently disapproved of in my younger days.
the church i attend (united methodist) has been debating ordaining homosexuals for several years. i had thought i would have to leave the church if they did, but now i am not sure what i would do.
didn’t christ say “love one another”?
that seems pretty non-specific to me.
it is definatly a question that needs thought.
Once again, please - according to most mainstream Christian religions (that have such {ahem} outdated views), it’s ok to be gay, you just can’t do those gay things; i.e., as long as you’re celibate, it’s no sin.
Try reading the Catholic catechism (and yes, I know I spelled that wrong) for details.
[sub]mutter mutter “intimate friendships my ass” mutter mutter[/sub]
Esprix
ummmm, I thought that was the point?
- ::: g, d & r ::: *
Well, to all: Don’t take it the wrong way, some of my closest friends are gay, & i am in no way Gay -Bashing. This is a topic my gay friends &i discuss all the time. I do agree that we should all love one another, & no, we should not be judgemental, but to be very honest, it would be really hard for me to sit under a pastor in church, listening to him preach the Word of God, & then after service, he goes home & snuggles in bed with a man! If it were any one else, it would be different, but not a Holy man.
There was a thread at http://www.snopes.com in the Religion forum that in the medieval period, there actually WAS a sort of “gay marriage” sanctified in the Catholic church-sort of a, loyalty friendship bond, if you will.
My guess why the ancient church was so down on homosexuality? Perhaps because the Greeks practiced it as the highest form of love-a man for a man-women were unclean. I don’t know about the Romans, but they could’ve been the same. And I guess they thought-hey, they’re Pagans, or what have you, so that’s wrong.
Who knows?
hunner-I’d rather have a priest who did that than the pastor who embezzled over 1 million from our Parish over the years, using it to gamble in Atlantic city, and then had the gall to blame it on a terminally ill church secretary.
Tomndebb: 
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!
Why? And if so, I hope you don’t listen to those mixed-fabric wearers, either. Do you check to make sure your clery are wearing all cotton or (gasp!) all polyesther vestements, undergarments, socks and the like? Otherwise, you’d certainly be listening to a sinner preach the Word. Hallelujah!
:rolleyes:
In case you missed it, everyone is a sinner according to that book thing you read, gay or straight. If a gay person has sought Jesus as his/her Saviour, isn’t that enough? I’m thinking you’re being awfully judgemental of your fellow Christians here. Who are you to decide who is and who isn’t a good Christian?
(Mind you, I’m not Christian, thankfully - I find it a disturbing little cult - but you’re entitled to your opinions, and it would be nice if there were some continuity among them.)
Esprix
I dunno about that, Esprix. I agree with your position in the substantive issue, but perhaps not your argument. The underlying theme of the NT is that Jesus knocked out the old regs and replaced them, so wearing mixed blend fabrics and eating bacon cheeseburgers is no longer sinning in the Christian worldview – but on the same side of this coin, we can’t go around bringing in prohibitions from Leviticus about homosexuality! We should focus on what JC had to say about the whole thing (which really ain’t much) . . . and in my mind there are four possibilities.
In case there is no actual homosexual relationship involoved:
- As many have pointed out, no one should care if a holy man isn’t actively having sex with anyone. If they would like to have sex with men, but aren’t, they are no more culpable than if they would like to have sex with women, but aren’t. And since a Catholic priest especially ought not to be having sex with ANYONE, problem solved.
If there is a homosexual relationship involved:
-
The Bible is literal and inerrant. The letters of Paul mean exactly what they say. Homosexual acts are a sin. If you believe those three things, and also believe that an active, unrepentant sinner (and you couldn’t really be repentant about a healthy relationship) shouldn’t be a minister, then you should not support a homosexual minister. I do not like this position, but there it is.
-
The Bible is literal, but some terms have been mistranslated. If you want many liberal (and conservative) interpretations of this issue, check out this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm
The basic liberal interpretations are that the Apostles were railing against pimping, pagan rituals, slavery, angel raping, etc. It’s entirely reasonable to postulate that a monogomous, loving homosexual relationship wouldn’t be a problem, and that a minister involved in one is OK too. -
The Bible is not necessarily to be taken literally. Paul, especially, is providing his own personal opinions. After all, Paul doesn’t want anyone to get married, really. He’s not so down on slavery, and he’s definately not a fan of women (as an aside, do you oppose female ministers because of I Corinthians 14:34?). If you take this approach, then once again a gay minister is not really a problem.
I guess I’d just like to throw in, hunner, that I hope you give explanations 3 or 4 a try. After all, a minister who is openly gay in the current Christian environment is opening up him/herself to all sorts of slanders and abuses, personal threats, and general nastiness. Such a person has probably done a lot of reflection on the nature of God and God’s love, and is not worth dismissing out of hand.