Recently Pope Francis when asked about Gay Priests indicated that the church should/would accept homosexual priests.
Catholic priests are celibate and not have any sexual relations (yea!I know with recent events you wouldn’t think so) even self gratification is regarded as a sin so why would a priests sexual orientation be an issue.
Why would the Pope even comment on the issue of gay Priests.
Because there’s lots of them.
Sounds like chacoguy is making a joke but no, it’s really somewhat true. I haven’t read the exact text, but did someone ask directly? They’ve been in the priesthood for years, not “out” per se to make a sermon out of it, but often it’s not an issue, as the expectations are the same as straight priests (except probably in the Eastern Rite). And all of this has nothing at all to do with molestation, I’ll bet many of those guilty would identify as straight and mean it.
The previous Pope (and, I believe, still the current ruling of the Church) is that Gays shouldn’t be priests, despite their vow of celibacy. So the Church is concerned with the issue.
There’s also supposedly a “gay lobby” in the Curia that has undue influence on Church matters. Since the reporting on this is basically all hearsay, its pretty hard to say what exactly that means, but its existence has been reported pretty widely, and is apparently wrapped up in the private “Vatican Report” on Church corruption issues created under Pope Bene.
I imagine one or both of those two issues are why the Pope is being asked about the issue of gay priests.
Repeating this as I wasn’t being entirely flippant.
Yes. He has mentioned homosexuality a couple of times in his writing and speaking, but so far as I know the only time he has commented on homosxuality and priests was in an unstructured q-and-a session with reporters on his flight back from attending World Youth Day in Brazil.
He was specifically asked about a Msgr Ricca, who he had recently appointed to a role in the Institute of Religious Works (the “Vatican Bank”). It was suggested that about ten or twelve years ago he’d been dismissed from a Vatican diplomatic post because he’d been living openly with a (same-sex) lover. The Pope said that the allegation had been investigated and dismissed, but went on to say that such a thing wasn’t necessarily the huge deal that some would make it out to be - it was a sin, not a crime (and, by implication, had no bearing on his fitness for a post at the IOR). He was then asked about the much-talked-of “gay lobby” in the Vatican. He didn’t confirm or deny the existence of the gay lobby; rather, he suggested that the Vatican (and other institutions) were full of lobbies, this was not a good thing, and the problem with any gay lobby would not be so much with the “gay” part as with the “lobby” part.
To put this in context, “gay lobby”, as used by Vaticanistas does not mean “gay lobby” as used by the US socially conservative right. In US right-speak, the “gay lobby” is devoted to changing the law and changing social attitudes, getting books they approve of into public libraries and schools and getting rid of books they disapprove of, all with the ultimate aim of converting your impressionable children to rampant gay-hood in thought, word and deed. The Vatican gay lobby, however, is not supposed to be doing anything analogous; if anything, they are fairly heavily invested in church teaching as it stands. Instead, their purpose is to support, defend, protect and advance one another, given that they all have things in their private life which could harm them if disclosed. So they have code of mutual discretion and protection.
To benefit from participating in such a lobby, of course, it’s not necessary that the potentially-harmful information about you should be anything to do with sexual orientation; if Cardinal X keeps quiet about/distract attention from the fact that Cardinal Y has a male lover, while Cardinal Y observes a similar discretion with respect to Cardinal X’s alcoholism/nepotism/financial irregularities/administrative incompetence, then in Vaticanista terms both are part of the “gay lobby”. And if Cardinal X uses his influence with Cardinal Y to benefit Cardinal Z in return for some favour from Cardinal Z, Cardinal Z is also part of this lobby, even though he may know nothing at all of Cardinal Y’s orientation.
Yep, did not think so.
UDS, thanks for the cite/clarification. It has been my impression as well. To be specific: when he mentioned gay people a couple times, the policy was nothing new, although perhaps more candid. The “gay lobby” is not people agitating for gay rights or anything like that, but a reference to the “lobby” part, which might be a bit about the jockeying for influence part. Apparently that’s not stopping internet columnists from jumping to conclusions, I see.
Perhaps the Bishop that was going to have a prayer Exorcism will eliminate what he says is from Satan, because of Gays being allowed to marry.
He doesn’t sound like what the new Pope is asking, to play down the social issues and hope more RCs will return to the church?
The way it was all explained to me (by Jesuits) is that in the eyes of the Catholic church, the mere state of being homosexual isn’t sinful in itself. It’s the actual gay sex that is sinful… but no more so than any other sort of sodomy, including the sorts done by straight people to each other.
So it makes sense that the Church wouldn’t have a problem with priests of either stripe if they’re celibate, since the actual sin only comes into play when you aren’t celibate.
Makes sense, perhaps, but its not the policy of the Church: ’’the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.
That reads to me like, don’t be femmy limp-wrist and don’t march in any pride parades. Someone who’s gay, celibate, and wears just enough flannel shouldn’t pose a problem.
This makes sense to me. No doubt the Church also wouldn’t want a man who enjoyed porn and supported the porno community as a priest, either.
The part about “presenting deep-seated homosexual tendencies” gives me pause, unless it means the same as the above (meaning, based on behavior rather than desires). Would it be wrong for a man who really wants to get laid (heterosexually) to be a priest, as long as he controlled his desires?
By “control” I include controlling one’s thoughts, to some extent. While we can’t control what occurs to us, we can control what thoughts we try to pursue. I can choose to fantasize about a subject, or I can distract myself to other thoughts when it happens. My guess is that a man who intentionally savors sinful fantasies isn’t particularly suited for the Priesthood.
Of course, that’s presuming that homosexuality really is a sin proscribed in the Bible. In reality, it’s rarely mentioned, and then, usually as one word (usually translated as sodomy) in a list of sins, rather than being treated specifically. The one exception I’m aware of is in Deuteronomy, right next to where it discusses burning witches, how much to pay for slaves, and that women mustn’t cook for men during their periods (stuff we all find very important in our daily lives today.)
I think the idea there is that they don’t want priests actively supporting things they consider sins, which is pretty much exactly what supporting gay culture is in their eyes- if not for the gay sex, it’s just a bunch of men hanging out… much like the priesthood, military, etc… (and yes, I’m aware of the irony).
This isn’t inconsistent either; they’re adamantly anti-divorce, contraception and premarital sex for straight people for much the same reasons. I doubt they’d ordain a straight man who advocated swinging any more than they’d ordain an openly gay or gay-supporting priest.
[emphasis mine] The reason the Pope would even comment on the issue of gay priests is because the assumption that I bolded is incorrect. Catholic priests are *supposed *to be celibate, but in many cases are not. Because of the hardline against homosexuality, the priesthood has always been a safehaven for those who self-identified as gay.
Having “Deeply seated homosexual tendencies” isn’t actively supporting anything.
You can read the full document if you want. It makes it pretty clear that homosexuals aren’t supposed to be admitted to the seminary, even if they’re closeted (it specifically bars cases where someone is dishonest about their homosexuality) and/or celibate (it specifically says “tendencies” are different then “acts” and both are a bar for entrance).
The Catholic Church’s view is that homosexuals should not enter the priesthood, even if they’re celibate.
Which is absolutely hysterical if you’ve actually met a bunch of priests.
And… I thnk that was what Francis was commenting on - yes, the church has issued this policy, but policy (as opposd to doctrine) can and does change. He’s floated the trial balloon that pretty much corresponds with current social though, that gay is a state conferred by birth, and as long as the person is not acting on their sexual desires, straight or gay, then who is the church to discourage them from the priethood if they sincerely believe?
BTW, you are conflating “gay” and “pedophile” it appears. The priests in the news in the USA (and elsewhere) appear to be the “bad apples” that preferred younger boys. the arrangements of the church were such that this group was presented with the biggest temptation and opportunity (altarboys, parochial schools) but there are instances of priests that prefer little girls, and grown men or grown women. Priests are only human, and some give in to temptation.
As a contrast, until the Boy Scouts addressed this problem, Scout Leader was a standing joke like “catholic Priest” as a place where people of a certain preference might be found. Keep in mind though, that generally those (not in the priesthood) who are caught with preferences for children tended to be normal heterosexuals. If you are trying to hide deviant tendencies, pretending to be gay is not the ideal cover; and gay (prefers adult men) is significantly distinct from “prefers young boys”.
The most commonly quoted prohibition about homosexuality is Leviticus (20:13) that mentions that it is an abomination and the perps shall be stoned. (also the mention about selling your daughter into slavery Leviticus 25:44-46, and other provisions lampooned in the “Letter to Doctor Laura”)
Of course, by that logic you’re also damned if you eat pork, are not circumcised, touch a woman during her period, cut your beard… but if you cause a woman to lose her fetus, it’s no big deal. The bible is informative.
My experience with the church was mainly around the 70’s, but the majority of ex-priests I encountered there were the type that realized by their 30’s or 40’s they had made a mistake, left the priesthood, and got married… Often after their first close encounter with a serious relationship.
At the time, of course, I never encountered any suggestion of child abuse. In fact, just the opposite - one of our clerical teachers actually warned the class about a situation they had encountered earlier, where another student had preyed on younger students - they encouraged students (IIRC it was about grade 7, late 60’s, long before such things were commonly discussed) that if anyone tried anything '“dirty”, to report it to the teachers or administration.
Becoming a RC priest is a commitment. You can’t decide to, and then get ordained before the year is out. It will be a similar level of commitment to getting a graduate degree, and I’d imagine both have a high level of doubting, “am I doing the right thing?” (I can vouch for one of those career paths). Throughout that, the higher-ups will make sure, too. So in your example there would be lots of discussion, whether in the context of discussion or not. It would then be determined whether this presents a problem (sounds like it). Even if you want to join a monastery as a lay member, there is some longer period of time before you make vows.
Some interesting insight on the subject.
Yes my OP was inspired by a q-and-a session with the Pope with reporters on his flight back from attending World Youth Day in Brazil.
I understand that things go on behind closed (Church) doors and no doubt many priests are homosexual but the Clergy are not supposed to have ANY sexual orientation.
The press naturally want to create news and given recent events in the Church and the general drift towards gay awareness it’s a question they would ask.
Within the Church the question whether a priest is heterosexual or homosexual should never come up. So why would the Pope even entertain the question?
My wild-ass guess: because some people believe that even being homosexual is sinful, which could be seen as being incompatible with the priesthood. The Pope apparently does not agree.