Does this sound even a little plausible to you?

From CWN:

 German archbishop: No relation between clerical abuse and homosexuality March 01, 2010

Denying a link between the clerical abuse of minors– predominantly male– and homosexuality, [uh huh….. riiiiight….] the president of the German bishops’ conference rejected a proposal by the nation’s justice minister for a roundtable meeting. Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg also said that there was no link between clerical celibacy and the abuse of children.

“Sexual abuse of children is not a problem specific the Catholic Church,” he said. “Therefore, we do not need a round table specifically for the Catholic Church.”

“Most of these cases are from 25 or 30 years ago,” he added. “At that time people believed that if the perpetrators admitted their injustices, they wouldn’t do it anymore. It was naive to believe that.”

“Child abuse is one of the most terrible crimes and has to be investigated,” commented German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “I have the impression the Catholic Church has realized this.”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

    German archbishop says ‘no’ to roundtable on Catholic sex abuse (Deutsche Welle)
    Merkel praises German Catholic move to alter sex abuse rules (DPA)

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Sedgwick says:

    Apparently an 81% statistical link is not good enough for +Zoilitsch…or perhaps he himself is a homosexual and would like to sweep that link under the rug. He is correct about one thing, though: “Sexual abuse of children is not a problem specific [to] the Catholic Church.” For example, how about a round table on the UN pedophile network?

  2. Brian Day says:

    From the linked article:
    He went on to say that sexual molestation had nothing to do with celibacy, homosexuality, or the Catholic teaching.

    1) Celibacy – nope
    2) Homosexuality – as Fr Z wrote “uh huh….. riiiiight…”
    3) Catholic teaching – nope

    As Meeatloaf famously sang, “two out of three ain’t bad”.

    Too bad +Zolitsch had to engage in mis-direction about homosexuality. His other points were fine.

  3. Aaron says:

    “Denying a link between the clerical abuse of minors—predominantly male—and homosexuality…”

    Does anyone actually believe this, or is it just one of those things we all have to claim to believe to pass in polite society, like the idea that any child can become a rocket scientist if he just works hard enough?

  4. TJerome says:

    Wow, kind of unhinged from reality. I would find his assertion more credible if the abuse cases broke down along the lines found in non-clerical circles: 5-10% of the abuse cases involved priests with boys and 90-95% of the abuse cases involved priests with girls. The reported statistics tell another story.

  5. Thomas S says:

    Aside from his head scratcher about homosexuality, the Archbishop made some good points.

    That being said, Sedgwick’s comments bordering on slander against the Archbishop should be removed.

  6. PS says:

    I dunno. I think that 81% number comes from a very dubious source. Having worked with abused kids in the distant past, the abuser often had a very confused sort of sexuality. Many didn’t seem to have a specific sexual preference so much as a specific age preference. Most child abusers seem fascinated with control, power, and how that can relate to sexuality, as I understand it.

    In any case, I think we, as opponents of gay marriage, etc do ourselves and our goals a disservice when we buy into stereotypes of our opponents. The prejudice that gay people (especially men) are mostly sexual predators has been around for a long time and is quite pervasive. Sure UCDavis is a bastion of liberal blah blah blah. Find me a source that contradicts the above and isn’t from a particularly conservative outlet and I’ll concede my point. In any case, I’ve known plenty of very openly gay men in my life and not once has one of them seemed interested in the least in a little boy.

  7. Stephen Hand says:

    What if it’s because in the good ol’days (pre-1994) only boys could serve at the altar and the perverts had easiest access to them.
    Gays are an easy scapegoat, but if you go that route, you have to realize that as long as celibacy is mandatory the priesthood will be a magnet for gay men, something about it being one of the few places in Catholic society where it’s acceptable for a man to be an old bachelor without raising eye brows. (never two always three)

  8. Desertfalcon says:

    I think it should be pointed out that in the majority of the sexual abuse cases the boys involved were not pre-pubescent children who were raped. The label “paedophile” gets thrown around and applied incorrectly in most of these cases. I do believe it involves sexual orientation for that reason. The offending priests don’t seem to come from backgrounds of being abused as children themselves from what I’ve read. I think it a case of lonely priest and attractive young teens who can be talked into about anything by an authority figure. I don’t think it is indicative of gay people as much as closeted gay people who can’t deal with the requirement chastity that so many of us, regardless of sexual orientation, struggle with. The Church would do well to speak more on how gay, chaste and faithful Catholics, should live. No to Holy Orders. If unqualified for that vocation, I can only imagine the disaster of self-identified homosexuals attempting to become straight and marry, potentially messing up others lives with a marriage doomed to failure and children to be without an active parent. The Church at times has seemed to fight the right of gays to be employed in many occupations or even to be able to be protected from eviction from housing. So how are they to live? What should a Catholic gay persons life be like? It would be nice if Catholics who are straight really would love their brothers and sisters who struggle with this, but it is often not so. Gay friends are often the only ones who stick by them. Is it any wonder their faith suffers? Pray for them. Pray for more good priests. Sorry for such a long comment.

  9. restoration says:

    Scapegoat? The facts show that most of the boys who were molested were actually pubescent or post-pubescent. — More akin physiologically to young men than little boys in the eyes of the homosexual molester. The crisis is not one of pedophilia but actually ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to teenage men. The Church must face up to a massive problem of homosexuality in its seminaries and sadly in the hierarchy as well. This problem could never have gotten so out of hand without plenty of help from various bishops.

  10. wmeyer says:

    I would agree that sexual abuse of children is not exclusive to the Catholic church, but it has most certainly been a problem in the Catholic church, and continues to be, in some places.

    That said, the Catholic church certainly needs a round table, or a council of its own, to oversee the elimination of that abuse in the church.

    Now, as to the notion that the scandal was not about predatory homosexuals, the good Abp. needs to consult the definition of pedophilia, which is a) about molestation of pre-pubescent children, and b) does not occur only with boys.

    I was concerned years ago, when the Church accepted the nonsense in the media about pedophilia, because it effectively continued to give cover to the predatory homosexuals who had been wrongly ordained in the first place.

  11. Fleeb says:

    This is the SAME TRIPE that the USCCB and the Arlington Diocese puts forth during the VIRTUS training…I asked the VIRTUS “trainer” who was shoveling this junk to us high-risk parents of young children (who also had to get fingerprinted by the state police), why the high number of male to male abuse. The answer was that the young male resembled a woman to the priest.

  12. Stephen Hand says:


    Of course it’s scapegoating to blame these problems on gays. Even if most of the molesters were gay, that still does not mean that having a same sex attraction makes one more likely to be a rapist. Especially since there is no higher correlation between homosexuality and sexual abuse in the larger population.
    I agree with you about the bishops though. I think the church must face up to the fact that the current autocratic nature of the hierarchy makes these types of scandals easier. Bishops know that if they mess up, nothing particularly bad is going to happen to them, they’ll still have a life of luxury, and often even get to retain their positions.

  13. FranzJosf says:

    PS and some others: I think you’re missing an important point, as is the Bishop. It speaks of sex with minors, but here are different kinds. Pedophiles, who want to have sex with little kids who have not reached puberty may not be specifically homosexual; however, most of the priests’ abuse is with 16 and 17 year olds, boys who are already de facto young men, with body hair, etc. That situation is homosexual.

  14. Thomas G. says:

    Fleeb – I went through the same VIRTUS training in the Arlington Diocese and asked the trainer (a young man) why 80% of the abuse by clerics in the U.S. was male-on-male, and his answer was that, due to the all-male population of altar servers (way back when, I guess), boys were the only sex-objects that the priests had access to. Had there been girl servers, presumably the abuse would have more balanced between the sexes.

    I was really flabbergasted by this line.

  15. Maltese says:

    I hate to even post this, but it is appurtenant, and unique in that Rod Dreher was a convinced Catholic, but delved into the abuse of minors before the story even broke, he was told by a good Priest that he would go places “darker” than he could imagine. Stories such as this literally unhinged him:

    “There was the woman who, along with other women, had to clean Vaseline off the altar in her parish in the mornings after the priest there (who is now in jail after a child molestation conviction — I checked this out) had been doing God knows what the night before.”

    One might say that these sorts of things are extreme, unique and removed, but my own journey into what one might call “Traditionalism,” also involves homosexual clergy, one of whom literally propositioned me in the confessional, and I was 35 at the time! I just decided that was the last straw, and I wasn’t going to raise my family in that environment. Before that, and many other experiences, I was fairly happy going to a Novus Ordo Mass, and I, too, am a convert. Since going my Traditional route, I have nothing but good things to say about the Priests I’ve met, both when the Indult was still that, and SSPX parish Priests. Thank God for BVI and Summorum Pontificum! I will say I have a good friend who celebrates the Novus Ordo, and because of circumstances, notwithstanding SP, politically can’t say the EF, so my words here are in NO WAY an indictment of the many wonderful Priests out there that I know exist and say the NO.

  16. In any case, I’ve known plenty of very openly gay men in my life and not once has one of them seemed interested in the least in a little boy.

    I hope they weren’t. But if they were, do you think they’d let you know it?

    Gays are an easy scapegoat, but if you go that route, you have to realize that as long as celibacy is mandatory the priesthood will be a magnet for gay men, something about it being one of the few places in Catholic society where it’s acceptable for a man to be an old bachelor without raising eye brows.

    Utter nonsense. Self-denial, self-sacrifice and discipline are not the sources of rampant vice. But as the maker of the above claim, you bear the burden of persuasion. If you can prove that the celibate priesthood has been stuffed with homosexuals down through the ages, then by all means do so.

  17. Central Valley says:

    Is there a bishop class that all bishops must go to to learn this nonsense. This could have been written by any number of California bishops who have no problem recruiting and ordaining homosexual men to the priesthood. The laymen in the pew will pay the damages, it won’t come out of the bishops private purse, although it should.

  18. Magpie says:

    To PS: You’ve not seen the dark recesses of their minds, and they are hardly likely to reveal such facts to you anyhow. Just sayin’.

  19. Magpie says:

    Desertfalcon: They should embrace chastity, live a holy lifestyle, pick up their cross. None of this requires marriage or becoming a priest or religious. As if any of those were a solution to the problem. Not saying you implied that. But a person can be single and this can be for a variety of reasons and the decision making and reasoning belong to the internal forum.

  20. Stephen Hand says:

    Sex abuse happens in traditionalist orders as well. The Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and a now defunct(Deo Gratias) order The Society of St. John, all have had serious problems with pedophile priests. Read up on them if you wish, just make sure you have an empty stomach, and a stiff drink handy when you do.


    I’m simply pointing out that two things that the priesthood allows men to wear extravagant, feminized clothes(where else could a man get away with wearing red prada shoes, or a train), and be in an all male environment, these things are attractive to gay people. It’s a natural place, as outside of the priesthood these types of things would have picked someone out as flamboyant and effeminate. Think about it, if someone is an old bachelor, wears a red velvet cape, and all of his close friends are other men, he’s immediately pegged as gay. (note: i’m not trying to make fun of the priesthood, i’m just being honest)

    I’m sure most of the people on this site have many gay priests to thank.

  21. JonM says:

    To answer Father’s question…

    No, not even a little plausible to me.

    I think there is a bit of a problem in seeing homosexuality as something definitely distinct from sexual perversion in general. One need not read deeply to find that men attracted to women who cannot control their sexual appetites sometimes crave homosexual experiences; just like in pornography, their is a tendancy to extremes in order to satisfy the thrill.

    It’s devilish in origin and anyone who has recovered from pornography addition (and I would imagine sexual addition physically involving others) knows that it literally feels like a great weight is thrown off your spirit.

    Of course, temptation never goes away completely and we can never think that we are immune from succumbing to sin. Father beautifully discussed this a few days ago.

    Now, for whatever reason, there are a limited number of men plagued with deep seated homosexual desires (some men are also plagued with deep seated greediness, but we don’t make genetic excuses for such). They need sincere love and help – but not wishy-washy non-directional help.

    Furthermore, men who suffer from this should not be ordained because it seems pretty unlikely God would call disordered men to be spiritual fathers.

    I really, truly believe that the slacking in belief in the Eucharist is the core of these problems. As my spiritual appreciation continues to mature, I consistantly find myself a with a deeper appeciation for Christ in the Sacrament and for the necessity to care for the Eucharist as such.

    By ripping apart ornate altars and tabernacles that seem majestic and replacing them with modern art horrors, we lose respect for Christ as God. If we think that pretty much anyone can ‘hand out’ and ‘take’ Jesus in the Sacrament, rather than only concecrated hands offering Christ to those not in serious sin, we necessarily lose respsect.

    This is why I have become more and more defensive about liturgy and architecture: lex orandi, lex credendi. If we worship by praising ourselves (Gather US in, blah blAH blah bleh blah Bla), we totally lose sight of transcending this world of tears, avoiding sin through use of grace offered, and dying in friendship with Christ to enter unimaginable bliss with God.

    If Mass is viewed just a sociological artifact, we can bet that horrifying things will occur in the world and even in a Church itself.

    So, I just can’t see the logic in this ‘homosexuality has nothing to do with the matter!’ Of course it does because same sex relations is by definition homosexual. But as I wrote, there are far deeper issues that must be resolved, apart from men suffering from homosexual temptation alone.

  22. everett says:

    We need to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. Clearly the incidents of sexual abuse are predominantly male on male, but that’s a statistical claim, not one of causality. There could be a number of factors – one poster mentioned that for the most part priests had more access to boys and young men, other factors could be that there was a far higher percentage of those with homosexual attraction in the priesthood in the general population, or that those with this cross are more likely to struggle with other sexual sins. The fact is that human sinfulness is an unfortunate problem with clerics and non-clerics alike, its just more of a scandal when these sorts of sins do involve priests. Ultimately what I’m saying is that we need to be careful with just taking a “lets blame the gays” approach.

  23. JonM says:

    @ Stephen

    I’m not disagreeing that some men with deep seated homosexual troubles are attracted to the priesthood because it can serve as kind of enjoyable mask for the reasons you point out.

    But the answer to this problem is A) proper screening and B) a thorough course in just what every last garment and element of rite symbolize. My 1962 Missal discusses each piece of clothing and the meaning behind it. If it is impressed upon men who think they are called to Priesthood, I think that this would help at least a little in dismissing the men who just want to look ‘fabulous.’

    Indeed, if us lay people took the time to understand every element of rite and what each cloth means, we would see that there is not an iota of homosexuality; it is all quite masculine and strong.

  24. Desertfalcon says:

    Magpie: Clearly so, but someone who is just single can still become a priest, may marry, be secure in their jobs and housing, have other “single” friends, etc., etc. Those who are gay and devout seem to have two choices, live alone the rest of their lives and have no gay friends who could be a cause to sin or cause scandal. Of course, good luck having many devout Catholic friends who really will love you and stick by you, and good luck having a job or housing when the Church seems to take the position that gay people should not be protected legally in those areas and no, we don’t want them within Holy Orders either, or they can leave the Church. I’m just pointing out why it is of no surprise to me at all why I have gay friends who have left the Church, or why so many devout Catholics who were gay sought the priesthood. What else is their life to be? Most of the gay people I know who have left the Church have looked at what the Church has said about their lives as far as jobs, Holy Orders, relationships, and said, “Why would I stay in a Church that does not love me and works to make my life miserable?” Now you and I may be able to see that as wrong, but I’m just pointing it out to try to get people to see what a life of faith and that cross they bear, is truly like. To try to understand why they have such a big attraction of thinking that they could be with friends, to not be alone, to have a life where they are accepted and loved. The Church says, “We love you”, and I totally understand how, spiritually, but the Church will help end this crisis in the priesthood and stem the tide of gay Catholics from leaving the Church if they worked a bit harder on the practical guidance of day to day living for them, of trying to help give guidance to how they want them to actually exist in the world, as well as the spiritual.

  25. JackG says:

    The 81% number comes from “A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice”. Here is the link from the USCCB website:

    An excerpt: The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

    The home page for the entire report (The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice) is at

    Is the John Jay College of Criminal Justice a “dubious source”?

  26. Maltese says:

    Stephen Hand: but you don’t mention SSPX? I, for one, think Lefebvre might be one of the great Saints someday, in league with Athanasius, for no comparable crisis in the Church exists except between Arianism and Modernism…

  27. jimrb3 says:


    Consider an argument by analogy. If we admit that homosexuality is a sin (which, if we are Catholic, we must), then wouldn’t your argument sound the same for… people who actively engage in any sin? I don’t mean to say that the gravity or horror of any of these sins are the same, but lets take an extreme example.

    Should the Church not argue against attempts for pedophiles to not be restricted in their ‘rights’ to live wherever they want, do whatever they want? What about thieves? Murderers?

    The point is that underlying your comment is the assumption that homosexuality is a “state of being,” from which the “homosexual” cannot escape and must labour under all their lives. This is simply false.

    I am an alcoholic. I will -always- be an alcoholic (incidentally, there is more medical research showing Alcoholism as a genetic disorder than there is for homosexuality). It is a struggle that will plague me my whole life. But I have not had a drink in a very long time, and I will (God willing) never have one again, one day at a time. Alcoholism no longer has a hold on my life, and I no longer have many of the problems associated with it. Through God’s grace I have overcome. However, I wouldn’t blink one minute at the Church telling me “you shouldn’t be a bar-owner.” Or, “You may not be eligible for the priesthood, since priests de-facto need to consume at least the accidents of alcohol.” Its a cross I carry, and thats my life. I could whine about it and leave the Church, or accept the hand that God has dealt me.

    Its the same for people who carry the cross of homosexuality. They need to overcome the active addiction to their sin. It may, like many addictive sins, always plague them and always be there, but that does not mean they will -always- sin. It just means they are always humble about their state, and they can move on to lead immensely chaste lives and be saints. But, even if I never have a drink for 70 more years, it’d still be idiotic for me to go sit around the bar for long times, likewise, the Church is intelligent in saying that persons who struggle or have struggled with homosexuality, shouldn’t live in close quarters with other men, just like heterosexual single men shouldn’t live in closer quarters with women they are attracted to. And no, people who actively engage in sin that is destructive to themselves and society should not be granted the same rights as those who are not doing so; I don’t want a repeat active pedophile living in the neighborhood with me and my son, and I don’t want a repeat active thief, or a repeat active mugger, or an active homosexual. Its definitely not a politically correct thing to say, but honestly, the sooner we start distinguishing between the sin and the sinner the better off we’ll be. It is one thing to say a person is “homosexual” and mean “they struggle with the sin of homosexuality” (this is in essence the way we mean things when we say, “I’m an alcoholic,”), its quite another to mean: “Homosexuality defines who they are and we must accept their homosexual nature.” I must not, and do not, accept perversion or sin.

    -Jim B.

  28. Magpie says:

    Desertfalcon: One error many people with SSA make is to identify, or label, themselves as GAY. By labelling themselves they do themselves an injustice psychologically. The details of one’s sexuality are a private matter, not to be shared with just anybody. I might suggest sharing them with a confessor, psychologist, or perhaps a supportive friend who is not afflicted with the same condition. Without the label, they are children of God, striving to live a holy and chaste lifestyle. They need not be lonely. They may seek out healthy friendships with members of both sexes, but would be well advised to forsake their former friends who will only represent occasions of sin for them.

  29. jimrb3 says:

    Great point Magpie, and incidentally, individuals attempting to recover from active homosexuality need not avoid all others that have struggled with that in the past. Groups like Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous and “Pretty much every other addiction under the sun” Anonymous have shown over and over that reliance upon God and fellowship with others attempting to recover leads to far greater success rates than any other methods. In some cases, it is the only known way to successfully overcome addiction. There are support groups for people recovering from homosexuality, and those routes are open to them. Obviously, just like any other *Anonymous group, members typically do not ‘hang out’ with people who are actively engaging in the addiction — that’s just placing yourself in a near occasion of sin. People who struggle with homosexuality would do well to adopt a 12-step fellowship style approach to recovery.

  30. tired student says:

    I’m convinced that the new Vatican guidelines will not make seminaries “less gay” or even address the abuse problem. If someone is homosexual but honest they’ll probably notice that the Church doesn’t want them in the seminary and not apply. Homosexual men who really want to be priests will lie and/or deceive themselves about their feelings. There’s no reliable test for homosexual erotic response that does not violate Catholic morality. There’s no correlation between the way someone acts and their sexuality. Maybe spiritual advisors or psychologists could try to pry sexual information out of a candidate or seminarian. Still, I’m not convinced that persuasion or even intimidation is an effective method if someone is truly repressed and non-communicative about their sexuality. From personal experience I know of a man with sex addiction issues who was easily accepted by a religious order (later left). He wouldn’t let me steer him away from joining the order and towards counseling. Now I wonder what indicators the screeners sought when sorting through candidates. I’m no psychologist, but I could see things that the professionals couldn’t.

    I think that we’re going to see seminarians and clergy become even more secretive about sexuality. This might lead to a vicious cycle of denial, abuse, and cover-up. Any repression or deception will adversely effect all seminarians and continue to create the toxic environment that spawned the abuse crises in the first place. From what I’ve seen I’m not confident that Vatican regulations alone are going to create sexually healthy seminaries and formation houses.

  31. Geoffrey says:

    I think only qualified professionals, i.e. psychologists and the like, should be debating this.

  32. I’m simply pointing out that two things that the priesthood allows men to wear extravagant, feminized clothes(where else could a man get away with wearing red prada shoes, or a train), and be in an all male environment, these things are attractive to gay people. It’s a natural place, as outside of the priesthood these types of things would have picked someone out as flamboyant and effeminate. Think about it, if someone is an old bachelor, wears a red velvet cape, and all of his close friends are other men, he’s immediately pegged as gay. (note: i’m not trying to make fun of the priesthood, i’m just being honest)

    Stephen, if your assertion is true that the priesthood is a big gay magnet, then you should be able to demonstrate that the celibate priesthood has always been packed with homosexuals, all through history. You don’t even attempt to do so. Because you can’t, and you know it.

  33. William A. Anderson says:

    All active laity in the Los Angeles Archdiocese are required to participate in a condescending program known as Virtus Training, which also baldly denies the intuitive and empirical links between homosexuality and clerical child abuse. As they say in the AA, the first step toward solving a problem is to admit that you have one. That applies as much to institutions as to individuals.

  34. Desertfalcon says:

    I thank Jim and Magpie for the comments, but I do think there are some important distinctions. We restrict the rights of thieves, murders, etc., do to the active harm they do to innocent victims. You used the example of alcoholism and I think that is a good one. The Church may tell you,”you shouldn’t be a bar owner”, but it does not in fact tell you that you cannot enter into Holy Orders, AFAIK, if you are sober, nor teach, nor be protected in your job, housing, etc. It does not tell you to keep quiet about who you are, don’t associate with those like yourself openly, etc. It essentially does say these things to people who are homosexual, even if chaste. It says it really doesn’t want them in the priesthood, marriage is a mistake, we want to make sure you aren’t protected in employment or housing by laws that seek to do so, we wont hire you to teach or work in a public capacity for us, but we love you. Hmmmm…..mixed message. I’m also flabbergasted when I hear someone who I think are intelligent adults say things like, “there really is no such thing as ‘being’ gay”, I just think, Whaaaat? Do they actually know a gay person? How can anyone seriously think that? I knew who was gay in high school drama club! Sure there are plenty of exceptions of bi or confused or others but come on, we literally have entire cities of people who are, well…gay.

    Look, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just saying, if you want to know how we Catholics think about anything in the social, philosophical, or political realm, just look at it from our perspective of the family. No matter what the topic, we Catholics believe in the family and the natural community that man lives in, as our basis for discussing rights and duties. It’s our model for Church, state, local community, social justice, life. Right? So all I’m saying is if the Church does not want gay males in the priesthood and does not want gay Catholics to leave the Church and loose salvation, then maybe she needs to turn on the light-switch on this issue that is kept in the dark and engage in a more open guidance of where a gay Catholic is supposed to find…family. It is the reason so many gay people, particularly young people, find that family in gay communities that offer answers, albeit wrong ones, to them and give them a place of belonging.

  35. JonM says:


    As others have written, this notion that being homosexual is some kind of definite state akin to being man or woman is incorrect.

    Modernists insist that homosexuality is a naturally healthy manner of being for some men (some suggest 2% while the real progressives peg 10% of men as ‘gay.’)

    Now, there is no question that some men do struggle with this far more than others. But, I don’t really see why this temptation should not be aggressively attacked as men with completely heterosexual desires have to control control these impulses.

    You stated that those with homosexual tendancies you have known have left the Church because they don’t want to be part of ‘a Church’ that is critical of them. Couples things here: First, there is only ‘a Church.’ Christ founded a Church (yes, yes, we know ALL about the 23 or so other sui juris traditions – we are all ultimately the same single Church with a single Vicar of Christ) so we have absolutely no ability to ‘pick a Church.’

    Furthermore, just because a sin we struggle with seems pretty defining now, that does not mean in ten years (or one year even) it will still be so.

    Look, I tell my friends that it is totally possible to not only break the terrible habits of pornography and extramarital sex, once we do so for love of Christ, if we let grace overcome us, we will find these things totally repulsive. Doesn’t mean the temptation will die, but it will be dramatically reduced in power.

    And, many younger men who are my friends cannot believe this is true and so they accuse me of either lying about my personal testimony or, my favorite really, accuse me of being a closeted homosexual who is using Church teachings as a clever set of drapes.

    What this means is that we have become a culture so defined by a kind of hypersexualism that bare-bones adherence to the Church is scoffed at. The movement to define people as ‘homosexuals’ is part and parcel of this.

    Being purged of sexual sin is not a fun road, but we have to walk it. And again, once we just submit to the Church, we eventually find our feet-dragging only delayed greater happiness.

  36. Stephen Hand says:


    First of all, I don’t see why I would need to prove it ‘all through history’, as not even the notion of ‘sexual orientation’ has existed ‘all through history.’ Having said that,there are penitential manuals going back to the 6th century that give penances specifically for priests and bishops who seduced young boys. St. Peter Damian(11th century) talked about priests engaging sodomy as being rampant. The Fourth Lateran Council(13th Century) sets penalties for priests who committed homosexual acts. Pope Pius V(17th Century) publicly condemned sodomy amongst priests. Add to this a large number of folk stories and satires which portray priests as seducing young boys, and I think that it is safe to say that sexual abuse and homosexuality amongst priests has been constant.
    I’m also going by my experiences with priests and seminarians, and the amazingly tolerant attitude many priests and bishops have toward such relationships.

    There is no connection between being gay and being a sexual predator though, that is a statistical fact, there is a connection though, between priests targeting boys sexually. Given this it is interesting how altar boys in the past(and still today in some circles) were dressed up like dolls, red trimmed shoulder capes, lace albs, gloves. This correlation between sexually abusive priests and boys kind of sheds a different light on all of that.


    I didn’t mention the SSPX because they have their own problems, such as demonizing Jews and denying the Holocaust for starters.

  37. Brian Day says:

    I think only qualified professionals, i.e. psychologists and the like, should be debating this.

    Geoffrey, you have a point, but remember, it was the “professionals” in the 70’s that had homosexuality/SSA removed as a disqualification for the priesthood. Be careful what you wish for.

  38. Geoffrey says:

    “Geoffrey, you have a point, but remember, it was the ‘professionals’ in the 70’s that had homosexuality/SSA removed as a disqualification for the priesthood. Be careful what you wish for.”

    Indeed, but there is a difference. Let qualified professionals debate the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Leave it to Holy Mother Church to decide on the qualifications for the priesthood.

  39. Dave N. says:

    “Sexual abuse of children is not a problem specific the Catholic Church,”

    Kid: “But mom, EVERYONE ELSE is doing it tooo!”

    Mom: “Well, if everyone else were jumping off a bridge….”

  40. Bob Glassmeyer says:

    Oh, my love is like a red, red rose
    on a sunny summer’s day…
    I was in my mid-twenties before I figured out
    the Village People were gay…

    Three words, folks. Moment. Of. Clarity.
    That, and thinking about all my friends in 6th grade trying so hard to convince me of this, and I don’t get it till I’m on the wrong side of 20. That, and I thought Bocci Balls was an expletive.

    But I digress. I’m a Catholic, married family man. I don’t completely understand homosexuality. And guess what? I’m a card-carrying heterosexual, and I don’t understand everything about it, either.

    Before I met my wife, I was studying for the priesthood. Turned out not to be my vocation. Lucky break for the Church, I can tell you! Were there gay men in seminary with me? As sure as YMCA is played at wedding receptions. There were also men with drinking problems, men with family problems, and men with anger issues.

    I was hit on by a gay man. I also got a phone call on Valentine’s Day in 1998, saying my father was dead, and I went to the hospital to see his body. My father dropped dead of a heart attack. It made the gay guy hitting on me about as significant as a fart in the wind.

    Celibacy is celibacy, folks. News flash-it means you’re not having sex, okay? Whatever else it may mean, for crying out loud, does it matter who you’re not doing it with?

    Before any self-righteous folks look to hang me out to dry, let me say this. First, back off. Second, I’m not playing the moral relativism card. I deeply respect the Church’s teaching about homosexuality. And I am a sinner, trying to live out my Baptismal vows, and strive for repentance, compunction, conversion, and love for my neighbor. And I am a proper man, faithful to my wife, and I’ll jump in front of a train before I dishonor her or our marriage.

    When I go to Mass, the last thing on my mind is, “I wonder how many gays are here today?” Last time I checked, it wasn’t one of the four ends of the Mass.

    Are there gays in the priesthood? Do marshmallow peeps explode when microwaved?

    I imagine there are quite a few men who have no business in the priesthood. One of these men is me. I also imagine there are quite a few men who are called to priesthood. If I’m dying, and a priest comes to hear my confession, give me absolution and Viaticum, praise God for this! I don’t give a tinker’s damn if he’s gay. What about the straight priest who can’t be bothered to annoint me because he’s at the pictures?

    I don’t know what the answer is in terms of screening men for the priesthood. Honestly, I don’t. I leave it to those far more learned than I.

  41. Desertfalcon says:

    JonM: Some may have said, “this notion that being homosexual is some kind of definite state akin to being man or woman.”, but it wasn’t me. I never said anything of the sort. I only know that although many people may struggle with same sex attraction, there are many more who are simply gay, no struggle. They may struggle with how to deal with it or to remain chaste or not, but their sexual orientation they know. Second, you took my “a Church” out of context. As you would guess from my, both referring only to the Church of Christ, our Catholic Church and by the way I capitalised “Church” that even within the sentence you quoted it is proper to say, “they did not…a Church” while still acknowledging that there is only one. I don’t think I gave any real indication that I believed otherwise. As to your other point, I am totally with you on the corrosive effects of modernist ideas in corrupting our culture and in the hypersexualizing of our society. I certainly have steered you wrong if you think I would defend that, but I have steered you even more wrong if you think I am refering to people who are actively homosexual. I am referencing homosexual Catholics who are chaste or certainly who strive faithfully to remain chaste. The difference between it and your examples of pornography, adultery, etc. and being “gay” is that if I no longer view pornography or commit adultery or have sex outside of marriage, then I am still straight. A gay person on the other hand, may remain a faithful Catholic and chaste for their entire lives, but barring a miraculous change, (and I think that possible), that person is still “gay”. There are certainly examples of confused or bisexual or people who succumb possibly due to childhood experience, substance intoxication or addiction in engaging in same-sex conduct, but people who most know in there lives and are as close to as a brother, son, best friend, etc., who are gay, are just…gay. They just are. I, nor the Church, has said why, but it is something that seems to occur in roughly the same numbers in all human society around the world. My points are directed at the example of Catholics who are gay, but who live faithful, chaste lives and the Church’s guidance for them.

  42. Fleeb says:

    Thomas G,
    We must’ve been in the same class. Truly flabbergasting. Until the “scales” are removed from the USCCB bishops’ eyes, they’ll continue this nonsense. I’m a service vet and I think even the Soviets have my fingerprints, so I don’t really care if the diocese has the state take them once again; but I have told them that my wife and adult kids are off limits–they lose potential educators and leaders unfortunately.
    I don’t believe anyone–let alone a middle-aged mother of 4–should submit their personal information to the “state” merely because the diocese has failed to do their job with their own employees. The Boys Scouts doesn’t submit their leaders to this lunacy, but does have stringent policies on adult-child contact, which I believe the diocese is trying to incorporate.
    Until the bishops get backbones and rid us of these pedophiles permanently, we’re going to continue to see this band-aid approach.

  43. albizzi says:

    Having read excerpts of Mrs Engel’s book “The rite of sodomy” and also some articles of Stephen Brady in , my opinion is that the scandal began with active homosexual bishops and (sad to say) cardinals (the most known of them being Card. Bernardin)who in their times began to ordain and appoint in key positions in their dioceses a majority of homosexual priests. In particular in seminaries, orders were given that eyes be shut when notorious gay men entered and eventually became priests in their turn. Some of them were made bishops etc… etc…
    Here is how the chain began and still goes on…
    I was told that some seminaries currently are full of such men. The only heterosexual ones who claim to enter here are severely discouraged to.

  44. JonM says:


    I didn’t mean to take out of context what you wrote and am sorry if I at all misrepresented your point.

    You described a common mentality that people take, not just in terms of homosexual struggle but especially divorce and other matters of morality, which is ‘oh why should I belong to a Church that is so overbearing/dictating/not warm and fuzzy in a UCC/UMC/universalist kind of way.’ Definitely we see this mentality a lot and it’s important you bring it up because we have to address it to get to the root of the problems today (ME ME ME ME!)

    My point is that this mentality is fatally flawed. I could get really upset and scream and yell that the Church is ‘depriving’ me of ever being a Priest because I really, really want the company of a woman. I could respond as some have by marrying and receiving (totally null and void) holy orders in a certain other pretend Catholic group.

    Of course this would be so sinful I feel as though I shouldn’t even write the above paragraph.

    If we start with a simple notion, that we are to submit totally and completely to God and His Church, His one Church that we should cling to tighter than a child does his mother, then we won’t feel any ‘crowding out.’ If each of us says ‘I am a sinner and need help. This is so hard, but I am determined. Mary please secure special graces for me’ then we will eventually find ourselves free and enjoy true liberty.

    Again, I don’t see how one is in a permanent, defined ‘gay’ state. I’m not saying that one has to be attracted to women; a strong masculine personality could be so without desiring a woman. This is in many respects a gift as it can allow much more dedicated service to God. Indeed in history, holy men who have not had this desire for a woman certainly lacked any iota of desire for homosexual activities.

    But some have struggled with this in a deep seated manner. This can be corrected and it does men struggling with homosexual desires no service to define them according to this sin.

  45. JonM says:

    @ Stephen Hand

    You made a claim, now back it. Name a single member of the SSPX clergy who hates Jews or denies the WWII holocaust.

    Bishop Williamson rejects aspects of an historical event. Read what he said.

    We might disagree with it, but to imply that he is at all hateful to Jews or rejects that many Jews, among others, suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazis is intellectually shallow and stale tripe one expects from a certain soon-to-be retired Cardinal.

    We won’t know for many years (if ever in our lifetimes) the final determination on Archbishop Lefebvre, but I agree with Maltese that he could well be hailed as one of the greatest saints who stood up to what could be determined a heresy only comparable to Arianism in scope and acceptance. We’ll see. This will depend on the nature of the excommunication orders.

    Frankly, I’m much more concerned about the fact that bishops will not pronounce formal excommunication orders on public figures in flagrant, objective, unrepentant, scandalous mortal sin. Or how there is an obsession with ‘toning down’
    our beautiful history
    the Kingship of Christ
    that the Church is NOT a democracy
    hell exists and all our 2000+ years of human experience indicate there are at least some damned souls
    we seek to transcend the banal, everyday in preparation for unimaginable happiness

    Or, um, we actually have to modify our lives to conform to Christ’s Church.

    Someone mentioned that homosexuality in the clergy is not new. Of course not, but that’s not a defense of a definite ‘gay’ soul or state of being. All that means is what we already know, none of us are immune to sin and we are all prone to temptation.

  46. Henry Edwards says:

    I am constantly amazed by the mental deficiency in folks who cannot distinguish logically between the following two statements regarding male sexual predators:

    1. Most gay men are sexual predators against pubescent boys.

    2. Most sexual predators against pubescent boys are gay men.

    Plainly, the first statement is false, the second statement is true. How can presumably intelligent people confuse two statements that are logical opposites?

  47. Henry Edwards says:

    And by those who think it’s pertinent that sexual deviancy has existed throughout Church history. What’s pertinent is that the current era is the first — so far as I know — when some within the Church have not recognized the sinfulness of sexual deviancy.

  48. kbf says:

    I would suggest fr Z and followers of this blog read “Lead us not into temptation” by Jason Berry for a good gronding in the issues. It might make challenging reading because the whole issue isn’t as black and white as “uuuuh riiiiiiiight” and the complicit actions of the bishops were grounded not in a “sprit of Vatican 2” laxity that is used as an excuse in condemnig the admission of priests who (were it not for the fact they they are celibate) would otherwise be considered gay, but a pre-concilliar and closed door mentality (you have to remember many of these bishops were formed as priests in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s.

    Not every form of democratisation of the church has been bad, especially where scrutiny of financial and ethical matters such as this are concerned. The church and the ordained leadership cannot claim competence over every aspect of corporate governance. Much of the abuse stemmed from the 70’s and 80’s and a contrast has to be drawn between the formation of priests in the latter days of the pre-concilliar era and the modern. I would suspect that a study into such matters would conclude that there is a higher standard of education and intelligence amongst current seminarians than previously and greater self-awareness. We might argue about the comparative levels of spiritual discipline these days, but it must be remembered that sexual, physical, and other forms of abuse are not “modern” ailments and there are stories of maltreatment at the hands of clergy that go back decades. I suspect the reason it is being tackled now is a greater confidence amongst the laity, a higher standard of education, a lower level of ignorance (especially of canon law which is much more readily available to the laity) all enabling people to stand up to abuseive clergy coupled with media outlets that would not continue the cover up. Berry’s book examines how certain bishops were able to silence the media by pulling advertising revenue and leaning on Catholic business owners to do the same when scandals started to break. That wouldn’t happen now. Neither would law enforcement turn a blind eye at the word of the bishop. The net result is that you stand an almost certain chance of being uncovered if you try and abuse and for as long as the church works with outside agencies it will find it easier to rid itself of men who join the priesthood with the intent or propensity to prey on vulnerable people.

  49. jimrb3 says:


    I think we’re still making a fundamental error in the logic here, essentially equivocating “being gay” and “having homosexual tendencies.” To use the over-used language of our somewhat esteemed President: “Let me be perfectly clear,” I do not believe that anyone IS, epistemologically, gay. Neither do I believe anyone IS, substantially, a thief, murderer, *name your sin here*. Nobody IS their sin.

    So, a person who has once struggled with homosexuality, perhaps even actively engaged in it for decades, and then overcome and healed… is not Gay.

    Stating “I don’t know how anyone can say some people aren’t gay,” doesn’t address the fundamental question: Do you believe that God would make a person fundamentally, substantially, to the core of their being, a sinner? In their very nature? We can’t believe that and remain Catholic. Its a simple theological, philosophical truth. All men are able, with the help of God’s grace, to overcome their sin and be saints. No matter HOW addictive their sin, and no matter how much society tries to tell them that they -are- their sin, that they should -identify- by their sin.

    Regarding the alcoholism example, the Church certainly does place restrictions on even recovered alcoholics. Without digging up sources, when Pope Benedict XVI was prefect of the CDF he responded to a question regarding the use of mustum for alcoholic priests, and stated in the letter that, (I paraphrase here), “In the future men who have struggled with alcoholism should not be admitted to the seminary, the consumption of the accidents of alcohol being an essential part of the priesthood and celebration of the mass.” So, the argument by analogy holds true:

    Some people are permanently restricted in the places they can go, things they can do, and vocations they can adopt because of the consequences of sin they have previously committed. This holds true for people who were once active homosexuals as much as it does for people who were once active pedophiles. The examples you’ve cited time and again of the Church trying to keep “all gays” from housing, are strained at best. Is there any documentation of this? Are you positive it wasn’t exaggerated? Are there any mitigating circumstances (ie, all male-housing?).

    Simply put, the decision of the Church that people who are either actively struggling, or have once been active homosexuals should not room with other men in close quarters for great lengths of time while in the seminary and the priesthood… is intelligent. Its a simple avoidance of the near occasion of sin. Just like an alcoholic shouldn’t go sit at the bar to watch the football game, even though he fully intends to only drink coke and has been sober for decades. “If you sit in a barber shop long enough, you’re going to get your hair cut.”

    Nobody -is- gay, in an essential sense. Many people struggle with the temptation to sin in homosexuality, and many fail in that struggle repetitively and in an addictive manner. Likewise, nobody -is- essentially a murderer, a thief, a “whatever.” Even if we were to discover that, like alcoholism, homosexuality is a disease or genetic disorder, even then the person would not be de facto “gay.” They would just be, like an alcoholic, a person that has to struggle in a different way to meet the call of the Cross. God’s grace is sufficient, every single person who struggles with homosexuality can live a happy and fulfilled chaste life within the walls of the Church, and be a saint, and to my knowledge the Church has never stated otherwise or opposed this.

  50. moon1234 says:


    The same argument (What are gay people to do) could be made for those that are alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts, etc. We don’t just throw up our hands and say ohh well that is just who you are. We try to treat the problem, if it is a problem, and help them to avoid the problem going forward.

    Being gay is not the problem. Acting on these feelings or outwardly expressing them is a problem. An Alcoholic is NOT supposed to drink alcohol the rest of their lives. It is something they must work on and may need support avoid. The same could be said for the homosexual. They may have these feelings, but they should not be acting on them or wanting others to think their behaviour is normal, it is not.

    Some jobs SHOULD be excluded to just a select few. Alcoholics should NOT work in a bar or a licquor store. It is the wrong environment for them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The Priesthood is should be excluded to those who would have an impediment to living the celibate lifestyle without temptation.

    The problem is many homosexuals want people to think acting on their sexual desires is NORMAL. It is not, it is disorderd. Do you avoid your previous constantly drunk uncle even though he is now sober? It would depend on how he acts now? Does he constantly talk about needing a drink or does he work to deal with problem and live his life?

  51. Aaron says:

    “[a VIRTUS trainer’s] answer was that, due to the all-male population of altar servers (way back when, I guess), boys were the only sex-objects that the priests had access to. Had there been girl servers, presumably the abuse would have more balanced between the sexes.” — Thomas G.

    This is the logical extension of modern mainstream thinking on sexuality, that treats the sexual impulse like a pressure tank filling with water, that will explode if you don’t release some pressure once in a while. See any sitcom for examples: if people don’t have sex for six months, it’s considered a long dry spell, and they’re apt to act crazy. And of course masturbation is a given; how long did the Seinfeld crew last in their no-masturbation bet — a week, maybe? It’s also how Clinton’s surgeon general could say with a straight face that we should teach kids to masturbate (themselves and each other) in school sex ed classes — it would give them an alternate way to release the pressure so they wouldn’t “need” to have sex to do it. Everything is based on the idea that the sexual urge is an unstoppable and constantly growing internal pressure; and therefore if you don’t get some on a regular basis, eventually you’ll have sex with whomever is handy.

    Of course, traditional thinking on sex is just the opposite: that the more time you spend thinking about sex and engaging in aspects of it, the more obsessed with it you become. So things like pornography and masturbation, instead of relieving the pressure, increase it. The evidence would seem to support this viewpoint, but I suppose it had to be rejected for the sake of the sexual revolution.

  52. momravet says:

    @Bob Glassmeyer

    Enjoyed the “exploding peeps” – who knew. My sons only brought in lizards, turtles and snakes, although my oldest put a 90 grain load in his Springfield muzzle loader one Fourth of July – KABLAMMO!

    People are given all kinds of crosses to bear. People who have homosexual tendencies have a bigger crosses to bear than some, but how they bear it will save or damn them.

    I try to keep in mind one of my grandfather’s favorites: “…Judge not lest ye also be judged…”.

  53. Desertfalcon says:

    Moon1234 & Jimrb3: I’m not sure where I may have given the impression that my comments were directed against any supposed error of the Church in excluding those who may be gay from the priesthood, but I agree with the Church’s position, which is not necessarily an outright exclusion but states that those active in gay behaviour, who’s life has become deep seated in that behaviour, particularly those who have not mastered their own bodies concerning this within a certain number of years, are to be excluded. Nor would I differ in any way with anyone here on the sinful nature of homosexual behaviour. My only comments have been along the lines of, “Given these are the Church’s positions on this issue…”. I do question at times, the Church’s position concerning what constitutes “unjust discrimination”, which the Church defines more narrowly than I would. I’m not sure why opposing laws that protect gay people from things like being fired from their jobs or being evicted from their homes, not for any behaviour, but strictly based on either a statement about themselves or an opinion concerning their sexual orientation by those doing the firing or evicting would not constitute, “unjust discrimination”, and yes, it is still both legal and common for both of those things to occur in all but a few places in America that do offer protection. Unlike things like alcoholism which the Church may rightly exclude based on the inability to safely celebrate Mass, the Church seems to engage at times in the politics of blanket denial of basic rights of housing and employment to people who are simply gay as discriminatory laws in American are not based on behaviour in any event. Homosexual behaviour is perfectly legal in every state and is not a factor in such laws. My bigger point is the narrow one of what the Church counsels for those faithful Catholics who are gay. So much of what she does counsel to all is based on the familial and community nature of man. From our Father in heaven to our “Father”-our priest, to our fathers and mothers in family. We are to treat each other as brothers and sisters. Our rights and our duties, we Catholics define within the context of what is for the common good, not the individual. O.K., the Church has said what it prohibits for gays, I’m just wondering what, (aside from the same spiritual guidance that applies to all.), does it give to gays in the area of what she envisions a gay Catholic’s life should be? Are they to live alone, never revealing their orientation, never associating with other gay friends who might be more loving or accepting of them? Are they to try to be friends with their fellow Catholics who may not want them to reveal the truth of who they are or might be uncomfortable of them even being around their kids? Are they to engage in Christian service? Where and how? How does this relate to the topic? I tend to agree with a few commentators here who have said, “This is why the Church has had such a long history of homosexual priests.” I think there is merit to that. I think so many of them lived lonely lives in the closet, a life they may have felt they were bound to be “called” erroneously to due to the feeling of asking themselves, “What is to become of me?” I think they chose the prospect of having a parish as the family they were never going to have outside of Orders and then allow themselves to develop inappropriate relationships with young men that they imagined a life on the outside would allow them. I think the large number of those who have violated their vows doing this have also turned to alcohol as an escape as well.

    I think until the Church deals more openly with what it DOES want, how it does counsel devout gay Catholics to live, she will continue to have to deal with this problem. I also hope that people may read what I have written and ask themselves if they actually practice treating such people with true charity and not simply in the area of giving counsel regarding proper human sexuality.

  54. jimrb3 says:


    Again, I think the fundamental issue is still not addressed. I’ll try to answer your question in a second (what the Church counsels for “homosexuals”,) but in a brief answer she counsels the same thing she counsels to all sinners: repent and follow Christ in your individual vocation, which can only be discerned by you. The fundamental issue still stands: you are presuming that a person -is- always a homosexual no matter what, and cannot reform their lives and must always remain at the core a homosexual. I think this degrades people who struggle with homosexuality. They -can- overcome. Perhaps they cannot achieve the state of mind or level of ‘psychological wellness’ to enter into a happy heterosexual marriage, perhaps they can. But what they definitely CAN do, is live a life in Christ free of sin.

    Please provide some substantiation for an allegation that the Church is attempting to, in a vacuum, prevent non-active homosexuals from housing, employment, etc., before claiming that. Are you positive there aren’t mitigating factors or other circumstances? Is this “non-discrimination” legislation ALSO saying its a “hate-crime” to speak out against Homosexuality? Does it have an underlying agenda of equating a homosexual lifestyle with a heterosexual one? Does it attempt to elevate a life of sin to the status of a life of normalcy? Does the legislation create a distinction between those who are actively engaged in the sin, and those who are not? And more importantly, the Church is not bound by the American system of legal standards, she speaks from the natural law and what Christ has commanded. The fact that homosexuality is legal in all 50 states matters not one iota, its still a sin and the Church should speak ardently against it, just as she does against abortion.

    Here is what the Church officially says regarding homosexuals:
    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.

    I wouldn’t expect the Church hierarchy to lay out a plan for how it expects me to live in concrete circumstances, that is for me to discern. Likewise, it’d be foolish for the Church to say: “Homosexuals should reform and get married, or reform and do X,Y, or Z.” What they can do is provide a framework, and that is what they’ve done. “You can get better. You can lead a successful life in many vocations. You cannot be a priest, for a variety of reasons, the easiest of which to explain is the near occasion of sin it would put you in.” Some folks may be able to eventually become married, some folks may not be called to that. Single life is a valid vocation, and it does not necessarily leave one frustrated and without community. I should know, I’m living it.

    My point in contradicting you is not to “beat a dead horse” or keep bouncing back with another post, but to point out two primary things: 1.) Homosexuality is not a state of being, but a sin that a person can recover fully from, even if there are lasting consequences from it, and 2.) The prevailing trend right now is to treat homosexual life choices as “equal” and “good,” and so there will necessarily be a kick-back from those adovcating for the truth. That “kick-back” is not a slight against the persons who struggle with this sin, just like saying thievery is bad is not a slight against the PERSON who steals, it is a slight against the choice they made and the consequences it will have on them. We must keep the conversation framed in this way, or we risk by gradual degrees accepting homosexuality as a standard way of living that some of us just “disagree with.” That is not the case, it is a gravely disordered act that is destructive to our families, society, and country, and must be opposed and those who struggle with it must be helped, just like any other group of individuals who struggle with a disorder (alcoholism, drug addiction, violence, etc etc etc.)

  55. JonM says:

    I do not believe that anyone IS, epistemologically, gay. Neither do I believe anyone IS, substantially, a thief, murderer, name your sin here. Nobody IS their sin.

    Beautifully stated Jim.

    DesertFalcon, the core of this contention is exactly what Jim is talking about: one is not epistemologically ‘gay’ even though he might have a really, really hard time struggling with this.

    In responding to my example of pornography, you stated that there is a defined difference between a heterosexual and a person with homosexual tendancies. The heterosexual need only not look, but the one with homosexual desires retains his inclination to homosexual acts.

    Again, borrowing the perfect word from Jim, a man is no more epistemologically homosexual than a man is epistemologically a (heterosexual) sex addict or epistemologically a pornography addict.

    Indeed, the obsession modern society has with sexual faculties and in defining ourselves in such a manner is the problem. I don’t like these kinds of threads for the same reason that 500 years ago we would never have a public discussion in this manner on this issue: certain things are so important, so mysterious, and so precious, that they should be treated more than just some banal problem.

    Furthermore, we know that sins of the flesh are satan’s version of Gorrilla Glue. Today, we have a BIG problem even just in the Church of men using pornography. It is so horrific on so many levels that I feel like I need a Henry II-style penance for my pre-conversion days.

    There are Catholics who demand me to accept that pornography and the sin that goes with it are just natural states and anyone who does not conform has some serious disorder. The majority of porn sufferers however do it quietly and try to hide it from their wives (who usually find out and are devistated. It is adultery after all.)

    Now, let’s say that 50% of men who attend mass struggle with pornography. It might be more, but this a good ballpark guess. Are they to be defined as ‘pornophiles’ and thus lament a stuffy Church environment that does not take into account their unique nature as ‘pornophiles’ ? Or are they to go to Confession, beg Mary to pray for them and believe they can be healed?

    The latter works, I can assure you. It takes a lot more than prayers (Adoration, computer security, Stations, etc.) but in time even the thought of relations with anyone but your wife becomes physically sickening. And the same will work for poor souls tormented with deep seated homosexual inclinations.

    KBF, Albizzi, I love to read. I’ll add these to my list.

  56. JonM says:

    Quickly, I’m taking way too much of Father’s disk space with my posts…

    KBF, the book you mentioned…I’ll take a look, but its blame given to celibacy has been roundly disproven. Also, while we know we have a problem and the Church has to burn it out, it is true that other religions have just as high if not higher abuse.

    I just can’t stand the blame given to celibacy because it is simply not true. Anyway, I’m putting myself on a post fast for the day!

  57. Desertfalcon says:

    Jimrb3 & JonM: Yes, a bit of beating the dead horse. I will try to state yet again, I do not condone homosexual behaviour, I accept completely the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I am not looking for, advocating, advancing in any way that homosexual behaviour be approved of. I accept the Church’s exlusion of active or deep seated homosexuals from the priesthood.

    Now, having stated that yet again, I will try to answer the relevant points that I can. JonM, the problem with your model is that even if the heterosexual no longer looks at pornography they are still naturally oriented to heterosexuality. If a man becomes a priest and along with being chaste, he is celibate, he STILL is ordered to women naturally if he is heterosexual. There are people who are asexual, but even St. Paul burned with desire. The spiritual goal is not to become necessarily asexual human beings, but to conquer our natural appetites. I’m inclined to use the, “When did you or do you decide to be straight?” cliche. There is truth in it. Ask a straight person when they knew they liked the opposite gender and most will say the exact same thing that gay people will say of the same gender-since puberty or their first sexual thoughts. Although there may be a range among homosexuals, most would say that they have been oriented toward the same gender for as long as they can remember any sexual thoughts as well. Mothers of gay children will often say, “I always knew they were”. Biologically, they may physically be made for heterosexual sexual acts, but something has obviously altered their orientation. The Church has not claimed to know how or why, neither does science, but human experience of knowing gay people who you are truly close to cannot help but to enlighten one on how endemic to that persons “being” it seems to be. It is a cross to bear. Jim, you stated that only the individual can discern their vocation on their own. Well, that is not totally correct. Does not the Church counsel those who wish to marry, pursue Holy Orders, seek a vocation in other areas? The Church provides ample advice in all of those areas. If one feels a vocation to marry or a call to Holy Orders, the Church doesn’t just sign you up, it works with you intimately in those very important areas of your life. The thrust of my comments is simply to state that given the relevant topic and the assertion by some, which I generally agree with, of why so many gay people feel “called”, rightly or wrongly, to the priesthood, that it would be wise in the interest of not losing the souls of these individuals, to give equal weight to the hard-ships of faithful Catholics who are gay and provide similar vocational guidance.

  58. jimrb3 says:

    The church -has- given weight to it. I asked to enter Holy Orders, which is essentially asking to marry the Church after (poorly) discerning I was called to it, and she said ‘No.’ Its a mutual discernment. “Gays” asked, and she said ‘No.’ No further discernment required. The church now doesn’t need to hold my hand and lead me through life discerning every subsequent vocational step along-side me. That lies with me, and my spiritual director and those I seek spiritual help from. What vocation would you like the Church to direct them to? There are only so many: religious life, priesthood, marriage, or single life. They can’t be priests, and they can’t enter religious orders. The church cannot discern for them if they are called to marriage or not, that is up to them. Single life should not be considered a punishment imposed on them, or a dire 4th place to all the other vocations. Its a valid vocation in and of itself.

    And repeating the same point over and over again does not address the issue raised; I still remain entirely convinced that nobody IS gay, on a substantial epistemological level. I consider it theologically and philosophically impossible. It doesn’t matter if they’ve been subject to same-sex attraction as long as they can remember. I’ve gotten drunk on alcohol every time I’ve had it as long as I can remember, but I am NOT an alcoholic to the very core of my being. I’m a human being, with a disordered desire for alcohol. Thats what we mean when we say “I’m an alcoholic.” What the homosexual agenda is pushing from saying “I am gay,” is precisely the opposite: that they -are- gay on a very deep, very substantial level. I just disagree. If they were, then your point might carry water, and the Church would need to treat them in some way differently than all the other addictive sinners out there.

  59. shane says:

    This Baptist abuse victim points to the canonical requirement to keep records on priests as a factor in helping statisticians assess Catholic abuse rates.

    As she points out, the abuse figures (at least in the US) seem to be higher for Protestant clergy than Catholic priests.

  60. robtbrown says:

    The thrust of my comments is simply to state that given the relevant topic and the assertion by some, which I generally agree with, of why so many gay people feel “called”, rightly or wrongly, to the priesthood, that it would be wise in the interest of not losing the souls of these individuals, to give equal weight to the hard-ships of faithful Catholics who are gay and provide similar vocational guidance.
    Comment by Desertfalcon

    The word “vocation” has itself been abused.

    1. St Thomas does not use the word in relation to religious life. Instead, he uses the phrase “electio vitae”: One chooses the life. And the order consents. Even so, neither decision is infallible.

    2. To say someone feels called to the priesthood or religious life indicates little else than an attraction. It is possible that the attraction might be the beginning of a lifetime commitment, but in itself it is no indication of the Divine Will.

    It is of of no more legitimacy than someone claiming to be called to marry someone else when the other person is not interested.

  61. Stephen Hand says:

    All of this is so sad. There is such a thing as love between two men, I’m not gay but I’ve witnessed it, it’s as objective as anything else. The Vatican says that gays adopting children is doing violence to them. When I think of violence to children, I think of orphans in Ukraine having to choose between prostitution and starving to death, that’s violence to children(i don’t know if the plump clerical bureaucrats clothing themselves with miles of gold and lace, can tell the difference). [This sort of comment demonstrates how little you know about clerical bureaucrats. You would be far more convincing without this sort of cheap cleric bashing.] Then gay people are blamed for the clergy abuse scandals, which bishops let happen on their own watch, and then conspired to cover it up. Then gay people are blamed for the destruction of society, when they want the right to be able to visit their ill partner at the hospital. In the middle ages the church had no problem with prostitution being legal as a necessary evil for the good of soceity, but all the sudden, head for the hills, same-sex marriage is going to destroy our society. Bishops screw up badly and intentionally, and all the church can say is “oops, we’ll try better next time, we can’t actually change anything in the church, because Jesus wants the church to be a feudal monarchy,” [Again… ] don’t stop sending us money. The more the church vilifies gay people as responsible for their own sex abuse scandals, for the destruction of society, for “violence” to children, the more the church screams these things, the more histrionic and foolish it appears. Love exists, I’ve seen gay couples committed to each other, and to their children, more than many straight couples even. It’s objective, as real as any other human relationship. [You have a strange idea of what “objective” means.]

  62. robtbrown says:

    There are two different issues here that have been confused by people with an agenda. The question of homosexuals in the priesthood has almost nothing to do with lay Catholic homosexuals.

    There are principally two different groups of homosexual clergy.

    The first went through very strict formation in the 15 years before the Council. The collapse of the discipline of the Church after the Council had not given them enough time to personalize their priestly identities. They went from a by the numbers priesthood to anything goes. Although the pre VatII priesthood and religious life was possibly too legalistic, nevertheless, the transcendent emphasis still remained. After the Council, the transcendent character of the priesthood (and liturgy) largely evaporated, which if of course why so many, incl Papa Ratzinger, have spoken of the recovery of the Sacred.

    What followed then was the grand exodus. Among those who remained, many were confused about the Church and were psychologically damaged, and this was the source of the homosexual problem among pre VatII priests.

    The second, the post VatII group, is different. Many of the seminaries is the US had lost their transcendent emphasis (incl the contemplation of the Truth) and became Boys’ Clubs, a college fraternity without girls. The old rules vanished: Seminarians were once prohibited from entering the room of another seminarian and personal friendships (PF’s) not allowed. Such a discipline had been considered an essential part of celibacy formation because it discouraged emotional dependence. Priests would find their consolation in Christ not in social relationships. This was a vaccination against future problems of loneliness.

    Further, those in charge of formation in US seminaries and religious orders usually looked not for fidelity to doctrine but rather for openness to everything except Latin liturgy and doctrine. Seminarians knew not to say anything against doctrinal dissenters.

    This was a situation very attractive to homosexuals. The only requirement was to be a chameleon–no problem. And those who stayed in formation would recruit among the younger seminarians.

  63. robtbrown says:

    Stephen Hand,

    I disagree with much of what you say.

    There is certainly love between some men, but that has nothing to do with homosexuality. I have some very close male friends–I am sexually attracted to none of them. I have some close female friends–I am sexually attracted to some of them.

    To think, as you seem to do, that homosexuality is just an extension of male friendship strikes me as naive.

    And I know of no instance in which the Church vilifies homosexuals even though it has a long history of being considered a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

  64. An American Mother says:


    C.S. Lewis made the distinction between male friendship and eros in “The Four Loves”. And he pointed out that some of the blurring between those two very distinct forms of love has been quite deliberate.

    As the daughter of a professional dancer, I’ve known a great number of homosexual men (and a few women) in my life. The idea that they “always knew” is purely retrospective and self-fulfilling. While I’m sure there’s some sort of predisposition in some people, genetic or otherwise (just as being Irish, Highland Scot, and a bit of Cherokee, I was forewarned to be cautious with the Demon Rum), the common thread seems to be (usually) a dysfunctional family and (almost always) molestation in the early teens by an older homosexual. I have heard that story over and over again.

  65. robtbrown says:

    Also: In the middle ages the church had no problem with prostitution being legal as a necessary evil for the good of soceity but all the sudden, head for the hills, same-sex marriage is going to destroy our society.

    I know of no medieval theologian (certainly not St Thomas) who considered prostitution a necessary evil for the good of society. That would violate St Paul.

    And you seem to assume a certain neutrality if gay “marriage” is legal, an attitude of those who overemphasize individual rights. Such neutrality never happens. For example, there is an office with married people and gay people, not unusual. If gay “marriage” would be permitted, then it would be acceptable for them to talk about their significant other (or more correctly, significant same) just as married people currently talk about their spouses.

    Such a situation gives the homosexual relationship equal social footing as a marriage.

  66. robtbrown says:

    An American Mother,

    Almost every homosexual I’ve known (and one, now dead from AIDS, was a friend from our youth) came from similar family problems.

    BTW, the great athlete Jim Thorpe was half Indian and half Irish.

  67. Desertfalcon says:

    “there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation”

    American Academy of Pediatrics-CLINICAL REPORT PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 6 June 2004.

    …Of course, most people when confronted with peer reviewed scientific facts that they disagree with usually claim a clear bias in the research, but I have encountered that many times…

    My personal knowledge is apocryphal as well. I am and have known dozens upon dozens of gay people over many years, have been close friends with many, and having grown up in “Mormon Country”, knew very few who came from either dysfunctional families or were sexually abused. Sexually abused kids tend to turn out to be pathological and frequent abusers themselves, but there is no scientific research to indicate that it “changes” their sexual orientation or causes it. Most scientific research does not identify any one factor in why some people are gay, we simply do not know what causes it, but it does pretty conclusively prove that it is not a “choice” in any way. It certainly was not with me nor any other gay person I have ever known. Btw, I was neither abused sexually in any way, nor from an abnormal family background. I am a Catholic convert and faithful to Church teaching on human sexuality.

  68. An American Mother says:

    Unfortunately, the AAP and the DSM-IV are just about as compromised as the “peer reviewed” East Anglian climate change crowd.

    Only sin I know of that has a political constituency (other than graft, of course).

    While the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, when the “data” is politically motivated, personal experience is all one has to go on. I’m 55 years old and I’ve seen a lot of life go by.

  69. Desertfalcon says:

    An American Mother: That is why I was reluctant to post it. In our post-modern age, there is no “science” any longer, just politics. Fact is whatever opinion we wish to believe in on either side of any issue. The problem with personal experience, however, is not everyone’s experience is the same. My half-century’s worth may differ in mileage from yours.

  70. An American Mother says:

    Absolutely, not everyone’s experience is the same. That’s why we’re discussing it here.

    It is a shame that science – especially the social sciences and psychology/psychiatry – has been so compromised by dishonesty and politics.

    But with that as a given, I think it is better, in case of doubt, to stick with the Church’s teaching. If certain bishops had done that all along, instead of relying on the (politically compromised) “experts”, they wouldn’t have found themselves in the mess that they did.

  71. Bob Glassmeyer says:

    A large homosexual man called Fred
    made a pass at me once in my life;
    I said, “Sorry, Fred, I don’t swing that way,”
    and the fact brings much joy to my wife.

  72. Maltese says:

    I found this interesting and appurtenant:

    Fr. Amorth is a priest I respect greatly. I don’t think he was claiming something false here. If the devil is nothing else, he is the Great Deceiver; in the words of Shakespeare, he makes “fair foul, and foul fair.” This pertains to those who abuse minors; everything is “fair” in their minds, but it really is Satanic in origin. I think the article, supra, goes a long way in explaining why Christ’s Church can be infested and infected with evil men….

  73. Stephen Hand says:

    [This sort of comment demonstrates how little you know about clerical bureaucrats. You would be far more convincing without this sort of cheap cleric bashing.]

    Funny that you should say that, Father, I think that I know too much. Either way, however little I know, I wish I knew less.

    As for objectivity, I guess I should come out of the closet and say that I’m not an Aristotelian Thomist.

  74. jimrb3 says:

    @Stephen Hand:

    Huh? What? Just… what?

    Since you are at least familiar enough with St. Thomas to throw his name around, you’ll appreciate this:

    Question 1: The nature and existence of intelligent criticisms of “plump clerical bureaucrats clothing themselves with miles of lace and gold.”
    Article 1: Whether, besides personal statement, anything is required to give the above statement the force of a proposition in a logical argument.
    Objection 1: “Funny that you should say that, Father, I think that I know too much. Either way, however little I know, I wish I knew less.”
    Objection 2: “As for objectivity, I guess I should come out of the closet and say that I’m not an Aristotelian Thomist.”

    On the contrary, it is accepted that logical arguments must be made up of propositions whose veracity can be tested, and questions regarding the truth of those propositions are to be answered with evidence. Furthermore, “appeal by ridicule” is a well documented logical fallacy, as well as “poisoning the well.”

    I answer that, if you wish to question the honour and integrity of men who have sacrificed their personal lives and much more to providing for others, it is required that you provide some evidence of your information, and prove that it is neither slander, backbiting, detraction or gossip, or testify to the authority you possess which allows you to make such a claim that we should accept on its own merit.

    Reply to Objection 1: By your own admission you are not interested in actually finding out what “clerical bureaucrats” live like, or the nature of the character. De facto, you don’t possess the authority or moral high ground to slander them.
    Reply to Objection 2: Whether or not you accept objective reality, it exists, and so do moral standards, as well as rules of logic and argumentation, many or all of which you appear to have violated. It is not polite, and perhaps immoral, to slander “clerical bureaucrats” reputations or the good work they have done over the last 2 millennia, without being willing to honestly and openly defend your accusation, and the reason it is necessary to make their supposed faults known to us. Failing to do so not only makes your comments at best detraction, and at worst slander, but also indicates that their inclusion in your diatribe shows only that you can’t string together a series of real logical arguments to make your point.

  75. Bob Glassmeyer says:

    During my life I’ve met some gay men, some of them Catholic men. I’ve been friends with one of these men for some years now, and he is one of the sweetest, kindest, funniest people I’ve ever known.

    He thinks the Church should make the Extraordinary form of the Mass much more available, is against gay marriage, and believes children should have a father and a mother.

    He’s my friend. He’s a person. He’s made in the image and likeness of God, same as the rest of us. He strives to live out his Baptismal promises, same as the rest of us.

    Sometimes it helps to know someone, to love someone, to care for someone, who happens to be a homosexual, to be that person’s friend, to know they would take a bullet for you, and that you’d do the same for them. It helps to respect that person as one of your elders, if he is (and my friend is 72 years young), and know he can teach you a few things.

    I don’t even want to think about my friend dying, not because I’m afraid he might go to hell for being gay (only God knows that, anyway), but because I would really miss him. I would miss my friend.

    It helps to put a human face on homosexuality. It helps to have some humility when we’re talking about other people’s sins and shortcomings. The Church teaches what she teaches about it. I hope the Church will take the time to actually spend a few minutes with a person who happens to be homosexual, and find out what it’s like for him or her. And take the time to treat this person not as a sin, but as a person, perhaps as an occasion of God’s love and grace.

  76. Stephen Hand says:


    Oh, where to begin.

    Reply to Reply to Objection 2: I never said that I refuse to find out how clerical bureaucrats live, just that I wish I did not know what I do know about how they live.

    Reply to Reply to Objection 3: I never denied objective reality, I simply stated that I do not accept the Aristotelian Thomist understanding of it, especially when it comes to human nature.

    The Holy Father and the relevant bishop’s conferences have admitted(and apologized for) the failures and incompetence of the hierarchy in dealing with sexual predators, in protecting children from rapists.(though only after the scandals had come to light by forces outside the church) It is a personal failure on the part of many bishops and priests that so many children were thrown to the wolves, and this has been acknowledged. Cardinal Ratzinger, himself, in his 2005 Good Friday meditations talked about how much filth there is in the church.

    My remark about plump clerical bureaucrats has to do with the fact that many clerics live(d) very comfortable lives in spite of horrendous failures in this area, such as Cardinal Law, Archbishop Weakland, Farther Maciel, etc etc etc.
    As a result of facts such as these, I find it absurd that there are people in the church who blame these scandals, the destruction of moral values, violence against children, etc. on gay people. When there is, in the words of the Holy Father, so much filth in the church, especially amongst clerics(not just gay ones). Furthermore, I find it absurd that clerical beaurocrats watching from a distance can judge homosexual families with children as being instances of violence and abuse.(But here come in our differing metaphysical and epistemological commitments, and that is a mighty deep rabbit hole)

    Ps. work on your reading comprehension.

  77. jimrb3 says:

    Once again, simply stating that “Plump clerical bureaucrats” live lush lives does not make the statement true, or make it have any bearing on whether or not the actions they’ve taken are good or bad, sound or invalid.

    I have yet to see someone reverse their opinion because of comments on a blog, so I hold no pretenses that either of us are being -truly- “open” to the other’s viewpoint. I, especially, require some serious logical argumentation before I am going to dispense with the teachings of the Church in the catechism, and the long standing, multiple millennia old understanding of the vast majority of mankind that homosexual behaviour is an aberration and a distortion. The kind of argumentation that goes beyond: ‘I feel that its not bad, and my personal judgment of the matter outweighs even my need to present facts to back up outrageous claims I’m going to make about the other side.’ That is, in its purest form, “appeal by ridicule.”

    Also, can you site where I stated that all the “filth,” “scandals,” “destruction of moral values,” and “violence against children,” are a direct result of homosexuality in the Church? If you can I’ll surely apologize for such a broad-reaching and overarching statement made without evidence. Until you can, work on your reading comprehension.

  78. Stephen Hand says:

    “Also, can you site where I stated that all the “filth,” “scandals,” “destruction of moral values,” and “violence against children,” are a direct result of homosexuality in the Church? If you can I’ll surely apologize for such a broad-reaching and overarching statement made without evidence.”

    I never accused you personally of saying those things.

    That many prelates have a higher standard of living than their subjects I think cannot be disputed, are you saying that this is not the case? I don’t know where you’re from, but most people that I know do not have personal drivers, nor live in a palace. Not to mention the fact that most of these prelates do have don’t have to worry about being left without a means of living, which is a sense of security that the vast majority of lay people don’t enjoy.

    “I, especially, require some serious logical argumentation before I am going to dispense with the teachings of the Church in the catechism, and the long standing, multiple millennia old understanding of the vast majority of mankind that homosexual behaviour is an aberration and a distortion.”

    If you’re really interested in learning about arguments against the church’s teachings on homosexuality, I think that the writings of James Allison are a good start as any.

    It’s interesting how you mention “the long standing, multiple millennia old understanding of the vast majority of mankind that homosexual behaviour is an aberration and a distortion.”
    a. That’s an unfounded, overarching, assertion if there ever was one, and you make it without providing any evidence, tsk, tsk, maybe I’m rubbing off on you.
    b. Being the great logic professor that you are, you might know that just because allot of people believe something doesn’t make it any more true.

  79. Maltese says:

    Call me old fashion, but to me there is something wrong in being a seminarian AND a gay prostitute:

  80. Supertradmom says:

    When I did my Theology degree in classes with seminarians, seven were active homosexuals. I prayed that they did not get ordained. I tried to get two or three to break away from the culture. The others were sadly very committed to the lifestyle.

    Do you remember the meeting of the American Bishops when the scandals first broke in the news? I watched these meetings on C-span, or some such station, like EWTN. I distinctly remember Archbishop Burke and Cardinal George standing up and insisting that homosexuality should be addressed as part of the problem. They were strongly rebuked and told to sit down by Archbishop Wilton Gregory very rudely. Those of us who were watching this were amazed at the put-down.

  81. JonM says:

    JonM, the problem with your model is that even if the heterosexual no longer looks at pornography they are still naturally oriented to heterosexuality.

    Okay… point being what exactly? This person ceased a grave, destructive sin. He might marry, he might be called to priesthood, or he might (almost certainly not given today’s demographics) be called to a single life.

    Is it a rule that one requires a ‘sexual release’ as you seem to imply? Of course, this is obsurd. Whether you realize it or not, this is what you are suggesting, that we are sexual creatures and require some kind of sexual activity.

    Again, there is some communication issue here because as Jim and I have pointed out, we are not in substance whatever sin we commit. One is a murderer if he murders someone, but he is not, epistemologically, a murderer.

    Modernists and atheists are determined to define us by actions because they reject Creation and an immortal soul. Sadly, I think that certain apologists have done grave disservice to Catholics looking to be unscrabbled in mind: that is, by way of making sexual relations a sort of sacrament or idol.

    We forget that lust can occur within a marriage. In fact it is common given the rebellion against Humane vitae.

    The thrust of my comments is simply to state that given the relevant topic and the assertion by some, which I generally agree with, of why so many gay people feel “called”, rightly or wrongly, to the priesthood, that it would be wise in the interest of not losing the souls of these individuals, to give equal weight to the hard-ships of faithful Catholics who are gay and provide similar vocational guidance.

    One more time, to believe that God designs anyone as substantially homosexual runs counter to all Tradition, Scriptures, and approach by the Church. If we believe this, then God becomes quite conflicted with Himself, which of course He is absolutely NOT.

    We do know that a very limited sliver of the population has to struggle with this as a deep-seated temptation. It can be broken. That is not to say that they will desire a wife (some do though.) If we accept the world’s approach and consider homosexuality a different but complementary ‘way’ of sexuality, then we have to view people who seem to have a lot of trouble with the truth as just ‘liars’ who need a system that allows them to live out without fear or shame their being liars…

    …or for ‘pornophiles’ who just need a framework to exist in society without shame.

    It is also important to understand that sin flows into other sin. I know a perfectly ordered man, my best friend in fact, who in my opinion after years of pornography and serial fornication, began to consider severely perverse acts. I regret that I was not then Catholic (he always was, another example of the VII bounty) and was a weak voice morality as I had my own problems. I mean, look at some famous actors (well ordered, etc.) who ‘dabble’ in homosexuality or other perversions. Clearly, it is like a series of doors to more hellish rooms.

    The point is that I just don’t this the logic in this apparent seperate class of sin just because some a very tough struggle with it; sin flows together and begets other sin.

  82. Bob Glassmeyer says:

    Pemberton Bryce, not the sort of chap
    often given to mad flights of thuggery,
    still quite often frequents the YMCA
    for some right jolly fencing and buggery.

Comments are closed.