Speaking of homosexuality and Jesuit homosexualist activists…

Speaking of homosexuality and Jesuit homosexualist activists…

From The Catholic Thing we have:

De-homosexualizing the American Church

He makes a good argument about the urgent need to de-“gay” the American Church.  His solution is dead wrong.

From Crisis we have:

James Martin and the Question of the Kiss

Remember that Jesuit Martin said that homsexuals should kiss each other in church during Mass.

In his response to perhaps slightly credulous Prof. Robby George, Austin Ruse writes:

The problem with James Martin’s crusade is not just that he is leading young men and women astray with his statements about homosexuality. It is also that he gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the Church and God’s precious children.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Kevin says:

    I mentioned this a couple of posts ago but I’ll say it again….where are the Bishops? Why aren’t they speaking out? They are supposed to be our shepherds to protect us and lead us to safety (heaven). Speak up Bishops! Bishops have not taught us well. We have malformed consciences because the Bishops are not speaking clearly. Bishops….get out of politics and start shepherding your flocks to Heaven!!! Tell the truth about the misinformation from this jesuit priest. Bishops, you are AWOL. Speak up!

  2. SanSan says:

    Thank you for your comments regarding Carlin’s take on de-homosexulizing the Church. Yes, he is dead wrong……ordaining married men….NO. Our priests need to be strong manly men that can lead their flock to salvation.

  3. Simon_GNR says:

    I disagree with David Carlin that allowing married men to be ordained priests would solve the problem of homosexuality within the clergy: it’s a bit of a non-sequitur really. Why would ordaining married men deter homosexual activity by some priests? He doesn’t explain how this works. The Church of England has for centuries had married priests, and quite a few unmarried homosexual ones too, so Carlin’s proposed solution appears not to work anyway.

    That said, I do agree that the Church should move to allowing the ordination of married men as priests. Celibacy just isn’t right for the majority of men – Genesis 2.18 – “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone…’ “.

    Even if married men were ordained to the priesthood many parishes would not be able to afford to pay them a salary that would be sufficient for them to provide for wives and children, so the number of married priests would probably be quite small.

  4. AndyMo says:

    Even setting aside theological, disciplinary, and social issues, the press to open the priesthood to married men is stupendously impractical. Many parishes can barely keep the lights on with the customary $1 offerings, and you think we’ll be able to support a man with a wife and family? Do you think that a priest can divide his attentions between parish and family? I work full time for the Church right now, and even now it can be difficult to balance work and family. What happens when you introduce a sacramental responsibility to the equation? No, the married priesthood is a disaster waiting to happen.

  5. YoungLatinMassGuy says:

    As one laymen who at one point Seriously considered entering the Seminary to become a priest, but ultimately decided against it, I can tell you there was, and still is, one big elephant in the room that I didn’t even mention to my own pastor when I sat down with him to talk about becoming a priest:

    I don’t want to be hit on by gay guys.

    The guys going through Seminary… They’re either obviously gay, or seriously confused about their own sexuality (or they’ve been “friend-zoned” one too many times). They shouldn’t be in Seminary on their way to becoming a priests.

    The priests in Seminary, and the priests I encountered in our day to day lives, they’re blatantly homosexual… One priest at my old high school, we called him “Fr. [Well-known derogative term for a homosexual starting with F.]”

    The Church has a serious problem with homosexuals in the priesthood. I am not alone in deciding against Seminary because of this specific issue.

  6. Joy65 says:

    Kevin & AndyMo, EXCELLENT posts! Couldn’t agree more with your postings.

  7. defenderofTruth says:

    Having read Carlin’s piece, part of me wonders how much of it is tongue-in-cheek and how much is deperation.

  8. defenderofTruth says:


  9. Unwilling says:

    Introduction of a married priesthood at this (long post-Apostolic) time would be an open capitulation to the culture of sexual permission. It is odd that he does not see the domino(s) falling here.

  10. Malta says:

    AndyMo–in theory I agree with everything you say. I only attend the TLM, and sometimes SSPX chapels. But the gay problem in the Church–instead of getting better, has actually gotten a bit worse–at least where I live. You know there are married Catholic priests. I mean the SSPX would never allow married priests, but for the Church at large it may not be a bad idea to loosen the restrictions and for a local Bishop to allow more married priests.

  11. Kevin says:

    To the other Kevin.
    The catastrophe that silent Bishops cause has a name…. It’s called Ireland!
    Even now after the sin infested rot in our culture has been exposed, the Bishops are still silent. The ongoing silence is more deafening than the cheering pro-aborts in Dublin Castle.

  12. bibi1003 says:

    Kevin, I feel exactly the same as you when you say, “Where are our bishops?” But in our diocese, the bishop is the problem. He proudly spoke at a New Ways Ministry conference last year. Isn’t there someone in authority over him who is brave enough to correct him? Why is he allowed to teach error?

  13. Bunky says:

    And now for a contrarian point of view: My late father who was on the liberal side of the spectrum would have been ok with married priests, and was absolutely in favor of a future church in which there would be married Bishops and Cardinals on the grounds that they would be likely to make wiser policies affecting the laity because without having families of their own, they had little if any real understanding of women (his theory being that if they were really celibate they hardly had anything to do with women in their daily lives, so how could they possibly have any idea how to relate to them?) as well being clueless about married life and the problems and responsibilities of a family man.

  14. Il Ratzingeriano says:

    I was disappointed to see the Carlin piece on The Catholic Thing. Really poor timing too given that the celibacy requirement is in the libs’ cross-hairs right now. And what a non-sequitur: we should allow some very unholy homosexual priests who mock the celibacy requirement to destroy it in its entirety.

  15. maternalView says:

    No no no. No married priests. Even the married priests who came over from the Anglicans say it’s too hard. Their loyalties are divided.

    Forget waiting around for the Bishops. They obviously need our prayers. But it’s up to the laity. If even a small group in every parish started fasting and saying rosaries for their diocese and bishop the Lord would bless us.

  16. Arthur McGowan says:

    Plan to Rid the Church of Homosexual Priests:

    Phase One: Allow married priests.
    Phase Two: ?
    Phase Three: Homosexual Priests All Gone!

    For an explanation of how this will work, see this:


  17. rdowhower says:

    Forgive me for being blunt, but I don’t see any suggestions on how to actually solve the homosexual priest problem in the American church. It’s all well and good to think that it just takes a group of laymen to say rosaries and go to Adoration, but it’s a bit on the pie-in-the-sky side of things. A dear priest friend of mine made the comment recently that if only we had Adoration in every parish in the diocese the vocation crisis would be solved. Really? Have all the laymen who have been doing these things already been wasting their time? A parish Fr. Z knows very well prays for vocations at every Mass and yet recently a priest in his homily lamented the fact that for the first time in years there would not be a seminarian from the parish ordained. There always has to be a practical/active side, just as there are both spiritual and corporal works of mercy. So if no married priests, then what?

  18. cwillia1 says:

    My pastor, whom I respect, is leaving. His replacement is a member of an order founded by a sodomite who abused seminarians. And this abuse occurred approximately when the new man was a seminarian. Is the new priest a hero or a sodomite or a quiet bystander or was he oblivious to what was going on? One can ask the same question about all the men brought into the priesthood by McCarrick and Favalora and bishops like them. And then there is the far larger contingent of bishops who tolerate(d) active homosexuals in seminaries and parishes. Sodomy is poison in a celibate, hierarchical priesthood.

  19. Andrew says:

    Recommended reading for people wishing to explore the rationale for priestly celibacy:
    Pius XII – Sacra Virginitas
    Paulus VI – Sacerdotalis Caelibatus
    Vatican II; Presbyterorum Ordinis no. 16
    St. Jerome: Against Jovinianus

  20. hwriggles4 says:

    If married clergy became normal, imagine these situations:

    1. The phone ringing off the hook at the chancery when an angry wife complains why her husband is being transferred in the middle of the school year.

    2. Signs on confessionals saying, “sorry, not tonight, my son has a baseball game, and my daughters have a dance recital. ”

    3. Complaints to the bishop by a wife concerning that her husband is being transferred to a parish either in a rural area or in the barrio or ghetto area of a large city.

    4. Funds for the diocesan appeals would be asking for much more.

    Seriously, quite a few of our Protestant brethren are members of smaller congregations, and many Protestant pastors have a 9 to 5 job outside of being a pastor in order to make ends meet and to support a family. I don’t think the average Catholic attending Mass weekly is aware of that.

  21. roma247 says:

    Think married priests is not such a bad idea? I mean, on the surface, it seems to solve a lot of problems, right?…

    Have a conversation sometime with the children of that rare species: married Anglican priests who converted and became Catholic priests. They have reasons in spades for why it’s a bad deal for all involved. Wives *need* their husbands, and kids *need* their dad. But when dad has spiritual duties that must come before his duties as a father, the wife and kids lose again, and again, and again.

    Moreover, based on the way most marriages run nowadays, it is especially not a good idea. It used to be clear who wore the pants in a family. Now mom calls the shots most of the time. Think how weird it would be to have a henpecked husband for your parish priest.

    No, married priests will not solve this or any other problem.

  22. Eric says:

    The problem is not celibacy, and introducing married men as priests is a band aid to a massive wound. The problem needs to be addressed from the root, the feminization of the Church following Vatican II. Save the Liturgy Save the World!

  23. robtbrown says:

    David Carlin is 80 years old. That does not mean that he has lost his fast ball, but rather that he is of the generation that extols The Institution over Assent to Truth. If an institution is corrupt, just change what is required rather than reform the institution. Priests not being celibate? Just abolish celibacy, ignoring its many spiritual benefits.

    Nb: No celibate priest is alone. By virtue of his vocation he must recognize that his companion is Christ.

    Homosexuality in the priesthood is not getting worse. With the public knowledge of the disgusting scandals 15 years ago, many unfortunately didn’t realize they were just the situations that had criminal consequences.

    IMHO, those who advocate eliminating celibacy should ask themselves why the SSPX, FSSP, Clear Creek and other groups don’t have celibacy problems with their members.

  24. Shonkin says:

    I tend to agree that having married priests would solve nothing. I live in an area (western Montana) with a severe shortage of priests. The Church tries to help out the overworked priests with deacons, all of whom are older married men. The problem of deacons’ wives is the same problem we’d see with priests’ wives (as hwriggles4 pointed out). The Diocese goes through a long, arduous screening process in evaluating deacons and especially in screening the candidates’ wives. If the wife won’t buy in to having to play second fiddle to God and having to work in a parish ministry, it doesn’t matter how holy or dedicated the potential deacon is; he’s out. Even with the screening, you sometimes see a Mrs. Deacon who has her special friends in the parish clique and is rather chilly to everyone else. A deacon with a wife like that is unfortunate; a priest with such a wife would be an outright disaster.

  25. TonyO says:

    Celibacy IS NOT the cause of homosexuality problems in the seminary or priesthood. Abstaining from sex does not cause one to yearn for sex with persons of the same sex. Nor does being a homosexual incline one more toward the priesthood than being a heterosexual does (although it might give an advantage to seminarians who are going to fag-factory seminaries, it won’t do that for seminarians going to a properly run seminary.) Priests who are heterosexual and who fail to control their appetites have plenty of opportunity to find and make use of opportunities for sex with women, not men. Having married priests cannot solve the homosexuality problem, because it only addresses (some of) the temptations of heterosexual priests, and causes more problems than it solves. In any case, married priests will exhibit just as many issues with infidelity toward their spouses as unmarried but sexually active priests exhibit right now toward the objects of their illicit, immoral behavior – but said infidelities would cause even more grave scandal than they do in lay people.

    In addition to all that. the so-called “solution” of married priests is only a solution when you don’t actually look at the reality: all men ordained to the clerical state – deacons, priests, and bishops, are called to ongoing continence (i.e. abstaining from sexual relations). That is to say, even married priests and deacons. It is not entirely the fact of giving up marriage part of the clerical state (which implies giving up the close companionship, and family, that comes with marriage) alone that is so difficult, it is the giving up sexual relations that is considered to be so overwhelmingly difficult. But married priests and deacons are supposed to give that up anyway. See Canon Lawyer Edward Peters’ blog for several articles stating this.

    <i.A parish Fr. Z knows very well prays for vocations at every Mass and yet recently a priest in his homily lamented the fact that for the first time in years there would not be a seminarian from the parish ordained. There always has to be a practical/active side, just as there are both spiritual and corporal works of mercy. So if no married priests, then what?

    rdowhower, it is an easily established fact that the orders that have been fully and totally orthodox and have not imbibed the kool-aid of modernism attract plenty of seminarians. And the dioceses that continued to treat the priesthood as sacred and to be protected (such as by not allowing girl-altar-boys) have fared far, far better than the other dioceses. The answer to the priest shortage cannot be solved at the parish level, (so one parish doing perpetual adoration can help but cannot solve it on its own) but it CAN be successfully addressed at the diocese level. And when bishops have made the changes necessary to get back to a proper and traditional understanding of the priesthood (and of orthodox teaching, and of sacred liturgy), they have successful improved their recruitment of seminarians as well. The reason for the ongoing (and, in some places, worsening)) crisis of a shortage of priests is that most of the bishops don’t want that kind of solution. They would rather accept the priesthood dying out than accept the solution of “going backwards” (in their heads) to the old ways, (whereas all they really need to do is get back to true Catholicism in its entirety). They have to reform the seminaries to kick out the pink mafia types, and the modernist teachers, and get rid of the psychoanalysts that treat men who love full-blown Catholicism as if they were stricken with the plague. They have to push parishes to elevate the tone of the Mass to its proper place, not merely “a supper”. They should get rid of girl-altar-boys.

  26. michaelthoma says:

    I don’t think the married priest issue should be conflated with getting rid of homosexuality in the priesthood.

    I support married men being ordained deacons and priests – as an Easterner I can see the fruits of this. Children of priests tend to become priests, or wives of priests. Wives tend to get the women’s groups active. Children help the youth group. There are negatives as well, and even those who are bad fathers, bad wives, children who leave etc. Nothing is perfect but there is lots of good that comes from married clergy.

    Homosexuality in the priesthood – Latin and Eastern, monasticism and priesthood – is a centuries old problem that is mentioned by various monastic abbots and spiritual fathers both East and West. As the bishops would always come from the celibates, preferably monks, this problem would continue if the monk/celibate is not properly formed. Community and fraternal accountability is essential.

Comments are closed.