Vatican may admit 'transitory' gays into priesthood

[punchdrunk]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-vatican23.html

Reiterating its stand against sexually active gays in the priesthood, the Vatican also says in a new document that men with ''transitory'' homosexuality must have overcome their sexual tendencies for at least three years before entering the clergy.

Transitory homosexuality? What does that mean? And why three years? Is that how long it takes to get rid of the cooties?

Estimates of the number of gays in U.S. seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 percent to 50 percent, according to a review of research by the Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood.

Wow. Why would the priesthood be so far above the national average?

The document, from the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, says the church deeply respects homosexuals. But it also says it ''cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture.''

"I deeply respect you and your beliefs. Now get out."

 

[Ryokan]

Wow. Why would the priesthood be so far above the national average?

Because of the celibacy thing. Good way to deal with your sinful ways.

 

[shecky]

I suppose transitory homosexuality is the same as transitory heterosexuality as far as celibates are concerned.

For someone with homosexual orientation, and a love for the Church, priesthood seems perhaps a way to credibly stay unmarried and serve their god and church.

 

[punchdrunk]

Because of the celibacy thing. Good way to deal with your sinful ways.

I can't think of any other reason. I would like to see how they came up with those percentages, though. If true, it makes a tidy little commentary on the state of the priesthood in Catholicism. I wonder what deep-seated issues the other 50-75% are burying?

 

[Tmy]

Well hey, you gonna ban someone for life just cause of one drunken frat party that got a little out of hand!!

 

[shecky]

I would like to see how they came up with those percentages, though.

I would, too. I was a former student of the college mentioned in this article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-stjohns17nov17,0,3836772.story?page=1&track=tothtml

I also went to the corresponding high school for a year. My personal guess is that the 25% to 50% number was probably accurate, if my gaydar hadn't completely failed me.

I wonder what deep-seated issues the other 50-75% are burying?

A really good question. There was a contingent, maybe 50%, that was generally very conservative, I'm talking whacko conservative. Maybe 25% with a weird mysogynist streak. However both these groups overlapped with the homosexual group and each other. So, as a whole, about 50% were maladjusted, weirdos, and/or creepy, and the other 50% were well adjusted, decent young men, even if some of that group was homosexual. I have no data how many actually went on to receive holy orders or were weeded out, as I abandoned that ship several years before that point, and really didn't keep many close ties. I liked to think at the time that many of the whackos would have been weeded out before long, but who knows?

Oddly enough, with the latest LA Times info, I now personally know three RC priests who have been involved in sexual (and in one case, also financial) scandals. All three were teachers of mine at one time or another. All three were generally well liked, not considered creepy. Two I eventually lost respect for long ago, pre-scandal, because of unrelated flakey teachings/ideas. The third was a real surprise, and I'm not the only one, as he had risen to bishop of a nice area in CA, a crony of Archbishop Mahoney of L.A. before it all came crashing down.

 

[Bikewer]

On NPRs "Fresh Air" show a couple of months ago, they interviewed a priest who was a Vatican-policy cheerleader, and also a gay priest.

I thought that the gay priest made much the better case, and seemed rather more "Christian" (at least as I understand such) about the whole thing.

His opinion was that the whole thing was a whitewash (in typical political fashion) to distract attention from the priestly-pedophilia quagmire. "See, we really are doing something!"

Never mind that pedophilia is unrelated to homosexuality, though the public at large does not seem to understand this.

 

[shecky]

His opinion was that the whole thing was a whitewash (in typical political fashion) to distract attention from the priestly-pedophilia quagmire. "See, we really are doing something!"

Never mind that pedophilia is unrelated to homosexuality, though the public at large does not seem to understand this.

I agree, it seems largely window dressing for a public unwilling or unable to make a distinction between pedophiles and gays. And, sadly, casts a shadow over the many fine priests through the ages up to today who happen to be gay.

I suppose it's easier to weed out the gays than the pedophiles, as they, IME, often appear to be well adjusted, likable people. Perhaps it's just the nature of the celibate authority figure lifestyle that attracts deviants, and/or fosters deviant behavior. Men who are unhesitant to follow through their regular sexual outlets are excluded from priesthood off the bat.