Homosexual priest???

The question needs to be asked: Is the estimate based on persons practicing same-gender fornication, or persons who simply admit to having had an attraction to persons of the same gender?

Regardless on views on the RCC in general, if someone is a priest and practicing any form of sexual activity, I'm against it. It violates their commitment, plus it is fornication. A person in the priesthood having any sort of lust is wrong.

 

I tend to agree, bunyan. The 40 percent number is a problem. However, I do suspect that the 40 percent number is probably an over- exaggeration. It seems unrealistic to the extreme, even if we presume serious flaws in the system of the priesthood.

I mean, what is the the psycologist using to qualify "orientation"? Does "I once glanced at a guy in gym class and thought he was good looking" count?

 

Like forbidding to marry?

 

Forty percent seems a low estimate when one looks at the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. The sodomite priests are called the Lavender Mafia and they control whole seminaries and parishes worldwide and have since Martin Luther's time.

The Catholic Church must allow married men to become priests and the Catholic Church must defrock all practicing sodomites. I doubt if they will change, however. Also, they must allow married couples to use birth control if they wish; the pope is not married so how can he be an expert on marriage?

 

I think it's silly, but scripturally wrong? Local autonomy says a church is allowed to make such rules, even if we find them to be silly. Paul was single, and had no problem with it. I don't think forbidding someone to marry makes them a homosexual. In fact, I suspect that evidence to that end is rather lacking.

 

I don't know about "must". I think they should.

This is where I must give them some credit. They have indeed defrocked many priests for sexual immorality. However, many priests have yet to be expelled from the priesthood, for which I am equally critical.

Again, the concept of autonomy dictates that a church may place such rules in effect even if we think they're silly.

I don't know about that. Again, Paul wasn't married, and he seemed to be a bit of an expert. My own wife and I had premarital counseling, and the person conducting it was single. Many Baptist pastors are single, and are capable of giving counsel to the flock on topics of marriage.

 

Bunyon, John likes to split hairs. This problem is at least 500 years old and John says that they should do something but that the word "must" do something is a little too strong. I think that he wants to wait another 500 years before he thinks of insisting on anything being done anytime soon--right, John?

I think that all St. Paul said was that it is neither good nor bad to be married or to be unmarried. I don't think that St. Paul tried to pass himself off as an expert on the issue of birth control inside marriage.

And, of course, Bunyon, John knows that no one except him ever even thought of the idea that forbidding a priest to marry makes him a sodomite. The Catholic Church, Bunyon, does not want married priests because of the expense in supporting wives and children and giving them property or salaries. You build an empire by using people forbidden to have families and by using people dedicated to leaving any and all property to the Catholic Church upon death. Therefore, the Catholic Church has a massive palace and priceless art museum in the Vatican and has huge expensive buildings and real estate holdings worldwide.

And the Lavendar Mafia gets away with child abuse because the Catholic Church says that the priest is outside the law.

 

I'd hardly call being specific as splitting hairs. There's a huge difference between "should" and "must".

ut he did say it was good to be single.

 

Exactly my point.

You make an excellent point. Pedophiles are vastly heterosexual, not homosexual. These two distinct and separate issues need to be dealth with, but there iis nothing to infere any relation between the two, not even in the priesthood.

Of interest is that the issue of homosexuality doesn't seem to be present in other celibate orders, such as buddhist monks or hindu gurus. This does indeed appear to be an issue unique to the pristhood of the Catholic Church. Still, I think the 20-40% estimation seems a bit high. But imo, if it were 10-15%, that is sufficient concern.

 

John, you get the award for being the most syncretistical.

It is good to be married and it is good not to be married, ok, John?

The Lavender Mafia is not pedophiles but open homosexuals who molest teenage boys after they have reached the age of puberty. The term for that is ephebophilia (or hebephilia).

But here is where you are dead wrong, John, when you write, "I think it's silly, but scripturally wrong? Local autonomy says a church is allowed to make such rules, even if we find them to be silly." It is more than silly because it is wrong to forbid a priest to marry because there is no Scriptural basis. It is a great abuse, which you want to reduce to an absurdity and say that unlike you it is merely immoderate.

 

The Catholic church has more problems than just homosexual priests, although I think that's huge.

 

Inaccurate, but good word usage

Of course it's good to marry. However, Paul says it is good to be single, also. It doesn't appear that scripture as a whole commands marriage of all people.

Good point. Still, hebephiles tend to, again, be heterosexial, not homosexual. I think, though, that this issue should seriously be looked at by the RCC.

There is no scriptural basis for many things, but they're still subject to autonomy. Many churches require a masters level degree for ordination. Is it wrong just because there's no scriptural basis for this? Hardly.

 

Both of these answers are correct:

Even one homosexual priest is a problem

The Catholic Church is apostate, end of story (my choice)