Homosexuality and the roman catholic church

  • Cutlass

    Posts: 426

    Dec 21, 2013 8:34 AM GMT
    In the December issue of Vanity Fair magazine, there is an article about homosexuality in the catholic church. Aside from the historical knowledge of homosexuality among the popes, the article focused on the conflicts of the gay clergy. With an estimate of a high of 60 percent to a low of 20 percent of the priests believed to be gay, the church's stand on gays is appalling and sad. I myself would estimate that the clergy is probably around 50 percent gay, but that's because I've learned of or heard from priests that are gay, so gay ones are almost the only ones I've ever heard from.
    The article mentioned how difficult it was for gay priests to be true to their calling, and how many of them just give way to their physical and mental needs and thus live on the margins of the church. For about a third of them, they try to stay true to their vows and suppress all feelings of sexuality, and you know how that plays out. Another third have come out and yet try to live up to the teachings of the church, but they can only suppress so much. A final third are openly living a secret gay lifestyle, and they're hovering on the precipice that could lead to their downfall from exposure, censure, and defrocking, to say nothing of sexually transmitted diseases and scandal.
    It's a miserable life for gay priests in the r.c. church, they say, yet most stay in there. The article stated nothing or no one could make the church safe for them. How about changes in the r.c. church? "Not in my lifetime," say the gay priests. A monk who is openly gay and in a relationship with a man said, "Am I a clerical hypocrite? I guess I am. But I'm over 60, and I have nothing financially, so I can't leave the priesthood."
    That was my first thought--that gay priests should leave the r.c. church, and that way there would be a shortage of priests and thus lessen the church's power and there would be the remote possibility that they would have to allow priests to marry (and have sex) or that the traditionally misogynist church would allow women to be priests. Dreamer! So the gay priests stay, and the church goes on its merry hypocritical and backward-looking way.
  • killercliche

    Posts: 948

    Dec 21, 2013 9:44 AM GMT
    Cutlass said In the December issue of Vanity Fair magazine, there is an article about homosexuality in the catholic church. Aside from the historical knowledge of homosexuality among the popes, the article focused on the conflicts of the gay clergy. With an estimate of a high of 60 percent to a low of 20 percent of the priests believed to be gay, the church's stand on gays is appalling and sad. I myself would estimate that the clergy is probably around 50 percent gay, but that's because I've learned of or heard from priests that are gay, so gay ones are almost the only ones I've ever heard from.
    The article mentioned how difficult it was for gay priests to be true to their calling, and how many of them just give way to their physical and mental needs and thus live on the margins of the church. For about a third of them, they try to stay true to their vows and suppress all feelings of sexuality, and you know how that plays out. Another third have come out and yet try to live up to the teachings of the church, but they can only suppress so much. A final third are openly living a secret gay lifestyle, and they're hovering on the precipice that could lead to their downfall from exposure, censure, and defrocking, to say nothing of sexually transmitted diseases and scandal.
    It's a miserable life for gay priests in the r.c. church, they say, yet most stay in there. The article stated nothing or no one could make the church safe for them. How about changes in the r.c. church? "Not in my lifetime," say the gay priests. A monk who is openly gay and in a relationship with a man said, "Am I a clerical hypocrite? I guess I am. But I'm over 60, and I have nothing financially, so I can't leave the priesthood."
    That was my first thought--that gay priests should leave the r.c. church, and that way there would be a shortage of priests and thus lessen the church's power and there would be the remote possibility that they would have to allow priests to marry (and have sex) or that the traditionally misogynist church would allow women to be priests. Dreamer! So the gay priests stay, and the church goes on its merry hypocritical and backward-looking way.



    Uh, it's just as bad, if not worse for priests that are hetereosexual. They get excommunicated even faster if they "act on their desires"

    FUN FACT: celebacy was invented by the catholic church in the middle ages to prevent priests from leaving church property to their progeny, AKA More Business Policy they try to weave as Theology.
  • MikeW

    Posts: 6061

    Dec 21, 2013 2:32 PM GMT
    What can you say about at archaic, antiquated institution that has a 2,000 year history of power derived from superstition and its abuses? I don't understand why anyone has given it any credence since Copernicus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2013 4:35 PM GMT
    why? it's the greatest racket ever devised. It's voluntary, you are closed, fed, housed, get a car in advanced countries, pay no taxes and basically do nothing.

    They're aren't there to serve God or people, just hide out in their own little lawless world and protect the Vatican and their own. It's a friggin dream for many.
  • TannerMasseur

    Posts: 7893

    Dec 21, 2013 4:48 PM GMT
    In the early 1990's I created & copyrighted an image referencing Albrecht Durer's "Praying Hands" with a vise grip forcing the hands together---the tenuous hold of ideologies & man-made religions & dogma. I titled the piece "Vice", reflective of all the issues mentioned above in this thread.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2013 5:14 PM GMT
    Cutlass said...a man said, "Am I a clerical hypocrite? I guess I am. But I'm over 60, and I have nothing financially, so I can't leave the priesthood."


    That quote hit me too. Haven't finished reading the article as I get a mandatory subscription by my people there and Jan is already in so that distracted me. Never keep two mags in one bathroom.

    The other quote that got me was about living in a closet with no door.

    Tough for me to relate to as I was aware of my sexuality at such an early age but people don't just get trapped in the priesthood, so I don't know if this is particularly a church matter. They can make up whatever the fuck rules for themselves that they like. To me it's an individual issue. Yes, there's a lot of gay men trapped in their priesthood, but also there's a lot trapped in whatever lives they've lived.

    I've a friend now trapped in his secular life. Married for decades and just coming to terms with his sexuality late in life. If he comes out, he loses half his net worth at this stage of life where he wouldn't be able to make it up.

    So to me this speaks less to any particular institution, though real interesting to read about its intricacies, but an understanding that this issue is not confined there.

    It's outrageous the damage this world has forced upon our lives. They owe us.
  • jo2hotbod

    Posts: 3603

    Dec 21, 2013 5:42 PM GMT
    Cutlass said In the December issue of Vanity Fair magazine, there is an article about homosexuality in the catholic church. Aside from the historical knowledge of homosexuality among the popes, the article focused on the conflicts of the gay clergy. With an estimate of a high of 60 percent to a low of 20 percent of the priests believed to be gay, the church's stand on gays is appalling and sad. I myself would estimate that the clergy is probably around 50 percent gay, but that's because I've learned of or heard from priests that are gay, so gay ones are almost the only ones I've ever heard from.
    The article mentioned how difficult it was for gay priests to be true to their calling, and how many of them just give way to their physical and mental needs and thus live on the margins of the church. For about a third of them, they try to stay true to their vows and suppress all feelings of sexuality, and you know how that plays out. Another third have come out and yet try to live up to the teachings of the church, but they can only suppress so much. A final third are openly living a secret gay lifestyle, and they're hovering on the precipice that could lead to their downfall from exposure, censure, and defrocking, to say nothing of sexually transmitted diseases and scandal.
    It's a miserable life for gay priests in the r.c. church, they say, yet most stay in there. The article stated nothing or no one could make the church safe for them. How about changes in the r.c. church? "Not in my lifetime," say the gay priests. A monk who is openly gay and in a relationship with a man said, "Am I a clerical hypocrite? I guess I am. But I'm over 60, and I have nothing financially, so I can't leave the priesthood."
    That was my first thought--that gay priests should leave the r.c. church, and that way there would be a shortage of priests and thus lessen the church's power and there would be the remote possibility that they would have to allow priests to marry (and have sex) or that the traditionally misogynist church would allow women to be priests. Dreamer! So the gay priests stay, and the church goes on its merry hypocritical and backward-looking way.


    How many of you are Roman Catholic? With an overall 5 to 7% of the population believed to be gay that % will reflect the priests that are gay, you're not going to have a hugely disproportionate amount of priests gay to the population. And there is already a huge shortage of priests, gay priests leaving their calling will not crumble the church to submission and a priest true to his calling would not consider that
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Dec 21, 2013 5:42 PM GMT
    Q. Who, in their right mind, would allow their children ANY exposure to priests OR catholicism ??

    A.
    Psychos, who are unable to admit they were ripped-off by that same church!
  • jo2hotbod

    Posts: 3603

    Dec 21, 2013 5:52 PM GMT
    wellwell saidQ. Who, in their right mind, would allow their children ANY exposure to priests OR catholicism ??

    A.
    Psychos, who are unable to admit they were ripped-off by that same church!


    Q: who is such a narrow minded imbecile that would think all priests are pedefiles, especially being gay themselves and being attributed to the same uninformed conclusions that if you're gay you're a pedefile

    Stop with the idiotic attacks and try to discuss intelligently, that is if you have the mental capability
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Dec 21, 2013 6:03 PM GMT
    Why take the risks? I never will !!!

    Who said I'm gay; I sure did not !!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • jo2hotbod

    Posts: 3603

    Dec 21, 2013 6:12 PM GMT
    wellwell said Who said I'm gay; I sure did not !!!!!!!!!!!!!


    LOL, yup I know
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2013 6:31 PM GMT
    wellwell saidQ. Who, in their right mind, would allow their children ANY exposure to priests OR catholicism ??

    A.
    Psychos, who are unable to admit they were ripped-off by that same church!


    It's tough to believe a betrayal. Witness the Bob Newhart affair. No one wants to believe that their love for the guy has been betrayed. They make tons of excuses for him.

    Even when he has shown who he really is, they don't believe it--and Hollywood plays that well--because for decades (or in the church's case, for generations) they've invested their time and emotions and beliefs and thoughts and they feel like they'd betray themselves to acknowledge consciously what they know inside to be true. They'd rather drag through conserving mud anyone whose conscience liberates from having been fooled than to admit even to themselves they themselves had been duped.

    What we live as reality is sticky even when it was nothing but slippery delusion. I saw through religion's nonsense real early in life. But I fooled myself with other shit. With an xcousin who so betrayed me. I've never known thoughts to be so difficult to comes to terms with. It makes it real clear how people get so hooked into this shit. The lesson I've learned is that when some organization or someone shows me that they are scum, I believe them.
  • jo2hotbod

    Posts: 3603

    Dec 21, 2013 7:47 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    wellwell saidQ. Who, in their right mind, would allow their children ANY exposure to priests OR catholicism ??

    A.
    Psychos, who are unable to admit they were ripped-off by that same church!


    It's tough to believe a betrayal. Witness the Bob Newhart affair. No one wants to believe that their love for the guy has been betrayed. They make tons of excuses for him.

    Even when he has shown who he really is, they don't believe it--and Hollywood plays that well--because for decades (or in the church's case, for generations) they've invested their time and emotions and beliefs and thoughts and they feel like they'd betray themselves to acknowledge consciously what they know inside to be true. They'd rather drag through conserving mud anyone whose conscience liberates from having been fooled than to admit even to themselves they themselves had been duped.

    What we live as reality is sticky even when it was nothing but slippery delusion. I saw through religion's nonsense real early in life. But I fooled myself with other shit. With an xcousin who so betrayed me. I've never known thoughts to be so difficult to comes to terms with. It makes it real clear how people get so hooked into this shit. The lesson I've learned is that when some organization or someone shows me that they are scum, I believe them.


    That's the most asinine response I've ever read. Bob Newhart is one person responsible for his own actions, where as a few priests and their actions do not define all priests. The sick priests that did what they did account for less than one half of one percent of all priests so don't define the mass population by the very few minority.

    Did the church make huge mistakes in the way they handled the situation, of course they did and no one disputes that. But those people and their actions do not define that religion nor the belief of those who follow.
  • killercliche

    Posts: 948

    Dec 21, 2013 8:23 PM GMT
    jo2hotbod said


    Did the church make huge mistakes in the way they handled the situation, of course they did and no one disputes that. But those people and their actions do not define that religion nor the belief of those who follow.




    To be fair, the church didn't "handle the situation poorly" more like they acted criminally.

    I advise any believer of Catholicism to separate the religion from the people running the Business of Catholicism. Hopefully the Ratzinger era will be the darkest days of the modern era, and the new Pope seems like he might actually be a decent guy, but the organization is a travesty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2013 8:24 PM GMT
    jo2hotbod said

    That's the most asinine response I've ever read. Bob Newhart is one person responsible for his own actions, where as a few priests and their actions do not define all priests. The sick priests that did what they did account for less than one half of one percent of all priests so don't define the mass population by the very few minority.

    Did the church make huge mistakes in the way they handled the situation, of course they did and no one disputes that. But those people and their actions do not define that religion nor the belief of those who follow.


    You utterly misread me.

    Nothing you just said is applicable to anything I've said as I wasn't talking about whatever you are talking about.

    The article is about sexual orientation, not about pedophilia. It's about betrayal of constructs and value systems and thought processes and societies and organizations and people upon people and how we get locked into those systems and how difficult it is to extricate ourselves even when we know a situation is wrong. I was talking the topic, nothing else that you rudely tried to make of it.

    I've seen you try to mistreat others as well. Your being so unkind diminishes any value of your opinion.
  • Cutlass

    Posts: 426

    Dec 23, 2013 10:43 AM GMT
    jo2hotbod said
    Cutlass said In the December issue of Vanity Fair magazine, there is an article about homosexuality in the catholic church. Aside from the historical knowledge of homosexuality among the popes, the article focused on the conflicts of the gay clergy. With an estimate of a high of 60 percent to a low of 20 percent of the priests believed to be gay, the church's stand on gays is appalling and sad. I myself would estimate that the clergy is probably around 50 percent gay, but that's because I've learned of or heard from priests that are gay, so gay ones are almost the only ones I've ever heard from.
    The article mentioned how difficult it was for gay priests to be true to their calling, and how many of them just give way to their physical and mental needs and thus live on the margins of the church. For about a third of them, they try to stay true to their vows and suppress all feelings of sexuality, and you know how that plays out. Another third have come out and yet try to live up to the teachings of the church, but they can only suppress so much. A final third are openly living a secret gay lifestyle, and they're hovering on the precipice that could lead to their downfall from exposure, censure, and defrocking, to say nothing of sexually transmitted diseases and scandal.
    It's a miserable life for gay priests in the r.c. church, they say, yet most stay in there. The article stated nothing or no one could make the church safe for them. How about changes in the r.c. church? "Not in my lifetime," say the gay priests. A monk who is openly gay and in a relationship with a man said, "Am I a clerical hypocrite? I guess I am. But I'm over 60, and I have nothing financially, so I can't leave the priesthood."
    That was my first thought--that gay priests should leave the r.c. church, and that way there would be a shortage of priests and thus lessen the church's power and there would be the remote possibility that they would have to allow priests to marry (and have sex) or that the traditionally misogynist church would allow women to be priests. Dreamer! So the gay priests stay, and the church goes on its merry hypocritical and backward-looking way.


    How many of you are Roman Catholic? With an overall 5 to 7% of the population believed to be gay that % will reflect the priests that are gay, you're not going to have a hugely disproportionate amount of priests gay to the population. And there is already a huge shortage of priests, gay priests leaving their calling will not crumble the church to submission and a priest true to his calling would not consider that


    You claim that "you're not going to have a hugely disproportionate amount of priests gay to the population." I think you're unaware that gay catholics are disproportionately inclined to the priesthood because the church encourages marriages and large families, and they can't fulfill that duty, so they find the priesthood the perfect outlet for their devotion because they won't have to marry.
    Yes, priests leaving the church may not crumble the church, but it just might make the hierarchy think twice about sexual repression in the church. If many leave because they cannot handle the church's admonitions against sexual matters, the hierarchy might at least study the issue.
    A priest "true to his calling would not consider that (leaving the priesthood)," but the hierarchy might if it finds out that the priest has been engaging in sex, living a gay lifestyle, or supporting gay rights or gay marriage. Priests have been defrocked for these very reasons.