Posted on 09/30/2005 11:20:25 AM PDT by NormB
Estimates of the numbers of gays in the priesthood vary from 25 percent to 50 percent. About one-third of the 42,500 U.S. priests are members of religious orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I am not a Catholic-basher.
The difference between the 1-2% of actual gays in the population and the 10% often quotes comes, if I remember, from the fact that the sampling which resulted in the 10% figure was taken from a group of male prison inmates and dealt with whether they had ever had a homosexual relationship (Kinsey study? Masters & Johnson?). If anything, the 10% figure was probably low for male inmates.
We don't know the methodology of the studies identifed in Post 21, nor the agenda, if any, of the researchers. However, unless the studies were focused on a particular sampling that was guaranteed to skew the results (like inmates did for Kinsey's study), the percentage of homosexual priests is high -- probably 25% at the bottom end and quite likely higher than that. Thsse studies (particularly the one with a 75% response rate) are probably closer to the mark than Kinsey's study.
In the old days, it may really have been as simple as being a homosexual Cathololic and picking an occupation (for them, not necessary a calling) where you didn't have to justify not being married.
Once you had any meaningful percentage of homosexual priests and no strict control over it? Well, look at high school drama clubs, male Broadway dancers, male florists, male interior decorators, male fashion designers/critics, etc. Unless there IS a gay gene and it is tied to some kind of aesthetic taste and dancing ability, homosexuals seek out the safe harbor of other homosexuals. Wouldn't you?
Next, offer a situation where over at least the past thirty years, pedophilia has been hushed up by the Church and if not commonplace, just far too frequent to make anyone comfortable (just look at the size of the "deprogramming" center in New Mexico or Arizona).
The problems are anti-Catholics who use this to bash Catholics, and Catholic apolgists (I'm certainly not calling you one; I'm talking about those with whom I work) who refuse to believe there are more than one or two homosexual priests in the whole state.
In my volunteer position, I meet priests with some frequency for brief periods of time. It could be that delicate, sensitive men select the priesthood -- they are more focused on the spiritual than the earthly. On the other hand, if these men were not wearing the collar and I met them at work, I'd peg a large percentage of them as being gay. A significantly larger percentage of them than the LDS, Methodist and other religious leaders I meet (not than many Baptist churches run Scouting programs, so my cross-section of Baptist preachers with whom I have the same kind of brief, first-impression experience is much lower).
I've met three men who claimed to have dropped out of the seminary (sorry, don't remember what the Catholic church calls it, if not a seminary) because of the high number of homosexual men there. It could be just an excuse.
On the other hand, the Catholic clergy -- not the Catholic Church, not the Holy Father, not the wonderful Catholic men, women, and especially Scouts I deal with on a frequent basis -- may have developed into a significant "sanctuary" for homosexuals in the United States over the last 30 years.
Suppress the Jesuits (again).
However, I know one celebate homosexual (by inclination or "orientation") pastor who is completely orthodox, even to the point of calling "gay" sex a sin and actively opposing the entire gaysbian agenda. He does not consider himself "gay", and culurally or in terms of his acting on his homosexual desires, he is not.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, we have all read testimonies of heterosexual priests and seminarians who feel shut out by a "gay mafia". Then there is the "sex scandal", which overwhelmingly involves rogue priests preying on male teenagers or children. To say that this has noting to do with "gays" is a big lie!!!!
No orthodox catholic church body should have gaysbian clergy, whether celebate or not!!! However, there needs to be some way, if possible, to make room for the few homosexual clergy who are truly orthodox. And in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there may well be the need to make up for the lost numbers by ordaining married men, starting with married deacons. This should be part of an effort to recover the heritage of the undivided orthodox catholic church, not a purely "practical" matter of numbers of priests.
I notice that he didn't mention most of these deaths were likely from AIDS.
The Jebbies have been hit hard with HIV/AIDS during the last 15-20 years because they were the first to go off the deep end and push the "if I think it's all right, then it's not a sin" idea. Their numbers have been dwindling, and many of the surviving priests and brothers are OLD. I'm hopeful that newer Jesuits will change the order to what it USED to be before the scourge of liberalism entered into its ranks.
I've yet to see proof that the numbers of homosexual priests are that high. I'd think, with as many places I've lived and parishes that I've attended that I'd have met a bunch of them by now, and I haven't. I'm sure that there are plenty of them, because of the liberal push of the Vocations Boards over the last 20 years or so, but not in those numbers.
That's a lot of estimates; I still haven't seen any proof. It is notable, too, that some of these estimates are coming from people who are psychotherapists or counselors, who may have a distorted idea of the numbers because of the patients that they see.
My brother-in-law went through the Seminary in the mid to late 60's and was ordained in 1970. This would have been about the same time as many of the priests who have been accused or convicted of abuse. While he was still in the Seminary, the whole idea of celibacy began to be discarded among the liberals and feminists who were beginning to be appointed to the Vocations Boards and Seminary administrations.
Prior to that time, celibacy WAS discussed and the young men had the chance to talk about the difficulties of their choice, and they all knew what they were choosing. In the very late 60's the attitudes began to change, and the young men were no longer taught how to live the celibate life. The idea began to be floated that the Church was going to change the rules so they wouldn't have to deal with that 'outdated notion' anymore. My b-i-l and the men in his class tried to tell the younger men that those new notions were a load of frap, but the young men didn't want to listen. As a result, there were too many men in the 70's who were ordained under false pretenses. They believed, because they were told by the teachers and leaders in the Seminaries, that they would not have to abide by that vow of celibacy that they would be taking; that things would be changing.
How many of those priests who had sex with young men did so because of that notion that they were free to do what they wanted? There were some men who DID leave the Seminaries, and even the Priesthood when it became clear that they had believed a lie perpetrated by the liberals in the Seminaries. I wish the others who had no intention of ever remaining celibate had done the same.
Well there's a nice slap in the face to the thousands of men who are serving as priests, faithfully, as we speak.
As for your comment that there are MASSIVE numbers of homosexual priests, where is your proof? I've seen some statistics bandied about on this thread, but as Mark Twain once said, "There's lies, there's DAMN lies, and then there's STATISTICS.
>>No. Otherwise hetero sexuality is an action, a verb. They are nouns.
Yeah, well what about this line from the cited article: "even among men preparing for the priesthood, an ambiguity both about the Church's teaching with regard to homosexuality and even whether some homosexual activity could be compatible with celibacy" [emphasis added]
..and all of them in the U.S.
Have you conveniently overlooked the problems of pedophilia by the Catholic clergy in Canada, Ireland, and Australia?
Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that there are more homosexuals-per-square-foot in the Vatican City than in any other country in the world?
Which one of the sentences in my post do you not agree with?
You have said that homosexuality is an action. But in the same post #23 you also said that some people have strong tendencies toward this action. What do you call these people? You may have your own name for them, but most people call them gay or homosexual.
So, "some homosexual activity could be compatible with celibacy", makes no sense. Activity is the verb here. Homosexual is an adverb describing the activity. It says in general essence, "some sex may be compatible with no sex."
What do percentages have to do with anything?
How about the fact that homosexuality is incompatible with Church and ALL Biblical teachings on sexual morality?
To have ANYBODY in a position of leadership who doesn't believe in the Church's teachings makes absolutely no sense at all. It is destructive to the Church.
Who told you this?
Do you even know what celibate means?
That's obviously not true. Suppose there are three men A, B, and C. 'A' is a figure model in a life drawing class attended by students 'B' and 'C'. Student B becomes sexually aroused while contemplating the nude body of 'A'. Student 'B''s erection is evidence of his "mental disease" of homosexuality, even if he doesn't have sex with 'A'. If student 'C' is heterosexual, he will not exhibit the same evidence.
That's obviously not true. Suppose there are three men A, B, and C. 'A' is a figure model in a life drawing class attended by students 'B' and 'C'. Student B becomes sexually aroused while contemplating the nude body of 'A'. Student 'B''s erection is evidence of his "mental disease" of homosexuality, even if he doesn't have sex with 'A'. If student 'C' is heterosexual, he will not exhibit the same evidence.
Having a "tendency" toward a certain action/sin is not a reason to define a person by it.
There are certainly plenty of people who covet other's possessions, who look at things and would love to just take them, but don't.
If a person doesn't steal we don't call them a theif just because they see something and have the desire to take it.
We don't call a person an adulterer if they are tempted and look at another with lust, but resist the temptation.
The idea that we call people "gay" even when they don't engage in homosexual activity is not Biblical or correct. We don't identify people by temptations.
Just the same, as a married woman, I know that it would be a sin to entertain thoughts of sex with anyone other than my husband. The Church teaches Chastity in whatever state you are in--and this includes especially in your thoughts (since they lead to action).
Temptation comes from the devil. It is not a sin in and of itself. What we decide to do with it is up to us. If we chose to give into the temptation, then we sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.