Pope on gay priests: “If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?”

posted at 12:41 pm on July 29, 2013 by Allahpundit

It’s a testament to how much goodwill Francis has earned already as Pope that the media’s focusing on what he said about welcoming gay priests into the clergy, not what he said right after that about the gay lobby, like so many other lobbies, posing a “problem.” Our press normally isn’t so forgiving of a major spokesman for moral values, religious or not, tossing out lines like that.

NBC has a fuller transcript:

“I have yet to find anyone who has a business card that says he is gay,” the pontiff said at a press conference in which he addressed the reports of a “gay lobby” within the Vatican.

“They say they exist. If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” he added. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says they should not be marginalized because of this (orientation) but that they must be integrated into society.”

Francis added that he thought lobbies of any kind—including political ones—were bad.

“The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem,” he said.

Catholics in my Twitter timeline are grumbling that the media, true to ignorant form in matters of religion, is crediting Francis here for some sort of breakthrough when in fact it’s Catholic orthodoxy that celibate gays are welcome in the Church. That was my understanding too — that the sin lies in acting on temptation, not in feeling temptation. Temptation is part of the human condition; faith, a believer would say, is what keeps you from being led astray by it. The “significance” of Francis’s point, as I took it, is to reiterate that the Church believes God will judge you for what you do, not what you feel, and that homosexuality is no special exception. Which, in fairness, wasn’t always so clear, at least where the priesthood is concerned. In 2005, Benedict XVI issued guidelines on ordination that suggested the opposite conclusion to some:

The document, which was leaked in its entirety last week on a Catholic news website, says that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” or who support a “gay culture” may not become priests. But men who have “overcome” a homosexuality that was “transitory” and who have remained celibate for three years before joining the seminary are eligible.

Father Robert Gahl, a theologian, praised the document for establishing “more challenging expectations” for men who want to become priests. Homosexuals are clearly barred, he said, because the rules require a man with homosexual tendencies not only to have lived a celibate life but to have overcome those tendencies long before entering the seminary.

“Anyone who considers himself homosexual ought to realize that as such, the church is not calling him to the priesthood,” said Gahl, who teaches at Rome’s St. Cross Pontifical University, which is run by the conservative Opus Dei organization.

“The document is strong in that it restates in this time of crisis in the church what has always been the traditional teaching of the church, [that homosexuals] are objectively disordered,” Gahl said. “It screens out candidates who suffer from emotional immaturity, especially in a sexual area.”

Hard to tell from Francis’s brief comments whether his own position on this can be reconciled with Benedict’s, but it sounds different to me. Francis doesn’t seem to be insisting that aspiring priests “overcome” their orientation. They’re free to feel tempted even after they’ve been ordained. The sin lies in surrendering to temptation, which they mustn’t do. If that reading is right then yeah, today’s remarks are mildly significant as a break with his predecessor; certainly they’re significant as a shift in tone. And of course they’re significant in the context of the Church’s pedophilia scandal. Anti-gay critics will insist that letting gays become priests is an invitation to more child molestation; Francis, by implication, is rejecting that assumption. That’s what’s really got the media’s attention today, I think — he’s rejecting the idea that “gay” equals “sinister,” which I don’t think most Catholics believe anyway, but which sharply contradicts the press’s assumptions of How Religious People Think.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Pope on gay priests: “If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?”

You would really think after the infamy of so many gay priests caught molesting boys, the pope would be a bit more careful about appearing to condone the idea of adding more gay priests.

Seems like he’s pandering to the secular atheist/agnostic crowd here rather than faithful Catholics who would like to believe that Catholic leadership cares about protecting altar boys from pedophile priests.

Fortunately, I’m not Catholic, so this doesn’t really impact me. Very strange business, though.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 10:42 PM

God bless Pope Francis for teaching haters that God does not sanction bigotry.

Capitalist Hog on July 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM

God still condemns sin, and homosexuality is a sin. Or are you now agreeing with the belief that homosexuality is something to be repented of?

Silly, being gay does not mean they share your bizarre predilections. It just means they’re gay.

Capitalist Hog on July 29, 2013 at 1:05 PM

If you can’t see a correlation between homosexual priests and priests molesting young boys…..

tom on July 29, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Seems like he’s pandering to the secular atheist/agnostic crowd …

tom on July 29, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Well it seems to be working on Allahpundit at least.

shick on July 29, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Actually, I was amazed. You appear to understand Catholicism much better than man so-called Catholics. You understand that sin is in the action, not the desire (with the exception of coveting another man’s wife, however).

Your interpretation is absolutely correct. The Pope did not say anything that conflicts with Church doctrine. But the tone was quite a bit different from several of his recent predecessors. Does the change in tone indicate a change in the Church? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell. It certainly can be regarded as somewhat of an olive branch to the gay community.

Still, to play devil’s advocate (poor choice of words?), the Lord’s Prayer does not say “Lead us not into action”, it says “Lead us not into temptation”.

Chris of Rights on July 29, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I’d have to say you’re about a Testament behind. It’s true that the Ten Commandments only addressed actions rather than attitudes — with the exception of the 10th Commandment, which specifically addressed the attitude of coveting, as you say.

But if you recall, Jesus actually went beyond the Commandments to say if you lust after a woman, you’ve committed adultery in your heart, and if you hate someone, you’ve committed murder in your heart. So it’s not really accurate to draw a sharp line between actions and attitudes, if that leads to the implication that you can wallow in temptation all you want as long as you never take action.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 10:58 PM

Every boy molester is a homosexual… It is just a fact because only homosexuals can be attracted to the same sex… However idiots like you can never accept the truth or never recognize the truth…

mnjg on July 29, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Let’s change that to “Every male boy molester is a homesexual, or bisexual”. Or, do you not believe there are any female boy molesters? Or male boy molesters who also pursue women or girls? You need to read the news if that’s what you believe.

Some non-gay men are pedophiles too. Roman Polanski comes to mind.

I don’t think you can attach sexual orientation to a predilection towards pedophilia. Pedophiles are just twisted individuals. Sometimes they’re twisted straight, sometimes gay, and sometimes bi. But they’re always twisted.

Chris of Rights on July 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Every boy molester is a homosexual

mnjg on July 29, 2013 at 1:10 PM

So…THESE women, just to name a handful, who molested young boys are…homosexual?

JetBoy on July 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM

We are talking about priests, therefore male. Therefore we would logically expect a homosexual priest who molests children to molest boys.

And since there’s been some very big scandals in recent years about priests molesting boys, I don’t know that it makes a difference to talk about how some women can also molest boys. None of “THESE women” are becoming priests.

It is interesting how quickly this topic changed to a general defense of homosexuality, though.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 11:08 PM

And some of the time, the two stations don’t seem to be that far apart in their views, at least on some political and social issues.

There are two reasons for this.
1) There is much doctrine that evangelicals have in common with Rome. Most of which is essential for saving faith, e.g. Christ is God and man.
2) There are many churches today that water down the gospel.

The Bible is for everyone.

Sterling Holobyte on July 29, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Scripture clearly outlines itself as sufficent for salvation. The problem of interpretation comes from the nature of man. Thankfully the Holy Spirit works in us to understand it.

shick on July 29, 2013 at 11:11 PM

I think he needs to learn to preface such remarks with “It is a grievous sin” and then go on with something like “but the person should be respected”.

whatcat on July 29, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Yes, he should do that. I’d love the resulting firestorm from the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) screaming hypocritically and self-righteously: “How dare you call homosexuality a sin when we champion it and see nothing wrong with it?!” They would, of course, completely ignore the second part, which would be to respect the person, proving, once again, that the Left does not care one whit about people themselves, only how they can advance their ideology.

PatriotGal2257 on July 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM

He’s right, none of us are judges.

ted c on July 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM

“Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement.”

That quote is from the same source as “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

In context:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

The point is not that we are never supposed to make a judgement, but that we are supposed to not be hypocritical, and to realize that the same judgement we apply to one person can also apply to us.

The unfortunate thing is that this passage, which is supposed to remind us that there is a moral standard that judges us as well as others, is often quoted as if to indicate there is no moral standard at all.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 11:22 PM

I think he needs to learn to preface such remarks with “It is a grievous sin” and then go on with something like “but the person should be respected”.

whatcat on July 29, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Yes, he should do that. I’d love the resulting firestorm from the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) screaming hypocritically and self-righteously: “How dare you call homosexuality a sin when we champion it and see nothing wrong with it?!” They would, of course, completely ignore the second part, which would be to respect the person, proving, once again, that the Left does not care one whit about people themselves, only how they can advance their ideology.

PatriotGal2257 on July 29, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Yup.

whatcat on July 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM

I’d like to know how the Pope defines homosexuality? If a person engages in a homosexual lifestyle, then seeks out and accepts Christ, and rejects his former lifestyle because it is sinful, is that person still gay? If the answer is “yes”, then how is this person any different than anyone else who has engaged in other forms of sin, only to later accept Christ, and reject their sinful ways?

HarryBackside on July 29, 2013 at 11:30 PM

The problem is that homosexual sexual urges are stronger, in most cases much stronger, than heterosexual sexual urges… It is just a fact…

mnjg on July 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM

mnjg:

UGH!!

canopfor on July 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I’d like to second that “UGH!!” :)

It’s been my experience that whenever someone makes a blanket claim like that, along with the words “it’s a fact”, with no source, that the “fact” in question is anything but.

JetBoy on July 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Interesting.

I’d actually agree with that. I see no particular reason why homosexual urges would be some super-class of urges.

But isn’t that implied every time we’re told that homosexuals can never change? That would suggest that homosexual urges are too powerful to resist.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Faithful Catholics have driven people away from the Church – not the worldly embrace of “Liberation Theology”, “Social Justice”, the banishment to the Papal Gulag of the Latin Mass along with other teachings after V2? Yeah, makes sense.

Intolerance and clericalism have driven people away from the Church. Let’s look at an example.. In Francis’ Argentina, the traditional Church was known for its support of Videla and the military regime. They were very SSPX tied; in fact, all the military officers were fans of strict Catholicism. They went to Latin Masses and then the priests blessed the planes used to throw prisoners into the Atlantic during the Dirty War. There is a huge strain of anti-Semitism in Argentina. Richard Williamson was actually kicked out of there for his Holocaust denial. Francis spent years demanding that priests baptize the children of unwed mothers. Do you think that average Joe Latin American is enthralled with the Church after that?

And yes social justice and Vatican II are important in the modern Church. Social justice has been with the Church since the late 19th century.. Rerum Novarum anyone?? And I’m not sure why people hate Vatican II. It is about opening the Church up and making it closer to the people. You are really against its teachings on ecumenicalism and becoming more popular?

As for the Mass, I believe that Francis wants a wider variety of Masses. He is actually a big fan of the eastern Catholic rites and someone noticed he wears eastern prayer beads on his wrist. There is nothing to suggest that he doesn’t want people who want to attend a Latin Mass. The problem is that the people who like it generally despise Vatican II and want to force everyone else to worship 1950s style.

Illinidiva on July 29, 2013 at 11:33 PM

This Pope is making me nervous. We know that important public positions always change gradually, by moving from forceful to ambiguous and agreeable and finally to forceful in the other direction.

This Pope has been making a lot of ambiguous and agreeable statements recently. And what makes this especially scary is that, while Protestants do not confer any special privilege to their Pastors and would easily move out of the church (or throw out the Pastor) if they feel their Pastor has gone astray, Catholics assume the Pope to have divine powers and therefore to a large degree to be infallible.

But then, i could be wrong about the direction this Pope is taking the Catholic church to. In any case you can never be too careful.

CoolAir on July 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM

But isn’t that implied every time we’re told that homosexuals can never change? That would suggest that homosexual urges are too powerful to resist.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Why would resisting homosexual urges be any more/less difficult than resisting any other form of sin? Isn’t homosexuality really a form of lust? In terms of sin, what is the difference between a gay man lusting for a make co-worker vs a straight man lusting for a female co-worker?

Maybe a homosexual can never change, but through faith he/she can choose not to act on that nature.

HarryBackside on July 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM

There is a huge strain of anti-Semitism in Argentina. Richard Williamson was actually kicked out of there for his Holocaust denial.

____________________

Imagine what kind of power the ju-wry in Argentina must have, to kick somebody of the country for not believing a Holokaust?
why it is a sin or a crime?
If the Holokaust was real and it was the way the juice portraying it- why be so worried about and making people criminals just because they don’t believe in something?
What is the Holokaust – a new religion, is it Jahve himself now everyone must believe in it?

magone on July 29, 2013 at 11:56 PM

I imagine it would. The whole purpose of the Bible, after all, is to undermine and contradict human nature at every possible turn, which wouldn’t necessarily be a problem except for the fact that it simultaneously holds that God is responsible for the design of human nature to begin with, and everything God has created is wonderful and perfect.

Armin Tamzarian on July 29, 2013 at 3:06 PM

No, the purpose of God’s laws is to set limits or boundaries on our natural desires. For instance, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

So sex is a natural desire that God created, and is meant to be enjoyed by couples who mate. The boundary is that it was not given to people who were not intending to marry and have a family, but just want to follow their urges.

Most sins boil down to overstepping the proper use of a natural desire. Eating is certainly not sinful. Gluttony is. A man who fights to protect himself or another, like a policeman or soldier, is not evil. Mugging someone is wrong. Working hard and accumulating money and possessions is not evil. Taking away the possessions of another by force or treachery is stealing.

Anger is part of human nature. Being unable to control your anger will always lead to sin and destruction. A certain amount of fear is healthy. Too much fear and anxiety is very unhealthy.

A word often used in Scripture but almost forgotten in our culture is temperance. It just means having self-control.

tom on July 30, 2013 at 12:06 AM

This Pope is making me nervous.

Yes, exactly- from the moment I first saw his face- something felt so wrong, so horribly wrong.
I am telling you- there is a feeling about the Anti- Pope in the Vatican. I’ve spoken to some people of Church in high positions- the feeling is very uneasy all around.

As for the Mass, I believe that Francis wants a wider variety of Masses. He is actually a big fan of the eastern Catholic rites and someone noticed he wears eastern prayer beads on his wrist.

There is info about Francis totally being against a pro-Latins Mass priests in Argentina and never promoting them, always celebrating the juice religious Holly days.
He is known as being less then average in theology, philosophy, an I already said about the languages.
And- among the Jesuits- there have been some people of the Jehovas peoples tribes present in history.
Somethings is very wrong here- and why Benedict had to go away?

magone on July 30, 2013 at 12:19 AM

But isn’t that implied every time we’re told that homosexuals can never change? That would suggest that homosexual urges are too powerful to resist.

tom on July 29, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Why would resisting homosexual urges be any more/less difficult than resisting any other form of sin? Isn’t homosexuality really a form of lust? In terms of sin, what is the difference between a gay man lusting for a make co-worker vs a straight man lusting for a female co-worker?

Maybe a homosexual can never change, but through faith he/she can choose not to act on that nature.

HarryBackside on July 29, 2013 at 11:44 PM

I’m not the one saying that homosexuals can never change. I’m just pointing out that many homosexuals make that claim, which would imply that homosexual urges are too powerful to resist.

But according to what’s written in 1st Corinthians, Paul specifically listed a lot of sins, including “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” and then said, “and such were some of you.”

Since he was writing to an actual church, it’s pretty obvious he was pointing out something they all knew: that there were Christians in the church who were once homosexual and had repented. That is direct historic evidence that contradicts the claim that it is impossible for homosexuals to change.

tom on July 30, 2013 at 12:22 AM

tom on July 30, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Got it. Thanks for the clarification!

HarryBackside on July 30, 2013 at 12:24 AM

Catholics assume the Pope to have divine powers and therefore to a large degree to be infallible.

No, no- it isn’t that- there must be trust between us and the Pope, absolute trust and feeling as He was your father- Pope- Papa, and one is united with him as with invisible strings. It was like this with Benedict. I disliked many things and the apologies of Pope John Paul, which he gave and all that Vatican II, but still- he felt like a father, even if a bit silly sometimes.
But this man- Francis, nothing, no closeness at all.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Guidance and leadership is important, lest we taint God’s word with our own understanding and bias. That’s what this whole thread is all about. The Bible is for everyone, in that we agree. I just don’t think it’s for everyone to interpret. Lord knows, I have a hard enough time.

SailorMark on July 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I didn’t say I thought guidance wasn’t important. But to hear that priest say that the caller shouldn’t even look in the Bible… just floored me. It was on some call-in show called, “Go ask your father”.

I also enlist the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

SailorMark on July 29, 2013 at 6:29 PM

The best guide around. :)

Sterling Holobyte on July 30, 2013 at 12:53 AM

Rerum Novarum anyone?? And I’m not sure why people hate Vatican II. It is about opening the Church up and making it closer to the people.

Of course you don’t.
The Church doesn’t need to open anything to the people.
The people must be compelled to join the Church for the reason of faith, not for wanting to be in a social club or a ,,spiritual retreat” which are very fashionable these days, or something soft and and soothing for ones feelings. Church is an Ideal, one strives to belong and be.
The Vatican II did to the Church what allowing to vote for women and no land owners did to democracy in USA and elsewhere.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM

The Bible is for everyone, in that we agree.

Which Bible are you talking about?
And why should it be for everyone?
It isn’t for everyone, unless everyone wants the church of his own.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM

So every boy-molester and child rapist in the Cat Church can now be properly recognized as such. A pervert, homo seeking refuge in the oldest pervert-apologizing cabal on the planet.

That’s neat.

From his grave, Chris Hitchens is laughing his goddamned ass off.

thejackal on July 30, 2013 at 5:52 AM

magone on July 30, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Are you some bad parody of a traditionalist Catholic? Is this a Borat act? Really, you think that mocking the systematic murder of millions of people is acceptable.

Imagine what kind of power the ju-wry in Argentina must have, to kick somebody of the country for not believing a Holokaust?
why it is a sin or a crime?
If the Holokaust was real and it was the way the juice portraying it- why be so worried about and making people criminals just because they don’t believe in something?
What is the Holokaust – a new religion, is it Jahve himself now everyone must believe in it?

And that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

The Vatican II did to the Church what allowing to vote for women and no land owners did to democracy in USA and elsewhere.

I certainly hope this is a bad parody. If not, I’m glad that you vehemently dislike the Holy Father. It tells me that he is on the right track if people who display such casual anti-Semitism and misogyny dislike him.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 6:14 AM

The problem is not having this orientation. We must be brothers. The problem is lobbying by this orientation, or lobbies of greedy people, political lobbies, Masonic lobbies, so many lobbies. This is the worse problem,” he said.

So in other words.. it’s the gay activists. He’s sorta proposing a “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” for the Catholic church.

JellyToast on July 30, 2013 at 6:16 AM

Whether we discuss religion or politics, they both have one basic flaw in my mind.

Control.

That’s all folks :)

Scrumpy on July 30, 2013 at 6:35 AM

Though I visit this site daily very rarely do I feel compelled to leave a comment. AP’s use of the “pedophilia scandal” canard is incorrect. These priests were not pedophiles . They were sexual predators who were homosexual. The vast majority of their victims were post-pubescent which by definition rules out pedophilia. It has been too convenient for the church and the media( and now AP) to hide behind this clinical pedophilia “diagnosis”.

Additionally when did the Catholic Church start referring to homosexuals as “gay”…Does that mean they are going to start calling adulterers “swingers”?

I have been a life long Catholic , but this continual genuflection at the altar of political correctness disgusts me.

sirpatrick on July 30, 2013 at 8:11 AM

My guess is that the new pope is a homosexual and wants to make the church safe for open homosexuals.

CatoRenasci on July 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Sorry. I stand by my statement. Appealing to the writings of a 2nd Century Ante-Nicene Father doesn’t make it Biblical. (As much as I admire Justin Martyr) Cleombrotus on July 29, 2013 at 8:21 PM

I didn’t say it did. There are priests in the Bible, the Levites, whereas you said that the entire idea of priesthood is antithetical to the Bible. So you stand by your obviously incorrect statement.

I didn’t say Justin Martyr’s writings were in the Bible, I was discussing the etymology of the word priest.

“In some circumstances, the refusal to be defeated is a refusal to be educated.” -Margaret Halsey

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 10:53 AM

My guess is that the new pope is a homosexual and wants to make the church safe for open homosexuals.

CatoRenasci on July 30, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Or perhaps Francis is just a tolerant priest who wants to emphasize God’s mercy? All he did was emphasize the Catechism’s teachings on gays… The Church has a sign in front of it saying all sinners are welcome.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Or perhaps Francis is just a tolerant priest who wants to emphasize God’s mercy? All he did was emphasize the Catechism’s teachings on gays… The Church has a sign in front of it saying all sinners are welcome.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM

You might be right, but I kind of doubt it. The issue isn’t if someone has sinned (whether by being homosexual, engaging in fornication, adultery, or what-have-you), it’s whether those who persist in those sins are fit to be priests.

The question was about the ‘gay lobby’ within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The comment If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” suggests toleration for open, practicing homosexual priests.

CatoRenasci on July 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

The Church has a sign in front of it saying all sinners are welcome.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Yeah, but when they enter, it’s assumed that they’ve understood the mandate and have agreed to its terms.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Personal question for clarification: Are you of the Jewish faith?

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Anglican.

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM


“He that hath not been tempted, what manner of things doth he know?”


There is a very big difference between temptation and acting on those impulses. To deny such, is to deny the imperfection of man and the imposition of free-will.

We mere mortals are subject to a multitude of temptations which are evil to mans nature. I believe what the Pope has stated is that it is not ours to judge the temptations of others, only their actions.

This is of course simply an articulation of existing Catholic Doctrine. It’s also fairly intuitive as you could remove the owrd “gay” and insert any number of sins. How about adulterous promiscuous or any other number of sins that have been relegated by contemporary society to “norms”.

Ever curious why some people want to legislate or otherwise try to force God out of the public eye. Think about where these arguments end.

Marcus Traianus on July 30, 2013 at 1:06 PM

sirpatrick,

“Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind man guides another, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14

shick on July 30, 2013 at 1:29 PM

You might be right, but I kind of doubt it. The issue isn’t if someone has sinned (whether by being homosexual, engaging in fornication, adultery, or what-have-you), it’s whether those who persist in those sins are fit to be priests.

The question was about the ‘gay lobby’ within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic priesthood. The comment If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?” suggests toleration for open, practicing homosexual priests.

CatoRenasci on July 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

No priest either straight or gay (outside some very limited segments) is supposed to be having sex. They take a vow of chastity. A gay priest would have to adhere to that vow just like a straight priest. This is different than banning priest who are attracted to other men and are willing to adhere to a policy of celibacy. This is what is done now. As a result, straight priests can be open about their temptations while gay priests remain in the closet. Priests, like everyone else, are human and will be tempted. Francis himself mentioned in his book, Sobre el Cielo y la Tierra, that he struggled with celibacy and almost quit the seminary when he met a “hot girl” at a family wedding. Gay priests don’t have that same ability to honestly discern their vocation and struggle to overcome temptations.

To complicate matters further, boys who displayed certain inclinations were encouraged to enter seminaries just like Protestant boys might have beards. So you basically had lots of gay-inclined young men with immature views on their sexuality training to be priests. These men are all in their 50s+ now and many work in the Curia. This is the problem, not an openly gay man in his early twenties growing up in today’s more gay-friendly culture who decides to become a priest.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Or perhaps Francis is just a tolerant priest who wants to emphasize God’s mercy? All he did was emphasize the Catechism’s teachings on gays… The Church has a sign in front of it saying all sinners are welcome.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Or perhaps he’s gay himself.

Sojobo on July 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Anglican.
Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM

And you’re going to try to assert that there’s a Biblical recognition of a priestly caste? What? Are you just looking for an argument? We understand the tribe of Levi, but surely you’re not going to argue that their mandate applies to the Christian church, are you?

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 1:49 PM

It’s funny (not really) but as a 10 year old altar boy back in the early 60′s I saw these guys coming out of the seminaries and knew enough to stay away from them. I also knew, instinctively, that something was wrong with an organization’s grasp of Biblical theology if it permitted such men into that rank of church authority and example.

This was as a 10 year old. The fact that adults today can’t grasp this tells me that not much has changed as far as Roman Catholic Biblical discernment goes.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Or perhaps he’s gay himself.

Sojobo on July 30, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I got no ‘dar with Francis unlike some of the other ones. Generally it is the ones who condemn gay people the loudest that end up have those tendencies.

It’s funny (not really) but as a 10 year old altar boy back in the early 60′s I saw these guys coming out of the seminaries and knew enough to stay away from them. I also knew, instinctively, that something was wrong with an organization’s grasp of Biblical theology if it permitted such men into that rank of church authority and example.

Umm.. closeted gay doesn’t equal pedophile. Most of these priests end up having relationships with adult gays (generally fellow priests) and do morally scandalous, but not criminal, things like cruise gay bars. This is purportedly the case with Ricca (which is the main reason the gay comments came up.) Francis made the point that the things that Ricca was accused of were not “criminal” or on the level of child abuse.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 3:18 PM

And you’re going to try to assert that there’s a Biblical recognition of a priestly caste? What? Are you just looking for an argument? We understand the tribe of Levi, but surely you’re not going to argue that their mandate applies to the Christian church, are you? Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 2:28 PM

You continue to refuse to admit you were wrong. There was a priestly tribe in Israel. You said the idea of priesthood was entirely unbiblical. Maybe though, just maybe, it is an example in some way of the NT priesthood.

Everyone in the tribe of Levi was a priest, as with the Church.

Within Levi there were concentric rings of authority, as with the Church.

As with Levi, there is a hierarchy in the Church.

You see? It’s undeniable. There are ways in which the OD priesthood and the NT priesthood (or ministry or whatever you want to call it) are analogous.

But someone will deny, and say, “There’s no hierarchy in the Church, why, my Assistant Youth Pastor did a Bible study on that!”

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

And you’re going to try to assert that there’s a Biblical recognition of a priestly caste? What? Are you just looking for an argument? We understand the tribe of Levi, but surely you’re not going to argue that their mandate applies to the Christian church, are you?
Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 2:28 PM

It’s a silly argument to have.

Though the New Testament does note there is a “priestly class”, so to speak.

whatcat on July 30, 2013 at 3:29 PM

To complicate matters further, boys who displayed certain inclinations were encouraged to enter seminaries just like Protestant boys might have beards. So you basically had lots of gay-inclined young men with immature views on their sexuality training to be priests.

Now as a rule one cannot enter the seminary if one is a homosexual.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Now as a rule one cannot enter the seminary if one is a homosexual. magone on July 30, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Enrique Rueda wrote The Homosexual Network in 1986. In it he describes how certain seminaries became recruiting centers for funneling sodomists into the RC priesthood. In some of these schools the rule was, “Not gay? Then nay.”

Shortly thereafter 60 Minutes broke the news of how pedophile priests, once exposed, were being shuttled among dioceses etc.

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Oh, he was a RC priest.

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Are you some bad parody of a traditionalist Catholic? Is this a Borat act? Really, you think that mocking the systematic murder of millions of people is acceptable.

You are a bad parody of a Catholic with your Liberation theology and social justice crap. Go back to your komissar comrades.

I certainly hope this is a bad parody. If not, I’m glad that you vehemently dislike the Holy Father. It tells me that he is on the right track if people who display such casual anti-Semitism and misogyny dislike him.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Oh, spare me your indignation, please. you think that just by saying these magic words: anti- semitism or racist or bigot everything will go your way.
No matter who was murdered by ,,millions”, why would they have a power in a foreign country to make the rules what the people over there ought to believe in and what not to believe. That was the question.
And nobody knows where these ,,million” numbers came from, surely from the same shop which has been peddling the rest of the goodies from that race of the special and chosen people.
Have never seen any of them making movies about the millions they had murdered in Russia and Holodomor in Ukraine.
Borat my a-ss

magone on July 30, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Enrique Rueda wrote The Homosexual Network in 1986. In it he describes how certain seminaries became recruiting centers for funneling sodomists into the RC priesthood.

Who was Enrique Rueda?
I do believe that the Homo network is very tight, I live in SF, have seen many things of that sort.
But I was talking mostly about Europe, spoke with a bishop who is also a rector in the seminary- it is not so easy to get in these days, as I understood from the conversation.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Oh, he was a RC priest.

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Oh, I see,
sorry!

magone on July 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM

But someone will deny, and say, “There’s no hierarchy in the Church, why, my Assistant Youth Pastor did a Bible study on that!”

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

yeh, indeed- lol

magone on July 30, 2013 at 4:38 PM

You see? It’s undeniable. There are ways in which the OD priesthood and the NT priesthood (or ministry or whatever you want to call it) are analogous.

Oh, I certainly won’t deny that they are analogous. But they’re not analogous as you seem to be defining it. They are analogous as Jacob’s Ladder and Christ are analogous, or Sarah and Hagar and the two Covenants are analogous.

Get my point? You want to assert that the NT church is to mirror practically the OT hierarchical STRUCTURE?! That’s the mistake the RC’s are making.

Haven’t you figured out yet what Jeremiah 31:31 is all about and why we no longer NEED a priestly caste system?

But someone will deny, and say, “There’s no hierarchy in the Church, why, my Assistant Youth Pastor did a Bible study on that!”
Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Never said there isn’t a hierarchy. I said there’s not to be a priestly caste. See the distinction?

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 4:58 PM

It’s a silly argument to have.
Though the New Testament does note there is a “priestly class”, so to speak.
whatcat on July 30, 2013 at 3:29 PM

It wasn’t too silly for Christ to have.

Yeah. There’s a “priestly class”, so to speak. It’s commonly called the “priesthood of all believers”.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

1 Peter 2:9

Get with the program.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Now as a rule one cannot enter the seminary if one is a homosexual.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Oh they are still entering the seminaries. They just don’t mention their orientation. The issue is rather than having men open about their sexuality and the temptations that may come, the seminarties are still attracting men not fully at peace with their sexuality (mainly from ultra-traditionalist households). They don’t understand how to handle their sexuality, which makes it easier for them to be tempted. They are also pressured into the vocation and therefore might not have the spiritual will necessary to overcome temptation.

It is preferable to have openly gay priests enter seminaries who discern their vocations the same way straight men discern theirs to the closet jobs entering the seminaries now.

Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM

It wasn’t too silly for Christ to have.
Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I didn’t even realize he was a registered HotAir commenter.

whatcat on July 30, 2013 at 5:43 PM

They are also pressured into the vocation and therefore might not have the spiritual will necessary to overcome temptation

You know somebody who was pressured into priesthood?
I have known plenty of these young clerics and never once I have met one who was pressured by anybody.
The young men of today entering the seminary are not the young men of 60th, 70th and 80th.
Many things have changed, nobody is a blind puppy anymore. These guys have sports, computers, travel the world and are nobodies fools.

magone on July 30, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Oh, he was a RC priest.

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Ever consider it was part of a plot to undermine the Church?

WryTrvllr on July 30, 2013 at 6:21 PM

It wasn’t too silly for Christ to have.
Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 5:02 PM
I didn’t even realize he was a registered HotAir commenter.
whatcat on July 30, 2013 at 5:43 PM

See what you can learn by tuning in?

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 6:27 PM

It is preferable to have openly gay priests enter seminaries who discern their vocations the same way straight men discern theirs to the closet jobs entering the seminaries now.
Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM

What a confused Theology you have.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 6:29 PM

It is preferable to have openly gay priests enter seminaries who discern their vocations the same way straight men discern theirs to the closet jobs entering the seminaries now.
Illinidiva on July 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM

What a confused Theology you have.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 6:29 PM

indeed, it is beyond twisted

magone on July 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

magone on July 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Breathtaking in its complexity and Biblical ignorance.

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 7:40 PM

But someone will deny, and say, “There’s no hierarchy in the Church, why, my Assistant Youth Pastor did a Bible study on that!”

This Congregationalist is LOL.

shick on July 30, 2013 at 7:41 PM

I mean, what’s the point if all salvation means to you is a lifetime of struggling to repress an affliction you’ve already proven to yourself that you have no power to overcome it?

Cleombrotus on July 30, 2013 at 7:42 PM

I messed that quote up. Let’s try again.

But someone will deny, and say, “There’s no hierarchy in the Church, why, my Assistant Youth Pastor did a Bible study on that!”

Akzed on July 30, 2013 at 3:26 PM

This Congregationalist is LOL.

(I should use that handy “Preview” button more often.)

shick on July 30, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5