Homosexual Priests

I heard a radio interview not that long ago concerning the sodomite subculture in the Church of Rome that became rampant throughout the 1970's. To be honest I cannot recall the name of the author who was addressing the topic. Essentially what the author was saying that during the 70's the seminaries were run by a very liberal faction of the Church of Rome that permitted and even encouraged homosexual behavior.

I was trying to see if I could find this author's comments online, but I could not. I did though find this statistic quoted by Jerry Filteau of the Catholic News Service.

"Only 3 percent of priests age 66 and older said there was "clearly" a homosexual subculture at the seminary they were in. That rose to 8 percent in the 56-65 age group, 28 percent among those 46-55, 39 percent among those 36-45 and 45 percent among those 35 and under."

 

There is no concrete evidence of the percentage of the Catholic clergy with a homosexual orientation. I did, however, find this article as a good starting point for further investigation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

 

Not knocking your source, Clint, just pointing out that they do not say what you claim.

The originator of this thread made the claim that that "the Catholic Church officially accepted practicing homosexual as priests."

None of your sources support this claim.

BTW, you did not answer my question. Do you see the distinction between a person of homosexual orientation that does not act on it and a person who does act on it?

Ron

 

Yes, I do.

Do you see the difference in an institution that tries to claim perfection and one that is exposed of having numerous sex scandals at the consent of its hierarchy?

If the Pope and the Vatican en totale recognize a problem in this area, why would you try to deny that it exists? I have answered your question, now you may want to get back to the issue at hand. In case you didn't notice before, I am very stubborn about not being dragged off subject. The thread is not about my perception of "practicing homosexuals" and "non-practicing homosexuals." The thread is about the threat of homosexual clergy to the priesthood itself, the Christian Body as a whole and the general public at large.

I predict that you will now shift to another foot to try to present another red herring but others are now becoming involved with the thread. Your best course of action is probably to stop posting on the topic and bumping it up and instead to just hope it dies away soon.

 

Sounds like an alcoholic who doesn't drink alcohol.

 

Clint, as I said, I am starting to believe that all Baptists are deliberatley obtuse when it comes to Catholics, and some more so then others.

Here is the opening to this thread.

"I never knew that the Catholic Church officially accepted practicing homosexual as priests . According to a news story I heard tonight there is a big hub-bub about the vatacan coming out with a new rule stating that practicing homosexual priests will be kicked out of the priest-hood."

So where is the red herring?

Please go back to the original post and show the portion which supports what you believe to the "topic".

Ron

 

Nils' second post on the thread:

1Corinthians 5
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

 

No, but I am saying that the claim as made in the start of this thread is false.

"...the Catholic Church officially accepted practicing homosexual as priests."

"...a new rule stating that practicing homosexual priests will be kicked out of the priest-hood."

These accustaions are false.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

In the past if a guilty priest repented, a Bishop may have exercised poor judgement in allowing that priest to stay if the offender honestly intended to refrain from such sin. I do not believe that a Bishop, acting in good faith in his position as Bishop, simply waved off on an unrepentant offender.

But lets look at the words selected for this thread.

"...the Catholic Church officially accepted practicing homosexual as priests."

No intent to smear Catholics there right?

 

Oh, I get it. After the responses to the topic start coming in... change the topic and claim that the new thought is the topic.

Why can't you demonstrate the "topic" from the first post, Clint?

That is what I have been addressing all along - even as you falsely accuse me of changing the topic.

Try again.

 

Is there any concrete evidence that when Priests were found out to be deviant, they were immediately expelled ?

 

Right. I was just reporting what I remembered from the report form TV. As I said later in this thread, I could not find anything to back it up, so I've dropped the 'practicing' part of the discussion. If you will notice, I've changed the title of the thread.</font>[/QUOTE]But I'm the guy that is accused of changing the topic.

 

Okay, Ron, perhaps this may interest you:

Priests With AIDS

Obviously the transcript for the interview Nils heard has not been put on line yet. When it is, I will be glad to provide it. However, here is a quote from the article I cited above:

There was no need to change the title of the thread. Clergy who practice in homosexual behavior exist. Since I am being called to task, I think I will concentrate on finding a few more sources on this.

 

Clint, as our resident expert on false arguements you should know that you are agian changing the arguement.

The original claim was that the "Catholic Church offically accepts practicing homosexuals".

That a priest or priests may or may not have died of aids does not prove the claim. You even provided a quote that states that the Church considers such behavior to be sin. How does that translate to acceptance?

Your continued obtuse state is shameful.

[ November 13, 2002, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

From the same article I cited previously:

I may be obtuse, but I sure can find soures that dispute your position, can't I?

 

How exactly does this dispute my position?

A random person, even a Catholic priest, does not speak for the whole Church. You know that, Clint.

Also notice that Fr. Rausch doesn't admit that he is a "practicing homosexual". Why is that? Could it be that he fears that he will be removed from the priesthood if he does?

Be a man, Clint. Go back to the first post and tell me what the topic was before you changed it.

Is it hard being the moderator when you can't identify the topic?

Ron

[ November 13, 2002, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Perhaps not, but they do speak to individuals who are within and without the RCC. This one, in fact, spoke to an international audience. But I take it that you are now willing to concede that practicing homosexuals have been allowed to remain in the priesthood?

On the first page of this thread you said it was just a "few" random bishops. On this page it is a "single" random priest. How many have to be presented before you acknowledge that this is what is being "taught" by the church? Why else would the Vatican be viewing this as an issue to be addressed if this false teaching was not being promulgated?

Please show me where I changed the topic, Ron. My posts have followed the continuity of the thread.

Ad Hominems are usually a sign that one is losing an argument. I imagine it would be hard, Ron. I await your next attack on my credibility and intelligence. Please feel free to do so. You only weaken your position with those who read these threads and it has little to no effect on me.